where was the intelligence of the first film?

Rating: 3/10 (27 May 2000)

I understand that I, as one of the few who truly enjoyed Mission Impossible, am in the minority. The plot of the first film was a little convoluted and vague at first, but upon my second viewing (and the mulitple viewings thereafter) I realized that it was not the density of the plot that confused me, but the intelligence of the writing, directing, and acting, an intelligence which is scarce in film today.
That said, part II has none of that. This film is an excuse to watch Tom Cruise flip around, throw punches, silly kicks, and perform every gravity defying feat known to spy-hood. Perhaps Cruise is making up for the fact that he hasn't thrown an on-screen punch since The Outsiders, and i cannot honestly remember him ever toting a gun onscreen. Maybe it is a smart move on his part; after all, he IS pushing middle age, and the body can only take so much abuse past 35.
A few points of comparison between the two movies:
TOTAL # of punches thrown by Cruise: Part I = a couple, Part II = too numerous to count;
TOTAL times cruise fires a gun: Part I = zero, Part II = 50 gazillion;
TOTAL number of explosions: Part I = two, Part II = 25 gazillion
The intelligence of the first movies was replaced in the second movie by john-woo-explosive-gun-slinging and a corny romance (with an unbelievably beautiful costar), with Jackie Chan-esque stunt replays, zooms, and fight sequences. The plot is so simplistic that every single "twist" is blatantly apparent 15 minutes before it happens.
If you want to see Con Air/The Rock/Face-Off Part II, see this film (i am sure everyone will)...but do not expect to be held in suspense by the story, the acting, or, and especially, the IQ factor.