Rides the coattails of MI1

Rating: 6/10 (17 January 2005)

It's an odd phenomenon, that of the box office. I'm finding as I have reviewed literally hundreds of movies here at IMDb, that those which gross highest at the box office aren't necessarily the highest rated films. That in itself is peculiar, in my opinion.
Take for example, Mission Impossible 2. It had an increased budget ($125M as compared to MI1 which had a budget of $75M) and took in $545M (as opposed to MI1's $452M worldwide estimate), yet MI2 rates a 5.7 while MI1 rated a 6.6 among users here at IMDb. Isn't that interesting? It made more money, sold more tickets, yet was an inferior movie.
"Sequels, by definition alone, are inferior films." Randy, Scream 2
I found this work playful, innovative, and fun. It was not, however, as edgy or fresh as the first. MI2 tried too hard to be "hip," or cool, and it just came off as another ghetto flick in spite of the stellar performances, well choreographed and executed action sequences, and interesting plot turns.
This sequel obviously rode the coattails of its original in the hopes that MI1 was strong enough to carry a weaker installment. Obviously that tactic worked. My question is, "Will MI1 also be expected to carry MI3?" I surely hope not, or the next installment could be the death of the franchise.
This rates a 6.2/10 from...
the Fiend :.