The Critics review Iron Man 2

[redfirebird2008]

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:

:hehe:

But I will remind you...this is not a Batman thread. :oldrazz:

[TheFuture]

Iron Man 2? Seems it was rushed, convoluted, and not only was there any intriguing nemisis to draw you to the film ... there wasn't a concrete interesting story to tell. Rather a means to an end. Make Iron Man 2, to get to Iron Man 3, to funnel into some Avengers project,

:dry:

I thought that the story was really interesting.

Just because it doesn't follow a rigid storyine that doesn't mean the story is non existent. For one, I thoroughly enjoyed how the film explored the negative draw backs of being Iron Man. For example, how it's affecting his relationship with Pepper and Rhodie. Or how he's becoming increasingly narcisisstic (I'm ensuring world peace all by myself and to hell with everyone else). Or how Stark goes off the rails due to the sobering reality of what is in his chest is killing him.

I found Hammer to be an intruiging villain because he's a poor man's Stark, gilted over being number 2 in regards to weapons development as well as being a non entity in the media compared to Stark. In regards to Vanko, I think he served an interesting purpose to the storyline. Whiplash, in a way, brought Stark down a peg or two; Stark thinks that there is no-one anywhere near developing the technology to rival his. Vanko, IMO, humbles Stark; perhaps in future Tony will acknowledge that there will always be legit threats out there not only him but to the public. This could lead nicely into a potentially misguided determination to take down Banner/Hulk in the Avengers.

Really, I think the story works as being multi faceted rather than being rigid in its storytelling.

[kedrell]

:hehe:

But I will remind you...this is not a Batman thread. :oldrazz:


I give, I give!:hehe: But it really would be funny(and kinda sad) if it ended up going down that way.

[VenomVsSpidey]

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.

there's no way that IM2 could be like SR. There's no way it could ever want to be that boring...

[craigdbfan]

So the general consensus with critics seems to be "meh/forgettable/not as good as the first".

Expectations and hype reverted to normal. :(

[Tony Stark]

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.

In fact it sounds like IM2 is the antithesis of this. Tony's addicted to being Iron Man, and while the armor is the only thing keeping him alive, it's killing him at the very same time, but he won't give it up.

Gotta agree I'm sick of the "I'm giving up being a hero" crap. At least in SM2 it partially came from the comics, although I never understood the power loss thing, thinking back on it.

[redfirebird2008]

I give, I give!:hehe: But it really would be funny(and kinda sad) if it ended up going down that way.

Yes it would be. :hehe: :csad:

[kedrell]

the trailers alone have stuff in them that tops anything that was in SR for sheer fun value.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Yeah I think that it's time to end the Hero quitting in the sequel thing. For all of the originality of the film even the beloved TDK did it, as was already mentioned.

When I say I'm getting Superman Returns vibes I don't mean that it could be be a dull overly serious, overly long movie, I just mean that it could be a not very good one.

[VenomVsSpidey]

A positive review of the IM2 that says it's just as fun, and as good as the 1st :

http://www.xomba.com/movie_review_iron_man_2

[redfirebird2008]

the trailers alone have stuff in them that tops anything that was in SR for sheer fun value.

I agree. There's also the fact that SR has some crappy melodramatic romantic issues like Spidey 3. Iron Man is just flat-out more fun than the two of them and it doesn't sound like the sequel gets bogged down with those kind of ridiculous elements.

[Tony Stark]

there's no way that IM2 could be like SR. There's no way it could ever want to be that boring...

SR was an absolute piece of crap. The only reason anyone thinks it's any good is because it's somewhat of a tribute to the Reeves/Donner films, but it doesn't do anything. Honestly this is the worst of all comic book movies, there's no new ground made, all the characters aren't from the comics, but immitations of what was done in the Donner films.

If you think Fantastic Four was bad? well at least it tried to be original. It had it's own stories, and it didn't rely on any other films to prop it up.

You want to talk about forgettable movies, Superman Returns takes the cake. Not only is it forgettable, people wish it had never been made.

[kedrell]

A positive review of the IM2 that says it's just as fun, and as good as the 1st :

http://www.xomba.com/movie_review_iron_man_2

Does that one count towards the RT score?

[kedrell]

Batman was twisted into potentially giving up. He never did though. Only because he happened to encounter the only force in his lifetime that could challenge the symbol that he became, the Joker pushed him that far. But it was Harvey Dent who saved the ideal of Batman. Completely different context than Spider-Man quitting for selfish reasons. Bruce was willing to quit to save lives.

Actually he wanted to quit before the Joker's rampage as well.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Batman was twisted into potentially giving up. He never did though. Only because he happened to encounter the only force in his lifetime that could challenge the symbol that he became, the Joker pushed him that far. But it was Harvey Dent who saved the ideal of Batman. Completely different context than Spider-Man quitting for selfish reasons. Bruce was willing to quit to save lives.Yeah... I'm not going to get into a TDK v Spider-Man 2 battle with you are anyone else.:yay:

I liked both films so there really isn't any point.

BTW: You don't have to defend every single non positive thing I say about every fanboys favorite movie about a guy who dresses up like a Bat to fight a guy wearing clown make-up.

Back to Iron Man 2...

[VenomVsSpidey]

SR was an absolute piece of crap. The only reason anyone thinks it's any good is because it's somewhat of a tribute to the Reeves/Donner films, but it doesn't do anything. Honestly this is the worst of all comic book movies, there's no new ground made, all the characters aren't from the comics, but immitations of what was done in the Donner films.

If you think Fantastic Four was bad? well at least it tried to be original. It had it's own stories, and it didn't rely on any other films to prop it up.

You want to talk about forgettable movies, Superman Returns takes the cake. Not only is it forgettable, people wish it had never been made.

I dislike them both. But I'd take F4 over SR, because as crap as both were, It had alba in spandex. :o

Does that one count towards the RT score?

doubt it

[redfirebird2008]

Actually he wanted to quit before the Joker's rampage as well.

That's not a negative IMHO. In BB he is naive and views his mission as a finite one. Over time, including the events of TDK, he begins realizing that he will be Batman forever. That's good character development IMHO. Batman is not a happy-go-lucky superhero. He doesn't WANT to be a superhero. He feels compelled to do it because of his parents. And when he finally accepts his fate, he grows more and more cynical over time (in the comics).

[kedrell]

Yeah I think that it's time to end the Hero quitting in the sequel thing. For all of the originality of the film even the beloved TDK did it, as was already mentioned.

When I say I'm getting Superman Returns vibes I don't mean that it could be be a dull overly serious, overly long movie, I just mean that it could be a not very good one.

And Stark did quit before in the comics, but it wasn't over a woman he wanted to settle down with. It was more about the pressure of being Iron Man taxing him to the breaking point and he decided "f--- this!, you be Iron Man Rhodey!".

[Tony Stark]

Negative.

Bruce wanted the Batman to be phased out. The need for him to be obsolete. He wanted to pass the torch to a legal version of a heroic crime fighter, aka Harvey Dent.

It was then the situation the Joker put on Gotham that forced his hand.

Bruce Wayne didn't present the Batman as a quiter. He was meant to inspire a change in a city. Originally he wasn't meant to have a life vocation as a crime fighter.

There is a difference than saying he wanted to QUIT.

Take it to the Batman threads, who cares.

[Visceral]

Take it to the Batman threads, who cares.

The people in the batman threads care...and I think Irish Spings cares.





well, you asked:doh:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Who gives a f**k why he wanted to quit? The fact is he wanted to quit and I didn't have a huge problem with that plot point, I was just pointing out that he did want to quit and that it was an overused plot point in Superhero sequels.

Him wanting to quit did not effect my score of the movie one bit, there were actual real problems in the movie so I'm not focused on that plot point.

This is the last post in which I respond to one of the Nolan faithful regarding their perfect flawless gem. TDK might come up in other converstations regarding IM2 but I'm not going to defend my view of TDK on the Iron Man forums anymore.

[Sharkboy]

Even though there was a lack of a real riveting storyline (the whole thing is pushed foward by subplots instead of one big threat that ties all the plots together) theres so many fun scenes spread throughout that i rarely got bored, and RDJ really did it for me in this film, that plus the action was infinitely better in the second film makes me favour this one for now. Im watching it again on saturday so maybe ill have a clearly perspective but im definitely buzzing over this morning's screening.

[rashad]

SBS Films - 2.5/5

Iron Man 2 is a big, loud, stockholder-friendly studio profit-centre initiative. The first film started with a witty, exciting script and took flight; the sequel started with a title and worked backwards, hoping to recapture whatever sparks electrified the first film. In mimicking its predecessor, Iron Man 2 occasionally soars, but more often than not falls back to Earth with a disappointing thud.

http://www.sbs.com.au/films/movie/6212/Iron-Man-2

[Tony Stark]

And Stark did quit before in the comics, but it wasn't over a woman he wanted to settle down with. It was more about the pressure of being Iron Man taxing him to the breaking point and he decided "f--- this!, you be Iron Man Rhodey!".

True, and it was actually Rhodey that fights in the Secret Wars, durring that period.

[VenomVsSpidey]

why the F**k are we going on about batman in a IM2 thread? seriously guys...

[kedrell]

That's not a negative IMHO. In BB he is naive and views his mission as a finite one. Over time, including the events of TDK, he begins realizing that he will be Batman forever. That's good character development IMHO. Batman is not a happy-go-lucky superhero. He doesn't WANT to be a superhero. He feels compelled to do it because of his parents. And when he finally accepts his fate, he grows more and more cynical over time (in the comics).

I agree, but that still doesn't stop it from being a cliche' element among SH films that IS in the movie. Now I'll grant you that TDK did this subplot probably better than any of the earlier films that I mentioned did. But I'd have rather they left out the romantic angle/reason behind his desire to quit entirely. It should have been enough for him to think "You know what, as much of a bad-ass as I am I'm still mortal and one day I'm gonna get killed doing this. Maybe I should be looking for an endgame to this scenario so that I can actually accomplish my mission".

[redfirebird2008]

SBS Films - 2.5/5

WTF is SBS Films? :hehe:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

We are still arguing about TDK because we are all huge losers.

[Tony Stark]

This is the last post in which I respond to one of the Nolan faithful regarding there perfect flawless gem.

ROFL!

Don't want to side track the forum, but you get a virtual high five from me on that one.

[TheFuture]

why the F**k are we going on about batman in a IM2 thread? seriously guys...

This isn't out of the ordinary on the hype. :cwink:

[Tony Stark]

why the F**k are we going on about batman in a IM2 thread? seriously guys...

You can think the noob-troll Irish Springs for that one.

[VenomVsSpidey]

We are still arguing about TDK because we are all huge losers.

:hehe:


true:o

This isn't out of the ordinary on the hype. :cwink:


You can think the noob-troll Irish Springs for that one.

good points....anyways, moving things along

[redfirebird2008]

I agree, but that still doesn't stop it from being a cliche' element among SH films that IS in the movie. Now I'll grant you that TDK did this subplot probably better than any of the earlier films that I mentioned did. But I'd have rather they left out the romantic angle/reason behind his desire to quit entirely. It should have been enough for him to think "You know what, as much of a bad-ass as I am I'm still mortal and one day I'm gonna get killed doing this. Maybe I should be looking for an endgame to this scenario so that I can actually accomplish my mission".

My problem with it in TDK was the Rachel element of it. The whole "I'll quit to be with you" aspect of it, like you said. The movie does allow her to call him out on it, however. It's not really about her, despite his claims. It's really about him being in denial about his fate. He's a weirdo and he doesn't want to admit it, so he tells her he's willing to quit to be with her. That's a sham of an excuse on his part and she calls him out on it.

His naive characterization in Batman Begins isn't really a subplot in my opinion, it's just who the character is. He's naive. He thinks he can clean up the city and be done with it in short order.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I've got an idea....Lets stop talking about batman in an iron man thread!!!

[Visceral]

sorry double post

[Visceral]

hey you know what I like? Superhero films. There is nothing like going to the theater to see a superhero film for the first time. Makes me a kid again. even if the flick isn't good.

**** I have to study but dooooooon't wannnnnaaaaa.

Is there a way to post on SHH from my Iphone which I don't own.

[ultimatefan]

It becomes annoying on both sides, whether it´s Batman fans claiming TDK to be perfect -which, frankly, I don´t think any movie is if you look hard enough - or Iron Man/Marvel fans trying to put it down with mostly petty and/or inaccurate complaints. One way or another, it´s not the point of the thread.

[SpiderByte]

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 not acting like a complete jerk to everyone who DOES like them might help.

If you expect to come in and insult everyone who likes the movie and say "No, you don't get it, but I do", and expect us to respect you, then you are dead wrong.

You seem to expect every superhero film to be the next Dark Knight, and if people don't agree with you, you basically say "**** off, you don't know what you're talking about."

Since you seem to have little or no care for supehero films, and not really demonstrate that you know anything more than who the characters are and what they look like in the comics, and you're only real example of a good movie is Nolan's Batman franchise, why bother signing up when you seem to not give a **** about anyone's opinion but you're own?

Check your info before you make insults. No character in Earth-199999 (the Marvel Studios film universe) has currently worn tights. Iron Man? No. Hulk? No. Black Widow? Nope, that's leather, not spandex. Nick Fury, nope.

So who in Earth-199999 wears tights? Not Spider-Man, he's in a different film universe owned by Sony. Not the Fantastic Four, they're owned by Fox. Not the X-Men, they don't WEAR leather in their movies, and are also owned by Fox.

Not to mention the fact that you are a complete ass to the people who do like it.

Calling everyone who doesn't agree with you a "dork" will not get you a lot of friends on this site.

Have you even SEEN the movie anyway, or are you just basing it off the reviews?

Also, if you don't know what a flame war is, then that clearly shows you have no clue what forum ettiquette is. A flame war is when insults start becoming personal just because of someone's opinion, such as insulting almost everyone in the thread. Or giving a comment that is pretty obvious it would cause an argument which would lead to that.

[kedrell]

You can think the noob-troll Irish Springs for that one.

Actually it was me this time with my comparison of "quit the heroing for the girl" subplots of SH movie 2nd entries. Sorry.:o

I don't mind TDK being brought up. What I mind is the "nah, nah, nah...our franchise/hero/director/cast/reviews is/are better than yours so suck it competitors" type baiting.

[ultimatefan]

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


Oh yeah, tacky, poorly constructed reviews, or ones that make inaccurate claims, are more of a nuisance than help.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It becomes annoying on both sides, whether it´s Batman fans claiming TDK to be perfect -which, frankly, I don´t think any movie is if you look hard enough - or Iron Man/Marvel fans trying to put it down with mostly petty and/or inaccurate complaints. One way or another, it´s not the point of the thread.:whatever:

[Visceral]

Okay everybody needs to just settle down or I'm gonna post a pic of my penis on this thread.

[redfirebird2008]

Okay everybody needs to just settle down or I'm gonna post a pic of my penis on this thread.


/endthread

:hehe:

[SpiderByte]

Point is, stop talking about Batman. It's just what the troll wants us to do. It's pointless to discuss a DC film in a Marvel character's thread, when it relates in no way to the film whatsoever.

So now can we please cut the **** and get back to Iron Man now.

[redfirebird2008]

...and get back to Iron Man now.

More specifically back to Iron Man 2's critical reception. :oldrazz:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Iron Man 2's critical reception is not looking awesome so far. I'm only worried about the reviews from the critics I agree with most of the time though so the Chud review is whats really worrying me.

This is I SEE SPIDEY, back on track.

[kedrell]

Call me crazy, call me wrong(and maybe I am, I haven't seen it yet) but based on the reviews and what little I have read of them I am getting the gut impression that this film is one that is going to be appreciated much better once the entire mosaic of the films is out. That's why I used that ESB reference a dozen pages back or so. Here's hoping.

[redfirebird2008]

I'm not the only one who brought up TDK ... and I'm not even the only one talking about it. See: redfirebird2008.

Or did you conveniently not see anyone else talking about it?

:whatever:

You and Kedrell both brought it up for no reason. :oldrazz:

[kedrell]

I had a very good reason for bringing it up. To point out a certain subplot that has come up way too often in SH 2nd movies and how glad I am that it seems that IM2 will be breaking this trend like a bad habit.

[Visceral]

So...what do think eberts gonna say?

[kedrell]

My guess, 3 or 3 &1/2 out of 4 stars from Ebert. First one got 4 out of 4.

[Visceral]

Hawkeye.


Eberts gonna say this film needs more hawkeye

[Sharkboy]

My guess, 3 or 3 &1/2 out of 4 stars from Ebert. First one got 4 out of 4.

Meh, No one's going to really see the first film as all that great in a couple of years time. The second one though....

[Visceral]

Meh, No one's going to really see the first film as all that great in a couple of years time. The second one though....


What? You trailed off there buddy explain...

[Leenie]

I think Ebert is going to rant about how morally wrong the movie is with the scantily-clad dancers and how 6 year-old girls will want to dress like that. :o

[Visceral]

I think Ebert is going to rant about how morally wrong the movie is with the scantily-clad dancers and how 6 year-old girls will want to dress like that. :o

yeah but the movies not about scantily clad women....:dry: unfortunately

[kedrell]

Hawkeye.


Eberts gonna say this film needs more hawkeye

http://i40.tinypic.com/mtmdjl.jpg

[Visceral]

http://i39.tinypic.com/2rh4sv5.jpg

Hell yeah, on a serious note is he gonna be in the film?

[kedrell]

No idea, but I doubt it.

[redfirebird2008]

I had a very good reason for bringing it up. To point out a certain subplot that has come up way too often in SH 2nd movies and how glad I am that it seems that IM2 will be breaking this trend like a bad habit.

I wasn't referring to that original post where you were talking about the cliches of the genre. I was referring to the more extensive post on it later in the thread. You went into a full-blown analysis of it when you could have just left it at that first post.

[kedrell]

Well I was following a thought so see where it would end up. I guess I found out it leads to everyone saying "Stop talking about TDK on an Iron Man board!". :hehe:

[redfirebird2008]

Well I was following a thought so see where it would end up. I guess I found out it leads to everyone saying "Stop talking about TDK on an Iron Man board!". :hehe:


Yes, we are now in AA for it. By the way, you just took a step backward by mentioning it. That's more time in rehab. :oldrazz:

[kedrell]

Aww, shucks.

[SpiderByte]

I think Ebert is going to rant about how morally wrong the movie is with the scantily-clad dancers and how 16 year-old girls will want to dress like that. :o


Fixed age for personal preference.

[jmc]

This dude just flat out gets it ... that is all there is to it.

Spider-Man 2? There was a story to tell.
The Dark Knight? There was a story to tell.
X-Men 2? There was a story to tell.

Iron Man 2? Seems it was rushed, convoluted, and not only was there any intriguing nemisis to draw you to the film ... there wasn't a concrete interesting story to tell. Rather a means to an end. Make Iron Man 2, to get to Iron Man 3, to funnel into some Avengers project,

:dry:

I said this in my review that the film starts off great but the air gets sucked out as soon a the first act is over, that felt like the only time the story was concrete. Then it suddenly stopped being about Iron Man and more about forcing the Avengers to come into the equations. This was the issue I've always had with this single universe thing, it's detrimental to the story.

[rashad]

I said this in my review that the film starts off great but the air gets sucked out as soon a the first act is over, that felt like the only time the story was concrete. Then it suddenly stopped being about Iron Man and more about forcing the Avengers to come into the equations. This was the issue I've always had with this single universe thing, it's detrimental to the story.

A few of the reviews cite the Monaco scene as the best sequence in the film. Would it be a fair assessment to compare it to the Forest Battle scene from ROTF?

[jmc]

The Monaco scene is great, in fact the first 40 mins are great, it sets up Whiplash as this genuine threat to Stark, but afterward nothing happens. Whiplash is wasted, for the next hour he basically becomes a mechanic, Stark does nothing in particular and the rest of the cast just hang around. There was a great opportunity there for film 2 to at the very least equal film one, but honestly there's no excuse here as to why the film shouldn't have been better than it's original, the ingredients are there in that first act but ultimately they over cooked it. It's disappointing coz you can see where this film could have gone and I'm surprised so many fans are giving it a free pass, I mean I'm a Batman guy and if this was the follow up to BB I'd be totally pissed.

[Kent]

^ What movie were you watching? Stark does nothing in particular? How about tries to deal with what he believes is his inevitable death, then investigates his fathers legacy and invents a new element, effectively saving his life from Palladium poisoning.

[Excelsior.]

After reading most of the reviews, I am pleasently surprised at the lack of TDK comparisons.

I don't know why this board has to bring TDK up though. Not every comic flick has to be comapared to TDK.

[jmc]

^ What movie were you watching? Stark does nothing in particular? How about tries to deal with what he believes is his inevitable death, then investigates his fathers legacy and invents a new element, effectively saving his life from Palladium poisoning.

Which contributed nothing to what was set up in the first act. The villain becomes nothing more than a secondary character, it goes from being a film about revenge to a film about, well, about nothing in particular. There's no more threat to Stark or to anyone else for that matter anymore, the bad guy goes missing.

[Visceral]

After reading most of the reviews, I am pleasently surprised at the lack of TDK comparisons.

I don't know why this board has to bring TDK up though. Not every comic flick has to be comapared to TDK.

Penis:cmad:

just kidding, but no seriously if you incite madness I will post pictures

[Tony Stark]

Which contributed nothing to what was set up in the first act. The villain becomes nothing more than a secondary character, it goes from being a film about revenge to a film about, well, about nothing in particular. There's no more threat to Stark or to anyone else for that matter anymore, the bad guy goes missing.

I'm not trying to be combative, but have you ever bothered to pick up an Iron Man comic? 90% of Iron Man comics, the villians are never the main story. Perhaps this is why every one has to bring up TDK where the movie is solely about the villian.

The story of Iron Man is about him dealing with his own issues, and Avengers is all about Iron Man, you can't separate the two.

I hear alot of people saying, "forget the teamup stuff just make a movie just about Iron Man." Well that would be a slap in the face to 60 years of comics.

[redfirebird2008]

After reading most of the reviews, I am pleasently surprised at the lack of TDK comparisons.

I don't know why this board has to bring TDK up though. Not every comic flick has to be comapared to TDK.


You're joining AA with the rest of us. Get ready for tough rehab. :oldrazz:

[redfirebird2008]

Perhaps this is why every one has to bring up TDK where the movie is solely about the villian.




AA for you as well. :oldrazz:

[VenomVsSpidey]

Penis:cmad:

just kidding, but no seriously if you incite madness I will post pictures

:funny::funny::barf:

that would be an :abom:

[Visceral]

honestly if it isn't a critical success I don't think it matters to much as this will definitely be the biggest film of the summer, I don't even know what else is coming out this summer.

[redfirebird2008]

honestly if it isn't a critical success I don't think it matters to much as this will definitely be the biggest film of the summer, I don't even know what else is coming out this summer.

Toy Story 3 has potential to be huge, especially since it has 3D ticket prices helping boost its box office.

[Excelsior.]

I'm not trying to be combative, but have you ever bothered to pick up an Iron Man comic? 90% of Iron Man comics, the villians are never the main story. Perhaps this is why every one has to bring up TDK where the movie is solely about the villian.

The story of Iron Man is about him dealing with his own issues, and Avengers is all about Iron Man, you can't separate the two.

I hear alot of people saying, "forget the teamup stuff just make a movie just about Iron Man." Well that would be a slap in the face to 60 years of comics.

In picking up Ironman comics, it seems you have forgotten to pick up an Avengers one.

[TheFuture]

I said this in my review that the film starts off great but the air gets sucked out as soon a the first act is over, that felt like the only time the story was concrete. Then it suddenly stopped being about Iron Man and more about forcing the Avengers to come into the equations. This was the issue I've always had with this single universe thing, it's detrimental to the story.

C'mon, it hardly dominated the film. In fact I'd argue that Fury's presence was explained clearly. The first meeting that they have in the diner, it's about Fury extending the olive branch to Tony because he knows Tony is dying. The second scene at Tony's house is about Fury providing Tony with the info he needs to get cracking on the new element. Their final meeting is about outlining the flaws that Tony carries, and thus is seen as a liability. All of their interactions were highly relevant to the plot, and were not about pimping the Avengers.

[jmc]

I'm not trying to be combative, but have you ever bothered to pick up an Iron Man comic? 90% of Iron Man comics, the villians are never the main story. Perhaps this is why every one has to bring up TDK where the movie is solely about the villian.

The story of Iron Man is about him dealing with his own issues, and Avengers is all about Iron Man, you can't separate the two.

I hear alot of people saying, "forget the teamup stuff just make a movie just about Iron Man." Well that would be a slap in the face to 60 years of comics.

It's not my job as a viewer to know how an Iron Man comic is suppose to be. It's the job of the director and writer to tell a compelling story that flows to the viewer. This isn't about comics, this is about film, I don't care how close it is to the comics or what not IM2 as a film drops the ball when it quite easily didn't have too.

[jmc]

C'mon, it hardly dominated the film. In fact I'd argue that Fury's presence was explained clearly. The first meeting that they have in the diner, it's about Fury extending the olive branch to Tony because he knows Tony is dying. The second scene at Tony's house is about Fury providing Tony with the info he needs to get cracking on the new element. Their final meeting is about outlining the flaws that Tony carries, and thus is seen as a liability. All of their interactions were highly relevant to the plot, and were not about pimping the Avengers.

It doesn't dominate but the film suffers because of this, it sucks the air out of what the first act built up, the IM2 story has to accommodate the Fury/Avengers subplot, it does nothing to enhance the IM2 story that was being told earlier in the movie. It's almost like a new film starts up after the first 40 mins, act one may as well have been a short film.

[TheFuture]

It doesn't dominate but the film suffers because of this, it sucks the air out of what the first act built up, the IM2 story has to accommodate the Fury/Avengers subplot, it does nothing to enhance the IM2 story that was being told earlier in the movie. It's almost like a new film starts up after the first 40 mins, act one may as well have been a short film.

We must have different views on what the first act is about. IMO, it was about Stark's realisation that he's dying, we lead on logically from there. Stark becomes more and more reckless. For example, taking part in the grand prix and getting sozzled at his birthday (and in turn blitzing his home in a fight with his best friend). This all stems from Stark fearing that he has little time left. Fury's presence is not about the Avengers, but rather about helping Stark get healthy again (both physically and mentally). Thus, I think the film follows a logical sequence from beginning to end.

[jmc]

We must have different views on what the first act is about. IMO, it was about Stark's realisation that he's dying, we lead on logically from there. Stark becomes more and more reckless. For example, taking part in the grand prix and getting sozzled at his birthday (and in turn blitzing his home in a fight with his best friend). This all stems from Stark fearing that he has little time left. Fury's presence is not about the Avengers, but rather about helping Stark get healthy again (both physically and mentally). Thus, I think the film follows a logical sequence from beginning to end.

I do agree to an extent the first act is about what you wrote, but the added pressure layer of this whip cracking psycho is taken away completely. And the Fury stuff is completely about the Avengers, there's no introduction to who this guy is to the casual viewer, it's just assumed everyone knows who this guy is. It's schoolboy film making errors.

[Anita18]

Iron Man 2's critical reception is not looking awesome so far. I'm only worried about the reviews from the critics I agree with most of the time though so the Chud review is whats really worrying me.

This is I SEE SPIDEY, back on track.
Well it's not even the critics whose opinions match mine, it's what intelligent critics have been describing as faults of the movie. It's obvious which critics just don't like superhero movies because they find really dumb things to criticize, but when a number of smart critics are describing the same things they didn't like in detail, it could be considered a fault of the movie.

Call me crazy, call me wrong(and maybe I am, I haven't seen it yet) but based on the reviews and what little I have read of them I am getting the gut impression that this film is one that is going to be appreciated much better once the entire mosaic of the films is out. That's why I used that ESB reference a dozen pages back or so. Here's hoping.
The dangerous thing is that there's no telling what the entire mosaic of films will be. ESB only had one movie after, and it was a direct sequel. Crossovers that are still in production is a lot murkier. Lots of things could change between now and then.

[Raiden]

I do agree to an extent the first act is about what you wrote, but the added pressure layer of this whip cracking psycho is taken away completely. And the Fury stuff is completely about the Avengers, there's no introduction to who this guy is to the casual viewer, it's just assumed everyone knows who this guy is. It's schoolboy film making errors.

I think with the DVD of IM1 out for about 2 years, everyone has the chance to see the extra scene of Fury (and his introduction). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that even casual viewers know who Fury is, except those who have never seen IM1.

[ElMariachi]

these reviews I am reading of this movie simply say the movie isn't as good as the first one. The critics seem to be basing their review of this movie completely in comparison with the first. I think that the next Batman movie may suffer the same comparisons. This doesn't mean that the movie is bad or mediocre. It only means it doesn't hold up to the hype or the nostalgia they had for the first flick. These reviewers completely ignored the flaws in the first movie, yet seem to criticize IM2 for what the first movie lacked---action.

Everything I am hearing from regular moviegoers, bloggers, and comic book fans is that this movie rocks. Some even claim that the movie is better then the first. I am not too concerned to be quite honest.

[Tony Stark]

In picking up Ironman comics, it seems you have forgotten to pick up an Avengers one.

Perhaps I reversed what I should have said, Iron Man is all about the Avengers.

[Tony Stark]

these reviews I am reading of this movie simply say the movie isn't as good as the first one. The critics seem to be basing their review of this movie completely in comparison with the first. I think that the next Batman movie may suffer the same comparisons. This doesn't mean that the movie is bad or mediocre. It only means it doesn't hold up to the hype or the nostalgia they had for the first flick. These reviewers completely ignored the flaws in the first movie, yet seem to criticize IM2 for what the first movie lacked---action.

Everything I am hearing from regular moviegoers, bloggers, and comic book fans is that this movie rocks. Some even claim that the movie is better then the first. I am not too concerned to be quite honest.

The first movie was about the development of Iron Man. That's been done and no one wants to see that again. Sure that's part of the story as we get the Mark IV, Mark V, and Mark VI, but honestly did the critics want another movie about a guy building and testing a bunch of suits?

