IMDb > Mission: Impossible II (2000) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Mission: Impossible II
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Mission: Impossible II More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 139:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 1388 reviews in total 

67 out of 100 people found the following review useful:

Totally different style.

6/10
Author: theshadow908 from London, Ontario
3 May 2006

Mission: Impossible was a fast paced espionage thriller that actually made you think, which is what I like in a movie. Since John Woo, who is one of the kings of the action genre, took over for Brian De Palma, you can expect Mission: Impossible II to be an intense action movie with a majorly dumbed down plot. Everything to do with the plot is laid out for us basically right away. Now, all there is to do is sit back and watch those classic John Woo action sequences. In this movie, Ethan Hunt is once again a secret agent, and he is sent on a mission to stop a crooked agent from stealing a deadly virus for his own use.

I liked the first Mission: Impossible better because it had a more advanced plot. This Mission: Impossible is just a bland shoot 'em up action film. Now there's nothing wrong with that. The movie was still immensely entertaining. It just didn't fit in with the first film. Even the character of Ethan Hunt, though still played by Tom Cruise, is different. In this movie he doesn't seem as serious about his job. He's more cocky. However, I do like that the character now has absolutely amazing skills in hand to hand combat.

Overall, if you're looking for a smart spy thriller like the first film, this ain't it. If you're looking for a fun action film with amazing action sequences, this is it.

6.5/10

Was the above review useful to you?

53 out of 83 people found the following review useful:

The awfulness is amazing

1/10
Author: Miriam G from Iceland
8 May 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Wow. I've seen lots of bad movies and lots of bad sequels, but this one was just incredibly bad. I didn't even know it was possible to sink that low. And it wasn't even bad in a funny way, but simply bad in an extremely painful way. I don't even know why I watched it to the end.

The story is nothing but a series of clichés. The bad guys have stolen a killer virus and are intending to let it loose to make a fortune selling the antidote. Very predictable, eh? The characters couldn't be more two-dimensional if they were in a Nintendo game. Being a tomboy, I absolutely hate it when women in movies have no personality and are just added in as a love interest. Nyah, the chick in MI2, is a perfect example of this. She was the only female in the entire film and her sole purpose was to be sexy (as is subtly shown by several pointless cleavage shots). Sure, the movie wants you to think that she could kick ass if she wanted to by making her a professional thief, but isn't very convincing at that. In the end, while Tom Cruise is engaged in a very unrealistic battle sequence on a beach, she roams around aimlessly, considering the possibility of throwing herself off a cliff (which would have been a relief).

I was going to talk about the extremely pointless car chase sequence between the hero and the chick, in which they demolish their cars for no reason whatsoever, but I don't really know what to say about it.

The only good thing about this film is that it was so boring that I preferred doing the homework I'd been postponing for ages to watching the dumb motorcycle chases.

Was the above review useful to you?

34 out of 47 people found the following review useful:

Good action, but bad plot

6/10
Author: Rockford_6 from United States
4 September 2008

I knew going into this movie that it was going to be easy viewing, but I thought it would have more of a plot. Sure, the action scenes are great in that classic John Woo, ultra-choreographed way, but the plot isn't original or have much to it. Dougray Scott tries as the villain, but he's not scary at all, just sort of mildly irritable. After all, this is a villain who demands stock options as part of his bounty. (Truly, a sign of the times, and the audience laughed at that one.) Thandie Newton, who I had never seen before, is certainly beautiful, but she carries two expressions on her face through the entire movie, and resembles Ally McBeal in a tighter T-shirt. And then there's Tom. His character is more of a James Bond clone than the character is the original movie; I admire his guts and fearlessness for doing several scenes (especially the opening one), and the truth is, he's not bad. This just could have been much more. I did like Anthony Hopkins, though. He brings class to whatever he appears in.

Was the above review useful to you?

70 out of 119 people found the following review useful:

Simply the worst film ever made (Contains Spoilers!!!)

1/10
Author: No 6 from London, England
25 July 2001

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I thoroughly enjoyed the first Mission Impossible. It was probably the only film that puts you into the mind of a secret agent as he tries to uncover a conspiracy that wiped out his cohorts. It had excellent twists, who would have thought that the hero of the TV series (Jim Phelps) finally turns into the bad guy.

The sequel however has no plot, no interesting dialogue just mindless shootouts that would leave Gun and ballistic experts laughing in disbelief. John Woo is not a director he is a second unit director that got lucky. He cannot control his cast, he cannot convey any plot and he cannot stage believable action sequences.

