The Critics review Iron Man 2

[jmc]

THR tore it a new one so it's not just the Brits.

[Ace of Knaves]

85% is a very, very respectable score really. Why are people acting like this is a catastrophe?

[TheFuture]

85% is a very, very respectable score really. Why are people acting like this is a catastrophe?

It's more than respectable, it's a bloody fine result for Marvel if the rating is anywhere near the 85% in regards to the Top Critics.

[elgaz]

Let's be honest, critics almost always find flaws in films which 90% of Joe Public won't even see. Batman Begins got decent (but not amazing) reviews from critics, and a similar 85% rating on RT. Many complained about the third act of the film being out of tone with the rest of it ................... yet us fans loved it. I've seen films like Book Of Eli (45% on RT) which I absolutely loved, yet many critics tore the film to shreds. Critical Reviews are handy as a general guide, but I don't live by them and I suggest word of mouth from friends is often the most reliable pointer as to whether a film is good or not!

Mostly positive but mixed reviews is not a bad thing. Even the best films have faults, it doesn't mean we won't enjoy the films. I'm looking forward to see IM2 this weekend and fully expect that I'll walk out of the cinema with a grin on my face.

[Gianakin_]

85% is a very, very respectable score really. Why are people acting like this is a catastrophe?

If it ain't great, it's bad, didn't you know?

[Ace of Knaves]

^hehe so true.

People need to come down from the clouds and lower their expectations, or you'll only ruin your own enjoyment of something. Which makes zero sense.

[jmc]

The 85% is a bit misleading. Even though it's a high percentage of favourable reviews the overall score average is only 6.5. I think that's where the concern is.

[Ace of Knaves]

Fair point.

But still, people need to lower their expectations. I just don't understand why people expect things to be absolutely stunning. Because when it isn't absolutely stunning, just good, it makes it feel like it was crap. Y'know what i mean? And that is to the detriment of your enjoyment. Why ruin something for yourself? It's idiotic.

[jmc]

It's only natural though, you see something that is totally awesome, you want to see it again, even though movie history has told us the odds of a sequel equaling, let alone surpassing it's predecessor are slim.

[ultimatefan]

Let's be honest, critics almost always find flaws in films which 90% of Joe Public won't even see. Batman Begins got decent (but not amazing) reviews from critics, and a similar 85% rating on RT. Many complained about the third act of the film being out of tone with the rest of it ................... yet us fans loved it. I've seen films like Book Of Eli (45% on RT) which I absolutely loved, yet many critics tore the film to shreds. Critical Reviews are handy as a general guide, but I don't live by them and I suggest word of mouth from friends is often the most reliable pointer as to whether a film is good or not!

Mostly positive but mixed reviews is not a bad thing. Even the best films have faults, it doesn't mean we won't enjoy the films. I'm looking forward to see IM2 this weekend and fully expect that I'll walk out of the cinema with a grin on my face.

One theory of mine about the critics, weird as it sounds, is they see too many movies. Of course it´s part of their job, but as a result they are by definition a much more jaded/hard to impress audience than regular people, who usually don´t see more than a couple movies a week even when they´re movie fans. There´s also of course the elitist side of criticism, where they tend to see commercial movies as necessarily inferior to "arty" films, and take pride in being more inclined towards the latter, even though there are great, average, terrible movies in both fronts. When a commercial film ranksa high score, it´s a greater achievement than a high score for the arty films, cuz critics tend to be harsher with mass entertainment.

[TheFuture]

Let's be honest, critics almost always find flaws in films which 90% of Joe Public won't even see. Batman Begins got decent (but not amazing) reviews from critics, and a similar 85% rating on RT. Many complained about the third act of the film being out of tone with the rest of it ................... yet us fans loved it. I've seen films like Book Of Eli (45% on RT) which I absolutely loved, yet many critics tore the film to shreds. Critical Reviews are handy as a general guide, but I don't live by them and I suggest word of mouth from friends is often the most reliable pointer as to whether a film is good or not!

Mostly positive but mixed reviews is not a bad thing. Even the best films have faults, it doesn't mean we won't enjoy the films. I'm looking forward to see IM2 this weekend and fully expect that I'll walk out of the cinema with a grin on my face.

Newspapers and critics in general can carry their own bias. You mentioned the Book of Eli, which I also thought was a good film, but was savaged by the critics because it dared to present a balanced view on religion. If you're not completely condemning religion these days then you're film is pro-religion propaganda. :whatever:

As for the News of The World, it's owned by Murdoch, who also owns Fox. Which probably has its feathers ruffled after Disney acquired Marvel. A conspiracy theory I know but I think it would be a mistake to assume that all critics are impartial and who don't have their strings being pulled by other people.

[Sharkboy]

I never seen anything more meaningless than fanboys arguing over a rotten tomatoes rating. I've heard everything about this movie from it being abyssmal and mentioned in the same breath as spider-man 3 to being one of the best marvel films amongst x2 and spidey 2. Well im gonna see the film in 22 hours, obviously thats the only way to find out if it's good or not.

[Gianakin_]

Fair point.

But still, people need to lower their expectations. I just don't understand why people expect things to be absolutely stunning. Because when it isn't absolutely stunning, just good, it makes it feel like it was crap. Y'know what i mean? And that is to the detriment of your enjoyment. Why ruin something for yourself? It's idiotic.

There is a recent trend, I think, that CB movies produce sequels that surpass the originals. Not everyone will agree with this, but I think the majority will.

See Spidey 2, X2, TDK, Blade II(open to debate), FF2 (regardless of the franchise's quuality, FF2 was better than FF), arguably Superman 2 was better than STM (especially with the Donner Cut).

If IM2 fails to follow that trend, it makes sense that people will get disappointed. However, it would be unfair to the movie itself. But the reactions I'm witness for this movie are pretty extreme.

[FlawlessVictory]

The 85% is a bit misleading. Even though it's a high percentage of favourable reviews the overall score average is only 6.5. I think that's where the concern is.

Yea, definitely misleading. 85% is a solid rating but its low average rating is a bit concerning to me. It's as if it is passable as a positive but it is just that, passable.

Take Superman Returns. That finished with a 76% rating but the average rating was 7.1/10. Batman Begins finished at 85% but the average rating was 7.7/10. Spider-Man 3 finished with a 63% rating but an average rating of 6.2/10, just slightly below where IM2 is now.

But, it's still early, we'll see how this continues to play out.

[J.Howlett]

Might not want to read this review: http://www.latinoreview.com/movie-reviews/iron-man-2-790

[FlawlessVictory]

^So LR gave it a C. That is another grade/rating that is just passable for the film that will probably be marked as fresh on RT. I was hoping for more enthusiastic positive reviews for this film.

[Khemik@L]

^So LR gave it a C. That is another grade/rating that is just passable for the film that will probably be marked as fresh on RT. I was hoping for more enthusiastic positive reviews for this film.

Well I guess not every victory was meant to be... "Flawless" :hehe:

[Anita18]

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.
Well I can see why RT can be helpful. Most people just want to know if it's worth it to see a movie, and when lots of people think a movie is okay, then it's a safer bet than when half love it and half hate it.

[FlawlessVictory]

Well I guess not every victory was meant to be... "Flawless" :hehe:

:woot:


RT update:

81% 17 Fresh, 4 Rotten
Avg. Rating: 6.3/10

[hatebox]

Well I can see why RT can be helpful. Most people just want to know if it's worth it to see a movie, and when lots of people think a movie is okay, then it's a safer bet than when half love it and half hate it.

True, but the irony with RT.com is that though it caters towards people who just want an instant % overview, I doubt casual movie even check the site anyway - they'll probably see a movie based on a friends' recommendations, a postive newspaper review they may have read or, more likely, because it fits into the genre they like.

Only people who actively seek out reviews would use RT, and if they care that much then the user review is more insightful anyway.

[Crook]

Might not want to read this review: http://www.latinoreview.com/movie-reviews/iron-man-2-790
I realize Iron Man 2 is one small step in us getting to The Avengers, but it shouldn't have to suffer as a result of it. Iron Man 2 should be able to stand on its own, but because Marvel is so damned focused on building everything up to The Avengers, I wonder if, like Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America are going to become weaker stand alone films because of Marvel's grand endgame. (An interesting debate brought up by my friends over at Screenrant (http://screenrant.com/the-avengers-movie-discussion-kofi-47707/).)
Stupid move, Marvel. They really should have left Favreau alone on this. Nothing wrong with planting seeds, but that's the extent of their purpose. They're not supposed to be overt and take over the main plot.

[redfirebird2008]

Yea, definitely misleading. 85% is a solid rating but its low average rating is a bit concerning to me. It's as if it is passable as a positive but it is just that, passable.

Take Superman Returns. That finished with a 76% rating but the average rating was 7.1/10. Batman Begins finished at 85% but the average rating was 7.7/10. Spider-Man 3 finished with a 63% rating but an average rating of 6.2/10, just slightly below where IM2 is now.

But, it's still early, we'll see how this continues to play out.

It's off to a brutal start at MetaCritic. One of the publications already didn't love IM1 to begin with and they felt IM2 was equally average (Empire gave both films a 60/100). But the other two ratings are from two of the heaviest hitters in the movie publication business, both of which LOVED the first Iron Man film. Variety gave IM1 a 100 and IM2 a 60. Hollywood Reporter gave IM1 a 90 and IM2 a 30. So two big time publications that averaged a 95/100 rating for the first film dropped to a 45/100 average for the second film. That is a huge drop. This film is probably going to be similar to Dead Man's Chest: an entertaining summer movie that doesn't live up to the promise of its predecessor.

[elgaz]

Fair point.

But still, people need to lower their expectations. I just don't understand why people expect things to be absolutely stunning. Because when it isn't absolutely stunning, just good, it makes it feel like it was crap. Y'know what i mean? And that is to the detriment of your enjoyment. Why ruin something for yourself? It's idiotic.

But that's what hype does. It builds up people's expectations of films (and other media) to a point where anything less than stunning will not satisfy them.

And to be fair, we've only ourselves to blame. I mean, we're all on Superherohype. Most of us clamour for every little nugget of info about a few film ............. a picture, a soundbite, anything. And we discuss it, and discuss it, and discuss it. And as the intense interest and discussion amongst fans grows to a fever pitch, the expectations for the film rise and rise to a point where it's almost impossible for them to be met.

I've been guilty of it myself, though I tend to lower my expectations a bit now and just go and enjoy the film for what it is. I'm really a Superman fan through and through, thought I love Iron Man, Batman, etc as much as the next guy. When Superman Returns came out in 2006 I lapped up everything I could prior to the film's release, then came out of the cinema feeling pretty deflated. Of course, it didn't help that Singer released a slightly mediocre film, but I know my expectations were too high also.

Thor is another good example. They're going crazy in the Thor subforum today over a few seconds at the end of IM2 possibly showing his hammer. It tells us absolutely nothing about the quality of the Thor film coming or how successful it will possibly be, but people are almost in a frenzy over it.

It would be nice for some of us to get back to that place where you can walk into a movie knowing very little about it, and walk out with a grin on your face because you were pleasantly surprised by how good it was. It happened a lot years ago but much less nowadays with the speed news travels at online, although District 9 is a good recent example.

[drax]

Stupid move, Marvel. They really should have left Favreau alone on this. Nothing wrong with planting seeds, but that's the extent of their purpose. They're not supposed to be overt and take over the main plot.

It depend of the point of view, but I don't have felt the movie have suffered of the link with the Avengers (sorry for my english), I don't think this critic from latino is very judicious, because what they see like a problem, I see that like a quality, but again, it depend of the point of view, but they are really not objective.

[redfirebird2008]

Stupid move, Marvel. They really should have left Favreau alone on this. Nothing wrong with planting seeds, but that's the extent of their purpose. They're not supposed to be overt and take over the main plot.

The only thing it does is give fanboys a geekgasm. The rest of the audience will be thinking WTF is this and why should I give a crap? People in the general public just want good movies and don't know enough about Avengers to give a damn about a team-up movie. Cramming it down the public's throat at the expense of the quality of the Iron Man franchise is definitely a stupid move and certainly a disappointing one. I love Iron Man but I don't want the quality of these movies sacrificed just for the sake of some lame team-up movie down the road.

[SpiderByte]

This film's hype triples by the day.

[drax]

The only thing it does is give fanboys a geekgasm. The rest of the audience will be thinking WTF is this and why should I give a crap? People in the general public just want good movies and don't know enough about Avengers to give a damn about a team-up movie. Cramming it down the public's throat at the expense of the quality of the Iron Man franchise is definitely a stupid move and certainly a disappointing one. I love Iron Man but I don't want the quality of these movies sacrificed just for the sake of some lame team-up movie down the road.

Well, for to have seen the movie, I strongly disagree that Iron Man 2 have suffered of the futur with the others movies, I don't know if you have seen the movie, but unlike what the critic seem to say, the movie is not hugely influenced by the franchise Avengers...Sincerely I see that like a big quality for the movie, it's not "you will the Avengers !!!", it's very well done, so don't worry about that.

[Anita18]

But that's what hype does. It builds up people's expectations of films (and other media) to a point where anything less than stunning will not satisfy them.

And to be fair, we've only ourselves to blame. I mean, we're all on Superherohype. Most of us clamour for every little nugget of info about a few film ............. a picture, a soundbite, anything. And we discuss it, and discuss it, and discuss it. And as the intense interest and discussion amongst fans grows to a fever pitch, the expectations for the film rise and rise to a point where it's almost impossible for them to be met.

I've been guilty of it myself, though I tend to lower my expectations a bit now and just go and enjoy the film for what it is. I'm really a Superman fan through and through, thought I love Iron Man, Batman, etc as much as the next guy. When Superman Returns came out in 2006 I lapped up everything I could prior to the film's release, then came out of the cinema feeling pretty deflated. Of course, it didn't help that Singer released a slightly mediocre film, but I know my expectations were too high also.
In the case of SR, I felt that I was misled by the trailer itself (which sold a movie about bigger ideas), not that the discussion around fan forums overhyped it for me. Hype just makes people excited about something, and then they just really want it to be good. But I don't know it actually raises expectations for people like us. I mean, if that were the case, all these critics who found IM2 disappointing compared to IM1 would be overhyped fans as well, which I don't think they are. :funny:

[ultimatefan]

I been a victim of overhype myself, but having had both sides of the experience - being disappointed by overly high expectations and pleasantly surprised after lowering them - I´ve learned to not listen so much to hype anymore, I want every movie I go to see to be good, I don´t try to find fault just to be a know-it-all or confirm my bias, but I´ll go and see it for what it is, and how it jives or not with my tastes.

[Anubis Raptor]

This film's hype triples by the day.


I can already imagine how my theatre is gonna look....

http://www.grandpalais.fr/upload/m_file/705_102_vignette_ARCHIVES_PHOTOS_R43_58_copie_copi e.jpg

:csad:

[FaT_tONle]

Where is that ^^^?

[Anubis Raptor]

Where is that ^^^?

