The Critics review Iron Man 2

[batman11]

I think the word you're looking for Ace, is "No." :woot:

[spider-neil]

Wasn't Watchmen a fantastic success?


dreadful movie (imho)

[Excelsior.]

I was not talking about it's quality.

[jmc]

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.

It's about time for what exactly? Have we not had comic adaptations already that work in appealing to both fans and Joe public? It's all well and good to throw bones to us comics fans, but when those bones take up a large chunk of plot there's an equally large chunk of people who'll have no idea what the hell is going on, and they're the ones who are the majority. That is where Thor and CAP AM could run into problems, if Marvel's desire for continuity affects these film like it did for IM2 those movies are gonna be in trouble because they don't have the advantage IM2 does, I mean will people even put two and two together? After IM2, Thor and Cap Am fans should be a bit nervous.

[Ace of Knaves]

Why? Thor and Cap will be origin stories. Like the first Iron Man. That didn't have Avengers references did it?

And we have never had literal comic book translations to film before. Not with mainstream comic book films. We haven't had interconnecting stories like actual comic books before. That's what i'm talking about when i say it's about time. I mean, how could comic book fans not be excited about the concept of a fully fledged Marvel Universe/DC Universe in film form?

Iron Man 2 isn't a origin story, it's Stark doing what he does. One of those things involves SHIELD/Avengers. That is Iron Man.

And as for Fury popping up out of nowhere? Well, correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't there a guy in the first Iron Man called Agent Coulson running around rambling on about SHIELD? As long as it's made clear Fury is SHIELD i don't see how it will confuse people.

I've spoken to people who have seen this, there isn't really that many Avengers references in the movie. Not enough to distract them. See most of the people criticizing the Avengers references, were already skeptical about the whole Avengers thing anyway.

I still say, **** em.

[batman11]

I think what JMC means is that because the Avengers is now fully in gear, we'll be seeing a lot more of its "presence" in the upcoming Marvel movies, regardless of whether or not they are origin stories. Iron Man didn't contain much (other than the few SHIELD moments), because it was the first in this series, and therefore had nothing to build up to based on unpredictability in terms of box office, release dates, casting etc. But since the Avengers has been firmly set in stone, it would seem that Marvel wants to push everything towards it. Now, I haven't seen the movie, nor do I know whether or not Thor and Cap will be full of Avengers build-up, but I'm merely presenting this as an interpretation of what JMC is trying to say. Am in the right ball park?

(Or so way off it's terrible? LOL :woot:)

And as for Fury popping up out of nowhere? Well, correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't there a guy in the first Iron Man called Agent Coulson running around rambling on about SHIELD? As long as it's made clear Fury is SHIELD i don't see how it will confuse people.

I've spoken to people who have seen this, there isn't really that many Avengers references in the movie. Not enough to distract them. See most of the people criticizing the Avengers references, were already skeptical about the whole Avengers thing anyway.

You're not incorrect. Like I said, I haven't seen the movie, but based off of what I heard, there is some "WTF-ness" to his appearance and the unraveling of the Avengers subplots. So, regardless of whether or not you don't see how it will confuse people, it already seems to be doing just that (even if it is a minority). I can't place the actual reviews, but there are a couple that say that something to the effect of - "If one hasn't kept up with the Iron Man/Avengers story, then Sam Jackson's role will cause the audience to question who he is what exactly he's doing there." Again, just paraphrasing, but it's just an example of some of the issues I've read/heard about regarding the inclusion of the Avengers stuff.

[hatebox]

A literal adaptation of a comic book is pointless. Adaptations are only worthwhile when injected with something new and fresh that compliments the medium of film that can be conveyed in less than 3 hours. The most literal adaptation we've had has been Watchmen, and that's exactly why it didn't work.

[Ace of Knaves]

Ah ok i get what you and JMC are saying.

But I just don't see how there will be hardly any Avengers references in Thor at all. The only person involved from Iron Man is Agent Coulson. And i think it's pretty safe to say what part he'll show up in... anyone who has seen the after credit scene will know what i mean.

As for Cap? Apparently the whole film is set in WWII. So again, i don't see there being any Avengers references until maybe right at the end when he is discovered in the ice.

[Mr. Earle]

I just saw the movie, so let me address the critics.

1) Bawww, the movie didnt have as much humor as the first one.
Well its a sequel to the first one and it has its own story. Tony is slowly dying FFS! If you want a comedy, watch Wedding Crushers or something. What was the movie supposed to do? Have Tony laugh and blast things for the whole movie? The whole subplot about him dying for really good imho. It was one of the backbones of the movie.

2) It didnt have enough action.
I dont know about you guys, but the whole movie flew by pretty quickly and it had enough action scenes. Yeah, both the Monaco and the final Whiplash battle were short, but we also got Rhodey vs Tony and Natasha vs guards. TDK had more action because it was 2.5 hours long!

3) It wasnt citizen Kane or TDK.
Yeah ok, it wasnt. But it was a comic book movie. If this story was printed as a comic book, it would have been a good one. Hell, Extremis is considered a great IM story and it was basically just like IM2 and the villain was an ***hole with superpowers!
The sooner people realise that Marvel is just producing comics book stories on the silver screen and is not trying to do DEEP movies, the sooner they'll sit down, eat their pop corn and enjoy the movies!

And i'm gonna get flamed for this but i never saw what's so great about Spiderman 2. He was doing OK, then he lost it then he got back and won the girl. His powers which come from his enhanced DNA didnt work because he was sad (you get your myopia back because you're sad?) and Otto was also talking to his tentacles :whatever:. It was a good SM story but it wasnt "OMFG MASTERPIECE"! In my humble opinion Ironman 2 was Tony's Spiderman 2. He loses it, he gets back on his feet and he beats the villain. It just didnt have the goosebumps inducing inspirational speech from Aunt May that gave SM2 more drama.

4) Too many characters.
The major characters were Tony, Vanko, Hammer and SHIELD (Fury + Natasha + Howard Stark) and Rhodey. Those were the major characters. You should look the Shield agents as one character, looking over Stark. What more did you want to see from Fury or Natasha? Their childhood? They came and helped Stark. Did you get Maroni's background in TDK?

Rhodey had enough time to show us his mixed feelings and regrets and being the true friend that will give you some hard love when you need it.

Hammer had more than enough time and was fleshed out well.

Pepper had enough time as well. What more did you want from her?

Only Vanko didnt have enough time and even the time he got he wasted it by speaking in Russian (which at least in my theatre wasnt translated so i dont know what he was saying). Maybe he was pretending not to have difficulty in English so that he could create the whole drones vs pilots misunderstanding with Hammer. But I wanted to see him do more than work on Hammer's drones and the talk with Tony should have been longer somehow. But it was good nonetheless, i loved the "sharks will come" bit, it made the dialogue more iconic.

[Ace of Knaves]

A literal adaptation of a comic book is pointless. Adaptations are only worthwhile when injected with something new and fresh that compliments the medium of film that can be conveyed in less than 3 hours. The most literal adaptation we've had has been Watchmen, and that's exactly why it didn't work.

Watchmen was a literal page for page translation of a one time graphic novel.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about creating an actual movie universe that is in continuity like the comic universes. It's a tough task, sure. But i think it should be attempted. What Marvel are going for, has never, ever been attempted in film before. Is that new and fresh enough for ya?

[Tony Stark]

It's about time for what exactly? Have we not had comic adaptations already that work in appealing to both fans and Joe public? It's all well and good to throw bones to us comics fans, but when those bones take up a large chunk of plot there's an equally large chunk of people who'll have no idea what the hell is going on, and they're the ones who are the majority. That is where Thor and CAP AM could run into problems, if Marvel's desire for continuity affects these film like it did for IM2 those movies are gonna be in trouble because they don't have the advantage IM2 does, I mean will people even put two and two together? After IM2, Thor and Cap Am fans should be a bit nervous.

Once again the ignorance of Iron Man's story is breathtaking. Iron Man's story is all about the Avengers. You sit there and pretend like they are two separate things. Hell Tony Stark already appeared in the Incredible Hulk.

You're also exaggerating how people won't know what's going on. People already know who shield is from the first movie and if they stayed to the end credits they know who Nick Fury is. If they happened to miss they, hey guess what Nick Fury is the director of shield. Next question.

[rashad]

I'm not reading all that. What's your score for the film?

[Ace of Knaves]

Call me paranoid but it seems 99% of the people on here who are skeptical about what Marvel is attempting are known DC fans.

Coincidence???

:awesome:

[Excelsior.]

Mr Earle, you are the only one on this thread who needlessly brought up the Dark Knight so many times in a review.

[Ace of Knaves]

Well a lot of people like to use TDK as a measuring stick... for some reason. So he is doing just that. And with SM2 aswell.

[Ace of Knaves]

Well a lot of people like to use TDK as a measuring stick... for some reason. So he is doing just that. And with SM2 aswell.

[RoboAmish]

I just saw the movie, so let me address the critics.

1) Bawww, the movie didnt have as much humor as the first one.


Has that really been a common complaint. I thought there was plenty of humour, it just wasn't as funny as the first one. They were trying a tad too hard to recreate that same jokey, glib atmosphere and it didn't come off as well the second time out because of the weaker script and more bloody improvisation:cmad:

Regardless, I think when the actors were made to stick to the script it had its funnier moments. Case in point Sam Rockwell, although if he improvised that dance it was worth all the pain of the Stark/ Pepper bickering:awesome:

[Mr. Earle]

Avengers werent in the movie until the end where they were mentioned briefly. Shield was.

The only problem is that Shield was a small part of IM1 that the average Joe could have easily forgotten after what... two years is it? Also, Fury appeared after the credits when most viewers have left the theatre. How many people stuck behind to watch it? Only those in the know. How many people bought the DVD and learned about it then? Some.

So for the average Joe, Shield and Fury did come out of nowhere in IM2. But to me they felt really natural. I view Fury + Natasha + Coulson + Howard (who also has a fatherly role) as one character: SHIELD. The good organisation that guided Stark in IM1 and is doing so even more in IM2.

Avengers are only mentioned at the end when Fury tries to enlist Tony but is also playing hard to get (you 'll only be a consultant). So? This organisation that helped Tony is trying to enlist him. What's so hard to get? Why is it out of place? Its one of the many subplots that explore how the world reacts to Tony Stark being Ironman. Some hate him (Vanko), some try to manipulate him (Hammer, government) and some try to help him and use him for good (SHIELD).

[Mr. Earle]

Mr Earle, you are the only one on this thread who needlessly brought up the Dark Knight so many times in a review.Well a lot of people like to use TDK as a measuring stick... for some reason. So he is doing just that. And with SM2 aswell.I referred to it because it has spoiled the critics who now expect superhero movies to be DEEP movies commenting on society or whatever. As a superhero movie, IM 1&2 were like the Spiderman, Xmen, Blade and Daredevil movies: Stories about the character like those found in the comics. It didnt try to be something else or be deep. Has that really been a common complaint. I thought there was plenty of humour, it just wasn't as funny as the first one.
BINGO!!! There was humor even when the scenes were supposed to be dramatic and sad. Example: Tony being drunk and pathetic and still managing to make us smile with his antics and peeing.

[RoboAmish]

Well a lot of people like to use TDK as a measuring stick... for some reason. So he is doing just that. And with SM2 aswell.

The only time I felt a comparison to TDK was necessary was in the way they handled the whole villain being off screen thing. The Joker was a constant threath even when off screen in TDK, but due to the script effectively writing out Vanko halfway through, there is no threath for a lot of the movie.

[Ace of Knaves]

The only time I felt a comparison to TDK was necessary was in the way they handled the whole villain being off screen thing. The Joker was a constant threath even when off screen in TDK, but due to the script effectively writing out Vanko halfway through, there is no threath for a lot of the movie.

But i've seen a lot of complaints about IM 2 not developing it's supporting characters enough.

Like Earle said, neither did TDK and no one complained about it.

My problem with people using TDK as a measuring stick is that a lot of the time, double standards come into it.

But i really don't want to go this route again, this is just an observation i have made.

[Excelsior.]

Even though none of the critics compared it to TDK. None that I've read. All of them from RT.


And how is TDK trying to be deep ? It is serious and dark, yes. Because that is how the comics are.

[redfirebird2008]

Has that really been a common complaint. I thought there was plenty of humour, it just wasn't as funny as the first one. They were trying a tad too hard to recreate that same jokey, glib atmosphere and it didn't come off as well the second time out because of the weaker script and more bloody improvisation:cmad:



I haven't seen the movie yet but I remember when they released the footage of Congressional hearings at Comic Con. The dialogue and humor felt more forced than in IM1. I am interested to see how the rest of the movie is though.

[Mr. Earle]

Even though none of the critics compared it to TDK. None that I've read. All of them from RT.


And how is TDK trying to be deep ? It is serious and dark, yes. Because that is how the comics are.They didnt mention TDK but it has spoiled them, because it was so good, realistic and deep. IM2 wasnt trying to be deep. It was telling a story about Tony Stark like SM2 told a story about Parker. Was it flawed? Sure. Just dont judge it on the basis that it wasnt DEEP or something.

[Excelsior.]

So they didn't compare it to TDK but were clearly "spoiled" from it ? That's a lot of poor assumptions.

[redfirebird2008]

So they didn't compare it to TDK but were clearly "spoiled" from it ? That's a lot of poor assumptions.

I agree. If anything, people were spoiled by the first Iron Man. There's nothing wrong with people comparing IM2 to IM1, which seems to be inevitably happening in most of the reviews I've read.

[batman11]

Ah ok i get what you and JMC are saying.

But I just don't see how there will be hardly any Avengers references in Thor at all. The only person involved from Iron Man is Agent Coulson. And i think it's pretty safe to say what part he'll show up in... anyone who has seen the after credit scene will know what i mean.

As for Cap? Apparently the whole film is set in WWII. So again, i don't see there being any Avengers references until maybe right at the end when he is discovered in the ice.

I do agree with you here. More so with Cap, due to the completely different setting (which, incidentally, really amps up my anticipation - there's so much wonderful potential there). But, like you recognized, there is now room for more Avengers inclusion due to the fact that its set in stone and can be pumped to the audience. Again, I haven't seen IM2, so perhaps I may end up liking it myself, but I'm just trying to understand where those who felt it hurt the story are coming from. I'm sure the fan in me will get a huge a rise out of it, but the critic in me may or may not like the inclusion/intrusion (possibly too harsh). We'll see I guess. As you said though, it is only natural, due to the fact that Iron Man and the Avengers go hand in hand. It's just too bad that the execution of this subplot isn't resonating with most.


Call me paranoid but it seems 99% of the people on here who are skeptical about what Marvel is attempting are known DC fans.

Coincidence???

:awesome:

I sincerely hope you're not lumping me into an age-old stereotype that I strongly despise. But then again, is the guy with Deadpool avvy pushing Marvel's Avengers initiative at all biased? ;) :woot:

For the record, I'm just kidding around Ace. I know better (and I know you better, but that's besides the point...hehehe) than to judge a man by his avvy. It's clearly all about the sig. :funny:

[SpiderByte]

I don't need it to be a great movie, though I'd like it to be. I'd be happy just with it being okay. Something worth my money, yknow?

[weezerspider]

But i've seen a lot of complaints about IM 2 not developing it's supporting characters enough.

Like Earle said, neither did TDK and no one complained about it.

My problem with people using TDK as a measuring stick is that a lot of the time, double standards come into it.

But i really don't want to go this route again, this is just an observation i have made.

I think the complaint about the characters not being fleshed out is more like "Okay we get War Machine,Hammer,Fury, and Black Widow, but none of them amount to much. TDK didn't intrude a boat-load of "Major" characters. The only new characters were: The Joker, Dent, Maroni and Lou. Joker and Dent are too big to be considered "secondary". Gordon had his moment of "fleshed out-ness" with his family situation, Rachel had hers with Dent. Maroni and Alfred are the only ones that weren't really fleshed-out and as far as the story goes, they didn't need to be. Every other supporting character was too small. The complaint about Iron Man 2 is that there are some major supporting characters that amount to basically nothing. I don't see how thats a double standard. That said, I loved IM2!

[ElMariachi]

is it possible that this movie is similar to Empire Strikes Back? That movie got mixed reviews as well from critics, following the most hyped movie of all time.

This is what was said about the film by the Washington Post.


This is no monumental artistic work, but a science-fiction movie done more snappily than most, including its own predecessor. A chocolate bar is a marvelous sweet that does not need to pretend to be a chocolate soufflé; musical comedies are wonderful entertainment without trying to compete with opera; blue jeans are a perfect garment that shouldn't be compared with haute couture. There are times when you would much rather have a really good hot dog than any steak, but you can still recognize that one is junk food and the other isn't.

"The Empire Strikes Back" has no plot structure, no character studies let alone character development, no emotional or philosophical point to make. It has no original vision of the future, which is depicted as a pastiche of other junk-culture formulae, such as the western, the costume epic and the Would War II movie. Its specialty is "special effects" or visual tricks, some of which are playful, imaginative and impressive, but others of which have become space-movie clichés


and from the New York Times


The Empire Strikes Back" is not a truly terrible movie. It's a nice movie. It's not, by any means, as nice as "Star Wars." It's not as fresh and funny and surprising and witty, but it is nice and inoffensive and, in a way that no one associated with it need be ashamed of, it's also silly. Attending to it is a lot like reading the middle of a comic book. It is amusing in fitful patches but you're likely to find more beauty, suspense, discipline, craft and art when watching a New York harbor pilot bring the Queen Elizabeth 2 into her Hudson River berth, which is what "The Empire Strikes Back" most reminds me of. It's a big, expensive, time-consuming, essentially mechanical operation.
Gone from "The Empire Strikes Back" are those associations that so enchanted us in "Star Wars," reminders of everything from the Passion of Jesus and the stories of Beowulf and King Arthur to those of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, the Oz books, Buck Rogers and Peanuts. Strictly speaking, "The Empire Strikes Back" isn't even a complete narrative. It has no beginning or end, being simply another chapter in a serial that appears to be continuing not onward and upward but sideways. How, then, to review it?




sound familiar to the reviews for Iron Man 2? Particularly how they say it doesn't live up to the original?

[weezerspider]

is it possible that this movie is similar to Empire Strikes Back? That movie got mixed reviews as well from critics, following the most hyped movie of all time.

This is what was said about the film by the Washington Post.



and from the New York Times





sound familiar to the reviews for Iron Man 2? Particularly how they say it doesn't live up to the original?


Hmmm.... And most Star Wars fans I know(Including myself) like ESB the best, similar to how the early fan reaction to IM2 seems to be extremely positive when compared to the critics reaction. Good analogy.:cwink:

[redfirebird2008]

Hmmm.... And most Star Wars fans I know(Including myself) like ESB the best, similar to how the early fan reaction to IM2 seems to be extremely positive when compared to the critics reaction. Good analogy.:cwink:

Not a good analogy. Star Wars is the exception to the rule. Most of the time when people say a sequel ain't as good as the first one, that's just the way it is. You could pull this same comparison out for countless other sequels that have come out over the years. Pirates 2 is a better comparison for IM2. Most of the reviews from fans have had the "it's not as good as IM1" caveat thrown in there, just like the positive reviews for Pirates 2. "Very good but not as good as Pirates 1." And make no mistake, Pirates 2 did have a very positive reception from fans. It had very good legs at the box office despite a huge opening and it had massive DVD sales. You don't have those kind of box office legs and DVD sales without strong reception from the fans.

[Mr. Earle]

The thing is that IM1 was the character's first movie and the novelty of it all charmed us. Eh he went through some trouble in Afganistan but for the rest of the movie its RDJ cracking jokes and using his amazing armours (however briefly). The story was very simple, the action was limited, but it was Ironman on the big screen for the first time, with a glorious suit, and RDJ!

Now that they had to continue the story and give him some real problems to deal with, people didnt like it so much. In my opinion there is only one thing that Favs could have done to surpass IM1 in people's minds because the novelty would have been lost anyway. Go DEEP and pretentious. TDK wouldnt have been so well received if it was another comic book movie, if it was Batman Begins 2. Instead it went all deep, serious and crime drama and won the critics and fans.

[redfirebird2008]

The thing is that IM1 was the character's first movie and the novelty of it all charmed us. Eh he went through some trouble in Afganistan but for the rest of the movie its RDJ cracking jokes and using his amazing armours (however briefly). The story was very simple, the action was limited, but it was Ironman on the big screen for the first time, with a glorious suit, and RDJ!

Now that they had to continue the story and give him some real problems to deal with, people didnt like it so much. In my opinion there is only one thing that Favs could have done to surpass IM1 in people's minds because the novelty would have been lost anyway. Go DEEP and pretentious. TDK wouldnt have been so well received if it was another comic book movie, if it was Batman Begins 2. Instead it went all deep, serious and crime drama and won the critics and fans.


Or come up with better villains. Iron Man just doesn't have that strong of a gallery of villains. The Joker is an awesome villain. They didn't need to go "deep and pretentious," just make an entertaining Batman vs. Joker conflict. They did that quite well.

[Mr. Earle]

IMHO Ironman 2 could have been the best Marvel movie if only:

1) The backbone of the story, Stark's palladium poisoning was resolved in a more dramatic way and didnt feel so empty.
2) Vanko had enough time to be an iconic villain. The ingredients were there but they didnt use him enough.

[ElMariachi]

Exactly. Where is this nostalgia for IM1 coming from? Loved that movie, but that movie had the same 'flaws' as IM2 supposedly has. Am I the only one who remembers that movie had little action and a slow middle? The action was limited to the Mark 1 fight, Golmira, and the fight with Iron Monger. The Mark 1 fight doesn't count because it isn't the real Iron Man suit. Golmira was rather quick (was mainly Iron Man flying) and Iron Monger wasn't exactly the most epic battle ever. Much of the movie was slow, talking scenes with more Stark/humor then Iron Man fighting.

[redfirebird2008]

Exactly. Where is this nostalgia for IM1 coming from? Loved that movie, but that movie had the same 'flaws' as IM2 supposedly has. Am I the only one who remembers that movie had little action and a slow middle? The action was limited to the Mark 1 fight, Golmira, and the fight with Iron Monger. The Mark 1 fight doesn't count because it isn't the real Iron Man suit. Golmira was rather quick (was mainly Iron Man flying) and Iron Monger wasn't exactly the most epic battle ever. Much of the movie was slow, talking scenes with more Stark/humor then Iron Man fighting.

IM1 followed the origin story formula laid down in the likes of Superman, Spider-Man, and BB. It is a very well-executed formula for sure. The plot is always moving forward IMHO. I haven't seen IM2 yet but it sounds like the momentum of the plot in the first one is not as well-defined in IM2.

