#DVD Channel News
EST. SEPTEMBER 8th, 1997
Jump to         
Find       in      

DVD Video Section
Instant Insight
   Movie Reviews
   Interviews
   Editorials
   Forums
Virtual Features
   Mailbox Media
   Boxoffice
   Contest Center
Info Sector
   Section Links

Navigation
Section Selection
   Front Desk
   DVD Video
Site Orientation
   Site Info
   Contact Us
   Interactivities
   Refer a Friend
   Site Walkthrough
Other Links
   DVD Video Archive

Voting Booth

Quick Comment
Send us your comments!
See our responses!

  DCN Hollywood Spotlight Forum
  In Theaters Now
  Mission Impossible - possibly unwatchable

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Mission Impossible - possibly unwatchable
codestah
unregistered
posted 05-26-2000 01:53 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well I went into MI2 last night expecting to like it. I really liked the first movie and despite all the bad comments I've heard from others I decided to give it a go anyways. How could it possibly be a rip-off of Matrix? They say all it was was special effects.. what else did you expect? that's what the first movie was too. sheesh.

Okay.. there were a couple good effects, the rest I thought stunk. Cheap tricks with video editing and cable-assisted stunts. VERY BAD martial arts. Anyone with a martial arts background knows that the fight scenes in this movie are complete garbage, all made up of what is called "show casing" where ineffectual moves are made to look powerful and painful even though they are pathetic and couldn't possibly cause harm (example, watch for the two flip-kicks in the movie, one backwards, and one forward). There was also poor use of technology. This movie and Executive Decision (among countless others) use the weakest "high-tech" props in an attempt to portray something that doesn't really exist. The most significant part of which to ME is the use of opened-up computer hard drives where you can see the platters rotating and the heads moving around from time to time. Once again, anyone who knows what a hard drive looks like and how it works is in the least NOT IMPRESSED seeing the device opened and running in free air in a movie. I think use of such props shows lack of creativity in design. If you want ideas for nice, unique, high-tech looking props, look at Star Trek series episodes beginning with Next Generation.

Another thing that I didn't like about MI2 is that everything has gone from realistic to completelty unbelievable. Everything in the first Mission Impossible could be explained, reationalized, and had some basis in reality. MI2 features Mr. Amazing Tom Cruise who is suddenly FAR more talented than he was in MI, incredible car and motorcycle scenes that would absolutely not EVER happen (not to mention the lovely conversion of the street motorcycles into off-road dirt bikes with knobby tires.. good call! NOT.)..

I swear, I'm just exhasperated with the level of crap that was inserted into an otherwise "mediocre" plot. MI was so much more sophisticated, that I think, as with MANY movie sequels, that MI2 does MI NO JUSTICE. Go check this movie out if you want, but bring a pillow or something to get comfortable and sleep!

Edge
unregistered
posted 05-26-2000 01:57 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My g/f and I liked it. And I will post a full review here in the next day or so.

- mf

anyo
Lackey

Posts: 12
From:
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 05-26-2000 02:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for anyo   Click Here to Email anyo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree with you Codestah that it was very unbelievable, but I'll quote Anthony Hopkins ;-)

"This isn't mission difficult, this is Mission Impossible"

<ramble>
So all I'm saying is that I that I think what they were trying to show is impossible things happening. While I agree with you VERY much that the story was weak, I still liked it, because I went to see it to have simple fun, not to be blown away with a oscar winning story or acting.

Continuing on the thought about the impossible, when I saw the first MI, I couldn't get over how lame the helicopter scene at the end was. (come on... just because the helicopters blades were about to cut his head off doesn't mean that they have to sound like a fargin table saw) It's sad but that one scene ruined the movie for me the first time I saw it, because I took it to seriously.

There are many other things I can pick at on both of the MI movies, but I guess the reason I liked MI2 over the first was that I wasn't expecting much realism, since I was so annoyed from watching MI1 the first time.

