|
Iron Man 2 will most likely shatter all kinds of records. The problem is that this is largely a testament to how good the first movie was, and not because of how good the sequel is. Jon Favreau brings us a version of Iron Man this time around that plays out more like a Van Wilder movie than a superhero movie. RDJ brings the same great Tony Stark character back to life, but with a darker, more melancholy and haphazard approach to life. This movie is less about the superhero Iron Man and more about the internal struggles of the person who is Iron Man. The problem is that the director can't seem to handle the deep, internal struggles that Stark faces as anything more than juvenile, alcohol fueled, antics. While there is a main villain this time around, Whiplash (Vanko), and the villain is excellent and handled well, it takes a back seat to Stark loving around. As a result, the middle portions of the film drag on needlessly and reach ridiculous points that left me rolling my eyes and wondering where the action and charm of the first Iron Man went. The re-casting of Lt. Col. Rhodes was disappointing, as Cheadle simply can't match the charisma and presence of the Rhodes given to us by Howard in IM1. And while Pepper Potts is, arguably, given a little more to do this time around, it results in her character losing touch with Stark and leaving the film a little drier. Seeing that this is Stark's low point in life, maybe this issue is by design? About the only character really fleshed out is Sam Rockwell's depiction as the CEO of Hammer, an appropriately jealous nerd and Stark rival almost to a fault, risking becoming one dimensional. Finally, the action scenes, outside of the initial entrance by Whiplash, are lackluster at best. An army of drones unleashed upon Iron Man, produced by Stark Company rivals, Hammer, and led by Whiplash are devoid of personality and seem no more than a way to draw out a few more minutes of the film. Unfortunately, the films main villain also leaves the audience with the biggest plot hole. Whiplash's "whips" can cut through nearly every material in the movie, including steel and metal, but Iron Man's suit is impervious? Well, maybe not the biggest plot hole. Stark invents a new element with a home-made particle accelerator. Scarlett Johansson provides little more than something nice to look at, but fortunately isn't wasted nearly as much as Samuel L. Jackson is. I think at this point the movie is suffering from trying to juggle too much at once, and this explains to me why S.H.I.E.L.D. is handled the way it is in this film; A lead in to The Avengers. I hate to sound like I'm nitpicking, but this movie just didn't do it for me. I can't blame anyone in particular, I think Favreau did probably as good as anyone could've done with the material, maybe relying a little too much on adlib over a strict script. It would've been no easy feat to top the uniqueness and greatness of the first movie, which is why Iron Man 2 will be destined to "Sequel Purgatory" along with the likes of Spiderman 3, Terminator 3, Alien 3... Hell, they could've called this Iron Man 3, but that would be a little too harsh. Let's compromise and call this the Iron Man series' very own "Quantum of Solace". 3/5 The Shep fucked around with this message at 18:19 on May 10, 2010 |
#
?
May 10, 2010 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
Favreau should have approached this as a movie and not as an exercise in fan service. Instead of trying to shoehorn in everything, he should have focused on IM vs Whiplash (the two best actors). Hammer could have backed Whiplash, while staying offscreen much more (why did we need so much screentime devoted to this character?). Johansson could have been limited to the hot new assistant who gives rise to tension in the Tony/Pepper relationship. A lack of War Machine would have negated the recasting issue, which was indeed pretty lame. All the Avengers-related crap could have been moved to the AVENGERS MOVIE. Lame soundtrack, too much riffing between characters, confusing action, aimless middle, and an unsettling neoconservative vibe do much to detract. 2/5 the_psychologist fucked around with this message at 02:52 on May 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2010 22:28
|
|
|
Jon Favreau has had a very dodgy career, directing disasters such as Dare Devil, and directing incredibly entertaining movies such as Iron Man 1. This, unfortunately, isn't one of his better films. The pacing is a bit dodgy throughout the entire movie. It seems too much time is spent developing the character of Ivan Vanko. If his final battle wasn't going to involve his suit, which we spent more time watching him make than actually use, why did they spend so much time building it up? This leads audiences to feel kind of cheated when the villain and the protagonist only go at it for a few minutes. Sam Rockwell was completely wasted here. His character was completely irritating, and almost embarrassing. The writing for his character was very deflated and uninteresting, and his character on the whole was completely pointless. All of these errors did not help the pacing, some parts seemed to drag on for way too long, and others seemed painfully short. If you were to cut out Sam Rockwell's scenes, half of the scenes with Gwyneth Paltrow, Scarlett Johannson, Jon Favreau himself, and drunken Iron Man, cut out the entirety of Don Cheadle's scenes, and stretched out the battles between the Protagonist and Antagonist, this movie would have been much, much better. 2/5
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 06:33
|
|
|
I enjoyed this and while I went in with high expectations, I did remind myself that I wouldn't be banking on high art from the sequel to Iron Man. The pacing was good and I didn't feel shortchanged by the number of events included in the movie and as a fan of the old tv series, I greatly appreciated how they handled Tony's challenges with style given the time constraints. The seemingly improvised dialogue was a little surprising at first but perhaps as a testament to the actor's skills, everything flowed very naturally and there was what felt like actual enjoyment in their voices for having that freedom. That approach pervades the film and comes out numerous times in amusingly tongue-in-cheek observations, like Tony stopping the highly distracting desk ornament and after building a particle accelerator for a deus ex machina, noting, "That was easy." My 2 negatives are that Rhodes' character felt out of place with little impact on the plot and I was expecting more after his introduction in the first movie and that the conflict was split between multiple antagonists with none taking center stage and being an appreciable threat. All in all though, a very solid summer action movie. If you liked Iron Man 1 then you'll like this. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 06:03
|
|
|
From every review of this movie I've seen it seems that everyone's made one major mistake. Whiplash is not the main antagonist of this film. He's an entirely enjoyable villain performed excellently, but he's really just there to give the film an excuse to have Iron Man in battle. The real villain of this film is Tony Stark. Tony Stark is self-destructive. The film couldn't portray his alcoholism and maintain its PG-13 rating, so instead Tony is poisoning himself, and this is his excuse to push away everything important to him. I honestly think it works. This is a man who carries the weight of the world on his shoulders, and is so obsessed with the idea that the burden is his alone that he'd destroy everything rather than let anyone feel sympathetic over him. Of course Tony Stark is an antagonist who can't be overcome alone. Just like in the comics he needs outside help to fight his demons, and rise up to be the man the world expects him to be. If you want to see a Superhero film where people clash with powers during every second of the film then Iron Man 2 isn't for you. This film is more like a middle ground to give you real incite into just who Tony Stark is. His alter ego as Iron Man plays secondary in this one. But don't fret because if the build-ups hold true then by the next time we see Stark in a movie it'll be seriously action packed. ALSO stick around after the credits. I don't want to spoil anything, but you'll be hammered. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 14:48
|
|
|
As someone who never read any or the comics or knows nothing about S.H.I.E.L.D or The Avengers, I really enjoyed this movie. I think I still enjoyed the first one a bit more but this was definitely fun to watch. Now I'll at least be able to know what the hell everyone at work is talking about. From what they try to explain to me, perhaps someday I'll understand how all of this is connected and how accurate the characters really are. Also, holy poo poo Scarlet Johansson  ...love the dark hair.So, from a purely entertainment standpoint: 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 07:15
|
|
|
The best part of Iron Man 2 was Mickey Rourke's character. You know how lovely movies like Saw and Law Abiding Citizen have evil genius villains but the only genius thing about them is a knack for making needlessly elaborate death trap metaphors? Forget that noise. Mickey Rourke's Ivan Vanko, a combination of Iron Man's cold war counterpart Crimson Dynamo and Whiplash, is more interesting, colorful, and fun to watch than anything this side of Hannibal Lecter's cell. While the self-destructive Tony Stark revels in self congratulation, the vengeful and surly Vanko is in a Russian steel mill chilling with his cockatoo and building electrowhips just to gently caress up Stark's go kart. He gets busted, but he acts like it ain't even prison, sucks on toothpicks, counts his tattoos, and tells Stark he can make God bleed. And he plays the other villain, the slick Justin Hammer, for a punk too. There wasn't a scene in the movie with him I didn't like. While there are a lot of fun and enjoyable moments in the movie, the Iron Man franchise is starting to show signs of losing its freshness. My main gripe is with the fight scenes. Just like the the Hulk movies, the fights and action doesn't have any emotional or even visceral effect on you because the Hulk is just so drat strong and tough that nothing convinces you he's ever in trouble of losing a fight. Iron Man 2 has the same problem. Most of the fighting is with other armor suits and it's doesn't take a toll on the people in the suits. My example is the fight between Rhodes and Stark. It's basically two lifeless tin cans slamming into each and nothing seems to have an effect on either of them. They actually have Iron Man put War Machine in a headlock and bulldog him into a wall. How's that going to hurt someone in a big metal suit? Or even the super advanced metal suit itself? Yeah, it was destructive but who cares? Stark is a zillionaire and probably has several beachside bachelor pads. It's not like he lost anything irreplaceable. Well, sort of. The exception being the first encounter with Vanko and Stark you see in the trailers and it remains the most exciting fight in the movie for the simple fact it made Iron Man look vulnerable for a change. I liked this movie despite some flaws and that effeminate Peter Pan hovering that Rhodes and Stark do when they fly in their suits. I wish they get rid of that. Four Stars. Not a Duck fucked around with this message at 05:56 on May 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 05:42
|
|
|
Let me start by saying I can't believe that Iron Man 1 and Iron Man 2 had the same director, my feelings for the two films is so opposite I was sure when it ended that the second one had been ruined because of a different director. The movie managed to shine through at a couple parts, but it felt held back at the same time. I have no idea about the comic books so all the SHIELD poo poo seemed totally under explained. It felt that it was introduced just for people to go, "Oh poo poo Samuel L Jackson an eyepactch, how bad rear end." He drops some plot handwaving that they are some secret group gives him a mystical crate to invent a new element. And then to show up at the end to lead into another movie I guess. Him inventing the new element to heal himself felt like it wasted the first half of the movie were it was showing how self-destructive he is, which made him interesting. Now he's magically healed and got the girl he loves and an invincible suit of armor and a buddy with one too, hooray. Some of the scenes with Sam Rockwell were almost embarrassingly bad and if I hadn't seen Moon I would have thought he was a terrible actor, so I have no idea how that got hosed up. Scarlett Johansson's fight scenes felt ruined in a similar way, she would dispatch a few guys then it would cut to a slow cool rear end walk, yea she is bad rear end, ok great. Ok, fight a few more dudes, another badass slow walk, oh gently caress it lets do it again. Maybe if you are knowledgeable about the comics and know details about the characters you will like it, but if you don't it will feel like they just threw poo poo into the movie just because it exists in the comics. Tony Stark and Ivan Vanko were great, everything else felt shoehorned. 1/5 Almost walked out
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2010 05:08
|
|
|
An absolute snorefest. I didn't think I would be so bored coming out of Iron Man 2 for Christ's sake. The action scenes were meh, the acting and script sucked. Rockwell as a wannabe Stark hating douchebag was terrible. Way too much effort to try and be funny, where in the first one it flowed much more naturally. One of the most disappointing sequels of all time. 1.5/5 only because Scarlett is freaking hot as balls.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 04:59
|
|
|
Outstandingly boring, overly long, hackneyed barely-existing plot, it's a 2 hour long superhero movie and the villain (Mickey Rourke) literally has 10 minutes of screen time. I hope you enjoy 15 minutes of action sprinkled between 2 hours of characters blabbing because that's all you're gonna get. What's most painful about this "action" movie (and I use the term action loosely) is how much talent was wasted; Mickey Rourke wasn't visible, his silver screen potential was substituted with unlikable characters, worthless comic book shoutouts and cameos. Not even worth sneaking into. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 04:44
|
|
|
It was fun, but it felt like filler to (if anything) hype the Avengers movie. Mickey Rourke was a huge letdown, and I continue to lose my faith in John Favreau's ability to shoot a climactic fight. I enjoyed the first, but the second one left me feeling pretty empty. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2010 07:43
|
|
|