[night0205]

If Iron Man 2 is like Empire Strikes Back, then I will love it. Empire Strikes Back was by far the best Star Wars film in my opinion. Watch it again, and you should see the following... The Story is Great (darker), surprises (I am your father), fighting was a 100% better then that stupid fight between Obi and Vader..., the Acting was the best out of all the movies in my opinion, the visual effects were great as always, great cinematography of Hoth Cloud City and Dagobah... the Philosophy was great with Yoda, Yoda was amazing...and the explanation of the force. The Dialog was much much better written... funny, witty, romantic, and it was far less corny then any of the other films. It was far superior then the first one, and the third one failed because of some stupid plot points (ewoks!) Empire Strikes Back is not the favorite just because it's darker and such... I think it's the best complete, fulfilling film, out of Star Wars. It has also aged very well... But some of you are right, Star Wars is an exception, because with Star Wars It's COOL to be Corny! It is, ALL the movies are extremely corny in dialog and such.... Empire being the lesser, but even the first Star Wars made the nerds popular... The corniness that the original trilogy has would never make it if it was released today. So if IM 2 is that corny then... I can see why it's not accepted very easily.

[weezerspider]

Not a good analogy. Star Wars is the exception to the rule. Most of the time when people say a sequel ain't as good as the first one, that's just the way it is. You could pull this same comparison out for countless other sequels that have come out over the years. Pirates 2 is a better comparison for IM2. Most of the reviews from fans have had the "it's not as good as IM1" caveat thrown in there, just like the positive reviews for Pirates 2. "Very good but not as good as Pirates 1." And make no mistake, Pirates 2 did have a very positive reception from fans. It had very good legs at the box office despite a huge opening and it had massive DVD sales. You don't have those kind of box office legs and DVD sales without strong reception from the fans.

I'm not saying they will all love IM2 better then IM1, I'm just saying for the most part, the fans were satisfied. They weren't blown away, but they weren't utterly disappointed either.

[redfirebird2008]

I'm not saying they will all love IM2 better then IM1, I'm just saying for the most part, the fans were satisfied. They weren't blown away, but they weren't utterly disappointed either.

Like I said, that's pretty much the exact same response Dead Man's Chest had from fans. The idea that 20 years from now it's going to be regarded as better than the first movie is difficult to justify because the odds are heavily against it. Even in the Star Wars franchise, the very next movie after Empire had the same kind of response as Empire following New Hope and sure enough Jedi is not as highly regarded as its predecessors decades later. 9 times out of 10 a sequel that isn't quite as well received as the first one probably won't be regarded as well decades down the road either.

[night0205]

I don't think Dead Man's Chest is better then Pirates, but I love the Pirates Trilogy for being "fun". I loved all three. So, If Iron Man is like that, I'll happy as well. With how satisfying you felt after watching Iron Man 1 for the first time, because you had no expectation, of course Iron Man 2 is very likely to disappoint people. But after rewatching Iron Man 1, there are flaws as well, it was just the other aspects of the movie surprised you, so you where completely OK with the flaws.

[Ipodman]

I have a feeling this movie is gonna have more replay value than the previous one...
mainly because of War machine, Black Widow and Justin Hammer

[TheVileOne]

Iron Man 2 is not really like Empire Strikes back at all.

It's not an incredibly well balanced movie. I mean yes the first Iron Man movie is flawed. A lot of people overlook stuff just because it's fun and entertaining and the performances are very good.

I think a lot of people are going to have trouble with the middle section of this movie. It feels a little lost.

I still think its a good movie.

Also who gives a crap what the NYT says? It's nothing but a dirt rag that publishes FAKE NEWS STORIES.

[Blade X]

Now that they had to continue the story and give him some real problems to deal with, people didnt like it so much. In my opinion there is only one thing that Favs could have done to surpass IM1 in people's minds because the novelty would have been lost anyway. Go DEEP and pretentious. TDK wouldnt have been so well received if it was another comic book movie, if it was Batman Begins 2. Instead it went all deep, serious and crime drama and won the critics and fans.

Nah, they just needed a lot more (and a lot longer) action/fight scenes.

[spider-neil]

I saw IM2 on friday (with my sister) and saturday (with a date) both of them absolutely love the original. My sister loved the sequel my date hated the sequel both of them didn't have a clue about the avenger references. maybe people's problem is IM2 doesn't take the movie 'to the next level' like SM2 and TDK2 clearly do but do you have to take a movie 'to the next level'? somethings I want to just watch a 'fun' movie.

[Crook]

The thing is that IM1 was the character's first movie and the novelty of it all charmed us. Eh he went through some trouble in Afganistan but for the rest of the movie its RDJ cracking jokes and using his amazing armours (however briefly). The story was very simple, the action was limited, but it was Ironman on the big screen for the first time, with a glorious suit, and RDJ!

Now that they had to continue the story and give him some real problems to deal with, people didnt like it so much. In my opinion there is only one thing that Favs could have done to surpass IM1 in people's minds because the novelty would have been lost anyway. Go DEEP and pretentious. TDK wouldnt have been so well received if it was another comic book movie, if it was Batman Begins 2. Instead it went all deep, serious and crime drama and won the critics and fans.
Holy crap you take every chance to bring up TDK in every one of your posts. :funny:

If you've read the reviews, tone isn't the issue. It's lack of dramatic elements, muddled subplots, and pacing inconsistency. This has nothing to do with so-called pretentiousness of handling the subject material. If you hadn't noticed, IM1 was highly praised, so I don't know why you'd think they'd change their tune for a sequel.

[jmc]

I think what JMC means is that because the Avengers is now fully in gear, we'll be seeing a lot more of its ''presence'' in the upcoming Marvel movies, regardless of whether or not they are origin stories. Iron Man didn't contain much (other than the few SHIELD moments), because it was the first in this series, and therefore had nothing to build up to based on unpredictability in terms of box office, release dates, casting etc. But since the Avengers has been firmly set in stone, it would seem that Marvel wants to push everything towards it. Now, I haven't seen the movie, nor do I know whether or not Thor and Cap will be full of Avengers build-up, but I'm merely presenting this as an interpretation of what JMC is trying to say. Am in the right ball park?

(Or so way off it's terrible? LOL :woot:)





Smacked it out of the park for 6. Spot on mate. Once again the ignorance of Iron Man's story is breathtaking. Iron Man's story is all about the Avengers. You sit there and pretend like they are two separate things. Hell Tony Stark already appeared in the Incredible Hulk.

You're also exaggerating how people won't know what's going on. People already know who shield is from the first movie and if they stayed to the end credits they know who Nick Fury is. If they happened to miss they, hey guess what Nick Fury is the director of shield. Next question.

Iron Man should be about Iron Man, I'm not paying money and neither are most people to watch a 'kinda' Iron Man film with some other stuff thrown in for something that's coming up. Hell, I don't even think Fury was even mentioned by name in film 2. Basic bloody movie making errors.

[Excelsior.]

The thing is that IM1 was the character's first movie and the novelty of it all charmed us. Eh he went through some trouble in Afganistan but for the rest of the movie its RDJ cracking jokes and using his amazing armours (however briefly). The story was very simple, the action was limited, but it was Ironman on the big screen for the first time, with a glorious suit, and RDJ!

Now that they had to continue the story and give him some real problems to deal with, people didnt like it so much. In my opinion there is only one thing that Favs could have done to surpass IM1 in people's minds because the novelty would have been lost anyway. Go DEEP and pretentious. TDK wouldnt have been so well received if it was another comic book movie, if it was Batman Begins 2. Instead it went all deep, serious and crime drama and won the critics and fans.

We get it. TDK is pretentious. Stop bringing it up in every single post you make.

[Mr. Earle]

Smacked it out of the park for 6. Spot on mate.

Iron Man should be about Iron Man, I'm not paying money and neither are most people to watch a 'kinda' Iron Man film with some other stuff thrown in for something that's coming up. Hell, I don't even think Fury was even mentioned by name in film 2. Basic bloody movie making errors.
Were are you getting all this? It was about Ironman! Shield helped him like they did in IM1 and the Avengers were only brought up at the end of the movie.
And if you've read any IM comic books you'd know that the character is always involved in politics, superhero teams, SHIELD and everything big that happens in the Marvel Universe. He is not just a dude fighting bad guys.

[GlasgowBat]

Point is, i want to see a film that delivers a solid and engaging narrative. I would also appreciate it if that was the main objective of the script. This, however, is a glorified advert. This was to the detriment of the story itself. Setting up the avengers is acceptable, in that we all knew that was the plan. However, it should always be the case that this is enveloped by a self-contained story.

The trailer's are supposed to end before the movie begins.

[Mr. Stark]

no one let critics put you off, its a really really well made film

[night0205]

Iron Man 2 is climbing at Rotten Tomatoes. We shall see if that continues, but it's at 76%. 41 Frest, 13 Rotten.

[weezerspider]

I saw IM2 on friday (with my sister) and saturday (with a date) both of them absolutely love the original. My sister loved the sequel my date hated the sequel both of them didn't have a clue about the avenger references. maybe people's problem is IM2 doesn't take the movie 'to the next level' like SM2 and TDK2 clearly do but do you have to take a movie 'to the next level'? somethings I want to just watch a 'fun' movie.

Wait, you've seen The Dark Knight 2? May I ask who was recasted as The Joker? Is it good? What was the plot? haha:woot: I'm teasing, its all in good fun:woot:

[GhostPoet]

For me personally...I find it difficult to compare Iron Man 1 and 2 simply because IR1 was an origin story...so of course the focus will be on the main character.

Just like Spider-Man 1 was focused primarely on Peter becoming Spidey...and then we got Spidey 2, which to be blew Spidey 1 out of the water because we finally got past the origin story and get to see the character in action.

In IM2's case, it's the same...we get to see more characters than merely Tony and Iron Man. And we get to see a working Marvel Universe in film.

[conan69]

Im hearing the same word over and over again about this film ..... "mess"

Glad my expectations were very low.

[rashad]

Downey's charisma is magnetic, but the franchise is showing signs of rust

The magic ingredient in both Iron Man movies is Robert Downey Jr. His energy and charisma make billionaire industrialist Tony Stark entertainingly complex, for a comic-strip hero.

He's an incorrigible womaniser, a self-destructive alcoholic and such an indefatigable egotist that he makes Lord Mandelson of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and of Hartlepool in the County of Durham look like St Francis of Assisi.

'I have successfully privatised world peace,' he announces, grandly refusing to hand over the secrets behind his superweapons to the U.S. government, thereby annoying his business rival Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), a senior senator (Garry Shandling, with a deliciously phoney smile) and an old friend in the military (that's Don Cheadle, easing uneasily into the role occupied in the first Iron Man film by Terrence Howard).

Stark's arch-enemy in Iron Man 2, however, is Ivan Danko, alias Whiplash (Mickey Rourke), a tattooed Russian who harbours a grudge against the whole Stark family.
Rourke makes a splendidly snarly villain, and it's not his fault that Justin Theroux's script makes his objectives unclear, his motivation inadequate and his tactics idiotic.

Danko goes to absurd lengths to pursue a personal vendetta, and the studio's reluctance to endanger a family-friendly film certificate by showing bloodshed removes any remaining credibility from a hyper-violent climax that is out of all proportion to Danko's feud with Stark.

