The Critics review Iron Man 2

[TheFuture]

I glad I'm not the only one that fel this way.

I'm also kind of pissed Marvel is shooting the Avengers before anyone has seen Cap or Thor. As if we'll just line up for Avengers whether we like Cap/Thor or not.

Well when you say "we" I assume you mean us, the fans. If so, we'll still be seeing the film, even if Thor and Cap are poor. :cwink: In regards to the general audience however, yes, it's quite a risky move to film the Avengers without even knowing what the response is to Thor and Cap.

[Anita18]

I glad I'm not the only one that fel this way.

I'm also kind of pissed Marvel is shooting the Avengers before anyone has seen Cap or Thor. As if we'll just line up for Avengers whether we like Cap/Thor or not.
Really?

I guess I have a more careful and reserved personality than a lot of people, but that totally makes me go :doh:.

[topdog1]

One review up at IMDB and it hits a home run...

Yes, I'm one of the fortunate few who got to see this gem a bit early and I'm happy to report that they took what worked so well in Iron Man and ran with it in an extremely gratifying way. The complexity, depth, heart and action are even more off the charts than the first film. It's is not just a great comic book movie but a great movie period. They took the complexities of Tony Stark that they established in movie one and built upon it masterfully. Now we get a reformed and guilt ridden weapons manufacturer weaved with a celebrity who should have never let the cat out of the bag in the final moments of Iron Man 1. They promised to up the action from the first film and they certainly did but the storytelling never suffers for it. Like in 2008, the evolution and growth of the characters is of paramount importance. It has the same flavor and humor of the original and it may even focus more on the fabulous relationships already developed. I was stunned at how they managed to deliver a better film. I didn't think that was possible. Everyone came to play and this great cast brought their best stuff and it shows on screen. Everyone knew Downey, Paltrow and Cheadle could act but Bill O'Reilly and The CNN anchor? Yes, they show up and do a GREAT job in extended cameos. Rourke and Rockwell are PERFECT as the duel foils for Tony Stark, I mean PERFECT. From the Grand Prix in Monaco to the amazing finale, buckle up because this is one intense, interesting, intelligent and fun ride. My only real complaint is that Scarlett's Black Widow has too little screen time. Still, a film that leaves you clamoring for more isn't the worst sin in the world.

When I was done viewing this movie, all I could think about was how it instantly stacks up to the all-time great sequels. What was said about classics like Spider-Man 2, X2, Empire Strikes Back, TDK and even Godfather 2 holds true for Iron Man 2. I honestly can't wait to see it again.

"I'm happy to report that they took what worked so well in Iron Man and ran with it in an extremely gratifying way. The complexity, depth, heart and action are even more off the charts than the first film."

That's all I want! Better then Godfather 2 would just be a bonus. :cwink:

[Compi716]

A veeeeery positive review from Drew McWeeny over at HitFix:
Let's call this one the victory lap.

"Iron Man" was no guaranteed hit before the weekend it opened. There were people predicting failure for that film even after it opened, even after it started to turn into a word-of-mouth-must-see, not just a box-office success but a genuinely loved pop culture moment. The first movie's got its weak points, but it also has a ridiculous energy to it, and I unabashedly loved it when I reviewed it for Ain't It Cool.

"Iron Man 2" is, in every possible way, issue two of a comic book. It doesn't have to spend time setting up the origin of the character, and it doesn't feel the need to resolve every single story thread introduced in this one film. There's a sense that everyone's settling into this series and thinking big. It is just as confident as the first film, and incredibly aggressive in the way it handles story and characterization. The pre-title sequence picks up mere seconds after the ending of the first film, and introduces Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), an embittered Russian with family ties that make Tony Stark a perfect target for his rage. By the time the main title appears onscreen, everything's already in motion, and then we're right into the Stark Expo, where Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) takes the stage.

Do you remember on shows like "Happy Days" when the fan favorite character like Fonzie would make their first entrance and the audience would go nuts for so long that the actor would have to stop and wait for a moment and acknowledge all the applause? Well, that's the first ten minutes or so of this film after that opening title, as we're dropped into the daily life of Tony Stark, Public Superhero. He's at odds with the US Government, who want the suit, and he's at odds with Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), another weapons manufacturer who hates that Stark is everything Hammer wants to be. He's at odds with Pepper Potts (Gwenyth Paltrow), who is desperately trying to hold his company together even as his attention is being pulled in a thousand different directions. And he's at odds with his own body, which is failing him as the chest implant that powers him and that powers the suit slowly fails, poisoning him even as it keeps him alive. This is not a movie in which there's only single threat to Tony Stark or to the world, but in which he faces almost constant threats, and in which he's never given a moment to relax.

Jon Favreau has gotten even better at building his action sequences, and he stages a few showstoppers this time. Once Ivan Vanko finally builds his prototype Whiplash suit and debuts it during a Monaco street race, the stakes start to escalate for Tony quickly. It's a relentlessly paced film, and the action scenes aren't just one style over and over. I actually think one of the best in the film takes place between Iron Man and Col. James Rhodes (Don Cheadle), who shows up at Tony's birthday party only to find him drunk and dangerous, using the suit to show off. Rhodey has no choice but to suit up himself and stop Tony, and what starts as an intervention with armor turns into a brutal encounter in which long-simmering resentments suddenly blow up. It's a perfect example of the way this film manages to keep even the most outsized action scenes focused on character, with plenty of small, quirky flourishes.

The first "Iron Man" ended with a post-credits scene involving the introduction of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and a quick mention of "The Avengers," and since then, there has been a lot of speculation and conversation about Marvel's game plan of eventually building one giant movie featuring Iron Man, Captain America, the Hulk, and Thor. The building blocks have never been more apparent than they are here, with Fury playing an actual role in the film and not just dropped into the post-credits sting. His organization SHIELD also plays a greatly increased role this time, and there are clues dropped to the role that Tony's father Howard (played briefly by Kevin Slattery, famed for his work in "Mad Men") had in founding SHIELD decades earlier. Both Captain America and Thor are overtly referenced in this film, and my guess is that we're going to see these references work directly into the films that Marvel has in the works for next summer. It's a fascinating gamble, and I talked to people after the film who were just annoyed by the whole thing, but I think it's like watching part of a big, crazy mini-series. I don't feel cheated at all by these clues. "Iron Man 2" works as a complete film without any of these "Avengers"-oriented moments, but they add to the overall texture of the piece in some really rewarding ways. One of the questions fans have had about the film is what role Natalie Rushman aka The Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) would play in the film, and how she'd play into the larger continuity. I think it's a very smart, simple use of the character, and I'll wager we see her show up in several other movies in the Marvel universe in the next few years.

Besides... Scar-Jo in IMAX? Pretty much a Christmas gift. Ka-pow.

Don Cheadle's work here demonstrates a much better chemistry with Robert Downey Jr. than Terrence Howard did as Rhodes in the original, so I'm guessing this will be a casting switch that fans barely notice. Maybe it's because Rhodes has a better part this time, but everyone in the film registers with strong work. Sam Rockwell plays Justin Hammer as the funhouse mirror image of Tony Stark, and he plays more scenes with Mickey Rourke as Vanko than anyone else. The two of them give off a real air of danger, and they make an imposing threat to hang the film on. Even Clark Gregg, returning as Agent Coulson from the first film, has a few choice moments, which is good since we're going to see him in "Thor" next year. Paltrow and Downey come off as the Nick and Nora Charles of the Marvel universe with their lightning fast volleys of frustration shot through with affection, and there's an actual arc to their relationship here, etched in subtle but effective exchanges.

Films like this often come down to moments... are there moments in this movie I want to see again immediately? Yes. In fact, I'm leaving town this morning to do exactly that... see it again. And I'm taking my wife with me, because the first film sort of blew her mind. She didn't realize she (Robertdowneyjr) liked Iron Man so much as (Robertdowneyjr) a character, and it was so much fun (Robertodowneyjr) for her to watch. Ahem. I get it. That's what they're selling. That's the show. Him in the suit and him out of the suit is equally compelling to me in this film. I like Stark. I get him. He's tapdancing. He's living a certain version of himself in public. There's a POV sequence here (including a great cameo) that gives you an idea of what it's like in the helmet... only it's not the Iron Man helmet... it's the Tony Stark helmet. And more than that, it's the Robert Downey Jr. helmet. It's him that you're taking the ride with. And he doesn't get to hide behind a Bruce Wayne persona. When Tony Stark makes a public ass of himself, he does property damage because of his suit, and everyone knows it's him. They're nowhere near "Demon In A Bottle" here, but they certainly make Tony stupid and human and genuine as well as heroic and comic book cool.

ILM's work is more impressive this time out, precisely because it's hard to tell where the real suit stops and the CG suit begins, and Matthew Libatique's cinematography is richer, more vibrant. I have the same complaint about the score this time that I had about the first film... I still don't think there's an "Iron Man" theme that works. It's sound and fury and almost entirely forgettable. Still, if my one big complaint about the film is that I don't care for the score, that's a pretty good sign. I thought even without the shock of the new on its side, "Iron Man 2" works as a blast of pure confidence and charisma, absolutely effective, and I expect audiences are going to devour the film when it reaches theaters May 7th.
http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/the-m-c-review-iron-man-2-whips-the-summer-movie-formula

McWeeny (formerly Moriarty from Aint It Cool) has always been a favorite critic of mine, and one who's opinion I trust.

[redfirebird2008]

One review up at IMDB and it hits a home run...



"I'm happy to report that they took what worked so well in Iron Man and ran with it in an extremely gratifying way. The complexity, depth, heart and action are even more off the charts than the first film."

That's all I want! Better then Godfather 2 would just be a bonus. :cwink:

Sorry, but that review reads like a plant. Ultra hyperbolic.

[Mr. Earle]

That's why I was always so :huh: about fans whinging about how DC needed to get their act together and be like Marvel re: their big team-up movie. There's no proof at all that it's going to succeed. They'd only had TWO movies up to that point, one of them a runaway success and one of them just okay. A series of solo movies leading up to one big team-up movie is insane to bank on. Everything has to go right, because if you lose the audiences with IM2 (or any of the movies coming up), it's going to be hard to get them back. IM1 was a godsend, giving the audiences a lot of goodwill when it came to IM2. But IM2 has to give even more goodwill, because there's so many things down the road. I don't even want to think what the filmmakers for Avengers will go through if either Thor or Captain America disappoint.

I admire Marvel for having the guts to do it, and a Marvel Universe would be really cool to see on-screen. But fans have to realize film is not comic books. Film is not a TV series. You have 2-2.5 hours to build up and conclude a compelling story, which is hard enough in itself, let alone having to build up a bigger story with new characters within that time/story constraint.
Nobody suggested this route because its the sensible one for the companies, but its a dream come true for a fan like me. Marvel can fail, but the idea has a lot of merits, like

1) Hooking up the fans so that they watch all the films, even if say Thor doesnt intrigue them so much.
2) cater to the comicbook fans
3) Up the ante from other superhero franchises like DC's, who doesnt know what its doing and if it werent for Nolan they would have stopped making movies altogether.

- Should Marvel have gone more slowly with it? Yes, it would have been safer.
- Can it fail? Yes, but so might GL and B3.

But even if say Thor fails, it doesnt mean that Avengers will too because Ironman and Cap will be there to draw the fans. Just like i enjoy WW in the JL, but i cant be bothered for her solo book.
Plus all the plots that we've seen build up for so long will be resolved in the Avengers and that will draw the fans to watch it. That is why its a good thing that they re doing cameos and setting up the bigger Avengers plot and the wider Marvel Universe. It will all make Avengers feel like an organic follow up to all the separate movies.

[redfirebird2008]

A veeeeery positive review from Drew McWeeny over at HitFix:

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/the-m-c-review-iron-man-2-whips-the-summer-movie-formula

McWeeny (formerly Moriarty from Aint It Cool) has always been a favorite critic of mine, and one who's opinion I trust.


I like what he's saying about Stark's behavior. Good stuff.

[J.Howlett]

Earle,

If Thor and Cap fail, then the Avengers essentially becomes Iron Man 3, because (well, depending on this flick's box office) Tony Stark is a proven character on his own...

The chances of Captain America failing are greater than Green Lantern. I like Johnston a lot, but his track record is spotty. With Lantern, they got Martin Campbell. This is the guy that rebooted Bond twice and directed probably one of the all time great action adventure films in the last twenty years with The Mask of Zorro. Campbell's got the goods.

Thor is the enigma. With Branagh, I get a sense we're going to get something in tune with Ang Lee's Hulk. Personally, that film is in the top five of all of Marvel's films, but I understand why people hate. Thor has that potential to be just as off the wall with Branagh as the director.

[terry78]

Mori always comes with the goods in his reviews a la Ebert, so that's good enough for me.

[Mr. Stark]

http://movies.ign.com/articles/108/1086312p1.html

nice review

[redfirebird2008]

Pretty fair review at ComingSoon:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=65501

[Mr. Earle]

Earle,

If Thor and Cap fail, then the Avengers essentially becomes Iron Man 3, because (well, depending on this flick's box office) Tony Stark is a proven character on his own...

The chances of Captain America failing are greater than Green Lantern. I like Johnston a lot, but his track record is spotty. With Lantern, they got Martin Campbell. This is the guy that rebooted Bond twice and directed probably one of the all time great action adventure films in the last twenty years with The Mask of Zorro. Campbell's got the goods.

Thor is the enigma. With Branagh, I get a sense we're going to get something in tune with Ang Lee's Hulk. Personally, that film is in the top five of all of Marvel's films, but I understand why people hate. Thor has that potential to be just as off the wall with Branagh as the director.But that requires both franchises to suck, which is less likely than only one sucking.

Actually, Cap is a much easier character to get right, and they can only blame themselves if it ends up sucking. Thor on the other hand is difficult because we re not talking about a movie like Clash of the Titans, but Clash of the Titans in the modern world next to RDJ's Ironman, which might make or break it.
In the end, one of these franchises might not be a success, but if they are at least decent, then an Avengers movie can only top it all off with a BANG. From then on, if say Thor sucks, only Cap and IM will keep their franchises.

[terry78]

With Thor you kind of have to go the route of a Harry Potter/Percy Jackson, yet more mature and for adults.

[drax]

There are more and more positive review, I think it's a proof that the movie is not bad, maybe not as good that the first (despite I have read some review who said that this second part is better), but I think it will be very good.

For the Avengers potential connection, I think for me it's a big quality with the Marvel movies (some review maybe don't understand all the links like comicbook fans), sadly DC don't want to do the same.

[Raiden]

A veeeeery positive review from Drew McWeeny over at HitFix:

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/the-m-c-review-iron-man-2-whips-the-summer-movie-formula

McWeeny (formerly Moriarty from Aint It Cool) has always been a favorite critic of mine, and one who's opinion I trust.

Great review! I always like & trust Moriarty/McWeeny's reviews, and I've pretty much agreed with most of his reviews. Glad to see that he enjoys IM2.

[FaT_tONle]

Earle,

If Thor and Cap fail, then the Avengers essentially becomes Iron Man 3, because (well, depending on this flick's box office) Tony Stark is a proven character on his own...

The chances of Captain America failing are greater than Green Lantern. I like Johnston a lot, but his track record is spotty. With Lantern, they got Martin Campbell. This is the guy that rebooted Bond twice and directed probably one of the all time great action adventure films in the last twenty years with The Mask of Zorro. Campbell's got the goods.

Thor is the enigma. With Branagh, I get a sense we're going to get something in tune with Ang Lee's Hulk. Personally, that film is in the top five of all of Marvel's films, but I understand why people hate. Thor has that potential to be just as off the wall with Branagh as the director.

For the last time... Thor and Cap have no bearing on the Avengers movie barring a delay. Avengers may be finished filming before those movies are even out. What matters is the reception. The content will not be influenced in anyway outside of the reception IM2 gets.

[FlawlessVictory]

RT meter is now active.

80% 4 Fresh, 1 Rotten
Avg. Rating: 6.7/10

[kedrell]

Massawyrm on AICN has the best bad-movie reviews. They're always hilarious.


Isn't Massawyrm the same guy as Carlyle over at Spill? Yeah, i dig his stuff(even if he is a Michael Bay fan:doh:).

[terry78]

Isn't Massawyrm the same guy as Carlyle over at Spill? Yeah, i dig his stuff(even if he is a Michael Bay fan:doh:).

He has a penis, of course he's a Michael Bay fan. :awesome:

[Steyin]

Who are these people that call TDK boring? I haven't ran into any of them. I'd say that Hellboy 2 was a very boring movie and so was Hulk IMHO but TDK? Not even a little.

That would be me, and I'm a HUGE Bat fan. TDK's action, aside from the Hong Kong sequence, were boring or over way too quickly (I'll put partial blame on IMAX for that). I can only watch TDK in pieces now, as it feels like a huge filler-like film to me. Plus Nolan promised an epic chase sequence on a grander or equal scale to that in the Matrix Reloaded, and what we got was meh. The chase in BB was better by far.

That aside, with a hero like IM, I expect to see action, whether its pointless or not. IM doesn't have a great rogue gallery IMO, so having a weak villain isn't a concern of mine; hell I anticpated it from the start until we see Mandarin. But if the film suffers from pacing problems (as TDK did for me, I nearly fell asleep towards the hostage scene and finale) and an overloading of characters that results in poor treatment ala SM3, then this will be an average film for me. I didn't love SM3 and was highly eager for it, but after the last couple of years it has grown on me when I regard it as a comic film that is fun. And thats all I want when it comes down to it, for the film to be fun. Still, I don't really mind downplaying a few things for an Avenger alignment, but we'll see how that works come next week.

I enjoyed TF2 solely for that reason, sure it was a trainwreck, but it was awesome fun. I won't put that sentiment on Batman since he's my #1 hero, and I enjoyed BB more than TDK, but I expect IM2 to be on par with the first as SM2 was in my eyes for SM1 also. A better, more enjoyable film, but not by much. I think people nowadays really need to get over critics and just judge things for their own damn selves.

[hatebox]

The RT meter should be interesting. I think the % will be high thanks to the binary system, but the average rating will probably be a lot lower. It's at 6.7 now.

[redfirebird2008]

I can only watch TDK in pieces now, as it feels like a huge filler-like film to me.

Interesting. It's a flawed movie to be sure (especially SWAT/ferry boats/sonar along with pacing issues throughout), but it is a very good film IMHO and far more interesting from a thematic standpoint than any other superhero movie other than X2.

[Mr. Earle]

I have watched Begins thousands of times, but i've only watched TDK 5-6 times. Its a great film, i love how deep its themes are, the Joker, etc... but its too long and too crime drama-ish for my tastes. Ok the Tumbler chase scene was pretty good, but aside from the Hong Kong scene TDK didnt have any AWESOME moments that would make my jaw drop.

[J.Howlett]

Batman's best stories are on the crime drama front. Hell, the Animated Series best episodes were the crime drama episodes. That's just the nature of the Batman.

[Danalys]

i find the themes shallow myself and they are mealy addressed and not explored. ideas don't make for rewatchable films anyway unless you can forget ideas so easily that even coming across them in the first place would be pretty pointless.

[Compi716]

Earle,

If Thor and Cap fail, then the Avengers essentially becomes Iron Man 3, because (well, depending on this flick's box office) Tony Stark is a proven character on his own...

The chances of Captain America failing are greater than Green Lantern. I like Johnston a lot, but his track record is spotty. With Lantern, they got Martin Campbell. This is the guy that rebooted Bond twice and directed probably one of the all time great action adventure films in the last twenty years with The Mask of Zorro. Campbell's got the goods.

Thor is the enigma. With Branagh, I get a sense we're going to get something in tune with Ang Lee's Hulk. Personally, that film is in the top five of all of Marvel's films, but I understand why people hate. Thor has that potential to be just as off the wall with Branagh as the director.
This is a highly debatable statement. Goldeneye and Casino Royale are great, but I doubt most people would lump Mask of Zorro into that category.

What Marvel has going for it over DC is heavy comicbook involvement. The team behind these movies have an incredible passion for the characters, and that's going to be the defining attribute. Right now DC has Geoff Johns...but that sort of seems to be it. Johns himself is a massive center for debate, as he seems to be obsessed with bringing the Silver Age back (and apparently made the Green Lantern mythos and different rings all Christian metaphors or something. I miss the days when there was green, and then Sinestro's evil yellow ring.).

[hatebox]

The Dark Knight has become the new Godwin's law. On a long enough timeline conversation always ends up on that subject.

[Shivsguy616]

Interesting. It's a flawed movie to be sure (especially SWAT/ferry boats/sonar along with pacing issues throughout), but it is a very good film IMHO and far more interesting from a thematic standpoint than any other superhero movie other than X2.

What do you mean by "thematic standpoint"?

[redfirebird2008]

I have watched Begins thousands of times, but i've only watched TDK 5-6 times. Its a great film, i love how deep its themes are, the Joker, etc... but its too long and too crime drama-ish for my tastes. Ok the Tumbler chase scene was pretty good, but aside from the Hong Kong scene TDK didnt have any AWESOME moments that would make my jaw drop.

Depends on your definition of awesome. The interrogation scene is the best scene in any superhero movie IMHO, but then again I'm not an explosions kind of guy.

[FlawlessVictory]

Why am I not surprised this has turned into a Batman thread.

[Mr. Earle]

Batman's best stories are on the crime drama front. Hell, the Animated Series best episodes were the crime drama episodes. That's just the nature of the Batman.
Let me elaborate. Batman is a crime drama, but a superhero one. The crime drama was great, the politics, the joker, the "he's a silent guardian" part, etc, all that was great.

But TDK lacked the superhero stuff. Mediocre action (aside from the majestic HK scene and the tumbler chase), no majestic scenery apart from HK and Bruce's beautiful boat in the Carribean (Chicago is no Gotham), an empty bunker, an empty penthouse, lame fights with repetitive moves, stupid batsuit, etc. I wouldnt mind a rooftop fight scene with Gotham skyscrapers in the background, or a scene at the docks with Gotham's skyline reflecting on the waters. Favreau made more of LA and Flushing Meadows than Nolan has done with an imaginary city.

Anyway, we re getting off topic here.

[redfirebird2008]

Why am I not surprised this has turned into a Batman thread.

Hatebox hit the nail on the head. Everything turns into that around here. :hehe:

[J.Howlett]

It's considered by some as the standard and whether or not anyone wants to admit it, many were hoping that Iron Man 2 would take the mantle away from the Bat.

I love both franchises, one more than the other, but that's feeling you get when discussion turns to films in this genre.

It's the Bat and the Iron Man....they're the top dawgs, so natural, they get compared a lot to each other.

[FlawlessVictory]

It's considered by some as the standard and whether or not anyone wants to admit it, many were hoping that Iron Man 2 would take the mantle away from the Bat.

I love both franchises, one more than the other, but that's feeling you get when discussion turns to films in this genre.

It's the Bat and the Iron Man....they're the top dawgs, so natural, they get compared a lot to each other.

I can understand when comparisons are made but then these discussions get to the point where only the Batman movies themselves are discussed!

[terry78]

It's like how every thread discussing potential directors mentions Nolan and every thread discussing potential villains mentions Hugo Weaving. You can't escape it.

[J.Howlett]

Flawless,

I guess it has to do with the fact since 2008, everyone's been waiting to see what these two franchises do. Iron Man 2 is next on the list. And yes, while we do have OTHER films in this genre that are going to try and make a name for themselves in the near future, sometimes, it feels like we're passing time until we seen what Nolan unleashes with Batman 3 and then see the rebuttal from Marvel with Iron Man 3.

Again, until otherwise, these two characters are top dog in Hollywood.

[redfirebird2008]

I can understand when comparisons are made but then these discussions get to the point where only the Batman movies themselves are discussed!

That's because there's a lot more controversy with the Batman films. I think that's because, especially in the case of TDK, it is more flawed than IM1 but it also more ambitious and has stronger themes. To me it all ends up with a pretty similar quality for the two of them (8 out of 10) despite the flaws of TDK or the formulaic nature of IM1. But I can understand those who can't stand TDK and I can also understand those who think it's a masterpiece. It has elements from both sides, and on the Internet you will rarely get either side to budge from their position. Just the way it goes, but the truth is somewhere in the middle. :yay:

[FaT_tONle]

I glanced over about 7-8 of those reviews that followed the overtly negative ones that first came out. And they were all pretty positive, just as good as the first. So yeah it may not be TDK, but people pushing the panic button are jumping the gun. Even the first movie is a bit overrated considering it was following X-3, SR, SM3, and ROTSS, all being abortions on most fans' CB movie lists. It's highly unlikely, based on this preliminary reception, that IM2 falls into that category as opposed to the other well made second installments.



Again, until otherwise, these two characters are top dog in Hollywood.

I agree. I don't think most people, outside of hardcore fanboys, give a **** about the next Spidey, Wolverine, or Superman films. At least until those characters/franchises get back on track. Right now it is all about IM/Avengers, and with all do respect to the rest of the DCverse, BB3.

[drax]

That would be me, and I'm a HUGE Bat fan. TDK's action, aside from the Hong Kong sequence, were boring or over way too quickly (I'll put partial blame on IMAX for that). I can only watch TDK in pieces now, as it feels like a huge filler-like film to me. Plus Nolan promised an epic chase sequence on a grander or equal scale to that in the Matrix Reloaded, and what we got was meh. The chase in BB was better by far.

That aside, with a hero like IM, I expect to see action, whether its pointless or not. IM doesn't have a great rogue gallery IMO, so having a weak villain isn't a concern of mine; hell I anticpated it from the start until we see Mandarin. But if the film suffers from pacing problems (as TDK did for me, I nearly fell asleep towards the hostage scene and finale) and an overloading of characters that results in poor treatment ala SM3, then this will be an average film for me. I didn't love SM3 and was highly eager for it, but after the last couple of years it has grown on me when I regard it as a comic film that is fun. And thats all I want when it comes down to it, for the film to be fun. Still, I don't really mind downplaying a few things for an Avenger alignment, but we'll see how that works come next week.

I enjoyed TF2 solely for that reason, sure it was a trainwreck, but it was awesome fun. I won't put that sentiment on Batman since he's my #1 hero, and I enjoyed BB more than TDK, but I expect IM2 to be on par with the first as SM2 was in my eyes for SM1 also. A better, more enjoyable film, but not by much. I think people nowadays really need to get over critics and just judge things for their own damn selves.

100% agree with you.:yay:

[Ace of Knaves]

Wow... shut the **** up about TDK and Nolan already.

[J.Howlett]

Fat,

Pretty much.

[S.A.A.D.]

Can we take the Nolan,BB,and TDK talk somewhere else?

[solidsnake86]

I remember X-men 2 not having the greatest reviews but generally positive ones and it had the benefit of having a weaker first film but still good that it was easy to top it. With the first Iron Man being such a success I can just see people waiting to tear it down because thats some peoples favourite thing to do. I don't expect that much from Iron Man because I'm not really familiar with the character so I've never had high expectations. I just hope that if the movie is average it doesn't get put into the "worst movie ever" category because that seems to happen quite often.

[FaT_tONle]

Can we take the Nolan,BB,and TDK talk somewhere else?

It's going to keep coming up. That's just the fact of these forums. Be it now, or in the Avengers thread in a couple of years. That's the standard that has been set. Mods are more likely to infract people for NOT mentioning Nolan, BB, TDK in each of their posts than penalize people for being off topic. It's the world we live in.

[redfirebird2008]

I remember X-men 2 not having the greatest reviews but generally positive ones and it had the benefit of having a weaker first film but still good that it was easy to top it. With the first Iron Man being such a success I can just see people waiting to tear it down because thats some peoples favourite thing to do. I don't expect that much from Iron Man because I'm not really familiar with the character so I've never had high expectations. I just hope that if the movie is average it doesn't get put into the "worst movie ever" category because that seems to happen quite often.

The good thing it has going for it is that Favreau and RDJ are not overly sentimental types. One of the biggest sources of ridicule for SM3 was the amount of crying, the melodramatic dialogue/acting, etc. None of that should be present in IM2. I think it'll just be a fun summer movie.