I've seen a couple of clips and the banter between Pepper and Tony that made the first film so charming is still there. I don't know if there'll be a better line in the movie than:

Pepper: She did a "spread" on Tony last year.

Tony: ....and she wrote a story too.

That if freaking Tony Stark to a T!

[SpiderByte]

JMC's review is actually getting me worried now.

[Blade X]

So based on the reviews so far, IM2 is basically is the movie equivalent of modern day superhero comics. Which is a boring mostly talking heads movie with very little action.

I have a question for those of you who have seen this movie. Is Whiplash defeated exactly the same way that he was defeated in the IM2 movie novel adaption (being bearen by Pepper)?

[Shivsguy616]

So based on the reviews so far, IM2 is basically is the movie equivalent of modern day superhero comics. Which is a boring mostly talking heads movie with very little action.

I have a question for those of you who have seen this movie. Is Whiplash defeated exactly the same way that he was defeated in the IM2 movie novel adaption (being bearen by Pepper)?

Nope.

[Blade X]

Nope.

Thanks. That's a relief. Now I have one less thing to worry about.

[rashad]

Thanks. That's a relief. Now I have one less thing to worry about.

You'll probably still be disappointed by how it ends though.

[Blade X]

You'll probably still be disappointed by how it ends though.

By all means, please spoil me on the ending. I want details.:yay:

[cchriswake13]

the incredibles is the best superhero movie imo. It isn't just a "animated childrens flick". It's a great story about families coming together under pressure and being the best that can you can be against the odds, amongst other things. Mixed with some great adult and satirical humour and epic action scenes.

And it doesn't reek of self importance. *cough*tdk*cough*

as for this movie? I'm not sure. I think it looks to be iron man x10000000. Everything amped up from the first one.

But will the high brow critics like that?

wrong

[redfirebird2008]

wrong


It's his opinion on a completely subjective matter (film criticism). One can't be wrong for an opinion on a work of art. It's just an opinion. You can disagree with his opinion all you want, but this statement of fact that he's "wrong" is silly.

[SpiderByte]

I read wikipedia Vanko self destructs the armor and the drones.

[JasonWood2010]

wrong

:lmao:

[danoyse]

wrong

No, it's an opinion. Learn to respect it.

[topdog1]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228705/board/thread/161773178

Break it down any way you like but 56 positive reviews and 12 negative is a good start. Where is falls on the spectrum of good or great doesn't matter to me as a fan.

[SpiderByte]

Danoyse, your sig is *****ing PERFECT!

[redfirebird2008]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228705/board/thread/161773178

Break it down any way you like but 56 positive reviews and 12 negative is a good start. Where is falls on the spectrum of good or great doesn't matter to me as a fan.

As a fan you shouldn't give a hoot one way or the other. :oldrazz:

[SpiderByte]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/iron_man_2/reviews_users.php

The fan reviews give it up to 81%. 267 Fresh, 60 Rotten.

Ching ka-****ing ching!

[S.A.A.D.]

I'm looking forward to what garbage Armond White will have to say this time.

[SpiderByte]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBHZFYpQ6nc

"If I were and Admin, I'd get rid of all these jerks who make fun of everyone!

All day long I'd wait and wait and wait,

Until there was someone I could ban."

I'm just kidding about the banning bit, by the way. I needed something that rhymed with the original line.

[SpiderByte]

Double post

[FaT_tONle]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/MitchMatch/nnkzeq.gif

This dude just flat out gets it ... that is all there is to it.



:dry:

Alright... I give up... I made a new account and I was trolling. The MOVIE ROCKS.... not...:dry:

[Spidey_62]

I'm looking forward to what garbage Armond White will have to say this time.
That guy's reviews and his taste in movies is just hilarious.:awesome:

[SpiderByte]

Armond White: If he likes it, we're all ****ed.

If he hates it, we party.

I swear to god, I'm pretty sure Armond White is Bizarro.

[SpiderByte]

He also hates Harry Brown, which makes me now want to go see it.

Especially since it appears that in this film, Michael Cane is a badass.

[SpiderByte]

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/banarmondwhite/

SIGN IT! It's almost at the 500 needed!

We can get rid of this ******* forever!

[roach]

you are banning him because he has a differing opinion

[redfirebird2008]

LMAO, Ebert called him a troll and wrote a whole blog post on it. I'm guessing White was laughing his tail off when he read that. Giving him that kind of attention is exactly what he wants. lol

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08/in_defense_of_armond_white.html

[Spidey_62]

LMAO, Ebert called him a troll and wrote a whole blog post on it. I'm guessing White was laughing his tail off when he read that. Giving him that kind of attention is exactly what he wants. lol

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08/in_defense_of_armond_white.html

LOL. That's saying something, there.

Signed the petition, too. Although it is pretty funny to read the tons of people always commenting on his reviews on RT.

[VenomVsSpidey]

LMAO, Ebert called him a troll and wrote a whole blog post on it. I'm guessing White was laughing his tail off when he read that. Giving him that kind of attention is exactly what he wants. lol

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08/in_defense_of_armond_white.html

the first time I have agreed with ebert in a LONG time:o

[redfirebird2008]

LOL. That's saying something, there.

Signed the petition, too. Although it is pretty funny to read the tons of people always commenting on his reviews on RT.


He probably loves the attention. The best thing to do is simply ignore a troll.

[roach]

not trying to derail this thread but I dont see it as trolling...he has a differeing opinion than most people....I am sure there are movies I like that someone else thinks is godawful

[SpiderByte]

you are banning him because he has a differing opinion

Well, when you look at his track record...

http://www.flickfilosopher.com/flickfilos/art/armondwhiteisntinsane.jpg

It's not looking that good for him. He's hated by basically EVERYONE.

[SpiderByte]

9 more and he may be off RottenTomatoes forever.

[roach]

Well, when you look at his track record...

http://www.flickfilosopher.com/flickfilos/art/armondwhiteisntinsane.jpg

It's not looking that good for him. He's hated by basically EVERYONE.

and its still just his opinion

I agree with some of his choices

[night0205]

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/banarmondwhite/

SIGN IT! It's almost at the 500 needed!

We can get rid of this ******* forever!

I have to agree. The guy is out of his mind. Anyone who liked Norbit should seriously be put in a mental institution for being a danger to society. Maybe I'm being a little sarcastic, but this isn't just one review, this is all his reviews. The guy isn't qualified to be a movie critic. That's a fact. Sure some movies have to do with taste, but there is a line with that, because there is such thing as a bad movie because why? because it's bad, and this guy says they are not bad. I voted, and I usually don't do stuff like that.

[VenomVsSpidey]

and its still just his opinion


however...horrid that it may be

[roach]

I have to agree. The guy is out of his mind. Anyone who liked Norbit should seriously be put in a mental institution for being a danger to society. Maybe I'm being a little sarcastic, but this isn't just one review, this is all his reviews. The guy isn't qualified to be a movie critic. That's a fact. Sure some movies have to do with taste, but there is a line with that, because there is such thing as a bad movie because why? because it's bad, and this guy says they are not bad. I voted, and I usually don't do stuff like that.

a critics job is to tell you what they think of a film.....no one can be a bad critic...you can disagree with his opinions but as we all know opinions are neither right or wrong

[night0205]

A critics job is to judge a film on whether it's good or bad, and then inform you that you should either go see it because it's good, or not go see because it's bad.

There is such thing as a bad critic, who knows nothing of film. Just like there is such thing as a bad any job you can do. And if you don't think that you really don't understand what an occupations is.

A critic is a master of judging a film justly. A master of understanding story telling. So no, I don't agree that it's just an opinion. I agree that plays a part, but that only goes so far.

[JasonWood2010]

I never heard of Armond White until I read his review of PRECIOUS...kinda made me mad but idk why

[SpiderByte]

As one person put it:

"The problem isn't that Armond White has opinions that differ from the majority. That much would be fine. The problem is that, in addition to that, his reviews can often give no useful information about the movie being reviewed, and he sometimes can even write an entire review without actually really talking about the movie itself. A good review is one that allows the reader to better make a decision about whether or not to spend their money on something. I have not seen a single review from Armond White that did that. Even Roger Ebert called him a troll. It's time for his fifteen minutes to be up."

[roach]

A critics job is to judge a film on whether it's good or bad, and then inform you that you should either go see it because it's good, or not go see because it's bad.

There is such thing as a bad critic, who knows nothing of film. Just like there is such thing as a bad anything job you can do. And if you don't think that you really don't understand what an occupations is.

No I think you have it wrong. How can a critic tell you if a movie is good or not if they dont know your tastes??? All a critic does is give you his opinion of a film.

I do understand what an occupation is and yes people can be good or bad at them...however an opinion is neither good or bad.

[roach]

As one person put it:

"The problem isn't that Armond White has opinions that differ from the majority. That much would be fine. The problem is that, in addition to that, his reviews can often give no useful information about the movie being reviewed, and he sometimes can even write an entire review without actually really talking about the movie itself. A good review is one that allows the reader to better make a decision about whether or not to spend their money on something. I have not seen a single review from Armond White that did that. Even Roger Ebert called him a troll. It's time for his fifteen minutes to be up."

This will be my last post on the subject as its off topic but I thought his District 9 review was right on.

As a general rule I try not to be a part of anything that tries to stomp out individuality and make everyone conform to one thought....sometimes you need that wierdo in the corner to put things in perspective

[lordofthenerds]

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/banarmondwhite/

SIGN IT! It's almost at the 500 needed!

We can get rid of this ******* forever!
Signed it. This guy shouldn't even get to rate movies for the RT community meter.

[night0205]

No I think you have it wrong. How can a critic tell you if a movie is good or not if they dont know your tastes??? All a critic does is give you his opinion of a film.

I do understand what an occupation is and yes people can be good or bad at them...however an opinion is neither good or bad.

OK, well you are jumping on both sides. You are saying you can be a good and bad critic as a job, but you can not be a good or bad critic because you have a right to your own opinion. I'm confused.

Yes every once in a while we specifically like some movies that most will hate. I understand that. The problem is when you like all the movies almost everyone hates, and you hate all the movies almost everyone likes, consistently. At that point, I'd say, you are probably in the wrong profession.

