• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The review is in! IRON MAN II Is a STINKER!

Started by Mr 9.8,

332 posts in this topic

Stronguy

Stronguy

Posted
Posted
It rocked!! :headbang:

 

Word.

 

While my wife didn't like it as much as the original, she still dug it. I have to say I think it was as good, if not better, then the first. It managed to be what a good comic book movie should be: engaging and entertaining.

 

Actually, the only real disappointment in the whole film was waiting 10 minutes for that lame shot of Thor's hammer.

 

My only nitpick with the movie was when Danko went to the Grand Prix of Monaco to confront Stark early in the movie. While it was reasonable to assume Stark would be there, Tony apparently made a last minute change and decided to drive the Stark car himself. How would Danko "know" about that?

 

I don't think it matters if he was driving or not. He knew he was there in some capacity and would probably be in a VIP seat with limited access. Thus, the orange jumpsuit gave him the magical ability to go anywhere.

 

Would it have given him the ability to go to the VIP lounge where Stark was expected to be? In the context of the movie, Stark's decision to take over as driver seemed impulsive and cut very close to the starting point of the race....just too convenient IMO for Mr. Danko.

 

But, like I said, it was a small nitpick at best.

 

Don't think it would have mattered. He could have just planned on causing enough trouble out there until Iron Man showed up. It didn't matter that Stark was driving; just make it all the more better for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stronguy

Stronguy

Posted
Posted
The movie universe is the Ultimate universe, so there isn't going to be a Don Blake, not exactly. But they seem to pepper little nods to the original MU in most of the movies so he might be in there in some form.

 

Well... it can't be entirely the Ultimate U, because the hammer they're using for Thor is classic Marvel U. I always think of it as a blend of the classic going along with the updated Marvel U.

 

I thought the use of Nick Fury was more corny in IM 2 than the first. Anxious to see how they treat Cap.

 

They'll do it just like the current Thor series where Blake walks up in the middle of the desert, drawn there by some force, and pick up the hammer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
esquirecomics

esquirecomics

Posted
Posted

I saw the film last night with my wife. I was candidly very disappointed with it (my wife enjoyed it though), primarily because I thought the story itself was poorly developed and very disconnected throughout the film. I don't mind the digressions from the comic books stories or that the special effects oftentimes make things implausible in our world to the extent one must roll their eyes, but I still want to see a film where the storyline makes sense on its own. This one doesn't, and many of the reasons have been referenced in earlier posts.

 

I did enjoy Robert Downy Jr in the Tony Stark role. Paltrow is always a sweet pleasure to watch. The other actors I could take them or leave them. I really didn't like Rockwell in the Hammer role. I saw too much of his Green Mile psycho character, which was a stellar role for him, ever time I saw him on screen. The CGI, of course, made the film. It is no wonder that when you look at the credits it is that section where the largest number of people listed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnT

JohnT

Posted
Posted

I saw it today. The only reason I wasn't disappointed was I had reduced expectations going in, and as a result I actually enjoyed it okay. But overall it was an inferior version of the first movie.

 

To me the writing and plotting seemed lazy. As someone mentioned, the whole revenge motive of Whiplash didn't make much sense, or at least was hopelessly underdeveloped. The Senate scene was infantile. And worst of all, Tony Stark's behavior was so over the top I was never sure if it was due to trite writing or some effect of his deteriorating health. Never did figure that out.

 

Still, the movie had plenty of the humor that made the first version so charming. I loved the vignettes of the failed Ironmen of North Korea, Iran, and Hammer, for example. And once Tony got his new "heart" he became much more likeable and fun to root for. And Paltrow was to die for.

 

To summarize, I'd say this was a decent superhero movi, but the creators got lazy and cashed in on the success of the first installment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
toro

toro

Posted
Posted

I saw it last night at the Drive-In with "How to tame your Dragon" and I enjoyed both. I try to see most of the superhero movies at the drive-ins. The seem to make it more fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
I went to see IM2 yesterday night and I was disappointed. The movie lacked the comedy aspect and the overall charm of the first film.

Having said that the acting was good and the action scenes were top notch.

I sort of felt that they forced the avengers topic again…

I’d recommend seeing the film if you have not yet done so…

 

I'd give it 4 out of 5 stars

 

4 out of 5 stars but you're DISAPPOINTED? ???

