Iron Man 2 OFFICIAL: Rate & Review Iron Man 2

[TheVileOne]

I got a few more,one of them is if Hammer is basically played for the lolz?

Spoiler

For the most part, yes. But he's also pitiful in a way. You almost want to feel sorry for him because he's in Stark's shadow and he's like the nerd that gets picked on by the smarter kids. He's got a bit of a Napoleon complex as well.

Is Stark being drunk as Ironman any good,like in a funny or serious type of way?

Spoiler

I think it was good because it was him being drunk and pathetic. It was funny and sort of sad and pathetic and disappointing at the same time.

During the racetrack fight,doe's Ironman in the brief case suit get completely owned by Whiplash?

Spoiler

It's a good fight. Tony uses some good strategy. Whiplash tears into him but Tony ultimately wins the fight. It's cool. It sort of reminded me of the burning building fight in Spider-man with Goblin and Spidey except without Spidey running away.

What are the easter eggs that are in the movie that we aren't aware about?

Spoiler

-SHIELD Agent Coulson is in the movie and talks about being re-assigned to Mexico, which Stark calls the land of mystery and enchantment.

-a scene with Fury and Stark where Stark is evaluated for a certain initiative. I don't want to give away the conclusion of the scene.

-There's home video footage of Howard Stark that Tony watches. Young like 4 year old Tony is in some of the footage. Howard sends him away and asks for his mother and yells out, "MARIA," since the name of Tony's mother is Maria in the comics.

-The Cap shield is still in Stark's workshop. I won't say what happens there.

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

Spoiler tags for safety so read at your own risk. These aren't heavy spoilers, I'm just answering them for safety.

Spoiler

Whiplash is good. He has some more lines than that with Stark and Hammer. He has a lot of personality but it's very subtle. It's not Mickey Rourke chewing scenery like Nick Nolte which I am quite thankful for. He's pretty reserved, but his seething anger when he attacks Stark is great.

Regarding the action. The amount of action sequences are about the same. But it is more ramped up. SAAD, I'd say the whole final battle is around that long if you take into account the start of it until the very end. Keep in mind there are multiple parts to the battle.

All I wanna know is whether or not Toney gets to take SOMEONE down this time around.

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

Spoiler tags for safety so read at your own risk. These aren't heavy spoilers, I'm just answering them for safety.

Spoiler

Whiplash is good. He has some more lines than that with Stark and Hammer. He has a lot of personality but it's very subtle. It's not Mickey Rourke chewing scenery like Nick Nolte which I am quite thankful for. He's pretty reserved, but his seething anger when he attacks Stark is great.

Regarding the action. The amount of action sequences are about the same. But it is more ramped up. SAAD, I'd say the whole final battle is around that long if you take into account the start of it until the very end. Keep in mind there are multiple parts to the battle.

All I wanna know is whether or not Toney gets to take SOMEONE down this time around.

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

Spoiler tags for safety so read at your own risk. These aren't heavy spoilers, I'm just answering them for safety.

Spoiler

Whiplash is good. He has some more lines than that with Stark and Hammer. He has a lot of personality but it's very subtle. It's not Mickey Rourke chewing scenery like Nick Nolte which I am quite thankful for. He's pretty reserved, but his seething anger when he attacks Stark is great.

Regarding the action. The amount of action sequences are about the same. But it is more ramped up. SAAD, I'd say the whole final battle is around that long if you take into account the start of it until the very end. Keep in mind there are multiple parts to the battle.

All I wanna know is whether or not Toney gets to take SOMEONE down this time around.

 

[Figs]

Spoiler

-SHIELD Agent Coulson is in the movie and talks about being re-assigned to Mexico, which Stark calls the land of mystery and enchantment.

I can't for the life of me think what this one alludes to.

 

[TheVileOne]

TheDarkKnight08:

Spoiler

Yes.

 

[TheVileOne]

http://www.411mania.com/movies/film_reviews/137254/Iron-Man-2-Review.htm

Link to my official review

 

[Carlo Comicus]

I've seen the movie last night at press premiere. Not bad.

VOTE: 7

Viva la coerenza. Da quel che mi hanno detto su bt ne parlavi alquanto male.
Non ti smentisci mai.

 

[drax]

I have just seen the movie this morning, I don't want to be rude but it was:



AMAZING !!!!!


It really, really, really good, I put this movie in the same level that the first, no, I find that better.

I think that John Favreau have done a fantastic job with the relation between the characters, and the action sequences are wonderful...it's, really amazing.

I don't understand the critics about this movie (and to be honest, I don't really care), but maybe they don't understand, unlike us comicbook fans, all the interactions between the characters and the next step of their futur.

It was really amazing, very well done, it's really a torture to wait the next years for Captain America, Thor, 2012 for the Avengers and Iron Man 3.

Really amazing 10/10.

 

[I_am_iron_man]

Viva la coerenza. Da quel che mi hanno detto su bt ne parlavi alquanto male.
Non ti smentisci mai.

Non vuol dire che sia un film (personalmente) da 5 o 6. Sinceramente è leggermente meglio del primo film ma non migliore. Il finale è deludente ed è quello che più mi ha deluso. E' un buon film, non un capolavoro.

EDIT:
Aggiungo qualcosina perchè mi sembrava poca l'argomentazione

Intendevo dire che dire che non mi aspettavo qualcosina in più, è una bugia. Mi aspettavo un film ai livelli di uno Spider-Man 2 (che reputo un film, in votazione, da 8.5) o, perchè no, ambire alla perfezione de Il Cavaliere Oscuro. Invece è un filmetto d'intrattenimento, tutto qui, che di tanto in tanto cerca di far qualcosa in più ma poi muore tutto lì.

Il finale, poi, delude un pò (a me personalmente) ed infatti, sin dall'inizio, ho detto che il film mi è piaciuto per 3/4. Per il resto è un film godibile e guardabile (in america l'hanno definito unwatchable e non so perchè, c'è di peggio). E' un film che il suo 7 se lo merita tutto (ovvero un voto discreto) e che è leggermente migliore del primo episodio ma non di troppo.

Poi oggi esce la mia recensione su BT e leggerai meglio che comunque il mio discorso fila. Non ne ho mai parlato malissimo dicendo è un film orribile o cose del genere, ho solo detto che mi è piaciuto per 3/4 (appunto fino a prima del finale inguardabile a mio parere).

P.s. Comunque, nonostante tutto, ti ammiro per ciò che fai su comicus (che non è paragonabile nemmeno lontanamente a quel che faccio io per BT) ed è per questo che spesso e volentieri inserisco gli stralci delle tue interviste nelle news (tranne quella ultima di Kick-Ass che non era interessante per il nostro sito ).

Ciao

 

[Doctor Florence]

Uhuhhu altri italiani come me! Ragazzi se l'avete visto mi togliete questo dubbio? L'armatura Mark II che viene rubata torna al proprio posto o viene trasformata in War Machine?

 

[Juggernaut33]

Hi everybody! Just got back from a screening of Iron Man 2 (the movie opened today in France) and I gotta say that I was kind of aprenhensive about the sequel. You see, I didn't like the first Iron Man all that much. I mean yeah I thought it was entertaining and all and Robert Downey Jr. was just pefect casting as Tony Stark but other than that, it just felt a little bland to me. The plot was kinda thin so were the supporting characters and the third act felt kinda rushed. Overall, I thought the first one established the tone but other than that, it was kinda bare-bone for me. And well critics (most of 'em at least) all agreed that Iron Man 2 was not as good as the first one so I was kinda shocked because judging by the trailers and all it just felt like they'd improved upon the first one: the storyline seemed more compelling, the supporting characters seemed to have been fleshed out, the action looked a 100 times better and the villain looked promising (how can you go wrong with Mickey Rourke!). Well I'm happy to say that I absolutely 150% DO NOT agree with the critics. The second one is far better than the first. I think most critics enjoyed the fact that Iron Man (the first one) was sort of...how sould I put this...light...y'know like not too complex, just plain straightfoward and that's not Iron Man 2. I think they just took the first Iron Man and improved upon it, it's more complex, fun and entertaining. If you loved Iron Man 2, you're gonna dig Iron Man 2 at the very least.