[lordofthenerds]

a critics job is to tell you what they think of a film.....no one can be a bad critic...you can disagree with his opinions but as we all know opinions are neither right or wrong
Sorry, but some opinions are undeniably better than others, like the opinion that chocolate tastes better than ****.

And the thought that opinions can't be worse than others is better than the though that opinions can be worse than others is an opinion too btw.

[night0205]

The point is. Anyone who likes to eat horse crap is probably not a good food critic. You can listen to them if you like.

[Conebone69]

I signed the petition. the guys sounds like a ****ing dumbass

[jmc]

I think with the DVD of IM1 out for about 2 years, everyone has the chance to see the extra scene of Fury (and his introduction). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that even casual viewers know who Fury is, except those who have never seen IM1.

Basic rule of film making, never assume anything. A lot of people wouldn't be aware of Nick Fury, or the Avengers stuff for that matter, and they are the ones who are the majority of film goers, not us.

[Mr. Earle]

LMAO, Ebert called him a troll and wrote a whole blog post on it. I'm guessing White was laughing his tail off when he read that. Giving him that kind of attention is exactly what he wants. lol

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08/in_defense_of_armond_white.htmlAmong the movies Armond dislikes:
The Dark Knight, There Will be Blood, Star Trek, In Bruges, The Wrestler, District 9, Zodiac, Iron Man, The Assassination of Jesse James, Every Movie Pixar Has MadeWhen i saw this i was like: "Ok, maybe he just doesnt like these movies" but then i read this:
Among the movies Armond likes:
Transformers 2, Terminator Salvation, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Bedtime Stories, Confessions of a Shopaholic, Next Day Air, Dance Flick, What Happens in Vegas, Norbitand i was like: "FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU" :cmad::cmad::cmad:

Petition signed!!!

[jmc]

White didn't like There Will Be Blood? Jesus, that guy has minus zero credibility.

[antonydelfini]

A good movie, but I am still disappointed with this one. Not on a Spider-Man 3 level though. The reason for the disappointment is because it did not surpass the first film. The first film was more emotional and more relatable. The first film also has better character development for Tony and better characters. The scenes and the pacing moved better in part one.

The only thing Iron Man 2 is better at: the effects and the action.

Iron Man: A-
Iron Man 2: B

[night0205]

White didn't like There Will Be Blood? Jesus, that guy has minus zero credibility.

Ha ha, I can respect "There will be blood" as a movie, even though it's not personally what I like. A critic however should be able to put their taste aside as well and judge a movie on it's own merit. This is something this guy definitely has a problem with.

I thought the understanding with critics was not to listen to them because of their own personal views of life, but for them to fairly judge the frickin' movie on it's own terms and what it tries to accomplish! Maybe I just misunderstood.

[Ace of Knaves]

Is this Armond White literally brain dead? Or is he just one of those pricks who goes against the grain just to be different and get attention?

[SpiderByte]

501!

We got to the goal!

:awesome:

[kedrell]

LMAO, Ebert called him a troll and wrote a whole blog post on it. I'm guessing White was laughing his tail off when he read that. Giving him that kind of attention is exactly what he wants. lol

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08/in_defense_of_armond_white.html

Yes, he did call him that. But reading the whole article, Ebert is really defending White and concludes the piece in White's favor. Not that I necessarily agree with Ebert's conclusions.

and its still just his opinion

I agree with some of his choices

I also agree with White sometimes(but very rarely). I don't agree with a single film on that list that White liked, I hate them all. But the ones he didn't like, some of those I didn't like either(Transformers, Revolutionary Road, Sweeny Todd, The Reader, Milk, Across The Universe, Hairspray, The Class, Bruno, every Harry Potter film, etc.). I hated them and so did he. Ebert goes on in the piece to show that White agrees with the t-meter half the time(actually it's 52%, I looked it up). So the notion that he'll hate a film if other's like it or vice versa really isn't true. Most of the films he seems to go for are films that almost nobody ever heard of or will ever see. I would say that had he been a Top Critic on RT, then that status should be stripped from him. But he's not so I don't see why he shouldn't be able to remain the lone small looney voice in the wilderness. Much as I disagree with him(probably 90-95% of the time), he does serve a purpose. So I won't sign that petition.

[Ace of Knaves]

Eberts defense of White was BEFORE Ebert saw what an absolute idiot he is.

[kedrell]

Wrong. Read the entire article. He concludes with

Is that what he intended? Why not? I like to repeat, "If you have to ask what something symbolizes, it doesn't." With "District 9," you don't have to ask. Armond White was pretty much on the money.

And Ebert didn't agree with White about District 9. But he doesn't think White should be banned. That's what I got from the article.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yes but that defense of his review of D9 was BEFORE he realized he is an idiot. He is defending White's review of D9, not White overall.

[kedrell]

Ebert also was the one who pointed out that White actually agrees with the T-Meter half the time. He just seems to be against fanboy-centric stuff like pop culture films. Ebert then went on to say,

Although I agree that the Meter is no gauge of a critic's quality, it looks to me like White is the epitome of the ideal critic, positioned smack dab in the middle of the scale.

This was all after he had called him a troll early on in the article.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea but his opening of the article was written AFTER that defense of his D9 review wasn't it?

[kedrell]

Not sure exactly what you're saying there, sorry. The article starts out negative against White with Ebert concluding that he's a troll(or is Ebert just being facetious) but by the end of the article it sure seems to me like he's sticking up for White.

[annie.j88]

the daily mirror (uk paper) just gave iron man 2 it's lowest rating

apparently, the critic thought it was too complicated, and didn't understand the nick fury bits.(bless him)

[redfirebird2008]

Not sure exactly what you're saying there, sorry. The article starts out negative against White with Ebert concluding that he's a troll(or is Ebert just being facetious) but by the end of the article it sure seems to me like he's sticking up for White.

The defense of White part of the blog post was actually an EARLIER blog post by Ebert. The top part of the article is him realizing that White is a troll that goes against the grain just for the sake of it. He realized this once he saw the list of films that White allegedly "likes." He even has a line in there where he says, "Here is my original entry" which leads into the part where he's defending White.

[kedrell]

Ah, now I see. I missed that part. I still don't know that I agree with the whole "ban him" sentiment. But my position is hardly in stone.

[FlawlessVictory]

RT update:

74% 34 Fresh, 12 Rotten
Avg. Rating: 6.3/10

[redfirebird2008]

Ah, now I see. I missed that part. I still don't know that I agree with the whole "ban him" sentiment. But my position is hardly in stone.

I don't agree with the "ban him" sentiment either.

[SpiderByte]

I don't really care for the major critics. I care for the fan reviews.

For the fan reviews:

83% 327 Fresh, 66 Rotten
Average Rating: 7.8/10

:awesome:

[redfirebird2008]

I don't really care for the major critics. I care for the fan reviews.

For the fan reviews:

83% 327 Fresh, 66 Rotten
Average Rating: 7.8/10

:awesome:


Except a bunch of them (both bad and good) were posted before the movie ever came out overseas, meaning they're BS reviews. There are at least 180 BS reviews out of 393 (or 46% of the total). Those 180 reviews cannot possibly be real because they're all dated April 25, 2010 or earlier. The movie's world premier was April 26, 2010. It will take awhile to get a good picture of fan reaction, but I think it will be very good for sure. 80-85%.

[S.A.A.D.]

RT needs to stop bullcrap reviews from the users community popping up. I don't understand why they allow it when you can tell that the dates of their reviews don't look right,many of those people review whatever movie it is after having seen a trailer and before they have actually seen the freaking movie.

[redfirebird2008]

RT needs to stop bullcrap reviews from the users community popping up. I don't understand why they allow it when you can tell that the dates of their reviews don't look right,many of those people review whatever movie it is after having seen a trailer and before they have actually seen the freaking movie.

When I was looking through the reviews, a bunch of them even admitted to rating it based only on the trailer. :doh: :hehe:

IMDB is the same way too. They should have voting closed on Hollywood movies until the movie opens in North America.

[night0205]

I'm sorry, but if Roger Ebert calls you a troll... then there is a reason. Roger Ebert is usually known for being to nice, him actually stating a fellow critic is a troll means something. I have to agree. This guy doesn't know what a good movie is if it speared him in the arse. And that my friends, is a problem.

[night0205]

When I was looking through the reviews, a bunch of them even admitted to rating it based only on the trailer. :doh: :hehe:

IMDB is the same way too. They should have voting closed on Hollywood movies until the movie opens in North America.

To be honest guys, It would take a lot of work to sort through all those reviews... And how are you suppose to trust people at their word that they saw the movie or not? They have trouble keeping up with knowing what reviews from the critics are good or not. You have 2/5 getting positive, 7/10 getting negative... and so forth...

[S.A.A.D.]

When I was looking through the reviews, a bunch of them even admitted to rating it based only on the trailer. :doh: :hehe:

IMDB is the same way too. They should have voting closed on Hollywood movies until the movie opens in North America.

Agreed,too bad it won't be in the cards,happening at any time. I wonder what RT's policy is,if they even care enough when it comes to one reviewing movies.

[redfirebird2008]

To be honest guys, It would take a lot of work to sort through all those reviews... And how are you suppose to trust people at their word that they saw the movie or not? They have trouble keeping up with knowing what reviews from the critics are good or not. You have 2/5 getting positive, 7/10 getting negative... and so forth...

Obviously it's impossible to know whether someone has seen a movie when they rate it on these websites even after the movie is released, but it IS possible to know they haven't seen the movie if they're rating it 2 years before the damn thing comes out. :doh: :hehe:

Take a look at the bottom of this page:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/iron_man_2/reviews_users.php?page=20&critic=columns&sortby=date&name_order=asc&view=#contentReviews

[night0205]

lol. good point.

They shouldn't allow you to vote until after the movie is released.

[Tony Stark]

I think everyone needs to stop holing up RT as if it's some sort of great source of all knowing all telling information. When RT started out they had some pretty high standards for getting on there. Now there are no standards.

I'm not talking fan reviews either, I'm talking media reviews.

