Escape to the Movies: Iron Man 2

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

This movie was definitely on par with the first one. Maybe not better, but definitely as good. Being that I always liked War Machine a little more than Iron Man, my favorite scene was definitely during the end battle when the two are back-to-back taking down all the drones. Watching War Machine's shoulder turret taking down one drone while he focused on another was just way too cool.

I lost a bit of respect for my paper's movie critic when he gave the movie two and a half stars out of 4. :/

Totally concur with your review sir! Great stuff. I took off in the middle of the day to see it. Perks of making your own hours at work! :)

Eric the Orange:


It always makes me sad when people are so close minded that they are unable to accept other peoples opinions, and believe there opinions are fact.

These are the internets sir; anyone who has a differing opinion from yours is obviously wrong, and needs to be flamed to show how wrong they are

300lb. Samoan:
Saw the midnight premier last night and it was soooo good! I love these movies! Sure, in 2008 Iron Man was second banana, but ultimately this will end up being part of a much more epic series of movies.

And Scarlet Jo'... I'd tap that with the hammer of Thor.


.... Spoilers! :P

I'll have to disagree with Movie Bob, Iron Man 2 was horrible.

The interactions between characters are 2 dimensional (e.g Paltrow's character nags Stark every chance she gets), the issues that Iron Man has to overcome are solved with ease and aren't treated as significant hurdles. The villains are never a true threat, Iron Man doesn't seem to have to struggle to a great extent. All the battles are underchoreographed, you either don't really see anything happening or if you do it's nothing special (e.g. Iron Man flying away to evade enemy fire for ten minutes.) The end battle is atrociously short and underwhelming in action, and Iron Man doesn't develop as a character, he is narcissistic at the start of the movie and still narcissistic at the end.

Which is a pity since since within ten minutes of the movie I wanted someone to take Iron Man down. I'm sure the makers wanted the get that feeling from the audience, and that's an understandable ploy, but I never felt that he changed in the end. So my fury still rages, Iron Man is still a jerk by the end of the movie, and no villain is there to take him down a notch.

The only saving grace to this movie is that Scarlette Johansson is hot, and her fight scene is the best fight scene in the movie. It's wonderfully choreographed, you can actually see what's going on, and it tests her character's mettle.

I say wait until the DVD release.

Onyx Oblivion:
Gonna watch the first again. Then I'm gonna see this next week. I hate going opening week.

Ditto, long live Hypno-Toad

Ha, "the joke" in the middle of the movie was awesome.

Hmm, I saw the movie last night and then watched the video here today. I don't exactly remember what the "joke" referenced here was, so I'm hoping that someone else here may refresh my memory.

Regarding the movie as a whole, I liked how they kept the tone similar to that of the first movie, but disliked the rather simple ending of the palladium plot and the somewhat hidden motives of Whiplash (the main antagonist should have been much more developed than the way he was here). It really was what I expected it to be: a damn fun action movie that's a step above some of its competitors. Good review once more, Bob.

Mmmmm... Scar-Jo in a skintight body stocking.

Totally worth the $6.75.

Great review it has sparked my intrest in the movie. I guess the bad thing for me was a few of my friends saw it and they said the action sucked and the moive was just too "wordy". But I need to go see it for my self and give the moive a chance to WOW me!

The action didn't suck but there is a lot of character development. Wouldn't call it "wordy" but the Iron Man comics were always more about Tony Stark himself that him in the Iron Man suit

Christian Bale was also a horribly 1-dimensional Batman, using scowly face/voice to make up for absolutely no depth of character.

While I also disliked Dark Knight, to be fair, Batman has no character depth. That's why he wears that costume. Otherwise he'd be completely uninteresting. He'd be no better off than Slam Bradley or Speed Saunders. Remember those guys? Probably not, but they were in Detective Comics #27 when the "Bat-Man" debuted.

And don't tell me crap about how Batman's parent's death gives him any depth. That crap is cliched and tired. Ever notice how in order to give Batman any character he needs to start bitching about his parents? What a little whiner.

So batman has no character aside from the suit. The problem in Batman Begins and Dark Knight is that the director took pains to make the suit and especially the voice fake. So the movie should have been called Bruce Wayne Begins. For this, I hate them.


I just got back from the movie and I didn't stay till the end of the credits.


Don't tell them to sit through the credits! that gives me less time to clean the auditorium you slovenly pigs who can't seem to pick up after yourselves!

but yeah... sit through the credits.

