Iron Man 2 OFFICIAL: Rate & Review Iron Man 2

[Mr. Earle]

And don't get me started on that Thor after credits scene, the crowd went nuts.

What crowd? Who sits and watches the credits? I had to talk my friends into waiting and it was just us and a few other dudes left in the theatre waiting for the ****ing hammer.

Whose idea was it to put scenes after the credits as if the audience would know, or even care to wait? I am pretty sure that 80% of the audience was seeing Fury for the first time in IM2.

 

[Nathan]

In my theater enough people stayed for the after credits scene. They were cheering and clapping after only seeing the Hammer for a fraction of a second.

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

I wish people would stop comparing every f-ing comic film to TDK get over it already, it wasn't that good

....seems good enough to everyone else (tons....TONS...including people leaving the theater last night saying "The Dark Knight was easily better") to where its always being compared...cause it is...infact...That Good.

 

[TheFuture]

A second viewing dropped my rating from 6.5 to 5. Ultimately, the film begins as being at something but doesn't end up being about nothing at all. Technically, Tony regressed as a character by the end of this film. He's basically back to where he was at the beginning of the first film...which isn't a good thing.

I don't see how you can think that. The roles are fully reversed; we start with the after credits scene in IM1 where Fury wants Tony for the Avengers, to the end of IM2 where it's Tony who wants in but is ultimately rejected. I think Tony's "You can't afford me line" was just a facade to hide his disappointment and in truth, Tony has recognised that he can't do everything on his own. His ego is brought down a notch by the end of the film IMO, so yes, the character of Tony is evolving rather than regressing.

The whole middle section of the film got worse when I thought of this little nugget; why didn't Vanko tell Hammer about the problem with the palladium in Tony's chest RT? With that information, Hammer and Vanko could've easily gone after Tony in the middle of the film (a second act action sequence that really tested Tony and made his quest for the new element even more urgent).

How do you "go after" that problem? Vanko probably realises that Tony's blood toxicity level is accelarating and knows he will be likely dead in no time. The robots that Vanko was preparing for Hammer were not about hurting Tony physically. They were about destroying the legacy of Stark, about putting his achievements in the shade. Well, that was at least what Hammer thought he and Vanko were going after (before the latter screwed him over).

Not only that, but at one point Hammer is talking to Vanko on the phone while playing golf with Senator Stern, who can clearly hear who he is talking to. Stern should've had Hammer arrested on the spot. Vanko terrorized a crowd full of people and then is presumed dead...and yet Hammer openly talks to the guy while playing golf with a US Senator?

Perhaps because he is a bent senator? The guy has an intense hatred of Tony, and tried to pull the wool over the senates eyes in regards to the ability of opposing threats in making rival armour suits to Tony's.

 

[Mr. Earle]

How could the Senator possibly know who Hammer was talking to? It could have been a Russian mechanic. Vanko was presumed dead.

 

[dark_b]

i dont think Hammer said Ivan or Vanko during golf.

 

[J.Howlett]

dark,

He calls Ivan by his name while talking to the Senator on the course. It's there....

Future,

But why does Tony want in now, and then reject the consulting assignment? Not to mention, this aspect of the story, the Avengers Initative, is not the story that begins the film. Tony's story at the beginnng is about leaving a legacy. We never get a solution to it. I could care less about wanting in with SHIELD because that wasn't the driving force of the narrative at the beginning of the film.

 

[J.Howlett]

If Tony's all about leaving a purposeful and positive legacy if and when he's gone, he wouldn't have allowed a weapons demonstration at his Expo. His expo is about the future. The new element was about the future. And yet, he keeps the new element to himself and doesn't share it...

The whole film would've had more gravitas had he told Pepper his problem in the middle of the film (the big scene between them just like the scene between them in the first film after she catches him in the Iron Man armor)...why he's doing the Stark Expo, why he's made her CEO, why he let Rhodey take the Mark II without a fight...why his behavior resembles how he was before the first film. Everything is dropped once he creates the new element...everything!

 

[BlackLantern]

so anyone enjoying the movie isn't a "real fan" and is a drooling idiot....that's the tone im getting here

 

[J.Howlett]

No. Not at all. Actually, I enjoyed it as well. But, I can see all the missed opportunities that, had been caught, could've made this one of the best of the genre, easily. As it stands, it's just fun. It should've been more than fun.

 

[Dark Victory]

Can't wait to see this after school.t:

 

[TheFuture]

Future,

But why does Tony want in now, and then reject the consulting assignment? Not to mention, this aspect of the story, the Avengers Initative, is not the story that begins the film. Tony's story at the beginnng is about leaving a legacy. We never get a solution to it. I could care less about wanting in with SHIELD because that wasn't the driving force of the narrative at the beginning of the film.

