John Woo puts Mission Impossible into nosedive

Rating: 2/10 (18 August 2003)

One term that we critics like to throw around is "Train wreck of an action film." It would be nice to deploy such a phrase in this review, but that would not be fair. A more appropriate term would be "Plane crash," or perhaps "65 car pileup." This is eye candy for the blind. The plot is so confusing that after three viewings I now realize that it made no sense in the first place. The first movie also had an impenetrable plot, but at least I could piece it together by forming my own explanations where it had none. With this, I have to form explanations for my explanation and theories for my theories. On my third viewing, I predicted, with near infallibility, what the next scene was and what dialogue was to take place. Yet I still could not come up with sound fill-in for a plot which sports more holes than Swiss cheese.
Just how was this allowed to happen with such an anticipated blockbuster? Is it not logical for the studios to be extra careful that these projects are done right? If that was what they wanted, then they sure picked the wrong director.
That man was John Woo, who in this case demanded that the script to be written around action scenes he wanted to film. The result was a herky-jerky final cut that ran a ludicrous 3 1/2 hours, which left the good folks at Paramount Pictures with two uninviting options. They demanded drastic cuts, the surest way of wrecking a film. Still, it was better than shelving the project completely.
The plot of the movie is...why bother? Tom Cruise plays the good guy, Dougray Scott plays the bad guy, Thandie Newton plays a romantic interest to the good guy, and Richard Roxburgh plays the world's toughest twit. Scott wants to acquire a bio-weapon for evil, and Cruise wants to use it for good. The battleground is Sydney, Australia.
Beyond the plot exists the action and the acting, both of which were deprived of the quality they deserved.
Acting: No cast will look good when John Woo is the director. He carries his films with artsy direction and a martial arts overdose. From an acting standpoint, his directing is pathetic. Tom Cruise may be a convincing actor in his other works, but not here, thanks to Mr. Woo. Thandie Newton's character is lacking greatly, but it would probably be a sin to condemn her acting skills based on this role alone. She does have a dazzling face, though.
The only person who seems immune to the Woo curse is Dougray Scott, who plays one of the most ridiculous characters in the history of the motion picture. There is no doubt that his character is evil, but he is so overboard it is almost laughable. There is one boneheaded scene where he severely cuts the finger of his "best friend" and most trusted ally. I am yet to figure a good reason for him to do that. The movie does not seem to notice, as the next day his friend is back on the job, loyal as ever.
Action: For this, Woo uses slow motion more than real time. Not only is this incongruous, but it interrupts and destroys otherwise good action. Not that it matters, since few people really care by the time Good Guy and Bad Guy are at each other's throats.
I almost feel bad, now, for ripping "Charlie's Angels," in my review. At least that was harmless fun. Between this and "The Avengers," I have seen nearly every rule of good filmmaking violated before my eyes.
Sidenote: I am actually looking forward to the sequel, seeing that Joe Carnahan will direct. Hopefully he will take note of what went wrong with the first two, make the necessary corrections, and make a solid film that we fans can enjoy.