[Ace of Knaves]

It's going to keep coming up. That's just the fact of these forums. Be it now, or in the Avengers thread in a couple of years. That's the standard that has been set. Mods are more likely to infract people for NOT mentioning Nolan, BB, TDK in each of their posts than penalize people for being off topic. It's the world we live in.

Yea well i might be alone in this but i don't think TDK or Begins should be used as measuring sticks for other comic book films.

[kedrell]

I can vouch empire arent like that, then again they liked the movie, they just didnt think it was AMAZING. You know you could be right, this could very well be the temple of doom of the iron man franchise you never know.

Moriarty/Drew likes the film, i trust him alot, he's always been pretty much spot on in most his reviews, when it comes to my tastes, he knows what hes on about. Theres hope yet.

Actually that could be very true. And I liked TOD, by the way(even though Capshaw was annoying). IM1 always felt to me(tonally) kind of like the heir to Raiders Of the Lost Ark rather than James Bond. The way it excellently mixed the dark/serious and the light/humorous is extremely hard to pull off without skewing too much one way or the other. IM1, like ROTLA did it expertly. TOD skewed too dark and it seems like IM2 might not hit the mix just right as well.

[Tony Stark]

I had an opportunity to see an early critics screening this Thursday, but I passed. I used to work in the IT deparment for a local TV station, and still have connections there. I actually saw an early screening of IM1 this way.

No I'm going to wait until opening day.

I know some of you think I am out of my mind, but here me out. Critic screenings in my experience are the WORST way to see a film. The only reason I still pay outrageous fees to see movies in the theater instead of waiting for it to come out on BlueRay and watching it home on my new 50" LED TV I got at Christmas, is because of the audience expereience. Critic screenings are so dry and drab, and everyone is reserved, you don't get the fanboys screaming and cheering, the laughter is often repressed.

If your a fan, go see this movie with your friends opening weekend at a large venue.

[hatebox]

Yea well i might be alone in this but i don't think TDK or Begins should be used as measuring sticks for other comic book films.


The trouble is whether you love or hate TDK, it does seem to have shifted the paradigm for superhero movies. The consensus is that it's now 'the one to beat', and all the big ones, not least IM2, will be measured against that.

I even get the impression from some of the reviews that they're willfully holding back on mentioning Batman because it'd just be too darn obvious by now.

[FlawlessVictory]

Yea well i might be alone in this but i don't think TDK or Begins should be used as measuring sticks for other comic book films.

Well, time for me to continue this offtopic discussion.

I don't see how TDK can NOT be used as a measuring stick for all comic book films. It has the highest critical rating AND is the most successful comic book film of all time at the box office. Those are facts. Despite your or anyone else's opinion towards the film, it still ranks as the highest critically AND financially. So it most definitely will be the measuring stick.

[Tony Stark]

Yea well i might be alone in this but i don't think TDK or Begins should be used as measuring sticks for other comic book films.

Not for this franchise anyway. Yeah IM has a bit more of a "real world" feel, but in order to go Avengers, we're dealing with Asguard, Valhalla, a Green skinned monster, a guy that was frozen for 65 years without a mark to show for it, etc., etc.

In BB and TDK, Superman does not exist. The Green Latern does not exist. There is no Justice Leauge, and so far we don't even know if there's a Metropolis.

BB and TDK are all about "if Batman were real, what would it look like?"

IM while a more realworld setting than say Spider-man, still banks on the fact that you believe that he could build it, "in a cave! With a box of scraps!"

[redfirebird2008]

IM while a more realworld setting than say Spider-man, still banks on the fact that you believe that he could build it, "in a cave! With a box of scraps!"

That's not too much different from the Joker being able to rig that hospital with explosives. The only way to pull that off in a real world would be the most corrupt government/hospital administrators ever. Maybe in a third world country it could happen but in supposedly the world's most powerful city (basically New York for all intents and purposes)? Doesn't seem very plausible at all. :oldrazz:

[Ace of Knaves]

haha love that line.

It's funny though, i've noticed a couple people like "Well, Favs ain't no Nolan!"

Yea you're right... Favreau knows how to shoot action scenes and can inject some genuine fun into his movies.

[ultimatefan]

For the love of God, if we turn this into "Nolan fanboys vs. Favreau fanboys" thread it´s gonna go to hell in no time.

And I had tons of fun with TDK BTW. Fun doesn´t always mean lighthearted, a tense thriller can be fun as hell.

[TheComicbookKid]

Really?

I guess I have a more careful and reserved personality than a lot of people, but that totally makes me go :doh:.

Huh?

If they wait until after Cap and Thor come out, they can adjust the script to highlight the things people liked instead of reshoots and adding in scenes months later.

[redfirebird2008]

And I had tons of fun with TDK BTW. Fun doesn´t always mean lighthearted, a tense thriller can be fun as hell.

Agreed. The Joker was very fun IMHO. Bruce's journey in Batman Begins was fun to watch as well. The Bourne movies are very fun but you sure don't see much humor in those movies. Same goes for the new Bond movies.

[hatebox]

haha love that line.

It's funny though, i've noticed a couple people like "Well, Favs ain't no Nolan!"

Yea you're right... Favreau knows how to shoot action scenes and can inject some genuine fun into his movies.


*..Must.. resist... urge... to say that TDK chase sequence was more compelling than any action scene in IM so that this thread doesn't devolve into another franchise fight...*

[Bunker]

I can't comprehend this movie being a disappoint.

FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-- :csad:

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea the chase scene in TDK was brilliant. But for me it was the only good action scene.

As for comparing it to Bourne? Well the fights in Bourne had half decent choreography and people weren't falling over before being hit or standing there just waiting to be hit. So, yea...

[roach]

Well, time for me to continue this offtopic discussion.

I don't see how TDK can NOT be used as a measuring stick for all comic book films. It has the highest critical rating AND is the most successful comic book film of all time at the box office. Those are facts. Despite your or anyone else's opinion towards the film, it still ranks as the highest critically AND financially. So it most definitely will be the measuring stick.

However it becomes tiresome to some when you cant even have a discussion about other topics and TDK pops up....discussing the costume in Thor...TDK pops up....thinking back to your senior prom...TDK pops up....in a discussion about Gay rights...TDK pops up......talking about the Arizona border law...TDK pops up. Can we just discuss Iron Man2

[terry78]

I think it sometimes becomes more of a CG vs. practical f/x thing as well. Fanboys are in love with the fact that Nolan didn't use a lot of CG for the movie(which we all know he did, it was just subtle).

[redfirebird2008]

Yea the chase scene in TDK was brilliant. But for me it was the only good action scene.

As for comparing it to Bourne? Well the fights in Bourne had half decent choreography and people weren't falling over before being hit. So, yea...

I'm not talking about the fights, I'm talking about the story itself. You said Nolan doesn't know how to make a fun movie. I said the Bourne movies were fun. I never said anything about the fight scenes. The Bourne movies are fun because of the story, not the fights. Just like the Batman movies are fun to me because of the story, not the action scenes.

[FlawlessVictory]

However it becomes tiresome to some when you cant even have a discussion about other topics and TDK pops up....discussing the costume in Thor...TDK pops up....thinking back to your senior prom...TDK pops up....in a discussion about Gay rights...TDK pops up......talking about the Arizona border law...TDK pops up. Can we just discuss Iron Man2

LOL, I'm in complete agreement.

[ultimatefan]

Again, enough with the fanboy comparisons. The thread is about critics´ reviews of Iron Man 2. All these arguments have been done to death and now they´re nothing but boring and pointless, when they don´t get vicious and ruin the thread for good.

And I like the Keysi choreography, just for the record.

[roach]

damn I want to know what the secret tie in scene is

[Ace of Knaves]

Begins had a fun story. But for me TDK was too self important to be fun.

Joker was fun, the chase sequence was fun, Lucius Fox's belittling of Reese was fun. But the rest of it just took itself waaaay too seriously IMO.

And i'm not one of these who only thinks action scenes equal fun. If i was i'd find Transformers brilliant and The Godfather crap.

[TheFuture]

Jesus christ lads, take it to PM.

[roach]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

[FlawlessVictory]

RT meter:

83% 5 Fresh, 1 Rotten
Avg. Rating: 6.6/10

From Empire(positive review):

Rourke and Rockwell make satisfying, complementary villains, while Downey Jr. delivers again. Shame this sequel feels inessential.

Edit: Now a new rotten added.

5 Fresh, 2 Rotten

[Ace of Knaves]

I'm done with it. I just get sick of people using TDK as a measuring stick.

[Figs]

I'm done with it. I just get sick of people using TDK as a measuring stick.

That's completely understandable. Batman is my favorite character and I really like Nolan's films but even I have gotten sick of TDK quite a bit.

Soooo...how about that Iron Man 2 film?

[hatebox]

RT meter:

83% 5 Fresh, 1 Rotten
Avg. Rating: 6.6/10

From Empire(positive review):

Rourke and Rockwell make satisfying, complementary villains, while Downey Jr. delivers again. Shame this sequel feels inessential.

Edit: Now a new rotten added.

5 Fresh, 2 Rotten

As I said eariler, I think the average rating will be a lot more telling for the consensus rather than the binary of the 'fresh' and 'rotten'. Some of the positives on there are already deeply qualified.

[FlawlessVictory]

I'm done with it. I just get sick of people using TDK as a measuring stick.

Again, how can it not be. Best critical rating AND best box office gross ever for a comic book film.

[kaijunexus]

83% on RT so far...

[FlawlessVictory]

^83% but it's only counting 1 rotten so far when there are 2 rotten listed.

[kedrell]

The chances of Captain America failing are greater than Green Lantern. I like Johnston a lot, but his track record is spotty. With Lantern, they got Martin Campbell. This is the guy that rebooted Bond twice and directed probably one of the all time great action adventure films in the last twenty years with The Mask of Zorro. Campbell's got the goods.

Campbell just had a film with Mel Gibson that completely flopped. GL is in the same boat as Cap as far as I'm concerned. Not to mention that the core concept is a harder sell than Cap is to the uninitiated general audience.

[The_Joker7895]

For the love of God, if we turn this into "Nolan fanboys vs. Favreau fanboys" thread it´s gonna go to hell in no time.

And I had tons of fun with TDK BTW. Fun doesn´t always mean lighthearted, a tense thriller can be fun as hell.

QFT Can we stay on topic? And seriously, why do people feel the need to fight abotu which franchise is better? The same thing happened in the Watchmen boards and I for one am sick of it. Can't we just either agree to disagree or just let people love the movies they love? I personally loved The Dark Knight, Watchmen, and Iron Man equally but for different reasons. Comparing them is apples and oranges. And who really cares which one is "better"? Just enjoy the movies you love and let others do the same. Sheesh.

[kedrell]

He has a penis, of course he's a Michael Bay fan. :awesome:


Yeah, well all the other 4 guys at Spill have them too and they all despise Bay. And Carlyle loved TF1 but basically said flat out, F--- TF2.:awesome:

[Downhere]

3 rotten so far on RT...should be at 67% with those counted in.

[Fenrir]

I know I shouldn't be saying this but every time a reviewer or a critic says any comic book film feel inadequate compared to TDK or any other Batman film, I thank the stars for the kind of talent the Batman franchise has continued to pull in over the years. Yes, Bats truly is the king and the standard bearer whether people like it or not. :D

[Raiden]

I know I shouldn't be saying this but every time a reviewer or a critic says any comic book film feel inadequate compared to TDK or any other Batman film, I thank the stars for the kind of talent the Batman franchise has continued to pull in over the years. Yes, Bats truly is the king and the standard bearer whether people like it or not. :D

And yet, Batman isn't immuned to terrible movies like every other C2M out there. TDK was great but let's not pretend that Batman & Robin never existed.

[Anita18]

The trouble is whether you love or hate TDK, it does seem to have shifted the paradigm for superhero movies. The consensus is that it's now 'the one to beat', and all the big ones, not least IM2, will be measured against that.

I even get the impression from some of the reviews that they're willfully holding back on mentioning Batman because it'd just be too darn obvious by now.
If it isn't already completely obvious, IM isn't involved in TDK's paradigm shift. Nothing else is, so far. And I don't think many comic book movies in the future will fall into the same category, because it is so dark and approached so realistically, that I don't think most superheroes can be given the same treatment and not have it come off ridiculously and needlessly pretentious.

IM1 fell into the typical comic book movie formula, but the thing was that it did so very very well. If there is a bar for most comic book movies to aspire to, it should be IM1. IM2 should be judged against its predecessor, not against TDK, because those two franchises are apples and oranges. If anything, TDK should remain the outlier, because I can't see many comic book movies surpassing what it did in terms of subject matter and darkness.

[roach]

I know I shouldn't be saying this but every time a reviewer or a critic says any comic book film feel inadequate compared to TDK or any other Batman film, I thank the stars for the kind of talent the Batman franchise has continued to pull in over the years. Yes, Bats truly is the king and the standard bearer whether people like it or not. :D

so what you want to do is click out of the Iron Man boards and head on over to the Batboards where discussing TDK is appreciated:woot:

[FlawlessVictory]

RT meter:

70% 7 Fresh, 3 Rotten
Avg. Rating: 6/10

[Kevin Roegele]

I'm quite shocked at the responses to the reviews.

I've seen a lot of fans not only completely dismiss negative reviews, but also insult the reviewers. I've seen a guy saying a professional film reviewers opinion is invalid as he has not read any Iron Man comics. I've seen swearing. I've seen people trying to convince themselves that the reviews are somehow 'wrong'. I've even seen a guy trying to suggest the reviewer did not even see the movie, based on the fact that some extremely minor details in the review don't match up with what he (having not seen the movie) thinks they will be.

It's really pathetic and please, let's have none of it on Hype!

[Anita18]

I'm quite shocked at the responses to the reviews.

I've seen a lot of fans not only completely dismiss negative reviews, but also insult the reviewers. I've seen a guy saying a professional film reviewers opinion is invalid as he has not read any Iron Man comics. I've seen swearing. I've seen people trying to convince themselves that the reviews are somehow 'wrong'. I've even seen a guy trying to suggest the reviewer did not even see the movie, based on the fact that some extremely minor details in the review don't match up with what he (having not seen the movie) thinks they will be.

