Iron Man 2 The Critics review Iron Man 2

[batman11]

I think the word you're looking for Ace, is "No." t:

 

[spider-neil]

Wasn't Watchmen a fantastic success?

dreadful movie (imho)

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I was not talking about it's quality.

 

[jmc]

I know all this... i'm usually one of the people going round telling fanboys that we are the minority.

But that's why i'm loving what Marvel is doing. They are putting comic book fans first, well, at least catering to them more than other comic book movies in the past, but still making entertaining films for the masses.

Professional critics do not represent the masses. This is obviously undeniable. I'm pretty sure the majority of the GA will enjoy this film. And it will make big coin.

It being for us comic book fans is a bonus. And like i said, it's about ****ing time.

It's about time for what exactly? Have we not had comic adaptations already that work in appealing to both fans and Joe public? It's all well and good to throw bones to us comics fans, but when those bones take up a large chunk of plot there's an equally large chunk of people who'll have no idea what the hell is going on, and they're the ones who are the majority. That is where Thor and CAP AM could run into problems, if Marvel's desire for continuity affects these film like it did for IM2 those movies are gonna be in trouble because they don't have the advantage IM2 does, I mean will people even put two and two together? After IM2, Thor and Cap Am fans should be a bit nervous.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Why? Thor and Cap will be origin stories. Like the first Iron Man. That didn't have Avengers references did it?

And we have never had literal comic book translations to film before. Not with mainstream comic book films. We haven't had interconnecting stories like actual comic books before. That's what i'm talking about when i say it's about time. I mean, how could comic book fans not be excited about the concept of a fully fledged Marvel Universe/DC Universe in film form?

Iron Man 2 isn't a origin story, it's Stark doing what he does. One of those things involves SHIELD/Avengers. That is Iron Man.

And as for Fury popping up out of nowhere? Well, correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't there a guy in the first Iron Man called Agent Coulson running around rambling on about SHIELD? As long as it's made clear Fury is SHIELD i don't see how it will confuse people.

I've spoken to people who have seen this, there isn't really that many Avengers references in the movie. Not enough to distract them. See most of the people criticizing the Avengers references, were already skeptical about the whole Avengers thing anyway.

I still say, **** em.

 

[batman11]

I think what JMC means is that because the Avengers is now fully in gear, we'll be seeing a lot more of its "presence" in the upcoming Marvel movies, regardless of whether or not they are origin stories. Iron Man didn't contain much (other than the few SHIELD moments), because it was the first in this series, and therefore had nothing to build up to based on unpredictability in terms of box office, release dates, casting etc. But since the Avengers has been firmly set in stone, it would seem that Marvel wants to push everything towards it. Now, I haven't seen the movie, nor do I know whether or not Thor and Cap will be full of Avengers build-up, but I'm merely presenting this as an interpretation of what JMC is trying to say. Am in the right ball park?

(Or so way off it's terrible? LOL t

And as for Fury popping up out of nowhere? Well, correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't there a guy in the first Iron Man called Agent Coulson running around rambling on about SHIELD? As long as it's made clear Fury is SHIELD i don't see how it will confuse people.

I've spoken to people who have seen this, there isn't really that many Avengers references in the movie. Not enough to distract them. See most of the people criticizing the Avengers references, were already skeptical about the whole Avengers thing anyway.

You're not incorrect. Like I said, I haven't seen the movie, but based off of what I heard, there is some "WTF-ness" to his appearance and the unraveling of the Avengers subplots. So, regardless of whether or not you don't see how it will confuse people, it already seems to be doing just that (even if it is a minority). I can't place the actual reviews, but there are a couple that say that something to the effect of - "If one hasn't kept up with the Iron Man/Avengers story, then Sam Jackson's role will cause the audience to question who he is what exactly he's doing there." Again, just paraphrasing, but it's just an example of some of the issues I've read/heard about regarding the inclusion of the Avengers stuff.

 

[hatebox]

A literal adaptation of a comic book is pointless. Adaptations are only worthwhile when injected with something new and fresh that compliments the medium of film that can be conveyed in less than 3 hours. The most literal adaptation we've had has been Watchmen, and that's exactly why it didn't work.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Ah ok i get what you and JMC are saying.

But I just don't see how there will be hardly any Avengers references in Thor at all. The only person involved from Iron Man is Agent Coulson. And i think it's pretty safe to say what part he'll show up in... anyone who has seen the after credit scene will know what i mean.

As for Cap? Apparently the whole film is set in WWII. So again, i don't see there being any Avengers references until maybe right at the end when he is discovered in the ice.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I just saw the movie, so let me address the critics.

1) Bawww, the movie didnt have as much humor as the first one.
Well its a sequel to the first one and it has its own story. Tony is slowly dying FFS! If you want a comedy, watch Wedding Crushers or something. What was the movie supposed to do? Have Tony laugh and blast things for the whole movie? The whole subplot about him dying for really good imho. It was one of the backbones of the movie.

2) It didnt have enough action.
I dont know about you guys, but the whole movie flew by pretty quickly and it had enough action scenes. Yeah, both the Monaco and the final Whiplash battle were short, but we also got Rhodey vs Tony and Natasha vs guards. TDK had more action because it was 2.5 hours long!

3) It wasnt citizen Kane or TDK.
Yeah ok, it wasnt. But it was a comic book movie. If this story was printed as a comic book, it would have been a good one. Hell, Extremis is considered a great IM story and it was basically just like IM2 and the villain was an ***hole with superpowers!
The sooner people realise that Marvel is just producing comics book stories on the silver screen and is not trying to do DEEP movies, the sooner they'll sit down, eat their pop corn and enjoy the movies!

And i'm gonna get flamed for this but i never saw what's so great about Spiderman 2. He was doing OK, then he lost it then he got back and won the girl. His powers which come from his enhanced DNA didnt work because he was sad (you get your myopia back because you're sad?) and Otto was also talking to his tentacles . It was a good SM story but it wasnt "OMFG MASTERPIECE"! In my humble opinion Ironman 2 was Tony's Spiderman 2. He loses it, he gets back on his feet and he beats the villain. It just didnt have the goosebumps inducing inspirational speech from Aunt May that gave SM2 more drama.

4) Too many characters.
The major characters were Tony, Vanko, Hammer and SHIELD (Fury + Natasha + Howard Stark) and Rhodey. Those were the major characters. You should look the Shield agents as one character, looking over Stark. What more did you want to see from Fury or Natasha? Their childhood? They came and helped Stark. Did you get Maroni's background in TDK?

Rhodey had enough time to show us his mixed feelings and regrets and being the true friend that will give you some hard love when you need it.

Hammer had more than enough time and was fleshed out well.

Pepper had enough time as well. What more did you want from her?

Only Vanko didnt have enough time and even the time he got he wasted it by speaking in Russian (which at least in my theatre wasnt translated so i dont know what he was saying). Maybe he was pretending not to have difficulty in English so that he could create the whole drones vs pilots misunderstanding with Hammer. But I wanted to see him do more than work on Hammer's drones and the talk with Tony should have been longer somehow. But it was good nonetheless, i loved the "sharks will come" bit, it made the dialogue more iconic.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

A literal adaptation of a comic book is pointless. Adaptations are only worthwhile when injected with something new and fresh that compliments the medium of film that can be conveyed in less than 3 hours. The most literal adaptation we've had has been Watchmen, and that's exactly why it didn't work.

Watchmen was a literal page for page translation of a one time graphic novel.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about creating an actual movie universe that is in continuity like the comic universes. It's a tough task, sure. But i think it should be attempted. What Marvel are going for, has never, ever been attempted in film before. Is that new and fresh enough for ya?

 

[Tony Stark]

It's about time for what exactly? Have we not had comic adaptations already that work in appealing to both fans and Joe public? It's all well and good to throw bones to us comics fans, but when those bones take up a large chunk of plot there's an equally large chunk of people who'll have no idea what the hell is going on, and they're the ones who are the majority. That is where Thor and CAP AM could run into problems, if Marvel's desire for continuity affects these film like it did for IM2 those movies are gonna be in trouble because they don't have the advantage IM2 does, I mean will people even put two and two together? After IM2, Thor and Cap Am fans should be a bit nervous.

Once again the ignorance of Iron Man's story is breathtaking. Iron Man's story is all about the Avengers. You sit there and pretend like they are two separate things. Hell Tony Stark already appeared in the Incredible Hulk.

You're also exaggerating how people won't know what's going on. People already know who shield is from the first movie and if they stayed to the end credits they know who Nick Fury is. If they happened to miss they, hey guess what Nick Fury is the director of shield. Next question.

 

[rashad]

I'm not reading all that. What's your score for the film?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Call me paranoid but it seems 99% of the people on here who are skeptical about what Marvel is attempting are known DC fans.

Coincidence???

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Mr Earle, you are the only one on this thread who needlessly brought up the Dark Knight so many times in a review.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Well a lot of people like to use TDK as a measuring stick... for some reason. So he is doing just that. And with SM2 aswell.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Well a lot of people like to use TDK as a measuring stick... for some reason. So he is doing just that. And with SM2 aswell.

