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

[Larryw7]

. 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!

 

 

Spoiler:

 

 

 

When Fury is talking to Stark about the Avengers initiative at the end of the movie, you can see the Hulk rampaging at the college on the television, as if it's news happening right at that moment. So, the end of INCREDIBLE HULK is supposed to be after IM2.

[fantastic_four]

. 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!

 

When Fury is talking to Stark about the Avengers initiative at the end of the movie, you can see the Hulk rampaging at the college on the television, as if it's news happening right at that moment. So, the end of INCREDIBLE HULK is supposed to be after IM2.

 

Yea, as I said, I can see their intended sequencing--but doing it like that is lame. I shouldn't have to work to figure out their goofy timing, it should be obvious.

[kdoginohio]

. 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!

 

When Fury is talking to Stark about the Avengers initiative at the end of the movie, you can see the Hulk rampaging at the college on the television, as if it's news happening right at that moment. So, the end of INCREDIBLE HULK is supposed to be after IM2.

 

Yea, as I said, I can see their intended sequencing--but doing it like that is lame. I shouldn't have to work to figure out their goofy timing, it should be obvious.

TIMELINES AND CROSSOVERS MAKE MY HEAD HURT!

[VintageComics]

. 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!

 

When Fury is talking to Stark about the Avengers initiative at the end of the movie, you can see the Hulk rampaging at the college on the television, as if it's news happening right at that moment. So, the end of INCREDIBLE HULK is supposed to be after IM2.

 

Yea, as I said, I can see their intended sequencing--but doing it like that is lame. I shouldn't have to work to figure out their goofy timing, it should be obvious.

 

It could be an afterthought that they tried to tie it in like that.

[fantastic_four]

. 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!

 

When Fury is talking to Stark about the Avengers initiative at the end of the movie, you can see the Hulk rampaging at the college on the television, as if it's news happening right at that moment. So, the end of INCREDIBLE HULK is supposed to be after IM2.

 

Yea, as I said, I can see their intended sequencing--but doing it like that is lame. I shouldn't have to work to figure out their goofy timing, it should be obvious.

 

It could be an afterthought that they tried to tie it in like that.

 

I suspect you're right.

[JohnT]

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.

 

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. 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. 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. 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.

 

Great examples of laziness, imo.

 

And I totally agree on the "thing in the chest" confusion. Tony Stark can invent a new element but can't figure out how to remove shrapnel from his chest, or detoxify his blood, for that matter. How about a heart transplant or blood transfusion? And now that I think about it I've forgotten what the connection is between needing something to keep the shrapnel out of his heart and the fact that the very same device powers his suit. I probably should know that, but I don't, and the moview didn't help clear it up. Now I realize comics frequently ask us to suspend belief, but again, some of this just seems lazy.

[kdoginohio]

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.

 

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. 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. 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. 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.

 

Great examples of laziness, imo.

 

And I totally agree on the "thing in the chest" confusion. Tony Stark can invent a new element but can't figure out how to remove shrapnel from his chest, or detoxify his blood, for that matter. How about a heart transplant or blood transfusion? And now that I think about it I've forgotten what the connection is between needing something to keep the shrapnel out of his heart and the fact that the very same device powers his suit. I probably should know that, but I don't, and the moview didn't help clear it up. Now I realize comics frequently ask us to suspend belief, but again, some of this just seems lazy.

Good, I wasn't the only one that shook my head with the "shield incident". Couldn't they have had him getting sidetracked showing some interest in it, then set it aside to continue on his metal quest?

[Allen James]

and another act of laziness for not wanting to read through 15 pages, i apologize in advance. i just saw it yesterday, really liked it.

 

did anyone else see a cap 1 in the trunk fury gave stark?

[silverweb]

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.

 

I agree that the end of the fight with Whiplash was a dud. He should have whipped one of their heads off.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

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.

 

Actually, I think they pointed their repulsors at one another and fired. With Whiplash's suit having each of the IM suits firmly in the grasp of his whips, the resulting "repulse explosion" was, in effect, like being drawn and quartered for ole Danko. In the shot immediately afterward, you can see his suit suffered a great deal of damage.

 

So, the whole thing made a bit of "sense" to me.

[fantastic_four]

Actually, I think they pointed their repulsors at one another and fired. With Whiplash's suit having each of the IM suits firmly in the grasp of his whips, the resulting "repulse explosion" was, in effect, like being drawn and quartered for ole Danko. In the shot immediately afterward, you can see his suit suffered a great deal of damage.

 

So, the whole thing made a bit of "sense" to me.

 

I felt like there must be something I was missing...I'm still confused after your explanation though, I appear to have no idea how the repulsor beam is working. Actually I'm just generally confused about what comes out of their hands...is it some kind of beam? I thought Stark designed those to be used just for flight stabilization and eventually realized that it was enough force to do some pushback damage to people and objects...when did they become repulsor beams/rays, and is that a separate function from when he uses his hands for levelling flight?

