I haven't seen this since it was first released in theaters, before I'd begun to develop meaningful appreciation of movies - and before I got burned out on modern action franchises. While even at a glance there are some very noteworthy names involved in one capacity or another, the only elements I specifically remembered over the past twenty-four years were "something something bioweapon" and "theme song by Limp Bizkit,"so especially with that in mind, I think I've been quite overdue to revisit 'Mission: Impossible 2.' How does this second film, still in the fledgling stage of what would become a major series for Paramount, hold up? One thing that becomes quite clear very quickly is that this is a far cry from its predecessor. Filmmaker John Woo, picking up from where Brian De Palma left off, shed the relatively restrained, classy feel of the 1996 an action-thriller for the bombast, extra cheeky (and sometimes sleazy) humor, and arguably empty artistic style that the Hong Kong director is known for with his Hollywood productions. The 2000 title is very clearly built with a mind for the potential that it bore to become the franchise it would, and not least with the flourishes of the early 2000s that haven't aged well of overbearing zest, we see a variation of MI that is geared for a young male audience. That doesn't mean it still can't be worthwhile on its own merits, but its appeal is surely more limited, and so is its lasting value.
It's hardly that I abjectly dislike this flick. I've seen some of Woo's other films and really enjoyed them; 'Hard target' is a personal favorite. In and of itself, no element here is outright bad. Careful finesse, tact, and moderation are key, though, and to be frank, that's just not what we get here. Ronald D. Moore and Brannon Braga, well known for their contributions to the 'Star trek' universe over time, give us a root story that's solid enough; screenwriter Robert Towne, returning from the prior venture with De Palma, provides a screenplay that's just fine, if rough around the edges at points, including unmistakable misogyny from "heroic" and villainous characters alike. Everyone behind the scenes turned in terrific work: stunts, effects, sets, costume design, hair, makeup, sound, cinematography, editing, and even some of the computer-generated imagery. Hans Zimmer is one of the premier composers working in cinema, and some of the themes here are particularly fetching. And so on.
Then again, Woo's beloved slow motion becomes gauche with overuse, and his likewise his general knack for stylistic flair, as seen with too many stunts and action sequences. Under Woo's direction the cast is sometimes forced into instances of acting that are almost laughably overcooked; more than anyone else I feel bad for Dougray Scott. Jeffrey L. Kimball's cinematography is given to some unmistakable overzealousness. Some of the dialogue is pretty questionable; some of the scene writing is downright cartoonish. The script was accordingly written with a need to incorporate some action sequences that had already been devised, and this does quite come across sometimes as at its most overcharged the construction is almost nonsensical as it gives us countless explosions, glass panes shattering, people or vehicles flying through the air, and hails of bullets in addition to that proliferate slow motion which is tawdrily exceeded only by Zack Snyder. Some of Zimmer's score is terrific and meaningful, but some of it is just hollow bluster and beats that pointlessly pulse to artificially inflate the picture's energy.
I repeat that the stunts and effects, in and of themselves, really are outstanding, a fine credit to Tom Cruise and the stunt performers. After all, these are what 'Mission: Impossible,' as a franchise, would become known for hereafter. There comes a point when action just becomes excessive, however, and less exciting and valuable for the fact of that overabundance. Fashioned for its own sake rather than to serve the story, and to be Slick And Cool rather than impactful, the action sadly starts to feel a little dull in the back end, right when it should be most invigorating. When you get down to it this 2000 sequel is kind of light on substance, and its continuous effort to wow and dazzle comes up short. By all means, the feature remains entertaining in some capacity. All the same, it's very much a step down from its antecedent, which had its own troubles, and even with all the names attached, save for that it falls under the banner of a blockbuster franchise I don't think it would cause anyone to bat an eye all these years later. I'm glad for those who get more out of 'Mission: Impossible 2' than I do, I think, but as far as I'm concerned this is a somewhat bland action movie that pales in comparison to too many other pieces we could be watching instead. Take a look if you want, but definitely don't go out of your way for it, and keep your expectations in check.
2 out of 2 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink