Visitors Review

DEEPAK KARNAMKOTIL (2012-05-25 05:11)

Definitely Thumps Up, But...........

Yes, Yes the movie was awesome..... but the 1st part was the betterone. As an Iron man fan, the reason for the success of the 1st part wasits story.... there was a smooth flow , from creating Tony's newweapons to the US military,then getting captured, building the Iron ManSuit for his escape, feeling the importance of Iron man for the safetyof the people(and then kicking the butt of those terrorist), thesuspense of Jeff Bridges and the final show down. But the 2nd part hadtoo much talking and less action. Only Quentin Tarantino has the art ofmaking a movie on the subject of talking ..for e.g. Pulp Fiction,Inglourious Basterds. Anyways ...the point is that its a summer actionblockbuster..so we expect a lot of fire works.. Mickey Rourke isexcellent in this movie, he had that villain's attitude, and the fightbetween him and Tony at the Monaco Track is worth your ticket. In facthe is the best villain after Heath Ledger of The Dark Knight. All inall a must watch movie, have a blast.

(2012-05-25 02:15)

A Set Piece for Iron Man III

This is an intense action film at points. But at other points there seems to be too much cross-talk between Stark and his CEO (I find her voice to be particularly irritating). While the film has its moments, the producers of the film have a hidden agenda, that is to keep the Iron Man movies as a profitable franchise. Stark comes across as a spoilt brat that wants the world to be at his beck and call. The unit in his chest is slowly killing him and he resorts to recklessness as a solution. I feel that a successful person at that level would have been more mature and responsible. The final battle scene is at night ... again a bit of a let down. In order to set the stage for the next sequel, there are scenes with Samuel Jackson, who is the head of some sort of Justice League group and alludes to his troubles in the south-west. These scenes do not really add any present value to the film but ensures that the franchise will survive.

(2012-05-23 18:51)

Popcorn entertainment

This is a movie you just watch eating your popcorn as it is over thetop action.What I did not like about this movie,1)It lacked comradeship between tony stark and colonel(played by don)Terrence Howard was the better choice as seen in the first part.2)pepper and tony stark have differences but is not shown clearly aboutit. 3)tony stark in iron man suit dancing for the ladies on hisb'day(it insults the iron man suit) 4)Character of mike dies easily(iswhiplash supposed to be weaker than the one in the 1st movie?) in theend. 5)Why the hell would tony stark enter a f1 car? 6)over the topaction...a true example of how Hollywood producers cash in on an actionmovie with a lame script. 7)The supposed funny scenes were not funnyfor the most part. 8)scarlett's character black widow can access fileseasily built by a genius named tony stark.the good notes on this movie, 1)Scarlett johanson looks sexy with herred hair and her action moves look nice better than megan fox intransformers. 2)I love paltrow's pepper character(which guy would notwant a loyal,pretty assistant like that?)and she handles all his workas the CEO of stark industries 3)Tony has a way with the ladies.He getsany girl he wants to. 4)Tony realises that his father actually lovedhim after what he left for him. 6)This movie makes way for the avengersmovie......(samuel jackson,black widow,don are there for a reason in this movie)See it if no better movies are there. It does disappoint with its lameplot but we need to remember that it is a superhero movie and decentplots should not be much expected. So far dark knight is the bestsuperhero movie and hopefully it always will be. Don't expect spidey tobe there for the Avengers movie. Chris Evans better bulk up his musclesif he wants to play Captain America in the Avengers movie.

barbb1953 (2012-05-23 07:32)

Worth seeing despite a few drawbacks

You will be disappointed if you go into this movie expecting the sameseamless storytelling and FX spectacle that "Iron Man" was from startto finish. That said, the good parts of this movie will grab you inexactly the same way and they come frequently enough that you caneasily overlook the more disappointing parts.A good example of this high-low effect in "Iron Man 2" is ourreintroduction to Tony. That sequence where, suited, he leaps out ofthe plane and flies into the Stark Expo is just mindbogglingly good,and the subsequent speech and old-time movie get you interested inwhat's coming up next. Unfortunately, then we are immediatelyintroduced to Tony checking his blood toxicity - this being Tony Stark,the viewer immediately assumes it's a blood alcohol check. We aren'treally given any preparation or hint that it's anything more than that,so we're left more confused than anything else until the reason forthat gradually becomes clear as the movie progresses.There are some really good high spots, though. To mention just a few:The start of the movie, with that overlapping narrative from the lastmovie while we're dropped unexpectedly into somebody's apartment inRussia in wintertime; the Monaco racetrack scene; the fight during theparty; that little confrontation in the jail cell between Tony andVanko (even with no FX, it had good dialogue and atmosphere); and more.There are also problems, but I'm not going to go into those, as thehigh points are so good, other than to say that I'm not sure whether torate the big fight at the end as a high or a low point. There's a bittoo much CGI and a bit of a sense of Deus Ex Machina lurking somewherein the rafters. Vanko is the most emotionally invested one in it,unlike back at the racetrack in Monaco, when Tony very definitely wasreacting emotionally to the Russian and what he had done. A little moreof that reaction at the end would have been nice.Overall, though, the movie is a solid 8 on a scale of 10.I miss Terrence Howard as Rhodey, but Don Cheadle really gets into thecharacter and he handles those action sequences perfectly. You reallybelieve he is the one person (ignoring SHIELD's existence for themoment) who can effectively say "NO!" to Tony Stark, while his conflictas he tries to do the right thing is very clear.Outstanding performances by Sam Rockwell and Mickey Rourke as the badguys, and Garry Shandling was a delightful surprise, especially at theend.****Spoiler alert**** Gwyneth Paltrow had a lot tougher job this time around, but inrelatively few screen appearances, she conveyed Pepper's manytransformations and her inner turmoil (in addition to the obviousfreak-out in Monaco, of course) so well that you could feel Pepper'srelief at the end when she finally and completely quit her employmentat Stark Industries, and you can also understand exactly why Tony tookthe resignation the way he did. A very unexpected but satisfyingoutcome to that whole subplot.

oneguyrambling (2012-05-22 20:13)

Too much Potts, too many suplots and too long to get to the suited- Scarlett shots.

The beauty of the original film was that at focused on the origins ofthe character, a side-benefit of that was the fact that it had RobertDowney Jr in the lead as the charismatic billionaire playboy TonyStark. Let's face it, following Stark around for the first 40 oddminutes was as much fun as the bits where he put the claustrophobic'snightmare suit on and fanged around with rock music playing in thebackground.Now for #2, we've been there and done that.Perhaps that's why they chose to focus the first 10 minutes onestablishing the new playa in town Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) who itmust be said looks like he is carved out of wax in this film? Perhapsthe lethal cocktails of drugs, alcohol and steroids that he hasingested over the years has pre-embalmed him from the inside out? Inany case he looks creepy, which is a good thing I guess as a villain.Vanko is the son of an ex-colleague of Tony Stark's Dad, who was theoriginal brilliant scientist and inventor who set up Stark Industriesin the first place.Vanko's Dad has just died, and he has decided he does not like TonyStark one bit.I think I'll take a breath to point out that Iron Man 2 is a good film,but not the great one as some have suggested, and like Spiderman 2 itis nowhere near as good as the original, (why does everyone talk Spidey2 up? It was mediocre at best.) The problem is that they tried to forcetoo many new bad guys in, and tried to bring in subplots for PepperPotts of all people, even Stark's bodyguard gets his own couple scenes,I know he is the director but give me a break! What I am trying to sayis that they took too long to get Scarlett Johansson in the catsuit,and once they did she only got a few minutes to strut her latex cladstuff. (For all the reports about her frontal assets I need to say thatthere is strong competition from behind... so to speak.) Everyone nowknows that Stark is also Iron Man, and the government wants him to handover the suit so that they can do... whatever with it. What everyonedoesn't know is that the very thing keeping Stark ticking is alsoslowly killing him, and he desperately researches every possibilitythat might prolong his life and save him.Along the way a nifty young lawyer named Natalie (Johansson) moves intoTony Stark's radar screen, he is entranced by her various skills andcapabilities - and no doubt by her amazing rack and smokin' body - andappoints her his personal assistant. This is handy for the latter partof the story, (and hopefully a sequel that will ideally take place ineither a sauna or nudist colony. I will be happy in either case.)Pepper seems a little perturbed (jealous) by her presence... but whothe hell cares? Once Vanko and Stark finally are introduced all logicand plausibility flies out the window. This is OK in small doses asleaps of logic are required in any superhero film, but the first filmtook such pains to show just how all these crazy events could almost bebelieved in so-called real life that changing tack and throwing logicout the window is annoying. So many leaps were required that I waspuffing and my knees were sore by the end of the first Iron Man / IvanVanko battle.Vanko and Hammer ultimately team up to move towards their dual goals,for Vanko revenge for Hammer the #1 spot.Nick Fury (Sam L Jackson) pops in (contractually obliged to be inalmost every Marvel superhero film for eternity) and informs Stark thathe knew his Dad, and that he might revisit some old home movies foradvice and perhaps assistance.(I soooo wanted to bag Mickey Rourke as the bad guy, especially when Iknew he was to be a Russian. I thought his accent would be tortuous butit actually wasn't, at least right until the very end. I think he didOK in a mostly non-speaking role but didn't add much to the film barhis saggy cheating death appearance.) When watched in isolation IronMan 2 is a bit of a muddy mess at times that survives largely on thegoodwill and credibility forged by the far superior original. I likedbits of it and think the franchise definitely has more in it to come,but feel a little let down by this one. Perhaps that's why I waitedalmost 2 months to watch the damn thing after it came out.Final Rating - 7 / 10. Worth a look, but the original was far superior.Less Potts, less Roads, fewer bad guys, more Scarlett in the suit and areturn of the more palatable Tony Stark for 3 please Mr Favreau. I'lleven let you have your own pointless sub-plot if you do that for me.

Movie_Muse_Reviews (2012-05-22 15:22)

RDJ and Favreau keep this busy sequel an excellent and amusing thrill ride

Superhero movie follow-ups have been a tough business lately. "Iron Man2" marks Marvel's first sequel since "Spider-Man 3" left millionsdisappointed in 2007. So to quell any lingering fears, "Iron Man 2" isnot a letdown. It's far from it. To think director Jon Favreau and starRobert Downey Jr. would lose sight of what they did that turned alesser Marvel character into a multi-million-dollar franchise would bea gross underestimation.Downey Jr. does not relinquish Iron Man's reputation as the wittiestsuperhero ever brought to the big screen. "Iron Man 2" provides just asmuch of a humorous joyride as the 2008 film, backing up all the subtlyoutrageous dialogue with superb visual effects and action that seizesall attention. It all still works because Favreau has locked down theblend between not taking the story too seriously but still telling itwith conviction.But oh yes, "Iron Man 2" complicates things a bit. Self-outtedbillionaire superhero Tony Stark aka Iron Man has a lot on his platefrom government subpoenas asking him to hand his suit over to thepeople to a private matter: his fake heart -- the arc reactor -- isslowly poisoning him. Feeling like it all might cave in on him, Tonymakes his assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwenyth Paltrow), Stark Industries'new C.E.O. Screenwriter Justin Theroux ("Tropic Thunder") accepts theresponsibility of weaving these plot lines in with three newsignificant characters. Mickey Rourke assumes the villain role:silently vengeful Russian physicist Ivan Vanko, who after a failedattempt at using his own whip-toting arc-reactor suit to kill Tony inthe film's first action sequence on a Monaco raceway, finds himself inthe employ of Tony's arms-dealing nemesis, Justin Hammer (SamRockwell). With Tony going in and out of the public's good graces,Hammer uses Vanko to create droid soldiers for the military, whichwould effectively make him the real "American hero." Scarlett Johanssongoes redhead for a supporting role as one of Tony's new assistants whois more than she appears to be.The busyness continues because of Marvel's commitment to an eventual"Avengers" film in 2012 combining Iron Man and heroes of future Marvelfilms. Samuel L. Jackson appears as Nick Fury, director of S.H.I.E.L.D,looking to recruit Tony for his team and nudging him in the rightdirection as Tony's deceased father, Howard, holds the answer to his"heart condition."The overcrowding, however, never gets the best of "Iron Man 2." Therouxhas designed the story to move along quickly and effectively, lettingthe action and the humor carry the entertainment factor evenlythroughout the film. The unfortunate trade-off is that very littleresonates about "Iron Man 2." Tony's attempt to find a new core elementfor his arc reactor is the one true through-line. Everything else fromTony's feuding with Pepper and his buddy Jim Rhodes (Cheadle) toHammer's frustrations with Vanko's progress to Nick Fury all act inservice of the plot. The element of Tony's irresponsibility andalcoholism, perhaps the greatest potential of the film to make any kindof statement, appears in only a couple brief scenes. Downey Jr. andFavreau give us many great Tony Stark moments, but he doesn't have achance to grow -- just make us laugh and remember how great a characterhe is.And honestly, how great a character he is. Downey Jr.'s shtick hasn'tgotten old in the least despite his increased exposure the last twoyears and the writing caters to him even more this time around. Maybe alesser actor playing a lesser character wouldn't be able to lift up abusy superhero story with this many subplots, but RDJ has that ability.With an imaginative visual effects crew at his back and a director whoknows how to condense action and make it count, he'll likely continueproviding easy-to-love action entertainment as Iron Man no matter howmany different chinks these films develop in their armor.-Steven CVisit my site at http://moviemusereviews.com

Andrew Marshall (2012-05-22 12:52)

Slightly Disappointing

The first Iron Man film was a pleasant surprise. The second instalmenttherefore carried higher expectations. Although not a disaster thesecond film doesn't quite live up to the first film.The story revolves around the government wanting to have the technologyof the Iron Man from Tony Stark. Stark is holding onto the informationand says nobody will be able to mimic this for many years. There's nosurprises to find that this doesn't turn out to be true.Downey Jr is again pretty entertaining as Stark and Mickey Rourke isalso pretty good as Ivan Vanko. It sounds like Johansson and Paltrowdidn't get on that well, but there's not too much evidence of that onscreen which is slightly disappointing.

MYeah_Gorlomi (2012-05-22 01:30)

Not as good as the first, but still a fun thrill ride.

The film is based on the Marvel comic book series. Six months afterBillionaire Tony Stark (Played by Robert Downey Jr.) has freelyadmitted to the whole world that HE is Iron Man, he is now being askedby the government to hand over the Iron Man suit, which he refuses todo. He appoints his secretary Pepper Potts (Played by Gwyneth Paltrow)as CEO of Stark Industries. He tries to deal with several dangerousthings, such as a rising toxicity level within his blood from using theIron Man suit, his friend James Rhodes (Played by Don Cheadle) usingone of Tony's suits to become "War Machine", and a dangerous newsupervillain named Ivan Vanko (Played by Mickey Rourke) arriving on thescene.And what did I think of the film itself? I thought it was rather fun,not as good as the first though.I think one of it's main problems was the script, which seemed to get alittle hectic while balancing all the subplots, but it didn't drive itto the point of no return. It was a nice story. Fast paced, althoughthe length is noticeable once or twice.Performances are pretty good. Robert Downey Jr. once again shines asTony Stark, adding much needed humor to the movie. He and GwynethPaltrow have excellent chemistry together, Paltrow herself is a greatperformer. The same chemistry can't exactly be said for Downey and DonCheadle. Cheadle was alright, but Terrence Howard just played thecharacter better. And Scarlett Johansson seemed to add little to thestory as Natalie Rushman aka. Black Widow, she seemed like eye candy,but what gorgeous eye candy.Now villains. Mickey Rourke played a really good villain, Sam Rockwell,not as much. He tries to be funny, but half of the time it's a bit moreannoying than funny. But, I won't deny that it was still a good role.The Visuals of this movie are remarkable, once again Industrial Light &Magic has brought brilliance to the screen. But what good is a moviewithout it's Sound? The sound design is just as brilliant in the movie,and I think I see another possible two Oscar nominations to ChristopherBoyes' tally.In short, the film is a bit over the place, but it's still thrilling,hilarious, and features some good performances.I give it **1/2 out of ****

m-p-carpenter (2012-05-21 07:36)

Iron Man 2 lives up to its expectations

unbelievable sequel that, in the eyes of this viewer, far exceeds theoriginal. Though I don't dare compare the film to "The Dark Knight", incomparison, "Batman Begins" focused too much on telling us who BatmanIS and less on an action adventure we can sit back and enjoy, much likethe 2008 Iron Man. With the DK and Iron Man 2, we have passed all theintroductions and we can really enjoy many more characters and actionsequences (not to mention all the special effects!). Mickey Rourke wasphenomenal and the only regret there was that his character did notappear in the movie MORE! Midnight showing was totally worth it,especially with all the little HINTS you can pick up if you know enoughabout other superhero characters that may be involved with upcomingstory lines.

w_jaredbrookes (2012-05-20 20:30)

More than a superhero movie

This is the first time I've ever written a review on a superhero movie.Essentially, it's because I have a hard time regarding movies of thisgenre to be serious film. However, this is one of the very few timesthat I can safely say that I've seen a movie that falls under thiscategory that also serves as a genuinely polished work of cinema.Iron Man 2 is well worth seeing. It has replay value, deals withpresent-day issues, doesn't take itself too seriously, featuresexceptional performances, and deals with a very realistic leadcharacter. This last point is the one that really makes or breaks thisgenre of film for me. Traditionally, I've found that Batman has comethe closest to being a believable character, due to his flaws. TonyStark, however, brings the level of realism to a higher level. He ISthe contemporary man: conflicted, fallible, sometimes humerus,sometimes heroic, and (despite what he may believe) in need of the helpof others from time to time.Kudos to the writers: This is a very smooth screenplay. Kudos to theactors: The performances are often subtle and always a joy to watch.Kudos to the VFX crew: There's nothing distracting about the effects.Good estimates on simulated mass and kinetics. Good light-matching. Oh,and kudos to the sound designers: The gunfire is remarkably well-mixed.If you haven't seen this film, check it out -- even if you don't quitethink it's your thing. You'll be glad you did.

Terry Meehan (2012-05-19 19:04)

Johansson and Jackson indicted for scene stealing

Java Man Reviews "Iron Man 2" Originally appeared in LakewoodBuzz.com May, 2010.OVERVIEW: While the identity of most super heroes remains shrouded in mystery,billionaire inventor Tony Stark (Downey, Jr.) has been publiclyrevealed as the breast-plated bad-boy known as Iron Man. Unlike Batmanor Spiderman, Stark has to deal with things like Senate hearings,jealous G-Men and rival CEOs. Everyone wants the Iron Man technology.Meanwhile, over in Russia, a metallic mastermind named Ivan (Rourke) issteeling himself to challenge Stark for world supremacy. Returning fromthe original Iron Man are Stark's trusted assistant Pepper Potts(Paltrow) and army liaison "Rhodey" Rhodes (Cheadle). New charactersare Natasha Romanoff (Johansson) and Nick Fury (Jackson) both of whomadd a big dose of scene-stealing appeal. REVIEW: 3 of 4 Java Mugs Sequels are inevitably compared to their originals and more often thannot they don't measure up. Because of the cast, this one could havebeen an exception: Downey is still a marvel to watch and Paltrow may beeven better in this version; Cheadle, who replaces Terrence Howard, isalso fine. Rourke and Rockwell as villains and Jackson and Johansson asintriguing spy types are all fascinating; and Shandling as the chairmanof a Senate investigating committee is hilarious. But the screenplay isvery much by-the-numbers, and it just doesn't add up. The captivatingcharacters and stimulating situations which distinguished the originalhave given way to long and loud action sequences. But if it's action you want, you've got it; these scenes are very welldone and are accompanied by lots of heavy metal music (what else?). Thecinematography is also noticeably sharp with a lots of excellent aerialviews. Great location work in and around California, and in Monacoduring the principality's Grand Prix, also adds to the film's visualvitality. I waited in a long line to see this movie, but it was worth it becauseof the enthusiastic audience that surrounded me. Come early to get agood seat--and stay late through the end credits for a big hint at whatmay be coming next from the franchise.

NJRocker091188 (2012-05-19 13:51)

A great action flick.

Iron Man 2.Is not that great. But, don't get my wrong. It was good. Just notgreat.The movie has great action. And of course, with that action comes greatspecial effects. The action is not just great. It is excellent eyepopping action, leaving you begging for more.The film has excellently delivered performances from Robert Downey Jr.,Don Cheadle, Samuel L. Jackson, Mickey Rourke, Gwyneth Paltrow, and ofcourse, great a** kicking action from Scarlett Johansson. Not tomention of course, Scarlett looking hot as usual. And of course, somepritty darn good humor.Although this movie has many great things about it. There are a fewthings missing. And most likely, the reader of this review, has eitherseen the movie and already knows what I am talking about. Or You haveread other reviews.The movie, even with all it's greatness, has a s***y script. It's like,they had no idea as to what material to use. The film, fail to expandon the previous film before it. And even though Mickey Rourke does agreat job, his charitor's motive is not explained, and you don't reallyget to see him to much in action as you would expect too.With that said/or typed rather. Even though this movie is a littleflawed, I would still consider adding it to my collection when it comesout on D.V.D. Or if you haven't seem it, to still go out, and see itfor yourself.To end this review on a final note. I am just going to simply say that,it was good, but not fantastically great.

Cruiz Dwyer (2012-05-18 17:53)

Less sparks reveal the metal...

Six months after Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) unveiled to the worldthat he was Iron Man, Stark has created an era of peace between thesuper powers of the world but he is faced with increasing pressure fromthe government to allow the military use of the Iron Man suit formilitary application. This does not come at a good time for Stark ascompetition from a rival, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), is continued bythe strange appearance of Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke). Vanko poses athreat to Stark as he shares the same knowledge on how to build the arcrector on which the Iron Man suit works.Iron Man 2's story shares a little too much similarity to that of theoriginal. Like the first, Iron Man 2 is not aggressive as it bathesitself in some quick humour and a rather silly middle-arc. This keepsthe comic book feel of the source material unlike The Dark Knight, forinstance, which attempted to rework Batman into a more real worldsetting. That said, Iron Man 2 does a great job of seeming real withsome potentially viable politics occurring: the US government wantingthe Iron Man suit for military application makes sense. In addition tothis, Iron Man 2 does a decent job of setting in motion the upcomingAvengers film. Nevertheless, the film's narrative falters in twodistinct ways: familiarity and lack of focus. The problem this timearound is that the villains, and their motivations, are too familiar tothat of the villain in the first film. Both Hammer and Danko appear astwo parts of Obadiah Stane from the first film, and like Stane beforethey want the technology behind the Iron Man suit. Granted, Danko isable to make the arc reactor himself due to an interesting sub-plot,which plays less into the story than expected, but the villainsultimately come down to just wanting what Tony Stark has. Consequently,the arrival of two villains also brings along a few more heroesincluding Black Widow (Scarlet Johansson) and the arrival of WarMachine. While it is great to see the Avengers plot moving ahead, itresults in less glory time for Iron Man himself. By the film's closure,it feels as if Iron Man had not done enough with so many differentcharacters getting perhaps a little more screen-time then they oughtto. There was talk of re-shoots having to take place for the film andit shows at times: with so many characters and villains, the filmspacing can feel offish on the odd occasion because there is just alittle too much for what the story is trying to convey. Perhaps ifstructured a little more like The Dark Knight, in terms of villains andheroes, Iron Man 2 would have been a bit more coherent, but I supposeit just was not 'part of the plan'. Nevertheless, it is a workablestory that keeps things going but it could be a lot tighter.On the acting front there is a lot more to be desired, but there arestill some slight issues. Downey Jr. and Paltrow slide back into theirrespective Iron Man characters with relative ease. It is also great tosee how both build upon their characters as the character developmentallows them to: Downey Jr. is able to emphasise the despair andnarcissist feeling he has about his own individual mortality, whereasPaltrow's gives Pepper Potts the more assertive nature she needs tokeep Tony Stark in check. While their romantic relationship is not asstrong as it could be, it is noticeable from their scenes together. DonCheadle replaces Terence Howard from the first film and does arespectable enough job. The rest of the cast are adequate to a pointwith Rockwell overacting his role with decent results, Johansson beinga little dull with hers, and Rourke not having nearly enough screentime to be a menacing villain.The computer graphics are nice to look at but are never overlyconvincing. While they work there are odd occasions where the texturingon the Iron Man suits appears too cartoon-like. That said they lookgreat in action scenes, of which there should have been more, while thespecial effects only prove to enhance the overall graphics.Much like the first film, there is little in terms of swearing and nonudity beyond revealing outfits. Sex is merely referred to in passingwhile the violence, with some mild blood in the odd scene, is prettysimilar to the first film with explosions, gunfire and hand-to-handcombat taking place.Iron man 2 is a fun film but it is just not as good as its predecessor.While the basic plot resembles that of the original, Iron Man 2 is fartoo ambitious for its own good. The new heroes do not develop stronglyenough and take away vital screen time from Iron Man. Likewise, the newvillains feel underused and ultimately never pose any real threat,especially when they are easily outnumbered and outmatched by theheroes. The narrative is not focused enough and the action sequencesare never as spectacular as they should be. Nevertheless, the narrativeintroduces some interesting developments and gets the basic ideasacross to the audience, while the actors do a good job. Like Quantum ofSolace, Iron Man 2 feels like a weak middle ground for a possiblesatisfying conclusion: the potential is there.

