Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | my password | register | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Mission Impossible 2

   
Author Topic: Mission Impossible 2
Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 7966
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 05-23-2000 11:42 PM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This is exactly what I expected: lots of fun eye- and ear-candy. Not a "great" film, but no one would expect it to be one. It's a fun "popcorn" action flick that's of above-average quality.

The print that I saw of this wasn't so hot. I'm not a fan of Deluxe Hollywood, and this print is a good example of why--lousy timing, a fair amount of negative and print dust, and milky blacks. I've seen worse, but this should have looked a lot better. The mix was good. Editing is a bit sloppy in some scenes. Watch for the R4->R5 changeover...there's a quick cut after the second cue mark.

Not bad at all for a sequel, though the original was better.

Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000


 - posted 05-24-2000 01:47 AM      Profile for Chad Souder   Email Chad Souder   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
As typical Woo films go, this was much more remedial than the first M:I. There were definately some far-fetched stunts, and the standard "slide-across-the-floor-while-shooting-two-guns" bit, but it was full of action. A great no-brainer summer movie, and it should do good business. Man, was that girl hot or what.

------------------
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" - Homer Simpson

Tyler Skinner
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 115
From: Pa
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 05-24-2000 02:43 AM      Profile for Tyler Skinner   Email Tyler Skinner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Give me a bucket....

Now, I'm a fan of Woo's older films, The Killer, and Hard Boiled are classics, since he has come hollywood it seems like the producers have his balls hidden in a vault somewhere. What heppened to the continuous shots going through hallways and extravagant shootouts lasting 30 minutes with 50,000 bullets???

This film was his worst yet, no wait that one with nic cage was pretty bad too. The only scene I liked was when he was taking on those guys in the chem-lab, it was almost up to what woo was, then it just ended. what a waste. And the whole motorcycle thing was boring as hell.

As far as the mission impossible theme goes, so he changed his mask a few times... big deal. As far as I could tell this was just a Bond movie with Tom Cruise.

tyler


Dwayne Caldwell
Master Film Handler

Posts: 323
From: Rockwall, TX, USA
Registered: Apr 2000


 - posted 05-24-2000 04:49 AM      Profile for Dwayne Caldwell   Email Dwayne Caldwell   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hard Target was Woo's worst film. This is actually one of his better American films. But that's certainly not to say it is a really good film. I thought some of the scenes in the beginning were kind of boring. The rock climbing intro. was a load of shit. But the movie actually had a few surprises it sprung on me.

But it also had a LOT of predictable scenes, with Woo pouring on the dramatic Zimmer music (which is good, but Elfman would have been better) in some of those scenes which I'm sure will further insult the intelligence of the audience members.

The action was very well directed and edited. Particularly the Biocyte and end chase sequences. But the part where the main bad guy and Cruise speed towards each other is just stupid. How many bones in their chests would have been BROKEN if they really flew into each other at sixty or seventy miles an hour. I'm sure that will be a big qualm with many audience members.

Ving Rhames did a good job reprising his role as Luther, and I thought that new Aussie IMF member was going to serve as interesting comic relief, but nothing really happened with the guy's character. And Cruise's love interest only seemed capable of displaying three different facial expressions. Happy, sexy, angry. Just the essentials for her role, and she's boring because of it.

I haven't been very impressed with Woo's American action films, but this one enterained me, and in the end, isn't that the only thing Woo is trying to do? His Hong Kong films excel in that department far better than his attempts here, but he's here to stay, so I might as well get used to his American interpretions of action. I can say that MI2 was better than I thought it would be and was definitely better than the first one.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.


Scott Magie
Film Handler

Posts: 73
From: St. Albans, VT USA
Registered: Mar 2000


 - posted 05-25-2000 12:26 AM      Profile for Scott Magie   Email Scott Magie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'd just like to report that I REALLY enjoyed this movie. Maybe it was due to the fact that I was actually sitting in the theatre instead of peering thru the porthole (which is unfortunately how I've watched a lot of movies lately), but I was thoroughly entertained from start to finish.
The more I think about the movie, the more dumb stuff I can think of, but WHILE watching the movie, I just enjoyed it and none of those questions entered my mind (except how do their eyes change when they put on and take off their masks?... but I've been wondering about THAT one since Jim Phelps).
Dwayne, what was wrong with the rock-climbing scene? Are you a rock-climber... 'cuz I could see how an actual climber might take offense, but I (as a non-climber) really enjoyed that scene. I thought it was shot extremely well. Now, I know the stuff he was doing was pretty much impossible, but as Tony reminded us, "it's not "Mission: Difficult"... it's "Mission: Impossible". It's definitely a lot more believable than most Bond intros!
I'm surprised no one's complained about all the slo-motion yet, but maybe we all went into it knowing the inevidability of this... seeing that it's John Woo. I know I did. And I enjoyed it. Sure, it's melodramatic. Sure, it's unbelievable. But I allow things like Mission Impossible and James Bond and Indiana Jones to be this way. They've earned it over the years, I guess. If this movie had come out with no-name actors and no one had heard of John Woo and they called it something besides Mission Impossible... I probably wouldn't have enjoyed myself. This post would've been filled with my gripes about the egocentric direction, overused slo-motion, and illogical stunts... but it's Mission Impossible... it's Tom Cruise... it's John Woo. If you go into the movie knowing and expecting these three things... you will enjoy it. Just leave Mr. Critic at home, cause he would never be able to enjoy a movie that's this much fun.

