Most helpful client reviews
52 of 58 humans found the following review helpful.
A frank review by an Iron Man Fanboy
By Kyle Maxwell
I’ve loved Iron Man ever since my basi Tales of Suspense comic, so I might not be the most unbiased person to write a review. Still, I’m going to undertake and be as honorable as I perhaps can. In a lot of ways, Iron Man 2 improves on the original. For instance, the brawl amidst Iron Man and War Machine was perfect, and RDJr was even better this time around. However, there were a great deal of weak moments. For example, Pepper Potts is almost absent from the movie, and is shrill and unpleasing for the duration of her brief appearances. Whiplash has never been a exceptionally compelling villain, and the movie doesn’t do much to make him any more exciting. Also, they actually need to STOP with the “Iron Man fights somebody who has the same technology” plots. It’s already boring. Plus, I couldn’t support but wonder where a drunken hobo managed to get the instrumentation to build an Arc Reactor. Stark did it in the introductory movie because he had various billion dollars worth of his own weaponry to cannibalize. How does a homeless Russian manage it? Furthermore, the reputation of Justin Hammer was absurd and played for laughs, which was the wrong move. It had a real “Jim Carrey in Batman Forever” vibe to it.
Others have cited the unnecessary plot lines, and they’re right. We could have done wholly without the “Paladium Poisoning” and the “Under House Arrest by SHIELD” plots, since neither of them in truth went anywhere, and felt like padding in a movie that didn’t need any. I didn’t mind the Black Widow showing up, but at last it felt like we were tripping over minor characters. Also, they’re not fooling any individual with the whole “The Avengers don’t want Tony Stark” subplot. None of us believe for a moment that they’d do an Avengers movie without the only Avenger that’s proven to be a box-office success.
Still, it was a good movie. Perhaps not a GREAT movie like the original one, but at least it wasn’t a franchise-killing fiasco like Spiderman 3 or Batman and Robin. Honestly, if none of us had ever seen the original Iron Man, we’d all be talking in regards to how this movie was one of the best Comic Book movies ever. But as it is, it’s over-shadowed by it’s extraordinary predecessor.
56 of 71 persons found the following review helpful.
A SOLID SEQUEL, HEAVY ON STARK AND LIGHT ON IRON!
By ! MR. KNOW IT ALL ;-b
While Iron Man 2 may not be perfect, it is a very solid and fun sequel. Improvements include better action sequences and a heap of outstanding characters added to the franchise. Unfortunately there is a lot going on here and even though it isn’t hard to follow, there isn’t sufficient time to give each sub plot the proper screen time it deserves. Oddly sufficient for a super hero film, I think they could have edited galore of the talky scenes down and added a little more Iron Man action.
A good example of this is when we meet Natasha Romanova she isn’t given much to do and I found myself marveling if she was going to be The Black Widow on screen. She is only in one action sequence(a great one with one of the funniest moments in the film)late in the movie and she and Nick Fury are in truth only there to set up The Avengers movie. I’m not saying it ought to be edited out, but there is only so much ground you may cover in two hours. Whiplash is played with gusto by Mickey Rourke, but he doesn’t have much screen time either and that seems to be the problem with this film, no one but Tony Stark gets sufficient screen time.
After the initial encounter with Whiplash in Monaco on the race track, we don’t actually get a good dose of Iron man until the final battle, which means there is over an hour of time where there isn’t that much action. Considering what I had read in regards to this being an action packed film, I found it to be very talky. This isn’t inevitably a bad thing because the characters are well produced and the actors are all actually good here.
The final battle is very good with a lot of very cool Iron Man destruction and numerous nifty moves, but it’s surprising and anti-climatic when Whiplash is discomfited very quickly. In the original film, I thought the final battle was too long and in this one, it just seems to end too abruptly. I’m not bashing this film in any way as it is a very fun film that I will most surely own the DVD/Blu Ray when it is released, but I think the story may have been a little too ambitious for one film.
Overall I give Iron Man 2 a solid B(4 stars)and I think Favreau did a very good occupation all things considered. Of course if you are seeing this in a theater, then stick around until the end of the credits role for a little teaser scene in regards to another Marvel Hero who will be hitting theaters next year.
