Trying to be something more.

Rating: 5/10 (29 May 2000)

Contains spoilers.
Like so many movies of the past few years, Mission 2 seemed like a movie in search of itself. It felt like it was trying to be many things that is just quite couldn't. And more important to the detriment of the film, I kept saying things to myself during the film. Things like, "The fight scenes were good, but they were better in The Matrix," "The choreography of the action scenes was OK, but they were more intense in Face/Off," or "The gadgets were neat, but they were cooler in James Bond." One more thing I couldn't get out of my head - and don't take this the wrong way - was "How did they get Tom Cruise's hair to be all silky and wavy when he flips around like that?" Actually, I think Cruise got paid $25 million, and his hair must've got another $5 million at least, for all the acting it did. The movie was enjoyable, don't get me wrong, but it lacked the *escapist* element. The female lead, Thandie Newton, was terrific in her role as the thief turned spy. And she almost had more emotion as Tom's Hair. Um, that's supposed to be a compliment. But it brings up another problem. All the other actors seemed a bit under used. Ving Rhames, at the time of the first movie, was on the verge of becoming a major African American film star. What with his great performances in Pulp Fiction, Dave, and Out of Sight, you'd think he'd have a bigger role this time around. But if anything, it was less memorable than the Hair. (I'm sorry, that's really the biggest thing I remember about the movie now, 5 hours after seeing it.) And where did the other member of the IMF team come from, and what was his purpose? My point being simply that the characters were very under used. Oh! There's another thing. The bad guy. No, I didn't have a particular problem with Dougray Scott, he was supposed to look like Cruise. But his henchman rubbed me the wrong way. Mr. Stamp (a bit too close to Tomorrow Never Dies' Mr. Stamper) couldn't decide whether he was an intelligent killer, or a bad-a** thug. I would have preferred the former, and liked to have seen Thomas Jane from Deep Blue Sea in that role. He makes a really good brooding bad guy. Another major part of the "under used" list was Anthony Hopkins. He made a passable IMF leader, but he didn't look like he was enjoying himself very much.
Ok, it was worth seeing, definitely. I just think it should have concentrated more on the action than the romance, or the other way around.
One last note. As a would-be filmmaker, I had to notice the over-use of the suddenly very popular slo-mo shot. It was just short of annoying. Let's hope for a return to more traditional film styles, instead of the "so-different-it's-cool" motif we're seeing so much of lately. It's not that I don't like new and exciting, but not when it's used just because it's new and different.