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.

I love the Mission Impossible series and MI2 is probably the weakest one but i don't think that makes it a bad movie. it's directed by John Woo who is a master of action cinema. Watch Hard Boiled, The Killer, Bullet in the head and Face Off to see his over the top, balls to the wall action movies. I just don't think his style really works in an American spy thriller as the slower more dialogue heavy moments are full of exposition and cartoonish moments. John Woo's movies are more theatrical in tone and it doesn't really work here, it comes off as a bit silly. There had to be some kind of studio meddling because you can tell the violence was toned down in editing as well. It's rated a 15 in the UK but i reckon it's more like a 12A. Even so i still enjoy this movie for what it is, there's strong performances by everyone, lots of cool high tech spy gadgets, decent action with some awesome stunts and you can see the start of Tom Cruise taking risks to make these movies as he performs a lot of the bike stunts and kung fu himself(As far as i can tell). There's also a pretty breathtaking rock climbing scene at the beginning of the movie.

The series really took off from Mission Impossible 3 onwards but this is still a fun action thriller, not brilliant but i have seen MUCH worse movies which other people claim to love and praise.

Despite the convoluted plot, I thoroughly enjoyed the first Mission:Impossible, because it was brisk, it was well made and it was slick. Watching the sequels, I know the second is considered the worst of the series, but while I enjoyed the third film too personally I thought that was the weakest. Mission:Impossible 2 does have a lot of problems, but I didn't find it awful. The plot is less convoluted here, which I appreciated, but what was missing was the brisk efficiency of the first film. The pacing consequently in the first half is very pedestrian and it is only at the half-way mark when it picks up. Also the dialogue is very uneven, sometimes it sparkles sometimes it fizzles. My third and final flaw is Dougray Scott, I have nothing personal against him but his performance as the thief I found very by-the-numbers here. On the plus side, the direction is innovative, the sets, lighting and cinematography are superb, the stunts and special effects are mind-blowing and the music was delightful. And the acting was above decent, with Tom Cruise good in his role, but he is overshadowed by a very fetching Thandie Newton, the ever wonderful Anthony Hopkins and a charismatic Ving Rhames. Overall, decent sequel but the first is better. 7/10 Bethany Cox