19 of 23 persons found the following review helpful.
A High Tech, Lesser Value Superhero Sequel
By Chris Pandolfi
At the end of 2008, I made two bold assertions: (1) That “Iron Man” was one of the year’s best films; (2) that “Iron Man” was one of the greatest superhero films ever made. I still believe both to be true. Now we have “Iron Man 2.” While it is exhaustively entertaining, it’s also a bit traditionalisti when equated to it is predecessor, having less of a compelling story but more in the ways of action, special effects, gadgets, humor, and stunt work. It’s a comic book through and through. That’s fine by me – what it lacks in introspection it more than makes up for in sheer fun. We have a great deal to cheer for, not the least of which is our hero, billionaire industrialist Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.), who when we last left him had shut down the weapon’s division of his company to focus on more humanitarian uses for technology. The result was a high tech metal suit equipped with rocket boosters and missile launchers.
It’s now six months after Stark revealed himself as Iron Man at a press conference. Despite the demands of a United States Senate committee, he refuses to percentage his technology with the American military, believing that world peace may be maintained only if it’s privatized. At this meeting, he humiliates Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), the CEO of a rival company who has unsuccessfully tried to outdo Stark’s engineering science with his own prototype machines; in an venture to get ahead, Hammer appeals to Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), a Russian physicist who publically revealed his grudge versus Stark by attacking him as he was car racing in Monaco. For as yet unknown reasons, Vanko has constructed an arc reactor very similar to the one implanted in Stark’s chest. He has bettered the design by attaching whips that surge with bolts of electrical energy.
Stark, meanwhile, is realizing that his chest implant, in the first place constructed as a way to keep him alive, holds an factor that’s tardily poisoning him. He doesn’t handle it well. He acts out. He drinks in excess. He hastily appoints his former personal assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), as the new CEO of his company. If he’s to survive, he must replace the core of the implant with an wholly new element, one he has tried but failed to develop on his own. Out of the blue comes particular agent Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), who proposes that Stark look to his father’s exploration for guidance.
New to the cast is Don Cheadle, who replaces Terrence Howard as Stark’s devoted but weary friend Lt. Colonel James Rhodes. Also new is Scarlett Johansson as Stark’s newly hired personal assistant Natalie Rushman, who says she’s from the company’s legal department.
Watching this movie, I was rather dazzled by the sights and sounds, and I found the plot engaging in a suspension-of-disbelief kind of way. I did not, however, find it persuasive, as I did the basi film, which I felt put a freshening and thought-provoking spun on the established comic book adversary; Stark might have physically battled with the power-hungry Obadiah Stane, but his real oppositions were war and injustice, both of which he took percentage in by selling weapons of mass destruction. This time around, it’s much more by the book – a superhero pitted versus a madman out for revenge, a fight to the finish that includes a lot of things blowing up, a showcase of digital wizardry and highly choreographed stunts. There are a number of films that may give you finelooking much the same thing.
That being said, there’s no denying the quality of the performances, particularly Downey, whose cocky take on Stark makes the film fun but not jokey. Rockwell is rather good, playing Hammer is if he were Stark’s more or less goofier evil twin – comedy relief with a hint of something darker, you might say. Credit also to Rourke, who veritably does convey the anger, resentment, and pain his reputation feels in each one of his scenes. He isn’t given all that much screen time, but when he’s on, he’s on, resonating with a deep, calm, frighteningly low voice and an imposing build.
If there is an “Iron Man 3,” and I have no doubt that there will be, I may only hope it doesn’t follow it is predecessor’s lead and decline in quality. The original “Iron Man” was a superb film, redefining the superhero genre for both old and new generations of moviegoers. “Iron Man 2″ is a great looking and terrifically performed sequel, altho it is approach to the story is routine, more so than I had preferent it to be. Still, you’ve got to hand it to conductor Jon Favreau and writer Justin Theroux – they sure know how to entertain an audience. There’s an early scene in which Stark, dressed as Iron Man, jumps off a plane, flies through the sky, and lands unharmed in the middle of one of his own lavishly high tech expos in New York City. Throngs of people cheer him on. I suspect the audiences for this movie will do the same when it’s over.
See all 373 client reviews…