Woo seems to be directing (if you could call it that) in his sleep. The storyline seems to slightly mirror the original film in that a member of IMF goes rogue (not another one!!) and tries to release a Killer Virus called Chimaera on an unsuspecting world.

Apparently IMF Boss (Anthony Hopkins) knows the whereabouts of the Villain's hideout and orders Ethan Hunt to plant the Bad Guy's Ex girlfriend in an attempt to undermine him. (Wouldn't it have been better if they just attacked the HQ with commandos etc)

In the original film Ethan Hunt gets promoted to Jim Phelps rank within the organisation but in the sequel he is still a "Point man" jumping around in commando gear. Ving Rhames and his Australian colleague seem to do absolutely nothing in this film other than occassionally tap on a computer laptop keyboard and try to look serious. By removing the "team" element that made the series so great it makes the whole thing look like James Bond rather than Mission Impossible.

An interesting point to note is that since we know that Jim Phelp's salary was 60K PA There is no way the Rogue IMF grunt in this film could afford a massive private army along with a beach front Condo.

Some other laughable points in this film include:

The painstaking attempt by Hunt to infiltrate a building by bungee jumping down a giant ventilator shaft while the Rogue IMF villain and his private army gingerly stroll through the front door of said building.

The IMF villain must be unbelievably dumb to initiate a shootout (including explosions) with Ethan Hunt in a deadly Virus/Chemical research lab.

The Second Unit Director's (Woo) laughable obsession with White Doves that seem to have more screen time than Anthony Hopkins.

The throat elastoplast that enables people to talk like other people including perfecting their accents (South African, Scottish, American)

And finally the car and motorcycle chases that seem to break the laws of physics rather than breaking the monotony of the plot.

It is hard to believe that it took four years of rewrites and production/ shooting to create this sorry mess. Even the soundtrack by Metallica and Limp Bizkit is absolutely Tuneless and irrelevant to the film.

Although it made an impressive opening weekend this film got so slated by critics and the media that it would be lucky to break even from box office takings. So do not expect an MI3 so quickly.

This movie will have the distinction of earning a Golden Turkey award.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

I blame John Woo for this one

1/10
Author: barrytwomey-1 from Ireland
25 August 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Well, this was a pretty poor excuse for a movie. I liked the first and third but the second was awful. You would know John Woo was involved by the inclusion of doves flying through the under ground lair shortly after an explosion! I just don't get the dove thing.

It is a pretty straight forward, brain at the door action movie but the real problem with it is the huge inconsistencies throughout the movie. OK, the acting is a bit crappy, there's the token love interest and everything else is pretty forgettable but its an action movie, thats their nature sometimes.

The 'chase' scenes are awful to be fair to them, especially the motorbike one. How is it that his bike doesn't explode when his gas tank is hit but everything he shoots blows up? How can a bullet fired almost directly at you shatter the visor on the bike and not hit the passenger? Then to top it all off before duelling with there bikes on the sand, the high performance road bikes take an off camera pit-stop to change the slick tires to off-road. This brief rant illustrates the stream of flaws through the movie and I think Mr. Woo should be accountable. Tut tut John. If you want action try somewhere else because this will leave you under whelmed. Try number III, its not all bad.

Was the above review useful to you?

36 out of 58 people found the following review useful:

Lame James Bond rip-off.

1/10
Author: crowrobot
11 December 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I really liked 1996's 'Mission: Impossible'. Now here is the antithesis of the first movie: 'Mission: Impossible II'. The first film was a tight, smooth thriller that barreled along at warp speed, and was a nice break from conventional Hollywood action thrillers. 'II' pretty much IS a conventional Hollywood thriller.

Almost nothing from the first film has been picked up here: Tom Cruise? Yes, he's back, but he's not a spy anymore. He's James Bond, minus ANY cool gadgets or charisma. The awesome theme music? Gone, replaced with a horrible rock score. The action is typical Hollywood: Slow-motion gunplay and martial arts.

Ugh, I hate this movie! The acting and dialogue is lame, the techno-rock score even lamer, and the action scenes are mundane. Here's hoping 'MI: III' won't be as cringe-inducing as this disaster.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

time wasted

1/10
Author: cartacci from Italy
4 March 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A sequence of unconvincing scenes, even a 10-years old child would get bored viewing this movie. What about the stock option story? Why a director should talk about something he doesn't know at all?? Woo, please read a basic finance book before writing this ridiculous story.. The plot is full of unreal parts. How does the contagion spread? Why doesn't the girl show any sign of the infection?? How much time do they need to change their face? Cruise changed his own face and the one of the other guy in a few minutes, please !! After 70 minutes I was completely bored but I watched the end because I am sure I will not watch this movie again. Time wasted. 1 out of 10

Was the above review useful to you?

