In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.

for about twenty minutes into mission impossible 2 director john woo ( the killer , hard boiled , face off ) appears to have made an exciting , elegant , charming spy thriller , kind of a post millennium james bond adventure with a strapping american ( read : unsophisticated ) hero more willing to drop kick villains than out fox them .
sadly , as the picture progresses , the final product begins to bear a closer resemblance to a souped up , two - hour long episode of magyuver .
and not a particularly good one at that .
what went wrong ?
mi2 begins flashily enough , that initial flash leading us to believe that it 'll soon give way to something of a plot , but it only gives way to more flash , then digresses further into a presumably unintentional parody of itself with much slo mo posturing and countless action set pieces wherein bad guys seem to deliberately leap into the way of tom cruise 's firing gun just so they can die really cool .
early on , during a car chase between soon to be lovers ethan hunt ( tom cruise ) and nyah nordoff - hall ( thandie newton ) , woo works some of his trademark magic .
in one hypnotic , though completely inexplicable sequence , the director slows the action down to a languid semi - stall as cruise and his stunning opponent stare into one and other 's eyes with come hither sexuality ? ? ?
just as their respective cars smash and spin in accordance , coming ever so close to toppling over a neighboring cliff .
prior to this we see the famed trailer opener of cruise climbing a steep mountain , sans scaffolding , then leaping from one jagged rock formation to another .
why ?
i have n't the foggiest .
i doubt even john woo could provide you with a logical reply .
with mi2 woo has become a slave to the summer movie machine , the one that jettisons logic for gravity defying effects and story for more gravity defying effects .
it 's possible that these " spies " could be adrenaline junkies climbing mountains and crashing into each other as means to get off , though of course this is never explored .
the scenes i 've described are really only included to titillate , not to give any insight into character .
god forbid .
woo certainly knows how to make each set piece energetic , but they remain individual set pieces never connecting to form anything more than splices of beer commercial - like visuals .
still in terms of crackerjack eye candy , the opening has much to cherish .
cruise and newton first meet during a vigorous flamenco dance featuring several welcome woo devices ( the graceful slow mo artistry of synchronized movement juxtaposed against the stage 1 romance of two attractive individuals discovering how attractive the other is ) .
between the frantic dancing , woo trains his camera on cruise and newton as they make with some sensuous eye contact .
the scene is a little over the top in a bon jovi music video circa 1988 kind of way , yet it has style and something of soul , and woo casts a bit of a spell on us .
sure it 's all smoke and mirrors , but we can see that there happens to be a talented maestro behind this particular product .
thandie and cruise later meet in a bathtub in a scene that 's about half as playfully charming as the jennifer lopez \ george cloony trunk meeting in out of sight .
they flirt and exchange obvious double entendres .
newton bats her eyes flirtatiously .
cruise grins a little too slyly .
the cruise character , ethan hunt , has been drastically altered since the first film .
here cruise plays him more as a hip , sexual dynamo than the square jawed robot he impersonated in part 1 .
he 's cool and dashing , which is precisely the kind of role we want to see cruise in after watching him sleep walk through eyes wide shut ( which might just be the longest episode of red show diaries ever committed to film ) , and blustered his way through magnolia ( quite possibly the most overrated performance of the 90 's ) .
sadly as the film progresses we see less of cruise 's initial " i 'm the man !
" charm and more slo - mo close - ups of his preening mug .
mi2 falls apart on nearly every level during its repetitious third act , which is essentially one hour long action sequence that just wo n't stop .
the whole thing commences with an utterly generic gun battle ( the first gun fight in the film ) , which really should be unheard of in a john woo film , but alas this particular battle could 've been staged by anyone from renny harlin to joseph merhi ( of course excepting the " symbolic " pigeons who seem to find their way into every john woo picture ) .
we 've all seen guys slide across the floor in slo mo while firing a gun in each hand .
it is n't done any differently here .
the action is pure hard target \ broken arrow theatrics with nothing to propel it but the apparent need to see tom cruise drop kick face less villains while his hair whips stylishly in the wind .
he 's cool for sure but
he 's made to be as empty as the movie .
the actor is n't used so much for his boyish appeal as for his chiseled looks ; he smiles narcissistically into the camera at literally any moment , be it during a gunfight , before one or after one .
when he 's not beaming away , he 's staring into the lens with cold eyes trying to look mad as hell , but woo 's editing seriously undermines the effort .
he fetishizes cruise 's angular face with such glee that it turns into a naked gun style spoof .
i half expected cruise to peel off his facemask and reveal that he 's really austin powers .
in a classic woo action moment , ethan hunt struts past a fiery doorway glaring at the baddies within its frame like a pin - up boy angel of death .
the gunfight turns into a daring escape which turns into a reckless mission which turns into a motorcycle attack in which bad guys seem to angle directly for cruise to kill them like some kind of mass suicide ritual ( one dumb bastard even jumps his bike over the gun toting cruise , basically inviting our handsome hero to shoot him in mid air which he does ) .
the lead bad guy ( played by the appropriately british dougray scott ) and cruise face off in a mentally deficient game of chicken ? ? ? on motorcycles .
though instead of jumping off to the side at the last moment , the two grown men leap directly into the other giving each other a mid air bear hug , only to fly about a hundred feet ( still in bear hug position ) , land on a beach below and begin a mano - e - mano fist fight that ends with the bad guy pulling a " so you thought i was dead . . .
"
.
not to worry , cruise takes care of the problem without even breaking a sweat .
what a hero !
you may have noticed that i opted not to describe an iota of mi2 's plot .
my reasoning is simple : i 'm not sure of any good it would do .
the film itself has absolutely no concern with story , only with hurtling forth to the next " special " effect .
i was n't kidding when i told a friend of mine that mi2 has less plot than the average aerosmith video .
nobody will go to this for the plot , and if they do they 'll surely regret it .
as summer movies evolve ( or devolve ) character and plot have become increasingly whittled down to nearly nothing .
in mi , the plot seemed to be built around brian de palma 's ( that film 's director ) stylistic flourishes , while in mi2 the plot only serves to give us an intermittent breather from woo 's non - stop masturbatory pandemonium .
it 's irrelevant in every sense , as is character .
all that ultimately matters are those pesky smoke and mirrors .
N