By the way, about the final post-credit sequence

Spoiler

Agent Coulson mentions to Tony Stark at some point in the film that he has to drive up to New Mexico. In the post-credit sequence, we see him arrive there, he gets out of the car and stands on the edge of a cliff. Looking down we see a giant hole in the ground and what looks like scientists all around it. Coulson grabs his cellphone and says: "Sir, we found it". And then...a shot of the hammer. It lasted for like maybe hlaf a second but it looked just like the one in the comics but the iron felt more sort of...layered...I don't if that makes sense to you but it looked somewhat a bit more technological. Anyway. Fan are gonna love it!

 

[insider1970]

I quite enjoyed Iron Man but it was the kind of film that was begging to be followed by a more enjoyable sequel. So it worries me that even people who liked IM2 often say it wasn't as good as the first. The stage was set so nicely.

Well, I actually watched the film yesterday in a preview screening (I live in Athens, Greece, the film is officially out on this Thursday here), and I had the same impression after the film finished, I was told by some fans that they liked the first film more. But you know what? I think it's not the overall quality of the film that's less worthy than the first one, in my opinion it's the fact that the element of surprise and novelty is not there any more. We have seen all that before. But that's just my opinion.

Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. I rate it an 8 (the same as the first one) and I liked very much the character of Mickey Rourke. All the other cast seemed pretty average to me, even Robert Downey Jr. whom I love. Maybe it was the script's fault I don't know. And Johannson matched Paltrow in coldness I was somewhat disappointed by her character. But maybe I had too much expectations

 

[Ajendo]

Hi everybody! Just got back from a screening of Iron Man 2 (the movie opened today in France) and I gotta say that I was kind of aprenhensive about the sequel. You see, I didn't like the first Iron Man all that much. I mean yeah I thought it was entertaining and all and Robert Downey Jr. was just pefect casting as Tony Stark but other than that, it just felt a little bland to me. The plot was kinda thin so were the supporting characters and the third act felt kinda rushed. Overall, I thought the first one established the tone but other than that, it was kinda bare-bone for me. And well critics (most of 'em at least) all agreed that Iron Man 2 was not as good as the first one so I was kinda shocked because judging by the trailers and all it just felt like they'd improved upon the first one: the storyline seemed more compelling, the supporting characters seemed to have been fleshed out, the action looked a 100 times better and the villain looked promising (how can you go wrong with Mickey Rourke!). Well I'm happy to say that I absolutely 150% DO NOT agree with the critics. The second one is far better than the first. I think most critics enjoyed the fact that Iron Man (the first one) was sort of...how sould I put this...light...y'know like not too complex, just plain straightfoward and that's not Iron Man 2. I think they just took the first Iron Man and improved upon it, it's more complex, fun and entertaining. If you loved Iron Man 2, you're gonna dig Iron Man 2 at the very least.

Giggidy giggidy!

By the way, about the final post-credit sequence

Spoiler

Agent Coulson mentions to Tony Stark at some point in the film that he has to drive up to New Mexico. In the post-credit sequence, we see him arrive there, he gets out of the car and stands on the edge of a cliff. Looking down we see a giant hole in the ground and what looks like scientists all around it. Coulson grabs his cellphone and says: "Sir, we found it". And then...a shot of the hammer. It lasted for like maybe hlaf a second but it looked just like the one in the comics but the iron felt more sort of...layered...I don't if that makes sense to you but it looked somewhat a bit more technological. Anyway. Fan are gonna love it!

Alright!!