jzappa (2012-05-18 17:13)

Tony Stark, A Self-Made Man Who Worships His Creator

Believe it or not, Iron Man 2, not during but after I saw it, made meponder. It made me wonder about the endlessly precarious concept ofprivatizing the military. Look at the dangers we've witnessed, onesthat have come true that we've taken lying down, of privatizing ourhealth care system, our news sources, energy, mortgage associations.Tony Stark, apparently the coolest, hottest, richest and most famousguy on earth, after acquiring most of what he has as a warprofiteer---as fans know and as the first movie tells us---he now hasan unbelievable weapon that he wears and uses for long-distancetransportation and frankly for fun. The government wants it, but it'shis suit and he insists on doing whatever he wants with it. I'm not sosure I blame the government.Couldn't something that wreaks the kind of havoc that the Iron Man suitdoes be put to more productive and controlled use under the supervisionof the people and their representatives? I look at Tony Stark andsee---can't evade---a man in less discernible control of his ego thanfive Kanye Wests. Also, a man that rich is going to do anything,because he's confident he can---and he will---get away with anything.Yes, Stark is made out to be one swell guy, saving us from the dangerof another guy in a weapon suit, even though that guy only really seemsinterested in hurting Mr. Yay Free Enterprise Stark, but he's Russianso we don't like him, so there's your reason for his being the bad guy.I feel we should spend less time rooting for Iron Man and being warierof his lack of discipline, natural monopoly and concentration of assetsas he provokes more danger than he's worth. But hey, I'm not suggestingStark apply for statehood; his ego already has anyway.I honestly really do go into colossal Hollywood blockbusters wanting tolike them. I want to enjoy myself and admire the movie I'm enjoying.The most admirable quality of Iron Man 2 is the most admirable qualityof Iron Man 1, which is that in spite of whether or not characters arehackneyed or effects are overblown and tedious, the rapport between theperformers is always engaging, natural and razor-sharp. Naturally, themovie was pre-sold by Downey's charm. The movie has an enormouslyeffective non-sequitary sense of humor that delivers huge laughs byundercutting any zeal. These big CGI set pieces, after all, take awhole lot of logic for granted. This example seems unanimous amongviewers: Tony Stark, seemingly on impulse and out of nowhere, choosesto drive his own car in the Monaco Grand Prix, and Ivan Vanko mountsdauntlessly in the middle of the strip, dressed like a deviant jousterand sporting electric whips that can slice a car in two. He nearlydestroys Stark, which is so thrilling that we almost overlook questionssuch as how Vanko knew that Tony suddenly decided to drive his own carin a race he wasn't even attending personally to begin with, or why inthe hell the crowd does not flee but stays to collectively reactthroughout this cataclysmic fight like they're at a football game.The absolute highlight of the film is Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer,the classic Pushover Up To No Good. In a movie not only brimming withstar ego but star ego that could cut diamond at a thirty-foot distance,Rockwell is pure refreshment. He is always a completely natural actor,as much himself as a character will allow him to be. In all, it seemsas if the script is trying to make him all weasel, all antagonist, andRockwell defies any two-dimensionality by making him, yes, a weasel,yes, an antagonist, but also a whole person. His way is by beinglaid-back and without affectation.Nonetheless, the dialogue scenes are so effective and enjoyable thatwhen an action sequence comes around, it only inspires me to thinkabout how the guys can stand it within those suits. Yes, the suits areshatterproof, but their bodies aren't. How many staggering plummets,ferocious poundings and sly detonators can you withstand withoutshattering all of your bones? Wouldn't the weight of being encased iniron make the blows hit harder? Stars can be acceptable as to need theskeletal least character in the story. They're watched for their ownsake, not for their representation of a scripted character. It's aboutthe cast itself, not what it's doing here. We love Don Cheadle, butlargely what he's given to actually do here is oddly find time to chatwith Downey while soaring through a typhoon of assailing missiles. (Howslow must a missile be if your crony has time to advise you to steerclear of it?) I don't know what it says about Scarlet Johansson'squality as an actress that she's upstaged by her own backside. Butshe's given good performances in great films, and I think the issue hasmore to do with Jon Favreau's preferred camera angles and my being aguy.The vainglorious behavior comes naturally, but now it's advantageous asa put-on, a case of mistaken nonentity. The sequel to Iron Man does notoffer a changed man. Within the hardware, impaired humanity becomeseven more so, as inviting challenges of selfhood cross with a high-techwet dream made everyman. I guess there are lot of young men who needicons like Iron Man. Narcissism and self-deception are survivalmechanisms without which many of them might just jump off a bridge.