No clue

[CuberToy]

It's in Paris (France) "Le Grand Palais". I recognize cause of the Radio logo (Le Mouv')... and yes, I'm french :p

[hatebox]

I'm beginning to wonder if it's even worth posting blog reviews (apparently this author is associated with sky movies) but since others have appeared:

http://www.sizemore.co.uk/

SKY Movies HD kindly invited me along to the World Premiere of IRON MAN 2, but before the red and gold carpet could be rolled out Eyjafjallajökull erupted and the whole shebang was relocated to LA. Makes sense. There Tommy Lee Jones is way better equipped to deal with rogue volcanic activity than UK airspace. So it was a pleasant surprise when my invite arrived for the UK Gala Premiere for the same evening. Technically we got to see the movie ahead of the actual ‘Premiere’ but with a whole lot less Americans.
Unfortunately there wasn’t enough free drink to disguise that the movie is lacking in just about every aspect. The first one set a very high bar, but let’s break it down:
The Good
Sam Rockwell. I’ve already written about Rockwell’s Oscar worthy performance (http://www.sizemore.co.uk/2009/11/16/sam-rockwells-oscar/) in MOON so yeah, I’m a fan (http://www.sizemore.co.uk/2009/11/16/thats-enough-i-want-to-go-home/). Here he gets to play a douche bag – the anti-Tony Stark if you like – and he has way too much fun doing it. The script ensures his character is always second fiddle to whoever he’s sharing screen time with, but the rest of the cast don’t have a chance. He’s the one thing that I’d really like to see back in a third movie. Hell, if there’s one thing this franchise needs it’s a decent villain. Rockwell could be it.
Scarlett Johansson.Yeah I know. No brainer. Takes a while for her to kick ass, but when she does it’s the highlight of the movie. In fact that single sequence is far better than anything that Iron Man gets to do. Which takes me nicely to…
The Bad
Iron Man. The hero of the movie makes three appearances in two hours. The ‘case’ suit is cool, but as with all the action scenes there’s never a moment of real jeopardy for Shellhead. I suppose you could argue that Tony Stark is Iron Man so let’s move on.
Tony Stark. The hubris of the first movie is replaced with self-pity. Big mistake. Stark the charismatic ******* from the first movie is replaced with just an *******.
Pepper Potts. Sadly the inclusion of Johansson’s foil to Gwyneth Paltrow leaves Pepper with nothing to do but answer a few phones and get rescued. What a waste.
The bad guy. There isn’t one. There are a few pains in the metal ass for Stark to deal with, but none of them, even combined, make for a decent threat.
The Avengers. Way too much screen time is given up to pave the way for what is still a non-existent franchise. Pacing and plotting suffer a lot because of the inclusion of Fury, S.H.I.E.L.D and the goddamn Avengers initiative. All these scenes feel like DVD extras. Although there is a nice ’shield’ gag in the mix.
The Ugly
CGI. There’s one shot at the racetrack that wouldn’t look out of place in one of the fan made videos doing the rounds on YouTube. The final (and woefully anticlimactic) action sequence is just metal banging metal with some explosions. It’s not TRANSFORMERS bad, but it is yawn inducing. Enough.
The first movie had so much charm that its few faults didn’t matter. The second has so little charm that the movie itself doesn’t matter. It’s a tick box on the way to an Avengers franchise. But if this and the Hulk movies have shown anything its how difficult it is to get it right with one hero on screen. How they think they’re gonna cram a team of these idiots into a movie, along with supporting cast and bad guys is beyond me. Sadly it’s probably beyond them too.
I hope THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA learn a lesson here and shove that Avengers crap on a separate disc for the BluRay. What are the odds?

[RoboAmish]

So, it seems the major flaw here is the overstuffing of plot points and characters. I hate to fault a movie for over ambition, but for me, the greatest strength of the first film was that it took a simple story and kept it as such. Not every superhero film needs an epic, sprawling story and the first films charm was in this simplicity, a simple story told through great characters.

It seems they may have taken another praise worthy statement a little too literally, the idea that the film was like a real life "comic book". Now that was in regards to the spirit and faithfulness, but it appears they've tried to jam a story more suited to the comic books medium for this one, a glut of characters, plots and an overarching storyline in regards to some larger universe, in other words, their ultimate goal in The Avengers. Given time to gestate in the comics over numerous issues, this works fine but in the context of a two hour movie or even over subsequent movies, it takes away from the movie itself and even then, it will never be given the adaquete build-up needed to such a sprawling storyline.

But I'm just waiting for the metacritic page to start filling up. I was far from the biggest fan of the first one, so maybe my opinion will once again clash with these reviewers

[J.Howlett]

The Avengers build it is hurting Marvel. As much as anyone else, I'm fascinated with the idea of seeing if they can pull this off...but, it might be killing the individual characters.

The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man do push it that much, which made it work. With making it an integral part of Iron Man 2, they technically can't go back now.

Avengers has to work for Iron Man 2 to feel right, in my opinion.

[Compi716]

Critics seem incredibly polarized at this point. It looks that fans are lapping it up (reviews on Ain't It Cool, HitFix, etc.) but some of the trades are putting it down.

I'm going to quote a bit from Latauro's review from AICN. It seems to sum up the general feelings at the moment.
I get the feeling that the initial reaction to IRON MAN 2 will be that it isn't quite as good as the first film, but I think that will largely be because the first film came out of nowhere. Robert Downey Jnr's Tony Stark was such an unlikely hero, such an unusually charismatic figure, that everybody seemed jolted out of their seats. Everything that was good about the first film is here in the second, only now we're expecting it. In time, when the dust has settled and both films are equally canonised, I suspect the general consensus will be that they are of equal quality. And though the phrasing may be limp, the conclusion is not: IRON MAN 2 is up there with the best.
That seems to be what's going on here.

[bosef982]

Might not want to read this review: http://www.latinoreview.com/movie-reviews/iron-man-2-790

This review, although a TAD too harsh, pretty much sums it up. I'd probably throw a B on it, but he gets the basic picture. And the cameos by Favreau do get a bit tedious, and seem unnecessary.

[roach]

but see the Avengers stuff kinda has to be there as the Avengers movie comes out before IM3. I have not seen the movie to offer more than a speculation. There has to be some sort of change of heart to make Tony go from Im not joining to actively recruiting

[kedrell]

That's what I'm thinking. If they pull off the other films in the mega-franchise right(especially Avengers) then I think after we've seen that, some of these negative reviews for IM2 may take another look at it and then become positive about it. Kinda like how Ebert gave the first 2 LOTR films a bad review but after it was all complete he was like "Oh, i get it now!". At least that's my hope. I still predict this is more Temple Of Doom than SM3.

[Tony Stark]

How is it hurting Marvel? This film is probably going to make in the neighborhood of 300-400 million, so how is it going to hurt them?

I'm fascinated with the idea that this movie and TIH were the only superhero movie where they acknowledge the existance of other parts of the comic universe, unless you count veilled references to Dr. Strange in Spider-man 2.

For pete's sake this is a superhero movie, let it be a superhero movie.

[Tony Stark]

How is it hurting Marvel? This film is probably going to make in the neighborhood of 300-400 million, so how is it going to hurt them?

I'm fascinated with the idea that this movie and TIH were the only superhero movie where they acknowledge the existance of other parts of the comic universe, unless you count veilled references to Dr. Strange in Spider-man 2.

For pete's sake this is a superhero movie, let it be a superhero movie.

[J.Howlett]

Stark,

There's no guarantee that people will go see Thor, Captain America, and Avengers. This is the same situation with X3.

X2 was big time. Goodwill had set in and everyone was waiting for X3. That film came out and pretty much killed X-Men.

Same situation here. If fans and general audiences don't take to Iron Man 2 like they did with the first, it changes the Marvel universe a bit.

People may not be willing to see Thor and Captain in record numbers...let alone the Avengers.

Personally, I serious doubt that'll happen. Iron Man 2 is going to make at least 800 million worldwide. But, it has to have good word of mouth to keep this Marvel train going...

[hatebox]

For pete's sake this is a superhero movie, let it be a superhero movie...

.../marketing campaign. I won't comment as I haven't seen it yet, but if people don't know or care about the Avengers then anything more than a scene of Jackson probably won't sit well with them. As an audience grooming excercise it doesn't sound too subtle.

[FlawlessVictory]

How is it hurting Marvel? This film is probably going to make in the neighborhood of 300-400 million, so how is it going to hurt them?

I'm fascinated with the idea that this movie and TIH were the only superhero movie where they acknowledge the existance of other parts of the comic universe, unless you count veilled references to Dr. Strange in Spider-man 2.

For pete's sake this is a superhero movie, let it be a superhero movie.

"This is why Superman works alone." :hehe:

[topdog1]

Why keep passing along any UK reviews? It's obvious that they simply don't get it.

[J.Howlett]

^
nice!

[Raiden]

The mixed reviews definitely give me some concerns, but I think it will still be an enjoyable movie. The question is whether IM2 (if perceived as less-than-successful movie compared to IM1) will hurt Marvel's ambiguous plan to make The Avengers down the road, and whether Marvel has crammed Avengers Initiative stuff in Thor & Capt. America like they did with IM2. I guess we will see when those movies come out.

[J.Howlett]

Favreau's too talented for this film not to be enjoyable. He has a great cast that seem to have great chemistry. The question of the film is does it work...

[hatebox]

Why keep passing along any UK reviews? It's obvious that they simply don't get it.


Once again: :doh:


But hey, if there are any non-uk reivews we haven't read yet feel free to submit them.

[redfirebird2008]

I still predict this is more Temple Of Doom than SM3.

There's no way IM2 will have as poor of a reception as SM3 amongst the public and fanboys. My reasoning is that SM3 had bad dialogue, bad acting, and ultra melodramatic scenes that were very cringeworthy. IM2 feels more along the lines of Dead Man's Chest, or like you said, Temple of Doom. Neither of those movies are particularly great by any means, but they are praised for good acting and for being entertaining summer films. That's pretty much the vibe I'm getting with IM2.

[Raiden]

The mixed reviews definitely give me some concerns, but I think it will still be an enjoyable movie. The question is whether IM2 (if perceived as less-than-successful movie compared to IM1) will hurt Marvel's ambiguous plan to make The Avengers down the road, and whether Marvel has crammed Avengers Initiative stuff in Thor & Capt. America like they did with IM2. I guess we will see when those movies come out.

[kedrell]

There's no way IM2 will have as poor of a reception as SM3 amongst the public and fanboys. My reasoning is that SM3 had bad dialogue, bad acting, and ultra melodramatic scenes that were very cringeworthy. IM2 feels more along the lines of Dead Man's Chest, or like you said, Temple of Doom. Neither of those movies are particularly great by any means, but they are praised for good acting and for being entertaining summer films. That's pretty much the vibe I'm getting with IM2.

Well I chose the ToD reference over the DMC one mainly because I don't think DMC is even a good movie, let alone a great one. ToD isn't greatlike RotLA was, but it was still very good.

Now that I think about it, if I'm going on just how i perceived superhero 2nd movies as they relate to the first installments(rather than just going by the T-meter) I'd say only SM2 and X2 actually are sequels that are better than the originals. And I'd say that mostly is due to SM1 and X1 being severly flawed films that were rather easy to improve on. Superman1, Batman Begins, & Iron Man1 are in another category. But I still liked Superman 2 and TDK even though I thought the originals were better. I think IM2 is gonna be like this for me. Full disclosure - I tend to like origin stories the best as they always seem the most like complete story arcs of the main character to me.

[Chewy]

ScreenRant's review
4/5

Let’s get the big question out of the way: Was Iron Man 2 better than the first film? Not quite.

Having said that, remember that the first film set the bar WAY high, so not topping it doesn’t mean this sequel was bad. Far from it. What it means is that while I liked it a lot, I didn’t quite LOVE it like I did the first film.

Iron Man 2 (http://screenrant.com/tag/iron-man-2/) opens with a voiceover that takes us through the speech at the end of the last film where Tony Stark reveals that he is Iron Man. About six months have passed since that announcement, and since then Tony has been busy zipping all over the world intervening in international conflicts. Of course the U.S. government is not too happy about having a private citizen loaded with weaponry intervening overseas on behalf of the country, and they want the Iron Man tech turned over to the military.

The government is represented by Senator Stern (played with perfect pompousness by Garry Shandling), who can’t convince Stark to turn over his private technology. This puts Tony on the opposite side of the equation with his good friend James Rhodes (Don Cheadle) who believes that sharing the technology with the military would lower the risks of having to depend on just one man. Speaking of Rhodey, it was great how they buried the whole “Terrence Howard isn’t Rhodey” thing with this line from Cheadle right at the start of the film: “It’s me, I’m here, deal with it and let’s move on.” There’s also a nod to fans of the first film in Tony’s first appearance where he says “It’s good to be back” and asks the audience if we missed him.

Stark Industries’ rival is Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), another wealthy weapons manufacturer who is the less charismatic version of Tony Stark. Hammer is jealous not only of Stark’s Iron Man tech, but of the man himself (Hammer comes off like a used car salesman who wants to be classy but doesn’t know how to do it). He’s developing his own armor technology but it’s years behind Tony Stark’s.

One of the main plot points driving Iron Man 2 is the fact that Stark is being slowly poisoned by the palladium that powers the miniature arc reactor in his chest. It’s getting rapidly worse and despite applying all his genius towards finding a replacement, he hasn’t been able to find anything that works – he’s dying and it’s going to happen sooner than later.
While all this is going on we have Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) over in Russia, whose dying father was apparently shafted big time by Tony’s father, Howard. Vanko manages to build his own miniature arc reactor and vows revenge against Stark. Finally we have Scarlett Johansson playing “Natalie Rushman,” an accountant who comes into the Pepper Potts/Tony Stark relationship.

These are a lot of characters and plot threads to merge into a two hour film, and to director Jon Favreau’s credit, he did make an effort to merge character arcs (Natalie with Stark/Potts, Hammer with Vanko) to reduce what he referred to as “villain-itis” – but with all those folks in there (plus Sam Jackson as Nick Fury) it makes for a lot going on. This makes things drag a bit in the second act while also splitting our attention and making the film seem a bit “busy.” Another thing about the film is that while the first one had a lot of witty banter between Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow, in one scene in particular it seemed too over the top – like they were trying to cram too much banter into too small a space. For much of the film Sam Rockwell took over the role of comedy relief from Downey Jr. and considering what Stark is going through this is appropriate, and Tony does come back as the humor lead towards the end of the film.

There are also some plot points that require a bit of forgiveness on the part of the audience due to how far you have to stretch to accept them, but I have a feeling that some things were left out to keep the film moving forward at a good pace and will be revealed once the Blu-ray is released. On the other hand there were lots of little nods to the fans throughout the film which are always fun to see.

Enough about the negatives – It was a pleasure to see Robert Downey Jr. back in the role, and I have to say that everyone involved did an excellent job. Gwyneth Paltrow’s role was expanded (and although the lighting makes her look blonde, she’s still a redhead) and director Favreau put himself into the film a lot more than in the previous one (and he was quite enjoyable and funny when he appeared). Personally I prefer Don Cheadle as Rhodey – he struck me as more of a military type than Terrence Howard, but I’m also influenced by being a long-time reader of the comic book on that point.

Chemistry between Cheadle and Downey Jr. was smooth as well. Sam Rockwell was great, if a bit over the top in the goofiness category, but by the end of the film you see he’s not a man to be trifled with. I actually would have liked to have seen even even more Mickey Rourke in the film and Scarlett Johansson was very good in her role and kicked ass big time when the time came. Really. She did.

