OFFICIAL: Rate & Review Iron Man 2 continued...

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is 336096

[Immortalfire]

The film opens this week in several places, so I declare this thread open for business!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v126/immortalfire/im2onesheet00001small.jpg

Please remember to USE SPOILER TAGS. At least for awhile.

Rock on. :im:

[Kevin Roegele]

It's okay. It's decent. I didn't ask for my money back.

But the essential truth is that Iron Man 2 is a potboiler. It's pure product. Very professional, but no heart like the first movie. This is a super-sleek conveyor belt blockbuster that cashes in on the popularity of the first movie and sets the audience up for the Marvel movies to come.

The storyline is a big, big mess. It's a jumble of ideas rather than a focused story. There are so many plotlines going on that either continue from the first movie, set up the next movie, set up future Marvel movies, or all of the above, that there is barely time for this one to have any identity of its own. Iron Man 2 ends up being more-or-less a comedy with some great CGI work. Downey riffs with everyone, but he shouldn't still be doing it by the supposedly exciting climax when lives, including his, are in danger. But that's the tone of the thing.

Iron Man 2, more than anything, reminds me of Lethal Weapon 4. It's essentially a cast reunion, with some brand new actors to show off, some impressive action to look at, and a token attempt at a story.

Iron Man 2 is amusing but an absolute waste of potential. When many superhero sequels are superior to their originals, IM2 seems very lazy and half-assed.

[Kevin Roegele]

It's quite sad to realise that the Iron Man franchise has (very likely) already had it's finest moment, and that was two and a half years ago.

[craigdbfan]

You know everything you said is true. I loved, loved IM and I can't say the same for IM2 sadly.

Not a bad movie, it was still entertaining but it failed to do a lot of things it set out to do.

:(

[Kevin Roegele]

You know everything you said is true. I loved, loved IM and I can't say the same for IM2 sadly.

Not a bad movie, it was still entertaining but it failed to do a lot of things it set out to do.

:(

:( Yeah.....

[El Payaso]

It's okay. It's decent. I didn't ask for my money back.

But the essential truth is that Iron Man 2 is a potboiler. It's pure product. Very professional, but no heart like the first movie. This is a super-sleek conveyor belt blockbuster that cashes in on the popularity of the first movie and sets the audience up for the Marvel movies to come.

The storyline is a big, big mess. It's a jumble of ideas rather than a focused story. There are so many plotlines going on that either continue from the first movie, set up the next movie, set up future Marvel movies, or all of the above, that there is barely time for this one to have any identity of its own. Iron Man 2 ends up being more-or-less a comedy with some great CGI work. Downey riffs with everyone, but he shouldn't still be doing it by the supposedly exciting climax when lives, including his, are in danger. But that's the tone of the thing.

Iron Man 2, more than anything, reminds me of Lethal Weapon 4. It's essentially a cast reunion, with some brand new actors to show off, some impressive action to look at, and a token attempt at a story.

Iron Man 2 is amusing but an absolute waste of potential. When many superhero sequels are superior to their originals, IM2 seems very lazy and half-assed.

Spot on, KR.

[Milu]

It was good. Felt too much like an Avengers set-up at times, but good nonetheless. The first is still the best.

[redhawk23]

I have high hopes for a post avengers iron man 3 thats simply allowed to be an iron-man movie.

[Fudgie]

It's okay. It's decent. I didn't ask for my money back.

But the essential truth is that Iron Man 2 is a potboiler. It's pure product. Very professional, but no heart like the first movie. This is a super-sleek conveyor belt blockbuster that cashes in on the popularity of the first movie and sets the audience up for the Marvel movies to come.

The storyline is a big, big mess. It's a jumble of ideas rather than a focused story. There are so many plotlines going on that either continue from the first movie, set up the next movie, set up future Marvel movies, or all of the above, that there is barely time for this one to have any identity of its own. Iron Man 2 ends up being more-or-less a comedy with some great CGI work. Downey riffs with everyone, but he shouldn't still be doing it by the supposedly exciting climax when lives, including his, are in danger. But that's the tone of the thing.