It doesn't make any sense - and that's not good, even in a Hollywood blockbuster.
Another weakness is that the most original action sequence comes within 20 minutes of the start, at the Monaco Grand Prix, and depicts the first weirdly under-motivated attack by Danko, who chooses to sabotage the race long before he can possibly know that the hated Stark is going to be one of the drivers.

This is one of several preposterous holes in the narrative, which include an escape from prison by Danko that goes miraculously unreported by the world's media.

Aside from its wilful but not entirely unexpected dim-wittedness, the movie's worst sin is a long, draggy section in the middle, which seems more interested in setting up Iron Man 3 than getting on with Iron Man 2.

Structurally, the film is a shambles. Despite an inflated running time of 124 minutes, the romance between Stark and his assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow, made to be needlessly spiteful) is woefully underdeveloped, as are a new female character Natalie/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson at her least interesting) and a shadowy figure from the U.S. secret services, Nick Fury (played - in his sleep and the audience's - by Samuel L. Jackson).
There are compensations: Downey and Rockwell go enjoyably over- the- top in their rivalry; undemanding fan-boys will be entertained by the numerous guns, gizmos, explosions and shots of Ms Johansson's physical attractions. Jon Favreau's movie has the budget to deliver the enormous action scenes required of a summer blockbuster.

It will be a hit. But it should have been a whole lot better.

Verdict: Dumb and overblown, but Downey makes it fun
3/5 Starshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1269853/Iron-Man-2-Downeys-charisma-magnetic-franchise-showing-signs-rust.html

[rashad]

FilmSchoolRejects - B

In the end, Favreau accomplishes something quite special with Iron Man 2. Avoiding the pratfalls of sequelitis and simultaneously building a bridge for Marvel to cross over to The Avengers. Some of the building blocks of that bridge do feel as if they were forced in there, but Favreau’s ability to tie it all together in the end makes all the difference. When Iron Man 2 doesn’t work, it is still enjoyable. And when it is working — which is more often than not — it works on a level that far exceeds that of the first film. It is an intense ride, full of fun performances, that works hard through its problems to earn the ‘must-see’ tag. But in the end, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s one of those films that you absolutely must see.

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/review-iron-man-2.php

[jmc]

Man, this film is really polarizing. It's almost like people are seeing two completely different movies. Were are you getting all this? It was about Ironman! Shield helped him like they did in IM1 and the Avengers were only brought up at the end of the movie.
And if you've read any IM comic books you'd know that the character is always involved in politics, superhero teams, SHIELD and everything big that happens in the Marvel Universe. He is not just a dude fighting bad guys.

That's not the point. You know very well Earle that as a film goer I shouldn't have to be readying comic books to understand the character or to be filling in blanks.

[rashad]

I was just thinking about the polarizing aspect jmc.

[redfirebird2008]

I was just thinking about the polarizing aspect jmc.


I don't know if polarizing is the right word. There aren't too many that outright hate it.

[jmc]

Maybe polarizing isn't the right word but peoples reactions still make it sound like they were shown different films.

[Tony Stark]

Man, this film is really polarizing. It's almost like people are seeing two completely different movies.

That's not the point. You know very well Earle that as a film goer I shouldn't have to be readying comic books to understand the character or to be filling in blanks.

And if you saw the first movie you would know this as well.

[Mr. Earle]

Man, this film is really polarizing. It's almost like people are seeing two completely different movies.

That's not the point. You know very well Earle that as a film goer I shouldn't have to be readying comic books to understand the character or to be filling in blanks.
You dont have to read any comic books. If you understood that Shield was there to help Tony in IM1, you can understand that they re here to do the same thing in IM2. And at the end, you can understand that this organisation is trying to recruit Stark. My friends who dont know who the Avengers are and who thought that the hammer was the weapon of the villain of the sequel understood all that.
What's so hard to get?

[Abraham]

I think The First Avenger: Captain America is going to be the movie that ties it all together. By having the first Stark Expo, maybe opening and closing narration by Fury, and an explanation of the sheild from Iron Man 2.

[Excelsior.]

undemanding fan-boys will be entertained by the numerous guns, gizmos, explosions and shots of Ms Johansson's physical attractions.


http://thewareaglereader.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/opinion.jpg

[Visceral]

Call me crazy...but uh I always thought that the movie The Avengers would uh you know tie things all together.:doh:

[ElMariachi]

Like I said, that's pretty much the exact same response Dead Man's Chest had from fans. The idea that 20 years from now it's going to be regarded as better than the first movie is difficult to justify because the odds are heavily against it. Even in the Star Wars franchise, the very next movie after Empire had the same kind of response as Empire following New Hope and sure enough Jedi is not as highly regarded as its predecessors decades later. 9 times out of 10 a sequel that isn't quite as well received as the first one probably won't be regarded as well decades down the road either.

Many people consider Star Wars to be the best Star Wars movie. It is for sure the more iconic, memorable film. It made more money then Empire Strikes back by a huge margin as well. I wasn't alive in 1980, but I would assume it wasn't as received as being the greatest of all Star Wars movies at the time like it is today. And even that is debateable. In my experience geeks tend to rave more about that movie then your average moviegoer (those alive at the time I have heard from) who are nostalgic about the first movie. ESB was a lynchpin movie with a cliffhanger ending and alot of talking---receving alot of mixed reviews in a similar fashion as Iron Man 2 is getting. Both films also introduced alot of new characters (many of whom were not expanded on) and unresolved plot points. If Empire Strikes Back came out today, it would be lambasted by some in my opinion. I promise you this.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say Iron Man is going to be as epic and as memorable as Star Wars, but I think this movie will be better received as we get deeper into the Iron Man/Avengers franchise. I haven't seen IM2, but I have heard it is excellent and the only criticisms of it are very light. Few movies are being judged as harshly as Iron Man 2 is. Lack of action and a slow middle are generally not criticisms bestowed upon most movies. This movie has gotten great reviews for it's acting, so I find it hard to believe it is going to be disapointing. There are few things that can please all with the kind of hype Iron Man 2 is getting. Hype attracts haters and more critics. The first Iron Man came out of left field. It did not have the hype of this movie, Avatar, The Dark Knight, or the Twilight movies. Dark Knight delivered. Avatar is a mixed bag. That movie would not be considered great if it wasn't for the CGI and James Camerons name attached to the title.

[Excelsior.]

That movie would not be considered great if it wasn't for the CGI and James Camerons name attached to the title.

:whatever:

[conan69]

Roll your eyes if you want, but hes right.

If Bret Ratners or Michal Bays name was on Avatar instead of Camerons, the guy who gave us Titanic, I think how it was received would be VERY different. Its a swell looking movie(that I actually found visually boring), but is a VERY mediocre movie.

And I was alive in 1980 and Empire blew people away. EVERYONE was talking about it. It has generally always considered the best SW film. SW for its cultural impact and groundbreaking technical apsects of the film - but ESB as the "better movie". While they took chance with Empire as far as structure goes, theres really only 2 stories going on(Luke on Dag and The Falcon trying to escape with the Empire on their trail - both perfectly meeting at the end). IM2 has 4 or 5 plots driving the film.

If you want a example of a film where peoples opinion are vastly different from when the film was released, you have Blade Runner. Besides myself I can only think of one other person I knew who liked the film - and now its held in pretty high regard. Perhaps youre right and IM2 will be looked at more kindly in time, but I still think youre wrong with some of your points on Empire.

[Excelsior.]

The general audience doesn't care about directors.

[redfirebird2008]

Avatar is a mixed bag. That movie would not be considered great if it wasn't for the CGI and James Camerons name attached to the title.


You might be right about Cameron's name causing the movie to be rated higher by critics and so forth, but as far as box office goes I think people thoroughly enjoyed the movie without even noticing Cameron's name attached to it. I don't think general audiences pay too much attention to who directed a movie. Avatar's story is certainly derivative, but then again everything in Hollywood is derivative at this point. The story is well-told even if it is very familiar. You are absolutely right that the visual aspect of the film is what makes it stand out from other similar stories.

[hatebox]

It's almost too hypothetical to wonder how well Avatar would have done without Cameron, because the emotional manipulation used in the film could only have come from the same guy that did Titanic. I don't even mean that in a negative way - Cameron absolutely understands how tug the masses heartstrings to give him their money. He's a clever guy.

[spider-neil]

IM2 is like superman 2, rather than SM2 or TDK i.e. its not obviously better than the first movie although definately a good movie.

[redfirebird2008]

It's almost too hypothetical to wonder how well Avatar would have done without Cameron, because the emotional manipulation used in the film could only have come from the same guy that did Titanic. I don't even mean that in a negative way - Cameron absolutely understands how tug the masses heartstrings to give him their money. He's a clever guy.

That's a good point. It's kind of similar to Hitchcock's mastery of the thriller genre.

[ElMariachi]

Roll your eyes if you want, but hes right.

If Bret Ratners or Michal Bays name was on Avatar instead of Camerons, the guy who gave us Titanic, I think how it was received would be VERY different. Its a swell looking movie(that I actually found visually boring), but is a VERY mediocre movie.

And I was alive in 1980 and Empire blew people away. EVERYONE was talking about it. It has generally always considered the best SW film. SW for its cultural impact and groundbreaking technical apsects of the film - but ESB as the "better movie". While they took chance with Empire as far as structure goes, theres really only 2 stories going on(Luke on Dag and The Falcon trying to escape with the Empire on their trail - both perfectly meeting at the end). IM2 has 4 or 5 plots driving the film.

If you want a example of a film where peoples opinion are vastly different from when the film was released, you have Blade Runner. Besides myself I can only think of one other person I knew who liked the film - and now its held in pretty high regard. Perhaps youre right and IM2 will be looked at more kindly in time, but I still think youre wrong with some of your points on Empire.

Exactly. There wouldn't have been any buzz or hype for this movie had it not been for James Cameron. The movie itself was mediocre and the acting wasn't anything at all to write home about. It had great CGI, but the story was too simple and way too biased. That was a big turn off for me with how they pumped in one-sided, cliche politics into the movie. Personally, I found Transformers 2 to be a more fun movie. Everybody dogs that movie for heavy CGI and poor acting, but I am not expecting a summer blockbuster to be the Shawshank Redemption like too many filmgoers these days seem to expect.

As for ESB, you lived it so I can't refute what you are saying about the initial reception. I am not saying that the general audience had mixed feelings on it, but from what I heard---it wasn't immediately considered greater then Episode IV.

There were of course two major plot points, but there were others involved. You had Han/Jabba feud, Luke being Vaders son; Vader trying to lure Luke to the dark side, Han/Leia romance, and the rebel alliance sidestory (took a backseat for most of the movie after Hoth). Characters like Lando, Chewbacca, Han, Yoda, the Emporer, Vader, and Leia never really were fleshed out in the first movies. We never got a backstory on arguably the greatest character in the entire trilogy, Han Solo. And apparently, people are fine with that. Nowadays, every characters has to be fleshed out and have a ton of screentime.

Forgot about Blade Runner. Heard that movie wasn't given love in the beginning.

[ElMariachi]

The general audience doesn't care about directors.

I completely disagree. People will go to see movies based on the director. Examples are Spielberg, Scorsese, Cameron, and Tarantino. Lesser examples include M Night Shyamalan, Woody Allen, the Coen Brothers, etc.

[batman11]

\You had Han/Jabba feud, Luke being Vaders son; Vader trying to lure Luke to the dark side...

