It's nowhere near being bad. I think the initial backlash was because it didn't live up to the first movie and with the cast involved, it didn't really live up to the potential.
Still a decent movie though.
yea your right. It just a notch under Ironman. I was expecting Ironman in IM2 to fight like the Ironman spot in the Avengers Trailer 2. What we got was just Ironman displaying his ablities. None of IM's battles where choreographed well. It was more like lets show IM fly. Lets show War Machine shoot alot. Let show IM shot some lazers out of his hands. There was no complex choreography behind it.
Iron Man 2 is very underrated in my opinion, because contrary to popular belief around here it's actually a good film.
I didn't hate Iron man 2. I thought it was a good extension of Tony Stark's story. I DO think the villain(s) could have been utilized a bit better, But I liked Hammer more than I did Vanko.
I had heard that the original ideas for this film were scrapped/revised in order for Marvel Studios to infuse more of the Avengers Initiative into the storyline. But I can't recall where I heard about that. I can't seem to find any evidence of this online, other than the cast and crew were ultimately unhappy with the final outcome. Does anyone know of any of the previous ideas that were tossed around?
So what we got was always what was intended?
not true at all
Maybe its not but it sure did feel like it. The Shield segments didn't fell like they were integrated into the main story. It felt like the shield portion was added after the fact and it had the effect of completely derailing the main story arc. I mean look at Thor the shield presence was integrated into the story and it didn't have a negative effect on the over all enjoyment of the film.
Iron Man 2 is very underrated in my opinion, because contrary to popular belief around here it's actually a good film.