Iron Man 2, more than anything, reminds me of Lethal Weapon 4. It's essentially a cast reunion, with some brand new actors to show off, some impressive action to look at, and a token attempt at a story.

Iron Man 2 is amusing but an absolute waste of potential. When many superhero sequels are superior to their originals, IM2 seems very lazy and half-assed.

Yup to all of this.

[kedrell]

When many superhero sequels are superior to their originals, IM2 seems very lazy and half-assed.

Superhero sequels being inferior to the originals is quite common actually. Supes 2, TDK, Batman Returns, HellBoy 2, Blade 2, etc. all have that in common with IM2. And the few that did improve(X2, Spidey 2) did so because the 1st was frankly easy to top, not because they themselves were stellar in any way. All IMO, of course. In fact sequels of any kind being superior to the originals is still extremely rare. I can't even think of one offhand but I'm sure they exist.

[Parker Wayne]

TDK is superior to Batman Begins. You may not think so, but general consensus is that it's superior.

[kedrell]

Since when does general consensus mean anything conclusive? IMO, BB is the only Batman film worth watching and TDK is a load of contrived crap. I found that, while inferior to IM1, IM2 was a quality sequel much in the same way Aliens or T2 were quality sequels that didn't quite live up to the originals.

[Spider-Fan]

Are you arguing for you personally or trying to state for a fact that the others didn't improve? TDK is way more popular than BB (and I feel TDK is vastly superior).

IM1 for me was a 4/5. Awesome, but it has a few flaws in the 3rd Act for me. IM2 is more like a 3/5 film. It's entertaining and I have fun watching it, but could have and should have been more and has some problems that are very bothersome (like the final fight).

[kedrell]

I'm not argueing at all, just stating an opinion. To me, IM1 was damn near a 5/5 movie. The only film in my life I've ever seen that I'd say was better is Jaws, which is my all time favorite movie. I'd give IM2 a 4/5.

Again, popularity does not mean a movie is better. Nor does box office. If that was the case then TF2 is one of the best films ever made.

There are however objective things one can analyze in regards to story, plot and such. BB had a good story that held up well on it's own without many WTF? moments. TDK has oodles of those kinds of moments which indicates bad writing and story. I could go ahead and list them all but I really shouldn't have to. They've been mentioned all over the place on the net, all you need to do is look them up. I'd give BB a 4/5 and TDK a 1.5/4.

[rashad]

I've probably only watched this film twice since it's been out on Blu-ray/DVD.

[Fudgie]

Are you arguing for you personally or trying to state for a fact that the others didn't improve? TDK is way more popular than BB (and I feel TDK is vastly superior).

Me too. Spider-Man 2 is another sequel better than the original. Blade 2 as well.

[kedrell]

I've seen Blade 1 & 2 before and while I can't hardly remember anything about Blade 2(bad sign) I can easily remember Blade 1 from begining to end and I haven't seen it in 10 years. That's why I prefer it in that case.

With Spidey films, I think Spidey 2 is overall the more consistent and even of the 2 movies and thus on the whole it is the better film. But I remember enjoying the 1st half of Spidey1 far more than I enjoyed the whole film of SM2. But then, SM1 has the bad 2nd half which brings it overall score down below SM2's.

[craigdbfan]

It's okay. It's decent. I didn't ask for my money back.

But the essential truth is that Iron Man 2 is a potboiler. It's pure product. Very professional, but no heart like the first movie. This is a super-sleek conveyor belt blockbuster that cashes in on the popularity of the first movie and sets the audience up for the Marvel movies to come.

The storyline is a big, big mess. It's a jumble of ideas rather than a focused story. There are so many plotlines going on that either continue from the first movie, set up the next movie, set up future Marvel movies, or all of the above, that there is barely time for this one to have any identity of its own. Iron Man 2 ends up being more-or-less a comedy with some great CGI work. Downey riffs with everyone, but he shouldn't still be doing it by the supposedly exciting climax when lives, including his, are in danger. But that's the tone of the thing.

