What's so bad about Mission: Impossible II (2000)?

It's considered by most to be the worst of the M:I movies, but I've always thought it was a good one, possibly my third favorite in the series, after the 5th and 3rd ones.

But for some reason this is the one that is the hated one, by most fans and I never understood why.

It has really good action scenes, better ones than the 1, 3, and 4th I'd say. But a lot of people say John Woo over does it, but it's the same style he used in his previous movies that were cult favorites like Hard Boiled and The Killer. So why complain about it in an M:I movie?

But is just the director that people do not like, or would they even not like it still, with a different director, but same script? It just seems like such a well done action movie, and underrated compared to the other ones perhaps?

It probably hurt it coming after De Palma's original was which a relatively down to earth thriller.

How many gun fights are in the first Mission Impossible? How many car chases? MI:2 went a different route and had dumb mid-air motorcycle kicks, stuck together cars spinning, shootouts in glass filled rooms, that it left a bad taste in people's mouths. I feel like it swung really hard in the opposite direction of the first film, in a post-Matrix era where people wanted more action and less spy thrills. The results were less than good.

The first one felt like a film for adults, this one felt like a film for kids.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

I think you can maybe defend it as a movie, but it's not really a Mission: Impossible movie. You could make a Bond movie with stirring character work and very little action and it might be good, but it'd still be a bad Bond movie.

There are people who consider it their favourite of the franchise, there are also people who have taste
Nah just messing, I don't love it, but without it we probably wouldn't have Cruise breaking limbs to constantly try to top his previous stunts so it definitely served a purpose

It is very entertaining, but the over the top action takes away from it being a spy thriller,so it s basically a John woo action movie

But all the other sequels have a more action than the second one, so why is it okay for every other sequel to have more action than the second, but somehow the second has too much in comparison? That's what I don't understand. Fallout for example, is a hit sequel and the action sequence involving the helicopters on the mountains, is so over the top that it outdoes the second one in terms of over the topness. Yet that one is a hit, and the second one is disliked? The motorcycle chase in Rogue Nation, is slightly more over the top than the motorcycle chase, in M:I II, yet that one is still well liked in comparison. What's the distinction?

As noted, it's not Mission: Impossible action. The real draw for this franchise's action tends to be suspense rather than kinetics - the most iconic setpiece in the franchise is one of Ethan dangling off a rope and every other installment has tried to replicate that in one form or another. Even when the action does go for something more directly confrontational, it's usually something a bit more overtly imaginative than just having dudes shoot at each other - Fallout's helicopter chase may be over-the-top but it's over-the-top in its own way whereas M:i-2 definitely reminds you that you're watching a John Woo movie.

Also, I think part of it is that underneath the action it is the wrong mix of silly (too much face-swapping, for example) and boring. The plot plays like a lesser Bond movie with its rogue agent antagonist and bizarre love triangle.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Oh okay. Since I've liked some of John Woo's previous action movies, I guess perhaps I don't mind that. For me, the worst M:I movie is probably Ghost Protocol cause it feels like a very routine sequel, with ordinary action, although high budget, it feels like directed in a routine way. Where as a director like Woo, can put his personal unique stamp on it.

I'll echo what's been said. It was the M:I brand in Woo's universe, rather than M:I in its own, previously established universe. Woo? WHO? WUUU?????? Big man.

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

Oh okay, cause when I watch it, it seems to me that all the other sequels seem more inspired by Woo's universe than that of the first movie, which is much more subtle in comparison.

Ghost Protocol is pretty high in my estimation - I think Brad Bird does actually manage to infuse it with enough personality and innovation to make it work, which is more than I can say for J.J. Abrams and M:I-3. Bird's background in animation means he's able to be a bit more inventive on a visual level whereas Abrams' background in TV means that there's something distinctly more flat about how his entry turns out (case in point - there aren't any setpieces in the third movie that truly match the entire Burj-Khalifa sequence or the Kremlin hallway). As for Woo, the uniqueness is a point in his favour but the film underneath isn't so good anyway.

Yeah that's true, I give you that for JJ Abrams more TV look. I thought that M:I III had a better story and better villain though to elevate the suspense though, over 4, which for me, was more of a routine story outing, so it also made the action more routine for me in that sense I guess. I also thought that the villain in 2, was better than the villain in 4.

Reading this reminds me of the time Siskel and Ebert disagreed on Rocky 4.
Every gave it 2 stars iirc, while Siskel have it 3 1/2 stars. It’s all relative to the viewer.

What's wrong? A lot.

Including John Woo's obsession with birds in slow motion shots.

I mean they even mocked him in the movie Big Fat Liar for that.

Well action movie fans don't mine the slow motion birds in Woo's other movies though, like The Killer for example.

Mission Impossible II = the best of the franchise imo!
I like the slow motion, I like the 'birds', I like the action, I like the movie!

MI: II is easily my least favorite. As Iro said, the face swapping basically goes so far it becomes self-parody, and the directorial style just isn't a good fit.

These days, I will take the two-part magnum opus of Rogue Nation and Fallout over the rest. Two of the best action flicks made in years.

__________________

I like the nonsense of face swapping. In the first one, we have that crazy helicopter scene, these 'impossible' things are the facts I really appreciate about this franchise.


EDIT: But I know it's limited and probably not a great piece of art. Anyway, I really like this movie and understand why people doesn't.

Well as for the face swapping, as long as the characters have motivation to do it, then it seems to make sense, and when you can just make a copy of someone's face like that, it helps to use that tool a lot in spying, I thought.