Usually, when a film I like gets average or sub-average reviews, I can see the points that the critics have. I do not understand the lack of much love for Iron Man 2, however. It is a chaotic, dense film, but I think it is more of an achievement than the first. I will give the haters a point for noting the ridiculousness of creating a new element, but this is Tony Stark we're talking about. Come on. Aside from that, though, the main gripe seems to be that the film is either boring or unevenly paced. It is not boring; my eyes were glued to the screen. It was incredibly exciting. The effects are spectacular, the performances are wonderful (Cheadle is much better than Howard), and it's even funnier than the first film. The scene in Pepper's office with the contraption on the desk in between Tony and Pepper, and Tony finally bringing it up was hysterical, very original and exactly what the audience was paying attention to. That's a sign of good filmmaking--when you can control what will have the audience's attention in a scene that isn't about where you've put their attention, and then having that lend to the mood of the scene. It has an uneven pace, yes, but there is a reason for this. The film is chaotic when Tony Stark is on screen and more methodical when he's not on screen for a very important reason--I will leave it up to other viewers to decide what that reason is. The bottom line is that the film is very accessible if you've seen the first one a couple of times, and loved it more each successive time. It joins the ranks of The Dark Knight and Spider-Man II (although it's not as good as the first) as a wonderful comic book movie sequel. 4.5/5 P.S. I've never thought much of Sam Rockwell--I didn't even really like Moon, but he's fantastic in this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2010 07:43
|
|
|
This movie must suffer greatly from the Writer's strike, and that is true to a certain extent. Let's take the character of Hammer as an example. I like Sam Rockwell in Moon, he is wasted here in a character that is basically ridiculous. Are we really supposed to believe that someone who is smart enough to claw his way to the top of cut-throat weapons contracting empire is stupid enough to employ a known violent criminal who already showed him his computer hacking abilities, and then not monitor what he is doing at all. Then there is the part where Fury gives him the shot which (temporarily) cures Stark, and then tells him he will have to invent something himself to do the same thing, whereupon he invents a new element. Did he have to invent a new element when Fury had done something without...?. The script also reeks of corporate manipulation as it serves as both a comercial for future Marvel endeavors and a commercial for Oracle? I guess Marvel/Disney isn't making enough money already. But the real problem for me is the aimless direction of Favreau. There seems to be a requisite 120 min. mark nowadays, and in order to stretch the script to that time period, the film has so many needless scenes, or moments that linger on the screen far longer then necessary. For example, the party at Tony's house could have been much tighter, and if you compare it to a similar scene in Batman Begins, you get a good sense of how a really good director can make the difference. There is so many scenes that could be left on the cutting floor because they just do not further the movie in any way.And no matter how dark as Tony's problems are, they never seem to be any more dangerous than a hangover. Meanwhile Downy, Jr. flirts with going beyond lovable rogue to just being a jerk. In a bizarre way, it's surprising just how close Hammer and Stark are to each other. Finally, the action. It's what we all came to see, right? There are some reasonably interesting twists in the action, but the general actions sequences are somewhat boring and devoid of a feeling of danger for either side. Then just when things are getting good, it's over in a blink of an eye. If this is what you came to see, then you will probably not leave the theater saying "that was really cool when he did x..." You'll probably have trouble remembering most of this movie the next day. I would like to say that this is a victim of sequelitis, but look how Spiderman 2 turned out, which explores some of the same types of issues. So I'm just going to blame Favreau and some really bad editing decisions. FINAL SCORE   (extra star for Mickey Rourke, who I really liked in this movie.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2010 15:32
|
|
|
I think the studio tendency to reboot, and re-reboot franchises stems from the cynical reality that most superhero franchises are most interesting because of their origin stories. This, I feel, is the problem with "Iron Man." The first film was wildly successful...not just because of any particular character fireworks or compelling acting, but because those elements fit into a lean, efficient, self-consistent narrative with a comprehensible arc. Tony Stark's character change was motivated by the wider plot, and the villain was conversant with the same thematic argument (Stane, like a shadow of Tony, is an unethical businessman who actively rejects accountability and encourages unrest for financial gain; this is the very dilemma that Tony wrestled for the entire movie, so Stane seemed a fully logical counterpoint.) "Iron Man 2" lacks this same level of clarity, and this messiness is what made it less effective. Although Mickey Rourke was fantastic in the role, Vanko's particular M.O. never seemed to relate very directly to Tony's interpersonal dilemma. "Sins of the father," or an extension of "accountability" seem like the closest fits, but I struggle to define any singular, overriding "issue" at the heart of the movie. Vanko seemed to have a beef with Tony that Tony never took seriously and was barely asked to consider at all...meanwhile, Tony's self-destructive reaction to Palladium poisoning and his myriad interactions with S.H.I.E.L.D. seemed strangely discontinuous and unrelated. The entire film seemed to consist of arbitrary moments that interconnect in purely surface ways, and it's for this reason that it's easy to forget. I don't mean this as a particular affront against Favreau..."Iron Man" is a hard character to work with. Most of this, I contend, is due to "Iron Man's" lack of compelling or relevant villains. Iron Monger proved perfectly consistent with the worldview of the first film. However, most of "Iron Man's" villains are hard to divorce from a particularly Cold War mentality. The ethos set up in the first film - regarding political accountability, business ethics, and personal responsibility - reflects a national cynicism where the ultimate villain isn't really a foreign outsider, but a corporation divorced of ethics. Something like Crimson Dynamo, or the Mandarin, are hard to fit into that mold. The difficulty entailed in making those characters work, I feel, is what has left "Iron Man 2" so formless. 3/5 - good performances and technically competent special effects, in a story with very little direction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2010 20:16
|
|
|
Time flashes by like classic cereal ads in the eternal adolescence of my demographic, that seems to cling to rusty relics like Iron Man 2 and their ilk like the brainless lampreys they are. Downey's heroic comedown from heroin addiction gets more painful by the minute, and Mickey Rourke's face looks like a loving sofa stuffed with botox. What luck that they lived for these fat years when audiences would, finding their own eras stars fleeting and prefunctory, pay generously for drivel with retro-stars for leads. This is a painful movie experience for anyone who can't name more than four superheroes. It's more dreary philosophizing from Justin Theroux, who's career still apexed in 2001. Jon Favreau directs in his usual style, whatever it is--I've never noticed it. His small role still somehow manages to seem long, self-serving and undeserved. A lot of characters, including Scarlett Johannsen's gorgeous rear end, are squandered for lack of screentime. Why introduce them at all?--oh, right, Nick Fury (2011), The Avengers (2012), Iron Man 3 (2012), LargeCock (2013), et al. Who gives a gently caress, honestly? After all these years, lots of people apparently. Gwenyth Paltrow eats up a lot of time here as a bad character transplanted from one of Favreau's romantic comedy vehicles. Her banter with Downey is tiresome, her face is too angular, and she sucks. She quits her job at the end, so hopefully she'll be written out of subsequent sequels, and Johanssen takes her place, and constantly performs high kicks. Back to Paltrow. Doesn't she just seem like a douche? Apple, nice. Nice name for a baby.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
Remember when you first heard about Iron Man, and went "I wonder how bad they're going to gently caress it up this time?" yet were pleasantly surprised at how... actually GOOD it was for what should have been a mediocre/bad comic book movie? Well basically take that first impression and then get rid of the pleasantly surprised part, Iron Man 2 is basically that movie that you thought the first was going to be. I've never been a big fan of the comic books, although I suppose I could like Iron Man the most out of all the "Super Hero" dramas, but the first film, despite some ludicrous moments, was an enjoyable romp. Plot holes, completely utterly stupid actions by the characters (yeah, I have 8 Iron Man suits, and you can just walk up and step right in them, and yeah, no problem you can keep it, to "Hey, let's give an unstable jail man complete access to building robots that are fully armed on a demonstration run, this should end well!"), gratuitous action scenes that have absolutely no effect on advancing the plot or meaning at all (War Machine vs Iron Man), despite the fact that the plot bounces all over the place trying to determine what direction it wants to go in. I felt embarrassed for Scarlet Johanssen trying to be an action starlet. She doesn't have it. And yeah, the soundtrack was pretty awful. 2/5 stars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2010 17:54
|
|