He wants it now because he has been humbled by a number of things. For one, the fact that Vanko has blown his reckoning that no-one is near rivalling his technology out of the water. Due to Vanko Tony realises that there are very real threats out there, and thus this is why he wants to be part of the Avengers. To be part of a team that works together to take down those threats.

I imagine he turned down the consulting offer because, even though his ego has been taken down a notch, it is still very much present. His pride has been damaged. I think both parties were a little hasty in their decision. Fury should have acknowledged that Stark had gotten past the issues that were causing his recklessness and Stark perhaps should have seen the consulting offer as an olive branch to build upon.

Personally I think the story is not so much about a legacy, but about Tony learning he can't do everything on his own. I explain it better here;

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=18292186&postcount=1019

so anyone enjoying the movie isn't a "real fan" and is a drooling idiot....that's the tone im getting here

This is what annoys me, there's a little bit of snobbery going on. I went into IM2 expecting a vast improvement on the plot from IM1 and I think I got that. I did not go into this film as a mindless action movie fan who could be easily appeased. My expectancy level was high and I am happy with what we got.

 

[BlackLantern]

No. Not at all. Actually, I enjoyed it as well. But, I can see all the missed opportunities that, had been caught, could've made this one of the best of the genre, easily. As it stands, it's just fun. It should've been more than fun.

Im sorry I dont normally use smilies like that to illustrate a point, but I don't think Jon Favreau and the PTB at Marvel are worried about making it better or whatever than TDK....

again fanboys using TDK as a club to bash anything in the genre...you know what, my mom enjoyed it, I enjoyed it, my 20 yr old sister (who hates action movies) even liked it and she hadn't even seen the first one....those are the people that Marvel wants to get in the door

I like TDK but isn't a fun movie by any means, it gets down right depressing at the end...its still good, but its not fun to watch

 

[Mr. Earle]

Its the same thing in the comics. Recently Stark lost his company when he became a scapegoat for the Skrull invasion and now his plan to get it back is to share the reactor technology, providing free energy to the world. All the other companies will have to pay him so that he allows them to use that energy in their appliances.

But ask yourselves, will Tony's technology ever become free for everyone to buy? No way this will happen. And that's why he wont share Vibranium either.

 

[J.Howlett]

I'm not using The Dark Knight as the measuring stick. It's one of the sticks. I can apply everything I have problems with in Iron Man 2 to two other films that get it right also...X2 and Spider-Man 2, especially Spider-Man 2 since that film and Iron Man 2 share a very similar tone.

Again, this film is fun. But, it could've been way, way more. It had the potential to be fun, poignant, and daring. It does one of three when it was easily achievable to do all three, given the story we're given....

 

[BlackLantern]

speaking of sticks and slightly off topic, I wanted to ram one in my eye after watching X-Men Origins: Wolverine....someone needs to be beaten on the nose with a newspaper after that mess (wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong)

sorry just wanted to get that out

 

[J.Howlett]

Lol. Me too, and I love Hugh Jackman as Wolverine...

 

[J.Howlett]

Here, in a nutshell, is my problem with Iron Man 2:

"A token amount of plot: Six months after revealing his secret identity to the world, Tony Stark has basically brought about world peace using his weaponized suit as a form of deterrence (alas, this fascinating idea is never explained or detailed). But the American government is concerned about one man having such unchecked power and is attempting to gain control of the technology for the US armed forces. Meanwhile, mad Russian scientist Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) is on his way to seek vengeance against Tony for sins committed by the elder Stark against Ivan's father nearly forty years ago. As if that isn't enough to worry about, Stark may be on the cusp of death, as the reactor that keeps his heart beating and powers his Iron Man suit is quickly poisoning him.

The idea of Tony Stark having to face his family's sordid past while securing his own legacy is a promising one. But the crime at the heart of the story is not the Stark family's prior sins in weapons dealing, but a simple theft of technology. In fact, not one mention is made of Stark family past as 'merchants of death', and the late Howard Stark (John Slattery) comes off instead as a somewhat cold-hearted Walt Disney, a man who wanted to create the world of tomorrow while neglecting his only son. The complete omission of this seemingly vital component the Iron Man mythos is symbolic of the whole film's apparent attempt to sand off any rough edges for the sake of the youngest fans. Much of the picture has a toned-down campy feel to it, as even the few moments of genuine violence are undercut by slapstick and corny humor."

Taken from: http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2010/05/review-iron-man-2the-imax-experience.html

 

[kedrell]

I just finished seeing it and I gotta say that this is TDK all over again, that is to say that it's a step down from the high point of the first film. Too bad though I still liked it. Hopefully they use the extra time that they'll have to make IM3 stellar. I really do think that the story should have been stronger. Vanko should have been allowed to do more evil stuff(the kill the cat trope) and had more sceen time to do it in. Now this movie wouldn't have to have been bloated like TDK's runtime in order to get that done. A mere 5 extra minutes would have been enough to get the job done nicely, I think. And when people talk about this movie not being cohesive enough in story/plot...they are largely right. It's not like the TF movies which make little to no sense at all but I would have liked some more layering to the plot. I disagree that the Avengers stuff is very out of place. Sure it could/should have been integrated in a more clever way but it didn't throw the movie out of whack. These are things where that extra year to make the movie would have come in handy in the writing phase. One last bone I have to pick with the film is that I think it would have been nice to see a montage of the stuff Iron Man has been doing all over the world in the last 6 months that was spoken about at the Senate hearing but not shown. We needed a little more Iron Man superheroics in the movie and showing that in the opening credits rather than [blackout]Vanko building his arc reactor[/blackout] would have been the way to go. Now the acting and performances in this film are all good and the action we do get is very good. I'm not going to go into detail on those(maybe later) but if this mini-review sounds negative, that's just because those are the aspects of it that I am focusing on right now. But overall I still enjoyed the movie and do think it's good. It's around a 7.5/10 for me so I rounded up and gave it an 8 on the poll. I gave IM1 a 9.5/10 and on that poll rounded up to a 10, for comparison.

 

[Max Newlander]

Living in the UK, I was able to see this last weekend at the local I.M.A.X.

Initial thoughts while walking to the car after the viewing had finished was positive. Its was an enjoyable movie experience, a good sequel build on the incredibly strong foundations of the first movie ( 8.5 or 9/10). However on reflection after the initial impact, I'm now thinking its more like a 7.5 or 7/10 movie experience. With a second watch I suspect this rating might go down even further rather than go up.

As a comic-book movies go, its very hard to complain about either of the Iron Man films. Although the second outing didn't seem to grow the universe particularly. Hammer was way under developed, as was Vanko. No particular character arc for either, and I couldn't quite buy into Vanko's motive for destuction. Scarlett had very little to do (exceptional eye candy though), the one brief(ish) action sequence she had was extremely entertaining and I would have liked to have seen more of the character (in and out of the spandex).

Pepper was just plain ANNOYING. James Rhodes/Cheadle was unconvincing, however I found the previous Rhodes as unconvincing and one of the weaker aspect of the first movie.

The Monaco scene was excellent, as was the final battle. I was disappointed that with adequate screen time Favreau gave for story telling in the second act he never really grew the Iron Man universe, or the main characters excluding Tony Stark. Downey was charismatic and charming as always in the lead role. The effects were also high class, and some of the scenes looked fantastic.

As I said an entertaining movie experience, but not quite as good as I was expecting. 7.5 or 7/10.

 

[BlackLantern]

and who the **** is Scott Mendelson?? and his blog that strives to be art??

you know the internet is probably one of the best innovations of the last century as it has given everyone a voice...and sometimes I wonder if that's a good thing or a bad thing

speaking of reviews that strive to be self important...has anyone seen that one on YouTube...the chubby hispanic guy with the annoying voice, god I want to hit him with a shovel

 

[J.Howlett]

He's not being self-important. He's actually looking at things within the film that would've made for a fascinating exploration of Tony in this film. But, ultimately, while the film introduces these things, that's all it does.

Again, could've been more. Why introduce those things and not take it further, because they're all good ideas for the characterization Tony Stark.

 

[drmick]

so anyone enjoying the movie isn't a "real fan" and is a drooling idiot....that's the tone im getting here

Yep, that's certainly my attitude.

I'd rate it 7/10. Some of the other detractors here have gave it 8/10. So for the most part most of us think it is somewhere between ""above average" and "very good".

What annoys me (and presumably others) is the incessant 10/10 best film ever type vibe. Especially if someone who rates it so highly actually acknowledges flaws in their post. If it has flaws, then it cannot be 10/10.

It has been my experience that rewarding mediocrity has always been a North American thing (kinda like Gaylord's 7th place trophies in Meet the Fokkers). Not that I'm saying IM2 is mediocre btw. Anyway, I'd better stop with this, coming across too trolly for my liking.

 

[BlackLantern]

I gave it an 8, but I also voted right when I got home from seeing it...its still an above average/excellent film....there is no perfect superhero film, much less a perfect film in general

what grinds my gears is the utter dissection from some of the fandom and how certain shortcomings make it a "bad movie" Catwoman is a BAD movie, DragonBall is a BAD movie...those films are what hurt the reputation of the genre, not Iron Man 2

 

[kedrell]

Does anyone else wish that Favs had given Whiplash a Gruber/Takagi moment? Basically a point that connects with the audience on an emotional level that "yeah, this guy's gotta go down" thus making the hero's victory over the villain more satisfying. I sure wish they had something like that here. I also was kinda disappointed that we didn't get to see him kill the guards.