Iron Man 2

[Depression Moon]

Saw this yesterday. I came with the same expectations brought by the first movie. Overall the film was decent, but it didn't quite feel as good as the first. I noticed the audience was a lot quieter in this movie. The plot was okay to me, it sort of felt like the movie was rushed somewhat. Iron Man 2 was probably in production longer than the first, and it sort of shows. For one I thought the introduction to the villains wasn't done as well as the first film. Black Widow was badass.

The movie still had its funny moments, though and the after credits scene gave us a glimpse of the next Marvel film for the upcoming year.

I give Iron Man 2 a 7/10.

[Shlup]

I loved it just as much as the first. The choreography and conciseness of the action sequences was right up my alley and were notably badass. I thought the story was decent and solid, if basic, but carried well by the characters. In a story I'm usually all about the characters, and the characters in these movies are so fabulous that they just make the movie for me.

[NorthernChaosGod]

I really enjoyed it. I thought the action scenes were all really well done and entertaining, I also didn't feel like there was a lack of action.

RDJ and Mickey Rourke are badasses.

[Chris]

Not crazy about Iron Man, but I'm definitely seeing this one too, 'cause, Scarlett Johansson.

[Ouch!]

I thought the movie was pretty awesome. Like the original, it's an example of what big-budget action movies can be when done right.

[Vermachtnis]

I liked it, it was a fun movie. I loved the scene where Scarlett Johanssan kicked all that ass. And that one guy got one.

[Slothy]

I loved it just as much as the first. The choreography and conciseness of the action sequences was right up my alley and were notably badass. I thought the story was decent and solid, if basic, but carried well by the characters. In a story I'm usually all about the characters, and the characters in these movies are so fabulous that they just make the movie for me.

Agreed. The story is pretty straight forward at its core, but it's all about watching Tony Stark start to crack under the pressure of everything that's going on and the weight of his own ego. Robert Downey Jr. plays him perfectly.

Also, perhaps I'm just a big geek, but I loved the scene after the credits. Obviously.

[Breine]

I really liked it a lot, but still thought the first one was a little better. Both of them are badass and great fun, and Robert Downey Jr. is just made for that role. He's friggin' brilliant! Can't wait for the third one in the series.

Also, Scarlett Johansson was crazy hawt!

[Slothy]

I really liked it a lot, but still thought the first one was a little better. Both of them are badass and great fun, and Robert Downey Jr. is just made for that role. He's friggin' brilliant! Can't wait for the third one in the series.

I think you mean you can't wait for Avengers. I doubt we'll see a third Iron Man for quite a while because of it. Not that I'm really complaining yet. If Thor and Captain America are every bit as good as both Iron Man movies then I'll greatly look forward to the team up.

[Depression Moon]

Capt. America better be on the greatness level of The Dark Knight.

[ljkkjlcm9]

I don't like that they put in the possibility of Robert Downey Jr. NOT being Iron Man in the Avengers. Really don't know why that was thrown in there.

Overall I loved it. I felt it was an excellent movie. I would say on par with the first. I feel most people who don't think it's as good or what not went in with higher expectations for it.

THE JACKEL

[Mo-Nercy]

Copied from my post in the 'last movie you watched and your critique' thread:


Iron Man 2

Look, I'm very biased toward superhero movies. I love most of them. And the first Iron Man film was right up at the top of that list. Unfortunately, we all know the plight of sequels and this film is no exception to the trend.

My main peeve with the film is the lack of action. And when the biff did come around, it wasn't spectacular. Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow gets the best fight scene of film, and that's not good enough for a movie full of big armoured suits and mechs. I was also keen to see Mickey Rourke's Whiplash play a big part of film and though plot-wise, he did, the pacing of the film leaves him only with a big entrance and big exit. The demi-villian of Justin Hammer seems to get more screen time than Paltrow, Johansson and Cheadle. We almost see as much of him as Downey himself and that just doesn't make sense to me, especially since he's mostly around for comic relief.

Only the presence of War Machine makes this a decent watch.

3/5

I think I might have been a bit harsh though. I did go in with fairly high expectations. I'm willing to push it up to 3.5/5 (or 7/10, whatever).

[Chloe.]

I really want to see this, I loved the first one!

[Breine]

I really liked it a lot, but still thought the first one was a little better. Both of them are badass and great fun, and Robert Downey Jr. is just made for that role. He's friggin' brilliant! Can't wait for the third one in the series.

I think you mean you can't wait for Avengers. I doubt we'll see a third Iron Man for quite a while because of it. Not that I'm really complaining yet. If Thor and Captain America are every bit as good as both Iron Man movies then I'll greatly look forward to the team up.

Nope, I meant the third Iron Man movie - not that I'm not looking forward to The Avengers movie too, though (especially now that Joss Whedon is directing it!). But yeah, there might not be a third Iron Man movie for a while because of The Avengers, but it's surely gonna happen at one point or another.

[Momiji]

"ALL RIGHT I LIKED THE FIRST IRON MAN THIS WILL BE GREAT"
"uh-huh"
"yep"
"when is this going to get cool?"
"oh electric whips that's kind of nifty"
"yep they're talking"
"more talking"
"I understand that they need to set the story up and stuff but come on I want to see some action"
"should I take a moment to go to the concession stand or something?"
"nah that :bou::bou::bou::bou:'s expensive"
"That Hammer dude is smurfing annoying, why do I have to share a name with him"
"yay strawberries"
"lol is that a 'let's make a new element' montage where Stark builds his own particle accelerator in the comfort of his own home? xD"
"okay that was cool"
"theeeeeere we go, now we're getting somewhere"
"yeah everyone saw that coming, please tell me everyone saw that coming"
"okay now this is pretty good"
"That's much better."

All in all, it was a good movie, but I liked the first one a lot more.

[Depression Moon]

Last fight in the movie should've been longer

[Mo-Nercy]

As a big Formula One fan, the scenes at Monaco were a let down for me. F1 cars haven't look like that in 20 years. If Tony Stark were that rich, he'd be sponsoring the real deal, not F2, GP2 or IndyCar or whatever those cars were supposed to be.

I also couldn't help but think that Whiplash chose a really bad place to meet Stark. He was standing at the Swimming Pool area of the track, but if he really wanted to kill him, he probably should've waited at the entrance of the tunnel after Portier or after the Grand Hotel Hairpin. Both of those are blind corners and he could've ambushed him from either.

=\

[Cleyra]

I was a bit disappointed with it, really.

Honestly, Tony's development as a character was ridiculous. He went through a huge number of changes in a week. It takes some people years to go through those issues.

I was also unimpressed with the enemies as well. Whiplash was pretty cool, but Hammer was a waste of time. I could tell where the movie was going after the F1 race and it was just too predictable to me.

The one of the scenes that I did like was when Tony and Rhodey were fighting in the suits in his house during the party. Really reminded me of Rock'em, Sock'em Robots XD

[Mo-Nercy]

I was a bit disappointed with it, really.

Honestly, Tony's development as a character was ridiculous. He went through a huge number of changes in a week. It takes some people years to go through those issues.
Yes, he was supposed to be an alcoholic, but the film depicts this pretty much just as a big night on the piss.

[Ouch!]

I was a bit disappointed with it, really.

Honestly, Tony's development as a character was ridiculous. He went through a huge number of changes in a week. It takes some people years to go through those issues.
Yes, he was supposed to be an alcoholic, but the film depicts this pretty much just as a big night on the piss.
Screenplayer writers said they purposefully wanted to stay away from the "Demon in a Bottle" story arch which made Stark's alcoholism iconic. I don't really know why, though.

[VeloZer0]

Yes, he was supposed to be an alcoholic, but the film depicts this pretty much just as a big night on the piss.
In the comics he had a short brush with his alcoholism which he apparently got over before his big full scale blow up. There could be much more to come.


Last fight in the movie should've been longer
I was expecting some bad ass epic fight scene that would put the Rhodey/Tony fight to shame. Very much disappointed in that one.

As a movie it wasn't nearly as impressive as the first one, but the fights were much better putting it just lower over all.

EDIT: Oh yeah, the main reason I wanted to post.
I was not down with Samuel Jackson being cast as Nick Fury in the least. They could have done much better.

[ljkkjlcm9]

EDIT: Oh yeah, the main reason I wanted to post.
I was not down with Samuel Jackson being cast as Nick Fury in the least. They could have done much better.

I can't help but laugh whenever someone says something like this. Ultimate Nick Fury was designed after Samuel L. Jackson. They even asked for his permission to design the character after him....

Plus, get used to it. He signed like a 9 movie deal to be Nick Fury.

THE JACKEL

[Slothy]

Honestly, Tony's development as a character was ridiculous. He went through a huge number of changes in a week. It takes some people years to go through those issues.

It made it pretty apparent that Tony was starting to crack under the pressure of his responsibility and ego and completely withdraw from any responsibility long before the movie started. In fact, it was pretty clear from the opening scenes that he was back to acting like his usual irresponsible self.


I can't help but laugh whenever someone says something like this. Ultimate Nick Fury was designed after Samuel L. Jackson. They even asked for his permission to design the character after him....

Pretty much what I was going to say. Ultimate Nick Fury isn't the same character as the original version of Nick Fury and Samuel L. Jackson is the Ultimate version, literally and figuratively. I'll admit that with everything else being based on the regular Marvel Universe I was kind of wishing the Nick Fury was the original version, but I think that has more to do with me recently catching up on all of the Secret Invasion stuff which made it pretty clear that Nick Fury is a bad ass. Ultimate Nick Fury is no slouch either though.

[Del Murder]

Not as good as the first movie, which I thought was flawless, but still entertaining.

Also Scarlett Johansson was pretty damn hot in that movie. Her kick ass scene was possibly the best scene in the entire film.

[VeloZer0]

I can't help but laugh whenever someone says something like this. Ultimate Nick Fury was designed after Samuel L. Jackson. They even asked for his permission to design the character after him....

Plus, get used to it. He signed like a 9 movie deal to be Nick Fury.

THE JACKAL
I was aware of this, but seeing as Nick Fury is a well established marvel character and I haven't read a single Ultimate Marvel comic it is hard for me to see him as the same person.

Tony Stark is completely different from his comic appearances, but it didn't bother me nearly as much. Probably because Fury got relatively little screen time I didn't have time to accept him for what he was cast as in the movie.

[JKTrix]

I don't like that they put in the possibility of Robert Downey Jr. NOT being Iron Man in the Avengers. Really don't know why that was thrown in there.


If you're talking about ace girl's evaluation of him, I think you're reading into that in the wrong direction. I doubt it was intended to break any 4th walls. It was an evaluation of the character's character. They wanted Iron Man the Hero. They don't want "Tony Stark" being "Tony Stark".



"lol is that a 'let's make a new element' montage where Stark builds his own particle accelerator in the comfort of his own home? xD"

Tony Stark built [the Arc Reactor] in a cave with a box of scraps. Creating an element (or punching a hole in space) is certainly feasible when he has his full resources available to him!

Also, check the reviews, they know what's up.
Amazon.com: The Swinging Sticks Kinetic Desk Sculpture: Office Products (http://www.amazon.com/Swinging-Sticks-Kinetic-Desk-Sculpture/dp/B001AXR9L4/?tag=aniworord-20)

[Depression Moon]

was that new element vibranium by any chance?

[Slothy]

was that new element vibranium by any chance?

Seeing as it doesn't produce energy it shouldn't be.

[Depression Moon]

How did Olivia Munn get a job in this movie?

[JKTrix]

It's called a cameo.

Also, her 'job' on G4 regularly has her reporting on tech news, and the Stark Expo was all about technology.

A more 'controversial' cameo, if it can even be called that, is DJ AM. The DJ in the party scene.

He's dead y'know. (Personally I thought it was fine.)

[Momiji]

Why is it controversial? Heath Ledger died before the premiere of The Dark Knight. :p

Then again, I don't remember if that was controversial or not. :|

[Depression Moon]

It's called a cameo.

Also, her 'job' on G4 regularly has her reporting on tech news, and the Stark Expo was all about technology.

A more 'controversial' cameo, if it can even be called that, is DJ AM. The DJ in the party scene.

He's dead y'know. (Personally I thought it was fine.)

I don't like her. She's not even really into the comic book and geeky scene. She seems out of touch with Kevin on those subjects in the show while Blair Butler on the other hand, you can definitely tell she's involved.

[Matthew]

I hope when Thor, Cap, and Avengers are through integrating all sorts of weird stuff into the Marvel Movieverse, Iron Man will be able to fight something other than other Iron Men.

[NorthernChaosGod]

I'd like to see the Registration Act come up in something, hopefully they don't make Iron Man look like a jackass in it though.