We get to learn a lot more about Tony’s father, Howard Stark, and their relationship through some old movie footage (which was a cool/retro way to do it). There is more than a hint of Avengers foundation-laying here through multiple appearances by Nick Fury and mentions of SHIELD, but it feels more like icing on the cake rather than a driver of the story.

The action sequences surpassed the first film in both quantity, quality and length. The initial battle between Whiplash and Iron Man (wearing the suitcase armor) was awesome (if a bit shorter than I would have liked), and a scene where Tony Stark gets drunk and is confronted by Rhodey was really great. There’s plenty more action than those two scenes and I enjoyed seeing some cool new weaponry from the Iron Man armor (one in particular during the final battle is super-cool).

Overall you shouldn’t be disappointed and Iron Man 2 is a great way to kick off the 2010 summer movie season. Oh, and do hang around to watch the full credits – I haven’t seen it yet but there WILL be a bonus scene at the end.SOURCE (http://screenrant.com/iron-man-2-reviews-vic-56069/)

[kedrell]

The mixed reviews definitely give me some concerns, but I think it will still be an enjoyable movie. The question is whether IM2 (if perceived as less-than-successful movie compared to IM1) will hurt Marvel's ambiguous plan to make The Avengers down the road, and whether Marvel has crammed Avengers Initiative stuff in Thor & Capt. America like they did with IM2. I guess we will see when those movies come out.

Thor & Cap need less of that stuff, IMO. They need to nail their origin stories first. IM2 isn't an origin movie so it's the one the set-up for the extraneous stuff falls on.

[redfirebird2008]

Well I chose the ToD reference over the DMC one mainly because I don't think DMC is even a good movie, let alone a great one. ToD isn't greatlike RotLA was, but it was still very good.



That is your opinion, but I am referring to consensus from the general public. DMC had huge DVD sales, which is not a sign of a movie that is poorly received by audiences.

[kedrell]

True, but I was looking with an eye less to sales and more to longevity. Interesting enough, Feige has said many times that one of the movies that they looked at as a model for IM2 was Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back. While that film now is seen as the absolute best SW movie ever made, it was seen as an inferior sequel when it first came out. Just sayin'. ;)

[redfirebird2008]

True, but I was looking with an eye less to sales and more to longevity. Interesting enough, Feige has said many times that one of the movies that they looked at as a model for IM2 was Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back. While that film now is seen as the absolute best SW movie ever made, it was seen as an inferior sequel when it first came out. Just sayin'. ;)

Please don't go there. Just don't. :hehe:

[kedrell]

Not sure what you're hinting at but ok.

[Mr. Earle]

So anyway i was thinking about the whole reviews thing.

Criticisms of the movie are
1) There are too many subplots
2) Ironman doesnt get to fight much.
3) Final battle is anticlimactic
4) Shield and Avengers plotlines
5) Wasnt better than the first film.

Without having seen the film i think that:

1) It doesnt matter if the sublots are many, it matters how well they are developed and how it all comes together. I sense that Whiplash doesnt get to do as much as we'd like so that worries me. Other than that, i dont care. Tony is a busy guy and that's how it should be. The first movie felt kind of empty to me, so this sounds better.
2) If true, it sucks.
3) If true, it sucks.
4) We knew that already but the critics and the general audience dont. Cap's and Thor's movies will continue the avengers build up so it will become obvious to everyone soon.
5) Who cares? The first film came out of nowhere and surprised everyone. The novelty of what Favs did then is gone, so all that's left is a sequel that give us more of the same and a continuation of the plot. If anything, IM was too linear and empty. RDJ carried the whole film.

In the end, i am not gonna let some old people who most probably dont read comic books tell me whether a comic book movie is good or bad.

[redfirebird2008]

Not sure what you're hinting at but ok.

The blatant tie-in to Avengers should be a pretty tell-tale sign that this sequel isn't viewed by its producers as a serious story. Just sayin'.

[Chewy]

The blatant tie-in to Avengers should be a pretty tell-tale sign that this sequel isn't viewed by its producers as a serious story. Just sayin'.
Well that's a ridiculous thing to say.

[kedrell]

The blatant tie-in to Avengers should be a pretty tell-tale sign that this sequel isn't viewed by its producers as a serious story. Just sayin'.

I don't get that criticism at all. The Avengers has always been part of the big picture. The Thor and Cap movies need to focus on the origin stories and selling those characters to the general public like IM1 did for Iron Man. So the IM2 movie is the lone place to move the overall story forward since it no longer has to sell Iron Man to the G/A.

[redfirebird2008]

Well that's a ridiculous thing to say.

No it isn't. Hell, that's one of the things people have PRAISED Iron Man for. It's a lighthearted and fun summer action movie but with a million times more intelligence than something like Transformers.

[Chewy]

The Two Towers introduced several elements that were not tied up neatly, because it was always viewed as part of a larger story. The Empire Strikes Back introduced several elements that were not tied up neatly, because it was always viewed as part of a larger story. X-Men 2 introduced several elements that were not tied up neatly, because it was always viewed as part of a larger story.

I'm not saying this film is as good as those, as I haven't seen it. But I am saying it is rather unfounded to claim that it wasn't treated as a serious story by the creators because they viewed it as part of a larger narrative and treated it as such.

[Tony Stark]

No it isn't. Hell, that's one of the things people have PRAISED Iron Man for. It's a lighthearted and fun summer action movie but with a million times more intelligence than something like Transformers.


No I think some of you are just posturing to hate this movie. They had the Avengers tie in, in the last film, so to think they're going to throw that out the window. It was already a known entity.

Most of the reviews I've seen complaining about the Nick Fury/Avengers stuff haven't really been reviews, they've been blog posts or something. That's not a review.

Just saying....

[redfirebird2008]

The Two Towers introduced several elements that were not tied up neatly, because it was always viewed as part of a larger story. The Empire Strikes Back introduced several elements that were not tied up neatly, because it was always viewed as part of a larger story. X-Men 2 introduced several elements that were not tied up neatly, because it was always viewed as part of a larger story.

I'm not saying this film is as good as those, as I haven't seen it. But I am saying it is rather unfounded to claim that it wasn't treated as a serious story by the creators because they viewed it as part of a larger narrative and treated it as such.

Marvel's primary reason for forcing the agenda on an Avengers spin-off film franchise is money and it's been pretty obvious with the production of their films. To compare it to Tolkien's books is ludicrous IMHO. Sequels are sequels and are also about the money first and foremost (that includes Star Wars obviously), but there is a bit more creative freedom with a sequel than when the sequel is having these "wink-wink, nudge nudge" spin-off ideas thrown in. What the hell would be wrong with just focusing completely on Iron Man? Absolutely nothing at all.

[Ace of Knaves]

Marvel's primary reason for forcing the agenda on an Avengers spin-off film franchise is money and it's been pretty obvious with the production of their films. To compare it to Tolkien's books is ludicrous IMHO. Sequels are sequels and are also about the money first and foremost (that includes Star Wars obviously), but there is a bit more creative freedom with a sequel than when the sequel is having these "wink-wink, nudge nudge" spin-off ideas thrown in. What the hell would be wrong with just focusing completely on Iron Man? Absolutely nothing at all.

No...

Marvel are tying them into Avengers because these are COMIC BOOK FILMS.

They are treating each solo movie as a solo comic book, tieing into a larger story, like an event.

Maybe some people won't like that... but to say it means Marvel are not taking them seriously? WTF? It means they are taking them very seriously.

And personally, i love this approach. Using each characters solo movie as a tie in to a much larger story line or "event" like the comic books do. Basically, they are trying to bring the comics to life... literally.

[redfirebird2008]

No I think some of you are just posturing to hate this movie. They had the Avengers tie in, in the last film, so to think they're going to throw that out the window. It was already a known entity.


And I criticized the first movie for the blatant tie-ins as well. I loved that movie and have it tied with a few other movies as the best superhero movie I've ever seen, but I guess I'm just a hater right? Spinoff "team-ups" are a cash grab, plain and simple. I feel that way about the comics as well. Not a fan of Avengers or Justice League to begin with.

[Raiden]

Marvel's primary reason for forcing the agenda on an Avengers spin-off film franchise is money and it's been pretty obvious with the production of their films. To compare it to Tolkien's books is ludicrous IMHO. Sequels are sequels and are also about the money first and foremost (that includes Star Wars obviously), but there is a bit more creative freedom with a sequel than when the sequel is having these "wink-wink, nudge nudge" spin-off ideas thrown in. What the hell would be wrong with just focusing completely on Iron Man? Absolutely nothing at all.

Well, several reviews I read about the Avengers tie-in did mentioned that they felt more like a little something extra thrown in, but they did not really affect the enjoyment of the movie. I don't think they should go overboard with it but I think it is best to reserve judgement until you see the movie.

[Gianakin_]

The Two Towers introduced several elements that were not tied up neatly, because it was always viewed as part of a larger story. The Empire Strikes Back introduced several elements that were not tied up neatly, because it was always viewed as part of a larger story. X-Men 2 introduced several elements that were not tied up neatly, because it was always viewed as part of a larger story.

I'm not saying this film is as good as those, as I haven't seen it. But I am saying it is rather unfounded to claim that it wasn't treated as a serious story by the creators because they viewed it as part of a larger narrative and treated it as such.

Hm, but the common trait among the movies you mentioned was hints, instead of, in the case of IM2, alleged subplots. Well, they all ended with a cliffhanger (more or less), but that's neither here nor there.

Not that I'm agreeing with the point about the producers not taking this seriously, just saying that the comparison may not be that accurate.

[Chewy]

Marvel's primary reason for "forcing the agenda on an Avengers spin-off film franchise" is that it is the natural progression of Stark's story. They don't view the Avengers as a spin-off, but rather as a direct sequel just as an Iron Man 3 would be. It is a sequel to multiple movies instead of just one, but a sequel nonetheless.

What is wrong with focusing just on Iron Man? Nothing.
What is wrong with focusing on Iron Man, while opening up his world with a few supporting appearances of other characters (Nick Fury, Black Widow) and throwaway references (Cap's shield, Thor's hammer)? Nothing.

[Tony Stark]

Marvel's primary reason for forcing the agenda on an Avengers spin-off film franchise is money and it's been pretty obvious with the production of their films. To compare it to Tolkien's books is ludicrous IMHO. Sequels are sequels and are also about the money first and foremost (that includes Star Wars obviously), but there is a bit more creative freedom with a sequel than when the sequel is having these "wink-wink, nudge nudge" spin-off ideas thrown in. What the hell would be wrong with just focusing completely on Iron Man? Absolutely nothing at all.

If you knew anything about Iron Man, he is the Avengers. The two are inseperable. I commend Marvel for trying to cross polinate these films in an intelligent way.

You haven't even seen the film, and you are talking out of your arse about this anyway based on what some bloggers have written. The vast majority of reviews so far have been positive.

You can still have crossover, but have a focused movie. TIH had a ton of Avenger's references, but at the end of the day it was a movie about the Hulk. Now I'll admit that movie had some issues, but it had nothing to do with the Tony Stark cameo or the Avengers references.

[J.Howlett]

What redfirebird is getting at is that they could've still achieved an Avengers film without having to put in an entire plot thread within Iron Man 2. If this film would've just had one moment that leads to Avengers, you could still lead to the Avengers film.

As it stands, a major aspect of the film leads to a film we know is coming but we don't know if it works.

Let's say the Avengers film is pretty much garbage (unlikely) and Favreau finishes off the Iron Man Trilogy a year or two later...one part of the Iron Man trilogy will have this plot thread to a sucky film that ultimately leads to nowhere for people who just want the focus to be on Iron Man...

...not saying it won't work. But, some just want a good Iron Man series, without Avengers. But, I do understand that you technically can't tell Tony's story without eventually telling Tony's story when it comes to the Avengers. It's a part of his mythology.

[redfirebird2008]

No...

Marvel are tying them into Avengers because these are COMIC BOOK FILMS.

They are treating each solo movie as a solo comic book, tieing into a larger story, like an event.

Maybe some people won't like that... but to say it means Marvel are not taking them seriously? WTF? It means they are taking them very seriously.

And personally, i love this approach. Using each characters solo movie as a tie in to a much larger story line or "event" like the comic books do. Basically, they are trying to bring the comics to life... literally.

That's the thing. I'm not a fan of the team-ups in the comics either.

[TLH]

I hope none of you are letting IM2's 82% on rottentomatoes deceive you. Take a look at the average critics rating: 6.4/10

Shutter Island has a 68% on Rottentomatoes but its average rating is 6.6/10

The Road has a 75% on Rottentomatoes but its average rating is 7/10

Iron Man 2 is drawing a lot of mercifully lukewarm reviews. Very, very few raves.

[Mr. Earle]

Marvel's primary reason for "forcing the agenda on an Avengers spin-off film franchise" is that it is the natural progression of Stark's story. They don't view the Avengers as a spin-off, but rather as a direct sequel just as an Iron Man 3 would be. It is a sequel to multiple movies instead of just one, but a sequel nonetheless.

What is wrong with focusing just on Iron Man? Nothing.
What is wrong with focusing on Iron Man, while opening up his world with a few supporting appearances of other characters (Nick Fury, Black Widow) and throwaway references (Cap's shield, Thor's hammer)? Nothing.
Agreed!

[Chewy]

Hm, but the common trait among the movies you mentioned was hints, instead of, in the case of IM2, alleged subplots. Well, they all ended with a cliffhanger (more or less), but that's neither here nor there.
Boba Fett taking Han Solo to Jabba the Hutt was not a subplot? Pyro standing around brooding and leaving with Magneto was not a subplot?

[Tony Stark]

And I criticized the first movie for the blatant tie-ins as well. I loved that movie and have it tied with a few other movies as the best superhero movie I've ever seen, but I guess I'm just a hater right? Spinoff "team-ups" are a cash grab, plain and simple. I feel that way about the comics as well. Not a fan of Avengers or Justice League to begin with.

Iron Man is the Avengers, the two are inseparable.

They are only a cash-grab in your opinion. Some of the best Marvel stories have been about the Avengers. I am very curious to see what an intelligent director like Joss Wheadon can do with it. Yeah it may suck, but I give Marvel all the credit for trying to make it work and make it work as an intelligent piece of film, and not like what Warner tried to do by cutting Nolan's legs out from under him, just to make a Justice League movie.

[J.Howlett]

Still not sold on Whedon doing Avengers.

[redfirebird2008]

Iron Man is the Avengers, the two are inseparable.

They are only a cash-grab in your opinion. Some of the best Marvel stories have been about the Avengers. I am very curious to see what an intelligent director like Joss Wheadon can do with it. Yeah it may suck, but I give Marvel all the credit for trying to make it work and make it work as an intelligent piece of film, and not like what Warner tried to do by cutting Nolan's legs out from under him, just to make a Justice League movie.

Didn't Favreau want more time for IM2 but was told by the producers they needed it out in 2010 due to the timeline on the other films leading up to Avengers? I remember reading that somewhere. Maybe it was BS, who knows.

[Keyser Soze]

I'm not overly worried with the content of the negative reviews. A lot of the criticism seems to be "the acting and the character dynamics are great, but the film is lacking in blow-away exciting action sequences." But it wasn't the action that made me love the first film. It was the characters, and the quality ensemble cast - Robert Downey Jr in particular.