Bob, I'm sorry, but I am going to have to completely disagree with you about this movie. I've seen your other reviews, and I agreed with them almost all of the way, but on this occasion my opinion couldn't be further from yours. I know that I'm just some crazed fan, but there are some things that you were clearly either overlooking or blissfully unaware of.
First of all, this movie had more plot holes than a piece of swiss cheese in the middle of a firefight. I'm just going to do a quick run down of the ones I noticed: (Spoiler alert, by the way.) Why did the villain lower his mask right before the final explosion, which let him be knocked out? How did Tony Stark's original prototype of the iron man armor fit his friend's exact proportions? How did his friend know exactly how to operate it without any prior knowledge? At a blood toxicity level of more than 0.35 percent with alcohol, you are going to fall into a coma, and Stark had one of more than 50 percent by the middle of the movie. How did Tony Stark deduce the number of Protons and Neutrons, you know, THE THING THAT DETERMINES WHAT ELEMENT SOMETHING IS from just a picture of a globe, when all that he knew was the layout of electrons? How did his dad know that he was going to have shrapnel embedded in his heart and that he needed a nonpoisonous fuel source for the future, and left him an obscure blueprint? Finally, and most importantly, NEW ELEMENTS ARE NOT CREATED BY POINTING A FUCKING LASER AT AN UPSIDE-DOWN FUCKING TRIANGLE! I could go on, but I won't.
All of these plot holes snapped me right out of the movie every time one of them came up, and they came up A LOT.

Also, there was never a clear, consistent threat in the movie. First it was fighting that Russian guy, which he did. Then it was keeping the Iron Man armor out of the hands of the military, which they got. (By the way, you said in the movie that the army wanted to take Stark's armor away from him because of his erratic behavior, when it was clearly stated that it was because of the fear that other nations would weaponize the technology before the U.S could.) Conflicts were created and dropped so quickly that the token fight scene at the end of the movie just seemed like an excuse for some explosions.

The movie did not live up to the original at all, in my opinion at least. In the past, you have been kind of hard on inconsistencies like these, but this time you seem blissfully unaware. I am well aware that it is stupid to expect one of your favorite internet talking heads mirror all of your opinions, but I just want you to answer one thing: did the rampant inconsistencies just not bother you, or did you not notice them?

I'd actually give this movie a 3/5. The Avengers weren't introduced very well, the unnecessary slow-motion scenes for fan service with Hot Girl In Leather were just that: unnecessary, and this time around they seriously shied away from any actual bloody violence. In most cases, we're left to assume that maybe they died but maybe they also lived because all we see is people running away from an explosion. It had A LOT of potential to be a heart-rending piece if they had actually killed some people instead of sort-of alluding to their possible grievous injuries and scraped knees.

Still, it was entertaining, and I would watch it again.

Also, I'm going to have to agree with ajemas above me. It had quite a few plotholes, although Stark's father was giving him blueprints for building a better core, not to save his son's life, why did he have to so encrypted? Sure, he didn't want it stolen, but still...

But I digress. 3/5. Average.

My opinion: Movie was pretty good, Scarlet Johansson was better

TBH I decided I would see this movie as soon as I heard about it. No matter what Bob said. I think we can all agree that the first one was so good that once we saw the trailer for the second one a lot of us totally nerdgasmed over it. But anyway, good to hear it lives up to the hype.

Another perfect review Bob :) I went to see the movie at the primier and I had a fantastic time :) And I gotta say the movie is coming close to my most favourite movie The Dark Knight but like you said it still has room to expand...***SPOILERS***
Speaking about S.H.I.E.L.D. how many of you saw Captain America's shield ? Well not the actuall shield but a copy (a really bad one)When I watched the movie I yelled "Ha!!!Bob was right!!!" and then all of my friends laughed their arses off :) ***END OF SPOILERS***
Oh and another thing...I'm sorry that I have been emailing you for this so much (2 times) but now that you mentioned The Matrix I just want to know...What do you think of the movie...Please tell me Bob...In 2 sentences if you like I just want to know

