Iron Man vs Iron Man 2

[Catman]

Let's make it official. Which was the better movie?

[VenomVsSpidey]

Iron Man 2 wins for me. Although not by much.

IM - 8.5/10
IM2 - 9/10

I'll explain why in the R&R thread

[TNC9852002]

Well, I've seen Iron Man 1 like, 10 times--and haven't seen it in like 6 months.

I JUST saw Iron Man 2....literally. It's hard for me to say right now. All I can say is that as a sequel, IM2 DELIVERED.

[Catman]

Originally Posted by venomvsspidey

IM - 8.5/10
IM2 - 9/10

That extra .5 better be for Justin Hammer's dancing!

[Boom]

Honestly I preferred the first movie by a large margin. Iron Man 2 was entertaining, but it got really slow for me in the middle.

[VenomVsSpidey]

Originally Posted by Catman

That extra .5 better be for Justin Hammer's dancing!

C--C-C-can I just see what you're writing?

/pwn'd

[FaT_tONle]

As a film, I give IM and 8 and IM2 a 7.5. As a CB movie I thought IM2 was a 8.5 and IM was around 8.

[Bruce Malone]

I would have to say 1. Like i said in another thread they put the emphasis too much on rdj almost too much of a good thing. Hes great and all but the other characters had little development.

[Maximum Carnage]

2. Hands down.

[Catman]

Originally Posted by FaT_tONle

As a film, I give IM and 8 and IM2 a 7.5. As a CB movie I thought IM2 was a 8.5 and IM was around 8.

I see what you did there. And, yes, Iron Man 2 is definitely the more comic book-y of the two movies. The scene where Tony Stark (in the Iron Man suit), Nick Fury, and Black Widow (in costume) are sitting at a DONUT STORE made me laugh. In this day and age of films like The Dark Knight it was great to see something so - silly - in a superhero movie.

[jacobed]

That's a tough call. I'd have to say one because everything but the action was perfect and let's face that movie had little action. The second one had way better action but it gets real slow in the middle and frankly this time I really didn't care about any of the characters except for Justin Hammer poor guy just wants to be like Stark once but he can never achieve that status I felt bad for him. I'd say both are very good movies but 1 is just a little bit better.

[TNC9852002]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

I would have to say 1. Like i said in another thread they put the emphasis too much on rdj almost too much of a good thing. Hes great and all but the other characters had little development.

WTF? How dare the main character have the emphasis!

[Leenie]

I have to say that I prefer Iron Man 1.

I still enjoyed the HECK out of Iron Man 2 though. As a sequel, I'm very, very pleased.

[Bruce Malone]

Originally Posted by TNC9852002

WTF? How dare the main character have the emphasis!

Did i say anything about not having stark as the main? but we can't have secondary characters with some development? what was black widow there for? even whiplash there was so much potential.

I don't wanna rag on the film cuz i did enjoy it but i felt the 1st movie had the better balance between focusing on stark and the other characters. Like i said you can have too much of a good thing.

[Catman]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

what was black widow there for?

To set-up The Avengers.

[Catman]

Oh, and to be eye-candy.

[Drizzle]

It's really close for me, but I feel like "Iron Man 2" is the more entertaining film.

[TNC9852002]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

Did i say anything about not having stark as the main? but we can't have secondary characters with some development? what was black widow there for? even whiplash there was so much potential.

I don't wanna rag on the film cuz i did enjoy it but i felt the 1st movie had the better balance between focusing on stark and the other characters. Like i said you can have too much of a good thing.

I'm sorry, but look at the film as a WHOLE. Those people were minor characters. They had their roles to play and I think they were great.

[Catman]

Originally Posted by TNC9852002

Those people were minor characters.

Whiplash is a minor character?

[Bruce Malone]

Originally Posted by TNC9852002

I'm sorry, but look at the film as a WHOLE. Those people were minor characters. They had their roles to play and I think they were great.

excuse me? minor chracters? black widow maybe but whiplash?! would you call the joker a minor character in tdk? Movies like these so often rest on the villains and i thought whiplash was great for the like twenty minutes they gave him. They built up obediah so much more in the 1st and he was not nearly as interesting.

All in all i liked the 1st one better but still enjoyed the 2nd and i'll leave it at that.

[Catman]

They treated Whiplash like a henchman. Justin Hammer was the real villain.

[Eraserhead]

Iron Man (2008) was a better film in almost every way. This one was still quite entertaining though.

[Gracen1]

iron man 2. the opening at the senate hearing was better than the beginning of the last movie easily. it just got better from there on out. favreau was able to introduce all these new characters and make it work flawlessly. 5 stars for me. the action was far superior. RDJ was born to play tony stark.

[LegendaryCaleb]

first movie 7.5/10
second movie 8/10
so second for me

[drmick]

I've been getting abuse in the rate/review thread for daring to crticise those that felt the sequel was better than the first.

I have to admit that given the amount of 10/10s being given in that thread I fully expect Iron Man 2 to win this poll. The best chance of getting an accurate result will be in a few months time when the dust settles, and the hyper-excitable dudes move on to the next hot forum.