------------------
Scott A. Magie

scoooot@hotmail.com
"Anybody wanna peanut?"

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17662
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 05-25-2000 02:59 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Other than the two flying into each other after their little "chicken run" which Dwayne commented on earlier, my biggest problem is the inevitable John Woo "two guys turning around and WHAM each one has a gun in each other's face" thing. I like John Woo's over the top style of action (Hard Boiled is his best), but I'm getting sick of that one.

At least they didn't rub down each other's faces like in Face/Off.

Ethan Harper
E-dawggg!!!

Posts: 325
From: Plano, TX, USA
Registered: May 2000


 - posted 05-25-2000 03:07 PM      Profile for Ethan Harper   Email Ethan Harper   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
John Woo rules!

have you ever seen "Killer"? That too is a classic.

Unfortuantely i can not say this about Broken Arrow. it seemed to americanized to be john Woo.

Dwayne Caldwell
Master Film Handler

Posts: 323
From: Rockwall, TX, USA
Registered: Apr 2000


 - posted 05-26-2000 04:00 AM      Profile for Dwayne Caldwell   Email Dwayne Caldwell   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, Scott, I'm not a rock jock. Not too many scalable things in Texas. . And I don't think I'll tackle the Rockies anytime soon while I'm living here in Colorado.

I understand the purpose of showing Ethan Hunt climbing without safety gear is most likely to point out his propensity for living on the edge, both on vacation and in the field. And I know I shouldn't have taken the rock climbing intro. so seriously, especially if it's a John Woo film. I guess it just bothered me that he was climbing without any gear whatsoever. He didn't even have a rope to rappel down, so he would have to climb back down. But Cruise needs to keep those muscles working anyway, right?

No, I wouldn't say the scene offended me. I just didn't care for it very much. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.


Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 05-26-2000 03:12 PM      Profile for Greg Anderson   Author's Homepage   Email Greg Anderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"Tom Cruise is Ethan Hunt as James Bond 007 in Mission: Impossible 2."

This movie had all the classic blunders of a sequel. First, you fire almost everyone both behind-the-scenes and from the cast of the first one. Then you give the returning characters some off-the-wall quirk which was never part of the first movie (like an agent who's more concerned about his clothing than his mission. Hello? You did realize you were coming here to WORK on something, didn't you? Where are your work clothes?).

Then you reduce the plot to just the most basic thing for people to understand. Then you try really hard to top the first movie in other elements. I mean, let's have more incredible stunts. Let's repeat a stunt from the first film (dropping into a room on a cable) and make it even more incredible. Let's go to exotic locations which are more breathtaking than in the first film (but, apart from that, there's really no reason to be there) and, while we're at it, let's hire a bad guy from the "Cookie Cutter Bad Guy Agency" where so many people get their bad guys.

After a few minutes, I thought I was watching a sequel to The Last Action Hero because they were going, almost step-by-step, over the action movie elements which were skewered in that film.

Is there a law somewhere which says that each action movie made today must have a) at least one slow-motion shot in each scene or b) several shots where the action freezes during a "dolly move" or c) many slow motion shots during a dolly move?

Someone already mentioned it but WOW there was some sloppy cinematography. Is this because most post-production is done on small, video monitors? There were several close-ups where the character's face wasn't in sharp focus (except I can't really remember a fuzzy shot of Tom Cruise like that. Go figure). I noticed several hairs in the gate (and I wasn't even watching for them).

Save your money, folks. Trust me, you've seen this movie before and, when you did, it was usually done a lot better than this.


Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5242
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 05-27-2000 11:20 AM      Profile for Tim Reed   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I've only seen the beginning, but did you notice how he wasn't 'cool', until he put on the sunglasses?

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Richard Quesnelle
Film Handler

Posts: 67
From: Penetang, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Mar 2000


 - posted 05-27-2000 04:13 PM      Profile for Richard Quesnelle   Email Richard Quesnelle   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, what a let down. I am a gigantic John Woo fan, and to my excitement when I heard he was directing MI=2. Well, my brother and myself went and seen the movie last night as i have been dying to see it since it's opening on Wednesday. Two hours later and horribly let down by the action meastro himself.

Another case of the Fifth Element syndrome. You get psyched-up for a movie but then get all let down by the horrible outcome.

All I have to say is that the X-Men movie better be good or I'll be pissed off.

Reg

Bryan Redemske
Film Handler

Posts: 70
From: Cedar Falls, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000


 - posted 05-27-2000 08:03 PM      Profile for Bryan Redemske   Email Bryan Redemske   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
this movie sucked. explosions, yes. guns, yes. big freakin' deal. hot chick (not THAT hot), so what? nothing 'new' happened in this whole movie. it's all been done before. i was confused by the first movie - very complex, like real spies. this one...too easy.

not so great acting by the bad guys. and the whole love thing...cheesy. sooo...basically a piece of crap.

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5436
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 06-01-2000 06:25 PM      Profile for John Wilson   Email John Wilson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well...Sydney looked nice. Pity about the rest of the movie though .

I thought the action scenes were okay. The fight at the end went on WAY too long and the dialogue... woof! And this is the same guy who wrote 'Chinatown'?????

I would like to have seen what Brian DePalma would have come up with. He does use slow motion, but not every other scene.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)  
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2018 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.