[Gianakin_]

Boba Fett taking Han Solo to Jabba the Hutt was not a subplot? Pyro standing around brooding and leaving with Magneto was not a subplot?

Both of those, though, happen during the climax or after it (and add to the cliffhangers I mentioned before). And they didn't hinder the plot at all. From most reviews, it seems that more than 30 minutes are being occupied by whole subplots.

Again, I'm not saying I'm against this (I'll see it tomorrow, so I'll have a verdict then), however I'm not sure they're comparable.

[FlawlessVictory]

Didn't Favreau want more time for IM2 but was told by the producers they needed it out in 2010 due to the timeline on the other films leading up to Avengers? I remember reading that somewhere. Maybe it was BS, who knows.

Yes, Favreau did initially want more time(3 years) between films.

[Tony Stark]

I hope none of you are letting IM2's 82% on rottentomatoes deceive you. Take a look at the average critics rating: 6.4/10

Shutter Island has a 68% on Rottentomatoes but its average rating is 6.6/10

The Road has a 75% on Rottentomatoes but its average rating is 7/10

Iron Man 2 is drawing a lot of mercifully lukewarm reviews. Very, very few raves.

Batman Begins only had a 6.6/10 and a 60% fresh rating among top critics. Did you like that movie?

I'm not concerned about the reviews because first off the negative reviews some of them weren't even reviews. Like this one:

http://www.ultraculture.co.uk/3335-iron-man-2-review.htm

Honestly I've been less and less impressed with RT, because the quality of what they will let in has gone down the crapper over the last few years. I more view it as a sight of links to critics I respect to easily access their reviews.

With only 22 reveiws counted so far, the site still says "no consensus", so I'll leave it at that.

[Raiden]

I'm not overly worried with the content of the negative reviews. A lot of the criticism seems to be "the acting and the character dynamics are great, but the film is lacking in blow-away exciting action sequences." But it wasn't the action that made me love the first film. It was the characters, and the quality ensemble cast - Robert Downey Jr in particular.

Yeah, I'm not too worry about the action (or lack thereof) in IM2 either, although I'm a bit concerned about the final battle, which some reviews said did not pay off as a climatic ending. I hope it's not true, though.

[redfirebird2008]

I hope none of you are letting IM2's 82% on rottentomatoes deceive you. Take a look at the average critics rating: 6.4/10

Shutter Island has a 68% on Rottentomatoes but its average rating is 6.6/10

The Road has a 75% on Rottentomatoes but its average rating is 7/10

Iron Man 2 is drawing a lot of mercifully lukewarm reviews. Very, very few raves.


I think it'll be a fun summer movie. It should be plenty entertaining. I mean c'mon, it's got great actors like RDJ and Rockwell as arrogant playboy billionaires. Their interaction is probably worth the price of admission alone. I read one review that called Hammer "douchey." Should be hilarious to watch. :hehe:

[Mr. Earle]

I'm not overly worried with the content of the negative reviews. A lot of the criticism seems to be "the acting and the character dynamics are great, but the film is lacking in blow-away exciting action sequences." But it wasn't the action that made me love the first film. It was the characters, and the quality ensemble cast - Robert Downey Jr in particular.
I totally agree. Also, if the movie had too much action, then they would have been whining about the action overdose, about robots clashing with each other all the time and too many explosions. What a mindless summer movie.

If the action is less and the plot is more, they whine that the action wasnt enough. Well **** you critics.

Though to be honest i am kinda worried that IM2 will lack action just like IM1 did.

[Chewy]

Both of those, though, happen during the climax or after it (and add to the cliffhangers I mentioned before). And they didn't hinder the plot at all. From most reviews, it seems that more than 30 minutes are being occupied by whole subplots.
Both of them are weaved throughout the films. Boba Fett is called by Vader to hunt down Han Solo, who he also needs to bring to Jabba the Hutt. Pyro feels unfulfilled with the X-Men and relishes his power, and ends up leaving with Magneto. Both end without concrete conclusions, and are clearly setups for future tales.

How is this any different from Nick Fury showing up to talk to Stark about joining the Avengers, and tasking Black Widow with watching over him?

[TheVileOne]

Guys listen. Basically the reviews aren't going to be as good as Iron Man.

I felt I gave it a pretty good review and my review for example isn't counted on RT or MetaCritic.

[redfirebird2008]

I totally agree. Also, if the movie had too much action, then they would have been whining about the action overdose, about robots clashing with each other all the time and too many explosions. What a mindless summer movie.

If the action is less and the plot is more, they whine that the action wasnt enough. Well **** you critics.

Though to be honest i am kinda worried that IM2 will lack action just like IM1 did.

I'm not concerned about action. RDJ was the best thing about IM1. As far as action goes, the only thing I hope to see is more flying in the suit. Otherwise, I am looking forward to the characters -- especially Stark/Hammer.

[redfirebird2008]

Guys listen. Basically the reviews aren't going to be as good as Iron Man.

I felt I gave it a pretty good review and my review for example isn't counted on RT or MetaCritic.

That was a very fair review. Speaking of which, how did you rate IM1 in comparison?

[TLH]

Batman Begins only had a 6.6/10 and a 60% fresh rating among top critics. Did you like that movie?

I'm not concerned about the reviews because first off the negative reviews some of them weren't even reviews. Like this one:

http://www.ultraculture.co.uk/3335-iron-man-2-review.htm

Honestly I've been less and less impressed with RT, because the quality of what they will let in has gone down the crapper over the last few years. I more view it as a sight of links to critics I respect to easily access their reviews.

With only 22 reveiws counted so far, the site still says "no consensus", so I'll leave it at that.

I'm not talking about top critics though. That score is always lower. 6.6/10 among top critics is actually really, really solid.

[Mr. Earle]

Come to think of it, TDK's ending sucked balls too. Both the skyscraper and the blown up warehouse scenes were anticlimactic (and dull too in the latter's case). The only saving grace was Batman running away and Gordon's forced monologue.

Oh look at what i just did. I derailed another conversation with TDK. LOL.

[Tony Stark]

I'm not talking about top critics though. That score is always lower. 6.6/10 among top critics is actually really, really solid.


You're posturing because you know that's not true.

[J.Howlett]

Earle,

Keep telling yourself that one...

[redfirebird2008]

Come to think of it, TDK's ending sucked balls too. Both the skyscraper and the blown up warehouse scenes were anticlimactic and dull in the latter's case. The only saving grace was Batman running away and Gordon's forced monologue.

Oh look at what i just did. I derailed another conversation with TDK. LOL.

SWAT/sonar/ferry boats sucked balls for sure. Joker's conversation with Batman in the tower was great. I loved the warehouse scene with Gordon, Dent, and Batman.

[Mr. Earle]

SWAT/sonar/ferry boats sucked balls for sure. Joker's conversation with Batman in the tower was great. I loved the warehouse scene with Gordon, Dent, and Batman.
OK the boats being about to be blown up made it thrilling but it wasnt like "WOW THIS ACTION IS AWESOME". And yeah the dialogue on the tower was great.

The warehouse was retarded because of how little light there was and because Batman was exhausted and had throat cancer. He also pushed Two Face to his death.

Damn, i feel really bad for derailing the thread. Lets get back on topic. That ferrous fellow huh? What a movie!

[ultimatefan]

Do I still need to remind you guys this thread is not about TDK vs Iron Man,or BB. All of that has been discussed to death.

[redfirebird2008]

Do I still need to remind you guys this thread is not about TDK vs Iron Man,or BB. All of that has been discussed to death.

We weren't comparing it to Iron Man, or at least I wasn't. Just discussing the suckiness of TDK's ending. But you are correct that it's off-topic. :hehe:

[ashleyej21]

UK fans liked it. Fans are the real critics!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzu21E6stic

[Visceral]

don't worry guys when I see the movie I'll tell you if its good or not

[Sharkboy]

Why keep passing along any UK reviews? It's obvious that they simply don't get it.

What an idiotic comment, whats there not to get? A review is a review regardless of where it's from. And so far people have been less than impressed from it. You haven't even seen the film yet, so how can you possibly know what they "get"

[hatebox]

Metacritic, when it gets off its arse and actually starts adding reviews, is a far more accurate indicator of critical reception. It tends to only focus on more respected critics too.

[FlawlessVictory]

don't worry guys when I see the movie I'll tell you if its good or not

Ok, thanks. I was losing sleep wondering whether or not Visceral would tell us if IM2 was good or not after he had seen it. :oldrazz:

[kedrell]

Still not sold on Whedon doing Avengers.


Nor I. I've yet to see anything from him that I would like. But I'll keep a positive attitude until I see how it turns out.

[Visceral]

Ok, thanks. I was losing sleep wondering whether or not Visceral would tell us if IM2 was good or not after he had seen it. :oldrazz:

Well why wouldn't you?

[TLH]

You're posturing because you know that's not true.

I say it because it's true. Top critics have Batman Begins at only a 60% score yet the average rating is 6.6. This means that the fresh reviews are glowing/raves/enthusiastic and the rotten are merely mixed, rather than scathing.

The fact that Iron Man 2 has such a huge gap between its % score and its average rating proves that it's drawing a lot of lukewarm reviews. Very, very few glowing reviews or raves. So far, reviews would indicate it's just an okay film, and disappointing given the greatness of the first one.

[redfirebird2008]

Metacritic, when it gets off its arse and actually starts adding reviews, is a far more accurate indicator of critical reception. It tends to only focus on more respected critics too.

It's not a case of them being slow to add reviews. It's a case of the reviewers either not seeing the film yet or not posting their reviews online yet. RT has only two top critic reviews so far, both of which are posted to MetaCritic.

[CristiMAN]

Why this worry about critics? it's an Iron Man movie. If it keeps the steps from the first it will be way above average. Everybody should just forget TDK. That's a one in a million. Its just too good and unique to be compared to any Iron Man. Batman as a character and his universe and villains are too hard to match. Iron Man can be much more visually amazing. But as a story wise, Fauvreu is no Nolan. And Batman is no Iron Man. TDK had huge expectation among everyone: cristics, fans, everybody. And it delivered BIG time. The sole reason I enjoyed the first IM one so much was because my expectations were really low. And I'm keeping them like that. I might be surprised again. Tomorrow I'll be the first in line.

[kedrell]

Metacritic, when it gets off its arse and actually starts adding reviews, is a far more accurate indicator of critical reception. It tends to only focus on more respected critics too.

Actually for all the problems I have with Rotten Tomatoes, I have even more with MetaCritic. Any site that takes someone else's review and basically tries to guess-timate where that review would fall on a 1 to 100 scale is by definition a severely flawed system.

[Visceral]

Why this worry about critics? it's an Iron Man movie. If it keeps the steps from the first it will be way above average. Everybody should just forget TDK. That's a one in a million. Its just too good and unique to be compared to any Iron Man. Batman as a character and his universe and villains are too hard to match. Iron Man can be much more visually amazing. But as a story wise, Fauvreu is no Nolan. And Batman is no Iron Man. TDK had huge expectation among everyone: cristics, fans, everybody. And it delivered BIG time. The sole reason I enjoyed the first IM one so much was because my expectations were really low. And I'm keeping them like that. I might be surprised again. Tomorrow I'll be the first in line.

pass the time til the movies here

[hatebox]

Why this worry about critics?


Why bother posting that in a thread which is entirely devoted to that subject?

If someone is interested in an artistic product, then its wider reception is also going to be of interest. It's got nothing to do with agreeing with the general consenus, just observing it.

[redfirebird2008]

Actually for all the problems I have with Rotten Tomatoes, I have even more with MetaCritic. Any site that takes someone else's review and basically tries to guess-timate where that review would fall on a 1 to 100 scale is by definition a severely flawed system.

I can sort of agree with this, but most reviewers do give a numerical rating. Despite the guesstimates, Meta is generally more accurate IMHO. It's only top critics and not just random bloggers, plus a number like 60/100 assigned to a lukewarm positive is more accurate than simply "positive." If a movie gets 100% 3/5 reviews, is it really that great? Probably not. Where the guesstimates get tougher is with negative reviews. How do you tell if a reviewer doesn't put a numerical grade on it whether it's a 10/100, 20/100, 30/100, etc.

[hatebox]

Actually for all the problems I have with Rotten Tomatoes, I have even more with MetaCritic. Any site that takes someone else's review and basically tries to guess-timate where that review would fall on a 1 to 100 scale is by definition a severely flawed system.


It's not ideal but it's all they can do - and I've often found their scores more in line with the tone of the reviews than RT's often arbitrary/random decision to make the same ambiguous reviews positive or negative.

[Mr. Stark]

I hope none of you are letting IM2's 82% on rottentomatoes deceive you. Take a look at the average critics rating: 6.4/10

Shutter Island has a 68% on Rottentomatoes but its average rating is 6.6/10

The Road has a 75% on Rottentomatoes but its average rating is 7/10

Iron Man 2 is drawing a lot of mercifully lukewarm reviews. Very, very few raves.

Iron Man 1 was ay 93% w/ avg rating of 7.6

[Ace of Knaves]

Why this worry about critics? it's an Iron Man movie. If it keeps the steps from the first it will be way above average. Everybody should just forget TDK. That's a one in a million. Its just too good and unique to be compared to any Iron Man. Batman as a character and his universe and villains are too hard to match. Iron Man can be much more visually amazing. But as a story wise, Fauvreu is no Nolan. And Batman is no Iron Man. TDK had huge expectation among everyone: cristics, fans, everybody. And it delivered BIG time. The sole reason I enjoyed the first IM one so much was because my expectations were really low. And I'm keeping them like that. I might be surprised again. Tomorrow I'll be the first in line.

Whilst Iron Man doesn't have the villains that Batman does, his mythos is much grander and bigger than Batmans.

Iron Man/Tony Stark are massive influences on the MU as a whole. He isn't restricted to one city and one crime at a time. Tony Stark was at one time the head of a world wide security agency (SHIELD). That's why it is important that his story ties into a much larger one in the movie.

And i mean, as comic book fans, why are people complaining about this? It's about time the comic book fans got put first, and that is what Marvel are doing, to an extent. Iron Man, Thor, Cap, Hulk, their movies are like comic books in movie form, tying into bigger events and storylines, interwoven together.

[Visceral]

I have problems with any review that doesn't agree with me, hence the disagree with me. Doesn't mean that I don't care what other peoples opinions are. I like Rotten Tomatoes better than Meta Critic because its a better site. Who cares if I feel it doesn't accurately depict the film the way I see it.

Roger Ebert is a smart man and I usually like what he has to say. I disagree with him on Kick ass and fight club.

And on a side note Vincent Canby of the New York Times. I can't wait to hear what he says.

[redfirebird2008]

It's not ideal but it's all they can do - and I've often found their scores more in line with the tone of their reviews than RT's often arbitrary decision to make the same reviews positive or negative.

RT also gives the reviewer the choice on positive/negative. There's a 2/5 review for IM2 that started out as a negative and was changed to a positive, presumably by the reviewer. His review was pretty idiotic (complained about it not having enough action), but the grade doesn't really match up with the "fresh" rating.

[Anita18]

What redfirebird is getting at is that they could've still achieved an Avengers film without having to put in an entire plot thread within Iron Man 2. If this film would've just had one moment that leads to Avengers, you could still lead to the Avengers film.

As it stands, a major aspect of the film leads to a film we know is coming but we don't know if it works.

Let's say the Avengers film is pretty much garbage (unlikely) and Favreau finishes off the Iron Man Trilogy a year or two later...one part of the Iron Man trilogy will have this plot thread to a sucky film that ultimately leads to nowhere for people who just want the focus to be on Iron Man...

...not saying it won't work. But, some just want a good Iron Man series, without Avengers. But, I do understand that you technically can't tell Tony's story without eventually telling Tony's story when it comes to the Avengers. It's a part of his mythology.
Right. It's a delicate balance, and depending on how they treated it, it could be viewed as sacrificing IM's story for the sake of promoting Avengers. Most of us haven't seen the movie yet, so we can't say for sure. And as always, different people will have different opinions about it.

It isn't at all like Star Wars or LOTR. The LOTR comparison is especially poor because LOTR already existed as a book series.

SWAT/sonar/ferry boats sucked balls for sure. Joker's conversation with Batman in the tower was great. I loved the warehouse scene with Gordon, Dent, and Batman.
Funny, my sister liked the ferry scene the best. But she's a sociology major who especially loves prison experiments like that, and not a comic book fan at all. :funny: See how different people's opinions can be over this stuff?

Roger Ebert is a smart man and I usually like what he has to say. I disagree with him on Kick ass and fight club.
Some movies just don't click with Ebert, but at least he explains why he feels the way he feels fairly intelligently. And then rates them low. :funny: And I've really got to admire him a person, considering what he's been through.

[terry78]

Ebert will never say, "this movie sucked. End of message." He will give you a full ass page about why it sucks.

[Ace of Knaves]

The only plot thread from IM2 that links to Avengers will be about Stark joining SHIELD and the other Avengers being hinted at.

[Ace of Knaves]

The only plot thread from IM2 that links to Avengers will be about Stark joining SHIELD and the other Avengers being hinted at.

[redfirebird2008]

Ebert will never say, "this movie sucked. End of message." He will give you a full ass page about why it sucks.

A well-written page. I don't agree with him all the time by any means, but he is a great writer and very good at articulating his film critique.

[VenomVsSpidey]

I don't care what people will say, I'm going in by my own judgement. Screw the critics. I heard ebert bashing kick-ass,and had I not seen that I would be sorely disappointed in myself.


and can we stop with the SM3 *****ing? it's been almost 3 years....get over it :rolleyes:

[Ace of Knaves]

Some movies just don't click with Ebert, but at least he explains why he feels the way he feels fairly intelligently. And then rates them low. :funny: And I've really got to admire him a person, considering what he's been through.

Not with Kick Ass he didn't. It wasn't even a review, it was a rant.

And he clearly didn't pay attention to the film. He didn't know things like why Big Daddy gave Hit Girl her balisongs, even though it was CLEARLY explained it was her birthday.

He also didn't know why Kick Ass decided to become Kick Ass. Even though it was CLEARLY explained.

In other words, he didn't pay proper attention to the film he was supposed to be reviewing.

[terry78]

Ebert will never say, "this movie sucked. End of message." He will give you a full ass page about why it sucks.

[terry78]

Not with Kick Ass he didn't. It wasn't even a review, it was a rant.

And he clearly didn't pay attention to the film. He didn't know things like why Big Daddy gave Hit Girl her balisongs, even though it was CLEARLY explained it was her birthday.

He also didn't know why Kick Ass decided to become Kick Ass. Even though it was CLEARLY explained.

In other words, he didn't pay proper attention to the film he was supposed to be reviewing.


Didn't he become Kick-Ass because he was bored?

[Ace of Knaves]

Na, he was sick of people wanting to be Paris Hilton instead of Spider-Man! :awesome:

But seriously it was mainly because he was sick of peoples apathy, summed up in the scene where he got jacked and someone saw it and did nothing. And also when he defended some guy getting beating to crap by three guys he was like "3 *******s laying into one guy? Whilst everyone else watches? And you wanna know what's wrong with me?!?(for helping the guy out)."

Man that movie is so awesome.

[VenomVsSpidey]

Didn't he become Kick-Ass because he was bored?

:doh:

because he wanted to know why people hadn't tried to become a hero before. he was tired of crap going down with noone helping out others

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Na, he was sick of people wanting to be Paris Hilton instead of Spider-Man! :awesome:

But seriously it was mainly because he was sick of peoples apathy, summed up in the scene where he got jacked and someone saw it and did nothing. And also when he defended some guy getting beating to crap by three guys he was like "3 *******s laying into one guy? Whilst everyone else watches? And you wanna know what's wrong with me?!?(for helping the guy out)."

Man that movie is so awesome.

You need to stop quoting these awesome scene's Ace, i keep getting goosebumps thinking about them! :woot:

[Ace of Knaves]

:funny: That isn't the only reason.

[RachelDawes]

There's no way IM2 will have as poor of a reception as SM3 amongst the public and fanboys. My reasoning is that SM3 had bad dialogue, bad acting, and ultra melodramatic scenes that were very cringeworthy. IM2 feels more along the lines of Dead Man's Chest, or like you said, Temple of Doom. Neither of those movies are particularly great by any means, but they are praised for good acting and for being entertaining summer films. That's pretty much the vibe I'm getting with IM2.

My main problems with SM3 were emo Peter and the romantic subplot with MJ that felt like it took up half the film. I'm sure IM won't have those problems.

The mixed reviews definitely give me some concerns, but I think it will still be an enjoyable movie. The question is whether IM2 (if perceived as less-than-successful movie compared to IM1) will hurt Marvel's ambiguous plan to make The Avengers down the road, and whether Marvel has crammed Avengers Initiative stuff in Thor & Capt. America like they did with IM2. I guess we will see when those movies come out.

I was concerned a couple days ago when the criticism started pouring in but these newer, more positive reviews have calmed me down. I wish the critics were ranking it higher than they have been but at least it looks like it's not a disaster.

[Ace of Knaves]

You need to stop quoting these awesome scene's Ace, i keep getting goosebumps thinking about them! :woot:

haha sorry man, can't help it. That scene gave me chills too. Sums up what being a hero is all about. The way Johnson delivered it was just perfect.

[Tony Stark]

Eberts opposition to kick-ass was explained well though. He will never say a movie sucks without explanation. I haven't seen kick-ass, and I know alot of people like it and said it was faithful to the graphic novell, however having an 11 year old daughter myself I can understand Ebert's objections to having an 11 year old go around committing wanton acts of violence.

Anyway, the Avengers stuff is being well overblown. The one review I saw that really harped on that wan't really a review, it looked like more fanboy "this sucks" and even ended with "f-bomb marvel".

That's the type of stuff I'm talking about where I really don't take RT too seriously anymore. They used to be alot more picky about what went into their reviews.

Infact for those of you that remember IM's original RT rating on release day was 96% fresh. But some late reviews from mostly bloggers who thought they would rip the film, brought it down to 93%.

I'm not saying bloggers shouldn't be included, but it's rediculous the amount of crap they will post up there.

[J.Howlett]

Best film of the year, bar none, Ace.

On a personal level, I've had a hard time seeing Iron Man 2 being better than Kick-Ass. And that was before the reviews started to kick in. Kick-Ass just works on all cylinders.

[VenomVsSpidey]

Eberts opposition to kick-ass was explained well though. He will never say a movie sucks without explanation. I haven't seen kick-ass, and I know alot of people like it and said it was faithful to the graphic novell, however having an 11 year old daughter myself I can understand Ebert's objections to having an 11 year old go around committing wanton acts of violence.

but it's not like the movie is marketed towards kiddies to begin with though. besides, she's an actor, it's no like she's gonna go around actually doing these things.


Anyway, the Avengers stuff is being well overblown. The one review I saw that really harped on that wan't really a review, it looked like more fanboy "this sucks" and even ended with "f-bomb marvel".

That's the type of stuff I'm talking about where I really don't take RT too seriously anymore. They used to be alot more picky about what went into their reviews.

Infact for those of you that remember IM's original RT rating on release day was 96% fresh. But some late reviews from mostly bloggers who thought they would rip the film, brought it down to 93%.

I'm not saying bloggers shouldn't be included, but it's rediculous the amount of crap they will post up there.

I'm going to see this, regardless of critics, but I have cautious optimism for it.

[Ace of Knaves]

Agreed J.Howlett. I think it's gonna be hard for Kick Ass to be topped for me.

Disagreed Tony Stark. Sure he can take issues with Hit Girl, but as i explained, it was obvious he wasn't paying attention to the film properly because he missed vital plot points. And he didn't actually critique the film. I think there was 1 paragraph out of about 10 talking about anything other than Hit Girl. And it's not a kids film anyway, it's not the film makers fault there is crap parents out their who allow their kids to see such things and piracy.

[Chewy]

Right. It's a delicate balance, and depending on how they treated it, it could be viewed as sacrificing IM's story for the sake of promoting Avengers. Most of us haven't seen the movie yet, so we can't say for sure. And as always, different people will have different opinions about it.

It isn't at all like Star Wars or LOTR. The LOTR comparison is especially poor because LOTR already existed as a book series.
Iron Man's story IS Avengers. It is not a separate product, or "spin-off" being promoted. Some people in this thread seem to be acting as though it is.

[kedrell]

2 more positive reviews in IM2's column at RT now. 20 fresh, 4 rotten. Still a 6.4/10.

[FlawlessVictory]

RT update:

73% 19 Fresh, 7 Rotten
Avg. Rating: 6.3/10

[FaT_tONle]

Hopefully it can get back up to 7/10, but I doubt it. I'm disappointed. When there are sequels like X-2, SM2, TDK out there, and this apparently falls short, you have to feel a little empty handed. I just got to get my expectations down for all Marvel productions. Can't even imagine BB3 getting close to the reception of TDK either. Can't get worked up about this **** anymore.

[TheVileOne]

Yeah I think people are getting too worked up about it.

I look forward to the DVD though and seeing some of the alternate versions of scenes.

[JP]

You seem to be getting quite worked up. :huh:

[redfirebird2008]

Yeah I think people are getting too worked up about it.

I look forward to the DVD though and seeing some of the alternate versions of scenes.

It's not just alternate versions, but also deleted scenes too I think. I haven't seen the film yet, but I am very interested to see if it feels like something is missing. I'll be disappointed if they took scenes out that could have helped the flow of the story in the film. It would be cool if they do a Director's Cut.

[rashad]

Latino Review - Rating: C

Excerpts from review
Iron Man 2 suffers from a really, really shoddy script. I don't know what qualifies Justin Theroux to be working on super heroes but he needs to stop. The movie plays as if it was written on the go and scenes seem to be inserted and dialogue written without any care for the scenes that follow it.

Whiplash has two fight scenes in the film, one good, the other horrible. Let's just say the scene with Whiplash in Monaco is fantastic.

The biggest complaint about Iron Man was the fight at the end with Iron Monger and that it was too short. Well, if you thought that fight scene was short, you're going to be really disappointed with the 30 second fight scene once Whiplash re-enters the picture. After Iron Man and War Machine (they patch things up) dispatch of Hammer's robot army, Whiplash comes in wearing a brand new suit. But the fight stays grounded and is over much too quickly. Very, very disappointed with the end fight scene. We do see some cool new tech from Stark's Extremis suit, but that's really about it.
http://www.latinoreview.com/movie-reviews/iron-man-2-790


Devin Faraci CHUD Review - 6.5/10
http://chud.com/articles/articles/23545/1/REVIEW-IRON-MAN-2/Page1.html

[J.Howlett]

Oops...http://chud.com/articles/articles/23545/1/REVIEW-IRON-MAN-2/Page1.html

[hatebox]

I normally agree with this site for reviews so this is a pity:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/a217005/iron-man-2.html

Jeff Bridges has often recalled walking on to the set of Iron Man (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/a94868/iron-man.html) with no script (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a202007/jeff-bridges-iron-man-had-no-script.html) to work from. Despite that apparent lack of direction, the debut outing for the Marvel hero fans affectionately call Shellhead was a highly effective origin tale with a barnstorming performance from Robert Downey Jr (an unlikely action hero two years ago). Freewheeling on a $200 million budget is a risky strategy, and it appears that director Jon Favreau has tried the same trick again for the sequel with screenwriter Justin Theroux's storyline. A few rewrites would have benefited, because Iron Man 2 is flabby, unfocused and, criminally, quite dull in places.

It kicks off by introducing Mickey Rourke's Russian physicist Ivan Vanko as he tends to his fading father. It transpires that Vanko helped develop new technology with Tony Stark's father Howard (Mad Men's John Slattery) but never got credit. When Ivan's father passes away, he reinvents himself as a supervillain with designs on hunting down Stark Jr. Over in the US, the senate is pressuring Tony to hand over his Iron Man technology to the military, while his industrial rival Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) is attempting to forge his own money-making robotic armour. There's also a new cast addition in the form of Scarlett Johansson's sexy secretary Natalie and reprisals for Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), Rhodey (Don Cheadle in place of Terrence Howard) and, bafflingly, an expanded comic relief role for Tony's bodyguard Happy (Favreau).

It's this crowded nature that bogs down the movie. Remember when the Batman series got silly with its multiple villains and sidekicks syndrome? This is a bit like that, but thankfully not quite falling into the day-glo camp of Joel Schumacher's caped crusader outings. Furthermore, Marvel has an Avengers movie in sight and the intent to weave in pieces of the puzzle early - such as Captain America's shield, Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury and Johansson's Black Widow - makes Iron Man 2 a lot of set-up and no payoff.

Rourke is watchable as the cockatoo-loving baddie Whiplash who teams up with Hammer, a man desperate to get out of Stark's shadow. Rockwell, too, is very good, delivering a performance that's both creepy and charismatic. However, the crackle that was present between Downey Jr and Paltrow last time out isn't here. As the newly appointed Stark Industries CEO, Pepper's overriding job requirement seems to be to constantly nag at Tony and their back-and-forth bickering comes across more like sibling rivalry than romantic tension.

In fairness, the movie is entertaining when it's not dumping plot exposition and clunkily foreshadowing "super-secret boyband" The Avengers (Tony's words, not mine!). A sequence at the Moncao Grand Prix is pretty exhilarating and Scarlett Johansson's big action set piece shows her as a competent (and flexible) ass-kicker. Ultimately, though, it represents a significant drop in quality from its engaging and fun predecessor. Iron Man was a rare blockbuster that stayed with you - the sequel all but evaporates the moment it cuts to black.

2/5

[Octoberist]

I'm not gonna say much since I'll judge Iron Man 2 on its own merit, but I was often frighten at the notion that Iron Man 2 and the other Marvel flicks were just lead ins for The Avengers. I hope that is not the case..

[night0205]

I think Thor may be the only one that is not a lead in to the Avengers. Of course, if you think about it, Shield and Fury were both in the first movie, and now both, and now Black Widow, and we are surprised about it being heavily focused on Avengers? That's what some fans have been geeking about for the last 2 years. And fans will geek out about the "references" to other superheros as well for the next couple years. Iron Man is a big connection to the Avengers, especially sense he shows up in the Incredible Hulk... This isn't surprising in the least. Iron Man 2 is probably the biggest connection to what we will see in the Avengers then anything else. Captain America will have the whole WWII on his side, and Thor will have another world altogether, but we can see they will all lead to the Avengers. All I'm saying is it's not surprising, and to tell you the truth I've been hearing fans scream for it for 10 years.

Why be surprised that they actually are giving the fans what they asked for?

[jmc]

I'm not gonna say much since I'll judge Iron Man 2 on its own merit, but I was often frighten at the notion that Iron Man 2 and the other Marvel flicks were just lead ins for The Avengers. I hope that is not the case..

I think IM2 showed the problem with what Marvel are attempting to do. The Avengers stuff just doesn't work in a solo film, you're taking away vital screen time to talk about something else when the focus should be on the character at hand. Marvel had better learn fast to improve this for Thor and CA.

[night0205]

"I WANT CROSS OVERS I WANT CROSS OVERS!!!" Marvel is just like... "OK." At least they are doing it in a classy way, at least so far. We haven't seen anything as bad as the secret ending of Wolverine, where Deadpool touches his head and says "sshhhhhh..." I was like... WHAT? Ssshhh what? I guess he was like "i know you are watching me, and I'm breaking the forth wall so don't tell Wolverine I'm actually alive... because obviously you the audience can have direct communication with Wolverine." ...I hate when I, a nobody, could think up more creative stuff then the people who are being paid it for a living.

[Mr. Earle]

The Mark VI has some Extremis tech? OH GOD!!! I want to see this movie now!

[redfirebird2008]

Latino Review - Rating: C

Excerpts from review



Devin Faraci CHUD Review - 6.5/10
http://chud.com/articles/articles/23545/1/REVIEW-IRON-MAN-2/Page1.html




The same guy at Latino Review gave IM1 an A+ rating. Devin gave IM1 a 8.5 rating.

[GhostPoet]

From everything i've been reading this sounds like it's exactly what I was hoping it would be. Many critics seem to consider it like Spider-Man to is to the spidey franchise, of course when they say that they are saying it's a bad thing. But I actually feel that Spidey 2 is BY FAR the best in the series.

Another complaint by critics is that Iron Man 2 is darker than the first...which again, is exactly what I wanted.

Another big complaint was having too many characters. I for one am glad to see Marvel expanding it's movie universe. It makes it feel all put together.

So, I couldn't be more happy really.

[GhostPoet]

I'm not gonna say much since I'll judge Iron Man 2 on its own merit, but I was often frighten at the notion that Iron Man 2 and the other Marvel flicks were just lead ins for The Avengers. I hope that is not the case..

See, that's what I don't get. I don't see it as a lead in...I see it that Marvel is interconnecting the universe. The more marvel based movies we have, the more involved the rest of the universe gets. I think connecting the films like this is a perfect way to handle things.

[Brem]

I just got back after seeing it, and I'm really glad I didn't listen to the reviews. Personally I really enjoyed it, and so did the other three people who saw it with me. There were one or two moments that felt a little out of place, however the picture quality in the cinema wasn't the greatest (not sure why, this is a first but it wasn't "awful", just a little dull) so that could have been distracting. Sound was a little off too (again, a first).

To me the film is not as bad as some reviewers have made it out to be. It was awesome.

[lou2099]

I normally agree with this site for reviews so this is a pity:http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/a217005/iron-man-2.htmlI knew it. I just knew it.

[GhostPoet]

reviewers keep saying this is JUST a lead in to The Avengers.
It's not.

The moment Iron Man 1 ended, Tony became part of something much bigger than himself. 2 shows that in full force. He's no longer alone and the story for IM2 just helps to convey that message.

[kedrell]

I agree, GhostPoet. The Avengers isn't the end result but just another cog in the machine. A fully realized MCU on screen is the end result and aside from Kevin Smith's Askew-niverse(which is still a really bad example but it's the closest thing in existence for comparison) there has never been anything of it's like in movies ever. Not just something really new in the superhero genre, but in cinema entirely.

And people who say "Oh, They're forcing the Avengers down our throats" or "I hate it when characters crossover or team-up", well then you've been completely askew to the entire concept of these movies from the begining. DC, Darkhorse or other-studio-made Marvel films is where you want to be. Because these films are being made for people who love the idea of a fully realized MCU. Why are you even on this board then? None of this is suddenly coming out by suprise. The critics may knock IM2 a bit because they were never really the intended targets of the film to begin with and most of them also probably hate the idea of a MCU. Well screw them, they don't have to watch it.

[Mr. Earle]

OK, i cant take it anymore. I cant wait till Monday (which is the day that i'll hopefully see it) to learn what is that Extremis technology that the Mk VI has. Someone spoil this for me!
Does he suit up the Extremis way? What is it?

[GhostPoet]

I agree, GhostPoet. The Avengers isn't the end result but just another cog in the machine. A fully realized MCU on screen is the end result and aside from Kevin Smith's Askew-niverse(which is still a really bad example but it's the closest thing in existence for comparison) there has never been anything of it's like in movies ever. Not just something really new in the superhero genre, but in cinema entirely.

And people who say "Oh, They're forcing the Avengers down our throats" or "I hate it when characters crossover or team-up", well then you've been completely askew to the entire concept of these movies from the begining. DC, Darkhorse or other-studio-made Marvel films is where you want to be. Because these films are being made for people who love the idea of a fully realized MCU. Why are you even on this board then? None of this is suddenly coming out by suprise. The critics may knock IM2 a bit because they were never really the intended targets of the film to begin with and most of them also probably hate the idea of a MCU. Well screw them, they don't have to watch it.


You said that way better than me :)

People just have the wrong idea about this whole thing. MCU in films is something fans have been wanting for a very LONG time. Critics don't understand that, this is not something they are used to. It's like you said...it's another cog.

[Sharkboy]

Iron Man 1 is so overrated it's getting quite ridiculous.

[kedrell]

Iron Man 1 is so overrated it's getting quite ridiculous.

A lot of us feel the same way about BB, TDK, SM2, X2 or what have you. That's nothing new.

[redfirebird2008]

A lot of us feel the same way about BB, TDK, SM2, X2 or what have you. That's nothing new.

I feel that way about all of the above as well as IM1. :woot:

[GhostPoet]

Iron Man 1 is so overrated it's getting quite ridiculous.

I think IM1 was fantastic. But it was an ORIGIN story...so obviously it's going to focus more on Tony. But for the sequel...for some reason people were expecting more of the same despite the fact an entire universe has been opened up. It makes no sense.

[Mr. Earle]

reviewers keep saying this is JUST a lead in to The Avengers.
It's not.

The moment Iron Man 1 ended, Tony became part of something much bigger than himself. 2 shows that in full force. He's no longer alone and the story for IM2 just helps to convey that message.
I agree, GhostPoet. The Avengers isn't the end result but just another cog in the machine. A fully realized MCU on screen is the end result and aside from Kevin Smith's Askew-niverse(which is still a really bad example but it's the closest thing in existence for comparison) there has never been anything of it's like in movies ever. Not just something really new in the superhero genre, but in cinema entirely.

And people who say "Oh, They're forcing the Avengers down our throats" or "I hate it when characters crossover or team-up", well then you've been completely askew to the entire concept of these movies from the begining. DC, Darkhorse or other-studio-made Marvel films is where you want to be. Because these films are being made for people who love the idea of a fully realized MCU. Why are you even on this board then? None of this is suddenly coming out by suprise. The critics may knock IM2 a bit because they were never really the intended targets of the film to begin with and most of them also probably hate the idea of a MCU. Well screw them, they don't have to watch it.
I agree with you guys, but its also a matter of how all this is handled. The calmer critics that took the time to understand the film mostly whine about how the second act is slow and nothing seems to happen. Ironman does nothing, Whiplash does nothing (in fact he has very little screentime altogether), and that the poisoning subplot is resolved in a very simple and unemotional way.

I have no problem with Shield and the Avengers but it seems that they needed to put some action in the second act. That would have given Whiplash more to do and would have provided us with another much needed action scene. I especially feel bad about Whippy since i thought that he would be another iconic villain like the Joker (OK, not that iconic) but it seems like they forgot all about him.

[kedrell]

You said that way better than me :)

People just have the wrong idea about this whole thing. MCU in films is something fans have been wanting for a very LONG time. Critics don't understand that, this is not something they are used to. It's like you said...it's another cog.


Thanks. I work graveyard at a gas station so I've got a lot of time on my hands to just sit around and think about this stuff.:cwink:

[kedrell]

I agree with you guys, but its also a matter of how all this is handled. The calmer critics that took the time to understand the film mostly whine about how the second act is slow and nothing seems to happen. Ironman does nothing, Whiplash does nothing (in fact he has very little screentime altogether), and that the poisoning subplot is resolved in a very simple and unemotional way.

I have no problem with Shield and the Avengers but it seems that they needed to put some action in the second act. That would have given Whiplash more to do and would have provided us with another much needed action scene. I especially feel bad about Whippy since i thought that he would be another iconic villain like the Joker (OK, not that iconic) but it seems like they forgot all about him.


Oh, I'm not saying this film might not have problems. I haven't seen it yet. And I've only been reading the headlines and over-all scores from the reviews rather than reading them in full since I don't want to get spoiled.

[redfirebird2008]

Oh, I'm not saying this film might not have problems. I haven't seen it yet. And I've only been reading the headlines and over-all scores from the reviews rather than reading them in full since I don't want to get spoiled.

JMC posted a pretty well-written review on here (spoiler-free) and made an excellent point about the issue of introducing the Avengers characters to the general public. Like it or not, Joe Six Pack is the reason Iron Man made nearly $320 million in North America. Fanboys play a very small part in the box office success of these movies. How many people in the general public stayed after the credits to see Samuel L. Jackson's appearance? JMC pointed out that he just shows up in IM2 with the assumption that the audience already knows who he is. That assumption works fine with the fanboy crowd, but not so much with the average moviegoer that probably has never even seen that particular scene after the IM1 credits.

[kedrell]

Fair point but then Joe-Six-Pack is also much less discriminating than the critics or the fanboys. I submit Dead Man's Chest as exhibit A on that front.

[FlawlessVictory]

RT update:

77% 23 Fresh, 7 Rotten
Avg. Rating: 6.5/10

[kedrell]

Goin' back up I see.

[kedrell]

And keep in mind also that this one simply can't have the "we didn't see this one coming" factor that the first one did. That alone is likely going to work against it, no matter how good it is(or isn't). You can't suprise them twice.

[Mr. Earle]

And that is why the scene with Fury in IM1 should have been the last scene of the movie and not shown after the credits.

[Naite22]

From everything i've been reading this sounds like it's exactly what I was hoping it would be. Many critics seem to consider it like Spider-Man to is to the spidey franchise, of course when they say that they are saying it's a bad thing. But I actually feel that Spidey 2 is BY FAR the best in the series.

Another complaint by critics is that Iron Man 2 is darker than the first...which again, is exactly what I wanted.

Another big complaint was having too many characters. I for one am glad to see Marvel expanding it's movie universe. It makes it feel all put together.

So, I couldn't be more happy really.

IT WAS!!! The classiest and most beautiful of the bunch. Best executed story/script, best effects, best pacing. And the overall feel was pretty epic! That final train battle -damn!

[GhostPoet]

Exactly. And the casualty? The Iron Man sequel.

Oh well, at least I have the original which is an instant classic.

Iron Man 2, the 2 1/2 commercial for nerd-gasm Avenger movie.

:whatever:


Man, you just don't get it...
that's only a small part of it. The Avengers film is not the end goal.

The crossover films are not going to stop after Avengers. Crossovers will still happen AFTER as well...all of these films are involved with each other, they all share the same universe. It isn't a lead in, but more about showing that the universe is connected. This is how it's going to be. Take it or leave it.

[Brem]

Exactly. And the casualty? The Iron Man sequel.

Oh well, at least I have the original which is an instant classic.

Iron Man 2, the 2 1/2 commercial for nerd-gasm Avenger movie.

:whatever:

I don't know where you got the impression it's a two hour adverts for the Avenger film. I don't remember that many scenes that brought up the Avengers, and even when they did these scenes took up at least 5 or 10 minutes of the film, they were hardly the focus.

[redfirebird2008]

Fair point but then Joe-Six-Pack is also much less discriminating than the critics or the fanboys. I submit Dead Man's Chest as exhibit A on that front.

I think Joe Six Pack will enjoy the hell out of this. It looks like a fun summer movie, kinda like DMC. But then again, Joe Six Pack's enjoyment of DMC didn't take away from some general feelings of confusion about the plot. You can enjoy the heck out of something without necessarily understanding what is going on. When you have writers like Rossio and Elliott who tend to throw everything including the kitchen sink into those Pirate sequel plots, it's no wonder that a lot of people enjoyed them but still had questions about the plot. They are fun and spectacular movies, but they aren't the most straightforward in storytelling by any means.

[VenomVsSpidey]

I love it how people are saying it's gonna suck before even SEEING the damn movie.

FFS people.

[redfirebird2008]

RT update:

77% 23 Fresh, 7 Rotten
Avg. Rating: 6.5/10


Negative from Financial Times was just posted. 2/5. Drops the Fresh rating to 75% with 6.4/10 average rating. There's also a 2/5 rating from Digital Spy that has not been posted yet. This thing has been very volatile lately, although the good thing is it is staying in the positive range of say 70-85%. :yay:

[kedrell]

And that is why the scene with Fury in IM1 should have been the last scene of the movie and not shown after the credits.

Yeah, or at least after the animated credits part. But this "most people still have no clue about that scene and didn't see it" arguement is one I'm not sure is true. The 1st movie sold a ton on DVD and those people could easily see that scene.

[redfirebird2008]

Even so ... it's vert apparent, and a common theme among all reviews that the film loses its way after the 1st 40 some odd minutes or so ... then devolves into something horrendously disappointing.

A lot of reviews have said the first 40 minutes are the strongest of the movie, but "horrendously disappointing" is ultra hyperbolic IMHO.

[Naite22]

Man, you just don't get it...
that's only a small part of it. The Avengers film is not the end goal.

The crossover films are not going to stop after Avengers. Crossovers will still happen AFTER as well...all of these films are involved with each other, they all share the same universe. It isn't a lead in, but more about showing that the universe is connected. This is how it's going to be. Take it or leave it.

I'm sorry, but I just dont see Iron Man and THOR working in the same movie. Seems completely lame to me...

[redfirebird2008]

You want me to find the reviews that call Iron Man 2 very disappointing? Specifically after the film loses its way half way through it? It's like the 1st act of the movie is the true sequel to the original. Where Favreau works his magic, then its like the STUDIO bangs through the door and says "PUSH THIS" and then film is thereafter a mess of a film.


I've seen plenty of reviews. As for your judgment of it, have you seen the movie? I'm not going to call anything "horrendously disappointing" until I've seen it and actually feel that it is horrendously disappointing. It's a summer movie, not Schindler's List. As long as they don't go into the melodramatic romantic nonsense like Spider-Man 3, I will probably enjoy IM2 a lot.

[kedrell]

I really don't see why Iron Man & Thor can't work together. Both are fantasy. All superhero stories are. Iron Man has a more sci-fi-ish tint to him but it really isn't sci-fi anymore than Star Wars is. And Thor is obviously fantasy. I just don't get that criticism.