Samrat Raychaudhuri (2012-05-18 08:16)

A great follow-up!!!!

I was bored today and wanted to catch a movie. It was quite a shockwhen i found out Ironman II was playing. I was under the impression itwas going to release on the 7th of May. Great!!I queued up and saw it,blessing my lucky stars!Wow!It's amazing to see the number of actors joining the directorsclub. We knew Jon Favreau was good when we saw 'Elf'. He just keeps ongetting better. This is phenomenal. I am afraid this movie is not for'artsy' type. Girls and refined folks! Advice for y'all! Keep away.This ain't your scene! This is a plain and simple hardcore action moviewith a great story and even greater action. Mind blowing action! Boththe movies have great scripts. Favreau is lucky with that one. Andawesome actors playing them. I am not gonna give away the story. Irecommend you see for yourself. If ever there was a 'Phoenix' in Hollywood, its Robert Downey Jr. Adecade ago he was convicted and imprisoned. The only thing going forhim was Ally Macbeal. Hollywood had written him off. Now he'sheadlining two big franchises. Tony Stark and Sherlock Holmes. Speaksvolumes about his quality. He rose from his ashes. The other 'Phoenix'being Micky Rourke. He's just awesome as 'Whiplash'. I think i will addsome 'Vankoism' in my vocabulary when i criticize any software...'Theessooftwer ees sheeet' in a Russian accent.I know i didn't give much of a review because i don't want to prejudiceany potential viewer. All i am going to say is 'You will not bedisappointed'. I leave you with that note and let you judge foryourself....

MatthewLong23 (2012-05-17 10:38)

Decent but disappointing

When I first saw the trailer for this I thought it looked great. Nowthat I saw the film not so much. The film's action sequences are notthat exciting, the plot is confusing at times, and there's not as muchhumour as before. It got better near the end with Scarlett Johanssondoing some fighting as well as the fight with Ivan's robots. To saythis film was a disappointment is an understatement. This film makesIron Man look like a classic compared to this one. Now Iron Man was agreat movie but i wouldn't consider it a classic superhero movie.Robert Downey Jr. seemed to play the role the same in this movie but ican't say he was that cool in this one. The scene when he's drunk withthe iron man outfit on was just stupid and the fight between him andRhodes was poorly done. This is just a stupid action movie that willprobably entertain kids a lot more then adults.

tareq9 (2012-05-16 12:43)

Robert Downey Jr. shameful performance

Iron man II, that actor (Robert Downey Jr.) couldn't act & as if he washigh on drugs or something the whole movie, they packed the movie withdifferent big names and stars hoping to lift some of the heat up causedby the unsettling experience the poor viewer goes through every timeRobert Downey Jr. appears on the big screen. He was horrific, it startsthe first five minutes through the movie. Also the incentive triggering the conflict between good and evilpresented by the story line was not clear. But thank god the villain(Mickey Rourke) suppose to be the bad guy saved the movie with hisperformance. What an irony!!??

Max_cinefilo89 (2012-05-16 09:06)

Tony's back!

In terms of expectations, Iron Man 2 started as a quite different beastcompared to its predecessor. After all, the first film was "burdened"by a protagonist without the mainstream appeal of, say, Spider-Man, adirector better known as a character actor (Jon Favreau) and a leadingman whose career has been shaky to say the least (Robert Downey Jr.).As it turned out, Iron Man was just what movie audiences needed,becoming a surprise hit, cementing Downey Jr. and Favreau's reputationsas go-to guys in the industry (with the former winning a Golden Globefor Sherlock Holmes and the latter hired to direct another comic-bookpicture, Cowboys and Aliens) and kick-starting a new on-screen MarvelUniverse, no longer limited by the issue of rights belonging todifferent studios (with the exception of pre-established franchiseslike X-Men and Spider-Man, characters are now freely allowed to crossover, just like in the comics). How do you follow that? With a sequelthat retains the same spirit, but goes further in terms of scope andambition.Set six months after the conclusion of the first film, Iron Man 2 showsTony Stark (Downey Jr.) in a tight spot: since he came clean about hisdouble identity, his fame has reached sky-high proportions, but withthe consequence that the US government (here embodied by GarryShandling's annoying Congressman) wants the Iron Man suit forthemselves. Additionally, the very thing keeping him alive - the arcreactor that has effectively replaced his biological heart - is slowlykilling him (radiation poisoning), and two very different bad guys -business rival Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) and formerengineer-turned-supervillain Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) - are planningways to get rid of him permanently. Lucky for him, Pepper (GwynethPaltrow), Rhodey (Don Cheadle, replacing Terrence Howard) and newsecretary "Natalie" (Scarlett Johansson) are willing to help, assumingTony doesn't destroy himself in the process...Sequels are tricky by definition, and Iron Man 2 is a particularlytough one to pull off since it not only has to satisfy as a standalonefollow-up (however paradoxical that may sound), but also set up eventsfor the other movies that will make up the expanded Marvel movieuniverse. It all started with Samuel L. Jackson's cameo in the firstmovie's post-credits scene (followed by Downey Jr. making an appearancein The Incredible Hulk a month later), and this time the actor isallowed more screen-time - heck, he even gets his name in the openingcredits - to do his usual stuff and set up The Avengers (plus minorhints at Thor and Captain America) in an intriguing way, without evergiving the impression that he's stealing someone else's movie.And that's the real key behind Iron Man 2's success: it is an Iron Manflick, retaining the original's winning combination of action andhumor, thanks to Justin Theroux's witty script and Favreau's effortlessdirection. Like most sequels, it goes dark in places, but this isn'tNolan's Batman, meaning that a lighter mood generally prevails (see thealcoholism subplot). Like the first film, the follow-up is a bit of alet-down when it comes to the climactic showdown (again, way too long),but otherwise it delivers everything it promised: the special effectsare flawless (Exhibit A: the Monte Carlo race track sequence), thelaughs and thrills are evenly balanced and everyone in the cast isfully game, from Rockwell and Rourke's riotous double act to Cheadleeasily filling Howard's shoes, not to mention some welcome extramaterial for the director himself, who gets to be as funny as ever inthe always entertaining company of Johansson. As usual, though, this isDowney's show from start to finish, and he slips into Stark's skin soperfectly it's damn near impossible not to raise expectations for thenext installment.Bottom line: as a piece in Marvel's expanding cinematic world, Iron Man2 is as satisfying as one could anticipate. As its own thing, it's afun, energetic follow-up that confirms the charm of comic-book moviesand, much like its printed counterpart, leaves the door open forendless new possibilities. In other words: bring on number three...

Matt Davies (2012-05-14 02:16)

A Good Movie 8/10

Iron Man 2 is a great all round movie, with something for everyone. Ithas the witty humour portrayed fantastically by great actor RobertDowney Junior and the Action that is expected from any superhero movie.One of the things I like about the film is that it manages to get thestory across very well and it still manages to incorporate an differentside to the story. I do think that the writers at marvel have tried tobring to many characters into the movie, they have tried to use ironMan 2 as an opening for more sequels and other marvel movies. In doingso they have neglected some of the story that would have made the filmbetter.Overall Iron Man 2 is a good family movie and is worth going to watch!

Green_Saturn (2012-05-13 11:50)

Improves on the first one

Robert Downey Jr. coaxed you into the movie theater to see somethingyou'd never usually see- a sci-fi comic book hero movie. Now you'reback like a hungry kitten looking for more. And Rob Downey'smetaphorically waiting at his doorstep for you to come back so he cangive you some more (movies, I mean). Maybe I should stop with themetaphors. All I'm trying to get at is this movie totally dominatesover the first one.Having one villain was cool. But how about fighting a whole army ofrobots programmed to kill you? WIth Tony Stark, saddle up. This isgonna be a crazy ride.My legs hurt by the end because I had been leaning on my seat theentire time! The action is more intense, the comedy really sticks outand everything really seems to bunker down and get into serious comicbook entertainment mode. And the looming question of will Pepper andTony kiss or not still bites at you. Are they going to make us waituntil 2013 to see them kiss? Hmm.DEFINITELY if you saw the first one YOU MUST SEE THIS! And afterspeaking to some people, even if you haven't seen the first one youstill catch on. You won't be sitting there going "Huh?" for 2 hours.There's more of everything from the first movie (in a good way) inthis, and yes, Robert Downey Jr. is unquestionably HOT in this! ^.^