There are both positive and negative reveiws that shouldn't even be up there. I saw one review that was nothing more than a plot synopsis, that was counted as a positive review. Seriously!??? There was another review that gave the film 1 out of 5 starts, it said nothing was about 5 sentances, ending in "F____ Marvel".

This is the kind of crap that RT has become, so please don't anyone read anyting into RT more than what some of the better reviewers have said.

As I mentioned the so-called "top critics" according to RT trashed Batman Begins, a film that I think most people like around here. Rex Reed, a pretty promenant critic said Batman Begins was "for morons".

The only thing RT does is give you a quick glimps at what the overall critic reaction is, and now it does that worse than ever, because the standards are so low to get in.

I'm not saying discount RT, but I know the haters are going to use it just to bash the movie.

[redfirebird2008]

I think everyone needs to stop holing up RT as if it's some sort of great source of all knowing all telling information. When RT started out they had some pretty high standards for getting on there. Now there are no standards.

I'm not talking fan reviews either, I'm talking media reviews.

There are both positive and negative reveiws that shouldn't even be up there. I saw one review that was nothing more than a plot synopsis, that was counted as a positive review. Seriously!??? There was another review that gave the film 1 out of 5 starts, it said nothing was about 5 sentances, ending in "F____ Marvel".

This is the kind of crap that RT has become, so please don't anyone read anyting into RT more than what some of the better reviewers have said.

As I mentioned the so-called "top critics" according to RT trashed Batman Begins, a film that I think most people like around here. Rex Reed, a pretty promenant critic said Batman Begins was "for morons".

The only thing RT does is give you a quick glimps at what the overall critic reaction is, and now it does that worse than ever, because the standards are so low to get in.

I'm not saying discount RT, but I know the haters are going to use it just to bash the movie.


I sort of agree, although I'm not sure how the Tomatometer could really be used to bash the movie. It's a very positive rating for a sequel to a summer blockbuster. Think about the countless sequels that would love to have 70+% approval from critics. What was TF2's rating, like 25%? :hehe:

[rashad]

I sort of agree, although I'm not sure how the Tomatometer could really be used to bash the movie. It's a very positive rating for a sequel to a summer blockbuster. Think about the countless sequels that would love to have 70+% approval from critics. What was TF2's rating, like 25%? :hehe:

20% Average Rating: 3.9/10
16% Top Critics

[hatebox]

It's weird, the % for the cream of the crop critics on RT is higher but the user review is lower. I suppose that means that amongst that group there were a lot more middle of the road reviews.

[topdog1]

Calling all Iron Man fan. Do NOT let the bashers at IMDB win!

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

Forget the boards over there, no one pays attention to them. It's the user reviews that get posted on the movie's main page that matter. Go there, register (write your own review if you like if you've actually seen the film) but be sure to vote "YES" under the good reviews where they ask if it was useful to you. The higher rated reviews get bumped to page one and appear in links and on the film's main page. The bashers are out and are attacking the film sight unseen.

That ticks me off something fierce.


It's weird, the % for the cream of the crop critics on RT is higher but the user review is lower. I suppose that means that amongst that group there were a lot more middle of the road reviews.

User reviews are just guys like us. Most of them haven't even seen the film but want to support or bash as they see fit head of time. Ignore it.

[kedrell]

Yes, TF2 is the highest grossing movie in the rotten category. What a record.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

TF2 is also a cinematic abortion.

Sorry but that movie just brings out such hatred in my very soul. I mean Spider-Man 3 was terrible but I can actually point out good scenes in it with Transformers I only have the forrest fight and even that scene is bearly passable.

[redfirebird2008]

TF2 is also a cinematic abortion.

Sorry but that movie just brings out such hatred in my very soul. I mean Spider-Man 3 was terrible but I can actually point out good scenes in it with Transformers I only have the forrest fight and even that scene is bearly passable.

I still haven't seen TF2. The first one gave me a massive headache due to the shaky-cam nonsense and the fact that the movie was constantly loud. Noise, noise, noise.

[kedrell]

TF2 is that stuff times 5. With juvenile racial stereotyping to boot.

[SpiderByte]

Then you will hate TF2. It's that x10000

Trust me when I say your brain is healthier by not seeing it.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I still haven't seen TF2. The first one gave me a massive headache due to the shaky-cam nonsense and the fact that the movie was constantly loud. Noise, noise, noise.The sequel is even louder and dumber. If you value your sanity you will never view it.

It's times like these when I wish I had that flashy thingy from Men In Black.

[kedrell]

TF2 is the kind of movie that is the reason Rifftrax was invented.

[nintendo nerd]

LOL at the fanboys. If the reviews are positive that means they are good critics. But if they are negative they are the worst critics in the world. WOW........just WOW.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

LOL at the fanboys. If the reviews are positive that means they are good critics. But if they are negative they are the worst critics in the world. WOW........just WOW.It happens everytime...I'm just wondering when the people who do it will stop already.

BTW:

I'd listen to critics over fan reviews any day of the week.

[redfirebird2008]

The sequel is even louder and dumber. If you value your sanity you will never view it.

It's times like these when I wish I had that flashy thingy from Men In Black.


haha, nice reference. :up:

I'm planning on never seeing TF2. :woot:

[nintendo nerd]

It happens everytime...I'm just wonder when the people who do that will stop it already.

BTW:

I'd listen to critics over fan reviews any day of the week.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very excited to watch this movie( It was released today in Mexico :cwink:). I didn't like the first one, but this one at least on the trailers seemed like an improvement in every way. But after reading some reviews it seems to go downhill after 40 minutes and never wakes up.

But really, what makes me laugh is that some people haven't seen the movie but they are insulting the critics and maybe some would love to burn their houses. "How dare they insult a movie I haven't even seen" :o

[Leenie]

I'd listen to critics over fan reviews any day of the week.

Agreed. Generally, I don't listen to what either say, but I do find the critics to be much more credible. Most fans are too passionate about how they feel about the movie that they don't convey their opinions as well.

[Tony Stark]

I sort of agree, although I'm not sure how the Tomatometer could really be used to bash the movie. It's a very positive rating for a sequel to a summer blockbuster. Think about the countless sequels that would love to have 70+% approval from critics. What was TF2's rating, like 25%? :hehe:

I think you can get a general sense of wheather a film is liked or disliked. TF2 was actually 20%, and yeah that movie blew goats. And I for the most part liked the first one.

However, it looks like IM2 will end up with a rating around what SR got, and I can tell already, there is no way in hell this movie is as bad as SR. You can tell SR is bad, because everyone wants to forget it ever happened.

Like I said counting something as a "review" when it's a synopsis, is the biggest example of how low their standards are.

[kedrell]

With regards to SR, I think nostalgia colors too many critics minds. There is no way(IMO) that it should be sitting at 77% fresh. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is another example of that happening.

[redfirebird2008]

I think you can get a general sense of wheather a film is liked or disliked. TF2 was actually 20%, and yeah that movie blew goats. And I for the most part liked the first one.

However, it looks like IM2 will end up with a rating around what SR got, and I can tell already, there is no way in hell this movie is as bad as SR. You can tell SR is bad, because everyone wants to forget it ever happened.

Like I said counting something as a "review" when it's a synopsis, is the biggest example of how low their standards are.


That's why MetaCritic is better. It's basically the "top critics" from Rotten Tomatoes. All the bozo bloggers are thrown out the window, whether they are haters or fanboys. Generally the reviewers at MetaCritic (and the Top Critics at RT) have well-written reviews. Even if I disagree with the person's opinion, at least I can respect their writing and I can understand where they are coming from if they make valid enough arguments. There's a lot of tacky reviewers on RT. Most of them aren't much different than us to be honest.

With regards to SR, I think nostalgia colors too many critics minds. There is no way(IMO) that it should be sitting at 77% fresh. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is another example of that happening.

Fully agree. I remember when Indy 4 came out and was getting such good reviews. I went to see it opening weekend and felt like it was ripping off the franchise that ripped off Indy in the first place (The Mummy). I was sitting there thinking, "You know it's bad when you are imitating the imitators." It's mediocre at best and that is with nostalgia taken into full consideration. Without the nostalgia, it's not even mediocre. It's pure crap.

[jmc]

With regards to SR, I think nostalgia colors too many critics minds. There is no way(IMO) that it should be sitting at 77% fresh. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is another example of that happening.

I agree with this, nostalgia play a part, as does a good first film in a franchise. If SR and Indy 4 were the first films in those respective series they would have been ripped more than what they were.

[spider-neil]

surprised by the middle of the road reviews, I thought the movie was amazing :csad:

[kedrell]

That's why MetaCritic is better. It's basically the "top critics" from Rotten Tomatoes. All the bozo bloggers are thrown out the window, whether they are haters or fanboys. Generally the reviewers at MetaCritic (and the Top Critics at RT) have well-written reviews. Even if I disagree with the person's opinion, at least I can respect their writing and I can understand where they are coming from if they make valid enough arguments. There's a lot of tacky reviewers on RT. Most of them aren't much different than us to be honest.

Yeah, but I still dislike the guestimating thing they do. I suppose one could simply ignore the overall rating at RT and just go by the Top Critics. But even then it's still a bit flawed. Top Critics really didn't dig Batman Begins compared to the overall RT score. Maybe if RT also factored in the community rating to the overall score it would give a better picture. I consider the Top Critics to be the experts, the rest of the used critics to be the amatuers and the community part to be the folks/fans/regular joes.

[kedrell]

surprised by the middle of the road reviews, I thought the movie was amazing :csad:

Well to be fair, only 2 top critics have weighed in so far(one positive, one negative). There's a ton more waiting to speak their piece.

[Ajendo]

The movie was very good and imo the only bad thing about it was a certain scene that was poorly executed and as a result should have been approached differently and that's

the tony in the suit drunk and fighting Rhody

[kedrell]

And I hear a lot of other people loved that scene. Just goes to show you that different people take away different things from a piece of art. Probably has more to do what what mental baggage you bring into it in the first place.

[hatebox]

The respected/notorious Mark Kermode reviews Iron Man 2. He sums it up as an enjoyable mess.

