Iron Man 2 OFFICIAL: Rate & Review Iron Man 2

[JeetKuneDo]

I didn't see a single teaser or trailer.
It's good not to have a TV, or ever-present internet!

I've been taking that approach for a couple of years now with movie I know I'm going to go see. It's not like they have to talk me into seeing certain movies, right? Not seeing the same scenes over and over ad nauseum improves a movie greatly. It's so cool to see everything for the first time at the same time on the big screen. Can't be beat.

 

[Rumpy Bulge Dubz]

^exactly, which is why everytime you see those updates on the hype, where trailer #2, #3, #4, etc. were just released

I avoid those, like, who really gives a crap? I don't want to see several trailers, give me one or two and I'll wait to see the movie

if you're going to watch several plus trailers, you may as well skip the movie all together.

 

[UnionJack]

I might take the approach of not watching teasers or trailers anymore after get let down by them, mostly Wolverine, I had such a buzz about that film with the teaser and 1st trailer only to be utterly let down once I saw the final product.
IM2 was a good film, not as good as the 1st there were too many niggles for me to totally enjoy it and think some of the talking could have been cut for a longer final fight which could have had more of an impact.

 

[Ipodman]

I might take the approach of not watching teasers or trailers anymore after get let down by them, mostly Wolverine, I had such a buzz about that film with the teaser and 1st trailer only to be utterly let down once I saw the final product.
IM2 was a good film, not as good as the 1st there were too many niggles for me to totally enjoy it and think some of the talking could have been cut for a longer final fight which could have had more of an impact.

Esp those from Nick Fury

And like msot people said, the middle part was a little draggy

 

[UnionJack]

Esp those from Nick Fury

And like msot people said, the middle part was a little draggy

No not Fury I think we needed a little of him and Black Widow to get the Avengers going.
For me as I've said many times on here cut Pepper down by 70% in IM3 and I really hope she is just a cameo in Avengers she doesn't need a significant role in that film at all.

 

[Ziggyman]

I thought everything was a little too nonchalant...

 

[ben_reilly_s_s]

Speaking of Nick Fury, what exactly does he mean by "I'm the realest person ou ever met?"
All i thought of was it almost like Sam Jackson refering to kinda how much of a bad-ass he is/plays like in Pulp Fiction and not the Nick Fury character...

 

[MadVillainy]

I'm confused how I rate the film.

I thought it was kind of a mess, it didn't really know it's tone. No one, except RDJ, really got the screentime they deserved. All the characters had the beginnings of a cool arc that didn't really follow through, save for Happy and Natasha. Happy was stuck between being an actual character and I wouldve liked him to actually have a role because I like seeing Faverau act. And ScarJo/Natasha was...bad. I thought her acting was stiff and that her character was actually the most unnecessary and the whole she's a spy thing was meh. Rockwell was good as Hammer, but Hammer who was really just a jealous wuss, wasn't that good of a villain, which was sad because Rockwell did deliver a really good performance

The action was good; but way too short, there were a couple of things that had me scratching my head, the whole SHIELD/Howard Stark thing could have been dropped, and honestly I just didn't have as much fun watching this one as I did the last one or even TIH.

In short: The action, characters, plot all had strong beginnings but felt underused/unfinished.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

And once again, this all goes comes down to screenwriting. The script was weak and Favreau did what he could with it, but once again Favreau was left with a weak script by Justin Theroux.

 

[Marvin]

And once again, this all goes comes down to screenwriting. The script was weak and Favreau did what he could with it, but once again Favreau was left with a weak script by Justin Theroux.

the script honestly wasn't that bad(there have been worse) but for some reason everyone and their mother seems to have this line of thinking.

i wonder why that is

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

It was because of the Jeff Bridges interview in which Jeff Bridges often stated the dialogue was so bad that most of the cast often improvised their lines, and said that it was the "most expensive improvised film ever".

I was able to see that the problems had to do with development than anything else. Like having too many characters and struggling with tone. Usually you flesh those out in development.