My personal opinion about these movies, is that you can't be too critical about the logistics, and you have to take it as a bunch of "impossible" things that you are watching for simple fun... nothing to intellectual. If I tried to take it too serious, I'd probably dislike it too.
</ramble>

just my 2cents

[This message has been edited by anyo (edited 05-26-2000).]

codestah
unregistered
posted 05-26-2000 02:39 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
alright, alright, so the first Mission Impossible was no AFI top 100 either, granted (table saw.. *laugh* that brings back memories *ahem*) but I found the first movie to be much more compelling. The characters were believable. Who ever heard of a thief with no morals who drives like a friggin maniac and can smoothe-talk a clam out of its shell (and is dressed to kill!)? Are there really people out there who want to spread a "designer virus" so that they can reap in profits from the vaccine? Poop on that. The action scenes were full of fast-moving camera tricks that we've seen a thousand times over in other movies. Most of the tricks were taken from 1) Mission Impossible (1), 2) Cliff Hanger (hah!) 3) The worst of Jackie Chan. I'm a danger/action junkie, mysefl, but I wasn't even remotely impressed on this one. Of course I wasn't looking for Academy Award nomination acting or .. whatever.. but it would have been nice to see some actual original material rather than a tired, old plot filled with tired, old actors, using the same tired, old camera tricks and editing.


Edge
unregistered
posted 05-29-2000 01:59 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by codestah:
Okay.. there were a couple good effects, the rest I thought stunk. Cheap tricks with video editing and cable-assisted stunts.

Seeing as though I have no idea which effects/stunts you're referring to - I'll also speak "generally". I thought the effects/stunts were great... no worse than any other big budget film out during the summer months. In fact, I thought the stunts were imaginitive and well correographed. The fact of the matter is that the director obviously went for "fun" ... not for "realism". To me - this was obviously apparent.

quote:
VERY BAD martial arts. Anyone with a martial arts background knows that the fight scenes in this movie are complete garbage, all made up of what is called "show casing" where ineffectual moves are made to look powerful and painful even though they are pathetic and couldn't possibly cause harm (example, watch for the two flip-kicks in the movie, one backwards, and one forward).

So, what exactly gives one a martial arts background? Watching martial arts movies? Take a couple classes? I've seen enough martial arts in my time to know what's GOOD to watch.. and what's not. Anyone who's seen 'extreme fighting' can vouch that watching a couple of Karate/Kung Fu/Tai Kwon Do experts in the ring actually go at it... is pretty darn boring. Woo obviously sensationalized this art of fighting by utilizing two actors that are far from being experts in the field. It wasn't the actual fighting that played focus here to entertainment, but the style in which he filmed it. And on that mark - he did quite well.

quote:
There was also poor use of technology. This movie and Executive Decision (among countless others) use the weakest "high-tech" props in an attempt to portray something that doesn't really exist. The most significant part of which to ME is the use of opened-up computer hard drives where you can see the platters rotating and the heads moving around from time to time. Once again, anyone who knows what a hard drive looks like and how it works is in the least NOT IMPRESSED seeing the device opened and running in free air in a movie. I think use of such props shows lack of creativity in design. If you want ideas for nice, unique, high-tech looking props, look at Star Trek series episodes beginning with Next Generation.

Your point is understood... but, irrelevant to the public. How any of the people that put $80 million down for this movie in the last few days actually know ANYTHING about the insides of a hard drive - much less anything about a hard drive at all? I'd say a very low percentage. So, to people like yourself that get caught up in the lack of realism in a film like this (i can't recall the exact scene, there were a few "clean rooms" in this film) - are just going to destroy the experience. How many of us here are expertly skilled in the art of repelling from a helicopter? Probably none of us - so, we can't comment on the degree of realism that went into that segment of the film. The percentage of the population that is involved intimately with the variety of different technical things in this film is undoubtedly very low. Unfortunately, I've yet to see a perfect film either. In terms of catering to the masses - that's what this film did. What Star Trek film opened to $80 million in its first five days?

quote:
Another thing that I didn't like about MI2 is that everything has gone from realistic to completelty unbelievable. Everything in the first Mission Impossible could be explained, reationalized, and had some basis in reality. MI2 features Mr. Amazing Tom Cruise who is suddenly FAR more talented than he was in MI, incredible car and motorcycle scenes that would absolutely not EVER happen (not to mention the lovely conversion of the street motorcycles into off-road dirt bikes with knobby tires.. good call! NOT.)..

First of all, this is a MOVIE. Thank God films dip their toes into the unimaginable fantasy of a reality that is not mine. Otherwise, I'd surely get bored watching films that were binded by our laws of physics. Was everything in The Matrix explainable and realistic? If not, was this justified because of the simple fact it was labled a "Sci-Fi/Fantasy' film? If it's that simple, then we're talking about a mere difference in terminology. Who's to say John Woo can't develop a film that sets itself outside of the boundaries and commonplace 'Action/Adventure'? Have you watched any of his films before? Did you not know what to expect? He takes poetic license with realism all the time.

