Iron Man 2 The Critics review Iron Man 2

[Mr. Stark]

no one let critics put you off, its a really really well made film

 

[night0205]

Iron Man 2 is climbing at Rotten Tomatoes. We shall see if that continues, but it's at 76%. 41 Frest, 13 Rotten.

 

[weezerspider]

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.

Wait, you've seen The Dark Knight 2? May I ask who was recasted as The Joker? Is it good? What was the plot? hahat: I'm teasing, its all in good funt:

 

[GhostPoet]

For me personally...I find it difficult to compare Iron Man 1 and 2 simply because IR1 was an origin story...so of course the focus will be on the main character.

Just like Spider-Man 1 was focused primarely on Peter becoming Spidey...and then we got Spidey 2, which to be blew Spidey 1 out of the water because we finally got past the origin story and get to see the character in action.

In IM2's case, it's the same...we get to see more characters than merely Tony and Iron Man. And we get to see a working Marvel Universe in film.

 

[conan69]

Im hearing the same word over and over again about this film ..... "mess"

Glad my expectations were very low.

 

[rashad]

Downey's charisma is magnetic, but the franchise is showing signs of rust

The magic ingredient in both Iron Man movies is Robert Downey Jr. His energy and charisma make billionaire industrialist Tony Stark entertainingly complex, for a comic-strip hero.

He's an incorrigible womaniser, a self-destructive alcoholic and such an indefatigable egotist that he makes Lord Mandelson of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and of Hartlepool in the County of Durham look like St Francis of Assisi.

'I have successfully privatised world peace,' he announces, grandly refusing to hand over the secrets behind his superweapons to the U.S. government, thereby annoying his business rival Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), a senior senator (Garry Shandling, with a deliciously phoney smile) and an old friend in the military (that's Don Cheadle, easing uneasily into the role occupied in the first Iron Man film by Terrence Howard).

Stark's arch-enemy in Iron Man 2, however, is Ivan Danko, alias Whiplash (Mickey Rourke), a tattooed Russian who harbours a grudge against the whole Stark family.
Rourke makes a splendidly snarly villain, and it's not his fault that Justin Theroux's script makes his objectives unclear, his motivation inadequate and his tactics idiotic.

Danko goes to absurd lengths to pursue a personal vendetta, and the studio's reluctance to endanger a family-friendly film certificate by showing bloodshed removes any remaining credibility from a hyper-violent climax that is out of all proportion to Danko's feud with Stark.

It doesn't make any sense - and that's not good, even in a Hollywood blockbuster.
Another weakness is that the most original action sequence comes within 20 minutes of the start, at the Monaco Grand Prix, and depicts the first weirdly under-motivated attack by Danko, who chooses to sabotage the race long before he can possibly know that the hated Stark is going to be one of the drivers.

This is one of several preposterous holes in the narrative, which include an escape from prison by Danko that goes miraculously unreported by the world's media.

Aside from its wilful but not entirely unexpected dim-wittedness, the movie's worst sin is a long, draggy section in the middle, which seems more interested in setting up Iron Man 3 than getting on with Iron Man 2.

Structurally, the film is a shambles. Despite an inflated running time of 124 minutes, the romance between Stark and his assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow, made to be needlessly spiteful) is woefully underdeveloped, as are a new female character Natalie/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson at her least interesting) and a shadowy figure from the U.S. secret services, Nick Fury (played - in his sleep and the audience's - by Samuel L. Jackson).
There are compensations: Downey and Rockwell go enjoyably over- the- top in their rivalry; undemanding fan-boys will be entertained by the numerous guns, gizmos, explosions and shots of Ms Johansson's physical attractions. Jon Favreau's movie has the budget to deliver the enormous action scenes required of a summer blockbuster.

It will be a hit. But it should have been a whole lot better.

Verdict: Dumb and overblown, but Downey makes it fun
3/5 Stars

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...ma-magnetic-franchise-showing-signs-rust.html

 

[rashad]

FilmSchoolRejects - B

In the end, Favreau accomplishes something quite special with Iron Man 2. Avoiding the pratfalls of sequelitis and simultaneously building a bridge for Marvel to cross over to The Avengers. Some of the building blocks of that bridge do feel as if they were forced in there, but Favreau’s ability to tie it all together in the end makes all the difference. When Iron Man 2 doesn’t work, it is still enjoyable. And when it is working — which is more often than not — it works on a level that far exceeds that of the first film. It is an intense ride, full of fun performances, that works hard through its problems to earn the ‘must-see’ tag. But in the end, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s one of those films that you absolutely must see.

​

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/review-iron-man-2.php

 

[jmc]

Man, this film is really polarizing. It's almost like people are seeing two completely different movies.

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.

That's not the point. You know very well Earle that as a film goer I shouldn't have to be readying comic books to understand the character or to be filling in blanks.

 

[rashad]

I was just thinking about the polarizing aspect jmc.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I was just thinking about the polarizing aspect jmc.

I don't know if polarizing is the right word. There aren't too many that outright hate it.

 

[jmc]

Maybe polarizing isn't the right word but peoples reactions still make it sound like they were shown different films.

 

[Tony Stark]

Man, this film is really polarizing. It's almost like people are seeing two completely different movies.

That's not the point. You know very well Earle that as a film goer I shouldn't have to be readying comic books to understand the character or to be filling in blanks.

And if you saw the first movie you would know this as well.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Man, this film is really polarizing. It's almost like people are seeing two completely different movies.

That's not the point. You know very well Earle that as a film goer I shouldn't have to be readying comic books to understand the character or to be filling in blanks.

You dont have to read any comic books. If you understood that Shield was there to help Tony in IM1, you can understand that they re here to do the same thing in IM2. And at the end, you can understand that this organisation is trying to recruit Stark. My friends who dont know who the Avengers are and who thought that the hammer was the weapon of the villain of the sequel understood all that.
What's so hard to get?

 

[Abraham]

I think The First Avenger: Captain America is going to be the movie that ties it all together. By having the first Stark Expo, maybe opening and closing narration by Fury, and an explanation of the sheild from Iron Man 2.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

undemanding fan-boys will be entertained by the numerous guns, gizmos, explosions and shots of Ms Johansson's physical attractions.

 

[Visceral]

Call me crazy...but uh I always thought that the movie The Avengers would uh you know tie things all together.

 

[ElMariachi]

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.

Many people consider Star Wars to be the best Star Wars movie. It is for sure the more iconic, memorable film. It made more money then Empire Strikes back by a huge margin as well. I wasn't alive in 1980, but I would assume it wasn't as received as being the greatest of all Star Wars movies at the time like it is today. And even that is debateable. In my experience geeks tend to rave more about that movie then your average moviegoer (those alive at the time I have heard from) who are nostalgic about the first movie. ESB was a lynchpin movie with a cliffhanger ending and alot of talking---receving alot of mixed reviews in a similar fashion as Iron Man 2 is getting. Both films also introduced alot of new characters (many of whom were not expanded on) and unresolved plot points. If Empire Strikes Back came out today, it would be lambasted by some in my opinion. I promise you this.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say Iron Man is going to be as epic and as memorable as Star Wars, but I think this movie will be better received as we get deeper into the Iron Man/Avengers franchise. I haven't seen IM2, but I have heard it is excellent and the only criticisms of it are very light. Few movies are being judged as harshly as Iron Man 2 is. Lack of action and a slow middle are generally not criticisms bestowed upon most movies. This movie has gotten great reviews for it's acting, so I find it hard to believe it is going to be disapointing. There are few things that can please all with the kind of hype Iron Man 2 is getting. Hype attracts haters and more critics. The first Iron Man came out of left field. It did not have the hype of this movie, Avatar, The Dark Knight, or the Twilight movies. Dark Knight delivered. Avatar is a mixed bag. That movie would not be considered great if it wasn't for the CGI and James Camerons name attached to the title.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

That movie would not be considered great if it wasn't for the CGI and James Camerons name attached to the title.

 

[conan69]

Roll your eyes if you want, but hes right.

If Bret Ratners or Michal Bays name was on Avatar instead of Camerons, the guy who gave us Titanic, I think how it was received would be VERY different. Its a swell looking movie(that I actually found visually boring), but is a VERY mediocre movie.

