Gawd dammit did that movie suck ass! Lets start with that pussy, Ethan Hunt. He goes on a mission to recruit a chick and he falls for her…what the hell’s wrong with him!!! Bond would never get involved with emotions that would interfere with his job. Then there’s his goon squad. A ‘computer guy’ that doesn’t know much about computers…his one job, make sure we get a good view of the top of her head from space. We also have the Aussie whose only job it is to fly a helicopter. The TV show had a team that worked together, new gadgets and best of all, a PLAN! In this movie, this joker goes in from a predictable entrance and takes his sweet-ass time destroying the Chimera virus all the while having flashbacks. He then gives up his ‘woman’ and his mission goal to the enemy only after a little gunfight. Apparently everyone has a large array of facemasks that they carry around in their back pocket, what a trite plot device. What a hack, what a pathetic predictable plot. What a waste of money. Let’s remake the A-team for god sakes and forget Tom.
I think anybody going to a John WOo movie to be impressed with the intelligence and plot is a fool. A stupid STUPID ASS fool!
I personally enjoyed M:I2 because I went in with little expectations, and open mind, and was ready to be entertained. I was able to suspend my disbelief for the time.
John Woo was not making a movie to for the plot/character development. John Woo did not make the movie to be just like the tv series. John Woo made the movie for ENTERTAINMENT purposes. John Woo made the movie for MONEY.
Yeah, cuz this was SO a James Bond flick. Pull your head out of your ass. If you wanted to watch James Bond, then WATCH James Bond, not M:I2.
Also, what’s wrong with falling for a beautiful woman? Hell, I would have fallen for her and I’m not even gay!
He doesn’t know much about computers? Yeah, I saw evidence all throughout the flick. Like when he asked Hunt how to turn the comp on…NOT! Besides, what difference did it make? Were you watching the movie to learn about computers?
SOmebody’s got to do it.
Seems like they had a pretty good plan to me. I won’t go into it, because I don’t want to give away the plot.
If you were in agent, either trying to destroy or save the world, and you had that kind of technology at your disposal, wouldn’t you make use of it? Hell, I’d have a HUGE supply of face masks around if they I thought I would need him. OBviously Hunt was a good boy scout, always prepared!
Again, I can’t believe you went to a John Woo flick expecting a plot.
Don’t let Occam’s ignorant critique stop you from seeing this movie. If you liked Woo’s Face/Off, or action movies period, run! don’t walk, to see this movie.
That’s the trouble; movie goers used to be entitled to plots, and now the oh-so-great movie makers consider plots to be just an extra bother that cost too much. Just because the movie is just another huge paycheck to Mssrs. Woo & Cruise, does that mean we movie goers shouldn’t demand a plot? Wouldn’t a plot have enhanced the movie’s ENTERTAINMENT value, and not detract from it? Are we just supposed to accept crap because the star and the director are just in it for money?
My problem with MI:2 was how predictable it was. Every single plot contrivance (save for the love scene) was on a timer that went down to the absolute last second (See, I thought the movie had a plot). C’mon, that old chestnut is too be saved until the big dramatic finish, not used time and time again.
pepperlandgirl, do you even know what the fuck you’re talking about? or are you just trying to sound smart?
Do you smoke your crack or just inject it?
John Woo did not make this movie. He directed it. There is a difference. Here, let me spell it out for you – John Woo is handed a script along with some actors. John Woo tells them what to do. John Woo, in turn, is called the director – See? That wasn’t so hard.
PatrickM said:
Not to nitpick, but it’s really only American audiences that demand a plot in every damn movie that comes out. That’s one of the reasons that a movie like MI:2 has such a contrived one. If John Woo had made this movie in Hong Kong, he wouldn’t have had to have a plot. Hell, if Woo had made this movie anywehere else in the world, he wouldn’t have had to have a plot. Americans are so hung up on the plot that they can’t see anything else as important. Movies can be more than just linear stories, you know.
Just to clear up any misunderstanding, I’m not saying MI:2 would have been better without a plot, or even that a Mission Impossible movie shouldn’t have a plot. All I’m saying is that, because of American demands for a linear storyline, we sometimes get the movies we deserve.
i agree about the fact that the movie had no effective plot, but in all fairness, john woo says action, not plot.