I think the 1st one was better. This one wasn't a disappointment, per-say. I think some more work could have been done.. or in this case not done. my 1st complaint was that the trailers showed the relationship between stark and pots and tony's jumping out of the plane "you complete me" GONE! WTF?! you use it in official commercials and trailers and you don't put out? wtf movie? wtf? one big problem i had was that the movie was dragging on, and on. I liked the bit with tony's condition and what not but it almost felt too long. then is cuts back to hammer and i was like "Oh shit, i forgot this movie had a rich villain." I can't remember the name of the actor who played hammer, but he was just way to annoying. not in his performance. just him as a person. He brushed me the wrong way, he felt like a jeff goldblum clone. (that's a different kinda of mess altogether, so i won't touch on it again.)
(this next bit is relevant to Samuel L. Jackson's recent climb with movies like "Snakes on A Plane" I didn't see the 1st iron man movie in theaters, my friends did, and she called saying that Jackson's character came after the credits to say a crucial line. Me being the person i am said "There's a mother fucking iron man on the plane..?" So i stayed in for this one and i nearly lost it with anticipation.
back to point
the friendship between rhodes and stark almost seem invisible here... not in that they weren't fighting for no reason, but i feel that they didn't have enough time together like in the 1st movie. now i don't know if its just me, or that parts had to be re written because terrance howard was out or if it was well enough established in the 1st movie... the opening scene almost gave me a headache then OH GOD ITS JEFF GOLDBLUM EVIL MORE ANNOYING CLONE AGAIN!! AGGGH,. seriously, he didn't sit well with me or my date. (though she kept asking me why scarlet johanson or however you spell it was in a black tight costume. she has no history in comics so i had to miss about 3 minutes of film to explain black widow.)
as for mickey rourke, i thought he played his role very well, and the relationship between him and stark didn't turn out like i had expected but thats just fine, even if it wasn't, I'd still blame the goldblum clone. Now as for the fight scenes, they were almost too flashy showy for my taste. like they're fighting for the sake if there having to be a fight.
THEN i found out why, at the credits, it turns out LucasArts had their grubby greasy hand in most of these scenes. George strikes again
I'm going to watch the 1st movie again, then in no particular order, back to the future 1-3.
You don't have to go 88 mph to see some serious shit.

Blame LucasArts for that.

i have read many reviews about this movie (i watched ironman 2 the previous week) and i was really hoping for some justice from bob.The movie is just an average pop corn flick that could've been brilliant at the hands of a good director.I really don't understand the fuzz around it.And mr.Bob,to even mention dark knight in this review is a blasphemy!!Not in a million years!
Just an average movie(worse than the 1st which was also bad)that you forget immediately after leaving the cinema.
shame just shame!

I hate to stick through through the credits, cause everyone is standing up talking, blocking my vision and hearing, but what happened after the credits?


I was not so pleased with iron man 2. They grossly overdid the numerous sideplots and developed the most unlikeable side character since Wessley Crusher from STTNG (that Hammer bloke). The action was good, so was the soundtrack, and mickey Rourque did a great job (again). BUT if they would have went with the demon in a bottle storyline completely instead of a little boozing and the conflict with the gouvernment AND the conflict with J. Rhodes AND! some ridiculous paladium poisoning it would have turned out much better. Also that robotic arm that hangs out in Starks garage is totally unessecary and irrelevantand used up 5 precious minutes in total that could have been used better. For the ridiculously illogical scenes: His father invented a new element and hid the plans in the layout for the expo? REALLY?! The whole scene where he "reconstructed" the element was jsut awful. especially with the goofy joke about Cpt Americas shield. And the dialogue from Jarvis made me laugh out loud in the cinema "the core will accept the new element as a substitude for paladium or whatever" well if the thing is so darn smart to figure that out after just a second past the creation of the thing why didnt it figure out what to create to fit that exact purpose. Moving on. Iron man totally pulled a gwen Stacy on pepper when he flew her out of the ecplosion (the G- forces would have turned her into pulp). As for the dialogue: Lots of people talking at the same time babbling about irrelevant stuff. Its transformers 2 all over again. Stark is supposed to be a genious, one would expect him to be able to talk properly in a coherent sentence. Happy the side character was absolutely irrelevant and the comic relive unnessecary. It isnt explained why Stark chooses to let Rhodes keep the other iron man suit. And yes he chosses to do so for all you out the not knowing squat about the comics and expecting that one could simply steal an iron man suit and pilot it. It would have been better if they would have just went with the following: Whiplash and hammer as villains (less focus on hammer cause he is boring and unlikeable)-> Descent into alcoholism due to pressure -> conflict with J. Rhodes and goverment due to alcoholism -> relationship with P. Pots a lot more like in the comics (they did it good why screw it up) -> If they insisted to go with paladium poisoning they should have just give him a piece of Vibranium with a reference to Cpt America (the movie will come anyway so why make a goovy joke about the shield instead of a proper reference?)-> due to pressure stark gives the suite to J. Rhodes and only J. Rhodes cause they are friends and he trusts him but not the military per se (the scene where they beat up his house wouldnt be there but at this point we would be at equal plot developement with at elast half an hour saved so there is more time for solid action). -> Climatic showdown with Whiplash and the drones (that was fitting, especially since he wasnt depicted as a homocidal maniac like most villains (the drones did not target the civillians directly after all)). Throw in some elements from extremis (to please the fans and explain why he can pilot the suite so well and is superior to J. Rhodes ) like him implanting some stuf in order to improve the iron man erformance and the movie would have been a lot more intense with less unfunny attempts at humor or unnececary sideplots.
And this goes to movie Bob directly: I think its nice that you like movie, so did I but very unlike your previous reviews you have no critique for Iron man 2. This is qbiously due to the fact that you like the prospect of an anvegers franchise and dislike the idea of it failling but Iron man 2 could have been done ALOT better. It is in my regard not as good as the first one due to the failing dialogues and comedy to please the crowds. Its as it always is: They invest a lot of money and bastardise it in order to please "the crowd" well its a superero movie from marvel about iron man so the crowd can suck it. Comic book nerds have a lot of money to spend and it would earn quite well if done properly. especially since it would not enrage all the fanboys out there (those guys that watch a movie several times if its good).
that was a mouth full. lets see if anyone has some constructive critique about this post.

Saw it yesterday, thought it was pretty darn good...not great but pretty darn good...for what it is. Never been a huge fan of the Iron Man comics, but I read enough of 'em to follow along well enough. And while I must admit I liked the first one better (and while I normally like Don Cheadle, I liked Terrence Howard better as Rhodey), I enjoyed it once I stopped trying to over-analyze things. Except for the "creating a new element" scene, which was utterly ludicrous no matter how much I tried to turn my brain off.

Why the hell did Justin Hammer keep reminding me of Tom Cruise for some reason? I don't know quite why, but something about his mannerisms just reminded me a lot of Cruise...which just made me want to punch him in the face all the more.

Is it just me, or during the taunting rant, did it seem like Samuel was hovering RIGHT on the edge of cutting loose with at least one or two "MUTHA-"'s?

Black Widow? Would've been nice if she'd had more than two minutes to kick major ass, but she certainly made the most of those two minutes.

Also, with the scene after the credits, I am really hoping at some point we get a Hulk/Thor fight. Just so we can get this sort of dialogue exchange:

THOR: "Aye, mine emerald foe, we shall do battle!"
THOR: "Ho, the very roots of Yggdrasil strengthen mine thews, jade one! Thou holdst no chance to defeat me!"
THOR: "Thine pallet shall be cloven by the might of mine mystic Uru hammer!"
THOR: "Yea, verily, the Gloves Of Kid doth now be off!"

The movie was a lot of fun to watch, but it suffered an extreme case of "middle movie syndrome" (like Bob said, it was setting up it's own sequel, Thor, Cap, Avengers, possibly some other movies), and lacked the kind of focus that the first movie had. In a lot of ways, it was very much like a comic book, and that was both good and bad. The colorful aesthetic, interesting characters, multiple subplots, it helped to make it more than I expected it to be, but it also crowded out Tony's story, and insured the incredibly awesome Whiplash got hardly any screentime. Again, not bad, but it was too busy playing rehearsal for everything else.

Oh, and one nitpicky thing that got on my nerves: did Bill O'Reilly really have to be in this movie? Was it necessary to include anyone from that wretched hive of scum and villainy that is Fox News? At all? I get that it's a running gag in the series now to have those same shitty pundits that pollute the airwaves in real life commenting on events in the movie, but it just about made me gag seeing that guy's mug on the big screen (and I get the feeling Iron Man 3 will have the wretched stench of Glenn Beck).

i have read many reviews about this movie (i watched ironman 2 the previous week) and i was really hoping for some justice from bob.The movie is just an average pop corn flick that could've been brilliant at the hands of a good director.I really don't understand the fuzz around it.And mr.Bob,to even mention dark knight in this review is a blasphemy!!Not in a million years!
Just an average movie(worse than the 1st which was also bad)that you forget immediately after leaving the cinema.
shame just shame!

