Escape to the Movies: Iron Man 2
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
SPOILER ALERT
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.
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!"
HULK: "HULK SMASH!"
THOR: "Ho, the very roots of Yggdrasil strengthen mine thews, jade one! Thou holdst no chance to defeat me!"
HULK: "HULK POUND!"
THOR: "Thine pallet shall be cloven by the might of mine mystic Uru hammer!"
HULK: "HULK CRUSH!"
THOR: "Yea, verily, the Gloves Of Kid doth now be off!"
HULK: "HULK GO UPSIDE YO HEAD!"
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!"
HULK: "HULK SMASH!"
THOR: "Ho, the very roots of Yggdrasil strengthen mine thews, jade one! Thou holdst no chance to defeat me!"
HULK: "HULK POUND!"
THOR: "Thine pallet shall be cloven by the might of mine mystic Uru hammer!"
HULK: "HULK CRUSH!"
THOR: "Yea, verily, the Gloves Of Kid doth now be off!"
HULK: "HULK GO UPSIDE YO HEAD!"
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).
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).
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.defeis said:
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.
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?
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?
Lets see, for the Gwen Stacy thing, he decelerated before he picked her up, note the change in angle and noticeable deceleration.That german guy said:
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 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/science/07element.html.) 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
Ericb said:
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...
I thought this movie was a complete dud. Too slow and clunky to keep me engaged. I felt like Bob was gonna say that this movie was the big house that the lotto winner might buy, not knowing what to do with it- because this movie was all over the place and I didn't care for it one bit. The ending with the bad guy was like, that's it? The other action scenes were also very forgettable.
I think people only like it because it's iron man and because of all the references to titillate nerd boners.
When you strip it down, it's just a poorly written film that's a vehicle to pimp the marvel universe. Even Bob admits the biggest conflict was with Stark's own ego and even that wasn't well done.
Biggest question with critiquing any fiction- what's at stake? What's the conflict?
Iron Man 2 says- oh... this and that...
Sucked.
I think people only like it because it's iron man and because of all the references to titillate nerd boners.
When you strip it down, it's just a poorly written film that's a vehicle to pimp the marvel universe. Even Bob admits the biggest conflict was with Stark's own ego and even that wasn't well done.
Biggest question with critiquing any fiction- what's at stake? What's the conflict?
Iron Man 2 says- oh... this and that...
Sucked.
I didn't pick up many clues to much apart from 2 things 1. the blantant captin america sheild and 2. the map of the antarctic inside the chest from his father.
it is true that he virtually started with 0mph and accelerated then to escape the blast. It was a big blast and very little time. it took roughly 2 seconds on screen for him to get Pepper on the roof of a house roughly 500m away. Beeing picked up by a dude in a metal armor and then accelerated like that has to leave some damage. No debate neccesary.
It is true that a lot of smart people do have little people skills yet he completely chanded from Iron man 1 to Iron man 2. Also: Its annoying anyway so why do it?
I dont recall any indication of that intention presented in the movie so i wont accept that as a reason. Actually there is no reason given whatsoever and that bothers me.
I am aware that new elements can be created. my point was that the whole scene was ridiculous. essentially stark removed some stuff fronm the layout of the expo and connected some dots and then enlarged it and TADAAA magically it isnt a bunch of connected dots its a complex model of this amazing new element which jarvis instantly claimed to be impossible to synthesize. Stark builds his whatever-beam-thingy (that doesnt bother thhaaat much he is stark after all) and shoots it at that little triangle to create said impossible to create element. And then jarvis goes (remember he claimed it could not be created)"it will be a workable substitude for paladium" and later "the generator has accepted the new core...". Wll i wouldnt exactly trust that damn thing which seemingly doesnt know shit. Its a plotdevice and a poor one.
Well it doesnt bother me that he is narcistic. Thats just how it is and its fun
i appreciate the feedback i really do. Especially since it isnt the ususall flame^^
It is true that a lot of smart people do have little people skills yet he completely chanded from Iron man 1 to Iron man 2. Also: Its annoying anyway so why do it?
I dont recall any indication of that intention presented in the movie so i wont accept that as a reason. Actually there is no reason given whatsoever and that bothers me.
I am aware that new elements can be created. my point was that the whole scene was ridiculous. essentially stark removed some stuff fronm the layout of the expo and connected some dots and then enlarged it and TADAAA magically it isnt a bunch of connected dots its a complex model of this amazing new element which jarvis instantly claimed to be impossible to synthesize. Stark builds his whatever-beam-thingy (that doesnt bother thhaaat much he is stark after all) and shoots it at that little triangle to create said impossible to create element. And then jarvis goes (remember he claimed it could not be created)"it will be a workable substitude for paladium" and later "the generator has accepted the new core...". Wll i wouldnt exactly trust that damn thing which seemingly doesnt know shit. Its a plotdevice and a poor one.
Well it doesnt bother me that he is narcistic. Thats just how it is and its fun
i appreciate the feedback i really do. Especially since it isnt the ususall flame^^
Aerodyth said: