LogFAQs > #942391736

Veggeta X posted...

Man, you're not gonna like any bond movies.

You'd be surprised, I actually like most of the Bond movies I've seen.

masterpug53 posted...

Back then we were all still wowed by both the relatively-new CGI and over-the-top stunts like the motorcycle joust. The visual spectacle of it all overshadowed the hackneyed writing and goofy premises, especially if you were a kid / teenager at the time. I think Attack of the Clones was the first movie where the spectacle couldn't overshadow the sheer stupidity of it all, and key movies over the following few years like Revenge of the Sith, Spiderman 3, and X-Men 3 really killed the honeymoon phase of the new wave of big-budget CGI+stunt-fests (especially when movies like The Incredibles were putting them all to shame by bringing together the whole package of enthralling and creative visual spectacle, quality writing, and good characters).

That's an interesting point. Like you've got your Fast and Furious type movies, and you have movies that are more style over substance because visual effects are at the cutting edge due to CGI... but then you get soulless hackjob movies like Ultraviolet that take it too far.

I think on top of exemplifying that shitty 2000's trend of "tired, shallow explosionfest" movies, Mission Impossible 2 just doesn't live up to the first one. But I think part of why I didn't like it as much as the first movie is because it was a tired, shallow explosionfest, with the hot chick for the sake of having a hot chick and half an hour of forced romantic scenes and tension and pining etc. The first movie was corny as fuck, and plenty of it was style over substance - but MI2 just nailed something about the early 2000's that was so hemogenous, so shallow and bland, that rather than writing it off as a bad watch on its own, I conflated it to the period of time it released in.

---

Are you proud to be a Mayonnaise American?