Iron Man 2, more than anything, reminds me of Lethal Weapon 4. It's essentially a cast reunion, with some brand new actors to show off, some impressive action to look at, and a token attempt at a story.

Iron Man 2 is amusing but an absolute waste of potential. When many superhero sequels are superior to their originals, IM2 seems very lazy and half-assed.

Just have to reiterate how incredible of a post this is. :bow:

Its exactly how I felt and I think a lot of other fans of the first IM felt with IM2.

Lets hope Black can maybe add some much needed attention to story more than anything for IM3. :)

[Tony Stark]

I agree that IM2 was not as good as the first, but the way some people talk about it, it's a much better film that those that like to poo, poo it.

[kedrell]

Agreed.

[Fudgie]

IM2 isnt poo poo, its just really sub par.

[kedrell]

Depends on what 'par' you're talking about. Sub par for an Iron Man movie based on how well the first went? Yes. Sub par among the superhero genre of films? Uh, no. Not even close.

[Fudgie]

Yeah sub par for superhero movies. Not good, not bad. Average at best.

[Anno_Domini]

Recently watched Iron Man 2 again(I have a huge gallery of movies, but never bought the Iron Man films until a week ago, lol...shame on me I suppose). Now, even though Iron Man 2 was nowhere near the first one, it had its moments and it was just a fun ride. Were there things in the film that I could nag about? Yes, mostly with Rhodes(I wanted Howard!!!), but, I thought the movie was an amazing film, and not a poor film from Marvel Studios.

I understand that they wanted to build up the Avengers storyline and they did such, but you can very much feel an Iron Man story in this film as well, that was fleshed out. The whole "legacy" theme went through and through, and I was enjoyed by the Ivan Vanko storyline. Sure, the final match was a bit too fast, but if you think about it, the Ivan battle started as soon as the drones went crazy as they were commanded by Ivan himself. He seemed like a genius in the film, although why he decided to make his suit look like Obadiah's, I have no idea.

My questions from after this movie? Will Justin Hammer be back. Now, I don't think his threat to Potts will come to fruition, as it more or less scared Pepper(which could be a factor on why she resigned...but, besides that, will we ever hear Virginia or is Pepper her name in the series? Lol), but I believe Hammer could play a part with the Ten Rings storyline.

[8Diagrams(WU)]

It was entertaining but nothing to write home about. Hated how nick fury is really just a comedic character that is just sam jackson w a patch.

[kedrell]

It's Virginia "Pepper" Potts. Bill O'Reilly managed to drop in her first name in this movie.

[Anno_Domini]

Really? I need to watch the film again then. Didn't spot that, even with having seen it five times before.

[kedrell]

Well, that's just because I've seen it twenty times.

[Spider-Fan]

I still say Don Cheadle was 100x better as Rhodey than Howard. Howard was weak sounding and didn't come off as a guy who could stand up for himself. Cheadle had a lot more command. That's one of the only areas IM2 did improve upon IM1.

[Parker Wayne]

The thing about that is we don't know how much of the performances attained to the motives of the characters. Rhodey was a lot more relaxed with Tony because he was imprisoned for months and thought Tony was losing his mind a little.

In IM2, there is definitely some tension between Rhodey and Tony with Rhodey being put in between a tough spot of being Tony's best friend, but not only a part of the government, but a part of the military wing that want's the Iron Man suit. So he is pissed at Tony for being in that situation, especially when things blow over after seeing Tony drunkenly misuse the Iron Man suit.

[Spider-Fan]

It's not even just how the character reacted to Tony, cause yes where the character was was different between IM1 to IM2. Just listen to the way Howard talks. Stark dominates him, even in scenes when Rhodey should not be taking his crap. He was far too weak. Cheadle gave the character strength, command, and a backbone. I think if he had been in IM1, Rhodey would have been a lot better than what Howard did with it.

[Parker Wayne]

Well, I will say that Cheadle is a better actor than Howard so that may also play into it.

[Spider-Fan]

I also think that is a big part of it, lol. I am not saying Howard is a bad actor, but when he and RDJ were on screen together, we clearly saw him being dominated. This didn't happen with Cheadle.

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Cheadle actually played a military character. Dry and serious. Always business. Tough minded and he actually showed he had a high rank in the military. In the first one it was just hey toney toney toney. Just couldnt buy that being a military persona.

[kedrell]

I don't blame Howard or Favs for how he did Rhodey in IM1. Howard's a good actor playing a good character which is a far cry from oh say Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes in BB(a mediocre at best actress playing a badly conceived character). The problem was that he was simply miscast from the begining. For that I blame Avi Arad who hired him. Cheadle played the part much better. The only flaw there IMO was that he doesn't physically resemble Rodey much at all(Howard had this problem as well). But that's easier to overlook since he had the character down pretty well.

[Spider-Fan]

Cheadle's physique was fine, especially considering Rhodey as War Machine is in a battle suit. Not wearing tight spandex or a formal costume.

[kedrell]

Well if we're going by how Rhodey is in the comics then someone like Michael Jai White is the spitting image of him. Cheadle's kind small by comparison. Not that I think that is most important or anything. The way he acted as Rhodey was far more so. And he did fine there.

[Anno_Domini]

Cheadle's physique was fine, especially considering Rhodey as War Machine is in a battle suit. Not wearing tight spandex or a formal costume.

And RDJ played as Tony in the Iron Man suit, but he still looked like he had a better physique than Cheadle, imo.

To me, I think Howard is a great actor and should've stuck around for Iron Man 2. It's not his fault that what he was given in a script was "Toney, Toney". It's not like he could change it.

[Parker Wayne]

Well if we're going by how Rhodey is in the comics then someone like Michael Jai White is the spitting image of him. Cheadle's kind small by comparison. Not that I think that is most important or anything. The way he acted as Rhodey was far more so. And he did fine there.

Agreed.

And as much as I love MJW for Black Dynamite, his acting is still meh at best.

[Anno_Domini]

Your example of critique over MJW is Black Dynamite? You do know that it's pretty much a parody of sorts, right? I would much rather have brought in his direct-to-DVDs.

[Parker Wayne]

No, it's his acting from other projects. I just stated that I loved him in Black Dynamite. Big difference.

[Anno_Domini]

Sorry, but your wording in that sentence sounded like you loved him in BD, but you thought the acting was 'meh' at best in BD. Or, that's how it sounded in my mind when I read the comment.

[Mary Jane Watson]

I remember that after I watched IM2, I did feel that movie is missing something. It is like that movie isnt complete yet. Everything is just meh at best. IMO.
That movie is something you will forget easily when after you walked out the movie theater.
Unlike IM, I can remember that movie way better.

[Secret_Riddle]

http://cinematicriddles.com/2011/05/19/review-iron-man-2/

I posted a very late review on my blog, but then again..it also allowed me to cut through a lot of the initial hype.

I feel Iron Man 2 is equal to its predecessor..and in a lot of way's that's the problem. People are used to sequels either being a step ahead, or behind the original.

[kedrell]

Thanks, it's a good read.

[Lord]

Superhero sequels being inferior to the originals is quite common actually. Supes 2, TDK, Batman Returns, HellBoy 2, Blade 2, etc. all have that in common with IM2. And the few that did improve(X2, Spidey 2) did so because the 1st was frankly easy to top, not because they themselves were stellar in any way. All IMO, of course. In fact sequels of any kind being superior to the originals is still extremely rare. I can't even think of one offhand but I'm sure they exist.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
And later when you said Aliens and Terminator 2 weren't as good as the original ones then my only reaction was :doh:
I think you're one of those people who think no sequel is ever better than the original.
I don't want to ofend you but half of those sequels were better, in least TDK, Aliens, Terminator 2, Aliens and Blade II were, the others were good sequels but not exactly better.
For Iron Man 2 i think that the quality is almost the same as in the first film, with the first one nobody was expecting anything extraordinary while with Iron Man 2 everybody was. IM 2 definitelly lost its track but the aditions of Black Widow and War Machine improved it a litle bit, the problem was, the characters and storylines improved the film for the best, but the use of all of them made the film had too many storylines and the writers weren't able to handle all of that.

[kedrell]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
And later when you said Aliens and Terminator 2 weren't as good as the original ones then my only reaction was :doh:
I think you're one of those people who think no sequel is ever better than the original.
I don't want to ofend you but half of those sequels were better, in least TDK, Aliens, Terminator 2, Aliens and Blade II were, the others were good sequels but not exactly better.
For Iron Man 2 i think that the quality is almost the same as in the first film, with the first one nobody was expecting anything extraordinary while with Iron Man 2 everybody was. IM 2 definitelly lost its track but the aditions of Black Widow and War Machine improved it a litle bit, the problem was, the characters and storylines improved the film for the best, but the use of all of them made the film had too many storylines and the writers weren't able to handle all of that.

Well all is opinion, of course. But I've talked to loads of people who like the originals to those sequels better than the sequels themselves. Usually it comes from people who favor a better and more original story over better action/SFX. Not that I think any of those sequels suck(well, TDK does IMO but that's another ball o'wax) but that they just weren't as good or crisp as the originals. But they were worthy efforts that deserved to get made.

[Parker Wayne]

Everytime I see Kedrell mentioning that TDK is a crappy sequel I die a little inside. :csad::oldrazz:

[kedrell]

Sorry but I won't drink the kool-aide and turn a blind eye to something that I'm expected to call every other movie on when they try to get away with it. I don't do double standards. I do hold out hope that the next Nolan Batman film will return to the general excellence of the first movie. In that movie the only real problem was Katie Holmes and the aweful character she played. Other than that the film was all aces.

[Parker Wayne]

That last post of mine was called a joke. :oldrazz:

[kedrell]

Oh, ok. Hard to tell sometimes. Many Nolanites get real butthurt when anyone dares criticize Saint Nolan.

[weezerspider]

Rewatched IM2 tonight for the first time since I saw it in theaters(I saw it 4 times in theaters, so never really had the desire to pop the movie in the blu ray player until now) and I have to say that IM2 was much better then I remember. I honestly think that a longer cut(which Favs claims there is one) could be just as good as the first one. It was a tad rushed, but for the most part, it was good. Also, I never got all the complaining about the SHIELD storyline. SLJ did a great job, it set up the Avengers well, it fit well in the plot about Tony saving himself AND it didn't even take up much screen time.

[Phantom_Kali]

Actually, I was pretty happy with IM2. My biggest issue with it was the fight between Tony and Rhodey. I thought that Rhodey's behavior was very inappropriate.

Other than that, the Iron Man movies reminded me of the Keith Giffen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Giffen) and J. M. DeMatteis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._M._DeMatteis) Justice League International because of the great humor in it.

The first Iron Man movie would be my favorite comic book movie of all time, even though the villain is pretty one dimensional.

[Sun_Down]

Finally got around to watching this and my main takeaway: Ick.

I had heard that it was worse than the first, but I wasn't expecting it to be this bad. I mean, it was borderline Wolverine bad.

It was like at every point where the movie could have been really cool, they consciously chose to go goofy instead of serious. Tony's going to get out of control with his drinking? Have him scratching records and blowing up watermelons in the suit. Tony and Rhodey are gonna fight? Have a corny 90's rap song playing in the background (although I did like the "war machine" line). Fury tracks Tony down and Natasha reveals herself? Have it take place in a donut shop.

