Mission: Impossible II (2000)

John Woo lavishly displays his mastery of movement and chaos once the action ignites with shattering glass, erupting flames and flying doves, making Cruise one of the film's strongest weapons in a spectacle of irrational transformation.

The film is more evolved and confident than its predecessor in marrying minimal character development to seamless action, making Ethan Hunt a 007 for our time. It is efficient and global but lacks the pure fun of Bond pictures.

The retrospective embraces the film as the series' odd one out, celebrating its distinctive style and over-the-top elements while acknowledging its differences from other entries. It highlights the director's action flair and Cruise's commitment as standout positives.

The critic views it as a commercial slam-dunk with tons of action, high-tech gadgetry and spectacular sequences from Woo, singling out Thandie Newton as the movie-stealing standout amid a convoluted plot lacking humor or broad appeal.

The critic views it as a successful action-adventure with Woo's signature slow-motion flourishes and beautiful moments, but finds it compromised and muddy compared to the director's earlier films due to the franchise formula, lacklustre script and star constraints.

The film is a grand opera of passion and betrayal with first-class action choreography but little interest in suspense, and it goes off the rails once the hero falls in love with the jewel thief.

The review sees the sequel as overly focused on Tom Cruise's star power at the expense of team dynamics, gadgets and plot, resulting in an indulgent, Bond-like affair with a dragging mid-section and premature climax despite stylish Woo touches. It singles out Cruise's physical performance for praise but criticizes the excess.

The critic finds the film easier to follow than the first but still formulaic moviemaking by numbers, with excessive set-pieces that ultimately feel empty despite visual gloss and Woo's trademark action. Praise goes to the strong production values and spectacle aimed at undiscriminating audiences.

The movie is a Tom Cruise enterprise that feels like a mountainous degree of the star's touch on every frame, with the unpalatable truth that if you love the guy this is your picture but otherwise it is not for you.

The review calls it an elaborately silly exercise in treading water whose hysterically hyper visuals and gimmickry cannot hide the emptiness of the enterprise and unconvincing plot.

The critic calls it a substantial letdown from the first film, with a story that pares things down to a simplistic Bond-like tale and only the later action scenes showing Woo's signature style, ending on a strong note but not worth the price of admission overall.

The sequel is a pretty good ride but flashy, slick and sweat-free with few surprises. It is pure action devoid of real risk, real sweat or real danger.

Even more empty a luxury vehicle than its predecessor, the film pushes flashy packaging with no substance inside, its overcooked slo-mo action inducing laughter and lacking any character, ingenuity or humor.

The critic finds the film a flawed but fascinating aberration in the franchise, with strong action set pieces and mythic ambitions undermined by a thin plot, unconvincing romance, and dated style. Woo's direction brings craft and duality themes that elevate some sequences despite overall disappointment.

The critic finds the film deflating compared to expectations from the first entry and Woo's prior work, with the story drifting from the team-based spy concept into a one-man show focused on Cruise's romance and action. It has some strong Woo set pieces, Hitchcockian riffs, and enough material to explain its later reclamation as underappreciated, though it feels very much of its 2000 era with dated elements like misogyny and nu-metal cues.