[I Took the Red Pill]

Personally I liked it better than the first, I thought the plot was much more fleshed out, the first one I found to be this big GRAHHHHAJKKDJSG TWO RIDICULOUS MACHINES FACING OFF, and this one I felt was much better developed, I liked the way Hammer and the whole US army thing played in with the crazy Russian physicist, who I really liked as a villain.

[Miriel]

I thought there were pacing issues with this movie. I kept waiting for things to happen.

I'd give it like a B- for general mindless entertainment. Also, ScarJo is smokin' hot. I mean, she's always been hot, but damn she looked good in that skin tight outfit of her's. Wowza.




A more 'controversial' cameo, if it can even be called that, is DJ AM. The DJ in the party scene.

He's dead y'know. (Personally I thought it was fine.)

It was sad seeing him in the movie, knowing what eventually happened to him. :(

[Depression Moon]

GRAHHHHAJKKDJSG TWO RIDICULOUS MACHINES FACING OFF

That didn't happen til the end of the movie, just like with this one. Not to add it was anti-climatic this time.

[Quindiana Jones]

My only real beef with 2 (other than that Rourkes head didn't get blown off even those his armour gets totalled :mad2:) is the lack of science. In 1, they explain the hows and the whys with some tasty pseudo-science that acts to suspend your disbelief magnificently. In 2, there was none of that. There was no "these massive tubes are for concentrating the ionic energy of my polonium beam reactor etc. etc." (haha I even suck at fake science! xD) crap to make it believeable. You're just supposed to think "well, it's Tony. The dude made the first ever miniature arc reactor in a cave out of missiles. He's epic". I didn't really like that.

Otherwise, good film. Will probably buy.

[NorthernChaosGod]

My only real beef with 2 (other than that Rourkes head didn't get blown off even those his armour gets totalled :mad2:) is the lack of science. In 1, they explain the hows and the whys with some tasty pseudo-science that acts to suspend your disbelief magnificently. In 2, there was none of that. There was no "these massive tubes are for concentrating the ionic energy of my polonium beam reactor etc. etc." (haha I even suck at fake science! xD) crap to make it believeable. You're just supposed to think "well, it's Tony. The dude made the first ever miniature arc reactor in a cave out of missiles. He's epic". I didn't really like that.

Otherwise, good film. Will probably buy.
I think that it all made sense without the need for our hands to be held, it's not really new information like it was in the first movie.

[Quindiana Jones]

Creating a completely new element wasn't new information?

And saying it all made sense is just a lie. It didn't make any sense. The entire scene relied upon your trust that Stark is awesome. Which he is, so it's not that big a deal. It's just something that bugged me a little. xD

[NorthernChaosGod]

Well, I understood what was going on dammit. I knew what was going on as shortly after he started studying the model of the city.

[Quindiana Jones]

Oh yeah, I totally understoof the "sweet, I've got a nice layout of a new element. Cheers dad!" bit. But then the robot tells us it's impossible. Then BOOM! construction montage and Tony manages it. In 1, he told us about the polonium etc. etc. and the disbelief was suspended with a :bou::bou::bou::bou: tonne of hgih tension cables and industrial grade blu-tack. Here it's suspended with chewing gum fresh out some-guy-who-drools-too-muchs mouth and dry semen. We only believe it because Tony Stark is a legend. xD

[NorthernChaosGod]

Oh, come on. I'm sure lots of things are deemed impossible until they're actually achieved. How many people would have believed in manned flight a couple hundred years ago? :colbert:

Fuck it, he's Tony Stark. It doesn't need explaining. :doublecolbert:
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/e/eb/Tonystark_cave_w_scraps.jpg

[Meat Puppet]

My only real beef with 2 (other than that Rourkes head didn't get blown off even those his armour gets totalled :mad2:) is the lack of science. In 1, they explain the hows and the whys with some tasty pseudo-science that acts to suspend your disbelief magnificently. In 2, there was none of that. There was no "these massive tubes are for concentrating the ionic energy of my polonium beam reactor etc. etc." (haha I even suck at fake science! xD) crap to make it believeable. You're just supposed to think "well, it's Tony. The dude made the first ever miniature arc reactor in a cave out of missiles. He's epic". I didn't really like that.

Otherwise, good film. Will probably buy.
1. It’s a movie, and does need intricate scientific foundations.