[esquirecomics]

Actually, I think they pointed their repulsors at one another and fired. With Whiplash's suit having each of the IM suits firmly in the grasp of his whips, the resulting "repulse explosion" was, in effect, like being drawn and quartered for ole Danko. In the shot immediately afterward, you can see his suit suffered a great deal of damage.

 

So, the whole thing made a bit of "sense" to me.

 

I felt like there must be something I was missing...I'm still confused after your explanation though, I appear to have no idea how the repulsor beam is working. Actually I'm just generally confused about what comes out of their hands...is it some kind of beam? I thought Stark designed those to be used just for flight stabilization and eventually realized that it was enough force to do some pushback damage to people and objects...when did they become repulsor beams/rays, and is that a separate function from when he uses his hands for levelling flight?

 

You would think they could come up with a better, more novel, way to end the fight than to mimic Ghostbusters with "crossing the streams".

[esquirecomics]

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.

 

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. 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. 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. 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.

 

Great examples of laziness, imo.

 

And I totally agree on the "thing in the chest" confusion. Tony Stark can invent a new element but can't figure out how to remove shrapnel from his chest, or detoxify his blood, for that matter. How about a heart transplant or blood transfusion? And now that I think about it I've forgotten what the connection is between needing something to keep the shrapnel out of his heart and the fact that the very same device powers his suit. I probably should know that, but I don't, and the moview didn't help clear it up. Now I realize comics frequently ask us to suspend belief, but again, some of this just seems lazy.

 

It is also possible that there was an explanatory scene that ended up on the cutting room floor. Perhaps the dvd will explain.

[Marvelfangirl]

WOOHOO!!!! Iron Man 2 is still #1 movie in America

 

Screw you Robin Hood

[goldust40]

WOOHOO!!!! Iron Man 2 is still #1 movie in America

 

Screw you Robin Hood

 

Even though it was a far better film.

[zuckuss2003]

Really, because I read some pretty bad Robin Hood reviews.

[kdoginohio]

WOOHOO!!!! Iron Man 2 is still #1 movie in America

 

Screw you Robin Hood

 

Even though it was a far better film.

Why do they keep making them? Errol Flynn, Basil Rathbone and Olivia DeHaviland. Nuff said.

[Artboy99]

I finally managed to coax a friend of mine to go with me to see Iron Man 2. I originally had extremely low expectations assuming Hollywood would feel they had to jazz up the amount of action in the film with more explosions, bombs, gattling gun wrist action and silly "comedy scenes" thrown in as breaks in the action.

Then I started reading this thread and how many of you enjoyed the film, so I went today with a much higher expectation.

Boy was I mislead.

What I got was exactly what I expected in the first place, alot of WHAM POW KABLAM with what could of been a very compelling story mixed in there and all fragmented via senseless action and a ridiculous scene of drunken Tony wearing the Iron Man suit doing the stale and old DJ wakka-wakka on the CD bit. Droid Iron men units ala Star Wars droids of uselessness were ineffective villains, and were a waste of time. And why did Whiplash have to appear in yet another variation of the Iron Man suit?

1.5 out of 5 stars for me.

Very disappointing film, the title of this thread rings true.

 

If they do actually decide to make another Iron Man film, may they please have no other Iron Man in it other than the main character.

[oakman29]

I finally managed to coax a friend of mine to go with me to see Iron Man 2. I originally had extremely low expectations assuming Hollywood would feel they had to jazz up the amount of action in the film with more explosions, bombs, gattling gun wrist action and silly "comedy scenes" thrown in as breaks in the action.

Then I started reading this thread and how many of you enjoyed the film, so I went today with a much higher expectation.

Boy was I mislead.

What I got was exactly what I expected in the first place, alot of WHAM POW KABLAM with what could of been a very compelling story mixed in there and all fragmented via senseless action and a ridiculous scene of drunken Tony wearing the Iron Man suit doing the stale and old DJ wakka-wakka on the CD bit. Droid Iron men units ala Star Wars droids of uselessness were ineffective villains, and were a waste of time. And why did Whiplash have to appear in yet another variation of the Iron Man suit?

1.5 out of 5 stars for me.

Very disappointing film, the title of this thread rings true.

 

If they do actually decide to make another Iron Man film, may they please have no other Iron Man in it other than the main character.

 

WOW! That was brutal man

[Marvelfangirl]

WOOHOO!!!! Iron Man 2 is still #1 movie in America

 

Screw you Robin Hood

 

Even though it was a far better film .

Why do they keep making them? Errol Flynn, Basil Rathbone and Olivia DeHaviland. Nuff said.

Actually,I heard its a pretty boring movie