Second of all, this movie is called "mission impossible". I bet the going get tough when met with impossible circumstances. That should say something all by itself.

quote:
I swear, I'm just exhasperated with the level of crap that was inserted into an otherwise "mediocre" plot. MI was so much more sophisticated, that I think, as with MANY movie sequels, that MI2 does MI NO JUSTICE. Go check this movie out if you want, but bring a pillow or something to get comfortable and sleep!

I guess this is to say that MI2 is so saturated with unrealistic garbage, that helicopters flying effortlessly within a train tunnel all the while performing manuevers on a dime ... is every day common place material. What kind of comparison are you trying to make here?

quote:
The characters were believable. Who ever heard of a thief with no morals who drives like a friggin maniac and can smoothe-talk a clam out of its shell (and is dressed to kill!)?

Do you have the same problems with James Bond films? Would it have been better to see your out of shape next door neighbor in this role? What exactly are you asking for?
I tell you what - I'd spend money watching a pretty girl onscreen over your neighbor any day. Then again - I assume you know a lot of thieves?

quote:
Are there really people out there who want to spread a "designer virus" so that they can reap in profits from the vaccine? Poop on that.

I find that much more original than a group of terrorists holding a plane and its crew hostage until their religious comrades are released from a prison in some 3rd world country. I also find it much more original than a couple dorks parking a Ryder truck full of explosives in front of a gov't building. I also find it more original than the aspect of countries dropping special nerve agents on soldiers in time of war. Oh, by the way - these things actually DO happen.
Are they only believable because they've been on the news?

quote:
The action scenes were full of fast-moving camera tricks that we've seen a thousand times over in other movies. Most of the tricks were taken from 1) Mission Impossible (1), 2) Cliff Hanger (hah!) 3) The worst of Jackie Chan.

Not even. You must have been watching a different movie. The directing style was classic John Woo (slow motion, amazing points of perspective, outlandish action sequences, dual guns, etc.). And John Woo had nothing to do with #1, 2, or 3.

quote:
I'm a danger/action junkie, mysefl, but I wasn't even remotely impressed on this one. Of course I wasn't looking for Academy Award nomination acting or .. whatever.. but it would have been nice to see some actual original material rather than a tired, old plot filled with tired, old actors, using the same tired, old camera tricks and editing.

At this point, I think someone must have been kicking your seat and causing a distraction.

This film was a visual marvel in my opinion. His ability to capture otherwise unremarkable events and stunts on film in ways that are exciting and original never fails to intrigue me. MI2 is not without its weaknesses, Woo puts less emphasis on the inner toils of the characters than usual, the writing could have been better, and the beggining 3/4's a little more paced, but in my mind - all of that is easily cast by the wayside when it comes to watching John Woo work his magic with the camera around the actors that he so easily makes glow on the big screen.

- mf

codestah
unregistered
posted 06-05-2000 02:49 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Edge:
Seeing as though I have no idea which effects/stunts you're referring to - I'll also speak "generally". I thought the effects/stunts were great... no worse than any other big budget film out during the summer months. In fact, I thought the stunts were imaginitive and well correographed. The fact of the matter is that the director obviously went for "fun" ... not for "realism". To me - this was obviously apparent.

Undeniably, it wasn't ALL garbage; as I said - "there were a couple good effects, the rest I thought stunk". Perhaps it was no worse than any other, but on such films, I hope to find more original material which is targeted to "out-do" the others. There were a couple, for sure, but for something that had MORE original material, I point again to Mission Impossible. As for "fun".. I can see how it might be to some. Personally, I just found myself shaking my head at scenes which I found to be too fantastic to be pulled into it.

quote:
So, what exactly gives one a martial arts background? Watching martial arts movies? Take a couple classes? I've seen enough martial arts in my time to know what's GOOD to watch.. and what's not. Anyone who's seen 'extreme fighting' can vouch that watching a couple of Karate/Kung Fu/Tai Kwon Do experts in the ring actually go at it... is pretty darn boring. Woo obviously sensationalized this art of fighting by utilizing two actors that are far from being experts in the field. It wasn't the actual fighting that played focus here to entertainment, but the style in which he filmed it. And on that mark - he did quite well.

