Just As Good As The First For Entirely Different Reasons.

Rating: 10/10 (10 April 2006)

"Mission: Impossible II" is the polar opposite and entirely different animal of its 1996 predecessor. The production team of Tom Cruise/ Paula Wagner wanted to take the billion-dollar film franchise in a different direction. They wanted to correct the misalignments of the first film. Although likable, many people criticized the first film of being overly complex and confusing. So, the production team compensated by hiring a foreign action director from Hong Kong in John Woo to take the series in a new direction and to chart into a new frontier. They dump one of the two screenwriters, David Koepp, and keep the other Academy-Award winning one, Robert Towne, to helm the script. The result is an action film released in 2000 that grossed more than its predecessor. The first film was overly complex; its sequel is overly simple. The first film relied on intrigue, mystery, and CGI enhanced effects to deliver the goods, while its sequel utilized action/adventure and death-defying stunts instead to remain as equal as its predecessor. Instead of bashing "M: I-II," instead I ask that everybody keeps an open mind and take a look at the grand scheme of things regarding the two films.
What I like in particular is the fact that the two movies serve as complete opposites. Tom Cruise did not want to serve up the same movie twice, so he created an entirely different one, even if it does not confine to the original framework of its predecessor and TV series.
"Mission: Impossible II" is a seriously underrated film, although it does not confine to the original concept of the 1966 television series, or its film predecessor four years previous, Cruise still nonetheless should have garnered his fourth Academy Award nomination. I'm now going to make the stretch in stating if indeed, Cruise received a nomination for this role, he probably would have beat out favorite Russell Crowe for "Gladiator." He had to deal with emotionally, complex material from a incredibly underrated script by Robert Towne, who won an Academy Award for the "Best Original Screenplay" in 1975 for his script to the Jack Nicholson film, "Chinatown." Just because "Mission: Impossible II" is an action movie, does not automatically necessarily mean it's a bad film. You cannot dismiss it so easily, because it's like what Towne said so accurately about the film-making style of director John Woo: "It's like Yeats, the famous poet, said, 'a terrible beauty.'" All of John Woo's films have a certain type of unrelenting violence, in a similar fashion that director Martin Scorsese has, in his films that the viewer cannot resist but to watch. Now granted, "M I: II" is not the perfect film, and it is not without flaws. The overkill use of John Woo's slow motion techniques can be sometimes "lame," but ultimately Tom Cruise single-handedly elevates the status of the film.
People need to stop bashing Tom Cruise. I'm not saying that he's the most perfect human being/actor in the world today of famous celebrities, but nonetheless, he still undeniably has tremendous talent. When you analyze the range of his films, the range of acting for this actor is incredible. For people to bash Cruise without prior establishment of any solid foundations, makes the accuser(s) seem completely idiotic. Cruise is the consummate actor. You don't have three Academy Award nominations for being a *beep* actor, and he potentially could have won all three awards if not for the performances of Daniel Day Lewis, "My Left Foot," (1989), Geoffrey Rush for "Shine," (1996) and in the supporting acting role for Michael Caine in "The Cider House Rules" (1999).
There aren't a lot of actors who are willing to take the physical beatings, do all of their own stunts, and act with the conviction necessary to carry the entire weight of the success or failure of the film. If you don't believe take a look at the previous winners in the Academy Award category for this decade alone. Russell Crowe (2000), Denzel Washington (2001), Adrien Brody (2002), Sean Penn (2003), Jamie Foxx (2004), and Phillip Seymour Hoffman (2005). Now granted, all of these preceding actors are extremely talented actors and deserving of all the success that they have been fortunate to receive w/in the past years, but none of them go through the complicated, time-consuming process of truly delving into the characters portrayed in the films that Tom Cruise evidently has done so in the past. Don't believe me? Think I'm talking out of my ass? Then, analyze "The Color of Money," (1986) "Rain Man," (1988) "Born on the Fourth of July," (1989) "A Few Good Men" (1992), "The Firm," (1993) "Interview With the Vampire" (1994) "Jerry Maguire," (1996) "Eyes Wide Shut," (1999) "Magnolia" (1999) "Vanilla Sky," (2001) "Minority Report," (2002) "The Last Samurai," (2003) or "Collateral" (2004). Every actor has their off days so forget "Cocktail," (1988) "Far and Away" (1992). Here's an actor who held his own against fellow Hollywood Heavyweights in Paul Newman, Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman, Jack Nicholson, Brad Pitt, Cuba Gooding Jr., Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Max von Sydow, Ken Watanabe, and Jamie Foxx.
To the people who say that Tom Cruise is a "not-so-talented" actor who steals roles from other talented actors, let me remind you that Cruise has used his business savvy and ambition to work with talented directors such as Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Stanley Kubrick, Ed Zwick, Sydney Pollack, Brian De Palma, John Woo, Tony Scott, Ridley Scott, Berry Levinson, Oliver Stone, Michael Mann, Cameron Crow, Rob Reiner, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Neil Jordan. You don't establish a track record like this for working with any of the preceding directors: Tom Cruise has worked with all of them. If Tom Cruise is such a bad actor, then why have his last seven consecutive films dating all the back to 1999, opened at number one at the box office in the United States (which is difficult, given the fact that box office numbers have recently slumped)?