What is The Matrix? Who cares?

Rating: 10/10 (8 July 2000)

Just to get down the negative critics list right at the beginning, so we can talk about the things that are good in this film (which is, in my opinion, a lot):
1) Yes, the plot is pretty weak compared to the first Mission: Impossible. But activate your brain for a moment, would you? Do "James Bond"-films have a great plot? What about "Die Hard", "Con Air", "The Rock"? If you open your eyes and take a closer look you'll find that even "The Matrix" doesn't have as great a plot as most people claim, in fact it did copy a lot from other films. The story of M:I-2 doesn't have any major flaws and JOHN WOO perfectly covered up the weakness of the plot.
2) Going into the same direction is the predictability of the film. It was fairly simple to recognize whether a character was wearing a mask or not. But the expressions on some of the person's faces were intentionally created in a way that would allow us to find out about the disguise before the characters did.
Well, that's about everything negative I could possibly find.
Now let me ask you, all you people who gave this movie bad ratings: DID YOU EVEN SEE THIS MOVIE? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA; WHAT ACTION IS ABOUT?
Action is not about blowing everything to pieces Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer style. It is not about shooting as many people as possible just to see that it's done. And it is definitely not about throwing some computer-generated effects & explosions at the audience.
And what's that crap about the action in M:I-2 not being possible in real life? Of course it isn't! Otherwise, why would we go see films in theatres and pay money for it? Wake up! Get real! Name one big blockbuster action movie which was actually realistic! Anybody? Just because there is no Matrix (some of you would probably say: "How would you know?") doesn't mean the film s****!
It's sad that the majority of people don't appreciate JOHN WOO's work. No other director did or will get close to what JOHN WOO has achieved. He's not just a simple director, he's more than that. He's a virtuoso, a master of his field. His films are PURE AESTHETIC ART! He's the only one with the feeling for it, the only one capable of doing anything like M:I-2. JOHN WOO is the best thing that happened to Hollywood in a long time.
I am a big fan of JOHN WOO, actually I consider him the GOD OF ACTION, not mainly because of films like "Broken Arrow" or "Hard Target" but rather because of his Hong Kong masterpieces (i.e. "The Killer", "Bullet in the Head" etc. etc.). I always thought that he didn't reach the level of the aforementioned Hong Kong films in Hollywood yet, because those Hong Kong films contained not only lots of action but - even more important - themes like friendship, loyalty and love.
"Hard Target" was very good, "Broken Arrow" was visually astounding, and "Face/Off" was simply outstanding. For a long time I would consider "Face/Off" the best action film (along with "Terminator 2"). Just a few hours ago JOHN WOO made me change my mind, when I saw the showdown of his newest masterpiece. I was amazed, the action and dynamics of the movie were way better than anything I had ever seen, it was gripping and at the same time BEAUTIFUL, it was SHEER BEAUTY that came off the screen right at me (and the pigeons are beautiful too, over and over again, this time even more than in his other films). This is JOHN WOO's first American film which can actually compete with films like "Hard Boiled" or "The Killer" (both by JOHN WOO, of course) in terms of action & choreography. I wasn't sure if I would ever be able to say that.
Like I said: the action is beautiful. When there are cars exploding, they're not just flying away with much noise, filmed in a rather clumsy slow-motion as in Michael Bay's typical video-clip imagery (he's an excellent director, believe me, I like him, he's just nowhere as magnificent as JOHN WOO). Instead, in M:I-2, scenes like the car explosions are filmed in a way that's as close to perfection as it will probably get. The camera angles are well chosen, the cuts are at the right places in the film, and the camera speed fits perfectly. Also the beginning of the film where we see Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) climb up the wall, is perfectly filmed. Check out how wonderfully the camera moves in towards the actor right at the beginning of the scene!
Another highly exciting scene is the shoot-out in the lab. The music (by Hans Zimmer, the god of soundtracks) is combined with the imagery so ingeniously that it felt like a dream, an ecstasy of pure beauty (again this word; sorry, but it's the word that best describes JOHN WOO's style).
Many people have criticized the acting in the film. Of course, none of the actors will be nominated for an Oscar, but on the other hand the acting was not that bad either. Tom Cruise was very convincing, Thandie Newton did a decent job and so did the villain (Dougray Scott), although he was not as charismatic as movie-villains usually are. But if you hate the acting in M:I-2 so much, then let me tell you one thing: except for very few movies (one of them being "Face/Off") there are nearly no Hollywood action films with a superb cast. Take "The Matrix" ("Why always this film?" you might ask. Well, because I think it is an excellent film but, in my opinion, generally overrated) for instance: Did this film have good acting. You think it did? Well I think it was just very good at pretending that it did by throwing in cheesy statements like "it is the question that drives us" and "what is real?" etc. trying to give the characters some profundity.
Personally, I think M:I-2 should set a new standard for action in Hollywood (but I'm afraid it won't). I saw this film today and likely, I'll watch it again tomorrow.
Overall: BEAUTIFUL, LOVELY, AMAZING, WONDERFUL...
My rating: 10/10 (Thank you, JOHN WOO)