 

[TNC9852002]

I felt that improvisational tone of the first movie and it was definitely there in the second too. I like it--it sets the movie a part from many others that way and it feels unique and somewhat enhances some of the connections between the characters.

 

[pptss]

I HATED this movie. In fact, I hate it more now than I did right after watching it. They had the opportunity to build on what was a smart, fun, thoroughly entertaining film, but instead managed to do the exact opposite. They churned out a dumb action-fest made to appeal to kids and Transformer fans. By the time the pointless fight between Rhodes and Stark started, I literally wanted to leave. I felt embarrassed to be sitting in the theatre with my wife (who really enjoyed the first one) - we felt like we needed to have a 6-year old sitting with us to justify our presence. I think my disappointment with IM2 just continues to grow when I think about the wasted opportunities to do something interesting with Whiplash and Black Widow, probably because they spent so much time thinking about how to cram in as much promo for the Avengers and toys for the kiddies as possible. Blecch.

 

[Tony Stark]

Speaking of Nick Fury, what exactly does he mean by "I'm the realest person ou ever met?"
All i thought of was it almost like Sam Jackson refering to kinda how much of a bad-ass he is/plays like in Pulp Fiction and not the Nick Fury character...

Well clearly this is not the 616 Nick Fury, and that was pretty obvious from the start. The Ultimate Nick Fury was based on Sam Jackson, so really I think they wanted Sam Jackson playing his on screen personna for this character.

I also thought the line was a tongue in cheek reference to the fact that he will be partnering with a Norse god, and a guy who was frozen for 70 years.

 

[ElMariachi]

I HATED this movie. In fact, I hate it more now than I did right after watching it. They had the opportunity to build on what was a smart, fun, thoroughly entertaining film, but instead managed to do the exact opposite. They churned out a dumb action-fest made to appeal to kids and Transformer fans. By the time the pointless fight between Rhodes and Stark started, I literally wanted to leave. I felt embarrassed to be sitting in the theatre with my wife (who really enjoyed the first one) - we felt like we needed to have a 6-year old sitting with us to justify our presence. I think my disappointment with IM2 just continues to grow when I think about the wasted opportunities to do something interesting with Whiplash and Black Widow, probably because they spent so much time thinking about how to cram in as much promo for the Avengers and toys for the kiddies as possible. Blecch.

what a ridiculous post. I know it's your opinion and all, but an action fest and comparisons to Transformers? The action was rather limited for starters. And then you talk about all this Avengers talk and toys. Where? Did we see the same movie? I don't recall any toys and the Avengers talk was limited to the last scene of the movie and the after credits.

People who claim that considered leaving during a movie are 9/10 times internet trolls. I have seen some really bad movies and have never considered leaving a movie I paid for. And then to say that the first was fun and intelligent----and this wasn't? Huh!? They are practically the same movie. Again, did we see the same movie. In the first movie, I seem to recall alot of action and similar humor/dialouge.

 

[RockSP]

Well clearly this is not the 616 Nick Fury, and that was pretty obvious from the start. The Ultimate Nick Fury was based on Sam Jackson, so really I think they wanted Sam Jackson playing his on screen personna for this character.

Not when he first showed up. The Sam thing came about with The Ultimates...

 

[pptss]

what a ridiculous post. I know it's your opinion and all, but an action fest and comparisons to Transformers? The action was rather limited for starters. And then you talk about all this Avengers talk and toys. Where? Did we see the same movie? I don't recall any toys and the Avengers talk was limited to the last scene of the movie and the after credits.

People who claim that considered leaving during a movie are 9/10 times internet trolls. I have seen some really bad movies and have never considered leaving a movie I paid for. And then to say that the first was fun and intelligent----and this wasn't? Huh!? They are practically the same movie. Again, did we see the same movie. In the first movie, I seem to recall alot of action and similar humor/dialouge.

