Iron Man 2 The Critics review Iron Man 2

[redfirebird2008]

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

I agree. If anything, people were spoiled by the first Iron Man. There's nothing wrong with people comparing IM2 to IM1, which seems to be inevitably happening in most of the reviews I've read.

 

[batman11]

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.

I do agree with you here. More so with Cap, due to the completely different setting (which, incidentally, really amps up my anticipation - there's so much wonderful potential there). But, like you recognized, there is now room for more Avengers inclusion due to the fact that its set in stone and can be pumped to the audience. Again, I haven't seen IM2, so perhaps I may end up liking it myself, but I'm just trying to understand where those who felt it hurt the story are coming from. I'm sure the fan in me will get a huge a rise out of it, but the critic in me may or may not like the inclusion/intrusion (possibly too harsh). We'll see I guess. As you said though, it is only natural, due to the fact that Iron Man and the Avengers go hand in hand. It's just too bad that the execution of this subplot isn't resonating with most.

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???

I sincerely hope you're not lumping me into an age-old stereotype that I strongly despise. But then again, is the guy with Deadpool avvy pushing Marvel's Avengers initiative at all biased? t:

For the record, I'm just kidding around Ace. I know better (and I know you better, but that's besides the point...hehehe) than to judge a man by his avvy. It's clearly all about the sig.

 

[SpiderByte]

I don't need it to be a great movie, though I'd like it to be. I'd be happy just with it being okay. Something worth my money, yknow?

 

[weezerspider]

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.

I think the complaint about the characters not being fleshed out is more like "Okay we get War Machine,Hammer,Fury, and Black Widow, but none of them amount to much. TDK didn't intrude a boat-load of "Major" characters. The only new characters were: The Joker, Dent, Maroni and Lou. Joker and Dent are too big to be considered "secondary". Gordon had his moment of "fleshed out-ness" with his family situation, Rachel had hers with Dent. Maroni and Alfred are the only ones that weren't really fleshed-out and as far as the story goes, they didn't need to be. Every other supporting character was too small. The complaint about Iron Man 2 is that there are some major supporting characters that amount to basically nothing. I don't see how thats a double standard. That said, I loved IM2!

 

[ElMariachi]

is it possible that this movie is similar to Empire Strikes Back? That movie got mixed reviews as well from critics, following the most hyped movie of all time.

This is what was said about the film by the Washington Post.

This is no monumental artistic work, but a science-fiction movie done more snappily than most, including its own predecessor. A chocolate bar is a marvelous sweet that does not need to pretend to be a chocolate soufflé; musical comedies are wonderful entertainment without trying to compete with opera; blue jeans are a perfect garment that shouldn't be compared with haute couture. There are times when you would much rather have a really good hot dog than any steak, but you can still recognize that one is junk food and the other isn't.

"The Empire Strikes Back" has no plot structure, no character studies let alone character development, no emotional or philosophical point to make. It has no original vision of the future, which is depicted as a pastiche of other junk-culture formulae, such as the western, the costume epic and the Would War II movie. Its specialty is "special effects" or visual tricks, some of which are playful, imaginative and impressive, but others of which have become space-movie clichés

and from the New York Times

The Empire Strikes Back" is not a truly terrible movie. It's a nice movie. It's not, by any means, as nice as "Star Wars." It's not as fresh and funny and surprising and witty, but it is nice and inoffensive and, in a way that no one associated with it need be ashamed of, it's also silly. Attending to it is a lot like reading the middle of a comic book. It is amusing in fitful patches but you're likely to find more beauty, suspense, discipline, craft and art when watching a New York harbor pilot bring the Queen Elizabeth 2 into her Hudson River berth, which is what "The Empire Strikes Back" most reminds me of. It's a big, expensive, time-consuming, essentially mechanical operation.
Gone from "The Empire Strikes Back" are those associations that so enchanted us in "Star Wars," reminders of everything from the Passion of Jesus and the stories of Beowulf and King Arthur to those of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, the Oz books, Buck Rogers and Peanuts. Strictly speaking, "The Empire Strikes Back" isn't even a complete narrative. It has no beginning or end, being simply another chapter in a serial that appears to be continuing not onward and upward but sideways. How, then, to review it?

sound familiar to the reviews for Iron Man 2? Particularly how they say it doesn't live up to the original?

 

[weezerspider]

is it possible that this movie is similar to Empire Strikes Back? That movie got mixed reviews as well from critics, following the most hyped movie of all time.

This is what was said about the film by the Washington Post.



and from the New York Times





sound familiar to the reviews for Iron Man 2? Particularly how they say it doesn't live up to the original?

Hmmm.... And most Star Wars fans I know(Including myself) like ESB the best, similar to how the early fan reaction to IM2 seems to be extremely positive when compared to the critics reaction. Good analogy.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Hmmm.... And most Star Wars fans I know(Including myself) like ESB the best, similar to how the early fan reaction to IM2 seems to be extremely positive when compared to the critics reaction. Good analogy.

Not a good analogy. Star Wars is the exception to the rule. Most of the time when people say a sequel ain't as good as the first one, that's just the way it is. You could pull this same comparison out for countless other sequels that have come out over the years. Pirates 2 is a better comparison for IM2. Most of the reviews from fans have had the "it's not as good as IM1" caveat thrown in there, just like the positive reviews for Pirates 2. "Very good but not as good as Pirates 1." And make no mistake, Pirates 2 did have a very positive reception from fans. It had very good legs at the box office despite a huge opening and it had massive DVD sales. You don't have those kind of box office legs and DVD sales without strong reception from the fans.

 

[Mr. Earle]

The thing is that IM1 was the character's first movie and the novelty of it all charmed us. Eh he went through some trouble in Afganistan but for the rest of the movie its RDJ cracking jokes and using his amazing armours (however briefly). The story was very simple, the action was limited, but it was Ironman on the big screen for the first time, with a glorious suit, and RDJ!

Now that they had to continue the story and give him some real problems to deal with, people didnt like it so much. In my opinion there is only one thing that Favs could have done to surpass IM1 in people's minds because the novelty would have been lost anyway. Go DEEP and pretentious. TDK wouldnt have been so well received if it was another comic book movie, if it was Batman Begins 2. Instead it went all deep, serious and crime drama and won the critics and fans.

 

[redfirebird2008]

The thing is that IM1 was the character's first movie and the novelty of it all charmed us. Eh he went through some trouble in Afganistan but for the rest of the movie its RDJ cracking jokes and using his amazing armours (however briefly). The story was very simple, the action was limited, but it was Ironman on the big screen for the first time, with a glorious suit, and RDJ!

Now that they had to continue the story and give him some real problems to deal with, people didnt like it so much. In my opinion there is only one thing that Favs could have done to surpass IM1 in people's minds because the novelty would have been lost anyway. Go DEEP and pretentious. TDK wouldnt have been so well received if it was another comic book movie, if it was Batman Begins 2. Instead it went all deep, serious and crime drama and won the critics and fans.

Or come up with better villains. Iron Man just doesn't have that strong of a gallery of villains. The Joker is an awesome villain. They didn't need to go "deep and pretentious," just make an entertaining Batman vs. Joker conflict. They did that quite well.

 

[Mr. Earle]

IMHO Ironman 2 could have been the best Marvel movie if only:

1) The backbone of the story, Stark's palladium poisoning was resolved in a more dramatic way and didnt feel so empty.
2) Vanko had enough time to be an iconic villain. The ingredients were there but they didnt use him enough.

 

[ElMariachi]

Exactly. Where is this nostalgia for IM1 coming from? Loved that movie, but that movie had the same 'flaws' as IM2 supposedly has. Am I the only one who remembers that movie had little action and a slow middle? The action was limited to the Mark 1 fight, Golmira, and the fight with Iron Monger. The Mark 1 fight doesn't count because it isn't the real Iron Man suit. Golmira was rather quick (was mainly Iron Man flying) and Iron Monger wasn't exactly the most epic battle ever. Much of the movie was slow, talking scenes with more Stark/humor then Iron Man fighting.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Exactly. Where is this nostalgia for IM1 coming from? Loved that movie, but that movie had the same 'flaws' as IM2 supposedly has. Am I the only one who remembers that movie had little action and a slow middle? The action was limited to the Mark 1 fight, Golmira, and the fight with Iron Monger. The Mark 1 fight doesn't count because it isn't the real Iron Man suit. Golmira was rather quick (was mainly Iron Man flying) and Iron Monger wasn't exactly the most epic battle ever. Much of the movie was slow, talking scenes with more Stark/humor then Iron Man fighting.