For myself, "martial arts background" stems from 4 years of black belt training and the interest developed therein. It's different for anyone. But I'd wager that generally if you have the love of a sport and you see it presented with show-boating and ineffectual material that is commonly ridiculed by those who actually participate in the sport, you'll find a certain contempt among them. And I beg to differ that the fighting was not the focus. The two "flip-kicks" that I reference are clearly designed to "wow" the viewer, it's not -just- the filming style, it's the move itself. A different, more realistic move presented with the same "style" would have been more effective.

quote:
Your point is understood... but, irrelevant to the public. How any of the people that put $80 million down for this movie in the last few days actually know ANYTHING about the insides of a hard drive - much less anything about a hard drive at all? I'd say a very low percentage. So, to people like yourself that get caught up in the lack of realism in a film like this (i can't recall the exact scene, there were a few "clean rooms" in this film) - are just going to destroy the experience. How many of us here are expertly skilled in the art of repelling from a helicopter? Probably none of us - so, we can't comment on the degree of realism that went into that segment of the film. The percentage of the population that is involved intimately with the variety of different technical things in this film is undoubtedly very low. Unfortunately, I've yet to see a perfect film either. In terms of catering to the masses - that's what this film did. What Star Trek film opened to $80 million in its first five days?

Your point is understood... but irrelevant to me. My view is not subject to the scrutiny of the public - they are my personal gripes. The technical errors in the film are things that I notice. I know I am not alone and that others will notice them as well. Certainly everyone has more technical profficiency in some field or other different from those around them. Of course you're playing a volumetric numbers game when it comes to Hollywood film entertainment. You get no argument from me that this film got exactly what it was after, but what is good enough for the masses is not necessarily good enough for me, and I must gripe accordingly. (Note that choosing to make better/more accurate use of technology in the film would NOT have cut into that $80M gross. It would simply have served to satisfy those who are picky.)

quote:
First of all, this is a MOVIE. Thank God films dip their toes into the unimaginable fantasy of a reality that is not mine. Otherwise, I'd surely get bored watching films that were binded by our laws of physics. Was everything in The Matrix explainable and realistic? If not, was this justified because of the simple fact it was labled a "Sci-Fi/Fantasy' film? If it's that simple, then we're talking about a mere difference in terminology. Who's to say John Woo can't develop a film that sets itself outside of the boundaries and commonplace 'Action/Adventure'? Have you watched any of his films before? Did you not know what to expect? He takes poetic license with realism all the time.
Second of all, this movie is called "mission impossible". I bet the going get tough when met with impossible circumstances. That should say something all by itself.

Well, come to think of it, yes, I think The Matrix IS completely explainable and realistic from front to finish. (And is another good example of well-used technology in an action film!) Agreed - film -should- transport the viewer to another time & place (reality? fantasy?). But disagreed - film that is based in reality should be more grounded within reality than MI2 is. What makes this type of movie work for me is my ability to believe that what I'm seeing is possible, however extraordinary, within our realm of phsyics. But when I see someone do a controlled front-wheel flip and rotate which firing a weapon from a mororcycle, while that might be real "cool" to a pre-teen with an active imagination, I found it hokey. It's "cute", but it defies possibility and takes my mind out of the context of "what I am seeing is possible, and therefore I am immersed into the story." It's one thing if you create a world where "anything goes" and make your characters do unbelievable things, but it's another to make them do it in the "real world."

quote:
I guess this is to say that MI2 is so saturated with unrealistic garbage, that helicopters flying effortlessly within a train tunnel all the while performing manuevers on a dime ... is every day common place material. What kind of comparison are you trying to make here?

"special effects" & tricks were not the target for this comparison it is pulled out of context; the comparison is of the plot between MI and MI2.

quote:

Do you have the same problems with James Bond films? Would it have been better to see your out of shape next door neighbor in this role? What exactly are you asking for? I tell you what - I'd spend money watching a pretty girl onscreen over your neighbor any day. Then again - I assume you know a lot of thieves? I find that much more original than a group of terrorists holding a plane and its crew hostage until their religious comrades are released from a prison in some 3rd world country. I also find it much more original than a couple dorks parking a Ryder truck full of explosives in front of a gov't building. I also find it more original than the aspect of countries dropping special nerve agents on soldiers in time of war. Oh, by the way - these things actually DO happen. Are they only believable because they've been on the news?