 

Saw it this weekend, I liked the first one better...I suppose Downey was more likable as just an as opposed to a drunken . The Iron Man origin story is so good that it's tough to top that as well. Overall I enjoyed it, fun, but not memorable. I'd rank the first Iron Man as a top 5 of all time comic book film, the second one maybe barely cracks the top 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
To me the writing and plotting seemed lazy. As someone mentioned, the whole revenge motive of Whiplash didn't make much sense, or at least was hopelessly underdeveloped. The Senate scene was infantile. And worst of all, Tony Stark's behavior was so over the top I was never sure if it was due to trite writing or some effect of his deteriorating health. Never did figure that out.

 

**** WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!! ****

 

I agree, although I rather enjoyed the Senate scene...yet it seemed incomplete as well. Seems to me the government demanding to take control of the suit has 100x more grounds following the fight with Vanko and his drones, yet I bet they don't even address it in the next film. :blush:

 

I'm also now completely confused about the purpose of the thing in his chest, and I don't think it's my fault--I think the film at minimum has glossed over that too much, or if I haven't overlooked anything, has completely left it out. They explained very well in the first film that it was an electromagnet to keep shrapnel out of his heart...why didn't he get an operation when he was rescued from captivity in the first film? If perhaps it's inoperable--which if is the case they should have at least said so--then why exactly did he need a palladium-powered power source just to keep a few tiny fragments of metal in place? As was referenced in the first film when Yinsen said "that could run your heart for fifty lifetimes" when Stark was done with the miniaturized arc-reactor, that much power was overkill for such low magnetic needs...so why risk his life in the second film to generate all that power when he wasn't wearing the suit? I'm going to guess that if you polled the audience on the way out of the film, 90% or more wouldn't have any idea how exactly the thing in his chest is actually tied to his health, yet they chose to make it a huge story and plot point in the second film. :eyeroll: I haven't read the Iron Man comic enough to know what Stan's explanations for the power generator were, but I shouldn't have to...Favreau glossed over them far too much. :(

 

I might have missed something, but I found the scene where he used Captain America's shield to balance out his energy-focusing-tube-thingie out to be goofy...what's the point in using the shield like that? ??? Looked like a really lame way to fit an Avengers reference in, like Favreau just figured it had to work it in somehow and barely cared how. Speaking of lame Avengers references...what's the deal with SHIELD saying Stark isn't ready for the Avengers, yet two years ago he's recruiting General Ross as if he's already on the team? If Iron Man 2 takes place quite a while before The Incredible Hulk, why are we seeing it two years later? POOR planning! Kinda seems again like Favreau hates having to work all those references to other films into his film and accordingly doesn't care if they actually make much sense or not. :eyeroll: The Stan Lee cameo was the worst one he's ever done, far too fast and quite lame with poor setup and execution...likening him to Larry King was a cool idea, but the execution of it was terrible. :boo: Also, how exactly did they take out Vanko? They both pointed their repulsors at him, fired...and that's all there was to it? Not much of a contest...very anti-climactic ending to the fight. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
The movie universe is the Ultimate universe, so there isn't going to be a Don Blake, not exactly. But they seem to pepper little nods to the original MU in most of the movies so he might be in there in some form.

 

Well... it can't be entirely the Ultimate U, because the hammer they're using for Thor is classic Marvel U. I always think of it as a blend of the classic going along with the updated Marvel U.

 

I thought the use of Nick Fury was more corny in IM 2 than the first. Anxious to see how they treat Cap.

 

They'll do it just like the current Thor series where Blake walks up in the middle of the desert, drawn there by some force, and pick up the hammer.

 

That doesn't seem plausible after the quick scene in Iron Man 2 with SHIELD being the first to find the hammer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
Rockwell is a terrific actor but I can't stand watching him for some reason.
You should check out Choke. It's hilarious in a weird way

 

I didn't find Hammer to be likable either, but I could also tell that Rockwell was intentionally making him unlikable, so I didn't blame Rockwell for that. My girlfriend hates Steve Carrell in "The Office" because she finds him annoying as hell--yet that's exactly what he's going for, it's how the character is written. Finding someone annoying or unlikable is sometimes an achievement...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing