Iron Man 2 Where does Iron Man 2 stand among other superhero sequels?

[DACrowe]

I love the first Batman film, and it will go down as one of the all time greats. Batman Returns is sloppy, and Tim Burton run amok. There is nothing about Batman in that movie, nor the Penguin, nor Catwoman really.

I remember an interview with Tim Burton at the time and he said Tim Burton was a "weak character". This from someone who never reads comic books. So he turns Penguin into slime spitting mutant.

Catwoman was not a meager secretary who gets pushed out a window and bitten by radio active cats, she's a cat burgler. I'll admit that Pfeiffer's performance was the strongest in the film, but the film is a laughable joke that is more Ronald Dahl than it is Bob Kane.

I guess if you like it, then OK, but it discredits the point your trying to make with Iron Man. I actually have a soft spot for the Fantastic Four movies, but I wouldn't put them on any "best of" list.

To each their own. Albeit, I don't see how my liking of BR affects my comments or criticisms of IM2.

Your entire disdain for BR seems to be based on that it is not like the comic series (though there are countless variations on these characters in the comics). That's fine. But that doesn't bug me, because despite a rather irrelevant narrative (which was intentional), BR is a very tight film. Batman, Catwoman and especially Penguin are all very well developed and tragically sympathetic while repulsive. The ending is emotionally moving and seeing Catwoman kill Christopher Walken (who was in top form) and Batman lose--literally fail--at it all at the end was a punch to the stomach as a kid and still cathartically moving when I occasionally watch it today.

Keaton, DeVito, ESPECIALLY Pffeifer and WAlken were on in top form and the aesthetics of this film, particularly the costume design, cinematography and superb Danny Elfman score make this a fine movie, IMO. Whether it is accurate or not.

IM2 I thought was a forgettable, muddled movie that was not nearly as charming as the first installment due to the overworked narrative. BR begins and ends with itself, IM2 feels like an ad for future Marvel films. This is just my opinion, but that is what makes IM2 a lesser film. Just my opinion.

 

[Tony Stark]

To each their own. Albeit, I don't see how my liking of BR affects my comments or criticisms of IM2.

I'm just saying you're in the minority on this, even among those who think IM2 is not as good as the first movie.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

My favorite sequels are in order:

Spider-Man 2

TDK

X-Men 2

The worse are: (I'm not talking about 3rd movies obviously)

1. Batman Returns

2. Hellboy 2

Iron Man 2 is on my worse sequel list but it's not as bad as those two in my opinion. Iron Man 2 sits alongside Rise of the Silver Surfer.

I guess what I'm saying is that IM2 doesn't rank very high in my book.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

I quite like Batman Returns & SM3 to be honest.


They are my favorites in their series

 

[Travesty]

Well, I loved IM2, and I'm just glad that I enjoyed it.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^As you should be.


I loved the first 20minutes and I thought the critics were insane during them but after that...yeah...

 

[Doctor Jones]

Bad as FF2???

Hammer's dance alone automatically elevates it a billion times higher than that ****.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

To each their own. Albeit, I don't see how my liking of BR affects my comments or criticisms of IM2.

Your entire disdain for BR seems to be based on that it is not like the comic series (though there are countless variations on these characters in the comics). That's fine. But that doesn't bug me, because despite a rather irrelevant narrative (which was intentional), BR is a very tight film. Batman, Catwoman and especially Penguin are all very well developed and tragically sympathetic while repulsive. The ending is emotionally moving and seeing Catwoman kill Christopher Walken (who was in top form) and Batman lose--literally fail--at it all at the end was a punch to the stomach as a kid and still cathartically moving when I occasionally watch it today.

Keaton, DeVito, ESPECIALLY Pffeifer and WAlken were on in top form and the aesthetics of this film, particularly the costume design, cinematography and superb Danny Elfman score make this a fine movie, IMO. Whether it is accurate or not.

IM2 I thought was a forgettable, muddled movie that was not nearly as charming as the first installment due to the overworked narrative. BR begins and ends with itself, IM2 feels like an ad for future Marvel films. This is just my opinion, but that is what makes IM2 a lesser film. Just my opinion.

Yeah, but as I explained in another thread, there was no point in the film where I though Batman was actually did something heroic. Burton decided to use the film to comment on his ideals of hopelessness than adding any shred of light to the film.

I have no problem with Batman failing, and TDK did it way better than Batman Returns did. While Batman did fail several times during TDK, he was still heroic in doing so and in the end offered a shred of light in the end. It was a weak Batman film, and an okay Burton film.


