Current Events > Just watched Mission Impossible 2. Why were early 00's action movies like that?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Half an hour of forced romance, action that tries to look flashy and cool but comes off as convoluted and unnecessary, shoehorned CGI effects that look like shit (the glasses at the start, the dove), vapid, brain-dead dialogue for the entire movie and plain-faced misogyny.

I get that John Woo directed this movie and it tries to go for that Hong Kong action movie vibe near the end, but most of the movie is just vapid, shitty dialogue and forced romance. By the time the team is getting back to Sydney and starting the mission, 30 minutes of pointless bullshit has passed. It's a shitty movie.

And it sucks in a lot of ways I remember action movies sucking when I was a kid. It probably isn't the worst offender, but it's really unpleasant coming off of the first movie. The first movie wasn't perfect, but it was a great watch and it wasn't a boring turd like this movie was. It's like Mission Impossible 1 is Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, and 2 is Warrior Within.

---

This is what happen when you make movies based on old TV shows.

---

Foppe posted...

This is what happen when you make movies based on old TV shows.

That's not the case here, though. Ethan Hunt is an original character and the MI movies are basically his vanity projects. The properties it has in common with the TV show are mainly addressed in the first movie to my knowledge, where (MI1 spoilers) Jim Phelps, the main character of the 60's TV show, is a mentor figure to Ethan Hunt and a mole who Ethan defeats.

Everything forced and shitty that Mission Impossible 2 does, to my knowledge, is due to the trappings of action movies in the late 90's and early 2000's more than it is to being a known property. I don't think the forced love interest was ever a part of the show, and I think the movies have a sort of Bond Girl thing going on where there's a new love interest every movie.

---

It was more of a John Woo thing than an early 2000s thing
---

Yeah and it's called kino.

---

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).

---

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

---

MrMallard posted...

The properties it has in common with the TV show are mainly addressed in the first movie to my knowledge, where (MI1 spoilers) Jim Phelps, the main character of the 60's TV show, is a mentor figure to Ethan Hunt and a mole who Ethan defeats.

Such a big FU to the fans of the show as well.

---

YookaLaylee posted...

It was more of a John Woo thing than an early 2000s thing

Some of it, sure. The forced romance and abundance of filler scenes, I'm not sure.

---

Veggeta X posted...

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

Casino Royale and Skyfall are dope
---

This is by far the worst Mission Impossible movie. I hope you have or will watch the others, because the rest are pretty good.

Also, the others don't have Limp Bizkit

---

Foppe posted...

This is what happen when you make movies based on old TV shows.

The Mission Impossible TV show is actually really good. Ive only watched the first couple seasons, but the level of imaginative consistency it brings to the table is pretty impressive. Also, Rollin using intimidation to work his way out of every tight spot never gets old.

---

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.

---

TommyG663513 posted...

This is by far the worst Mission Impossible movie. I hope you have or will watch the others, because the rest are pretty good.

Also, the others don't have Limp Bizkit

This.
I saw 2 in theaters with my bud. He was so excited and was like "alright get ready to buckle the fuck up and follow this story".
Then it was so straight forward and shitty we were both just like "huh"
I did dig that flash kick Cruise pulls near the end.
Woo and the fucking birds everywhere though...

---

TommyG663513 posted...

This is by far the worst Mission Impossible movie. I hope you have or will watch the others, because the rest are pretty good.

Also, the others don't have Limp Bizkit

I like the song.

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.

---

J03can posted...

I did dig that flash kick Cruise pulls near the end.

ngl, this was probably my favourite part of the movie.

Actually, another fun thing I got out of the movie was the elements that placed it firmly in Australia. I don't mean the pandering shots of the Opera House or the Sydney Harbour Bridge - the number plates were accurate, for one, and the bad guys were driving Ford Falcons during that big action chase scene near the end. Me and a friend also spotted a Nissan Patrol when Tom Cruise was out in the bush. We got a big kick out of the Falcons.

---

YookaLaylee posted...

It was more of a John Woo thing than an early 2000s thing

This, in a nutshell.