It's really pathetic and please, let's have none of it on Hype!
Are you that shocked? This happens EVERY TIME we have a movie that people really really really really want to be good. Especially one that looked good from the casting and the trailers.

[KangConquers]

On topic, I'm very disappointed so far. I hoped IM2 would be even better than IM, the same way TDK and SM2 topped their predecessors.

Off topic, I can't believe there's a Cap vs. GL argument. Cap is a much bigger character, and has a better release date. Green Lantern is coming out in June, which is the kiss of death for new franchises.

[The_Joker7895]

If it isn't already completely obvious, IM isn't involved in TDK's paradigm shift. Nothing else is, so far. And I don't think many comic book movies in the future will fall into the same category, because it is so dark and approached so realistically, that I don't think most superheroes can be given the same treatment and not have it come off ridiculously and needlessly pretentious.

IM1 fell into the typical comic book movie formula, but the thing was that it did so very very well. If there is a bar for most comic book movies to aspire to, it should be IM1. IM2 should be judged against its predecessor, not against TDK, because those two franchises are apples and oranges. If anything, TDK should remain the outlier, because I can't see many comic book movies surpassing what it did in terms of subject matter and darkness.

This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Iron Man is more of a comic book movie than Batman Begins or The Dark Knight, which are both so very dark, realistic, and outside the norm of the genre that to use either, especially The Dark Knight, as a standard bearer is an exercise doomed in futility and frustration, as Nolan's Batman franchise is really not like anything else out there. I doubt there will really ever be anything like it again, nor should there be. The comparisons between Iron Man and The Dark Knight are akin to comparing Tropic Thunder to Saving Private Ryan. Both are great, but for completely separate reasons.

The Dark Knight has Nolan's directorial stamp all over it. It's a Christopher Nolan film first, comic book film second. His approach to the franchise was to draw from the comics, but create a very unique story. Favreau went about Iron Man in a totally different fashion, as he should. This also boils down to how different the two directors are. Nolan comes from a literary background and a resume of dark, disturbing films tackling psychological subject matter, such as Following, Memento, Insomnia, and The Prestige. Favreau is a comedy director and actor, so his films are going to have a completely different feel to them, as they should. I wouldn't want every film based on a comic book character to be like The Dark Knight, nor would I want them all to be like Iron Man. To judge such different stories, characters, and franchises against one another is, again, an exercise doomed in futility and frustration because it just turns into circular arguments over the internet.

[redfirebird2008]

And yet, Batman isn't immuned to terrible movies like every other C2M out there. TDK was great but let's not pretend that Batman & Robin never existed.

The great irony is B&R is just as much responsible for BB/TDK as Nolan. Without B&R failing at the box office, WB never would have hired the likes of Nolan. Make no mistake. Even though B&R was poorly received by critics and audiences, if it had made a ton of money like Transformers 2 they would have kept making the campy schlock until it finally became unprofitable. I wish they had just let Burton come back for a third movie in the first place.

Nevertheless, back on topic! I'm expecting a RT rating of around 75%. Pretty positive but not as positive as the first movie. And I think audiences will enjoy this one a lot more than Spidey 3. :yay:

[Iron_Stark]

I know I shouldn't be saying this but every time a reviewer or a critic says any comic book film feel inadequate compared to TDK or any other Batman film, I thank the stars for the kind of talent the Batman franchise has continued to pull in over the years. Yes, Bats truly is the king and the standard bearer whether people like it or not. :D

Well, gtfo of these boards and take Batman and Robin with you.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Are you that shocked? This happens EVERY TIME we have a movie that people really really really really want to be good. Especially one that looked good from the casting and the trailers.

Yeah. This happens every time a major nerd property isn't met with 100% positive remarks. We saw all of this before a year ago with Watchmen.

[Fenrir]

And yet, Batman isn't immuned to terrible movies like every other C2M out there. TDK was great but let's not pretend that Batman & Robin never existed.

Oh I know Batman has the double distinction of having both the best and the worst superhero film ever made. That only cements the importance of the franchise as an example of how to do it and how not to do it. :hehe:

[TheComicbookKid]

Off topic, I can't believe there's a Cap vs. GL argument. Cap is a much bigger character, and has a better release date. Green Lantern is coming out in June, which is the kiss of death for new franchises.

That's what they said about August releases until the last few years when movies started doing well there.

[KangConquers]

I wonder if mediocre reviews will sink the franchise...This isn't good...Iron Man is supposed to be Marvel's ace in the hole. If it can't perform, Avengers is ****ed.

[The_Joker7895]

Yeah. This happens every time a major nerd property isn't met with 100% positive remarks. We saw all of this before a year ago with Watchmen.

Hell, it happened on a pretty extreme level when TDK got a couple of negative reviews. Some critics who gave it negative reviews were sent death threats by crazed fanboys :wow:

[redfirebird2008]

Hell, it happened on a pretty extreme level when TDK got a couple of negative reviews. Some critics who gave it negative reviews were sent death threats by crazed fanboys :wow:

Yeah, that behavior was just pathetic...and embarrassing as hell for the rest of us. :csad:

[Octoberist]

I'm quite shocked at the responses to the reviews.

I've seen a lot of fans not only completely dismiss negative reviews, but also insult the reviewers. I've seen a guy saying a professional film reviewers opinion is invalid as he has not read any Iron Man comics. I've seen swearing. I've seen people trying to convince themselves that the reviews are somehow 'wrong'. I've even seen a guy trying to suggest the reviewer did not even see the movie, based on the fact that some extremely minor details in the review don't match up with what he (having not seen the movie) thinks they will be.

It's really pathetic and please, let's have none of it on Hype!

hehe. that's how people are: childish.

I do think in the end, it's really up to you to like a movie or not. But I do believe, however, that critics are valid. And I feel that the consensus how people overall feel about the movie can affect the way you like a movie. Or even determine the course of the sequel, and legacy. Look at Hulk and Superman Returns.

[kedrell]

I know I shouldn't be saying this but every time a reviewer or a critic says any comic book film feel inadequate compared to TDK or any other Batman film, I thank the stars for the kind of talent the Batman franchise has continued to pull in over the years. Yes, Bats truly is the king and the standard bearer whether people like it or not. :D

Bulls**t.

[KangConquers]

That's what they said about August releases until the last few years when movies started doing well there.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot more faith in Martin Campbell than in Joe Johnston to make a quality movie, but I think both have 50/50 chances of being a hit/ bombing.

I've read the Green Lantern script, and it'll probably be akin to Iron Man 1. Not incredibly dark or profound, but well executed fun.

Thor will outdo both in box office imo, given that it has the absolute best date of the year you can have.

[The_Joker7895]

Yeah, that behavior was just pathetic...and embarrassing as hell for the rest of us. :csad:

Indeed, because it got brought into water cooler talk and made the sane ones look bad :doh: Never underestimate fanboy rage.

[Fenrir]

Well, gtfo of these boards and take Batman and Robin with you.

Ooh, touched a nerve, did I? :oldrazz:

[Raiden]

Empire Magazine gives IM2 3 stars out of 5.

Review (http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=135908)

[kedrell]

On topic, I'm very disappointed so far. I hoped IM2 would be even better than IM, the same way TDK and SM2 topped their predecessors.

Off topic, I can't believe there's a Cap vs. GL argument. Cap is a much bigger character, and has a better release date. Green Lantern is coming out in June, which is the kiss of death for new franchises.

IMO, TDK didn't top BB other than $-wise. But I'm in the minority there.

[kedrell]

Ooh, touched a nerve, did I? :oldrazz:

Mods-Troll alert.

[Octoberist]

On topic, I'm very disappointed so far. I hoped IM2 would be even better than IM, the same way TDK and SM2 topped their predecessors.

Off topic, I can't believe there's a Cap vs. GL argument. Cap is a much bigger character, and has a better release date. Green Lantern is coming out in June, which is the kiss of death for new franchises.

I'm not too sure if this is valid, or just a made up thing created by fans who love to over-analyze. (I'm not talking about you). Because it's not a steady thread nor have I ever read or heard an official report on it. Not a study, an article, nothing.

Maybe in the past couple of years, June has been somewhat a dead month but I don't think it's okay to dismiss either. Look at August and how much it has changed in recent years.

You see, January is known as a 'dumping month' for movies, but that's valid because it's been like that for decades. Vs. a couple of years of 'mild' hits for June.

[redfirebird2008]

Indeed, because it got brought into water cooler talk and made the sane ones look bad :doh: Never underestimate fanboy rage.

Yep, whether we like it or not...the nutjob fanboys are representing the rest of us. When they make threats against critics simply for disagreeing with the fanboy's opinion, they are giving all of us a bad name. :csad:

[KangConquers]

Bulls**t.

Agreed.

The Dark Knight is the best movie of the comic book adaptations so far; but it's done that by being ashamed of being a comic book, being ashamed of superheroes, and thinking it's better than everyone.

[ultimatefan]

Too late, this thread is gonna be ten pages of Nolan/Favreau brick walls hitting each other, sigh...

IM is at 70% at RT at this point, average rating 6.It doesn´t look like it will rank as high as the first.

[hatebox]

Agreed.

The Dark Knight is the best movie of the comic book adaptations so far; but it's done that by being ashamed of being a comic book, being ashamed of superheroes, and thinking it's better than everyone.

:doh:


Anyway, when do we reckon Metcritic will have their score up?

[Leenie]

Critics can say all they want. I'll make my opinion on the movie once I see it at midnight on May 7th. I think the movie looks awesome and fun, but I'm not expecting it to be as good as the first one. If Iron Man 2 isn't as good as the first (but is still a good movie), then I'm not going to hate on it. That would be ridiculous.

Though, I do think it's unfair for some to be comparing this to TDK. I'm almost on the verge of experiencing backlash on TDK because people have become downright annoying about it. That darn movie isn't the second coming, mkay? And I'm saying this as a person who LOVES that movie (as indicated in my signature).

[redfirebird2008]

Agreed.

The Dark Knight is the best movie of the comic book adaptations so far; but it's done that by being ashamed of being a comic book, being ashamed of superheroes, and thinking it's better than everyone.

:doh:

[redfirebird2008]

That darn movie isn't the second coming, mkay? And I'm saying this as a person who LOVES that movie (as indicated in my signature).

Now you know how some of us felt when SM2 was being overpraised around 5 years ago. :oldrazz:

[Raiden]

Now you know how some of us felt when SM2 was being overpraised around 5 years ago. :oldrazz:

I really look forward to Nolan's 3rd Batman movie; just wait until you see all the fanboys trying to compare it to TDK and overanalyze it to death. :oldrazz:

[kedrell]

I wonder if mediocre reviews will sink the franchise...This isn't good...Iron Man is supposed to be Marvel's ace in the hole. If it can't perform, Avengers is ****ed.

I remember when the first film came out. There were several positive reviews then a string of negative ones which plunged the RT score to the mid-70% range for a couple of days. Then more positive reviews came in and it shot back up to around 95-96% and then finally settled at 93%. So fear not, true believers.:cwink:

[Leenie]

Now you know how some of us felt when SM2 was being overpraised around 5 years ago. :oldrazz:

Spider-Man 2 is my favorite comic book movie, but I don't question people's taste if they don't agree with me.

People are bullies about The Dark Knight. "zomg, you don't think it's the BEST EVAR? You suck!" To me, that's how the rabid fans have acted.

And if that's how people reacted to Spider-Man 2 back in '04, then I'm glad I wasn't on the Hype to see that.

[redfirebird2008]

I really look forward to Nolan's 3rd Batman movie; just wait until you see all the fanboys trying to compare it to TDK and overanalyze it to death. :oldrazz:

If Nolan were smart he'd just walk the heck away while he's still ahead. :hehe:

As a Nolan fan I can't wait for him to be done with Batman. He's too talented to keep spending so much energy on franchise movies. Looking forward to Inception for sure.

[redfirebird2008]

Spider-Man 2 is my favorite comic book movie, but I don't question people's taste if they don't agree with me.

People are bullies about The Dark Knight. "zomg, you don't think it's the BEST EVAR? You suck!" To me, that's how the rabid fans have acted.

And if that's how people reacted to Spider-Man 2 back in '04, then I'm glad I wasn't on the Hype to see that.

It was. I was ridiculed for saying Batman Begins was better than SM2. I definitely agree with you on the bullying stuff. It's pathetic, and when they threaten critics it starts reflecting on the rest of us comic fans. :csad:

[Anita18]

hehe. that's how people are: childish.

I do think in the end, it's really up to you to like a movie or not. But I do believe, however, that critics are valid. And I feel that the consensus how people overall feel about the movie can affect the way you like a movie. Or even determine the course of the sequel, and legacy. Look at Hulk and Superman Returns.
Actually, didn't Hulk and SR get pretty good reviews from critics? It's just that the reception from the general audience was pretty lackluster, and they didn't meet box office expectations. (The important word here being "expectations," yes I know SR beat BB worldwide, but they were expecting more, especially domestically.)

[S.A.A.D.]

Holy ***k s***!!!!!! We aren't only talking about BB and TDK,but also Spiderman 2. Speaking of Spiderman 2,I think it's good,but not that good if you compare it to superior comic book movies.

[roach]

soooooo Iron Man 2

[TheVileOne]

You guys need to chill already. What is with all the doom and gloom?

You guys take this crap way too seriously. Stop being so fixated on Dark Knight.

It's weird because 6 years ago Spider-man 2 was the best movie ever and I go into the Spider-man or Avengers forums and all of you ****ING HATE THE SPIDER-MAN MOVIES NOW.

I'm getting sick of all the complaining. The movie is good. Shut the heck up.

[redfirebird2008]

Actually, didn't Hulk and SR get pretty good reviews from critics? It's just that the reception from the general audience was pretty lackluster, and they didn't meet box office expectations. (The important word here being "expectations," yes I know SR beat BB worldwide, but they were expecting more, especially domestically.)

If you believe the rumors, Superman Returns cost around twice as much as Batman Begins. That's including various sunk costs over the years to Nic Cage and other failed attempts.

[S.A.A.D.]

Another blurb review came up on RT,but the end of it makes it seems like it will be another rotten review. They gave it a 3/5. The View London says it's good,but not as good as the first one.