Wait....

WHAT?!?!?!?!

:shock:waa::argh:

Next time use spoiler tags dude. :o

[ElMariachi]

You might be right about Cameron's name causing the movie to be rated higher by critics and so forth, but as far as box office goes I think people thoroughly enjoyed the movie without even noticing Cameron's name attached to it. I don't think general audiences pay too much attention to who directed a movie. Avatar's story is certainly derivative, but then again everything in Hollywood is derivative at this point. The story is well-told even if it is very familiar. You are absolutely right that the visual aspect of the film is what makes it stand out from other similar stories.

I think they do when it's James Cameron. He directed Titanic for christsake! :yay:

The visual aspect was great, but the movie itself was too predictable. Evil white man vs. the "noble savage". Nothing we haven't seen before. This was just Pocahontas/Last Samurai/Dances with Wolves in space to me. I don't want to keep on sounding like a hater, but nothing really stood out in this movie aside from the CGI.

[redfirebird2008]

Forgot about Blade Runner. Heard that movie wasn't given love in the beginning.

Another early 80's movie that the public and critics flip-flopped on: John Carpenter's The Thing. It was thrashed by critics and was a big flop at the box office but is now regarded as one of the best horror movies ever.

[danoyse]

As for ESB, you lived it so I can't refute what you are saying about the initial reception. I am not saying that the general audience had mixed feelings on it, but from what I heard---it wasn't immediately considered greater then Episode IV.

I was around for ESB too - people were crazy for that movie, especially the ending. I don't remember anyone thinking it was the lesser of the movies. Most thought it was even better.

[ElMariachi]

Wait....

WHAT?!?!?!?!

:shock:waa::argh:

Next time use spoiler tags dude. :o

:doh:

my bad.......:woot:

[ElMariachi]

Another early 80's movie that the public and critics flip-flopped on: John Carpenter's The Thing. It was thrashed by critics and was a big flop at the box office but is now regarded as one of the best horror movies ever.

yeah, I heard about that one as well.

Also, looking at the Top Critics section of RT, they gave a poor score to The Big Lebowski! F----g amateurs! :hehe:

[weezerspider]

I think they do when it's James Cameron. He directed Titanic for christsake! :yay:

The visual aspect was great, but the movie itself was too predictable. Evil white man vs. the "noble savage". Nothing we haven't seen before. This was just Pocahontas/Last Samurai/Dances with Wolves in space to me. I don't want to keep on sounding like a hater, but nothing really stood out in this movie aside from the CGI.

The reviews for Avatar and Transformers 2 were like identical. "Great effects, weak story" except Transformers got the bad grades it deserved, while Avatar managed to get A+'s somehow. I have said this before and I'll say it again, Cameron is a rich man's Michael Bay.

[ElMariachi]

I was around for ESB too - people were crazy for that movie, especially the ending. I don't remember anyone thinking it was the lesser of the movies. Most thought it was even better.

why didn't ESB make the same sort of money Ep. IV made? Curious of why that was.

[DarKJediKnight]

The reviews for Avatar and Transformers 2 were like identical. "Great effects, weak story" except Transformers got the bad grades it deserved, while Avatar managed to get A+'s somehow. I have said this before and I'll say it again, Cameron is a rich man's Michael Bay.

Cliched story doesn't equal weak story. Avatar was average. Transformers 2 is full of 12-year old crack and sex jokes, gangster attitude that takes you out of the story, so it deserves to be reviewed badly.

[ElMariachi]

The reviews for Avatar and Transformers 2 were like identical. "Great effects, weak story" except Transformers got the bad grades it deserved, while Avatar managed to get A+'s somehow. I have said this before and I'll say it again, Cameron is a rich man's Michael Bay.

I never understood the backlash against Transformers by people. I am not a Transformers fan by any means but the first one was actually pretty good. The second was corny for the first part of the movie and then it became watchable. Not great, mind you, but good enough to hold my attention. :yay:

[weezerspider]

Cliched story doesn't equal weak story. Avatar was average. Transformers 2 is full of 12-year old crack and sex jokes, gangster attitude that takes you out of the story, so it deserves to be reviewed badly.

I'd say Avatar was pretty weak. It was one of the worst movies I saw last year ,but yes, Transformers 2 was worse.

[DarKJediKnight]

I'm not harsh on any movies and Transformers 1 was very fine by me. I even like Bay's Armageddon. It's just I really hate the stupid sex and butt jokes in TF2.

[weezerspider]

I never understood the backlash against Transformers by people. I am not a Transformers fan by any means but the first one was actually pretty good. The second was corny for the first part of the movie and then it became watchable. Not great, mind you, but good enough to hold my attention. :yay:


Its actually is a bit of a guilty pleasure for me, but I would never try and say it is a strong film. Its entertaining, but nothing more.

[night0205]

Guys I don't care what you say, Armageddon was amazing. J. J. Abrams wrote the script, Bruce Willis led the cast, an AMAZING cast. Michael Bay directed it? Yeah, surprisingly... The movie was good because Michael Bay kept to the script, the actors did an amazing job at doing the same, and Michael Bay got his explosions, which you have to admit, that's one thing he knows how to do. If Bay would have wrote it, yeah it would have sucked. It really is one of my favorite movies, and I hate Transformers, and it's sequel. You are right DarKJediKnight, the humor wasn't funny at all... I'm just surprised that Steven Spielberg is producing those movies... They will go down as being the first "trilogy" to actually kill people from overexposure to explosions. It will just tire them out and they will fall over dead. "Let me breath" people will yell.

[ElMariachi]

Its actually is a bit of a guilty pleasure for me, but I would never try and say it is a strong film. Its entertaining, but nothing more.

thats what I like about it. It's entertainment and nothing more. I hate how movies these days are expected to have elaborate stories, real world parallels/deep messages, and Oscar worthy acting/writing. If they don't, then they suck. Transformers was meant soley for summer entertainment, not to win awards. And I enjoyed it in the same way I liked Indepedence Day in all it's corny glory. I laughed harder at that robot vs. Megan Fox fight then anything in The Hangover.

[conan69]

why didn't ESB make the same sort of money Ep. IV made? Curious of why that was.

Unless you lived at the time, its simply impossible to explain to someone the cultural impact Star Wars had at the time. Nothing since has come close - not Avatar, TDK, Jurassic Park... nothing. Star Wars prob should have made double what its actualy recorded profit was. Back then it was very common to sit in the theater for multiple viewings of films. Raiders, Tron, Dragonslayer, Star Wars - my friends and I would burn a entire day sitting in the theater watching showing of these films over and over.I saw Raiders 4 times in one day. They didnt kick you out between showings back then.

But to answer your question, SW had massive repeat viewings. Everyone went to see the film, many times. Star Wars also played for years, continuously. It wasnt like now where a film had a release and then went to home video. Films would play over and over and over, in drive ins and such for years. There was no home video market. Id pob seen Jaws 10 times in various theaters and drive ins during the late 70s.

The Thing really was a victim of the marketing back then.I dont remember seeing any commercials for The Thing. you had ads in papers or genre magazines - that that was how they marketed back then. The massive promotional campaigns of today didnt exist. I missed The Thing in theaters (this was the early 80s and HV was beginning to grow) and I was a Carpenter fan (at 12 years old).
It was actually around this time, the early 80s that the year long runs of films was beginning to end. Drive Ins were beginning to disappear,alot of small theaters were starting to close, etc.

[night0205]

Ah, I love the Thing.

[Marvin]

what people were "offended" by in Transfomers they cheered and gave rave reviews for in The Hangover.

TF2 fails where the first one succeeded, fresh escapism over same old military action.

Maybe one day Jonathan Nolan will write a serious non summer script for Bay and we can all stop talking about Michael's ability to tell a story.

[J.Howlett]

In Bay's defense of Transformers Revenge of the Fallen, the writer's strike practically killed that film.

Remember Bay wanted the second film to come out this summer but Paramount didn't go for it, knowing a strike was coming. The strike hurt that film in more ways than anyone on the production is willing to admit.

[redfirebird2008]

In Bay's defense of Transformers Revenge of the Fallen, the writer's strike practically killed that film.

Remember Bay wanted the second film to come out this summer but Paramount didn't go for it, knowing a strike was coming. The strike hurt that film in more ways than anyone on the production is willing to admit.

Except TF1 was already a 2.5 hour headache to begin with. :dry:

[Tony Stark]

In Bay's defense of Transformers Revenge of the Fallen, the writer's strike practically killed that film.

Remember Bay wanted the second film to come out this summer but Paramount didn't go for it, knowing a strike was coming. The strike hurt that film in more ways than anyone on the production is willing to admit.

Perhaps, but the biggest problem with Transformers 2 was that it needed a couple of more stops in the editing room.

[Raiden]

In Bay's defense of Transformers Revenge of the Fallen, the writer's strike practically killed that film.

Remember Bay wanted the second film to come out this summer but Paramount didn't go for it, knowing a strike was coming. The strike hurt that film in more ways than anyone on the production is willing to admit.

The strike may have hurt it, but Bay decided to use a script that he probably knew was half-baked at best, just so they can meet the schedule and cash in on Transformers' sudden popularity. He is to blamed for ROTF's quality (or lack thereof).

[J.Howlett]

Raiden,

He didn't have a script period. Shia just recently did an interview where he stated that they started the film with like only forty pages of a script and basically made the rest of the film up as they went along.

Paramount pushed for summer 2009. Bay wanted Transformers 2 this summer because he knew he didn't have enough time, plus the strike happened right at the start of the production.

It didn't help matters that Kurtzman and Orci originally passed on Transformers 2. Paramount went out to find writers to see if they could come up with something soon since they had already announced a release date for summer 2009. That didn't work out so Paramount begged Kurtzman and Orci to come back and they banged out an outline two weeks before the strike, an outline Bay used to start production. Strike ends, Kurtzman, Orci, and now Krueger bang out a script in basically 6 six weeks while Bay's still shooting....

Now, again, I fault Bay a little for Transformers. But, Christ, Paramount left him no wiggle room with that schedule...

...the fact that it's even remotely entertaining and looks as good as it does is a testament to how efficient Bay is when he shoots his films.

Not defending the film but people need to put that specific film into context a little before they continue to bash that one...

...Iron Man 2 feels a tad like that. It feels like they need another draft or two to fix the problems in this script because it's the film's biggest problem.

[redfirebird2008]

Raiden,

He didn't have a script period. Shia just recently did an interview where he stated that they started the film with like only forty pages of a script and basically made the rest of the film up as they went along.

Paramount pushed for summer 2009. Bay wanted Transformers 2 this summer because he knew he didn't have enough time, plus the strike happened right at the start of the production.

It didn't help matters that Kurtzman and Orci originally passed on Transformers 2. Paramount went out to find writers to see if they could come up with something soon since they had already announced a release date for summer 2009. That didn't work out so Paramount begged Kurtzman and Orci to come back and they banged out an outline two weeks before the strike, an outline Bay used to start production. Strike ends, Kurtzman, Orci, and now Krueger bang out a script in basically 6 six weeks while Bay's still shooting....

Now, again, I fault Bay a little for Transformers. But, Christ, Paramount left him no wiggle room with that schedule...

...the fact that it's even remotely entertaining and looks as good as it does is a testament to how efficient Bay is when he shoots his films.

Not defending the film but people need to put that specific film into context a little before they continue to bash that one...