IM1 followed the origin story formula laid down in the likes of Superman, Spider-Man, and BB. It is a very well-executed formula for sure. The plot is always moving forward IMHO. I haven't seen IM2 yet but it sounds like the momentum of the plot in the first one is not as well-defined in IM2.

 

[night0205]

If Iron Man 2 is like Empire Strikes Back, then I will love it. Empire Strikes Back was by far the best Star Wars film in my opinion. Watch it again, and you should see the following... The Story is Great (darker), surprises (I am your father), fighting was a 100% better then that stupid fight between Obi and Vader..., the Acting was the best out of all the movies in my opinion, the visual effects were great as always, great cinematography of Hoth Cloud City and Dagobah... the Philosophy was great with Yoda, Yoda was amazing...and the explanation of the force. The Dialog was much much better written... funny, witty, romantic, and it was far less corny then any of the other films. It was far superior then the first one, and the third one failed because of some stupid plot points (ewoks!) Empire Strikes Back is not the favorite just because it's darker and such... I think it's the best complete, fulfilling film, out of Star Wars. It has also aged very well... But some of you are right, Star Wars is an exception, because with Star Wars It's COOL to be Corny! It is, ALL the movies are extremely corny in dialog and such.... Empire being the lesser, but even the first Star Wars made the nerds popular... The corniness that the original trilogy has would never make it if it was released today. So if IM 2 is that corny then... I can see why it's not accepted very easily.

 

[weezerspider]

Not a good analogy. Star Wars is the exception to the rule. Most of the time when people say a sequel ain't as good as the first one, that's just the way it is. You could pull this same comparison out for countless other sequels that have come out over the years. Pirates 2 is a better comparison for IM2. Most of the reviews from fans have had the "it's not as good as IM1" caveat thrown in there, just like the positive reviews for Pirates 2. "Very good but not as good as Pirates 1." And make no mistake, Pirates 2 did have a very positive reception from fans. It had very good legs at the box office despite a huge opening and it had massive DVD sales. You don't have those kind of box office legs and DVD sales without strong reception from the fans.

I'm not saying they will all love IM2 better then IM1, I'm just saying for the most part, the fans were satisfied. They weren't blown away, but they weren't utterly disappointed either.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I'm not saying they will all love IM2 better then IM1, I'm just saying for the most part, the fans were satisfied. They weren't blown away, but they weren't utterly disappointed either.

Like I said, that's pretty much the exact same response Dead Man's Chest had from fans. The idea that 20 years from now it's going to be regarded as better than the first movie is difficult to justify because the odds are heavily against it. Even in the Star Wars franchise, the very next movie after Empire had the same kind of response as Empire following New Hope and sure enough Jedi is not as highly regarded as its predecessors decades later. 9 times out of 10 a sequel that isn't quite as well received as the first one probably won't be regarded as well decades down the road either.

 

[night0205]

I don't think Dead Man's Chest is better then Pirates, but I love the Pirates Trilogy for being "fun". I loved all three. So, If Iron Man is like that, I'll happy as well. With how satisfying you felt after watching Iron Man 1 for the first time, because you had no expectation, of course Iron Man 2 is very likely to disappoint people. But after rewatching Iron Man 1, there are flaws as well, it was just the other aspects of the movie surprised you, so you where completely OK with the flaws.

 

[Ipodman]

I have a feeling this movie is gonna have more replay value than the previous one...
mainly because of War machine, Black Widow and Justin Hammer

 

[TheVileOne]

Iron Man 2 is not really like Empire Strikes back at all.

It's not an incredibly well balanced movie. I mean yes the first Iron Man movie is flawed. A lot of people overlook stuff just because it's fun and entertaining and the performances are very good.

I think a lot of people are going to have trouble with the middle section of this movie. It feels a little lost.