The final fight scene was a definite improvement from the climax of IM1, I'll give them that. Watching Tony and Rhodey fighting back to back was pretty cool. But it was hard to suspend my disbelief when Tony was flying around with Hammer's drones on his back, and he kept flying within feet of all those civilians. And you could tell Favreau got a little CGI drunk and just couldn't help blowing up endless cars and buildings.

I'll take it as a necessary step towards The Avengers, but I have my doubts about whether Marvel can take that movie seriously after seeing this debacle.

[Superman Prime]

Why is every poll I go to closed? WTH? Leave it open for newcomers, this isn't a presidential election.

Anyway, 6.

[glorynation]

I've seen it once and I will never watch it again

[NinjaCarm]

I have to say that I find Iron Man 2 to be very entertaining, moreso than the first.

I don't know what it gets the hate it does, in fact it boggles my mind.

I like watching it every so often.

[Fudgie]

It's probably cos the story is weaker. The movie is just one big set up for the Avengers. Whiplash was a weak baddie compared to Stane. Rhodey was annoying and Howard was better than Cheadle.

[fangz]

@Fudgie - i've seen a lot of people say that about 'one big set up for the Avengers'. what specifically?

i didn't think it was very good, didn't have a clear direction and fell apart after Monaco, i think. but i wouldn't describe the faults as resulting from being a set up for the Avengers. i'm interested to hear what people mean by this.

i think the Avengers might have had something to do with it not being that great, but only becuz of the time table Marvel was forcing them to meet.

[Marx]

I just recently saw this for the first time. I enjoyed it.

[Kevin Roegele]

The essential problem of Iron Man 2 is that it's a potboiler. It's just filler between the first Iron Man movie and The Avengers. Very professional, entertaining, but definetly filler. Nothing of any real significance happens, and none of the main characters are any different by the end of the movie.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Agreed, I also find that everyone in the movie makes Tony look like an idiot, and that makes Tony a not as interesting character, he is supposed to be a genius and yet regular people are making him look like an idiot.

[samsnee]

Well, RDJ didn't like it:

http://io9.com/5848295/robert-downey-jr-finally-admits-that-iron-man-2-sucked

[Fudgie]

Well, RDJ didn't like it:

http://io9.com/5848295/robert-downey-jr-finally-admits-that-iron-man-2-sucked

Good on him for admitting that.

[scatterax]

He's not gonna be the next shia is he? (saying how awesome a movie is before it's released, but then how much he hates it when the fans do?)

[Marvel]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118044247/

Don't buy the hater spin on any other commentary, fake article. RDJ is proud of Iron Man and Iron Man 2 and rightfully so. Both films were the best of each summer that they were released and he fully admits that Tony Stark is one of his favorite characters he's ever played in every other interview he has done. The above article mentions how much he enjoyed doing Kiss Kiss Bang Bang with Shane Black and looks forward to delivering ANOTHER great Iron Man film that will make him a PERFECT three for three with the character.

Nuff said.

[Fudgie]

So that other article is a fake?

[jonathancrane]

I just watched Iron Man 2, and have to say, I really enjoyed it. I am confused as to where all of the hate is coming from. Sure, Hammer was not a threatening villain (the camp was overdone,) but, overall, it is a satisfying film. My only pet peeve is that someone should have stood up to Rourke and said no about the bird. His artistic decisions are recycled cliches: I kept expecting him to appear in the next scene with a peg leg.

Overall, I think the film will hold up when I return to it, along with the rest of the other MCU films for the independent study I am doing on them this semester. Being able to examine the films through a political and historical lens is going to be fun.

[BigThor]

Iron Man 2 is severely underrated, I'm too late to vote in the poll but I'd give it a solid 8.

[rashad]

He doesn't hate it. RDJ said there were certain aspects that were dissatisfying and disappointing to him about IM2. And I think it's a fair assessment imo.

Downey also admits that, despite the box office success of Iron Man 2, there are elements of the final film that he's not entirely satisfied with. The aim for the third go-round is to "leave it all on the field" and fall back on the natural rapport between Black and himself.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/168235-robert-downey-jr-talks-iron-man-3

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I dont care what anyone says, there were some glaring flaws in IM2 and this makes a less satisfying, entertaining, and re-watchable movie than the first one. It should have been a rival to the likes of TDK, Spiderman 2, Hellboy II and X2 as far as super-hero sequels go, its no were near any of them. The movie doesnt stand up to re-watch at all, I watched both movies again recently and was bored during most of the 2nd half of IM2, the first half is excellent, the rest just isnt.

[El Payaso]

I dont care what anyone says, there were some glaring flaws in IM2 and this makes a less satisfying, entertaining, and re-watchable movie than the first one. It should have been a rival to the likes of TDK, Spiderman 2, Hellboy II and X2 as far as super-hero sequels go, its no were near any of them. The movie doesnt stand up to re-watch at all, I watched both movies again recently and was bored during most of the 2nd half of IM2, the first half is excellent, the rest just isnt.

I agree. I have at least two ways to assess a movie. If I like it when I am watching it, and then what happens afterwards. As I was watching it, IM2 felt dissapointing but not bad. But never again did I felt like watching it. I saw most of it yesterday on cable and it felt better than I remembered, but then again, it wasn't something that calls me to watch again.

[Fudgie]

He doesn't hate it. RDJ said there were certain aspects that were dissatisfying and disappointing to him about IM2. And I think it's a fair assessment imo.

Mickey Rourke is the one who bad mouthed Iron Man 2. RDJ is more diplomatic.

[BigThor]

I dont care what anyone says, there were some glaring flaws in IM2 and this makes a less satisfying, entertaining, and re-watchable movie than the first one. It should have been a rival to the likes of TDK, Spiderman 2, Hellboy II and X2 as far as super-hero sequels go, its no were near any of them. The movie doesnt stand up to re-watch at all, I watched both movies again recently and was bored during most of the 2nd half of IM2, the first half is excellent, the rest just isnt.

Yeah that depends on the individual because I've watched Iron Man 2 about 12 times and I enjoy it everytime.

I agree that it's definately not as good as Iron Man 1 but it's nowhere near the "travesty" that so many comic book fans make it out to be.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I agree. I have at least two ways to assess a movie. If I like it when I am watching it, and then what happens afterwards. As I was watching it, IM2 felt dissapointing but not bad. But never again did I felt like watching it. I saw most of it yesterday on cable and it felt better than I remembered, but then again, it wasn't something that calls me to watch again.

Well yeah that another thing, the movie is very forgettable, if the 2nd half would have been as good as the first half, I dont think that would happen. But I just forget the movie as soon as I have watched it.

Yeah that depends on the individual because I've watched Iron Man 2 about 12 times and I enjoy it everytime.

I agree that it's definately not as good as Iron Man 1 but it's nowhere near the "travesty" that so many comic book fans make it out to be.

Its by no means a travesty, its not FF, X3, Elektra levels or anywere near, but its very dissapointing compared to the first.

[Leenie]

So I recently watched Iron Man 2 because I wanted to watch all of the Avengers movies before THE Avengers movie.

I still can't see how this film gets so much hate. And I still can't see how people thought SHIELD played too much of a role. I thought it was a necessary step to take. Plus, I think the movie is a lot of fun! I enjoy the hell out of it every time I watch it. Sure, it's not as good as Iron Man 1, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

[Fudgie]

Iron Man 2 felt like a prelude to the Avengers. Too much Shield in it.

[scatterax]

Iron Man 2 felt like a prelude to the Avengers. Too much Shield in it.

not. a bad. thing.


I mean did you see the avengers?

[spideymouse]

not. a bad. thing.


I mean did you see the avengers?

I mean did you see Iron Man 2? The involvement of SHIELD, Nick Fury, and Black Widow may very well have ultimately helped The Avengers' box office, but Iron Man 2 itself (and people's opinions of it) suffered for it. Instead of the 9 or 10 that it could have been, it was probably more of a 7 or 8 for me (I still enjoyed it). Even as a prelude to The Avengers, you want a movie to keep its focus on its principal characters/plotlines and strike a proper balance between the main narrative and what should be fun crossover easter eggs and cameos. I think the rest of the Phase I movies did this well.

For the next three solo sequels, we will see if MS learns from IM2's flaws and is able to strike that better balance. It'll be interesting to see how the events of The Avengers will affect that balance.

[The Strategos]

The action scenes didn't feel right in this movie - kinda slack and lacking in any real verve.

[Squaremaster316]

There was a ton of films that came out in Summer 2012 that absolutely crushed IM2 in quality.

Inception, Toy Story 3, Winter's Bone, Karate Kid, Cyrus, The Kids are All Right, Despicable Me, Scott Pilgrim and a ton of others that Summer were viewed as superior quality productions.

Stating that it isn't as bad as the godawful Summer starter from the previous year (Wolverine) is one thing, but no one with a shred of credibility can call it the "best film" of its respective summer.

[the last son]

Just saw this movie for the second time. I have to say I enjoyed it this time. I remember just saying how awful the action is and for the most part it is. Just a lot of running and flying away for the most part. I also didn't like Howard being replaced but this time around I liked Cheadle a lot. He seemed more like a soldier to me than howard. Him and Downey had decent chemistry as well. The relationship between Potts and Stark I thought was kind of meh. All she did was complain to him the whole movie. But overall I give it 3.5/5. Good movie.

[kedrell]

Still my favorite film of 2010. Every time I see it I enjoy it more for how it tosses usual BS superhero movie conventions out the window. I wish more could do that.

8.5/10

[rashad]

Still my favorite film of 2010. Every time I see it I enjoy it more for how it tosses usual BS superhero movie conventions out the window. I wish more could do that.

8.5/10

Like?

[kedrell]

Like?

Like the notion that in the 2nd film the hero needs to have a subplot revolving around wanting to give up the hero biz so he can be with the woman he loves. Supes2, Batman Forever, Spidey2, TDK all did that junk. I was so glad that was not in this movie.

[RockSP]

Like the notion that in the 2nd film the hero needs to have a subplot revolving around wanting to give up the hero biz so he can be with the woman he loves. Supes2, Batman Forever, Spidey2, TDK all did that junk. I was so glad that was not in this movie.

Batman Returns was the 2nd film. Did he want to give up being Bats in that flick? Been so long I don't remember much about it (other than I really didn't like it that much).

[kedrell]

Yes, I know BR was the 2nd film but in that case it did show up in the very next film after that. And BR had enough problems even without that idea tossed in there.

[rashad]

Like the notion that in the 2nd film the hero needs to have a subplot revolving around wanting to give up the hero biz so he can be with the woman he loves.

When you reveal your identity to the entire world in the first film you kind of lose that privilege.

[kedrell]

Again, it's subverting conventions. The whole franchise is doing it.

[Gotham's Knight]

6.7/10

Not great, definitely a far step down from the original (which I would call the only great movie from Marvel Studios so far) but not bad.

[GremlinZilla89]

I've always felt Iron Man 2 gets a confusingly harsh rap.

For one thing, people go on an on about it having too much Avengers set up. WHAT? There are two minor scenes that are directly referencing SHIELD and the Avengers. The diner scene and the end of the film. The rest of Nick Fury's screen time is there to give exposition about Howard Stark and his history with Whiplash and his father. And Black Window contributes to the plot of the film and has a nice character moment with Tony. Hardly just them "setting up the Avengers". One of the most overblown criticisms of the recent comic book films I've ever seen.

I will agree this films narrative isn't as focused as the first, but as character study of Tony, it's JUST AS STRONG as the first. The humor is dead on, the performance are dead on and the action is better executed on all fronts (aside from the infamously short Whiplash fight in the finale) especially the end battle with the drones.

One of the most underrated superhero movies ever.