Goofy Little Bond !

Rating: 5/10 (29 January 2009)

It's not bad, it's only goofy!
(Tom Cruise) was having the worst of times, in 2 years he didn't make anything but (Kubrick)'s big turkey (Eyes Wide Shut - 1999), and it wasn't worth it too!, needing a box office hit badly. So how about the great TV show that he participated in disfiguring it 4 years ago under the name of (Mission: Impossible) or (The adventures of James Bond's short American brother). Therefore, let's make (Disfiguring: Part 2)!
(John Woo) seems so happy to work with Mr. Hollywood (Tom Cruise) himself, directing a Mission Impossible flick (it's like having the American citizenship!), being on a mission to rescue (Cruise) from the bomb that (Eyes Wide Shut) was, at any cost. But (Woo) here was more like a director of nearly 10 video clips, showing off his technique, enjoying creating something visually catchy at every one of them, though they are still clips. The real problem was that he freely gave everyone and everything a bigger shadows, so with smaller script; they seemed all funny!
OK, for instance, he was highly sentimental in the wrong place, or by the wrong way; (Cruise) falls in love with (Thandie Newton) during a Spanish dance in slow-motion like living a poem, rolling on a cliff at their cars like a ballet, both make love while some public exuberant ceremony, Oh like fate is conducting the relationship as heavenly music, or a great rapt love that was meant to be. Surely (Cruise) will dump her like trash before she knows about it in the next movie! It runs in the family, as his older English brother used to do during 40 years already. The funniest bit when (Cruise) had to hug her at one park in the end, after he saved the world, while no sound around them but the holy moment of their true love; Oh Nonsense!
The script wasn't respectable enough. Look at the first scene that gathered the 2 leads together (the attempt to steal at the hotel), the script just cut the scenes where we're supposed to understand that (Cruise)'s character is disguising as security's manager just to get right to the action part! Actually it looked naïve, before anticlimactic. But not to wonder. As (Robert Towne) had declared that much of his script was written around action scenes that (Woo) told him he wanted to direct?? That makes clear that this was the most toy of a movie for (Woo).
Let alone how (Cruise) is not that convincing as Bond, or as action hero in the first place, whatever all the moves he does, all the motorcycles he rides, and all the sunglasses in the world! I even can't believe that he may be a result of an affair for (Bond)'s father in America with some short girl; he's close to be a (Bond)'s son only by correspondence! So, farewell for any credibility (read: unity with the lead).
I hated that Russian scientist character who got nothing to do but saying one of the drama's rules "Every search for a hero must begin with something that every hero requires; a villain!", (Thandie Newton) was here only for being "the girl", though she didn't have enough charisma or charm. It got more ironic while the way she was portrayed cinematically like a dream. To add all the fuel, there was no whit of chemistry between her and (Cruise), like they were a team of (Bud Abbott) and (Bud Abbott)! So, for me, one of the movie's highest absurd points was seeing the good guy and the evil guy, fighting madly over her. Fairly, I think she's a real good actress, but she didn't fit for nearly everything in this.
So, the script is a little childish, and with (Cruise)'s presence, plus (Woo) being seriously romantic in a video game, it's "very" childish. The whole matter shrank into another crazy B-movie with shattering glass, cool yet fool chases, and one long jump into one building, managing not to be a spy movie, or kind of decent thriller like Part 1, or a case of "one-team, one-mission" a la' the original TV show which was originally murdered since the beginning, and nothing remained from it else the game of the masks! Even the director's trademarks, such as the slow-motion during the action, seemed silly, meaninglessly repetitive, and sometimes laughable with the doves while (Cruise) rises; it looked like a perfect spoof indeed especially with that operatic soundtrack!
I'm sick of reading information like "The film's final cut clocked in at 3-1/2 hours. So the studio balked, and the final length was abbreviated to 120 min"! I read the same thing about other flops like (The Avengers - 1998), or (Daredevil - 2003). It's flimsy excuse for the plot holes, and flimsier excuse to sell the DVD!
Lastly, what could be good in this? I'll tell you: The sunglasses part at the intro for its novelty; I've been totally surprised when a lot of viewers loved it and still remember it + The guitar music at the Spanish dance + (Anthony Hopkins) as the "uncredited" Mission Commander (Swanbeck); in moments like these you long for someone who can act, someone you know by heart that he has a meaning!
(Mission: Impossible II) is suitable for 2 mindless hours, if you can stand its formula's elements, and (Cruise) being on black motorcycle, wearing black jacket, black sunglasses (How can he aim right, then?!), while his long black hair is flying in slow-motion. It's not (James Bond) nor (Mission: Impossible); it's an Impossible Bond!