[roach]

Sooooooooooooooooo Iron Man 2

[redfirebird2008]

You guys need to chill already. What is with all the doom and gloom?

You guys take this crap way too seriously. Stop being so fixated on Dark Knight.

It's weird because 6 years ago Spider-man 2 was the best movie ever and I go into the Spider-man or Avengers forums and all of you ****ING HATE THE SPIDER-MAN MOVIES NOW.

I'm getting sick of all the complaining. The movie is good. Shut the heck up.

But, but, but...we're fanboys. Aren't we SUPPOSED to complain?!!! :hehe::hehe::hehe:

[hatebox]

http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/iron-man-2-film-review-31650.html


Three out of Five stars
Running time: 124 mins

Despite strong performances, impressive effects and a handful of decent action scenes, Jon Favreau's eagerly-awaited Iron Man sequel is, unfortunately, not as good as the first film, thanks to a painfully slow, relatively action-free middle section and the occasional mis-step.

What's it all about?
Directed by Jon Favreau, Iron Man 2 is the eagerly-awaited sequel to 2008's Marvel superhero smash hit. Having revealed his secret identity to the world, billionaire Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) comes under increasing pressure from the US government to turn over the “Iron Man weapon”. However, Stark faces a far more immediate threat when he discovers that the Iron Man suit is slowly killing him by poisoning his blood.

As if that wasn't bad enough, Stark finds himself the target of vengeful, electric whip-wielding Russian supervillain Whiplash (Mickey Rourke) and his problems only get worse when rival industrialist Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) kidnaps Whiplash in order to get him to design weaponised Iron Man-style suits of his own. Meanwhile, Stark's increasingly erratic behaviour causes fall-outs with both loyal secretary Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and best friend Colonel James Rhodes (Don Cheadle) and there's also something mysterious about his slinky new assistant Natalie (Scarlett Johansson).

The Good
As with the first film, the performances are excellent. Downey Jr is perfect as Stark, generating appealing chemistry with both Paltrow and Cheadle, while Rourke underplays it beautifully as Whiplash (aka Ivan Vanko), creating an intriguing and engaging character rather than the heavily-accented, over-the-top supervillain he so easily could have been.

In addition, the effects are superb and the action sequences are entertaining (http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/iron-man-2-film-review-31650.html#) but there's no moment that delivers the rush of, say, Iron Man catching a missile and throwing it back in the first film.

The Bad
The problem is that the film slows to a painful crawl in the middle section with very little action (http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/iron-man-2-film-review-31650.html#) apart from a punch-up with War Machine (Rhodes in an Iron Man suit) in Stark's living room. Similarly, Johansson is badly under-used (though you do get to see her in a smoking hot catsuit), there's never any real sense of jeopardy for Stark (the poisoning issue is resolved too quickly and in confusing fashion) and the film is also guilty of throwing away one of the most emotional and powerful story arcs of the comics (i.e. Stark's alcoholism) in one excruciating drunken party scene.

Worth seeing?
As sequels go, Iron Man 2 is disappointing in places and fails to deliver the thrills (http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/iron-man-2-film-review-31650.html#) of the first film but it's still worth seeing thanks to its strong performances, decent effects and a frequently witty script.

[Kevin Roegele]

Critics can say all they want. I'll make my opinion on the movie once I see it at midnight on May 7th.

Exactly-! Exactly. You can have your opinion. Everyone can have their opinion.

A critic is not telling you what to think of the movie. They are merely saying what they think of the movie.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of critics, really. All they are are journalists who have their opinions printed for the mass audience. You can go by their recommendations, or not. Either way, they are (intended to be) intresting to read.

For instance, I love Spider-Man 2, but I'd happily read a review by someone saying why they think it doesn't work. In reverse, I've read a few negative reviews of Iron Man 2 and whilst it won't stop me going, it is intresting to read.

Anyway, we're really all film reviewers, aren't we?

[TheVileOne]

You guys need to get over yourselves.

I think this is a very good movie.

[terry78]

In all honesty, critics usually hate every single summer blockbuster with the exception of those four or five that get all around acclaim.

[Commodore Schmidlapp]

You guys need to chill already. What is with all the doom and gloom?

You guys take this crap way too seriously. Stop being so fixated on Dark Knight.

It's weird because 6 years ago Spider-man 2 was the best movie ever and I go into the Spider-man or Avengers forums and all of you ****ING HATE THE SPIDER-MAN MOVIES NOW.

I'm getting sick of all the complaining. The movie is good. Shut the heck up.

:applaud

[hatebox]

In all honesty, critics usually hate every single summer blockbuster with the exception of those four or five that get all around acclaim.

You mean like the first Iron Man?

[redfirebird2008]

In all honesty, critics usually hate every single summer blockbuster with the exception of those four or five that get all around acclaim.

That's because a vast majority of the stuff Hollywood pumps out is garbage, especially during the summer when they primarily rely on remakes, sequels, and other unoriginal fodder -- stuff that typically has a good chance to make big money. Regarding the lack of originality in Hollywood, let's face it. There's only so many different story structures they can come up with. It's just a function of time, just like with the music industry. They are running out of ideas.

[rashad]

Favreau builds on the solid foundations of the first movie, and success looks guaranteed. But slowly, imperceptibly, it all starts to fall apart during the remaining hour or so.

A major problem is the number of characters: Downey, Rockwell and Rourke are obviously all enjoying themselves enormously, but the same can’t be said for Don Cheadle (http://www.timeout.com/film/people/284346/don-cheadle.html) as Stark’s redundant buddy-cum-sidekick Rhodes. Nor do the others seem to be having much fun: Gwyneth Paltrow (http://www.timeout.com/film/people/291309/gwyneth-paltrow.html) is underused as Stark's assistant-cum-love interest Pepper Potts, while Scarlett Johanssen’s Natalie is slinky but pointless. The less said about a perfunctory appearance from Samuel L Jackson (http://www.timeout.com/film/people/285256/samuel_l-jackson.html) as some sort of shady inter-agency bigwig the better.

As the film plays out, it starts to look likely that all the rumours of reshoots and recuts weren’t just online rabble-rousing. Characters appear and vanish. Seemingly important plot details surface and are swept away. And this feels increasingly like a film which got lost in the edit. Whereas in the first act we jetted from Siberia to Washington to Monaco, the second half is mostly confined to a series of boardrooms, army bases and laboratories. A flat, studio-bound final showdown takes an age to arrive and is over in minutes.

‘Iron Man 2’ is a lot of fun: it’s shiny, likeable and never boring. But it’s also wildly uneven and unnecessarily convoluted, leaving the viewer unsatisfied and hungry for something more substantial. Let’s hope a promised third instalment can fulfil the series’ undeniable potential.

http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/88529/iron-man-2.html

[Kevin Roegele]

You guys need to get over yourselves.

I think this is a very good movie.

When did you see it-?

[Kevin Roegele]

That's because a vast majority of the stuff Hollywood pumps out is garbage, especially during the summer when they primarily rely on remakes, sequels, and other unoriginal fodder -- stuff that typically has a good chance to make big money. Regarding the lack of originality in Hollywood, let's face it. There's only so many different story structures they can come up with. It's just a function of time, just like with the music industry. They are running out of ideas.

It's not that anyone is running out of ideas. The people who decide which movies get made (the executives) are not the ones that have the ideas (writers, directors).

The reason every major movie these days is based on a comic, TV show, children's fantasy novel or previous movie is because those things have built-in audiences. They have already suceeded once, and are already part of pop culture. So they are less of a risk of $100-$200m than a completely new idea no-one has heard of, and one no-one knows if it will sell.

[Chewy]

PLOT: Tony Stark is officially Iron Man, and everybody knows it. The media frenzy is now in full swing, thanks to Stark himself and his major revelation. And luckily for the United States, it seems that no other country has been able to keep up with the technology. But that doesn’t stop a greedy politician and an envious inventor from wanting the Iron Man suit to be shared with Washington. And if that isn’t bad enough, a crazy Russian feels that part of the fame and glory that Stark is reveling in should be his, since their fathers worked together. That’s a lot of pressure to put on a super hero that loves the excess of celebrity. Will those that surround him be able to keep him healthy and grounded? Well, I’m sure that most of you will want to find that out for yourself.
REVIEW: What happens when you create a superhero and people find out who you are? Well, if you are Tony Stark/Iron Man, you not only accept it, you relish the celebrity of it. Whether you are putting on an extravagant performance at the Stark Expo with a ton of scantily clad Iron-ettes, or just having a drink or ten with some close friends, you are thrilled by the attention. That is exactly where we find Tony Stark in IRON MAN 2. And I don’t think many actors could have a better understanding of that lifestyle than Robert Downey, Jr. as he has been there and done that. Needless to say, his Stark is undeniably believable and absolutely charming. This is a very important fact, especially since his behavior is oftentimes not so heroic. I’m not talking about a SPIDER-MAN 3 kind of way (no emo Spidey at all). But even though Mickey Rourke’s Whiplash is a new breed of badass, this second installment is mostly about family.
Early on, we find a man by the name of Ivan Vanko. He is with his dying father Anton (Yevgeni Lazarev) who we soon learn has worked with Howard Stark (John Slattery). It seems something went terribly wrong with Howard and Anton’s relationship. Ivan clearly has a bone to pick with Tony, since the knowledge and his creation is as much his, if not more, in his mind. This opening sequence looks incredible, as Ivan gathers together blueprints and parts to create his own powerful “weapon." In many ways, this reminded me of the first shots in the original A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. It is dark, dreary and you know he is simply up to no good. Although director Jon Favreau never brings the look and pace of the film into grim territory, he actually keeps it funny and fresh.
As much as Ivan wants the power that Stark has created, there are some people in Washington that are even more desperate to obtain it. So much so, that Iron Man himself is asked to give the “weapon” to help protect the United States. Tony claims that the world doesn’t want to mess with it, so the suit should stay with him. The others, well, they think the wealth should be shared… especially when the “others” happens to be the government. One sequence in the film finds Stark defending himself and his choices against the brilliantly cast Garry Shandling as smarmy Senator Stern. So you’ve got a madman and the government looking for a little piece of the pie, and a certain celebrity that is enveloping your personal life? What do you do? Well, you’ll have to see the film to learn more, and of course, find out what uber-sexy role the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) plays in the scheme of things. I don’t want to spoil it here.
The fact is, I had a blast with IRON MAN 2. It is one hell of an exciting adventure, but it may not be the adventure you expect. You see, both Stark and Vanko have daddy issues. And family is an important part of the first sequel. And I appreciated that. The script by Justin Theroux may feel a bit too simple, but it is certainly rich in wit. When it came to Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow, the banter is the best it’s been. And the two actors bounce off each other, beautifying the dialogue with style and humor. (Has anyone mentioned a “Moonlighting” remake? Cause these two would be perfect.) At certain times, their relationship felt like classic Hollywood, like a good old-fashioned battle of the sexes (see Myrna Loy and William Powell in THE THIN MAN). Yet this charmed relationship never stands in the way of it being a Marvel Comics superhero film, in fact, it only makes it more interesting.
As far as the rest of the cast goes, I have to say that Don Cheadle really shines here. I personally wasn’t thrilled about Terrence Howard in the original. It’s not that he was bad; he just didn’t generate much thought from me at all. Certainly that could be simply that the role is much more fleshed out this time around, but I also happen to think that Cheadle is simply a wonderful actor. As I said, IRON MAN 2 certainly seems to have its focus on family, and I would absolutely include Stark’s cohorts in that group. Even Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) joins in for more of the action and it is a funnier film because of it. Add to that, a little more Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and a smarmy opponent of Stark's named Hammer (Sam Rockwell) and you’ve got a damn fine cast. I was very impressed as to the balance of these characters, without taking too much away from Iron Man himself.
IRON MAN 2 lets itself loose and in many ways it is more fun than the original. As far as the action is concerned, some of the battles happen somewhat unexpectedly, but there is a slight predictability to the story. As smart as the dialogue is, the straightforwardness of the story is sometimes problematic. I would’ve liked a little more mystery in regards to the ‘who, what, why and where’ and how it is revealed because honestly, all the questions don’t need much of an answer as they are all pretty clear. But I’m not sure if they were trying to create mystery so much as to introduce the growing Marvel character library. And I mean that in a good way. After watching the film, I couldn’t help but think about where they would be moving in Marvel’s future. I especially enjoyed the relationship between Stark and Fury.
Now back to Whiplash. Mickey Rourke sort of slithers down into his character's skin and brings them to life and Ivan Vanko is no different. From his tattoo covered body to his overdone Russian accent, he is a villain to be reckoned with. So I do question why he wasn’t used more. His shining moment comes early on during a day at the races. While some of this footage is used in the trailer, in its full form there is a lot to love. But he doesn’t go mano e mano against Iron Man as much as we may desire. Fans of the series may have some issues with this, especially since he could be a truly powerful bad guy. Ironically, one of the best action sequences in the film doesn’t even involve Mr. Lash. I won’t spoil it, but somewhere in the middle two friends have a pretty big quarrel to settle. It is a major plot point and it is made believable enough due to strong acting and a surprisingly rugged battle.
I loved IRON MAN 2 for what it was. But I have a sneaking suspicion some will be left disappointed if they are expecting something else. I will caution those going to see it for the first time, this will not necessarily be the movie you expect to see. The action and effects are great, but this is about the breakdown of the IRON MAN regulars, and exactly how they will keep things together and move on in the future. And yes, Favreau did his part and made a very satisfying sequel for those looking to expand their idea of a superhero flick.
RATING: 8/10

SOURCE (http://www.joblo.com/index2.php)

[kedrell]

You guys need to chill already. What is with all the doom and gloom?

You guys take this crap way too seriously. Stop being so fixated on Dark Knight.

It's weird because 6 years ago Spider-man 2 was the best movie ever and I go into the Spider-man or Avengers forums and all of you ****ING HATE THE SPIDER-MAN MOVIES NOW.

I'm getting sick of all the complaining. The movie is good. Shut the heck up.

A lot of the problem is that CBM's don't usually age well. Superman 1 lasted longer than any other CBM in history before it started getting criticism but that's the exception that proves the rule. Burton's, Singer's and Raimi's movies all began to show their age far sooner. Favreau's & Nolan's likely will as well.