2. It’s a super-hero sequel. Setup is always for the first movie; second is for action. If you had the setup in the second movie, you’d have two first movies.

[Quindiana Jones]

That's a list of two things that I disagree with. Everything in a movie is an attempt to suspend disbelief. If your movie uses science as a major feature, then you should support that science, even if it is just with lame movie pseudo-science.

And the idea of "it's always been like this etc etc" is just too ridiculous to discuss any further.

Agh. Now I'm pulling a Raistlin. The film was great, and my problem with it is a small thing. But then people start mindlessly leaping to the defence of some people who don't know or care about them over a minor point that was merely an afterthought.

[Freya]

I just saw it, the Captain America shield prototype thing made me go :eek: and as did the after credits Thor's hammer thing. It made me nerdgasm for the avengers.

Overall I liked the movie. It wasn't AS epic as the first but it was still pretty damn cool.

[fire_of_avalon]

While I would agree with Miriel that the film had pacing issues, I would probably rate it a B+ on my scale. This may or may not have anything to do with the things I would like to do to Robert Downey Jr.

I also had some issues with characterization in this film. You have astoundingly, amazingly talented actors in superhero roles (Mickey Rourke as Vanko, for Pete's sake) and they don't have any room to breathe. I can't help but feel this is in large part due to a lot of unnecessary squabbly bits. Justin Hammer's role was far too large. You could've cut a good third of his dialogue and leave with the same impression. I feel that we didn't get to see nearly enough of a development in Tony and Pepper's relationship. Pepper's takeover of Stark was also a letdown for me. We have this strong female lead, she's given this power and then suddenly she can't handle it. Why? The only thing that really puts her under any pressure is directly related to Tony and Iron Man, not to Stark Enterprises itself.

The tension between Pepper and Natasha could've used more extrapolation as well. They only time we see them really clash is during the party, and that's only a brief minute of Pepper yelling at her.

The good: I think RDJ did a phenomenal job at portraying Tony's fall. Well, his stumble. You have a person who has dedicated himself to certain ideals and is practically given a death sentence. He handles it in a way I'd expect someone with Stark's background to handle it. He withdraws, he becomes reckless once again, because things start to lose their importance. But, much like RDJ's life, he does regain himself, though it requires he first save his own life, once again.

Overall, I do kind of feel that Favereau is addressing the same issues over again, and he did it better the first time. That being said, however, I also believe that it is the nature of people to operate in cycles, something that is captured perfectly in this film. I do wish that the Vanko story arc was more redemptive than ass kicky, but I can understand why that choice was not made.

[Raistlin]

The first movie was amazing and one of the best superhero movies ever made. The second movie had a lot to live up to, and it was perhaps unreasonable to expect just as much (though Dark Knight and X-Men 2 are both notably good sequels). Iron Man 2 certainly was not as good as the first, but was overall a decent, entertaining movie. Compared to the first, it was a letdown, but by itself still well worth seeing.

[ljkkjlcm9]

The second movie had a lot to live up to, and it was perhaps unreasonable to expect just as much (though Dark Knight and X-Men 2 are both notably good sequels)..

Dark Knight was amazing because of Heath Ledger as Joker. Dark Knight had way more potential than Batman Begins, which to be honest, was not that great a movie and was pretty easy for Dark Knight to surpass.

X-Men 2 was seriously just about Wolverine. None of the other characters were really needed. So, they tried making X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which was horrible. Honestly, the entire X-Men Trilogy focused way too much on Wolverine, to the point that people like my girlfriend who don't know anything about it, thought Wolverine is the X-Man, as in they were not a team, it was about him and only him.

Iron Man had an issue of the first one being a great start and truly inspiring for a time when Comic movies were dwindling. The 2nd had far more constraints and felt like it had less to work with. I felt it was completely focused on the story, and seemed more of a set up to Avengers than an actual sequel about Iron Man. It was about Tony Stark, not Iron Man, hence less action.

THE JACKEL

[NorthernChaosGod]

Dark Knight was amazing because of Heath Ledger as Joker. Dark Knight had way more potential than Batman Begins, which to be honest, was not that great a movie and was pretty easy for Dark Knight to surpass.

Don't discount the work of the other actors. Both Gary Oldman and Aaron Eckhart pulled out very good performances, they were just obviously overshadowed by The Joker.