...Iron Man 2 feels a tad like that. It feels like they need another draft or two to fix the problems in this script because it's the film's biggest problem.


I said it before. The first Transformers was a 2.5 hour headache. Why would anyone expect anything else out of the sequel? :dry:

[FaT_tONle]

So the fan review thread has once again become a TDK thread... and now this thread has reverted to a Bay/Transformers thread. That's when you know something ain't right about this film.

But while we are on the subject of TF, if Bay felt the schedule was so tight, why the **** did he agree to come back only two years later and have the next film out by 2011? Seriously what is Paramount paying this guy? That's why Bay is to blame. Yeah he can improvise and maximize his available time to produce inevitable garbage, but why not take the extra year and at least have an actual shooting script in place. Obviously there is no strike looming this time around, but it is still a tight ass schedule. Paramount didn't learn their lesson it seems, and I hope it shreds their box office the next go around.

[kedrell]

Ever since DMC did what before had never been done and got an officially rotten on RT movie to cross $400M, nothing suprises me any more.

[redfirebird2008]

So the fan review thread has once again become a TDK thread... and now this thread has reverted to a Bay/Transformers thread. That's when you know something ain't right about this film.

But while we are on the subject of TF, if Bay felt the schedule was so tight, why the **** did he agree to come back only two years later and have the next film out by 2011? Seriously what is Paramount paying this guy? That's why Bay is to blame. Yeah he can improvise and maximize his available time to produce inevitable garbage, but why not take the extra year this time around and actually have a shooting script in place. Obviously there is no strike looming this time around, but it is still a tight ass schedule. Paramount didn't learn their lesson it seems, and I hope it shreds their box office the next go around.


Bay supposedly made $80 million from directing TF1. I'm sure he made even more from TF2. Seems pretty obvious why he did it even if he didn't "want" to do it. :oldrazz:

[S.A.A.D.]

Yeah this thread isn't going right at all when you're talking about other movies.

[FaT_tONle]

Bay supposedly made $80 million from directing TF1. I'm sure he made even more from TF2. Seems pretty obvious why he did it even if he didn't "want" to do it. :oldrazz:

Whatever, there is no way in hell they get away with it this time around. Too many movies are coming out in that stretch. It's basically 2011's Spiderman reboot, sandwiched between GL and Potter/Cap. Hopefully Bay takes in an even bigger chunk and packs his bags while Paramount struggles to recuperate.

[Anita18]

Bay supposedly made $80 million from directing TF1. I'm sure he made even more from TF2. Seems pretty obvious why he did it even if he didn't "want" to do it. :oldrazz:
It's not only the money - obviously he has a lot of clout over at Paramount and if he burned bridges by passing over TF2, it would be bad.

[craigdbfan]

Bay is still largely to blame over TF2 rotten script.

Ehren Kruger and Michael Bay are the one's who kept on "polishing" the Orci/Kurtzman script that was based on an outline by Bay.

Bay had complete creative control with what he wanted to do (for the exception of scheduling) and decided to add annoying and crude elements instead of tried and successful cliches.

I far would have preferred that to most of the garbage that is held within the walls of TF2.

[Tony Stark]

As far as 2 movies, I can see why DMC was successful, mainly because dispite it's inperfections, the movie felt very much like an "Empire Strikes Back" type of movie. What was strange to me watching in the theater is the movie kept going and going, and it ended very strangely. Still I had a positive reaction. Now in AWE, all that was out the window, and it was a muddled piece of crap. I think had the third part been a little stronger, people would have liked DMC a little better.

This is sort of how LOTR dealt with this. TTT, was by far the weakest chapter, and really dragged in someplaces, with alot of unessesary exposition, like Aragorn falling off his horse and somehow being saved by Arwen in a dream, but Gollum carried that film, and because ROTK was so strong, it made TTT better than it probably was as a stand alone.

TF2, was just a flat out jumbled mess. First off having transformers with their cyber balls dangling onscreen, I knew the movie was in trouble. Not bringing back Jon Voight was a huge mistake, as he was the glue in the first film that kept it from turning into a total cheese fest.

I think TF2 had elements of a good movie, but there was too much adolecent cheese in the movie to find it. Meghan Fox as hot as she is, is just a terrible actress. She makes Pam Anderson look like she has talent.

I find it hard to believe that IM2 is anywhere close to being as weak as those films were, and the current reviews seem to point to it being stronger as well. So what if it's not as good as the original. Is it still a good movie? I don't know, but I'll find out on Friday.

Alot of people panned Sherlock Holmes but I thought that was one of the top movies of 2009, maybe right behind Star Trek, and certainly better than Avatar. It's a shame Star Trek didn't get best picture nod, because really story wise it was a superior film to Avatar, which was nothing but 2.5 hrs of eye candy.

[redfirebird2008]

Yeah this thread isn't going right at all when your talking about other movies.

There aren't any new reviews being posted yet and most of us still haven't seen the movie. Not much on-topic discussion to be had at the moment IMHO. As soon as Thursday/Friday rolls around, that will change for sure. More reviews will come in and everyone here will get a chance to see it so they can analyze it on here. :oldrazz:

[Chris B]

Bay is still largely to blame over TF2 rotten script.

Ehren Kruger and Michael Bay are the one's who kept on "polishing" the Orci/Kurtzman script that was based on an outline by Bay.

Bay had complete creative control with what he wanted to do (for the exception of scheduling) and decided to add annoying and crude elements instead of tried and successful cliches.

I far would have preferred that to most of the garbage that is held within the walls of TF2.

To be fair, Orci and Kurtzman admited to being responsible for a lot of the cringeworthy humor. Plus, it sounds like Kruger was responsible for alot of the fanwanking moments.

[hatebox]

This is sort of how LOTR dealt with this. TTT, was by far the weakest chapter, and really dragged in someplaces, with alot of unessesary exposition, like Aragorn falling off his horse and somehow being saved by Arwen in a dream, but Gollum carried that film, and because ROTK was so strong, it made TTT better than it probably was as a stand alone.



Funnily enough I know a lot of LOTR nuts that consider TTT their favorite. In fact last I visited the IMDB page, Return of the King was getting quite a bad rap amongst the the fanboys, people are beginning to realise the movie is nothing but set piece after set piece.

[craigdbfan]

To be fair, Orci and Kurtzman admited to being responsible for a lot of the cringeworthy humor. Plus, it sounds like Kruger was responsible for alot of the fanwanking moments.

I specifically remember them separating themselves from the Twins who much of the way they acted and looked like was conceived by Kruger and Bay.

Don't know where your getting that they are the ones that gave us that atrocious humor.

FLJ: ...I heard that the gold tooth was [Director Michael] Bay’s idea, but do you have anything to say to people who found The Twins offensive?

Orci: Number one, we sympathize. Yes, the gold tooth was not in the script. That’s true.

Kurtzman: It’s really hard for us to sit here and try to justify it. I think that would be very foolish, and if someone wants to be offended by it, it’s their right. We were very surprised when we saw it, too, and it’s a choice that was made. I think if anything it shows you that we don’t control every aspect of the movie.

FLJ: Were you offended by them?

Kurtzman: I wasn’t thrilled. I certainly wasn’t thrilled.

Orci: Same reaction. I’m not easily offended, but when I saw it, I thought, ‘Someone’s gonna write about that.’”

[Excelsior.]

As pure cinema, Fellowship is by far the best of the three. THAT is the one that should've won best picture. Mystic River should've won over Return of the King.

Funnily enough I know a lot of LOTR nuts that consider TTT their favorite. In fact last I visited the IMDB page, Return of the King was getting quite a bad rap amongst the the fanboys, people are beginning to realise the movie is nothing but set piece after set piece.

Why would you torture yourself like that. :o

[redfirebird2008]

Funnily enough I know a lot of LOTR nuts that consider TTT their favorite. In fact last I visited the IMDB page, Return of the King was getting quite a bad rap amongst the the fanboys, people are beginning to realise the movie is nothing but set piece after set piece.

I'm not really a LOTR fan by any means, but TTT has always been my favorite. It's kind of a nice combination of 1 and 3 without going too far in either direction. It reminds me of the Bourne series. Bourne Supremacy is every bit as good as Ultimatum, possibly even better than Ultimatum. The thing I love about it is that it has some pretty deep themes and so forth, yet it doesn't have this feeling of the end approaching. You still sense that Bourne is still lost to a degree, even though he does get a lot of answers in the film.

[Chris B]

I specifically remember them separating themselves from the Twins who much of the way they acted and looked like was conceived by Kruger and Bay.

Don't know where your getting that they are the ones that gave us that atrocious humor.

I was getting that bit of information about them being responsible from the DVD commentary. Plus, the article you posted only mentioned Bay. And I never said he wasn't involved with the bad humor. :cwink:

[FaT_tONle]

While we are in the LOTR thread, I liked TTT a lot. Fellowship is the most enjoyable, but TTT just had that meat. The trees and the side plots that branched off tested my patience (and man the trees almost killed the movie for me), but that aside, you really felt a story developing. Plots thickening. And you cared for the characters even more so. ROTK was awesome too, but the story was basically already established and it just felt like one long ass climax.

[craigdbfan]

I was getting that bit of information about them being responsible from the DVD commentary. Plus, the article you posted only mentioned Bay. And I never said he wasn't involved with the bad humor. :cwink:

Maybe this will work better:

"Although they couldn't remember the origins of Devastator's testicles. Orci thought that Bay had demanded "a big pair of testicles." But Kurtzman reminded him that it was actually co-writer Ehren Krueger's idea, when the three of them were holed up for a few months writing the script after the writers' strike. "The testicles are in the script," Kurtzman said. "Well, it's a construction machine, so you of course have wrecking balls. And Michael, immediately, of course, loved it."

- io9 (http://io9.com/5299917/orci-and-kurtzman-talk-robo+testicles-and-transformers-3)

As for the DVD commentary it is sanctioned by Bay and Paramount, I'm sure Orci/Kurtzman aren't going to say anything to negative about what happened to their script once it reached the hand of the Kruger/Bay.

[Tony Stark]

Funnily enough I know a lot of LOTR nuts that consider TTT their favorite. In fact last I visited the IMDB page, Return of the King was getting quite a bad rap amongst the the fanboys, people are beginning to realise the movie is nothing but set piece after set piece.

I don't want to digress, to far, as this thread is already well off the railroad tracks, but I can certainly see why people favor it. I just think of the three, it's the less complete chapter. For me it was Fellowship because of Sean Bean. That man is a great actor, and I don't know why he doesn't get more big roles.

In any case, my big comparison is that if IM2 is somewhat of a downer from one, doesn't make it a bad movie per-say. We'll have to see. However if Avengers doesn't work, I can see fans being disgruntled with the direction IM2 took, although I'd argue this was the angle from IM1.

[jmc]

Doesn't make it a bad film, but it should have been so much better, there's no excuse because it was set up perfectly. If Avengers doesn't work, mark IM2 as the turning point for where things went wrong.

[echostation]

wow thanks for all the updated reviews of Iron Man 2 guys... oh no wait, someone this thread keeps bloody changing into a Dark Knight to now Transformers 2 thread... big epic bags of win...

[J.Howlett]

Thank you, jmc...