The action was incredible, the only things i thought were absolutely lame were the end scene where Hunt just happens to see the gun stick out of the sand, the very gun dropped on the fall during the fight, the gun that got kicked away and covered in sand, he sees, and is able to kick up into his hand in time to turn around and shoot the bad guy before he himself gets shot. Way lame IMO. And the white pigeon flying past the door way behind Hunt as he strolls by the blown the door way himself? What the F*** was that? John Woo being an artist? lame again. But the rest of the movie IMO was filled with awesome action, the greatest campy acting tom cruise has done, (he is soooo campy…) and one of the hottest babes on the screen.
This picture would have been so cool if only they didn’t have all the stupid flying spin jumps. Those just bring out of the movie and make you want to look for popcorn on the floor, they’re so stupid.
So, directors shouldn’t be credited when they direct the movie? When people watch a movie because it’s a Spielberg (SP?) flick and that’s all, does that mean they are on something? Great directors are credited with making movies. Who is ultimately responsible for the movie? The director when everybody likes it…and who is responsible when nobody likes it? The actors? Producers? Writers? The Editors?
This is what you think. You seem to think everyone thinks like you. You are mistaken.
Vandal sez to pepperlandgirl
Of course he’s right you know. I only look for movies made by Elmer Bernstein. You may think he just does the music…
…and how does one do a sarcastic smiley?
necros:
That’s an interesting point. It seems that in most Hong Kong action I’ve seen, the plot exists merely to get the hero to a specific location, where props will exist so he can kick the crap out of his enemies in a visually complicated fashion. Certainly “non-linear” is a word for that.
As for the “plot contrivances” in M:I2, the entire PLOT was a CONTRIVANCE designed to deliver Ethan Hunt to and from action sequences that Woo and Cruise conceived and began shooting before the script was commissioned. This is an interesting way to develop a plot, and, I think, completely apparent to the viewer.
I felt lukewarm about the sequel. The action was technically impressive and visually interesting but I didn’t care a whit for any of the characters involved- the same problem I had with Woo’s Face/Off. Woo took Ethan Hunt, who I found a shaded, realistic, and sympathetic hero, and turned him into a one-dimensional stereotype, an acrobatic good cop with no personality. And the “plot” was the result of too many test audiences not following the (IMO) innovative, clever, and challenging plot of the first M:I. Underwhelming.
Ebert liked the movie. His opinion beats yours any day.
You missed the part on TV where he said that Tom Cruise really called the shots and wants to make a regular yearly picture out of it, something to retire on, like the Bond franchise. That’s why the rest of the team got lost, and the TV show barely referenced. (A few tired face-mask pulls was all I spotted of the regular formula)
I didn’t see it on TV–I read it in the paper, and then looked it up on the Sun-Times website.
P.S. I quoted this particular paragraph because it’s the best example I’ve seen in a long time of “damning with faint praise”.
Good point, Bullroar, you twit. I guess I should stop wasting my money on movies and just use fucking Ebert’s opinion on everything. What kind of toothpaste does Ebert use? Condoms? Does he approve of the new dollar coin? You better get working, Bullroar, because I’ll need a list.
Duck Duck, I agree. That particular quote seems like it came from an exhausted Ebert, after a long interrogation session under a hot lamp, with Woo and Cruise sweating over him, rubber Siskel masks dangling from their utility belts.
For the record, I like Ebert. I hope he’s not knuckling under.
I don’t think he’s knuckling under, I think it’s just that in all honesty he couldn’t bring himself to say that it was a BAD movie. “It wasn’t a BAD movie…” The whole review is like that. You can kind of hear him sigh in between the paragraphs.
Roger and I have very similar taste in movies, and he has always been my Special Friend ever since the Black Hole show, way back when. Siskel sat there and panned it dreadfully, oh, it was SO stupid, this DUMB little robot, Maximilian Schell was totally WASTED, and the PLOT, my god who are they kidding…
And when it was Ebert’s turn, there was a long pause while he shifted uncomfortably in his chair, and finally he blurted out sheepishly, “I dunno–I kind of liked it…” He LIKED the dumb little robot, he didn’t MIND the stupid plot, he thought Maximilian Schell was a perfect Mad Scientist. From the depths of my couch I said, “Me, too.”
I could always tell I’d like a movie if Siskel hated it and Ebert liked it.