I still think its a good movie.

Also who gives a crap what the NYT says? It's nothing but a dirt rag that publishes FAKE NEWS STORIES.

 

[Blade X]

Now that they had to continue the story and give him some real problems to deal with, people didnt like it so much. In my opinion there is only one thing that Favs could have done to surpass IM1 in people's minds because the novelty would have been lost anyway. Go DEEP and pretentious. TDK wouldnt have been so well received if it was another comic book movie, if it was Batman Begins 2. Instead it went all deep, serious and crime drama and won the critics and fans.

Nah, they just needed a lot more (and a lot longer) action/fight scenes.

 

[spider-neil]

I saw IM2 on friday (with my sister) and saturday (with a date) both of them absolutely love the original. My sister loved the sequel my date hated the sequel both of them didn't have a clue about the avenger references. maybe people's problem is IM2 doesn't take the movie 'to the next level' like SM2 and TDK2 clearly do but do you have to take a movie 'to the next level'? somethings I want to just watch a 'fun' movie.

 

[Crook]

The thing is that IM1 was the character's first movie and the novelty of it all charmed us. Eh he went through some trouble in Afganistan but for the rest of the movie its RDJ cracking jokes and using his amazing armours (however briefly). The story was very simple, the action was limited, but it was Ironman on the big screen for the first time, with a glorious suit, and RDJ!

Now that they had to continue the story and give him some real problems to deal with, people didnt like it so much. In my opinion there is only one thing that Favs could have done to surpass IM1 in people's minds because the novelty would have been lost anyway. Go DEEP and pretentious. TDK wouldnt have been so well received if it was another comic book movie, if it was Batman Begins 2. Instead it went all deep, serious and crime drama and won the critics and fans.

Holy crap you take every chance to bring up TDK in every one of your posts.

If you've read the reviews, tone isn't the issue. It's lack of dramatic elements, muddled subplots, and pacing inconsistency. This has nothing to do with so-called pretentiousness of handling the subject material. If you hadn't noticed, IM1 was highly praised, so I don't know why you'd think they'd change their tune for a sequel.

 

[jmc]

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

Smacked it out of the park for 6. Spot on mate.

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.

Iron Man should be about Iron Man, I'm not paying money and neither are most people to watch a 'kinda' Iron Man film with some other stuff thrown in for something that's coming up. Hell, I don't even think Fury was even mentioned by name in film 2. Basic bloody movie making errors.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

The thing is that IM1 was the character's first movie and the novelty of it all charmed us. Eh he went through some trouble in Afganistan but for the rest of the movie its RDJ cracking jokes and using his amazing armours (however briefly). The story was very simple, the action was limited, but it was Ironman on the big screen for the first time, with a glorious suit, and RDJ!

Now that they had to continue the story and give him some real problems to deal with, people didnt like it so much. In my opinion there is only one thing that Favs could have done to surpass IM1 in people's minds because the novelty would have been lost anyway. Go DEEP and pretentious. TDK wouldnt have been so well received if it was another comic book movie, if it was Batman Begins 2. Instead it went all deep, serious and crime drama and won the critics and fans.

We get it. TDK is pretentious. Stop bringing it up in every single post you make.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Smacked it out of the park for 6. Spot on mate.

Iron Man should be about Iron Man, I'm not paying money and neither are most people to watch a 'kinda' Iron Man film with some other stuff thrown in for something that's coming up. Hell, I don't even think Fury was even mentioned by name in film 2. Basic bloody movie making errors.

Were are you getting all this? It was about Ironman! Shield helped him like they did in IM1 and the Avengers were only brought up at the end of the movie.
And if you've read any IM comic books you'd know that the character is always involved in politics, superhero teams, SHIELD and everything big that happens in the Marvel Universe. He is not just a dude fighting bad guys.

 

[GlasgowBat]

Point is, i want to see a film that delivers a solid and engaging narrative. I would also appreciate it if that was the main objective of the script. This, however, is a glorified advert. This was to the detriment of the story itself. Setting up the avengers is acceptable, in that we all knew that was the plan. However, it should always be the case that this is enveloped by a self-contained story.

The trailer's are supposed to end before the movie begins.