Iron Man 2 while not as good as the first is defintely not as Bad as FF2 (seriously?), and while not as narratively strong as TDK, Spiderman 2, and X2, the performances, action, and overall fun factor of Iron Man 2 is what puts it over the top and up there with those films.

Plus like I said earlier, Iron Man is a better film Batman Begins, Spiderman, and X-men, so I don't know why people say its not as good as the other sequels because it didn't exceed the Iron Man 1 when Iron Man 1 is considered by some people as good as TDK, Spiderman 2, and X2.

 

[Tony Stark]

FF2 was doomed to fail, no pun intended. Pretty rediculous to compare IM2 to FF, and to tell the truth ROTSS is a guilty pleasure for me, and yes it was bad, but I still kinda like it. IM2 is balls to the walls, and the ensemble cast is hands and feet better than ROTSS it isn't even funny. The only guys who could compete are Chiklis and Fishburn, and he only did the voice acting (thank goodness, because without him the movie would have been a complete crapper).

 

[The Joker]

I love Batman Returns. I even like it more than Batman '89.

The villains are fantastic. I really like how each one represents some kind of angle to Batman's persona. The Penguin is the lonely orphan, Catwoman is the angry vigilante, and Schreck is the powerful businessman. Gotham looks great with the whole snowy atmosphere.

My only real complaints with the movie are:

- Batman has no real character arc or development in it at all. Keaton is great, but his character doesn't evolve at all.
- I didn't like Batman unmasking in front of Schreck. Foolish thing to do. He got lucky that Catwoman murdered Schreck.
- Red Triangle Circus gang. I loved them, but they really seem more suited for someone like The Joker and not The Penguin.

 

[Infinity9999x]

It's been a while since I've seen BB. Was the train moving at top speed when he latched onto it?

Yep. And still, like I said, in the scene in the mountains after the ninja hideout explodes, he CURLS Ducard, with one arm, and Ducard is in full body armor.

I mean, Ducard was what? 6'3/6'2? And a big guy, probably in the ballpark of 220lbs, and add at least another 20 pounds for that armor. So Bruce curled around 240lbs in that scene, possibly more.

That right there is pretty nearly beyond the limit's of human capability, when you're not built like one of the world's strongest men guys.

Still, the point is, I really, really doubt anyone would have had a problem with Bats using the grappling gun and not hurting his arm, and he's been shown to do things beyond the realm of actual human possibility before as well.

But honestly, the car fall didn't bother me. I mean, we see Batman drop about twenty feet onto a moving van, crush the roof, and not blow his knees out, so I could accept that he wasn't dead after smashing into the car.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I actually think BR is pretty well made. Narratively it is very loose, but so are all Burton movies. In its own terms it works charmingly. I agree on SM3. I like Superman II, but it is a movie that I don't need to watch a lot, because it is very dry for a lot of the reasons you noted.

I agree that Batman Returns is well made. The film does go odd and goofy places, but it carries the duality theme of the film very well, and the climax of the film is fitting for all the characters.

Superman II also frustrates me, because Donner's vision for it was vastly superior, and I think would have made it while not as good as S:TM, it would have been a very worthy sequel. I almost hate watching the Donner Cut because I absolutely LOVE the new Jor-El scenes and the way the Donner filmed scenes, but it feels incomplete. It has too many Lesterisms left, unfinished stuff (like when Reeve says "I'm not a coward Zod"...he sounds like Mickey Mouse), and it has no distinct ending. When I see the turn back time thing, I get sad because the film didn't get finished

I love Batman Returns. I even like it more than Batman '89.

The villains are fantastic. I really like how each one represents some kind of angle to Batman's persona. The Penguin is the lonely orphan, Catwoman is the angry vigilante, and Schreck is the powerful businessman. Gotham looks great with the whole snowy atmosphere.

My only real complaints with the movie are:

- Batman has no real character arc or development in it at all. Keaton is great, but his character doesn't evolve at all.
- I didn't like Batman unmasking in front of Schreck. Foolish thing to do. He got lucky that Catwoman murdered Schreck.
- Red Triangle Circus gang. I loved them, but they really seem more suited for someone like The Joker and not The Penguin.

I agree with these flaws, especially on Batman not having a real arc. The struggle to get both his lives to meet is there in his lust for Selena vs Catwoman, but it is not prominant at all. The film was all about Penguin and Catwoman. The theme still works, though.

FF2 was doomed to fail, no pun intended. Pretty rediculous to compare IM2 to FF, and to tell the truth ROTSS is a guilty pleasure for me, and yes it was bad, but I still kinda like it. IM2 is balls to the walls, and the ensemble cast is hands and feet better than ROTSS it isn't even funny. The only guys who could compete are Chiklis and Fishburn, and he only did the voice acting (thank goodness, because without him the movie would have been a complete crapper).

The FF films anger me to no end. Whenever I see those films anymore, I get angry. They screw up Doom and the Galactus/Surfer saga SO BADLY, it is insulting to me. Especially since Dr. Doom is my all-time favorite villain, and the Galactus story is one of my favorites of all-time. Both films miss the mark on what makes Doom who he is, and why the Surfer/Galactus story/relationship is so great. Doom is not even remotely threatening in either film! Which is an insult to his character.

Just posting about my anger of those films is making me angry

 

[Infinity9999x]

It's been a while since I've seen BB. Was the train moving at top speed when he latched onto it?

Yep. And still, like I said, in the scene in the mountains after the ninja hideout explodes, he CURLS Ducard, with one arm, and Ducard is in full body armor.

I mean, Ducard was what? 6'3/6'2? And a big guy, probably in the ballpark of 220lbs, and add at least another 20 pounds for that armor. So Bruce curled around 240lbs in that scene, possibly more.

That right there is pretty nearly beyond the limit's of human capability, when you're not built like one of the world's strongest men guys.

Still, the point is, I really, really doubt anyone would have had a problem with Bats using the grappling gun and not hurting his arm, and he's been shown to do things beyond the realm of actual human possibility before as well.

But honestly, the car fall didn't bother me. I mean, we see Batman drop about twenty feet onto a moving van, crush the roof, and not blow his knees out, so I could accept that he wasn't dead after smashing into the car.

 

[Gespatcho]

I'm just saying you're in the minority on this, even among those who think IM2 is not as good as the first movie.

Rotten Tomatoes

Iron Man - 93%
Iron Man 2 - 75%
Batman Returns - 77%

I've only heard people on this forum say they liked IM 2 better than the original, or actually even believe it to be a better film.

It's clearly not. The original is an instant classic. Iron Man 2 comes in with a C level type performance, and ultimately forgettable.

Batman Returns is visually enthralling, but its weak on plot. The film, like IM 2 has no soul. No heart, little charisma. There is no journey or caring from the audience. It's a bunch of mildly entertaining scenes stringed together with no coherent narrative.

Iron Man on the other hand is a tight scripted film. It has intelligence, great performance, and a simple plot objective but gives us a character's story arc that we ultimately grow to care for and love. IM 2 is a mess once the party scene starts.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Double post...hype sucks today

 

[Gespatcho]

I'm just saying you're in the minority on this, even among those who think IM2 is not as good as the first movie.

Really? He's in the minority thinking IM 2 is a flawed, and slightly forgettable film, that doesn't come close let alone succeed the original? What minority do you speak of? It's obvious your agenda given your hard on for any and everything Iron Man. But its quite clear the sequel doesn't match the power of the original film. bad place, even for debates sake, your much maligned Batman Returns has a better ranking than Iron Man 2.

Rotten Tomatoes

Iron Man - 93%
Iron Man 2 - 75%
Batman Returns - 77%

I've only heard people on this forum say they liked IM 2 better than the original, or actually even believe it to be a better film.

It's clearly not. The original is an instant classic. Iron Man 2 comes in with a C level type performance, and ultimately forgettable.

Batman Returns is visually enthralling, but its weak on plot. The film, like IM 2 has no soul. No heart, little charisma. There is no journey or caring from the audience. It's a bunch of mildly entertaining scenes stringed together with no coherent narrative.

Iron Man on the other hand is a tight scripted film. It has intelligence, great performance, and a simple plot objective but gives us a character's story arc that we ultimately grow to care for and love. IM 2 is a mess once the party scene starts.

 

[hatebox]

Iron Man on the other hand is a tight scripted film.

Funnily enough IM didn't even have a fully written script by the time they filmed. As Bridges noted, it was one of the most expensive improvised movies ever.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Really? He's in the minority thinking IM 2 is a flawed, and slightly forgettable film, that doesn't come close let alone succeed the original? What minority do you speak of? It's obvious your agenda given your hard on for any and everything Iron Man. But its quite clear the sequel doesn't match the power of the original film. bad place, even for debates sake, your much maligned Batman Returns has a better ranking than Iron Man 2.

Rotten Tomatoes

Iron Man - 93%
Iron Man 2 - 75%
Batman Returns - 77%

I've only heard people on this forum say they liked IM 2 better than the original, or actually even believe it to be a better film.

It's clearly not. The original is an instant classic. Iron Man 2 comes in with a C level type performance, and ultimately forgettable.

Batman Returns is visually enthralling, but its weak on plot. The film, like IM 2 has no soul. No heart, little charisma. There is no journey or caring from the audience. It's a bunch of mildly entertaining scenes stringed together with no coherent narrative.

Iron Man on the other hand is a tight scripted film. It has intelligence, great performance, and a simple plot objective but gives us a character's story arc that we ultimately grow to care for and love. IM 2 is a mess once the party scene starts.

I don't get why so many people have a problem with the party scene. Some people are just no fun and want all seriousness in films. God, why does every film always have to have this serious tone. I liked the humor in Iron Man 2. It was within character and it wasn't character derailment like in other superhero films.

I think that's the problem with people. People were expecting a deep, thought provoking film.

Iron Man 2 isn't better than Iron Man 1, but its still an fun, entertaining addition to the series thats a good quality film. I agree that story wise, there's little heart and soul to it, but once again I must say that its the performances that save this film and adds more heart and soul to the film. RDJ adds heart to the character along with Paltrow and Rourke. Cheadle and Rockwell put in good supporting peformances that ups the entertainment value.

I had fun watching this film and I just don't think the drunk fights scene's a problem with the film. The problem is that Fav's felt the pressure to deliver a sequel and added too much with little focus. Iron Man 1 was a more focused, straightforward film that worked.

EDIT: IM3 needs stronger screenwriters the can write a tighter script while retaining that humor of the series. I hope Fav's realize that less is more also.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Iron Man is not tightly scripted. It was filmed in a similar fashion that IM2 was, and you can tell it was. The 2nd half of the film in particular doesn't move as fast as the first half of the film. What IM1 has that IM2 doesn't is less to focus on. IM2 juggled more stuff, so not sticking to a tight script meant the film wavered more than IM1 did, because they had more to cover. This is how you get someone like Black Widow who is essentially useless to the film overall.

That said, I still quite enjoy IM2. It is a very fun movie and entertains me. It just lacks depth. I do hope that IM3 doesn't try and juggle being a sequel/Avengers bridge, and they scale back what is going on in the plot. That is how IM3 will be less disjointed. I also hope that the Thor and Cap films don't go out of their way in being bridges to Avengers and act as introductory films to those characters first and foremost...like IM1 did.

 

[Son of Coul]

Yeah IM1 was much more loosely scripted than IM2, they were even changing major plot points as they were building the suits right before shooting.

IM2 reviews counted- 233
BR reviews counted- 44

There's no control in the comparison. And who gives a **** what critics think, they're not the target audience in Marvel's eyes. I swear to God people play up the first movie like it's Citizen Kane or something.

 

[Tony Stark]

Really? He's in the minority thinking IM 2 is a flawed, and slightly forgettable film, that doesn't come close let alone succeed the original? What minority do you speak of? It's obvious your agenda given your hard on for any and everything Iron Man. But its quite clear the sequel doesn't match the power of the original film. bad place, even for debates sake, your much maligned Batman Returns has a better ranking than Iron Man 2.

Rotten Tomatoes

Iron Man - 93%
Iron Man 2 - 75%
Batman Returns - 77%

I've only heard people on this forum say they liked IM 2 better than the original, or actually even believe it to be a better film.

It's clearly not. The original is an instant classic. Iron Man 2 comes in with a C level type performance, and ultimately forgettable.

Batman Returns is visually enthralling, but its weak on plot. The film, like IM 2 has no soul. No heart, little charisma. There is no journey or caring from the audience. It's a bunch of mildly entertaining scenes stringed together with no coherent narrative.

Iron Man on the other hand is a tight scripted film. It has intelligence, great performance, and a simple plot objective but gives us a character's story arc that we ultimately grow to care for and love. IM 2 is a mess once the party scene starts.

You're comparing an RT score with a movie that had over 233 reviews to one that only had 44? I can see why you didn't list the "top critic" scores.

Seriously dude you look like a troll, and I'm just curious if you've posted one thing on another SHH forum other than the troll posts you put here?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Iron Man is not tightly scripted. It was filmed in a similar fashion that IM2 was, and you can tell it was. The 2nd half of the film in particular doesn't move as fast as the first half of the film. What IM1 has that IM2 doesn't is less to focus on. IM2 juggled more stuff, so not sticking to a tight script meant the film wavered more than IM1 did, because they had more to cover. This is how you get someone like Black Widow who is essentially useless to the film overall.

That said, I still quite enjoy IM2. It is a very fun movie and entertains me. It just lacks depth. I do hope that IM3 doesn't try and juggle being a sequel/Avengers bridge, and they scale back what is going on in the plot. That is how IM3 will be less disjointed. I also hope that the Thor and Cap films don't go out of their way in being bridges to Avengers and act as introductory films to those characters first and foremost...like IM1 did.

I don't Black Widow was useless. She is an key character who origins began in Iron Man stories. I think she played her role well and did have a direction for her.

I like where they're going with the series nevertheless, but I hope they can write a better story while retaining the elements that made the first two films great.

I agree about not having SHIELD have a huge presence in Cap and Thor. I hope SHIELD isn't a huge presence in Thor like they did in IM2. SHIELD is essential to the Iron Man comics and it made sense to why SHIELD's in IM2 giving the circumstances. I expect agent Coulson to be the only SHIELD agent in the film and I wouldn't have a problem with him being a supporting character in the film, but SHIELD's presence shouldn't be huge.

I don't expect it to be huge anyway. Favreau is a producer for The Avengers, so that's why he pushes the initiative in his film. I don't think Branagh wants to do the same, and he shouldn't.

I don't think that other than a few scenes in Captain America that SHIELD will be in the film at all but Nick Fury will be in it.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Cap could. Remember, they said Howard Stark was a founding member of SHIELD. They could try and have SHIELD founded in Cap.

As for Widow, she really does have a not necessary role in the film. She offers nothing Agent Coulson couldn't have. The whole thing about her being in legal could have been written out of the script, and the movie abandons Stark's attraction to her halfway into the film. Even when she goes to get Vanko, all she does is beat up henchmen (that are not in the main fight) and unlock Rhodey from the computer. Rhodey could have been unlocked by the Stark hackers at the expo, as opposed to Widow.

She could have been written out of the movie without having any effect. She was useless.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Yeah IM1 was much more loosely scripted than IM2, they were even changing major plot points as they were building the suits right before shooting.

IM2 reviews counted- 233
BR reviews counted- 44

There's no control in the comparison. And who gives a **** what critics think, they're not the target audience in Marvel's eyes. I swear to God people play up the first movie like it's Citizen Kane or something.

I don't like RT being the barometer of whether a film is good or not. It is used far too much as gospel on the web. People need to make up their own minds.

Using RT for old movies is also hard to do, as seen in this example. IM2 has WAY more reviews than BR. If BR had that many reviews or close to it, who is to say its score would be higher/lower? I don't think anyone can.

But, I like both movies.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Cap could. Remember, they said Howard Stark was a founding member of SHIELD. They could try and have SHIELD founded in Cap.

As for Widow, she really does have a not necessary role in the film. She offers nothing Agent Coulson couldn't have. The whole thing about her being in legal could have been written out of the script, and the movie abandons Stark's attraction to her halfway into the film. Even when she goes to get Vanko, all she does is beat up henchmen (that are not in the main fight) and unlock Rhodey from the computer. Rhodey could have been unlocked by the Stark hackers at the expo, as opposed to Widow.

She could have been written out of the movie without having any effect. She was useless.

I thought that SHIELD was founded after WWII. I hope they don't force SHIELD in Cap.

I agree that BW could've been written out of the film, but I don't agree that she was useless in film. There's a difference. Whether you like it or not, it was her that unlocked Rhodey. She wasn't completely useless. But I like that she was in the film and she didn't really take away from anything. She served her purpose and I have no problem with her in the film. And with that logic of her being replaced with someone else, I could say that for many characters in many different films, so I wonder why people always say that.

I do agree that the attraction thing was pretty useless, though I think the editors did a good job of getting rid of most of the scenes that hint at it.

I don't like RT being the barometer of whether a film is good or not. It is used far too much as gospel on the web. People need to make up their own minds.

Using RT for old movies is also hard to do, as seen in this example. IM2 has WAY more reviews than BR. If BR had that many reviews or close to it, who is to say its score would be higher/lower? I don't think anyone can.

But, I like both movies.

BR would definitely be lower

As a person who uses RT and metacritic a lot, I like using it for newer films. I'm not making up my own mind to see a film if I'm paying $12 for it and it ends up sucking. Plus, RT and metacritic are usually accurate when it comes to films with high and low ratings. The ones with average ratings are the ones that are usually toss ups.