 

[echostation]

Yeah juggernaut... I figured that people who loved the same movie would at least dig it right?? lolz....

 

[SurfDUI]

Damn, I want to give it a 9 and I won't see it for another 10 days.

 

[WarBlade]

Iron Man 2... It was pretty good. t:

Oddly enough it tended to succeed in areas where the 1st instalment failed, and yet wound up with weak points where the other did quite well.

First the bad: This is a comicbook adaptation and the source material is full of action. I felt that the pacing was just a little off in that for a comicbook movie of this length it was short about one action scene. Either that or just a bit too long in the second act, one of the two.

Now the good... t:

A comicbook reference:

Spoiler

The 'suit killing him' subplot that was going on with the Silver Centurion armour back in the day has had a rework. Personally, I liked the way this was injected, although I can imagine a few purists out there might complain.

The suit-ups at Monaco:

Spoiler

Niiiice. The trailer shows a little, but the switch to battle mode for both Vanko and Stark is loads better in the full movie.

The finale:

Spoiler

Epic. Where the original had a little bit of good rough and tumble, before shooting off into the sky and getting progressively weaker, the sequel finds a start point and builds... and builds... and ultimately rounds off much better than its predecessor did. Fans and casual audiences alike should enjoy it.

There is no point in saying anything about the epilogue teaser scene at this point. I see the cat is out of the bag on the content, but in case anyone missed it the scene is at the very end of the credits, so stay to watch if you want to see

Spoiler

Mjolnir.

I thought it was a decidedly average addition personally, but each to their own.

Thumbs up for the movie.

Go see it.

 

[Shivsguy616]

Damn, I want to give it a 9 and I won't see it for another 10 days.

Why would you want to give it anything before you see it?

 

[Khemik@L]

I HAVE TO WAIT ANOTHER WEEK!!! The suspence is KILLING ME!!

Your lucky. Where I live I may not see this for another 3 weeks to a month

 

[hatebox]

Well, I actually watched the film yesterday in a preview screening (I live in Athens, Greece, the film is officially out on this Thursday here), and I had the same impression after the film finished, I was told by some fans that they liked the first film more. But you know what? I think it's not the overall quality of the film that's less worthy than the first one, in my opinion it's the fact that the element of surprise and novelty is not there any more. We have seen all that before. But that's just my opinion.

I'm sure expectations played a part, I suppose I'm just disappointed that Favreau and Marvel apparently didn't forsee the obvious anticipation and make something that was obviously leagues above its predecessor, to the point where it was undeniable. The first film was a lot of fun but it wasn't a masterpiece, there were plenty of ways it could have been improved on.

But again, i'll find out tomorrow.

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

TheDarkKnight08:

Spoiler

Yes.

Spoiler

Whiplash or Hammer?

 

[Mauser9910]

Yeah well, I voted 9 (would rank the first film the same) although maybe it's more towards 8,5...
The film was good, the action delivered big time, the French adaptation made a lot of dialogues a bit awkward but in general, Theroux wrote an excellent script and the actors were on par.
And yeah, it REALLY makes you want to jump into a time-travelling thingie to see Thor & Cap & The Avengers right away.

 

[SurfDUI]

Why would you want to give it anything before you see it?

Cause!! I'm stuck with it either way.
And if its Superman IV bad it won't get no less than a 6,7.
'U.S. Americans' are Bout it, Bout it. Didn't u know?

 

[Shivsguy616]

Cause!! I'm stuck with it either way.
And if its Superman IV bad it won't get no less than a 6,7.
'U.S. Americans' are Bout it, Bout it. Didn't u know?

Irony? Or did you think all of that made sense?

 

[matrix_ghost]

7/10 for me.

Okay movie but doesn't exactly break new ground in terms of character development.

Edit :
Ironically the best scene of the movie ( IMO) is the fight between Iron Man and Rhodey in their suits. The use of music ( i caught Daft Punk and Queen's another one bites the dust) was excellent