The characters in James Bond films (possible exclusion of a couple of the more recent Brosnan flicks) are reminiscent of the Spy genre at the time in which they were created. Mission Impossible created a whole slew of more modern terrorists, criminals, and adversaries. Mission Impossible 2 seems to get right back to the old-school Spy Genre characters who attempt to _______ because they want ______ (dare I blow the plot here??). I think the mission depicted is not becoming of an elite task-force of 1. It seemed to be a vast misallocation of valuable resources which could have been spent countering nuclear attack threats from a villain who has taken refuge in her deep-under-sea, impenetrable fortress where she and her "perfect society" plan to rebuild the human race from genertically enhanced specimens of human DNA. Whatever.. SOMEthing a little more beyond the realm of approachability by your average FBI agent.

quote:

Not even. You must have been watching a different movie. The directing style was classic John Woo (slow motion, amazing points of perspective, outlandish action sequences, dual guns, etc.). And John Woo had nothing to do with #1, 2, or 3.

Seriously! Look at the opening scene, clinging to the mountainside, a helicopter looming nearby - Cliffhanger. Then the dangling wire trick -> right out of MI. And they even made FUN of it with the villain predicting all of his acrobatic stunts AS he performed them. John Woo's (non)involvement with those was not the point. The point was: it's over-done material. And yes, you said it, "classic John Woo" (though I think I'll have to watch it again to take note of "amazing points of perspective") - his "style" is prevalent, too bad the subject matter couldn't have been somewhat different.

quote:
At this point, I think someone must have been kicking your seat and causing a distraction.
This film was a visual marvel in my opinion. His ability to capture otherwise unremarkable events and stunts on film in ways that are exciting and original never fails to intrigue me. MI2 is not without its weaknesses, Woo puts less emphasis on the inner toils of the characters than usual, the writing could have been better, and the beggining 3/4's a little more paced, but in my mind - all of that is easily cast by the wayside when it comes to watching John Woo work his magic with the camera around the actors that he so easily makes glow on the big screen.

The only actual "unremarkable event and stunt" that I can think of from MI2 was the final scene on the beach (the shot which closed with a rather absurd view of waves rushing in which made me look around to see if it was meaningful to anyone else). Most the rest of the film was packed with noteworthy/"remarkable" stunts, but I felt them to be lacking original design. John Woo's touch on them I'm sure may be a treat for some, but changes nothing for me. Kicking my seat and causing a distraction? Hardly. I'm simply being objective. Honestly, I WANTED to like MI2 even though several friends saw it and said that they did NOT enjoy it. Being distracted has nothing to do with anything - I simply wasn't impressed enough by directorial "style" alone to say that it was engrossing.

[This message has been edited by codestah (edited 06-05-2000).]

Edge
unregistered
posted 06-05-2000 03:13 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Points taken.

We both understand each other's views at this juncture I'd say.

- mf

braveheart
Lackey

Posts: 9
From:UK
Registered: May 2000

posted 07-16-2000 04:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for braveheart     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
MI2 arrived on this side of the pond (UK)a couple of weeks ago. Since then I have seen it twice because the first time was at a preview with some annoying people.
Firstly the film was great if you had left your brain outside the cinema. My one point that I would like to make is that in the first Miss Imp, Hunt was one of the boys and because most were killed was left vulnerable and scared (sorry forgot spoiler note)while in the 2nd he is Mr COOL who knows everything and can do what he likes such as SPOILER****

switch faces immediately even without preparation

I know that it has been four or five years since the first Miss Imp but whoah he has developed as an IMF agent. (yes I am fully aware that it is a film but is it not appropriate for sequels to continue along the same lines. The first was a spy film and this was an action film.
I on the whole did leave my brain at door and got what I wanted, two hours of WOO and Cruise at their best but here is where I differ from most, I loved the first one and it was much more in line with the series.
Final note to anyone who is writing films, please presume audience have some idea of what is going on because I was annoyed with the continous updates of who is the bad guy and what the good guys must do.
That was another difference between the two films, we could have done with some background in first one and less in 2nd, we are not too demanding are we ???

Sean Kelly
Big Cheese

Posts: 112
From:San Jose, California USA
Registered: Dec 99

posted 11-22-2000 03:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sean Kelly   Click Here to Email Sean Kelly     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hmm, good points, indeed - I hadn't noticed the character transition there.. I picked up the DVD despite my theatrical complaints - I've watched it a couple times and I do like watching the action - great background noise when doing the dishes, or perhaps vacuuming the living room ;-), but I still stand by my objections!

All times are PST (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | DVD Channel News

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c

Copyright © 1997-2018 Web Hosting by Psyphire - Terms of Use