I havent watched this one in a long time, but if memory serves, it was a poor attempt on the part of John Woo to recreate Hard Boiled with Hollywood actors. Kinda like Face-off.

---

I haven't seen MI2 since it came out, but it was different compared to the first one which I really liked. The tonal whiplash turned me off even as a kid who liked over the top action movies.

Veggeta X posted...

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

If I had to make a comparison, the first MI was like the more serious Bond movies while 2 was like the campy ones. MI is From Russia With Love while MI2 is like Die Another Day. OK that might be harsh, but it's the same idea.

---

Its weird how this series suddenly gets so much better starting with the 4th.

1st one is okay, 2nd one is meh, and 3rd one has Philip Seymour Hoffman as a good villain but meh everything else.

Then the 4th one comes in with Brad Bird magic, the 5th one is good and the 6th one builds on the 5th one and is even better.

Never seen that happen with a series before.

I think it's because Tom Cruise has such a big hand in the franchise nowadays that he can shop it around and make them when he feels like he can make a good one, whereas the first three were straight-up studio movies. Kinda like how every Die Hard movie is a script that Bruce Willis picks up and turns into a Die Hard movie.

Could be wrong though.

---

Noumas posted...

Its weird how this series suddenly gets so much better starting with the 4th.

1st one is okay, 2nd one is meh, and 3rd one has Philip Seymour Hoffman as a good villain but meh everything else.

Then the 4th one comes in with Brad Bird magic, the 5th one is good and the 6th one builds on the 5th one and is even better.

Never seen that happen with a series before.

Lol totally honest with this and expecting to catch heat, but the Fast and Furious franchise got best starting with 4

---

I figured it was at least in part still a Matrix hangover, at least as far as the action.

---

Noumas posted...

Its weird how this series suddenly gets so much better starting with the 4th.

1st one is okay, 2nd one is meh, and 3rd one has Philip Seymour Hoffman as a good villain but meh everything else.

Then the 4th one comes in with Brad Bird magic, the 5th one is good and the 6th one builds on the 5th one and is even better.

Never seen that happen with a series before.

That's a good point- I enjoyed 2 when I saw it in theaters but almost didn't see 4 because of how "by the numbers" 3 felt like. In retrospect I am glad 3 set up for the scenes in 6 with the ex wife

I Disappear by Metallica was pretty sick

---

All the Mission Impossible movies are good

---

Foppe posted...

This is what happen when you make movies based on old TV shows.

the MI movies have nothing in common with the TV show other than the name

and yeah, they're pretty generic wannabe Bond films >_>

---

bourne is an early 00's action movie and has like none of the traits mentioned in OP..

---

MrMallard posted...

That's not the case here, though. Ethan Hunt is an original character and the MI movies are basically his vanity projects.

This is also why I don't like the MI films

the TV show was about of team of crack secret agents who use their various skills to overcome obstacles, whereas the movies are just "Tom Cruise does cool shit"
>__>

---

I should watch more action movies of that era. I've mostly watched 80s action movies

---

i blame The Matrix

everyone wanted to be it without being it, resulting in these very strange approaches to it. even its own sequels couldn't do it.

---

J03can posted...

Lol totally honest with this and expecting to catch heat, but the Fast and Furious franchise got best starting with 4

4 is boring as hell. 1,3,5 and 6 are good and the other movies suck

---

HylianFox posted...

the MI movies have nothing in common with the TV show other than the name

and yeah, they're pretty generic wannabe Bond films >_>

...This is what happen when you make movies based on old TV shows...

---

4 was the one with superman right? That was the last one I saw
---

spanky1 posted...

4 was the one with superman right? That was the last one I saw

If you mean Henry Caville, that was 6 (the most recent one) and very highly rated (97% on RT, highest of the whole series)

Ruvan22 posted...

If you mean Henry Caville, that was 6 (the most recent one) and very highly rated (97% on RT, highest of the whole series)

Well damn I missed 4 and 5, then.
---

spanky1 posted...

Well damn I missed 4 and 5, then.

4 and 5 have characters/plot elements that build into 6, so you might appreciate it more :)