[Brem]

Even so ... it's vert apparent, and a common theme among all reviews that the film loses its way after the 1st 40 some odd minutes or so ... then devolves into something horrendously disappointing.

It wasn't that bad, actually. One or two scenes didn't really fit, however that's just my opinion and one of those scenes is just after Stark fights with Rhodey, Starks meets with Fury, I thought they should have shown Stark after the fight.

I agree that the fight with Ivan was a bit shorter than I had expected, but I don't know what else they could have done with it. I can't stand it when a fight drags on, and I could see that being one of those fights.

My only other complaint is that some characters disappear for a while, but I suppose this happens in a lot of films.

I personally didn't think the second half was any worse than the first half. I enjoyed the whole film.

Sorry about the spoiler tags, I'm not sure what I'm allowed to say without them, so I thought I'd be better off using them.

[redfirebird2008]

Doesn't mean I can't demand quality.

But I should be reserved. Not every director is Chris Nolan. And not ever superhero film can be as good as the combo of Begins and The Dark Knight.


:doh:

[kedrell]

Doesn't mean I can't demand quality.

But I should be reserved. Not every director is Chris Nolan. And not ever superhero film can be as good as the combo of Begins and The Dark Knight.


You're really pushing it with baiting like that. The Bat-boards are calling you home.

[FlawlessVictory]

Doesn't mean I can't demand quality.

But I should be reserved. Not every director is Chris Nolan. And not ever superhero film can be as good as the combo of Begins and The Dark Knight.

:csad:

Now you did it.

The next 5 pages will be all about Batman, TDK, Nolan, ferries, SWAT, police dogs, how the ending sucks, how the fighting sucks etc...


sigh

[redfirebird2008]

You're really pushing it with baiting like that. The Bat-boards are calling you home.

Yep, he would fit right in on those boards. Lots of hyperbole in both directions.

[hatebox]

Yeah, let's please not have yet another Batman debtate.

[VenomVsSpidey]

But the dorks are pushing for the crossover, so the now geek foundation studio (Marvel) is less concerned with making good movies, but they need to build up to this crossover project.

:whatever:

why are you saying that us being dorks is a bad thing? not to mention YOU also signed up here. Oh the irony. why'd you even sign up, if not to just troll bait? seriously, you haven't made a single post worthy of anything useful. truth be told your as useful as kaw right about now, and that's not a good thing. but keep it up, I love to fight with trolls.:whatever:

[redfirebird2008]

Well dude, Nolan's Bat films are the pinnacle of comic book movies.

I could've just as easily gone a tier below Nolan's Batman movies, and said its ashame Iron Man / Iron Man 2 can't be as good as X-Men / X-Men 2 or as good as Spider-Man / Spider-Man 2.

Better?

I didn't know I wasn't allowed to give props to what many have believed to be the best origin and then follow up sequel to a comic book character.

The Iron Man franchise has nothing to do with the Batman, X-Men, or Spider-Man franchises. The comparisons are pointless.

[hatebox]

Well dude, Nolan's Bat films are the pinnacle of comic book movies.

I could've just as easily gone a tier below Nolan's Batman movies, and said its ashame Iron Man / Iron Man 2 can't be as good as X-Men / X-Men 2 or as good as Spider-Man / Spider-Man 2.

Better?

I didn't know I wasn't allowed to give props to what many have believed to be the best origin and then follow up sequel to a comic book character.

I actually agree that it's disappointing Iron Man 2 apparently doesn't have the step up in quality like TDK or X2, especially as Iron Man 1 wasn't that great in the first place, but if you peruse this thread you'll see the comparison has already ben done to death and never leads anywhere good. If people ignore you it's not because they're bitter, it's because the discussion is redundant now.

[FlawlessVictory]

Well dude, Nolan's Bat films are the pinnacle of comic book movies.

I could've just as easily gone a tier below Nolan's Batman movies, and said its ashame Iron Man / Iron Man 2 can't be as good as X-Men / X-Men 2 or as good as Spider-Man / Spider-Man 2.

Better?

I didn't know I wasn't allowed to give props to what many have believed to be the best origin and then follow up sequel to a comic book character.

Because what ends up happening is that it becomes pages of JUST Batman discussed with Iron Man not even in sight. First the comparisons are made between franchises but it doesn't stop there. Then the entire thread is derailed and you would think you are in a Batman forum.

[VenomVsSpidey]

you love movies? go post on IMDB, there are plenty of peeps like you there. and there's no issue with discussing, but FFS, your just troll baiting.

[redfirebird2008]

It was a small comment though. Talk about overreaction, then.

Actually, it was a flame-war type of comment.

[Kent]

I signed up because I love movies. Good movies. One could even say I'm a nerd in those regards. I signed up to talk about the new Iron Man movie. Is there an issue with that? Do I have to gush about the film to not be considered a "troll"?

:whatever:

There are several layers to the nerd pyramid. And the people who push for crossovers for having multiple men in tights in a film just SEEM TO ME to be the very top part of that pyramid.

No, you get considered a troll because you go out of your way to preemptively undermine the positions of people who don't agree with your assessment of the movie.

I don't know about others but I have very little interest in discussing movies with people who already assume that their position is the only valid one, and people who think differently do so because they are "deluded" or "dorks" or "don't understand film".

This type of tactic is typical of people who have no interest other than getting people upset... that is, trolls.

[Raiden]

I signed up because I love movies. Good movies. One could even say I'm a nerd in those regards. I signed up to talk about the new Iron Man movie. Is there an issue with that? Do I have to gush about the film to not be considered a "troll"?

:whatever:

There are several layers to the nerd pyramid. And the people who push for crossovers for having multiple men in tights in a film just SEEM TO ME to be the very top part of that pyramid.

Um, have you even watched Iron Man 2? Seems to me you have already made up your mind just from reading reviews.

[Leenie]

Since people are making the comparisons on how Iron Man 2 will measure up to some of the other comic book sequels, I'm predicting that I won't love it as much as Spider-Man 2 or The Dark Knight, but I'll be stunned if I don't like it considerably more than X-2. My love for the X-Men movies has long since passed, and that includes the second movie.

Anyway, based on most of the reviews I've read, it seems to me that critics are lukewarm about it because it's not as good as the first movie. Whatever. As long as it's good, I'll be a very happy camper.

[Paradoxium]

I recall early into development, this filmed was bum rushed (Marvel seems to have a tendency to do this) and Favs was not a thrilled with it. Every film bum rushed by Marvel has been a stinker, relative to the original. From X2 to X3. From FF to FF2. Perhaps that is why it hurt the quality of the film. Marvel wanted it in 2010 so they can have one marvel film in that cycle. Couldn't get what they wanted. Maybe there wasn't enough time to flesh out the script and pre-production process.

With Spidey 1 to 2, they started almost immediately. Sequel was greenlit before release. That was the same 2 year gap. Whereas Iron Man I recall a period of a few months post release when they wanted the 2010 release. Batman Begins to TDK, there is a three year gap, 1 year alone for the story and preproduction while Nolan was shooting his smaller film, The Prestige. Even X2 has a nice gap of time as well.

[FaT_tONle]

I recall early into development, this filmed was bum rushed (Marvel seems to have a tendency to do this) and Favs was not a thrilled with it. Every film bum rushed by Marvel has been a stinker, relative to the original. From X2 to X3. From FF to FF2. Perhaps that is why it hurt the quality of the film. Marvel wanted it in 2010 so they can have one marvel film in that cycle. Couldn't get what they wanted. Maybe there wasn't enough time to flesh out the script and pre-production process.

With Spidey 1 to 2, they started almost immediately. Sequel was greenlit before release. That was the same 2 year gap. Whereas Iron Man I recall a period of a few months post release when they wanted the 2010 release. Batman Begins to TDK, there is a three year gap, 1 year alone for the story and preproduction while Nolan was shooting his smaller film, The Prestige. Even X2 has a nice gap of time as well.

I agree. Marvel should have had Thor as the May film in 2010. IM's return could have waited until 2011. Hence the shoddy, patchwork problems we are hearing with the script and overall pacing as a result of bringing in a comedic writer like Theroux so late. Favreau had his hands tied. It's not a calamity, but Marvel needs to learn from their mistakes. Avengers in 2012 is probably a mistake as well. I say take the extra year if they have some contingency plan in 2012. If Favreau is going to have major input in the Avengers movie, he may struggle catching up with IM3.

[PumpkinBombxXx]

I recall early into development, this filmed was bum rushed (Marvel seems to have a tendency to do this) and Favs was not a thrilled with it. Every film bum rushed by Marvel has been a stinker, relative to the original. From X2 to X3. From FF to FF2. Perhaps that is why it hurt the quality of the film. Marvel wanted it in 2010 so they can have one marvel film in that cycle. Couldn't get what they wanted. Maybe there wasn't enough time to flesh out the script and pre-production process.

With Spidey 1 to 2, they started almost immediately. Sequel was greenlit before release. That was the same 2 year gap. Whereas Iron Man I recall a period of a few months post release when they wanted the 2010 release. Batman Begins to TDK, there is a three year gap, 1 year alone for the story and preproduction while Nolan was shooting his smaller film, The Prestige. Even X2 has a nice gap of time as well.
All the films you mentioned have nothing to do with Marvel as a studio. Blame the other studios who were in controle of those propertys

[Sharkboy]

I will admit my expectations lowered sigificantly thanks to all those negative reviews, it actually helped as i quite enjoyed the film, in fact I love it. I need to watch it again to see if my enjoyment was the product of my lowered expectations, or i loved it on its merits alone.

[Tony Stark]

Wheather there is a two or three year gap, I don't know makes that much of a difference. All it meant for Favreau is that pre-production pretty much started when the first film was released.

I think people are making a little too much out of this. Yeah there were three year gaps between the Batman films and the X men films, but if you look at when production started relative to the movie release, it was about the same.

Favreau was probably pissed, because he may have wanted to work on other things. After Batman Begins came out, Nolan didn't go straight to work on TDK. He was mostly involved with the Prestige, before he even started work on TDK.

There was only a one year gap between SM1 and SM2 and people said SM2 was better, much better (although some here hate that movie and say it's overrated), there was a three year gap between SM2 and SM3 and most tend to agree it wasn't as good as the other two.

[redfirebird2008]

Wheather there is a two or three year gap, I don't know makes that much of a difference. All it meant for Favreau is that pre-production pretty much started when the first film was released.

I think people are making a little too much out of this. Yeah there were three year gaps between the Batman films and the X men films, but if you look at when production started relative to the movie release, it was about the same.

Favreau was probably pissed, because he may have wanted to work on other things. After Batman Begins came out, Nolan didn't go straight to work on TDK. He was mostly involved with the Prestige, before he even started work on TDK.

There was only a one year gap between SM1 and SM2 and people said SM2 was better, much better (although some here hate that movie and say it's overrated), there was a three year gap between SM2 and SM3 and most tend to agree it wasn't as good as the other two.

Two year gap between SM1 and SM2. :cwink:

[PumpkinBombxXx]

Alot of people are Hating on Iron Man 2 right now and havent even seen it (i know some of you have). I blame the fact that we come on here and other web pages and soak up as much as we can about the movie so when it comes out we dont feel surprised. Then we say it didnt live up to its potential because we already knew the whole movie inside and out.

I think even if this one isnt as good as the first one. It still will probly be better then most Comic Book movies are. Not to mention that Fav knows that the 3rd movie is normally worse then the first 2 so perhaps he is trying to pace himself so he doesnt make something so epic that he cant do any better. Same goes for the Avengers they cant have the solo films be more epic then when they team up. They must pace themselves. Rational thought does go into this process. Believe it or Not.

[FaT_tONle]

Wheather there is a two or three year gap, I don't know makes that much of a difference. All it meant for Favreau is that pre-production pretty much started when the first film was released.

I think people are making a little too much out of this. Yeah there were three year gaps between the Batman films and the X men films, but if you look at when production started relative to the movie release, it was about the same.

Favreau was probably pissed, because he may have wanted to work on other things. After Batman Begins came out, Nolan didn't go straight to work on TDK. He was mostly involved with the Prestige, before he even started work on TDK.

There was only a one year gap between SM1 and SM2 and people said SM2 was better, much better (although some here hate that movie and say it's overrated), there was a three year gap between SM2 and SM3 and most tend to agree it wasn't as good as the other two.

It's not so much the time frame as it is what the priority is. SM2 was basically an extension of the first film. The plot was already written. They just weren't sold on the villain until it was time to get the script down. IM2 could have gone in many directions. It wasn't just about the villain. You add Hammer, you add the SHIELD/Government, a lot more dynamics at work here than was the case with SM2. TDK had similar stuff going on but at least they had a concrete story outlined well in advance and did not have to worry about setups for a BB3.

I have always felt Avengers should have been pure gravy. Icing on the cake. If the solo films work, make the Avengers movie and if possible, try to bring together the actors and the universes when that time comes. Just me personally, but I felt that all the movies had to be completed from a 08-14 six year span just like any other trilogy. It's especially important taking that time for something that's never been done. Now Cap and Avengers will basically be filming back to back. We have seen how that ends up more often than not... :csad:

[LastSunrise1981]

I could careless about the reviews. I am still watching the film and people here need to stop caring about the negative reviews and see the finished product for yourself.

Now, I watched Kick Ass and didn't read any reviews. I hadn't heard anything about it and I had low expectations due to my unfamiliarity of the comic book, the actors, and the overall product. I loved the film and can't wait to see it again.

Whether IM2 is good or not, I'll be the judge of it. I just have a feeling that it'll be good and these negative reviews won't deter me one bit.

[Paradoxium]

All the films you mentioned have nothing to do with Marvel as a studio. Blame the other studios who were in controle of those propertysOkay so its the other studios with a bigger control of the pie. It doesn't change the fact that bum rushed stuff are bad. It's the same principle. There might be exceptions, but that does not negate a general trend. Common sense even tells you this is a bad idea.

Also consider Fav's is no Spielberg in terms of experience and efficiency. Not many new directors are. Not even Nolan. Newer directors probably need more preproduction time.

I do recall they weren't happy with the 2010 date, and this was a complaint during the summer or early fall of 2008. I remember they wanted 2011, but there was no films in 2010 with a Marvel stamp on it. Some IM fans might remember this too, and it involved Favs not directing the film at all, until he got a big payday.

Nolan/Goyer cranked out an outline before and during Prestige. It was Jonah who spent many months cobbled out a script together. They already had some people doing model and designs during Prestige for TDK (i.e. the batpod). In the instance of Spidey 2, I believe Sam Raimi knew full well the general outline of his next Spidey sequel; that storyline of being Spidey no more was one of his favorites. I remember they greenlit the sequel a few months before release. Lastly, he is far more experience shooting materials on a tight time horizon given some of his television experience.

[hatebox]

I could careless about the reviews.


But some people do, because cultural reception of a film can be interesting, and that's why this thread exists.

[FlawlessVictory]

I could careless about the reviews. I am still watching the film and people here need to stop caring about the negative reviews and see the finished product for yourself.