 

[RoboAmish]

I just saw the movie, so let me address the critics.

1) Bawww, the movie didnt have as much humor as the first one.

Has that really been a common complaint. I thought there was plenty of humour, it just wasn't as funny as the first one. They were trying a tad too hard to recreate that same jokey, glib atmosphere and it didn't come off as well the second time out because of the weaker script and more bloody improvisation

Regardless, I think when the actors were made to stick to the script it had its funnier moments. Case in point Sam Rockwell, although if he improvised that dance it was worth all the pain of the Stark/ Pepper bickering

 

[Mr. Earle]

Avengers werent in the movie until the end where they were mentioned briefly. Shield was.

The only problem is that Shield was a small part of IM1 that the average Joe could have easily forgotten after what... two years is it? Also, Fury appeared after the credits when most viewers have left the theatre. How many people stuck behind to watch it? Only those in the know. How many people bought the DVD and learned about it then? Some.

So for the average Joe, Shield and Fury did come out of nowhere in IM2. But to me they felt really natural. I view Fury + Natasha + Coulson + Howard (who also has a fatherly role) as one character: SHIELD. The good organisation that guided Stark in IM1 and is doing so even more in IM2.

Avengers are only mentioned at the end when Fury tries to enlist Tony but is also playing hard to get (you 'll only be a consultant). So? This organisation that helped Tony is trying to enlist him. What's so hard to get? Why is it out of place? Its one of the many subplots that explore how the world reacts to Tony Stark being Ironman. Some hate him (Vanko), some try to manipulate him (Hammer, government) and some try to help him and use him for good (SHIELD).

 

[Mr. Earle]

Mr Earle, you are the only one on this thread who needlessly brought up the Dark Knight so many times in a review.

Well a lot of people like to use TDK as a measuring stick... for some reason. So he is doing just that. And with SM2 aswell.

I referred to it because it has spoiled the critics who now expect superhero movies to be DEEP movies commenting on society or whatever. As a superhero movie, IM 1&2 were like the Spiderman, Xmen, Blade and Daredevil movies: Stories about the character like those found in the comics. It didnt try to be something else or be deep.

Has that really been a common complaint. I thought there was plenty of humour, it just wasn't as funny as the first one.

BINGO!!! There was humor even when the scenes were supposed to be dramatic and sad. Example: Tony being drunk and pathetic and still managing to make us smile with his antics and peeing.

 

[RoboAmish]

Well a lot of people like to use TDK as a measuring stick... for some reason. So he is doing just that. And with SM2 aswell.

The only time I felt a comparison to TDK was necessary was in the way they handled the whole villain being off screen thing. The Joker was a constant threath even when off screen in TDK, but due to the script effectively writing out Vanko halfway through, there is no threath for a lot of the movie.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

The only time I felt a comparison to TDK was necessary was in the way they handled the whole villain being off screen thing. The Joker was a constant threath even when off screen in TDK, but due to the script effectively writing out Vanko halfway through, there is no threath for a lot of the movie.

But i've seen a lot of complaints about IM 2 not developing it's supporting characters enough.

Like Earle said, neither did TDK and no one complained about it.

My problem with people using TDK as a measuring stick is that a lot of the time, double standards come into it.

But i really don't want to go this route again, this is just an observation i have made.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Even though none of the critics compared it to TDK. None that I've read. All of them from RT.


And how is TDK trying to be deep ? It is serious and dark, yes. Because that is how the comics are.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Has that really been a common complaint. I thought there was plenty of humour, it just wasn't as funny as the first one. They were trying a tad too hard to recreate that same jokey, glib atmosphere and it didn't come off as well the second time out because of the weaker script and more bloody improvisation

I haven't seen the movie yet but I remember when they released the footage of Congressional hearings at Comic Con. The dialogue and humor felt more forced than in IM1. I am interested to see how the rest of the movie is though.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Even though none of the critics compared it to TDK. None that I've read. All of them from RT.


And how is TDK trying to be deep ? It is serious and dark, yes. Because that is how the comics are.

They didnt mention TDK but it has spoiled them, because it was so good, realistic and deep. IM2 wasnt trying to be deep. It was telling a story about Tony Stark like SM2 told a story about Parker. Was it flawed? Sure. Just dont judge it on the basis that it wasnt DEEP or something.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

So they didn't compare it to TDK but were clearly "spoiled" from it ? That's a lot of poor assumptions.