LogFAQs > #942392144

I've been reading up on each movie as I've been watching them, and apparently the first movie was divisive for a couple reasons. One of them being the absolute kick in the nuts to fans of the original show that it was, and for apparently being convoluted and hard to follow. That's interesting to me, because stuff like the knife used to kill one of the agents and to get the fake NOC list and the second floppy disc Ethan uses to bamboozle the other guy are all set up pretty goddamn well. The twist was also very solid - I raised the theory of Jim masterminding his own faked assassination to my friend, and it was satisfying to see it pay off like it did. Maybe it was a bit convoluted at the time, but today it does come off as being stylistic, exciting and cohesive compared to some of the absolute schlock that was to come after it.

Meanwhile, Mission Impossible 2 apparently reviewed better than the first one and made more money at the box office. Whereas it's arguably dated more than the first movie - like sure, no-one smokes on planes any more and on-board movie systems are much more advanced than they were in the first movie, but nowadays those elements can be viewed as "classic" in a way, to harkening to an older age of spy gadgets and social values. MI2's aged aspects are lame props, bad CG, filler dialogue and spotty, overstylized action.

Honestly, this movie could have been saved with more action, less wild cutting between action scenes and less forced romance between Tom Cruise and his romantic interest. The action is only an issue because what little of it there is feels so overwrought and choppy, and it's sandwiched between some really dogshit set-up most of the time. The main problem is that there's so much filler - the CG is one thing, and the exploding sunglasses and nu metal is another, but what really kills this movie is that the dialogue is all so shitty and bland, and it makes up a bulk of the movie.

---

Are you proud to be a Mayonnaise American?