Mission: Impossible II

That was mid tbh , The first film was Pretty nice atleast and i knew that going into this movie i know it's gonna be the weakest in the franchies , the ratings and the overall story just didn't click with me , what caused the desease and why and why and why , a lot of questions this film didn't answer in a way that satisfied me , still Tom cruise is a legend in acting performance and also his "love" intrest is also a solid character i thought i would've hated her but nah , still the film felt a bit confusing at times , more than i'm comfortable with to be honest , even though its an action film about a spy it still leaves a lot of questions floating around and some plot holes and some actions that are just there for?? What?.

Anyways what i liked is the score and the setting and tom cruise's acting , but i would be lying if i said i didn't enjoy the first half because it was intresting but after that "heist" scene which i didn't consider a heist because of how boring and low quality it was atleast some stuff happened in the film.

Anyways i wanted to watch this to complete the franchies which is kind of a pressure watch so i can finish this whole mission impossible series , still there's a lot of good films to come from this and i've just stumbled upon the worst one probably? 6/10.

I was really looking forward to this film coming out! When I saw it a while back I was pretty disappointed! John Woo proves once again that action is forte, but MI2 really needed some espionage spy suspense and plot rather than Tom Cruise looking good in front of the camera!

The action sequences were very impressive but that doesn't hold a film together! There just didn't seem to be any conflict going on to really get my blood pumping! Dougray Scott played merely an average villain, although I believe that is due the script and his screen-time! It was very predictable, and Ving Rhames was wasted by being merely just this charity character who had no influence on the story what-so-ever! One reviewer described this film as patronising which is my sentiments exactly, sure I don't expect any action flick to have believability and can be patronising to some degree! But MI2 over-steps the mark by forgetting the original concept of the series and totally relying on slow-mo action shots rather than suspense and plot! A typical average action flick, **1/2 out of *****!

I just watched this movie for the first time, and I kept having this vague feeling that I'd heard the story before. Then it came to me: Notorious! It's an Aflred Hitchcock film starring Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant from 1946.

The basic plotline goes: girl comes from questionable background. guy is sent to get girl for top-secret mission. guy falls in love with girl. guy discovers that girl must seduce the enemy. guy is not happy. girl goes. girl seduces the enemy. girl discovers enemy secrets. girl gets sick. guy rescues girl.

Can we say deja vu? The scene that really clinched it for me was the horse racing scene. Ingrid and Cary do the same scene! It's scary. All they did was update the plotline a little (ie, virus instead of gunpowder for the Nazis), throw in some action (well, a lot of action), and bogus technology, and you're set.

Watch Notorious for yourself and see what I mean...

I knew going into this movie that it was going to be easy viewing, but I thought it would have more of a plot. Sure, the action scenes are great in that classic John Woo, ultra-choreographed way, but the plot isn't original or have much to it. Dougray Scott tries as the villain, but he's not scary at all, just sort of mildly irritable. After all, this is a villain who demands stock options as part of his bounty. (Truly, a sign of the times, and the audience laughed at that one.) Thandie Newton, who I had never seen before, is certainly beautiful, but she carries two expressions on her face through the entire movie, and resembles Ally McBeal in a tighter T-shirt. And then there's Tom. His character is more of a James Bond clone than the character is the original movie; I admire his guts and fearlessness for doing several scenes (especially the opening one), and the truth is, he's not bad. This just could have been much more. I did like Anthony Hopkins, though. He brings class to whatever he appears in.

I love the Mission Impossible series and MI2 is probably the weakest one but i don't think that makes it a bad movie. it's directed by John Woo who is a master of action cinema. Watch Hard Boiled, The Killer, Bullet in the head and Face Off to see his over the top, balls to the wall action movies. I just don't think his style really works in an American spy thriller as the slower more dialogue heavy moments are full of exposition and cartoonish moments. John Woo's movies are more theatrical in tone and it doesn't really work here, it comes off as a bit silly. There had to be some kind of studio meddling because you can tell the violence was toned down in editing as well. It's rated a 15 in the UK but i reckon it's more like a 12A. Even so i still enjoy this movie for what it is, there's strong performances by everyone, lots of cool high tech spy gadgets, decent action with some awesome stunts and you can see the start of Tom Cruise taking risks to make these movies as he performs a lot of the bike stunts and kung fu himself(As far as i can tell). There's also a pretty breathtaking rock climbing scene at the beginning of the movie.

The series really took off from Mission Impossible 3 onwards but this is still a fun action thriller, not brilliant but i have seen MUCH worse movies which other people claim to love and praise.