[Evil Twin]

Shut the heck up isn't a very persuasive argument. Might as well just say "It rulez!1!!!!!1!!!"

It's early in the review process, so we'll see how it shakes out. Right now it's looking like "slightly overstuffed, still generally fun" could end up the concensus. Hardly the end of the world.

[Chewy]

Right now it's 9 Fresh/3 Rotten on RT

[Anita18]

If you believe the rumors, Superman Returns cost around twice as much as Batman Begins. That's including various sunk costs over the years to Nic Cage and other failed attempts.
Perhaps, but I was referring to the assertions that critics make or break movie development. :oldrazz:

[FlawlessVictory]

Right now it's 12 Fresh/3 Rotten on RT

Did you mean 12 total: 9 Fresh, 3 Rotten. I don't see 12 Fresh on there.

Edit: Nevermind, I see you edited your post.

[Chewy]

Did you mean 12 total: 9 Fresh, 3 Rotten. I don't see 12 Fresh on there.
Yeah, sorry. Tried to edit right after posting but the Hype is starting to get super laggy again

[redfirebird2008]

It's not that anyone is running out of ideas. The people who decide which movies get made (the executives) are not the ones that have the ideas (writers, directors).

The reason every major movie these days is based on a comic, TV show, children's fantasy novel or previous movie is because those things have built-in audiences. They have already suceeded once, and are already part of pop culture. So they are less of a risk of $100-$200m than a completely new idea no-one has heard of, and one no-one knows if it will sell.

Certainly that is a big factor, but even the likes of Cameron and Nolan are pumping out so-called "original" big budget films (Avatar, Inception) that are accused of using storylines from old movies. Like I said, it's a function of time. The writers' original ideas aren't necessarily that original at this point, and if they are original, they probably aren't compelling enough to dump a big budget into them. As you mentioned, it's a lot easier to just do a remake of something from 20 years ago with a built-in audience.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Wow.....I can't believe people are actually upset that some critics found it dissapointing. Shows that some people can't have an opinion of their own. WHy not wait until the film comes out to make up your opinion. i know i will.

[kedrell]

Certainly that is a big factor, but even the likes of Cameron and Nolan are pumping out so-called "original" big budget films (Avatar, Inception) that are accused of using storylines from old movies. Like I said, it's a function of time. The writers' original ideas aren't necessarily that original at this point, and if they are original, they probably aren't compelling enough to dump a big budget into them. As you mentioned, it's a lot easier to just do a remake of something from 20 years ago with a built-in audience.

Or take your original idea initially to novel or comic format and try to build it from the ground up that way before going Hollywood. Which is the least risky way of doing it.

[DarthDaveBanner]

These reviews are painfully inconsistent.

[redfirebird2008]

Or take your original idea initially to novel or comic format and try to build it from the ground up that way before going Hollywood. Which is the least risky way of doing it.

I fully agree.

[kedrell]

That's why we need even more reviews before a true consensus starts to form. Usually about 20-30 reviews from real critics(who actually are good enough to get paid for it) is what it takes before the final picture comes into focus. Sometimes(but rarely), we need even more than that to see the consensus.

[Thunderball]

Does whiplash get upgraded armor in this? From anyone who has seen this...what does it look like if he does?

[Kevin Roegele]

Certainly that is a big factor, but even the likes of Cameron and Nolan are pumping out so-called "original" big budget films (Avatar, Inception) that are accused of using storylines from old movies. Like I said, it's a function of time. The writers' original ideas aren't necessarily that original at this point, and if they are original, they probably aren't compelling enough to dump a big budget into them.

Why would it be that people start running out of ideas for stories? It's not happening in any other story-telling medium. The unoriginal movies being made in Tinseltown are all to do with the recession and global finances.

Cameron and Nolan are certainly being accused of talking elements from other movies (I thought Dark City + The Matrix as soon as I watched the Inception trailer), but that's nothing new. Cameron had to pay up a legal case in the 80's when he was accused of tsealing the idea for The Terminator. Aliens is based on the novel Starship Troopers. True Lies is a variation on James Bond. And so on.

[roach]

Does whiplash get upgraded armor in this? From anyone who has seen this...what does it look like if he does?

dont spoil it...it will be better to find out in the movie than here

[kedrell]

I fully agree.

But then you get the folks complaining that it's just adapting a pre-existing property and thus is unoriginal. It's a Catch-22.

[redfirebird2008]

But then you get the folks complaining that it's just adapting a pre-existing property and thus is unoriginal. It's a Catch-22.

True. But what a crock that criticism is. Some of the best movies ever are adaptations (hello, Godfather!).

[kedrell]

I agree, it's a BS criticism. But that won't stop idiots from complaining.

[redfirebird2008]

I agree, it's a BS criticism. But that won't stop idiots from complaining.

Yeah, it's a lot easier to be negative/cynical. :csad:

[Anita18]

True. But what a crock that criticism is. Some of the best movies ever are adaptations (hello, Godfather!).
Right. It doesn't matter whether something is "original" or not. What matters is if it's good.

[Tony Stark]

I think the problem going in was that IM1 was so original, and really no other comic book movie did what it did, the way it did it (I hope that makes sense).

The consensus seems to be "great movie not as original/good as the first, but better action." Well it would be hard to top the first movie.

Never before in a comic movie has one actor carried the whole weight of the film. I love Heath Ledger's Joker, and he deserved the posthumorous Oscar for sure, however he did not carry the film by himself. Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Cristian Bale all helped carry the film. I'll agree that if the Joker didn't work, the film doesn't work, so there was more put on Ledger, still he didn't carry the film by himself.

Iron Man is all about Tony Stark, and hence all about Robert Downey Jr. It finally did what no other origin film had done. It made the movie about the main character. Heck even in Spider-man, they say "it's all about a girl".

Naturally this film was bound to fall on the "been there done that" catagory, because it's falling more inline with traditional comic book movies. Still with that the reaction is positive, and that's the main thing.

[SpiderByte]

70% from critics on Rotten Tomatoes, 78% from fan critics.

SHH! Review says its great....**************.com review says its great...

With that out of the way....

BACK TO THE PARTY!

[Crook]

I think the problem going in was that IM1 was so original, and really no other comic book movie did what it did, the way it did it (I hope that makes sense).

The consensus seems to be "great movie not as original/good as the first, but better action." Well it would be hard to top the first movie.

Never before in a comic movie has one actor carried the whole weight of the film. I love Heath Ledger's Joker, and he deserved the posthumorous Oscar for sure, however he did not carry the film by himself. Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Cristian Bale all helped carry the film. I'll agree that if the Joker didn't work, the film doesn't work, so there was more put on Ledger, still he didn't carry the film by himself.

Iron Man is all about Tony Stark, and hence all about Robert Downey Jr. It finally did what no other origin film had done. It made the movie about the main character. Heck even in Spider-man, they say "it's all about a girl".

Naturally this film was bound to fall on the "been there done that" catagory, because it's falling more inline with traditional comic book movies. Still with that the reaction is positive, and that's the main thing.

Bale didn't carry BB? Snipes didn't carry Blade? Nicholson didn't carry B89? :huh:

[redfirebird2008]

Iron Man is all about Tony Stark, and hence all about Robert Downey Jr. It finally did what no other origin film had done. It made the movie about the main character. Heck even in Spider-man, they say "it's all about a girl".


Batman Begins was just as much about Bruce as Iron Man was about Tony, at least for me.

[FlawlessVictory]

Edit

[bosef982]

People need to calm down.

Are these reviewers on point. YEs. And in my opinion, Rotten Tomatoes is being EXTREMELY GENEROUS in what it's judging a rotten/positive review.

They need a new category called "over-ripe." Good, but not horrendous.

The film is not going to blow your expectations. It essentially returns Stark to a more arrogant place then where he was previous to the last film's start, and then sort of plods along through various subplots until it arrives at the end.

And for those of you looking for a deep exploration of Rhodey's character and his reasons for turning into War Machine -- don't.

I can tell you the negative reviews are pretty much on point. The Comingsoon.net review is so wildly kissing ass to Marvel in an attempt to gain some favor with future franchises it's not even funny.

[Crook]

Edit
His entire point seemed to be that IM was doing things "never seen before" in a comic book film. Which is a shock to me, because I don't find that to remotely be true. And is the first time I've heard that statement uttered.

[hatebox]

Iron Man is all about Tony Stark, and hence all about Robert Downey Jr. It finally did what no other origin film had done. It made the movie about the main character.

I think what you may have meant is that Downy Jr carried the film despite few people knowing about Iron Man. Batman was clearly more ingrained in pop culture, and one could argue that helped Bale out to some degree. But Batman Begins was still all on his shoulders, IMO.

[redfirebird2008]

I can tell you the negative reviews are pretty much on point. The Comingsoon.net review is so wildly kissing ass to Marvel in an attempt to gain some favor with future franchises it's not even funny.

To be fair, they did criticize a number of things about it. There are more glowing reviews out there for sure IMHO (especially the one at IMDB that looks like a studio plant). Based on your comments, it sounds like you have seen it. Is that a correct assumption?

[FlawlessVictory]

His entire point seemed to be that IM was doing things "never seen before" in a comic book film. Which is a shock to me, because I don't find that to remotely be true. And is the first time I've heard that statement uttered.

Yea, I missed your point at first.

[ultimatefan]

I´ll just say, always keep an open mind, don´t let yourself carry away for raving reviews and don´t dislike the movie without seeing it due to bad ones. TIH didn´t get rave reviews, but as a Hulk fan I totally got a kick out of it. Shrek 2 got great reviews and I don´t think it´s all that. In the end, the critic that should matter to you is you.

[bosef982]

To be fair, they did criticize a number of things about it. There are more glowing reviews out there for sure IMHO (especially the one at IMDB that looks like a studio plant). Based on your comments, it sounds like you have seen it. Is that a correct assumption?

Yes, can't talk about it though. But I have. And it's good, it's a fun ride and it is certainly far from boring. But, it is essentially focused on having fun rather then developing characters. And while there are some wonderful moments (wait for the film projector scene), some good stuff is wasted.

I think everyone will be surprised at how great Rourke is as Whiplash.

[Figs]

Never before in a comic movie has one actor carried the whole weight of the film. I love Heath Ledger's Joker, and he deserved the posthumorous Oscar for sure, however he did not carry the film by himself. Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Cristian Bale all helped carry the film. I'll agree that if the Joker didn't work, the film doesn't work, so there was more put on Ledger, still he didn't carry the film by himself.

I think Eckhart was my favorite(and a lot of other fans, from seeing comments and discussions)actor right after Heath Ledger. Since Ledger gave such a great performance it kind of overshadowed Eckhart in my opinion. I think people were so hooked on the Joker that Dent wasn't as interesting. Well, until his last few scenes. :awesome:

Iron Man is all about Tony Stark, and hence all about Robert Downey Jr. It finally did what no other origin film had done. It made the movie about the main character. Heck even in Spider-man, they say "it's all about a girl".

I agree with you on this. It was nice that itfocused on the main character throughout the majority of the film if not all of it.

Naturally this film was bound to fall on the "been there done that" catagory, because it's falling more inline with traditional comic book movies. Still with that the reaction is positive, and that's the main thing.

Yeah but it also sounds like the movie was lacking something some of the critics can't put their fingers on. The one thing we know is getting praise is Favreau made better and more action scenes. From the sounds of it, it's nice to know that Favreau proved to the fans that thought he couldn't do action after seeing IM, wrong.

All I know is that TheVileOne liked it a lot and he can be pretty damn picky with films(believe me, he and I have butted heads a few times :woot:) so that puts me at ease a bit. Doesn't mean that i'll like or love the film but it's a good sign as far as i'm concerned.

[redfirebird2008]

I´ll just say, always keep an open mind, don´t let yourself carry away for raving reviews and don´t dislike the movie without seeing it due to bad ones. TIH didn´t get rave reviews, but as a Hulk fan I totally got a kick out of it. Shrek 2 got great reviews and I don´t think it´s all that. In the end, the critic that should matter to you is you.

Totally agree. I will say that negative reviews can help lower expectations, which can actually put you in a better frame of mind going into the movie. If you expect the best thing ever, 9.9 times out of 10 you will probably be disappointed. If you start off expecting great, then see a bunch of negative reviews, you can't help but lower your expectations...and then you end up surprised at how good it is. This actually happened for me with Quantum of Solace. :yay:

[Keyser Soze]

I think people might be going a bit too far with the doom-and-gloom, and the bashing of the critics. I think people might have been setting themselves up for gushing, hyperbolic, "Best film of the year, transcends the genre" praise. So hearing that it's just a flawed but entertaining summer blockbuster might come across as a disappointment to some.

See, I'm actually getting a Spider-Man 2 vibe from these reviews. Where in a lot of ways the formula is refined - characters explored more, better villains, etc. But with much of the first film's success being related to its novelty, familiarity breed contempt, with flaws that were very much present in the original more glaring this time round. In the case of the Iron Man franchise, it seems to be uneven pacing, style over substance and a lackluster CGI-riddled finale.

The first film wasn't a classic, though I think a lot of us have retroactively built it up to be that way. It was, however, great fun, with it's biggest strength being a talented cast - particularly the excellent work by Robert Downey Jr - providing a movie that felt like more than the sum of its parts. And that seems to be what the reviews are saying about the sequel. The plot has its low points, but the performances are stellar, and Robert Downey Jr still shines as Tony Stark. That tells me I'll probably like Iron Man 2, despite the flaws, as I liked Iron Man despite its flaws.

I'm also pleased to see that Sam Rockwell is getting near-universal praise for apparently stealing the show as Justin Hammer. Remember me saying that's what I was secretly hoping for way back at the start of this thread?

[bosef982]

Yeah but it also sounds like the movie was lacking something some of the critics can't put their fingers on. The one thing we know is getting praise is Favreau made better and more action scenes. From the sounds of it, it's nice to know that Favreau proved to the fans that thought he couldn't do action after seeing IM, wrong.

All I know is that TheVileOne liked it a lot and he can be pretty damn picky with films(believe me, he and I have butted heads a few times :woot:) so that puts me at ease a bit. Doesn't mean that i'll like or love the film but it's a good sign as far as i'm concerned.

