The first one was way better

Total agreement. Not only was Bad Boys more exciting, it was also a hell of a lot funnier! The humor in II is very strained and over-the-top. And Fouchet was a scary villain, as you said. The villain in II was comical, mainly due to the silly tone of the movie.

I do agree about the villain being better in the first, but I found the second one to be more fun to watch. I like them both, though, and like the previous poster said, I would definitely pay for a third.

__________
Welcome to the middle of nowhere--the center of everywhere.

First one also had a much better score, courtesy of Mark Mancina.

https://www.facebook.com/angryworld2014
Like Facebook page for my first feature film.

Peter Stormare steals any and every scene he's in, doesn't he? Villain, hero, whacko...? He's awesome!

Bad Boys was dumb and painful. It's like a two hour music video for a band no one likes.

Bad Boys II was even dumber, worse and more annoying - which makes it the more entertaining and fun movie.

-Bad Boys (1995) - 6-6.5/10
-Bad Boys II (2003) - 6/10

while i like both i feel the first movie is better paced as the second movie hits some duller stretches which usually revolve around a portion of the action scenes. the second movie would have benefited if it where a bit shorter in length.

----------
My Top 100-ish Movies of All-Time! = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz
----------

The first movie I can watch from start to finish 15 years later and still love it as if seeing it for the first time. I watched the sequel when it was released in theaters, disliked it then, and still can't find anything to appreciate in it now. BBII is missing the ambiance of the original. It's overly consumed with exhausting action sequences, too many bright settings, the villain is uninteresting, and the music score is replaced with a forgettable hip-hop soundtrack. BBI had some really cool story elements that are nowhere to be found in the sequel. It's a very disappointing movie.