[Anita18]

wow thanks for all the updated reviews of Iron Man 2 guys... oh no wait, someone this thread keeps bloody changing into a Dark Knight to now Transformers 2 thread... big epic bags of win...
Along with LOTR, which you have to admit is a step up from TF2. :oldrazz:

[RoboAmish]

Funnily enough I know a lot of LOTR nuts that consider TTT their favorite. In fact last I visited the IMDB page, Return of the King was getting quite a bad rap amongst the the fanboys, people are beginning to realise the movie is nothing but set piece after set piece.

TTT felt too much like a bridging gap to me, nothing much happened outside the big battles, the subplots themselves felt hollow and uninteresting. Especially Sam and Frodo's parts...

FOTR wins because it's closest to the books:o

[Ace of Knaves]

Just watched it, thought it was great. Not as charming as the first, but the action more than makes up for it.

RDJ is still great in the role, Rockwell was a beast, Rourke was the man. Cheadle oozed cool.

And seriously, all these people *****ing about the Avengers stuff getting in the way of the plot? Errr... there is literally 3 hints at the Avengers in the whole film. 2 of which are simply passing comments like "I have been reassigned to New Mexico".

[hatebox]

RT's official consensus is up:

It isn't quite the breath of fresh air that Iron Man was, but this sequel comes close with solid performances and an action-packed plot.

Hmm, not too sure about the 'action packed' bit, but I guess the 'solid performances' is at least fair.

[Ace of Knaves]

I wouldn't describe this film as any worse than the first one. The word i'd use is "charming". The first was so charming and charismatic, it was hard not to love it.

The sequel feels a bit more mechanical and a little more depressing. Stark is still his snarky self but he has that undercurrent of nihilism. He knows he is dying so just thinks **** it.

As for action packed? It certainly has more action than the first one, and the action is definitely more spectacular. But going by the trailers it looks like it would of been even more action.

[jmc]

That's a very kind RT consensus, took a while to reach it too, they must have learned from the Watchmen debacle.

[J.Howlett]

New review that's a good perspective of what could've been had this franchise taken things a tad more seriously...http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2010/05/review-iron-man-2the-imax-experience.html

[S.A.A.D.]

The RT T-Meter Critics has been knocked down to a 71%. Fresh:48,Rotten:20.

[rashad]

Average Rating: 6.3/10

[redfirebird2008]

That's a very kind RT consensus, took a while to reach it too, they must have learned from the Watchmen debacle.


I think they had to wait for a 5th Top Critic to be posted before doing the consensus. It's looking like they spoke a little too soon though. It's dropped from 76% last night to 70% today. One would think it won't dip below 60% and end up rotten, but the drop today has been pretty steep considering how many reviews were already posted as of last night.

[Tony Stark]

That's a very kind RT consensus, took a while to reach it too, they must have learned from the Watchmen debacle.

They didn't reach a consensus because contractually they can't release the reviews until they are published in the papers. Since the film doesn't release in the US until Friday, most writers are just now publishing their reviews.

They put the consensus because they know what the reviews are, for instance Roger Ebert gave the film 3 out of 4 stars, but his review is not up yet.

This has nothing to do with Watchmen. The film was originally scheduled to open world wide on the 30th, but when Chronicles of Narnia pushed it's release back to December, Paramount took the open slot on the 7th, as tratitionally that week is much stronger for domestic releases. They kept the Europe and Asia release date, primarily to avoid interference from the World Cup.

[Bunker]

Certified fresh with a 6.1/10 rating...um...WAT.

[redfirebird2008]

They didn't reach a consensus because contractually they can't release the reviews until they are published in the papers. Since the film doesn't release in the US until Friday, most writers are just now publishing their reviews.

They put the consensus because they know what the reviews are, for instance Roger Ebert gave the film 3 out of 4 stars, but his review is not up yet.

This has nothing to do with Watchmen. The film was originally scheduled to open world wide on the 30th, but when Chronicles of Narnia pushed it's release back to December, Paramount took the open slot on the 7th, as tratitionally that week is much stronger for domestic releases. They kept the Europe and Asia release date, primarily to avoid interference from the World Cup.

Ebert's review has been posted at RT now. The movie has gone back up to 72% after 72 reviews.

[Tony Stark]

Certified fresh with a 6.1/10 rating...um...WAT.


It's up to 6.4, and probably will go a little higher. The certified fresh rating is based on the percentage reviews I think.

As I said this is going to fluctuate as the reviews come in. RT already knows what the final rating is, which is why they certified it. As I said they can't publish a review before it's been published in whatever news publication that has it.

For example Roger Ebert's reviews are owned by the Chicago Sun Times, so for RT to publish an excerpt and link to it, they have to have permission of the Sun Times. This is the same for all the writers. Some of the blog posts they can put up any time they want, but the "Top Critic" reviews are always among the last to go up.

People need to calm down about the reviews. It may not be 93%, but at the same time it's way higher than Transformers 2, DMC, and alot of other two movies.

Also should this finish up below Superman Returns, that should tell you the quality of some of the reiviews. I noticed alot of the reviews who panned the movie, didn't even review the first film.

I'm not suprised that alot of people think that this movie isn't as good as the first because I knew the Cave scene and the scenes with Yinsen would be hard to top from an emotional level. That's the type of personal character development that despite all the TDK fanboys, you can't find anything on that level emotionally close to it. It speaks to us, because of the real world events in Afghanistan. I knew that would be impossible to top.

[redfirebird2008]

People need to calm down about the reviews. It may not be 93%, but at the same time it's way higher than Transformers 2, DMC, and alot of other two movies.




You can't make a literal comparison between Iron Man and those franchises when the first Iron Man had a significantly higher rating than Pirates 1 and Transformers 1. Transformers 1 had a rating in the 50's while Pirates 1 had a 78. Relatively speaking, the drop is similar between Pirates and Iron Man.

Pirates - 53/78 = 68% of the original. Or a drop of 32%.

Iron Man - 72/93 = 77% of the original. Or a drop of 23%.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, mind you. Audiences liked DMC a lot. It had great legs at the box office despite a huge opening and it had massive DVD sales.

[Marvin]

bunkers avatar is abit much

lol

[Tony Stark]

You can't make a literal comparison between Iron Man and those franchises when the first Iron Man had a significantly higher rating than Pirates 1 and Transformers 1. Transformers 1 had a rating in the 50's while Pirates 1 had a 78. Relatively speaking, the drop is similar between Pirates and Iron Man.

Pirates - 53/78 = 68% of the original. Or a drop of 32%.

Iron Man - 72/93 = 77% of the original. Or a drop of 23%.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, mind you. Audiences liked DMC a lot. It had great legs at the box office despite a huge opening and it had massive DVD sales.

I actually really enjoyed DMC, it was a very strange movie compared to the first, but I enjoyed it. AWE, not so much.

Anyway I hear what you're saying.

[topdog1]

Ebert three out of four stars

"Iron Man 2 is a polished, high-ozone sequel..."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100505/REVIEWS/100509987/1023

but then goes on to knock it down a notch because...

"how the guys survive inside those suits. Sure, the suits are armored, but their bodies aren't. How many dizzying falls and brutal blows and sneaky explosions can you survive without breaking every bone in your body? Just asking'. At the end of a long day, those suits should be filled with bloody pulp."

Really? That could be the lamest critique I've ever read. Still, I'm glad he liked it.

[Crosswind Ghost]

Really? That could be the lamest critique I've ever read. Still, I'm glad he liked it.
It wasn't a critique by him, he always makes jabs at the movie he reviews by the end of the article.

[rashad]

Entertainment Weekly - C+

With all that heavy payload, Iron Man 2 begins to burst at its own galvanized seams as the Marvel instinct for faceless warfare among comic-book characters bangs up against the Downey-Favreau-Theroux instinct for goofitude. (Qualifying as goofy, comedian Garry Shandling plays a U.S. senator, Bill O'Reilly plays himself, and at one point Iron Man, resting curled within the curve of a famous Southern California food-sculpture landmark, is told, ''Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to exit the doughnut.'') Downey's head and heart are in the right place, but the movie is more in pieces than whole, and more about iron than about men.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20366535,00.html



Movie Web - 3.5/5
In summary, lower your expectations for Iron Man 2. It's fun and breezy with the requisite big moments for summer popcorn goodness. Director Jon Favreau and Robert Downey Jr. make the most of what they were tasked to do. I sincerely hope that Marvel allows Iron Man 3 to be its own film than the crutch that other franchises lean on.
http://www.movieweb.com/movie/iron-man-2/REHm9HKHzzlLLK

[VenomVsSpidey]

"how the guys survive inside those suits. Sure, the suits are armored, but their bodies aren't. How many dizzying falls and brutal blows and sneaky explosions can you survive without breaking every bone in your body? Just asking'. At the end of a long day, those suits should be filled with bloody pulp."

:doh::doh:

[topdog1]

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

This guy is ahead of the curve. (If it really matters to any of you- I can't say I care all that much but...)

120 Positive 28 Negative reviews

[redfirebird2008]

I actually really enjoyed DMC, it was a very strange movie compared to the first, but I enjoyed it. AWE, not so much.

Anyway I hear what you're saying.


I really enjoyed DMC and AWE, but they are both too long. AWE's biggest problem aside from the bloated length is the constant backstabbing plots. I'm looking forward to the next Pirates movie in hopes that they have trimmed the fat in multiple ways. We just want a fun swashbuckling movie, not some 3 hour "epic" with an overindulgence in special effects (Giant Calypso = :doh:).

[hatebox]

It's gone down to 69% for the first time on RT. Still a 6.3 average.

[RoboAmish]

Ebert three out of four stars

"Iron Man 2 is a polished, high-ozone sequel..."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100505/REVIEWS/100509987/1023

but then goes on to knock it down a notch because...

"how the guys survive inside those suits. Sure, the suits are armored, but their bodies aren't. How many dizzying falls and brutal blows and sneaky explosions can you survive without breaking every bone in your body? Just asking'. At the end of a long day, those suits should be filled with bloody pulp."

Really? That could be the lamest critique I've ever read. Still, I'm glad he liked it.

He knocked it down because it just wasn't as good as the original in his eyes, the last comment was just a joke, it wasn't actually a critique :huh:

[BlackLantern]

I saw it with my mom last night....we both enjoyed it immensely

[Raiden]

Peter Travers (highly respected film critic) at Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/;kw=%5B14342,139449%5D) likes Iron Man 2. Here's an excerpt:

For some, it will be a fair trade-off. It took four writers to construct the first Iron Man. Responsibility for the sequel fell to just one man, Justin Theroux, who co-wrote Tropic Thunder, the comedy that earned Downey (in blackface) an Oscar nomination. Theroux clearly knows Downey's verbal rhythms. He also knows that Stark is a man hurting inside. That pain gives us a rooting interest. Favreau supplies the go-go-go that makes the movie stratospherically entertaining, even without 3-D. But it's the promiscuously talented Downey who adds the grace notes that make Iron Man 2 something to remember.

Not sure how many stars he gives to IM2, though.

[kedrell]

It's at 70% now overall with top critics sending in a 73% score and Roeper's review has yet to get on there(it's very positive). Funny, isn't the Top Critics usually lower than the overall score?

[BlackLantern]

god I ****ing hate RT

[kedrell]

I don't hate it, but it's just a resource and should be treated as such. It is hardly the final arbiter of a movie's quality. Nor is MetaCritic.

[BlackLantern]

yea but with some posters here on the Hype you'd swear a movie is an "abject failure" if a movie isn't pulling in a specific number

[kedrell]

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

This guy is ahead of the curve. (If it really matters to any of you- I can't say I care all that much but...)