The thing it lacked were stakes, a sort of seriousness to it all. It's all about the fun and never about the drama, which makes sense for this type of film I guess. But -- not comparing it to TDK -- but let's say The Incredible Hulk, there was fun but also drama and there were real stakes to this thing. Banner could be killed, could KILL SOMEONE, or many other things -- here

Well, there's a lacking of some seriousness. The film doesn't seem aimed for adults that much, except for some inside jokes. It is always harnessed by this need to keep to the simplicity of children.

[Figs]

People need to calm down.

Are these reviewers on point. YEs. And in my opinion, Rotten Tomatoes is being EXTREMELY GENEROUS in what it's judging a rotten/positive review.

They need a new category called "over-ripe." Good, but not horrendous.

The film is not going to blow your expectations. It essentially returns Stark to a more arrogant place then where he was previous to the last film's start, and then sort of plods along through various subplots until it arrives at the end.

And for those of you looking for a deep exploration of Rhodey's character and his reasons for turning into War Machine -- don't.

I can tell you the negative reviews are pretty much on point. The Comingsoon.net review is so wildly kissing ass to Marvel in an attempt to gain some favor with future franchises it's not even funny.

I need to know one thing. It won't ruin the film for me and if you don't mind answering me, send a PM if you want. Does Whiplash duke it out with Iron Man near the end in a new suit? I would rather know now so i'm not incredibly disappointed when i'm seeing it in the theatre.

[J.Howlett]

bosef...it's been a long, long time since I've seen a post from you. Granted, haven't been on that much at all but it's still cool that you're posting.

[Figs]

The thing it lacked were stakes, a sort of seriousness to it all. It's all about the fun and never about the drama, which makes sense for this type of film I guess. But -- not comparing it to TDK -- but let's say The Incredible Hulk, there was fun but also drama and there were real stakes to this thing. Banner could be killed, could KILL SOMEONE, or many other things -- here

Well, there's a lacking of some seriousness. The film doesn't seem aimed for adults that much, except for some inside jokes. It is always harnessed by this need to keep to the simplicity of children.

Although they want to make a profit and it is a comic film, I kind of wish they didn't aim that much for the kiddies. I'll wait to judge it of course after i'm watched it but that's kind of a bummer from the sounds of it.

[J.Howlett]

bosef,

"Well, there's a lacking of some seriousness. The film doesn't seem aimed for adults that much, except for some inside jokes. It is always harnessed by this need to keep to the simplicity of children."

And that's exactly what I didn't want from an Iron Man sequel. Stark's story demands more seriousness...

[bosef982]

bosef...it's been a long, long time since I've seen a post from you. Granted, haven't been on that much at all but it's still cool that you're posting.

Yeah, man. I poke in periodically. What've you been up to?

[redfirebird2008]

Well, there's a lacking of some seriousness. The film doesn't seem aimed for adults that much, except for some inside jokes. It is always harnessed by this need to keep to the simplicity of children.

Do you feel like they just now introduced it with the sequel or did you feel this way about the first movie? I felt the first one was pretty grown-up. Loved some of the wisecracks ("doing a piece for Vanity Fair" :hehe:).

[Tony Stark]

Batman Begins was just as much about Bruce as Iron Man was about Tony, at least for me.

It certainly was more about him than the Burton films. But I never felt that Bale embraced the Bruce Wayne/Batman role. When I see him, I see Christian Bale playing Bruce Wayne. In that respect I think Keaton did a better job, especially considering how little he had to work with.

[J.Howlett]

bosef,

Nothing much, just living, trying to make it. You?

Glad you got a chance to see Iron Man 2.

Is the shoehorning of the Avengers hampering Tony story?

[bosef982]

Do you feel like they just now introduced it with the sequel or did you feel this way about the first movie? I felt the first one was pretty grown-up. Loved some of the wisecracks ("doing a piece for Vanity Fair" :hehe:).

Nah, not really. Like I said, I can't say much out of respect to a lot of people and some signatures, but really -- it's a good show. Check it out, it'll def be fun.

[redfirebird2008]

When I see him, I see Christian Bale playing Bruce Wayne.

To each his own, but you can say this about RDJ as Stark. Ever seen Zodiac?

[bosef982]

bosef,

Nothing much, just living, trying to make it. You?

Glad you got a chance to see Iron Man 2.

Is the shoehorning of the Avengers hampering Tony story?

Nah, not at all man.

[Twin723]

The king stay king

[TheVileOne]

I saw the movie last week. My embargo's lifted. I already turned in my review.

Also this movie > Avatar.

[Doctor Jones]

I don't know why everyone on here seems to feel they have to compare every movie to Avatar now? It's like, wait, what? What the hell does this have to do with Avatar?

And regarding the reviews, I'm not surprised. So far, it what I've predicted.

[FlawlessVictory]

RT meter:

75% 9 Fresh, 3 Rotten
Avg. Rating: 6.1/10

[kaijunexus]

So...in what kind of world does Iron Man 2 have a 75% percent fresh rating while McGruber is universally praised...

[ultimatefan]

In all fairness,MacGruber has less reviews so far.

[TheVileOne]

I don't know why everyone on here seems to feel they have to compare every movie to Avatar now? It's like, wait, what? What the hell does this have to do with Avatar?

And regarding the reviews, I'm not surprised. So far, it what I've predicted.
Because Avatar is the biggest movie of all time :) .

So...in what kind of world does Iron Man 2 have a 75% percent fresh rating while McGruber is universally praised...

RT meter doesn't count my reviews. Guys listen, you need to relax. It's only 10 more days.

[terry78]

I don't know why everyone on here seems to feel they have to compare every movie to Avatar now? It's like, wait, what? What the hell does this have to do with Avatar?

And regarding the reviews, I'm not surprised. So far, it what I've predicted.

Would you rather they compared it to The Ark-Day Ight-Knay? :awesome:

[FlawlessVictory]

RT meter doesn't count my reviews. Guys listen, you need to relax. It's only 10 more days.

Good thing, didn't you give Spider-Man 3 a glowing review? :oldrazz:

[TheVileOne]

Yeh it wasn't glowing FlawlessVictory. It was honest though.

Just saying though you guys are draining yourselves over this over just a few reviews.

So if you don't want to trust me it's fine because it's just my opinion. I think people though are too fixated though on OH THIS NEEDS TO BE LIKE THE DARK KNIGHT! They weren't trying to do The Dark Knight here. It's a pretty good frigging movie.

[redfirebird2008]

Good thing, didn't you give Spider-Man 3 a glowing review? :oldrazz:

Ouch, talk about being called to the carpet. Vile One, time to vigorously defend your critic credibility. If we believe your side of the story, you get a cookie. :oldrazz:

[FaT_tONle]

I still can't find the medium ground here. People are saying it's too kiddy friendly, yet the middle is convoluted with little to no action, yet it never bores (maybe that's the witty dialogue), to the Avengers stuff does and doesn't take away from the story, guess I just have to see it myself. If there are some plot issues, I'll get over that. If there are characters that are underdeveloped despite the talent is strong performances, that's an alarm. Can't quite put the finger on it.

[roach]

ARRRRRRRRRR some guy who watched the film didnt like it....I am in a world of turmoil

[TheVileOne]

Ouch, talk about being called to the carpet. Vile One, time to vigorously defend your critic credibility. If we believe your side of the story, you get a cookie. :oldrazz:
I said Spider-man 3 was a flawed movie. Did I still like the movie? Yes.

Flawless Victory is full of it.

[Keyser Soze]

In Vile's defense, the hatred for Spider-Man 3 has been vastly overblown.

It was a couple of steps below the first two films, but the problems that plagued it were already in place for the previous films, just heightened for part three. It seems that original critical response was that the film was average, good but not great, but once it became trendy to crap on it and call it the next Batman and Robin, then everyone fell in with the company line and went along with it.

[FlawlessVictory]

Ouch, talk about being called to the carpet. Vile One, time to vigorously defend your critic credibility. If we believe your side of the story, you get a cookie. :oldrazz:

I said Spider-man 3 was a flawed movie. Did I still like the movie? Yes.

Flawless Victory is full of it.

Oh come on, I was just having a little fun. No offense meant, hence the smiley with my previous post. :word:

[bosef982]

I just think this needs to be put out there:

The Dark Knight wasn't a great movie or mind-blowing comic book film because it was dark, scary, or morose, or somber.

It was a mind-blowing comic book film because IT WAS GOOD.

It had great characters, wonderful conflict and situations that really made us wonder how they'd solve it, a fantastically powerful villain, and a top-notch filmmaking crew delivering it.

[roach]

In Vile's defense, the hatred for Spider-Man 3 has been vastly overblown.

It was a couple of steps below the first two films, but the problems that plagued it were already in place for the previous films, just heightened for part three. It seems that original critical response was that the film was average, good but not great, but once it became trendy to crap on it and call it the next Batman and Robin, then everyone fell in with the company line and went along with it.

Best Post of the day

[topdog1]

Another review has hit IMDB. Let the Oscar talk begin...

Everyone will rave about the action but Iron Man 2 delivers a beguiling character study behind and above the special effects. You do not leave your I.Q. at the door with this summer movie as you too often need to do. The award winning cast doesn't back down and delivers up to their talent. They're rising to the material, and even elevating it to levels rarely seen in a comic adaptation film. Robert Downey Jr delivers another remarkable performance. Giving one of our generation's greatest actors such a cool character to bring to life happens once in a lifetime. Watching him draw on ALL emotions is as good as it gets. Not to give any spoilers but there's a dark side to Tony Stark because of his impending death and that aspect of the film makes Downey shine. Add the flair and superhero text and we may be talking Oscar. Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell, Gwyneth Paltrow and Don Cheadle also bring their top stuff.

Aided by those great performances, the writing delivers genuine wit and is strong across the board. I think a lot of summer films are lost in pre-production when they decide to shoot a dumb script or make it up as they go along. Clearly, Iron Man 2 must have had a strong script and great writers. They avoid a lot of the mistakes other films like this make. The story is as good as any comic book adaptation I've ever seen. The plot actually tugs at the heart strings, makes you think and still hits the funny bone more then once. The story and epic battles make perfect sense. What I liked about the first Iron Man is that it was somewhat grounded in reality. No teenage boys or small girls as superheroes or men dressing up as rodents, not that there's inherently anything wrong with those turns. I simply like fantasy grounded in reality. The effects really did surpass what they did before and I actually thought the last time out they deserved FX Oscar consideration. These are some of the best scenes out of any action film ever. Best of all, I couldn't tell what was Computer Generated Images and what was practical.

Yes, that's twice I mentioned Oscar so I might as well do it a third time. A nomination for best picture wouldn't surprise me at all at this point. I really loved this movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228705/usercomments

Honestly, this doesn't surprise me. Making RDJr go slightly darker would only add to a great character.

[hatebox]

I just think this needs to be put out there:

The Dark Knight wasn't a great movie or mind-blowing comic book film because it was dark, scary, or morose, or somber.

It was a mind-blowing comic book film because IT WAS GOOD.

It had great characters, wonderful conflict and situations that really made us wonder how they'd solve it, a fantastically powerful villain, and a top-notch filmmaking crew delivering it.


Good point, and something I think a few who say Iron Man 2 shouldn't be anything like TDK might be missing. It wasn't perfect, but it got a lot of the extremely important findamentals of story-telling right. Whether the critics saying Iron Man 2 falters on that level are correct... I'll find out in 2 days.

[terry78]

Ha. Was that a Kick-Ass jab?

[Crook]

Another review has hit IMDB. Let the Oscar talk begin...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228705/usercomments

I can't help but be reminded when Kevin Feige noted during last year's Comic-Con that RDJ should have gotten an Oscar for the first IM. :funny:

RDJ is a top-notch actor, but I HIGHLY doubt he was provided with Oscar-material, or something that can be turned into one.

[topdog1]

I saw the movie last week. My embargo's lifted. I already turned in my review.

Also this movie > Avatar.

Good to know but I didn't have Avatar rated that high anyway. I saw it in 2D we all know what a mistake that was.

How does this thread keep getting turned back to the SM3 topic? Some of us liked that (as Vile said) flawed film and some didn't. Who cares?

[FaT_tONle]

Yay... forum is back.

[FaT_tONle]

Yay... forum is back.

[jmc]

I wonder if mediocre reviews will sink the franchise...This isn't good...Iron Man is supposed to be Marvel's ace in the hole. If it can't perform, Avengers is ****ed.

It'll make money, maybe not as much as film one though if the audience is line with the critics. But that's the risk Marvel are taking, this could end up being a bit of reality check.

[roach]

well I will do what I have always done when it comes to comicbook movies...I will see it and then come home and let the internet decide if i liked it

[roach]

well I will do what I have always done when it comes to comicbook movies...I will see it and then come home and let the internet decide if i liked it

[Kent]

People love sniping at movies they didn't like in topics that aren't about said movies.

"I sure hope this isn't another terrible catastrophy like Movie X"

"This movie looks good. Not like Movie X, which was terrible."

"I just saw a squirrel. Which leads me to say that Movie X was garbage."

[Tony Stark]

Good point, and something I think a few who say Iron Man 2 shouldn't be anything like TDK might be missing. It wasn't perfect, but it got a lot of the extremely important findamentals of story-telling right. Whether the critics saying Iron Man 2 falters on that level are correct... I'll find out in 2 days.

That's not what people are saying. Everyone I've heard that puts TDK as the gold standard says something along the lines of, "Spider-man needs to be darker," or "Fantastic Four needs to go darker"

It's as if how dark a movie is makes it better. Hell even after Superman Returns turned out to be a huge dissapointment, everyone said Superman needs to go dark.

Iron Man has always been about Tony Starks internal struggles. Batman is about a guy getting revenge for his parents death. The reason the Joker is a threat to Batman is because he represents everything that took his parents from him.

This IM2 film, is about what Obidiah Stane said in the last movie, in trying to rid the world of weapons, he created the ultimate one.

IM has never had the kind of rouge gallery that Batman had, or even Spider-man. But what drove the IM comics was Tony Stark battling his inner demons.

That's why IM2 should not be TDK. Also there are different means of story telling, and they shouldn't be the same.

