Printable View
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Menses
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ljkkjlcm9