This is a 7 minute youtube clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYRN1cDk17A

[PumpkinBombxXx]

I have to say with out meaning any offense. This Mark Kermode guy doesnt sound like he knows what he is talking about. I also think that he lets the fact that he doesnt want any action scenes in the movie get in the way of his own review. He understands that it has to be in there but he doesnt aprove of it and i think it effects his review. Between that calling whips "Strings" and costantly acting like R2D2, the guy just gave me some brain pain. Im sure he give good reviews i just dont think people should review movies they generally dont like. Im not going to say some chic flick is the best or worst of its genre because i have no idea were it suceeds and were it doesnt. Clearly comic book movies are the same for this guy

The nods to the Avengers most people will get even people who are not fans. my girlfriend gets it and she never picked up a comic. This is something that is done for the fans first and the GA second. Not to mention they are trying to cover as much of the origin of the Avengers in these movies so its not out of nowhere when they make the avengers. Thus they can dedicate more time in the Avengers to Story and Character development rather then explaining who every one is and how they got there. Try to look at the whole Marvel Cinimatic Universe as one movie then it doesnt feel like Nick Fury is popping in out of nowhere. He is the glue to the whole thing

[PumpkinBombxXx]

I have to say with out meaning any offense. This Mark Kermode guy doesnt sound like he knows what he is talking about. I also think that he lets the fact that he doesnt want any action scenes in the movie get in the way of his own review. He understands that it has to be in there but he doesnt aprove of it and i think it effects his review. Between that calling whips "Strings" and costantly acting like R2D2, the guy just gave me some brain pain. Im sure he give good reviews i just dont think people should review movies they generally dont like. Im not going to say some chic flick is the best or worst of its genre because i have no idea were it suceeds and were it doesnt. Clearly comic book movies are the same for this guy

The nods to the Avengers most people will get even people who are not fans. my girlfriend gets it and she never picked up a comic. This is something that is done for the fans first and the GA second. Not to mention they are trying to cover as much of the origin of the Avengers in these movies so its not out of nowhere when they make the avengers. Thus they can dedicate more time in the Avengers to Story and Character development rather then explaining who every one is and how they got there. Try to look at the whole Marvel Cinimatic Universe as one movie then it doesnt feel like Nick Fury is popping in out of nowhere. He is the glue to the whole thing

[hatebox]

Kermode's not saying anything dozens of other critics haven't pointed out. That wasn't one of his wittier pieces (and the impressions were merely a reference to the ones he did when reviewing IM1) but the guy does know his films. Given he hates action films becoming too busy I thought he was quite positive about this film.

PS - his rant against Pirates 3 is legendary, and on youtube if anyone cares to view it.

[PumpkinBombxXx]

I beileve he knows what hes doing and that hes good at it. But i think its the same for most reviewers, they shouldnt rate movies that they generally dont like. They should have more focused reviewers for specific genres. That way you can know how it holds up in its own genre. Its like i said i dont get girly movies but outside of when im acting like an ass i really cant tell somebody if its a horrible or great chic flic. I simply dont know what makes it good or bad. Thats why i enjoyed coming soons review or SHH review wichever because they knew what they were looking for in a comic book film.

[Ace of Knaves]

Agreed. Someone who doesn't like action films shouldn't review action films. Someone who doesn't like rom/coms shouldn't review rom/coms.

They can deny they have a bias all they want. But subconciously at least, they do have a bias.

[hatebox]

If you're a good film critic you'll appreciate the merits and nuances of all the genres. I believe Kermode (as often as I disagree with him) is a good film critic, ergo...

Besides he's given action films good reviews in the past. I don't know why we're suddenly saying he doesn't like action films period.

[PumpkinBombxXx]

I say this only because he says that he would enjoy the movie better without ever seeing tony suit up. Most people go to see Iron Man get into a fight, im not trying to say story doesnt matter but nobody wants to watch an iron man movie with out iron man. Its reasons like this why Spider-man has to loose his mask in every fight. Because critics want to see the characters and only the characters. I think Rorshach Finaly proved that you can have a moving performance under a mask.
Yet again im not trashing this guy as a critic but i dont think he has a full understanding of the genre so for lack of a better term his ignorance causes his review to suffer. I havent seen the movie yet so im not going to give it praise but this guy missed alot of key elements that go hand in hand with a super hero movie. If he was a fan of the genre like most people who are going to actually care about this review, he would have given a very differnt review. For better or worse but at least he would know what he was talking about and people like me could take his review to into consideration

[Leenie]

With regards to SR, I think nostalgia colors too many critics minds. There is no way(IMO) that it should be sitting at 77% fresh. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is another example of that happening.

I concur. While I did enjoy Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to some extent, I wouldn't call it a good film.

I'm aware that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I cannot fathom why people could have possibly liked Superman Returns. I don't get it. That movie is one of the most frustrating films I've ever had to sit through. If someone came up to me back in 2006 and told me that I'd enjoy X-Men: The Last Stand more than a Superman movie, I would have told them that they were CRAZY. While neither film is that good, I was never bored with X-3 (at least).

Anywho, back to Iron Man 2: One thing I hope is that the critics aren't being too nice because they liked the first film so much. One thing's for certain, though: Iron Man 2 won't bore me to tears like SR did.

[Leenie]

I say this only because he says that he would enjoy the movie better without ever seeing tony suit up. Most people go to see Iron Man get into a fight, im not trying to say story doesnt matter but nobody wants to watch an iron man movie with out iron man. Its reasons like this why Spider-man has to loose his mask in every fight. Because critics want to see the characters and only the characters. I think Rorshach Finaly proved that you can have a moving performance under a mask.

While I agree that Jackie Earle Haley's performance as Rorschach is AWESOME (and it's clearly the best thing in the Watchmen movie), I think that the whole "good performance under a mask" thing was first accomplished by Hugo Weaving in V For Vendetta. Just my opinion. :)

[PumpkinBombxXx]

This is way off topic and i know im going to get eaten alive for asking, but what was so bad about Indiana Jones 4. It wasnt a great film but i thought it had the same feel as the original 3. I did enjoy it more then 2. However im not a hardcore IJ guy so i may miss what is wrong with it.

[PumpkinBombxXx]

Agreed about hugo weaving that did slip my mind

[kedrell]

Agreed. Someone who doesn't like action films shouldn't review action films. Someone who doesn't like rom/coms shouldn't review rom/coms.

They can deny they have a bias all they want. But subconciously at least, they do have a bias.


I agree to an exent. Just like the guys on Spill simply should give up watching chick flicks. They hate almost every one of them and it's really not their thing.

I actually like Kermode. If nothing else, he's really entertaining and sometimes well thought out in his criticisms. I disagree with him often but it still doesn't mean I don't find him fun to listen to.

[Mr. Earle]

No guys you cant get a performance when the actor is wearing a mask. Its much better when Spiderman's mask gets torn every 5 minutes and we can see his face!!!

[/sarcasm]


So yeah, i agree with you and SM's mask was stupid.

[Crook]

I agree to an exent. Just like the guys on Spill simply should give up watching chick flicks. They hate almost every one of them and it's really not their thing.
But most chick flicks really do suck. :huh:

[Ace of Knaves]

Devil Wears Prada was alright...

:ninja:

Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

[VenomVsSpidey]

just friends was good too ace :o

[Ace of Knaves]

That's not really a chick flick though. It sorta is, but it's got that Ryan Reynolds sour-ness about it. It definitely isn't all sweet and sickly like most rom coms.

[VenomVsSpidey]

good point. I guess it's more like a rom-com than a full on chick flick.

[kedrell]

But most chick flicks really do suck. :huh:

I agree but then I'm more in line with those guys to begin with so I'm biased against chick flicks. But I don't review them, nor should I. Same thing applies to them. A paid/professional reviewer should know when to recuse themselves. It's only being upfront and honest.

[Ace of Knaves]

I saw a comic book review a while ago. A Hulk book i think. The reviewer started going on about how much he hates the Hulk etc etc.

I was sitting there thinking "Why the **** are you reviewing a Hulk book then?"

Same should apply to any type of reviewer/critic in any medium.

[SpiderByte]

Devil Wears Prada was alright...

:ninja:

Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

http://chimpwalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/mancardrevoked.jpg


I kid, I kid. :hehe:

[Ace of Knaves]

:argh: :cmad:





:awesome:

[kedrell]

I liked Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail, Joe Vs The Volcano and Meet Joe Black and those were all chick flicks to one extent or another. But mostly because Hanks & Ryan have an onscreen chemistry that few can match.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea Hanks is a legend.

Is Meet Joe Black that one with Pitt and Hopkins? And Pitt is death/grim reaper? Yea that was pretty good, was a nice spin on the love movie thing.

[kedrell]

Yes, it was a remake of Death Takes a Holiday. Most people hate it, but I liked it.

[SpiderByte]

I've always hoped that Hanks would be Henry Pym.

And by 'always' I mean 'since I came up with that theory five second ago'.

[night0205]

Tom Hanks is old...

[JAK®]

The movie was very good and imo the only bad thing about it was a certain scene that was poorly executed and as a result should have been approached differently and that's

the tony in the suit drunk and fighting Rhody
I agree, it came off like it was supposed to be cool when it should have been quite emotional.

[Chewy]

Peter Travers' Review

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/;kw=[14342,139449]

[Ace of Knaves]

Downey never tries to be likable, like Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man, or to throw a pity party for himself, like all the actors who climb into the Batman suit. Downey plays Stark like the horny, hard-drinking, self-destructive narcissist he is. Stark likes his life on the edge. He knows the shrapnel-wounded heart that fuels him is also killing him little by little. And he gets off on it.

haha love that.

[rashad]

TheFilmStage - 3/10
http://thefilmstage.com/2010/05/01/review-iron-man-2/

[topdog1]

Peter Travers' Review

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/;kw=[14342,139449]

He's certainly one of the five or six big guns in the field.

"Iron Man 2 knows how to jump the hurdles and have you smacking your lips for more."

"it's the promiscuously talented Downey who adds the grace notes that make Iron Man 2 something to remember."

Good show!

[Keyser Soze]

Devil Wears Prada was alright...

:ninja:

Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

...I love Muriel's Wedding. Love it. I own the DVD, and still watch it every time it's on TV. Love it.