That's fine that you don't care about the reviews but then why post in this thread? This thread is to discuss reviews which means there are people who do care about it. I don't go looking for subjects that don't interest me just to post that I don't care. :huh:

[LastSunrise1981]

That's fine that you don't care about the reviews but then why post in this thread? This thread is to discuss reviews which means there are people who do care about it. I don't go looking for subjects that don't interest me just to post that I don't care. :huh:

No, what I am saying is that people need to stop worrying about the negative reviews and see the films for themselves. I am not saying I don't care about critics in general, however, if it's a film that I want to see and that I've been anticipating I am not going to fret or worry about negativity.

I think we put too much stock into critics and judging whether or not the film is bad for ourselves. Unless of course it's a Uwe Boll film and we don't need a critic for that. :yay:

[Tony Stark]

It's not so much the time frame as it is what the priority is. SM2 was basically an extension of the first film. The plot was already written. They just weren't sold on the villain until it was time to get the script down. IM2 could have gone in many directions. It wasn't just about the villain. You add Hammer, you add the SHIELD/Government, a lot more dynamics at work here than was the case with SM2. TDK had similar stuff going on but at least they had a concrete story outlined well in advance and did not have to worry about setups for a BB3.

I have always felt Avengers should have been pure gravy. Icing on the cake. If the solo films work, make the Avengers movie and if possible, try to bring together the actors and the universes when that time comes. Just me personally, but I felt that all the movies had to be completed from a 08-14 six year span just like any other trilogy. It's especially important taking that time for something that's never been done. Now Cap and Avengers will basically be filming back to back. We have seen how that ends up more often than not... :csad:


I'm sorry, I'm not following your argument. Yeah it's the same production company, but the crews, writers and staff are all different, so why does it matter if Thor and Cap film back to back?

Hulk and Iron Man were filmed back to back and you might say it hurt Hulk's reception, but Hulk had the negative vibe of the Ang Lee film going against it, whereas Iron Man was a fresh start.

The movies have connective fibers, but they are completely separate and independant films on their own.

Again, I think the handwringing over here is totally excessive. The reviews while not as good as the first are still highly positive.

[redfirebird2008]

MovieBlog review:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DotXh2WR4iU

He gave it a 5.5/10. Said it was worth seeing but a big step backwards from IM1. Complained about Rhodey knowing how to operate the War Machine suit without any practice. Also complained about Rockwell's acting, which is surprising. Most people seem to have loved his performance.

This particular reviewer gave IM1 a 8.5/10:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT-fArvLDJk

[ultimatefan]

I won´t trash critics just cuz many of them say something I don´t like. Reviews shouldn´t be the be all end all guide for your movie taste - even if you try to make them that, there´s a huge diversity of opinions among different critics, even the ones with a similar reputation. But I´ve learned quite a bit about movies from reading reviews, not only about film history, but it´s where I first got notions like character arc and development, three-act structure, suspension of disbelief, etc. Your own opinion is the one that should count for you, but reviews help to inform it.

[danoyse]

I signed up because I love movies. Good movies. One could even say I'm a nerd in those regards. I signed up to talk about the new Iron Man movie. Is there an issue with that? Do I have to gush about the film to not be considered a "troll"?

No, but signing up for a message board primarily devoted who those who love the superhero genre and immediately referring to those fans as "dorks" in a somewhat derogatory way is not a great way to get started.

Welcome to the forum - your opinion is welcome regardless if you like the movie or not. Just remember to be respectful of the opinions of others without the name-calling.

Thanks.

[redfirebird2008]

I won´t trash critics just cuz many of them say something I don´t like. Reviews shouldn´t be the be all end all guide for your movie taste - even if you try to make them that, there´s a huge diversity of opinions among different critics, even the ones with a similar reputation. But I´ve learned quite a bit about movies from reading reviews, not only about film history, but it´s where I first got notions like character arc and development, three-act structure, suspension of disbelief, etc. Your own opinion is the one that should count for you, but reviews help to inform it.

I agree. You can learn from a well-written review even if you 100% disagree with the reviewer's opinion. I'm not a fan of tacky, short reviews regardless of the person's feelings toward the movie. Tackiness is lame in either direction. This is a good example of tacky IMHO:

http://www.ultraculture.co.uk/3335-iron-man-2-review.htm

[kedrell]

He gave it a 5.5/10. Said it was worth seeing but a big step backwards from IM1. Complained about Rhodey knowing how to operate the War Machine suithttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/#) without any practice. Also complained about Rockwell's acting, which is surprising. Most people seem to have loved his performance.


Just goes to show you that different people can see the same thing in vastly different ways. I do expect I'll love it but not as much as the first one(mainly because I'm an origin story junkie...I just love'em).

[danoyse]

If it's a movie I really want to see, like this one, I don't concern myself with the reviews until after I've seen it, since whether they're good or bad, it's not going to impact my decision to see it.

I do like reading them after I've seen the movie, though.

[Raiden]

Devin from CHUD doesn't like IM2 very much...he only gave it 6.5/10.

Devin's review (http://chud.com/articles/articles/23545/1/REVIEW-IRON-MAN-2/Page1.html)

[Scorpion Soldier]

Complained about Rhodey knowing how to operate the War Machine suit without any practice.

I get at first it might get you thinking, but how can anyone really complain about it? Nobody knows everything that happened between IM1 and IM2.

[redfirebird2008]

Just goes to show you that different people can see the same thing in vastly different ways. I do expect I'll love it but not as much as the first one(mainly because I'm an origin story junkie...I just love'em).

From a storytelling standpoint, I agree on origins. They are very engrossing to watch for sure, and very rewatchable for me. From a thematic standpoint, though, it's more difficult to bring in some deeper stuff when 90% of the story has to focus on character development.

[redfirebird2008]

I get at first it might get you thinking, but how can anyone really complain about it? Nobody knows everything that happened between IM1 and IM2.

True enough. I think his main knock is that the first movie clearly showed Tony struggling with the suit. I suppose we can assume Rhodey has been training, but do we know for sure? Personally, Tony's struggles with the suit were some of the most entertaining scenes in IM1 for me. It woulda been funny to see Cheadle going through the same kinds of problems. :woot:

[kedrell]

Stane got in the Iron Monger suit in IM1 with no trouble at all and yet the movie still got good reviews. Rhodes is an experienced pilot who Tony initially in the first movie wanted to actually be the guy who broke the Mark II in during testing but then when Rhodey told him to go home and get his mind right, Tony decided he needed to do the testing himself since he just wasn't sure who to trust anymore. So it's really even less of a big problem than the same thing that happened in IM1.

[redfirebird2008]

Stane got in the Iron Monger suit in IM1 with no trouble at all and yet the movie still got good reviews.

The showdown between Stane and Stark is probably the most criticized element of IM1, so I'm not sure that comparison is necessarily a positive one to make. :oldrazz:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Latino Review - Rating: C

Excerpts from review



Devin Faraci CHUD Review - 6.5/10
http://chud.com/articles/articles/23545/1/REVIEW-IRON-MAN-2/Page1.html

Devin's opinion of the movie scares me but on the other hand he basically wrote a 7 or 7.5 review and gave the movie a 6.5/10. I may end up loving the film but I can't say that I'm not afraid of the "it's okay" reception.

Don't get me wrong I think that the first movie is really good but overrated as f**k because people are just ignoring it's obvious flaws because they love RDJ so much. This movie having more flaws than Iron Man just doesn't sit well with me but I don't have the surprise goodwill that I had for the first one...so yeah I better disagree with the critics.

[kedrell]

They criticize the fight itself, but I rarely hear the complaint about Stane being able to just rock that suit from the get-go making little sense. And that rather than the fight itself(which I absolutely loved) is one of the few problems that I always had with the first film.

[redfirebird2008]

They criticize the fight itself, but I rarely hear the complaint about Stane being able to just rock that suit from the get-go making little sense. And that rather than the fight itself(which I absolutely loved) is one of the few problems that I always had with the first film.

I found it odd as well. I think the criticism of the fight itself overshadows a suspension of disbelief issue when the two of them are going on at the same time. One is something you sort of notice off-hand and it could be very distracting if you think about it. The other takes 10-15 minutes of runtime to resolve and is far more noticeable.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I must be one of those rare posters who really enjoyed the end fight in Iron Man but I did hate all of the dialogue during the fight.

[kedrell]

Yeah, I loved the fight itself. If you overlook Stane being able to just get in and go with no problem then the rest of the fight makes a lot of sense. People kept complaining "He's getting his ass kicked!". I don't mind that since it made sense with what had come before(Stane stealing the upgraded arc reactor and Tony needing to use the inferior one, which put him at a significant disadvantage). And I loved how he eventually won was not cliche' to the genre. He enlisted the ingenue in a quick plan to out-think the villain to win the day. That never happens in superhero movies and I loved that they went somewhere different with it. Now the part after that where it was all like "Push the button.....but you'll die....push it!" and then it just turns out that they were wrong and he survived kinda bugged me a bit. But the fight itself was probably my favorite part of the film and is probably still my favorite superhero fight scene ever.

[kedrell]

I must be one of those rare posters who really enjoyed the end fight in Iron Man but I did hate all of the dialogue during the fight.


I thought the dialogue was fine but I always wondered why Stane was growling in the Iron Monger suit. Maybe it was supposed to be an 'omage to ED209 which growled(but that didn't make any sense either).

[FaT_tONle]

I'm sorry, I'm not following your argument. Yeah it's the same production company, but the crews, writers and staff are all different, so why does it matter if Thor and Cap film back to back?

Hulk and Iron Man were filmed back to back and you might say it hurt Hulk's reception, but Hulk had the negative vibe of the Ang Lee film going against it, whereas Iron Man was a fresh start.

The movies have connective fibers, but they are completely separate and independant films on their own.

Again, I think the handwringing over here is totally excessive. The reviews while not as good as the first are still highly positive.

I get they are different creative teams. But Favreau is producing Avengers as well. And wouldn't it make sense that Johnston at least has some input in the stuff pertaining to Cap in the Avengers movie? The movie is obviously going to have some modern day Avengers stuff to begin with. It will be tough for Johnston to be involved since he'll still be in post while Avengers is filming. Not to mention how long the casting process was and all that nonsense; it's a miracle they even have a chance to finish it by 2011. This is just too tight a time scale, and the rush to fill these summer slots and meet their quotas is at the expense of quality and creativity.

[VenomVsSpidey]

I must be one of those rare posters who really enjoyed the end fight in Iron Man but I did hate all of the dialogue during the fight.

I loved the final confrontation. I just think it was a tad too short. that part where tony goes "how'd you fix the icing problem?" as stane realizes he's screwed, still brings a smile to my face:awesome:

[kedrell]

Me too, venomvsspidey. It was like finally some witty banter during a superhero fight that actuallly works! yes!

[VenomVsSpidey]

Me too, venomvsspidey. It was like finally some witty banter during a superhero fight that actuallly works! yes!

:up:

still bummed they took out that "you complete me" line. damn fanboys don't even realize it originated with Jerry Maguire, NOT TDK :cmad:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Guess I'll just agree to disagree the dialogue in IM's end fight.

These reviews are reminding me a little bit of the Superman Returns reviews. It's like the same "sure it's not as good as the original and such and such is wrong with it but it's still really good," notices that that movie got. And then I saw the movie and thought that it wasn't that bad and ended up hating it months later after I pondered it.

I hope that isn't the case but I'm getting that vibe.

[Visceral]

None of these reviews are really addressing what I need to know...


Was the film.......

















Gangster?

[kedrell]

Sure the timeframe is worrysome. I've really thought for a while now that Cap & Avengers should each get pushed back a year to allow more time to get it right. Thor in 2011, Cap in 2012 and Avengers in 2013. Then Iron Man 3(which could be filming about the same time as Avengers or so) would be in 2014 and be Favreau's/RDJ's farewell perfomance to the franchise and then time for new blood to step in.

[redfirebird2008]

:up:

still bummed they took out that "you complete me" line. damn fanboys don't even realize it originated with Jerry Maguire, NOT TDK :cmad:

I seriously doubt they took it out of the movie because of fanboys.

[kedrell]

Guess I'll just agree to disagree the dialogue in IM's end fight.

These reviews are reminding me a little bit of the Superman Returns reviews. It's like the same "sure it's not as good as the original and such and such is wrong with it but it's still really good," notices that that movie got. And then I saw the movie and thought that it wasn't that bad and ended up hating it months later after I pondered it.

I hope that isn't the case but I'm getting that vibe.

Just based on the trailers alone I don't see how this could be as mind-numbingly dull as SR.

[FaT_tONle]

Sure the timeframe is worrysome. I've really thought for a while now that Cap & Avengers should each get pushed back a year to allow more time to get it right. Thor in 2011, Cap in 2012 and Avengers in 2013. Then Iron Man 3(which could be filming about the same time as Avengers or so) would be in 2014 and be Favreau's/RDJ's farewell perfomance to the franchise and then time for new blood to step in.

That's the timeline we should have gotten. Who knows, maybe they could have worked an Ant-Man, or oh wait... a SEPARATE SHIELD MOVIE that was originally among the films that Feige and the rest of Marvel were eying. TIH2 wasn't the only other option. All in all, I am not going to give a **** about any short comings in IM2 regarding the SHIELD/Initiative garbage that hampers the film, so long as Avengers is done right. But that's a BIG IF...

[kedrell]

Maybe they thought so too and that's why they took it out.

[redfirebird2008]

^Maybe they thought so too and that's why they took it out.


It has definitely been used a lot in the marketing, almost over-saturation for the joke to the point where it's not funny in the actual movie. I remember this happened with Dead Man's Chest. There's a joke where Captain Jack is telling Elizabeth that he loves moments to show character because he gets to "wave at them as they pass by." That joke was used constantly in the marketing for months leading up to the movie and it just didn't have the same effect in the movie itself as it could have without the super-saturation of it.

[kedrell]

It's interesting to note that this(if indications from reviews are correct) will be the first 2nd movie in a solo superhero franchise where the hero isn't all concerned or consumed about ditching his hero job so he can be with the woman he loves. Think about it. Superman 2 did it, batman Returns sorta did it(with Catwoman and Bruce tearing his mask off in front of Max Shrek), Spider-man 2 definitely did it, and even TDK did it. I gotta say, I'm getting pretty damn sick of that type of subplot. Glad it's not gonna be in IM2.

[redfirebird2008]

It's interesting to note that this(if indications from reviews are correct) will be the first 2nd movie in a solo superhero franchise where the hero isn't all concerned or consumed about ditching his hero job so he can be with the woman he loves. Think about it. Superman 2 did it, batman Returns sorta did it(with Catwoman and Bruce tearing his mask off in front of Max Shrek), Spider-man 2 definitely did it, and even TDK did it. I gotta say, I'm getting pretty damn sick of that type of subplot. Glad it's not gonna be in IM2.

I agree, it's a lame cliche of the books and the films.

[VenomVsSpidey]

I seriously doubt they took it out of the movie because of fanboys.


They took that out? Why?

No one said it originated with TDK. It's funny in TDK because the Joker uses it, obviously referencing the line from Jerry Maguire. I think just the fact that it shows up a few years later in another comic book movie, it's like heh ... the joke is kind of played out.

well not fanboys necessarily, but I've sure as hell heard a fair share of how favs. is ripping off the dark knight.

[kedrell]

So I guess this means in Nolan's 3rd movie that batman will fight a more evil version of himself as well as his own inner evil. ;) That'd be pretty cliche'. :awesome:

[kedrell]

I think it really was more like redfirebird's DMC comparison.