And I was alive in 1980 and Empire blew people away. EVERYONE was talking about it. It has generally always considered the best SW film. SW for its cultural impact and groundbreaking technical apsects of the film - but ESB as the "better movie". While they took chance with Empire as far as structure goes, theres really only 2 stories going on(Luke on Dag and The Falcon trying to escape with the Empire on their trail - both perfectly meeting at the end). IM2 has 4 or 5 plots driving the film.

If you want a example of a film where peoples opinion are vastly different from when the film was released, you have Blade Runner. Besides myself I can only think of one other person I knew who liked the film - and now its held in pretty high regard. Perhaps youre right and IM2 will be looked at more kindly in time, but I still think youre wrong with some of your points on Empire.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

The general audience doesn't care about directors.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Avatar is a mixed bag. That movie would not be considered great if it wasn't for the CGI and James Camerons name attached to the title.

You might be right about Cameron's name causing the movie to be rated higher by critics and so forth, but as far as box office goes I think people thoroughly enjoyed the movie without even noticing Cameron's name attached to it. I don't think general audiences pay too much attention to who directed a movie. Avatar's story is certainly derivative, but then again everything in Hollywood is derivative at this point. The story is well-told even if it is very familiar. You are absolutely right that the visual aspect of the film is what makes it stand out from other similar stories.

 

[hatebox]

It's almost too hypothetical to wonder how well Avatar would have done without Cameron, because the emotional manipulation used in the film could only have come from the same guy that did Titanic. I don't even mean that in a negative way - Cameron absolutely understands how tug the masses heartstrings to give him their money. He's a clever guy.

 

[spider-neil]

IM2 is like superman 2, rather than SM2 or TDK i.e. its not obviously better than the first movie although definately a good movie.

 

[redfirebird2008]

It's almost too hypothetical to wonder how well Avatar would have done without Cameron, because the emotional manipulation used in the film could only have come from the same guy that did Titanic. I don't even mean that in a negative way - Cameron absolutely understands how tug the masses heartstrings to give him their money. He's a clever guy.

That's a good point. It's kind of similar to Hitchcock's mastery of the thriller genre.

 

[ElMariachi]

Roll your eyes if you want, but hes right.

If Bret Ratners or Michal Bays name was on Avatar instead of Camerons, the guy who gave us Titanic, I think how it was received would be VERY different. Its a swell looking movie(that I actually found visually boring), but is a VERY mediocre movie.

And I was alive in 1980 and Empire blew people away. EVERYONE was talking about it. It has generally always considered the best SW film. SW for its cultural impact and groundbreaking technical apsects of the film - but ESB as the "better movie". While they took chance with Empire as far as structure goes, theres really only 2 stories going on(Luke on Dag and The Falcon trying to escape with the Empire on their trail - both perfectly meeting at the end). IM2 has 4 or 5 plots driving the film.

If you want a example of a film where peoples opinion are vastly different from when the film was released, you have Blade Runner. Besides myself I can only think of one other person I knew who liked the film - and now its held in pretty high regard. Perhaps youre right and IM2 will be looked at more kindly in time, but I still think youre wrong with some of your points on Empire.

Exactly. There wouldn't have been any buzz or hype for this movie had it not been for James Cameron. The movie itself was mediocre and the acting wasn't anything at all to write home about. It had great CGI, but the story was too simple and way too biased. That was a big turn off for me with how they pumped in one-sided, cliche politics into the movie. Personally, I found Transformers 2 to be a more fun movie. Everybody dogs that movie for heavy CGI and poor acting, but I am not expecting a summer blockbuster to be the Shawshank Redemption like too many filmgoers these days seem to expect.

As for ESB, you lived it so I can't refute what you are saying about the initial reception. I am not saying that the general audience had mixed feelings on it, but from what I heard---it wasn't immediately considered greater then Episode IV.

There were of course two major plot points, but there were others involved. You had Han/Jabba feud, Luke being Vaders son; Vader trying to lure Luke to the dark side, Han/Leia romance, and the rebel alliance sidestory (took a backseat for most of the movie after Hoth). Characters like Lando, Chewbacca, Han, Yoda, the Emporer, Vader, and Leia never really were fleshed out in the first movies. We never got a backstory on arguably the greatest character in the entire trilogy, Han Solo. And apparently, people are fine with that. Nowadays, every characters has to be fleshed out and have a ton of screentime.

Forgot about Blade Runner. Heard that movie wasn't given love in the beginning.