:dry:

[hame4479]

surprised by the middle of the road reviews, I thought the movie was amazing :csad:

Most of the criticism stems from a lack of efficient story telling and overbloating with to many characters and storylines that dont pertain to this film alone. Personally i have the feeling that most comic fans will love it becuz of these elements and they will be the icing on the cake.

[hame4479]

The common person just won't understand the setup and the fact that this is how comic books and their universes work. They are open ended affairs.

[Blade X]

Devil Wears Prada was alright...

:ninja:


I actually thought that the DEVIL WEARS NADA (yes that is a real movie) was much better.:woot:

[ultimatefan]

Having seen the movie myself, I´m forced to agree with the critics who say that the second act gets too slow and that the movie is too crowded with characters, plots, and especially tie-ins to The Avengers. But totally disagree with the ones calling it a disaster, there´s a lot to like in IM2.

[akfj]

The common person just won't understand the setup and the fact that this is how comic books and their universes work. They are open ended affairs.

On the flip side, will they understand that that's how movies don't work?

[SpiderByte]

So it's not the greatest superhero film ever, but isn't a complete train wreck.

Sounds good to me.

[jmc]

The common person just won't understand the setup and the fact that this is how comic books and their universes work. They are open ended affairs.

Except this ain't comic books, no matter how hard Marvel try to make it.

[jmc]

So it's not the greatest superhero film ever, but isn't a complete train wreck.

Sounds good to me.

Don't you want better though?

[spider-neil]

Most of the criticism stems from a lack of efficient story telling and overbloating with to many characters and storylines that dont pertain to this film alone. Personally i have the feeling that most comic fans will love it becuz of these elements and they will be the icing on the cake.

I get that I guess. I got all the in jokes, all the references to the avengers and was geeking out on it. IM2 is a two hour avengers trailer, my sister was like 'what's that? what's that?' but because I am seriously jonesing for avengers I really loved the movie. I suppose if I didn't get all the references I would be more critical.

with all the time expended to setting up the avengers, the avengers better be worth it

[antonydelfini]

I think one of the factors why this movie isn't as beloved as part one is because of Tony Stark himself.

One of the great things about part one was Tony's character development: from a completely unlikeable jerk he turned into a likeable and noble guy with wit, charm, playfulness and unpredictability. This caused the audience to root for Tony.

In part two, Tony reverts back into his unlikeable jerk persona seen in part one before he met Yensin, the man who changed his outlook in life. It seems as if he forgot all about his experience in Afghanistan. This caused the audience not to care what happens to the character.

The filmmakers were unable to emphasize he strength of the character unlike in part one. They focused too much on banter and Tony being a complete a$$hole. I don't remember one emotional scene in this movie involving Stark, all I remember is Stark saying one liners. In part one, my fave parts are the emotional moments.

They could repair this in part 3. Instead of portraying Tony as someone who forgot Yensin and Afghanistan like they did in part two, they should focus on Tony still trying to make himself a better man.

The appeal of Iron Man is not just on improving and developing the armor and the tech, but most importantly in improving and developing the MAN. Part two got the former, the latter got neglected.

[Ace of Knaves]

RDJ specifically said he didn't want Stark to turn into a goody two shoes like Peter Parker or a self pitying guy like Batman though.

Stark is a douche, always has been, always will be. That is who he is. But underneath that playboy douche exterior, he has a heart of gold.

That is the Tony Stark character.

[antonydelfini]

I dont want him to be goody two shoes like Peter or Clark.

The problem is his heart of gold isn't shown much in part 2. In part 1, the appeal of Tony is seeing that heart of gold shine through. In part 2, that doesn't shine so much.

[Ace of Knaves]

ok fair enough. i haven't seen it yet so i'm not saying you're wrong.

i just thought you was expecting his personality to completely change or something.

[antonydelfini]

Haha the last thing i want is to turn Tony into Saint Superman.

I want Tony to be the witty, playful, and naughty guy with the heart of gold. The heart of gold barely existed in part two. They were so focused on the one liners and the humor that they forgot to show his heart of gold. This turned Tony into an unlikeable guy. And he was so likable in part one which is what disappointed me the most. He doesn't seem human in part 2, more like a loony toons character.

the movie still gets a B from me since the production and effects are top notch.

[ultimatefan]

I get that I guess. I got all the in jokes, all the references to the avengers and was geeking out on it. IM2 is a two hour avengers trailer, my sister was like 'what's that? what's that?' but because I am seriously jonesing for avengers I really loved the movie. I suppose if I didn't get all the references I would be more critical.

with all the time expended to setting up the avengers, the avengers better be worth it

Even getting the references, I felt they ended up becoming intrusive cuz the movie was already crowded with characters and subplots. If there already wasn´t so much being crammed into two hours, and if the pacing was more even, I´d probably have geeked out more about it.

[SpiderByte]

Don't you want better though?

Well, of course. I'd take 'fantastic' over 'okay' any day. But that doesn't mean I won't have a problem with 'okay'.

[ultimatefan]

^That´s one thing about fanboys that often gets annoying, everything rocks or sucks, no room for middle grounds.

[SpiderByte]

Indeed.

Not that I wouldn't LOVE a perfect movie, who wouldn't? But that doesn't mean I still won't like the film.

Hell, if this film lives up to even a third of the hype it's produced I'd be happy.

[JAK®]

I never considered the movie to be crowded, each of the characters served their purpose. It just focused too much on setting up the future, and it had a weak second act. As a fan, I enjoyed the references to The Avengers. To the average viewer who wouldn't have got those references, the film would seem like it lacked direction, but I think the actor's performances made up for it.

[Ace of Knaves]

Personally, i think it's about ****ing time comic book fans got put first ahead of the GA.

[JAK®]

Personally, i think it's about ****ing time comic book fans got put first ahead of the GA.I think the characters themselves should be put first, which in turn should put comic fans ahead of the GA, while still presenting them in a way the GA would accept.

[batman11]

Personally, i think it's about ****ing time comic book fans got put first ahead of the GA.

I haven't seen the movie, and while I do partially agree Ace, one must draw the line somewhere. For instance, from what I've heard, Fury just pops in the movie without introduction and starts going on about the Avengers initiative. For those that have not seen/heard of the end credits sequence from the first film, I can bet they'd be truly lost.

Imagine a little kid - "Why is Samuel L. Jackson here Mommy?" "Because there are some snakes that need an ass-whooping son." :woot:

But seriously, there's a time and a place for the comic book stuff, and although I'm glad that they seem to be throwing us fans a bone, the execution needs to be well-done. Regardless of whether or not you are a comic fan, I think one can see the fault in a character with a 30 second after credits appearance in a prior movie showing up without introduction, and the audience is accordingly expected to know what's up. Yes, it's nice to see the comic book audience put above the GA, but that's no excuse to leave out simple elements like an introduction or small refresher/explanation that would take all of 30 seconds.

Again, I haven't seen the move, so my comments my be premature, but this is the feeling I'm getting from people I've talked to/heard from. We're still dealing with a film here, thus meaning that certain qualities of a film should be implemented/remain intact.

I think the characters themselves should be put first, which in turn should put comic fans ahead of the GA, while still presenting them in a way the GA would accept.

Agreed. :up:

[Anita18]

I think one of the factors why this movie isn't as beloved as part one is because of Tony Stark himself.

One of the great things about part one was Tony's character development: from a completely unlikeable jerk he turned into a likeable and noble guy with wit, charm, playfulness and unpredictability. This caused the audience to root for Tony.

In part two, Tony reverts back into his unlikeable jerk persona seen in part one before he met Yensin, the man who changed his outlook in life. It seems as if he forgot all about his experience in Afghanistan. This caused the audience not to care what happens to the character.

The filmmakers were unable to emphasize he strength of the character unlike in part one. They focused too much on banter and Tony being a complete a$$hole. I don't remember one emotional scene in this movie involving Stark, all I remember is Stark saying one liners. In part one, my fave parts are the emotional moments.

They could repair this in part 3. Instead of portraying Tony as someone who forgot Yensin and Afghanistan like they did in part two, they should focus on Tony still trying to make himself a better man.

The appeal of Iron Man is not just on improving and developing the armor and the tech, but most importantly in improving and developing the MAN. Part two got the former, the latter got neglected.
There are many critically-acclaimed movies with unlikeable main characters. I don't see how it has anything to do with many critics' assertions that the second act falls flat and the plot is scattershot. Those are plot-related issues, not a character issue.

Personally, i think it's about ****ing time comic book fans got put first ahead of the GA.
Unfortunately, comic book fans cannot buoy a $200-million movie all by their lonesomes.

I think the characters themselves should be put first, which in turn should put comic fans ahead of the GA, while still presenting them in a way the GA would accept.
Exactly. :up:

[spider-neil]

Personally, i think it's about ****ing time comic book fans got put first ahead of the GA.

I don't agree with that at all. if the GA aren't into the movie you aren't going to make money. fans make up a ridiculously small percentage of a movie's overall gross. my sister followed the beats of the first movie easily but I had to explain LOADS of stuff to her in the second.

the good thing is though when the avengers finally comes along the GA will know who they are, where their from, how they come to be and what motivates them so it will have been worth the effort.

if and when the justice league happens it wont have nearly the impact of the avengers because of the build up in several movies went into setting the avengers into motion.

[Excelsior.]

Yea, if you make a comic flick solely for the fans you get Watchmen.

[Ace of Knaves]

I know all this... i'm usually one of the people going round telling fanboys that we are the minority.

But that's why i'm loving what Marvel is doing. They are putting comic book fans first, well, at least catering to them more than other comic book movies in the past, but still making entertaining films for the masses.

Professional critics do not represent the masses. This is obviously undeniable. I'm pretty sure the majority of the GA will enjoy this film. And it will make big coin.

It being for us comic book fans is a bonus. And like i said, it's about ****ing time.

[SpiderByte]

Wasn't Watchmen a fantastic success?

[spider-neil]

Yea, if you make a comic flick solely for the fans you get Watchmen.

first and foremost set out to make a GOOD MOVIE. a good movie has drama, character and depth. special effects, genre are elements ON TOP of that depth. you can throw the fans a bone but I would say give the fans what they 'need' not what they 'want'.

[Ace of Knaves]

Wasn't Watchmen a fantastic success?

Errr... you're joking right?