[TheVileOne]

topdog1. FlawlessVictory questioned my credibility saying I gave Spider-man 3 a glowing review which I don't feel I did. I did give Iron Man a glowing review though. And I saw this movie and said it was very good.

[TheVileOne]

topdog1. FlawlessVictory questioned my credibility saying I gave Spider-man 3 a glowing review which I don't feel I did. I did give Iron Man a glowing review though. And I saw this movie and said it was very good.

[SpiderByte]

My god, the excitement for this film is climbing by the HOUR!!

[Tony Stark]

Good point, and something I think a few who say Iron Man 2 shouldn't be anything like TDK might be missing. It wasn't perfect, but it got a lot of the extremely important findamentals of story-telling right. Whether the critics saying Iron Man 2 falters on that level are correct... I'll find out in 2 days.

There is no right way of doing story telling, and even between Begins and TDK the story telling is different. Begins is very different in flow with flashbacks, and jumping around, where TDK is very linear. Sheez look at Nolans other films like Momento which turns story telling on it's head.

No IM2 shouldn't be anything like TDK. It needs to be it's own film and to follow up on the story from the first film, while being successful in its own right.

Also IM2 is more about the bling and the geekgasms than either Nolan Batman film. In fact other than the tumbler scenes (funny how no one refers to it as the Batmobile), there is hardly any geek gasm moments. The stuff you see in those films you could see on a weekly episode of 24.

From that perspective, IM2 is more similar to the Transformers franchise, only IM is smarter and more saavy. They throw out all the over the top junior high crudeness of Transformers (balls on a autobot, or a transformer peeing on someone), and just put in "that was freaking awesome!" moments. How many people are going to see this movie based on the suitcase armor reveal alone?

Also most of the arguments of TDK being the gold standard are childish at best, at least the ones I've heard. Like how every freaking comic book movie needs to be dark to be good. It's like the more dark and brooding the hero the better the movie will be. I mean to hell that Superman is the antithesis of Batman (even Frank Miller got that), we want superman to run around in a costume that is a grainy, dirty almost navy blue suit and to hell with red, it should be like a dark maroon cape, oh yeah and get rid of that stupid emblem off the back of the cape. Hey and lets have Superman sulk the entire movie, yeah that will be great!

In fact the worst parts about Spider-man 3 were when it tried to go ultra dark and then miserably failed in doing so, when the tone of the second film was sorely missing.

Once again IM was not anything like TDK and it was freaking awesome. So IM2 should be nothing like TDK.

[FlawlessVictory]

RT update

80% 12 Fresh, 3 Rotten
Avg. Rating: 6.4/10

[Kent]

80% on RT right now. Looking like the first few negative reviews might have been a fluke.

[Conebone69]

Judging by what the critics have said so far im going to make the assumption that the movie will be a good second installment, but not better then the first film.

Im also guessing that IM2 will at least score a 80-85% on the tomatoemeter

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Nah, not really. Like I said, I can't say much out of respect to a lot of people and some signatures, but really -- it's a good show. Check it out, it'll def be fun.

Hey Bosef, havent seen you since the SR days! I tend to agree with you on CB movies so if you enjoyed it gives me a bit more confidence.

In Vile's defense, the hatred for Spider-Man 3 has been vastly overblown.

It was a couple of steps below the first two films, but the problems that plagued it were already in place for the previous films, just heightened for part three. It seems that original critical response was that the film was average, good but not great, but once it became trendy to crap on it and call it the next Batman and Robin, then everyone fell in with the company line and went along with it.

Completely and utterly agreed, the flaws of that movie have just been blown completely out of proporsion, while people have also forgotten the many great scene's in the movie.

[Kent]

80% on RT right now. Looking like the first few negative reviews might have been a fluke.

[Naite22]

I just think this needs to be put out there:

The Dark Knight wasn't a great movie or mind-blowing comic book film because it was dark, scary, or morose, or somber.

It was a mind-blowing comic book film because IT WAS GOOD.

It had great characters, wonderful conflict and situations that really made us wonder how they'd solve it, a fantastically powerful villain, and a top-notch filmmaking crew delivering it.

You damn right nailed it dude. Beautifully put ;-)

[Conebone69]

Judging by what the critics have said so far im going to make the assumption that the movie will be a good second installment, but not better then the first film.

Im also guessing that IM2 will at least score a 80-85% on the tomatoemeter

[Conebone69]

Judging from what the critics have said so far im going to assume that Iron Man 2 will be a good but not excellent second installment. But it wont beat its predecessor

And I think the movie will score at least 80-85% on the tomatoemeter

[SpiderByte]

This film will be teh awesome.

[darkslayer101]

i am really worried about the mixed reviews...
hopefully it is just as same or better than the first one...
REALIRONMANs review make me feel better...

[darkslayer101]

i am really worried about the mixed reviews...
hopefully it is just as same or better than the first one...
REALIRONMANs review make me feel better...

[Avengers-Report]

The reviews are confusing. The movie has a 82% on RT, but none of the reviews seem that positive.

[redfirebird2008]

80% on RT right now. Looking like the first few negative reviews might have been a fluke.


I don't know if fluke is the right word. I would say that the guy who gave it a 1/5 rating was definitely a fluke review. But even the positive reviews aren't overwhelmingly positive. Almost every one of them says it's not as good as the first movie and most of them are in that 3/5 area...which is mixed-positive. If you look at the reviews at MetaCritic, there is a significant drop-off from Variety and Hollywood Reporter between IM1 and IM2:

Variety
IM1 = 100
IM2 = 60

Hollywood Reporter
IM1 = 90
IM2 = 30

The other MetaCritic review at the moment is from Empire. They gave both films a 60 rating, which is mixed-positive. We'll have to see what happens but it is looking like this will end up around 75% at Rotten Tomatoes with an average rating around 6.5. The first movie was 93% with a 7.6 average rating. It's probably headed for a rating in the 60's at MetaCritic whereas the first movie had a 79 at MC. These numbers for IM2 would not be horrible by any means, but it's definitely not the second coming.

[ElMariachi]

they are only judging it so harshly because this is the biggest movie of the year and they have put it on such a high pedestal. The first Iron Man caught everybody off guard and was a geniune suprise. To be quite honest, I wasn't a huge fan of Iron Man the first time I saw it. The lack of action was disapointing, but I grew to appreciate the dialouge and acting that made up the bulk of the movie. It wasn't like the movie was Seven Samurai or The Godfather (masterpieces) to begin with. This flick has been built up way too much I think.

I think Iron Man 2 will be good. It's almost as if these reviewers want more and more action---like this is a Transformers movie. Not to mention every review has been so different and have conflicting stories. Some said that the last fight was short and weak. Others have said it's long and amazing. The only real middle ground is that there are too many sub-plots going on. Being fans of Iron Man, I have little doubt this will be a concern to us.

[Anita18]

The reviews are confusing. The movie has a 82% on RT, but none of the reviews seem that positive.
RT works basically as a yay or nay. There's no middle. So if a few people liked a movie a lot while others thought it was bad, then the RT rating is lower than for a movie that everyone thought was just okay.

Judging from what we've heard, the 82% with middling-to-positive reviews is pretty accurate.

[redfirebird2008]

RT works basically as a yay or nay. There's no middle. So if a few people liked a movie a lot while others thought it was bad, then the RT rating is lower than for a movie that everyone thought was just okay.

Judging from what we've heard, the 82% with middling-to-positive reviews is pretty accurate.


The 82% is interesting at the moment. There was a review posted earlier with a 2/5 rating that was originally labeled negative. They changed it to a positive later on. The overall rating went from 76% to 82%. If I remember right, the reviewers get to choose whether a review is labeled negative or positive. Apparently a 2/5 is a positive rating on that particular reviewer's scale. His complaint about not enough action being in the movie is pretty lame.

http://www.hollywood.com/review/Iron_Man_2/6844701

[Figs]

i am really worried about the mixed reviews...
hopefully it is just as same or better than the first one...
REALIRONMANs review make me feel better...

Personally i'm not worrying about the negative reviews. There haven't been that many yet in relation to all the positives and I only read IGN's for right now. That will be the only one I read before the movie.

I already got my tickets for the midnight showing on Imax and i'm going in with an open mind.

[TheVileOne]

http://www.411mania.com/movies/film_reviews/137254

My REAL review of Iron Man 2 is live. Don't expect RT or MetaCritic to take note of it.

Just FYI, I've been a credentialed member of the media for over 6 years and written hundreds of published reviews and articles online including for IGN.com and Toon Zone.net. Yet they won't approve my reviews. So whatever. Just saying, here's one good review that's NOT getting counted.

[JP]

Great review Vile. If you were pleased, then I know I will be too, haha. No offense. ;)

[redfirebird2008]

http://www.411mania.com/movies/film_reviews/137254

My REAL review of Iron Man 2 is live. Don't expect RT or MetaCritic to take note of it.

Just FYI, I've been a credentialed member of the media for over 6 years and written hundreds of published reviews and articles online including for IGN.com and Toon Zone.net. Yet they won't approve my reviews. So whatever. Just saying, here's one good review that's NOT getting counted.

Good review, very fair assessment. :cwink: BTW, remember that thing earlier where that guy was questioning you? You get the cookie. :woot:

[TheVileOne]

I feel I was being fair but pointing out that I still liked it a lot and think its a good movie.

Because there are parts of things in the movie I feel are done better. The action looks a lot better and are much better staged. I just think there could've been a bit more of it peppered throughout.

Also, they really did a great job of establishing the Howard Stark/Tony Stark relationship. You really get it in the movie. You only get a tiny bit of it in Iron Man but it comes through really well here. Also I'm glad they didn't get a big star to play Howard Stark. Slattery looks like a cross between Walt Disney and Howard Hughes.

[Figs]

http://www.411mania.com/movies/film_reviews/137254

My REAL review of Iron Man 2 is live. Don't expect RT or MetaCritic to take note of it.

Just FYI, I've been a credentialed member of the media for over 6 years and written hundreds of published reviews and articles online including for IGN.com and Toon Zone.net. Yet they won't approve my reviews. So whatever. Just saying, here's one good review that's NOT getting counted.

Nice review!

[redfirebird2008]

I feel I was being fair but pointing out that I still liked it a lot and think its a good movie.

Because there are parts of things in the movie I feel are done better. The action looks a lot better and are much better staged. I just think there could've been a bit more of it peppered throughout.

Also, they really did a great job of establishing the Howard Stark/Tony Stark relationship. You really get it in the movie. You only get a tiny bit of it in Iron Man but it comes through really well here. Also I'm glad they didn't get a big star to play Howard Stark. Slattery looks like a cross between Walt Disney and Howard Hughes.

Interesting tidbit on his dad. Thanks for sharing it. Looking forward to seeing that. :yay:

[Spidey_62]

Enjoyed reading your review as well, TheVileOne.

Tomato Meter is up at 84% now. Another fresh review added.

[TheVileOne]

Generally I think the consensus is going to be that it's a good fun movie but a sequel that's not as good as the original. Which IMHO I think is fine.

I didn't leave the movie super disappointed. It's not perfect. But I mean first Iron Man was not perfect either just remember.

[jmc]

Judging by what the critics have said so far im going to make the assumption that the movie will be a good second installment, but not better then the first film.

Im also guessing that IM2 will at least score a 80-85% on the tomatoemeter

A fair prediction I'd say.

[TheFuture]

http://www.411mania.com/movies/film_reviews/137254

My REAL review of Iron Man 2 is live. Don't expect RT or MetaCritic to take note of it.

Just FYI, I've been a credentialed member of the media for over 6 years and written hundreds of published reviews and articles online including for IGN.com and Toon Zone.net. Yet they won't approve my reviews. So whatever. Just saying, here's one good review that's NOT getting counted.

Is your review spoiler free?

[Sharkboy]

http://www.411mania.com/movies/film_reviews/137254

My REAL review of Iron Man 2 is live. Don't expect RT or MetaCritic to take note of it.

Just FYI, I've been a credentialed member of the media for over 6 years and written hundreds of published reviews and articles online including for IGN.com and Toon Zone.net. Yet they won't approve my reviews. So whatever. Just saying, here's one good review that's NOT getting counted.

I didn't know you were part of 411 mania! I've followed that site since it was green and black :woot: Great review btw.

[hatebox]

Like the first movie, Iron Man 2 is absolutely benefiting from the binary system on RT.

The reality is that the content of reviews are mixed, but since almost all of them err on the side of positive the % looks high.

I can see why metacritic was invented.

[FlawlessVictory]

Like the first movie, Iron Man 2 is absolutely benefiting from the binary system on RT.

The reality is that the content of reviews are mixed, but since almost all of them err on the side of positive the % looks high.

I can see why metacritic was invented.

Absolutely.

RT update:

85%
17 Fresh, 3 Rotten
Avg. Rating= 6.5/10

The average rating is showing the reviews aren't overall that strong but still good enough. Even having a rating from one review 2/5 that was once rotten now considered fresh.

[FlawlessVictory]

topdog1. FlawlessVictory questioned my credibility saying I gave Spider-man 3 a glowing review which I don't feel I did. I did give Iron Man a glowing review though. And I saw this movie and said it was very good.

My intent was NEVER to question your credibility just an attempt at having some harmless fun with you which obviously failed. So I apologize for that coming out the way it did.

[drax]

I have just seen the movie this morning, I don't want to be rude but it was:



AMAZING !!!!!


It really, really, really good, I put this movie in the same level that the first, no, I find that better.

I think that John Favreau have done a fantastic job with the relation between the characters, and the action sequences are wonderful...it's, really amazing.

I don't understand the critics about this movie (and to be honest, I don't really care), but maybe they don't understand, unlike us comicbook fans, all the interactions between the characters and the next step of their futur.

It was really amazing, very well done, it's really a torture to wait the next years for Captain America, Thor, 2012 for the Avengers and Iron Man 3.

It's the last a read a review for a movie, it's really a waste of time imho, see the movie yourself and don't be influenced by the so-called critic (and everybody have different opinions so...).

Again, it's really an amazing movie.

[ultimatefan]

It´s currently at 85%, still below the first, but impressive. I wonder if a lot of the early negativity was coming cuz a lot of the early reviews were from Brittish tabloids. The Brittish showbiz press is known for being very cynical and smart-assed.