24 out of 38 people found the following review useful:

Not nearly as bad as a lot of people say it is

8/10
Author: hellodavey from London, UK
3 March 2007

Anyone who watches movies like this and expects fully realistic stunts and a bulletproof plot is a quite frankly an idiot. If you want to give this movie 1 star , where the hell does Arnie's "Commando" come on the ratings of "laws of realism do not apply" films and as for any of the Bond films when it comes to a realistic plot... well. Personally, this film is an exciting action movie with plenty of visually awesome stunts, quality soundtrack and a couple of nice surprises. Where this film does loose points with me though, is the cheesy slow mo scenes and lines. It really does badly interrupt an otherwise great action movie, which you should see.

8/10

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Less brains and more bangs but still far from greatness - 70%

7/10
Author: Benjamin Cox from Hampshire, England
21 October 2007

Whoops! This appears to have been something of an oversight on my reviews list, despite me having seen it the other day on ITV2. The problem with this film is that it's one of those I assumed I'd already written about, thanks to heavy TV syndication. After viewing the third film the other day, I was reminded how little this had to do with the original source material but was still an entertaining, if extremely shallow, action blast with the old John Woo trademarks all present and correct.

Tom Cruise returns as super-spy Ethan Hunt, who's rock-climbing holiday is interrupted by his superiors at the IMF. Ethan is asked to recruit beautiful thief Nyah Nordoff-Hall (Thandie Newton) to accompany him on his latest assignment: to recover a deadly virus called "Chimera" stolen by former IMF agent Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott) in Australia. As Ethan fights his growing attraction to Nyah, he in unable to prevent her falling into harm's way and before long, Ethan is caught in a deadly race against time to prevent the virus being unleashed and to find the antidote to save Nyah's life.

After so much criticism of the first movie's overly-complicated plot, it's no real surprise that "Mission: Impossible 2" is dumber than lighting a match in a room full of dynamite. This has Woo's stamp all over it, feeling like a wish-list of action scenes and death-defying stunts crammed between slow-mo shots of doves and needlessly stylish shots devoid of dialogue. It has nothing at all to do with the "Mission: Impossible" series, something which parts one and three at least attempt. Acting is adequate but no more - Newton feels the most out-of-place - but it's the action scenes that rightly dominate and for which Woo is known for the world over. But for Woo veterans, there isn't really anything there you haven't already seen before.

So basically, it's a disappointing action thriller that doesn't do anything new. So why do I prefer this to the others? Maybe it's because I'm a shallow kinda guy but I suspect the real reason I prefer this is because it's a film aimed squarely at the audience and not at the critics. Woo knows what the majority of pop-corn munchers look for in an action movie and here, he delivers such a huge amount that there is something for every action fan. The problem with that approach, especially with this film, is that it couldn't be any more different from what went before it. Imagine if one of the "Godfather" sequels had been a romantic comedy instead of a mob flick - this is that movie. And because it's such a wild change from the first, it effectively killed off the franchise by stripping away its identity. Even J.J. Abrams struggles to get the series back on track, despite mixing the action and the intelligence into one film. "Mission: Impossible 2" isn't as bad as some have claimed but it is proper movie Marmite - you'll either love it or hate it with every fibre of your being.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

M:I 2 definitely delivers as far as hard-core action, but some elements were excessive to the point of being cartoonish.

7/10
Author: Michael DeZubiria (wppispam2013@gmail.com) from Luoyang, China
29 May 2000

Ethan Hunt is back with another theoretically impossible mission. Tom Cruise once again delivered at least a satisfactory performance, along with all other actors involved, but John Woo's direction was a little bit excessive at some points. I fail to see what made it necessary for Hunt to be riding his motorcycle on the front wheel while firing at an oncoming car. Or how about that gun that was lying in the sand toward the end of the film? Was that a little too unrealistic, or was it just me?

The story was good, the acting was convincing enough, and the action sequences were well put together, but they were just too much. One of the other things that really saved this film from action-packed obscurity was some very clever and well placed dialogue, particularly on the part of Ving Rhames, back once again as Luther Stickell ("Ethan! Nyah is in the building! Do you copy!")

Despite M:I 2's shortcoming's, it will undoubtedly be very satisfying to the true action fan. It has explosions, gun fights, car chases, lethal viruses, Jackie Chan style fight scenes, and even a hint of a few WWF moves in those fights. Mission: Impossible 2 is a good action film. I was not tremendously impressed, but I also didn't feel like I had just wasted two hours. Go watch the movie, just don't expect it to be the phenomenal gift from the action movie gods that it was made out to be.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 139:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history