Iron Man 2

Checked it out yesterday. It's a fun popcorn flick but I wish Mickey was in it a little more, he's awesome. While I liked some things about it a few other things made me cringe a little. Overall though I enjoyed it for what it is.

Downey suits the role to a T but I wished they pushed his emotional range a little more this time around.

The cast seemed to have a lot of fun with this one and it showed. It's definitely a fun ride.

Lots of Avenger bits throughout. Stay until after the credits if you check it out.

MAH
 
Didn't enjoy it as much as the original. I thought that DK upped the ante for sequels but Iron Man 2 was a dud. The only way the story arc was advanced was that we see Rhodey get his War Machine suit.

And ScarJo was horribly miscast as the Black Widow. BTW, did she even use that moniker in the film?

I also could have done w/o Farraveau and the boxing; we get it Jon, u played Rocky in the biopic and you are a fight fan. But we don't need Happy Hogan in the films when Stark has Jarvis so enough w/the cameos.

Can you tell I didn't like the film?
 
*SPOILERS*

I was let down big time.

I was a huge fan of the first film. In fact, I watched it Friday night to get excited for the sequel. The original is better on so many levels. Just a quick contrast: The buildup to the opening credits in the first film: That great establishing scene with Tony in the Humvee. Sh*t starts exploding, he's hit, light's out. Then it's harsh lights back on, he's been captured. BOOM! Iron Man title reveal. This time out, it's just a boring montage sequence as Whiplash is building something, with a bunch of recycled magazine covers in the background from the first film. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

First off, IM2 doesn't have a whole lot of action sequences, so I don't think it's gonna do well with the kids. Wait, maybe it's a love story......No, it's not really that either. Maybe it's a story about arms dealing? Daddy abandonment issues? I think it's trying to be a whole lot of things at once and really not succeeding at any of them.

Too many characters, no real sense of who the bad guy is. Last time out, Tony Stark/RDJ had some great lines. This time I'm not feeling it. Although everybody seems to love him, Don Cheadle doesn't really bring a whole lot to this, nor does Scarlett. Terrence Howard was great in the first one, tough act to follow.

Like I mentioned, not a whole lot of action sequences, and when there are, they're pretty lame. I read one review of the final battle scene that said it basically looks like scenic wide shots of Flushing, NY, with little blips of light flying over it.

Not entirely terrible, there are some good lines, but I guess I set myself up to be disappointed. Maybe I'll give it another shot. I will say that Sam Rockwell was pretty funny as Hammer.
 
Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy much of Iron Man 2. (And really loved the first one.) But this one just felt like another big superhero movie, a trap the first one avoided pretty well.

And like I said in my review, it's interesting to see Downey now, as opposed to when I sat in a hotel bar with him 15 years ago. He was a punchline back then. Now he's Iron Man.
 
Deepfocus88 said:
*SPOILERS*

I was let down big time.

I was a huge fan of the first film. In fact, I watched it Friday night to get excited for the sequel. The original is better on so many levels. Just a quick contrast: The buildup to the opening credits in the first film: That great establishing scene with Tony in the Humvee. Sh*t starts exploding, he's hit, light's out. Then it's harsh lights back on, he's been captured. BOOM! Iron Man title reveal. This time out, it's just a boring montage sequence as Whiplash is building something, with a bunch of recycled magazine covers in the background from the first film. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

First off, IM2 doesn't have a whole lot of action sequences, so I don't think it's gonna do well with the kids. Wait, maybe it's a love story......No, it's not really that either. Maybe it's a story about arms dealing? Daddy abandonment issues? I think it's trying to be a whole lot of things at once and really not succeeding at any of them.

Too many characters, no real sense of who the bad guy is. Last time out, Tony Stark/RDJ had some great lines. This time I'm not feeling it. Although everybody seems to love him, Don Cheadle doesn't really bring a whole lot to this, nor does Scarlett. Terrence Howard was great in the first one, tough act to follow.

Like I mentioned, not a whole lot of action sequences, and when there are, they're pretty lame. I read one review of the final battle scene that said it basically looks like scenic wide shots of Flushing, NY, with little blips of light flying over it.

Not entirely terrible, there are some good lines, but I guess I set myself up to be disappointed. Maybe I'll give it another shot. I will say that Sam Rockwell was pretty funny as Hammer.
Click to expand...

My wife and I pretty much had the same reaction!

We thought that Cheadle was too "serious" of an actor for the re-cast. He felt too dramatic, where Terrence had that light, funny vibe.

Anyway, we watched Iron Man the night before as well... it was a let-down :(
 
Here's the problem for me: My thoughts on the film were "compromised" by my wife's opinion. (which I value very highly. We both love Breaking Bad, after all.) :grin:

About halfway through the film she asks me "What do you think?" I say, "What do you think so far?" She pretty much says, "Meh".

So I stand by my review, but am willing to give it a 2nd chance.

Brandon, I agree with your thoughts on Cheadle.
 
Yeah, we waited until after walking out of the film, and she says... "so, what'd you think?" and I could tell by the tone she was disappointed... I said... "eh... it was ok"

I see a lot of people saying how great it was... it just felt like a Spider Man movie to me... (not a compliment). :(
 
For the record, I love Don Cheadle, just didn't think he was right for Iron Man 2. Felt the same way about the re-cast of Rachel in The Dark Knight, though the rest of the cast and script made up for that.
 
Brandon Rice said:
For the record, I love Don Cheadle, just didn't think he was right for Iron Man 2. Felt the same way about the re-cast of Rachel in The Dark Knight, though the rest of the cast and script made up for that.
Click to expand...
It's very difficult for any actor to replace one that is already set in your mind. Dumbledore is another example.

What if something happened to Ian McKellen while filming LOTR's and he was replaced midway? No way.

I thought Cheadle was fine but of course he was different. Not that he had a lot to work with this time around.

MAH
 
Brandon Rice said:
Yeah, we waited until after walking out of the film, and she says...
Click to expand...

Oh we just have a normal conversation during the film as if we're in our living room.

We also text, throw popcorn.....we carry a small air horn that we like to sound off from time to time....
 
Maybe a Spoiler or two….maybe!!

It was great anticipating seeing Don Cheadle in the role. But I agree with Brandon about Don Cheadle. He is one of my favorite actors….but I like Terrence Howard in this role better. Howard is just as good an actor…but would have been a bit more comedic.

As beautiful as Scarlet is…um… I don’t think so (as far as her role was concerned). They should have put an unknown in that role…someone more convincingly athletic.

I don’t mind the director doing his cameos…but it kinda got to be a little annoying.

Is it me….or does Samuel Jackson look old and bloated??? I know he’s getting up there but….I felt like he looked tired (maybe it was just the eye patch).

Gary Shandling…lol…what a nutcase.

Mickey Rourke… I wish we seen more of him. Maybe they should have pushed the story into two different movies (a sequel to this one) so that we could get into his character more. The first movie would have been where Iron Man gets his but kicked. The following would be retribution. Regardless…Whiplash didn’t make me tense… He was here one minute….gone the next. He (MR) looked good playing that role however.

Sam Rockwell is another one who I wish could have stuck around a little longer. I liked his goofy greedy billionaire role…but they could have spread the storyline out a little more to make him a worthy John Stark adversary (IMO). Who knows…maybe he’ll come back (I forgot what happened in the comics).

Can anyone say…THOR!!!!???

In the end I still liked the movie.
 
They lost me when Rhodey tries to sober up Tony by fighting him, in Iron Man suits no less, and destroying his house.

Like they didn't know that would happen; whatever happened to "lets take this outside".
 
It seems to me that to make a good sequel or good trilogy, the whole story needs to be mapped out from the get go as one uber-story, as was the case with Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. How many really good sequels are there that where either: close to as good, as good, or even better than the original? T2, Aliens, Dark Knight, and Spiderman 2 are the few that immediately come to mind. Other than that, not much besides the first three Indiana Jones films, and that's one series out of tons of them that have sucked or not been nearly as satisfying as the original. And then they even ruined that one with Crystal Skull.

If you are all saying the second one isn't as good, then I doubt It'll even do anything for me, since I thought Iron Man was kinda good. Nothing that really blew me away nor overly disappointed me, but a simple and at times entertaining superhero flick with a great performance from RDJ.
 
It should have ended on a more dark note... look at any good sequel in a series, and it has a depressing, or down ending, Empire Strikes Back, The Dark Knight, The Two Towers.

You have to structure a trilogy like a story really.
 
Nektonic said:
How many really good sequels are there that where either: close to as good, as good, or even better than the original?
Click to expand...

In the superhero genre, I felt Xmen 2 nailed it. Much better than the first.

(Not that it was *so good* that I remember anything specific about it. :Drogar-Smoke(DBG):)
 
Brandon Rice said:
It should have ended on a more dark note... look at any good sequel in a series, and it has a depressing, or down ending, Empire Strikes Back, The Dark Knight, The Two Towers.

You have to structure a trilogy like a story really.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking too Brandon. You really summed it up nicely though.

The problem is that I don't see many film sequels thinking about it in this way. Everyone in big-budget Hollywood seems to be chasing these so called "franchises" (the word of which just always makes me think of McDonald's), yet they don't seem to think things through beyond the first film. Or they switch writers and directors because the studio doesn't want to wait another month or two to go into production on the sequel and the original conspirators are finishing up another project, etc. So then they slap the second and third ones on later and call it a trilogy. To me, that's not a trilogy. That's maybe a series, but not a true and satisfying trilogy.

Let's look at a perfect example: Alien to Aliens, then Aliens to Alien 3. The first film, classic and genre-defining. Ends not on a happy note, but the monster didn't get everyone, and any film that ends with the cat surviving is not a total downer. So then the second film comes along and is genre-defining in its own way, whilst also adding to and ending Ripley's character arc in a satisfying way. Basically, from a narrative viewpoint there was no reason to continue this series. Then comes Alien 3 which is not completely horrible, but sort of taints things by not doing much to add to the series and trying to recapture the magic of the first film (impossible I say). After that the whole series goes downhill. The whole thing was not thought out in any really logical way. I say logical in the sense that each film should up the stakes and use what was done previously as a an advantage, that being the main genre of the series is sci-fi/horror, then sci-fi/horror/action after the second film. After Aliens, they didn't seem to think of the audience that you know, watches the damn films in the end. Basically, a failure of a trilogy/franchise when with some planning and a bit of foresight, could've been something much better overall and in the long run more satisfying to general audiences, and more profitable to the studio.

Also, it seems that another trend is that many trilogies have a great second film, but are lucky if they don't bungle the third film. Godfather III anyone? How about Spiderman 3? Need I even mention Batman Forever and Batman and Robin? Is it possible that not everything needs to be three plus films? Are two films sometimes enough to satisfyingly complete a story arc? Kill Bill parts 1 & 2? Alien and Aliens? Terminator and Terminator 2? Wouldn't the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions have possibly been better if all of the needed story elements from both films were merged into one 2.5 to 3 hour sequel to the first film?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top