First of all, I'm no troll. I've been a member here for years and rarely post. Hardly the behaviour of a troll that lives to stir up trouble.
Secondly, I didn't compare it to Transformers, I said they tried to appeal to Transformers fans by including riduculous scenes like War Machine vs. Iron Man for no other reason but mindless action. That wasn't the case in the first one at all.
Finally I said "promo" for toys - that doesn't mean there were toys literally in the movie, but if you haven't seen all of the **** aimed at little kids from IM2, you must be living under a rock somewhere. Once they decide to do this they have to tone the films adult content down. You honestly didn't think the second film was much less adult oriented?

 

[david icke]

Ok, i just got around to seeing this, and am in agreement with some people on the fact that the first 30/40mins are awesome, 10/10 superhero movie magic, but when we start getting to the part where he has his fight at the party with Jim Rhodes, it goes a bit pedestrian and loses the momentum.
It still has some great scenes here and there that are of a quality with the beginning of the movie, but for the most part is becomes a mindless action movie.

I don't blame Faverau though, I blame Marvel for not giving him the three years he requested to make the movie he wanted to make. He deserved the 3yrs given what he did for the studio with the 1st movie, basically kickstarted their studio.
To hold it back because of overcrowding with Cap and Thor..annoying...surely they could have kept one for a Christmas release. Faverau could have made Marvel's TDK here, that's what the 1st third of the movie was.

I did really enjoy it though, and the main surprise for me was SJ as BW, she did very well, and better than that other actress would've I estimate.
I realy wish the final Whiplash fight had been longer, he gets all dressed up and it's over pretty fast, again i blame the 2yr prep time for that.
there could have been much more good drama planned and written, more action, more scope, shame. But, it's better than most sequels.

 

[Theweepeople]

what a ridiculous post. I know it's your opinion and all, but an action fest and comparisons to Transformers? The action was rather limited for starters. And then you talk about all this Avengers talk and toys. Where? Did we see the same movie? I don't recall any toys and the Avengers talk was limited to the last scene of the movie and the after credits.

People who claim that considered leaving during a movie are 9/10 times internet trolls. I have seen some really bad movies and have never considered leaving a movie I paid for. And then to say that the first was fun and intelligent----and this wasn't? Huh!? They are practically the same movie. Again, did we see the same movie. In the first movie, I seem to recall alot of action and similar humor/dialouge.

Well said. I'm actually blown away by the number of people who didn't like this film. I saw the film during the first weekend and it got one of the greatest crowd reactions I've ever seen yet, the box office dropoffs suggest the majority didn't like this film.

I agree that the sequel has a few more plot holes and flaws but, the humor was very similar to the first and I thought the action was upgraded a bit. The pacing in both movies was similar. What IM2 really excelled at was the ending which completely blows the first one away.

Overall I thought Iron Man 1 had a better intro and the first half of that movie was better. Iron Man 2 had an average intro but, the last hour of the film was more enjoyable for me than the previous film and especially the ending.

 

[david icke]

Iron Man 2 had an average intro but, the last hour of the film was more enjoyable for me than the previous film and especially the ending.

Iron-Man 2 had an average intro? lol, a superhero taking on the US senate and taking the piss right out of them while winning his argument...the same superhero dealing with world wide celebrity because he revealed his secret ID....both concepts culminating in the amazing racetrack sequence...how is that average? I haven't seen that before in a movie, and the smart , witty dialoge that illustrated these concepts is a rarity in superhero movies.

I wish we had got more of that, I do like my action scenes in my sh movies, and did enjoy the ones we got in the final act, but they were not long enough(although the BW sequence was satisfying), and for a lot of the time was just a bunch of blurs flying about the screen.
Nothing there that compared to the train scene in spider-man 2, and the team up with Rhodey was over so fast it couldn't be compared to the superior team up action at the end of Spider-man 3.
He needed more time for those sequences basically.
Spider-man 2 was a two year gap, but tehy started work on the train sequence before there was even a finished script.

 

[Theweepeople]

Iron-Man 2 had an average intro? lol, a superhero taking on the US senate and taking the piss right out of them while winning his argument...the same superhero dealing with world wide celebrity because he revealed his secret ID....both concepts culminating in the amazing racetrack sequence...how is that average? I haven't seen that before in a movie, and the smart , witty dialoge that illustrated these concepts is a rarity in superhero movies.

I wish we had got more of that, I do like my action scenes in my sh movies, and did enjoy the ones we got in the final act, but they were not long enough(although the BW sequence was satisfying), and for a lot of the time was just a bunch of blurs flying about the screen.
Nothing there that compared to the train scene in spider-man 2, and the team up with Rhodey was over so fast it couldn't be compared to the superior team up action at the end of Spider-man 3.
He needed more time for those sequences basically.
Spider-man 2 was a two year gap, but tehy started work on the train sequence before there was even a finished script.

Okay? When I say intro I'm referring to the first 5 to 10 minutes of a film. If I'm not mistaken Iron Man taking on the US senate happened shortly after this time period. Virtually, every other thing you mentioned took place well after the intro of the film. The intro to Iron Man 1 was way more compelling to me and less prectable then seeing an angry russian prepare to get revenge after seeing his father die. Also, the stark expo convention scenes were okay but, none of those scenes got me into the film. I didn't start to get interested until the Senate hearing scenes which were after the intro.

I was comparing the ending to Iron Man 1 and there was clearly more action at the end of Iron Man 2. Comparing Iron Man 2 to the spider-man movies is irrelevant to me. What I will say is the ending of Spider-Man 3 had very inconsistent looking and downright terrible CGI. Some of the other scenes of the news reporters and John Jamison commenting on the situation really felt out of place. I'll take the scenes of Iron Man and War Machine fighting together any day over the ending of Spider-Man 3.

I did like the train sequence fight of Spider-man 2 however, the final fight at Doc Ock's hideout was still nothing in comparison to the ending of Iron Man 2 for me.

 

[Tony Stark]

Well said. I'm actually blown away by the number of people who didn't like this film. I saw the film during the first weekend and it got one of the greatest crowd reactions I've ever seen yet, the box office dropoffs suggest the majority didn't like this film.

I agree that the sequel has a few more plot holes and flaws but, the humor was very similar to the first and I thought the action was upgraded a bit. The pacing in both movies was similar. What IM2 really excelled at was the ending which completely blows the first one away.

Overall I thought Iron Man 1 had a better intro and the first half of that movie was better. Iron Man 2 had an average intro but, the last hour of the film was more enjoyable for me than the previous film and especially the ending.

Actually the number is pretty small if you look at the online reviews, the reviews here, and on other sites. The box office drop off seems to be a problem all around, and so far, it looks like IM2 has a good chance of being the no. 1 or no. 2 film of the year.

I'd say your reaction to the film is typical of most people's response.

 

[david icke]

Okay? When I say intro I'm referring to the first 5 to 10 minutes of a film. If I'm not mistaken Iron Man taking on the US senate happened shortly after this time period. Virtually, every other thing you mentioned took place well after the intro of the film. The intro to Iron Man 1 was way more compelling to me and less prectable then seeing an angry russian prepare to get revenge after seeing his father die. Also, the stark expo convention scenes were okay but, none of those scenes got me into the film. I didn't start to get interested until the Senate hearing scenes which were after the intro.

Ok, but to me 'intro' means being introduced to the plot threads of the movie, all the plot threads, not just the first one in the opening 5/10 mins.
I find it puzzling why you would put such emphasise in comparing the first 5/10mins of both movies, but not the whole of the movie set up, which i feel would be a more relevant comparison, that's why I assumed you were comparing more than the first moments of the film.

I was comparing the ending to Iron Man 1 and there was clearly more action at the end of Iron Man 2. Comparing Iron Man 2 to the spider-man movies is irrelevant to me. What I will say is the ending of Spider-Man 3 had very inconsistent looking and downright terrible CGI. Some of the other scenes of the news reporters and John Jamison commenting on the situation really felt out of place. I'll take the scenes of Iron Man and War Machine fighting together any day over the ending of Spider-Man 3.

I did like the train sequence fight of Spider-man 2 however, the final fight at Doc Ock's hideout was still nothing in comparison to the ending of Iron Man 2 for me.

Comparing the Iron-Man movies to the Spider-man ones is irrelevant to you? Ok, you do realise that Spider-man and Iron-Man are the only two solo Marvel superheroes to have had such a massively successful franchise with an ongoing storyline.
also, the fact that both movies had a two year gap between it's first two movies, and both franchises have had a superhero tag team scene, oh well, i thought it was a little relevant.

 

[Theweepeople]

Ok, but to me 'intro' means being introduced to the plot threads of the movie, all the plot threads, not just the first one in the opening 5/10 mins.
I find it puzzling why you would put such emphasise in comparing the first 5/10mins of both movies, but not the whole of the movie set up, which i feel would be a more relevant comparison, that's why I assumed you were comparing more than the first moments of the film..

This is a semantical argument so I disagree with you. There are plot threads that evolve and even some plot twists which effect the overall status of what your perception of the intro may be so this debate is completely subjective. Iron Man 1 had plenty of plot twists and evolving plot points just in the first 10 to 15 minutes of what I considered to be a far more compelling intro then Iron Man 2.

Intro to Iron Man 1: The caravan protecting Tony Stark is destroyed. Stark is severly hurt and captured all within less than 5 minutes. Then the film takes an interesting turn by showing all the events leading up to Stark being captured for the next 5 minutes. Then the film shows Stark's current dire situation where he is crippled and on the verge of death. He gets tortured, threatened, and is forced to improvise a plan that may save his life. All of that happens within the first 15 minutes of Iron Man 1.

Intro to Iron Man 2: The first 5 minutes is spent showing a drunk russian cry over the death of his father and start building the arc reactor technology to get revenge against Tony Stark. The next 5 minutes is spent on Stark praising himself at the Stark Expo. The part of the Stark Expo scenes that I liked was the revelation of Stark's blood toxicity. Then the next 5 minutes are spent at the Senate hearing which was compelling but, overall the first 15 minutes of Iron Man 2 didn't have the emotional impact of the first film. I was quite bored with what I call the intro of Iron Man 2.


I personally didn't think the racetrack scenes were part of the intro because first of all the scenes took place 1/4 into the running time of the film. Secondly, there was really nothing unpredictable about the scenes. It was obvious that Whiplash's technology was completely outclassed by Iron Man. I figured he would hurt Iron Man. Maybe damage his suit a little bit but, ultimately Iron Man would kick his ass, disable his poor excuse for an exosuit, and prevent him from getting away. It's funny how accurate my prediction turned out.

Comparing the Iron-Man movies to the Spider-man ones is irrelevant to you? Ok, you do realise that Spider-man and Iron-Man are the only two solo Marvel superheroes to have had such a massively successful franchise with an ongoing storyline.
also, the fact that both movies had a two year gap between it's first two movies, and both franchises have had a superhero tag team scene, oh well, i thought it was a little relevant.

Maybe you're taking my comments too personally. I never said it was a bad idea to compare the two films. Comparing the two movies is irrelevant to me because I've never had an interest in comparing them. I enjoyed both movies for what they were but, the two series have a pacing and dynamic that is uniquely different from the other.

The Spider-Man movies had more romance, humor, drama, and a clear theme that resonates throughout each film. The Iron Man movies had pretty good humor but, the overall theme isn't as prominent and there's no comparison of the drama/romance between the two films.

 

[Spider-Bat]

I loved Ironman 2. Black Widow looked like she jumped right off the page.
I love a comic book movie that looks like and is very close to the Comics.

All Comic book movies can learn from Ironman. And should be more like IM.