Ok if you didn't like the first one why the hell would you go see the second one!? Everyone knows that no matter how good the sequels are usually the original is the best. It seems blasphemous for you to not like the first one! Really, if you didn't like the first Iron Man you don't like superhero movies.

And don't just say something like "Well what about Dark Knight!!!?? I liked that!" because let's all be honest, the newest batman series is hardly a superhero movie. That doesn't mean it doesn't fucking rock, it just means that if you want to define the genre you wouldn't use batman. Batman has become a gritty realistic action movie thinly veiled with the characters of an old tv show that was nothing like the movies now. I mean compare the Jokers. In the early days he was just... well a joker. He was a clown without any realism and literally nothing like the newest Joker. But now he's a psychotic serial killer layered on with so much grit he is probably mostly dirt now.

So can we just agree that liking Dark Knight doesn't mean you like superhero movies, Dark Knight was the opposite of genre defining... maybe... *prepare yourselves for a pun*... genre defying? ^.^... no? ok I'm sorry.

Actually, the big problem I had with the first Iron Man was that he only put the suit on like 2 times in the entire movie. I was hoping to see a few more ultimate robo-battle scenes and not so many regular people dicking around scenes. I hope the second one will do a better job of catering to my personal whims and expectations.

Batman has become a gritty realistic action movie thinly veiled with the characters of an old tv show that was nothing like the movies now.

More like a gritty semi-realistic movie based on a number of quite gritty comic books themselves.

Scarlet Johanson was ultra super mega hot

As i watched Scarlet Johansen, yes I probably spelled her name wrong, kick ass I thought to myself "good God I'm in love!"

and teh scene after the credits made me gitty as a school boy

Just saw it today, many nerdgasms were had, and I concur completely with Bob. Especially about the post-credit scene.

I just got back from seeing it, so allow me to do a semi-rant.

It's....decent. Not bad, but not great; not as good as the first and Dark Knight is still the undisputed champion of the superhero movie/summer blockbuster. Downey and Rourke are awesome, but unfortunately that's kinda it. Way too many characters are underutilized and that is a BIG problem especially when you've got talent like Johansson, Cheadle, Paltrow, and Samuel L. "Bad Mother******" Jackson. Rourke is definitely the biggest disappointment since he just sits around in a lab and gets a measly 60 seconds in the big climactic fight scene in the third act, if that. The fight scene at the track though was legitimately nail-biting since you saw how determined Rourke was.

The saddest part is that there was one VERY obvious fix for this: excise the SHIELD subplot. Johansson and Jackson don't contribute anything besides a questionable deus ex machina (and trust me, there are probably too many questionable moments in this film both in plot and character) and trying to tie it in the Marvel's beloved Avengers pet project which I've been raising my brow at for some time. Someone should have told Marvel during production that comics and movies aren't the same and thus you can't really get away with this tie-in stuff without something suffering because of it.

However, despite my complaints I wouldn't say it's a waste of time. I don't blame either the filmmakers or the cast, but mostly what is essentially a studio mandate by Marvel, kinda like what happened with Spider-Man 3. Hopefully they shrug off the excess Avengers baggage when they get around to doing a third Iron Man.

As for Johansson in a skintight jumpsuit: SO WHAT?

That german guy:


Lets see, for the Gwen Stacy thing, he decelerated before he picked her up, note the change in angle and noticeable deceleration.

A lot of smart people are socially awkward and have poor communication skills.

As for Rhodes taking the suit, Stark knew he was going to die soon and he wanted to make sure Rhodie knew how to handle the suit and have what it takes to use it.

Additionally, for the creation of the element, if said laser was a particle beam, bombarding a metal with particles would be capable of adding them to the nucleus, how do you think they make new elements? (And they do, they created a new element last month Substitute particle accelerator with visible laser and TaDah! the scene.

*edit* oh, and Stark's a narcissistic ass throughout most of the comics, even after depression stage

I thought scarlet was pretty bad actually, acting wise. Also her character was pointless to the film.



I just got back from the movie and I didn't stay till the end of the credits.


You can always look it up on Youtube


Batman has become a gritty realistic action movie thinly veiled with the characters of an old tv show that was nothing like the movies now.

More like a gritty semi-realistic movie based on a number of quite gritty comic books themselves.

This is the first batman. Gritty comics were made later. But regardless, you miss my point. Batman can barely be called a superhero movie by genre. Just take a glance at any other superhero movies and you see an obvious difference.
Btw, this is the first joker.... yeah...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here