one never quite knows what one is going to get with a mamet film .
his american buffalo is a set - bound piece that has very little plot .
sometimes he will tell a story that really moves .
heist is mamet
doing his most entertaining work .
unlike his the spanish prisoner , there are no lapses in credibility .
heist is probably the best mamet thriller since house of games .
it is the kind of plot with which you are never sure who will double - cross whom , and frequently it is mamet double - crossing the viewer .
watching the film 's team getting around security the viewer is frequently asking himself either " what the heck are they doing ?
"
or " why did n't anybody think of that before ? " appropriately enough heist opens with a very clever jewelry store job .
it is so clever that one wonders if mamet really thinks up all these ideas himself or if he has help from professional magician and con expert ricky jay , now a regular actor in mamet films .
this is a robbery that works like a well - oiled machine .
there is just one problem and it is enough to get joe moore ( played by gene hackman ) filmed on a security camera .
now joe has to get out of the business .
it was coming time anyway .
joe 's team including bobby blane ( delroy lindo ) , fran moor ( rebecca pidgeon ) , and pinky pincus ( ricky jay ) is going to split up and go separate ways .
but crime boss bergman ( danny devito ) is pulling the strings
and he says that joe and his people have to manage one more robbery .
and he has to take along a young kid , the short- fused jimmy silk ( sam rockwell ) .
immediately it is obvious that there is more going on than meets the eye .
much of what distinguishes heist is mamet 's dialog .
remarkably it serves a double purpose .
the robbery team sounds at once very professional and at the same time it has mamet 's special feel for dialog
.
hackman has lines like " everybody needs money .
that 's why they call it money .
"
mamet 's timing is perfect in the direction but terrible in the production .
the plot is coincidentally a lot like the plot of the recent the score , which is , in fact , a very similar story .
both are good films , perhaps for some of the same reasons .
but at least on a high level they are much the same story .
the other problem with the timing of heist is that it involves airport security and clever ways to get around them .
i saw the film at the toronto international film festival on september 12 , 2001 .
that made the subject matter just a little too timely .
my understanding is that the release will be delayed .
my biggest problem with the film is that rebecca pidgeon 's acting at times seems very poor .
it is some kind of mamet trademark i do not understand to have women talk without inflection , as if they are just reading the words for the first time .
it is an irritation and distracts us from what is
otherwise a very good thriller .
it is one i rate an 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale .
P

maybe this mission should have been scrubbed mission to mars a film review by michael redman copyright 2000 by michael redman
there 's a world of difference between artists and technicians .
the artist has a vision to create something new .
he may not do it well
, it might be sloppy , but it 's something you 've never seen before .
a good technician can make it look good , but without direction from his own inner artist or someone else , it 's going to be just a xerox .
obviously successful films need both skills .
brian de palma is a masterful technician .
he 's spent his career copying others , most notably hitchcock .
he usually knows exactly what to do to make a scene work , but only because he has learned it by rote . aside from rare flashes of originality , his films are often soul - dead .
in de palma 's latest , he turns his attention to stanley kubrick .
to tell the truth , i enjoyed portions of this movie , but i liked it a lot better over 30 years ago when it was called " 2001 " .
i enjoyed it even more when it was titled " close encounters " .
nasa has set its sights for mars .
when the first crew meets with disaster , a rescue mission is sent to the red planet .
they do n't do so well either , but eventually meet up the lone surviving astronaut - gone - rasta and solve the mysteries of the universe .
and it 's all so boring .
there are so many scenes that just do n't work , it 's difficult to begin .
when the first crew is a few feet away from a raging massive upside - down martian tornado ( which looks remarkably like a sandworm from " dune " ) destroying everything in its path , they just hang out watching .
error .
the most interesting character ( and that 's not saying much ) is killed off .
error .
the alien is laughable .
error .
the rest of the characters are the dullest people imaginable
.
error .
there 's some nice eyecandy .
the face on mars , which turns out to be a giant metal thai buddha head , looks cool .
a three - dimensional holographic planetarium is more fun to watch than anything at disney world .
maneuvering in space suits outside the ship seems realistic .
but there 's so much more that feels as if we 've been there before .
from " 2001 " , there 's the rotating space station , the blinding white room .
> from " close encounters "
, they solve a sound puzzle and play it to the aliens .
the list goes on .
the actors are mostly mobile wooden statues .
even gary sinise and tim robbins ca n't muster enough emotion to convince us they are breathing .
no one seems to care about anything that happens .
you wo n't either .
the absolutely worst sin is the blatant product placement as dr .
pepper , with a 20 foot tall logo , saves the day .
they should save the commercials for those insipid bits before the film .

N