120 Positive 28 Negative reviews

Thanks. So that would mean about an 81.8%(basically 82%) fresh rate. The thing is, I'm not sure all of those reviewers count on RT.

[kedrell]

yea but with some posters here on the Hype you'd swear a movie is an "abject failure" if a movie isn't pulling in a specific number


And they are welcome to that opinion.....















....even if it is extremely retarded horse-s**t.:cwink:

[RoboAmish]

Peter Travers (highly respected film critic) at Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/;kw=%5B14342,139449%5D) likes Iron Man 2. Here's an excerpt:



Not sure how many stars he gives to IM2, though.

he gave it 3/4

I like Travers, other than Ebert and the guys at Empire, he's probably the critic I most agree with it

[BlackLantern]

I read a review a couple days ago from a female critic...she didn't really like the film but also admits to having very little knowledge of the "super hero culture"

[kedrell]

I like Roeper more and he gave it an A-(not sure what that equates to in stars).

[RoboAmish]

I like Roeper more and he gave it an A-(not sure what that equates to in stars).

good point, I knew I was forgetting someone. Him and the guys from Spill of course:ninja:

[kedrell]

I love the guys from Spill. Carlyle already said he gives it a strong full price.

[kedrell]

damn DP.

[RoboAmish]

I'm pretty sure they'll give it a Full Price all round :up:

[Raiden]

I like Roeper more and he gave it an A-(not sure what that equates to in stars).

So Roeper, Ebert, Travers, and Moriarty all like IM2? These are the critics that I respect so it's nice to see them giving positive reviews for this movie.

[S.A.A.D.]

RT

fresh:74
rotten:39

113 reviews in total as of now,this isn't looking good for the meter since the rotten reviews are very much close to the 75 fresh ones.

65% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/iron_man_2/?page=2&critic=approved&sortby=fresh&name_order=asc&view=#contentReviews

[BlackLantern]

and that means what exactly??

O M G moV is a FAilz!!! RT sez so!!!111!!! ROFLCOPTOR

[S.A.A.D.]

and that means what exactly??

O M G moV is a FAilz!!! RT sez so!!!111!!! ROFLCOPTOR

To be honest,it's very worrying imo when it's in the 60's and lower than what Spiderman 3 got on RT. Spiderman 3...

[Tony Stark]

RT

fresh:74
rotten:39

113 reviews in total as of now,this isn't looking good for the meter since the rotten reviews are very much close to the 75 fresh ones.

65% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/iron_man_2/?page=2&critic=approved&sortby=fresh&name_order=asc&view=#contentReviews

There is still more than 100 reveiws or more yet to be published. They certified it fresh, because they know the final tally.

If it doesn't finish at at least 75%, I will never trust RT again. You meant to tell me that SR should get a higher rating than IM2!!!??? That's scandelous.

[BlackLantern]

heh. well it hasn't seen its wide release yet and RT is becoming more and more "skewed" these days as more and more people are just giving a movie a "rotten" just for the hell of it

I really don't think Marvel is too concerned as it has already raked in 100+ mil internationally and most the theaters in my area are sold out for all of friday and the early saturday shows

[Hannibal King]

You meant to tell me that SR should get a higher rating than IM2!!!??? That's scandelous.
Lol, I was about to say the same thing and I liked SR.

[Tony Stark]

To be honest,it's very worrying imo when it's in the 60's and lower than what Spiderman 3 got on RT. Spiderman 3...

And Spiderman 3 as flawed as it was, was 10 times better than Superman Returns which got 74%.

And if it makes you feel better, Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper, who are the two critics I tend to agree with most, both gave Spider-man 3 a splat, and gave glowing reviews of Iron Man 2.

[hatebox]

With RT it's not really useful to say 'if movie X got this amount then IM2 should get higher than that'. It's just a snapshot of what critics thought of it at the time. While 65% seems low, it does seem to be more in line with what the broad concensus is.

[S.A.A.D.]

There is still more than 100 reveiws or more yet to be published. They certified it fresh, because they know the final tally.

If it doesn't finish at at least 75%, I will never trust RT again. You meant to tell me that SR should get a higher rating than IM2!!!??? That's scandelous.

SR doesn't deserve a higher rating than Ironman 2 at all. It's baffling that it doe's.

[S.A.A.D.]

With RT it's not really useful to say 'if movie X got this amount then IM2 should get higher than that'. It's just a snapshot of what critics thought of it at the time. While 65% seems low, it does seem to be more in line with what the broad concensus is.

I agree,it's way more in line,anything beyond that is a tad too generous from the sounds of it imo.

[kaijunexus]

Why is it that IM2's rating keeps dropping? Should we expect a climb as more critics see it over the weekend, or a further drop into oblivion?

I really want this movie to excel, and though I'm sure I'll love it, and I'm trying not to care about what the critics say, it still is concerning.

I'll see what happens tonight when I go to the midnight show...

[S.A.A.D.]

And Spiderman 3 as flawed as it was, was 10 times better than Superman Returns which got 74%.

And if it makes you feel better, Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper, who are the two critics I tend to agree with most, both gave Spider-man 3 a splat, and gave glowing reviews of Iron Man 2.

As much as I hate Spiderman 3,I will give it major props for two things,the fact that it actually had some action,and two,the fact that Spiderman fought a super villain.

[topdog1]

I like Roeper more and he gave it an A-(not sure what that equates to in stars).

Here's the youtube of him raving about the film. I didn't see it posted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWUccR7rntA

"I really love this movie."

To me, this proves that word of mouth is going to be great among average movie goers. Fanboys will debate and crunch numbers until the cows come home but it really doesn't matter in the end.

[FlawlessVictory]

I'm surprised the RT meter is as low it is now for this movie. Never would have expected it.

[Tony Stark]

I'm surprised the RT meter is as low it is now for this movie. Never would have expected it.

I too am suprised, but I think it's worth noting the more reputable critics are giving the movie a thumbs up. A few exceptions yes, but when guys like Ebert and Roeper give a movie thumbs up, it's probably a good movie.

The reaction seems to be similar to Sherlock Holmes, which in my opinion was awesome, and the more reputable critcs agreed. Other people couldn't get over their hatred of Guy Ritchie, which is patently unfair.

[Raiden]

I too am suprised, but I think it's worth noting the more reputable critics are giving the movie a thumbs up. A few exceptions yes, but when guys like Ebert and Roeper give a movie thumbs up, it's probably a good movie.

The reaction seems to be similar to Sherlock Holmes, which in my opinion was awesome, and the more reputable critcs agreed. Other people couldn't get over their hatred of Guy Ritchie, which is patently unfair.

Yeah, the fact that both Roepher and Ebert gave IM2 a thumb-up, along with Travers, really give me some optimism that the movie won't be as bad some some internet bloggers seemed to suggest.

[Visceral]

I love the guys from Spill. Carlyle already said he gives it a strong full price.

Spill is freakin awesome

[BlackLantern]

I didn't like Roeper when he first popped up, but he's a lot more fair than most and doesn't BS or try to come off as a pseudo intellectual

[craigdbfan]

I'm still seeing this come Friday night and will more than likely enjoy it.

When some of the complaints have been "too slow, not enough Iron Man but it needed less action".

Contradictory BS like that is what causes me to not take their review seriously. Most of the crap out there actually passing by as "reviews" are just following the same hive mind insertion that there needed to be more Iron Man but needed less action at the same time?

I mean come on.

[hatebox]

I'm still seeing this come Friday night and will more than likely enjoy it.

When some of the complaints have been "too slow, not enough Iron Man but it needed less action".

I mean come on.


Has any review said there's too much action?

[JP]

Back up to 70 on RT.

[kedrell]

This is just bouncing all over the place. And there's still another 75 reviews or so to come in.

[BlackLantern]

Im staying out of the rate and review thread....apparently if you enjoyed the movie you are a simple drooling idiot

[RoboAmish]

Have most of the top critics had their say now? Won't it be mostly lowly bloggers from here on in?

[BlackLantern]

some of the main critics usually throw their stuff up sunday or monday mornings

[SpiderByte]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/iron_man_2/?name_order=asc

71%: Certified Fresh

:awesome:

[SpiderByte]

*double post

[VenomVsSpidey]

and It deserves it! :up:

[RoboAmish]

http://spill.com/Movie-Reviews/MovieReview.aspx?Name=Iron+Man+2&VideoId=451107

[kedrell]

Interesting that Cyrus gave SM3 full price(if memory serves) yet gave IM2 a matinee. But then he's an admitted Spidey fan first and foremost.

[RoboAmish]

Cyrus is usually the one to go lenient on these kinds of movies seeing as he's an unashamed fanboy



That robot shot at me!

Sir, it gave you your $20...:hehe:

[kedrell]

He didn't go as lenient on this movie. He gave it a matinee. Leon gave SM3 & this a full price. So the Spill guys gave this 2 full prices and 3 matinee's(Carlyle is the other full price).

[Tony Stark]

Interesting that Cyrus gave SM3 full price(if memory serves) yet gave IM2 a matinee. But then he's an admitted Spidey fan first and foremost.

Wow! Gotta have some serious bias there. When I first saw Spider-man 3, I was lenient, I think I gave it 7/10. The more I watched it, it's like a 5.5 out of 10. There's a good movie in there somewhere, but it's 1/2 hour too long.

The problem with Venom was basically Topher Grace was horrible, and the more I watched it, it's so obvious how bad he is. It's really sad, because I thought the Sand Man stuff was great. One of the best scenes in that movie is SandMan trying to reform himself after the accident.

Now I'm setup for 7:15 tonight for IM2, so we'll see how it compares, but juding from the actors involved, I'm not expecing a bunch of crying and EMO boy stuff.

[Lord Blackbolt]

Those spill guys are funny, but most of the time I never really agree with them on movies. There's no way Spiderman 3 is better than Ironman 2

[VenomVsSpidey]

I love them both as much. Seriously.

[Leon_0]

I give Ironman 2 a solid 7.5 out of 10, The movie was really dope I enjoyed it, but I deff think it could of been better with some areas.

[RachelDawes]

I give Ironman 2 a solid 7.5 out of 10, The movie was really dope I enjoyed it, but I deff think it could of been better with some areas.

That was how I felt. Most of the negative critiques of the movie were correct, but the performances across the board were so good that the movie's flaws didn't really affect my enjoyment of the movie.

[danoyse]

That was how I felt. Most of the negative critiques of the movie were correct, but the performances across the board were so good that the movie's flaws didn't really affect my enjoyment of the movie.

I seriously think it was one of the best-acted superhero movies I've seen. Every single performance was just great.

[C. Lee]

Im staying out of the rate and review thread....apparently if you enjoyed the movie you are a simple drooling idiot

I'm a complicated drooling idiot ......:awesome:

[RachelDawes]

I seriously think it was one of the best-acted superhero movies I've seen. Every single performance was just great.

Especially Rockwell. I really hope Hammer's the villain in IM3, and he doesn't disappear for half the movie the way Whiplash did.

The only person who disappointed me at all was Cheadle. I didn't feel like he had much chemistry with RDJ, and he just seemed kind of flat during the movie.

[danoyse]

Rockwell's doing a play on Broadway right now that I've been wanting to see...now I really need to go see it.

Don Cheadle's one of my favorite actors, but it took me a little while to get used to him as Rhodey (I loved TH in the first movie), but in the end I thought he was really good.