Iron Man 2
It's not the armor that make the hero, but the man inside.
Now that his Super Hero secret has been revealed, Tony Stark's life is more intense than ever. Everyone wants in on the Iron Man technology, whether for power or profit... But for Ivan Vanko, it's revenge! Tony must once again suit up and face his most dangerous enemy yet, but not without a few new allies of his own.
What happened here?
Why are you bland?
Why don't you save it, mr. Downey jr.?
Or you, mr. Rourke?
Why are you so boring?
I don’t know what film an apparently very grumpy version of me saw in the cinema back in 2010, but I just saw a movie called Iron Man 2, and I really liked it.
Sorry, by the way, to those of you - and, yes, I mean you, Dan - who were expecting a rant. I had one planned. It was about the struggle between art and commerce and yadda yadda yadda. Can’t do it. Instead, I’m going to talk about Buffy the Vampire Slayer for a bit. Stick with me.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is my favourite TV show of all time, but I’m not deluded enough to think that every episode…
In my review of Iron Man, I said that it was “the kind of film that Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man could and should have been.” If this is the case, then Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 2 is the kind of film that Iron Man 2 could and should have been…
Picking up six months after the conclusion of Iron Man, Iron Man 2 follows Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) as he adjusts to his new, public life as Iron Man. With the US Government demanding he hand over the suit technology…
This film never felt right to me.
It's very strange because there is so many things in this film that I think are cool but they don't really add up to anything special.
First off the villain. When first hearing that Mickey Rourke was going to be playing Whiplash I was extremely excited. And I got nothing out of it--his character really seems to take a back seat throughout the film-he's a great actor-Whiplash had the potential of being a cool villain--but to me they failed to give this character anything memorable to do. In the final scenes he just resembles Bridges' Iron Monger from the first film. And he barely moves-he stays so centered throughout the final fight-very disappointing.…
Whose idea was it to have the hero and villain sit on opposite sides of the country and do nothing for 3/4ths of the movie? I came up with more interesting ideas while playing with my action figures when I was 7.
My iPhone auto-corrected the title of this movie to Urine Man 2. Makes sense.
Breezy enough, with plenty of good one-liners, but never has an army of robots earned such a ho-hum. Most of it is instantly forgettable, sadly. Highs: the Whiplash intro in Monaco and Rockwell hamming through his weapons explanation. Low: the wildly embarrassing drunken party fight.
#3 Marvel Phase One Film marathon: 7:00pm
After the brilliance of the first 'Iron Man', there was a tonne of expectations waiting on the shoulders of the not-actually-iron suit of 'Tony Stark's'. With all of the familiar faces who you would have expected to be back, with some new faces in the shapes of Sam Rockwell (who is probably the best thing about the film), Scarlett Johansson and Samuel L. Jackson, and Jon Favreau remaining at the directing helm, some couldn't have been blamed for expecting more.
Jeff Bridges made a great villain in the predecessor, but I couldn't help but think Mickey Rourke would steal the show as 'Whiplash'. He certainly looked the part - big, ugly and intimidating.…
There were several scenes in the movie I thought were very nice. Specifically, the race track scene, and the various arguments between Pepper and Tony. I loved Pepper Potts in general. Paltrow's mannerisms and spirit were enjoyable. The casting of Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell was a tad bit genius, and even Favreau's character was a good a addition to the film. It could have stopped there, but Johansson's, L. Jackson's and Cheadle's characters were all a bit much, I thought - reminiscent of Spider-Man 3's barrage of villains.
The story, while having an excellent pace, needed some work. Tony creates a new element to cure his heart's ailment? Yeah freakin right. And the action scenes were always too abrasive, which I really can't stand. But overall, I thought the character studies were above average for a superhero flick, and the action was the same old visually stunning crap.
Liked this one allot more the second time. It is just a whole lot of fun. Great acting and dialogue as usual. But it is basically in place to be a prequel to The Avengers. I love Mikey Rourke was great in this, along side RDJ and Paltrow.
Re-watched this to prepare for Iron Man 3.
I still have the same problems with this film as before. I will say that this is an easy film to follow-to understand-I just feel the script could have been better-I'm not a fan of many of the choices made in this film especially the villain and how Tony's self destruction is played out.
Overall this isn't terrible but it doesn't live up to the excellence of the first film and will always remain a disappointment considering the possibilities this film had.
Not as bad as I remembered but still a pretty big mess. It feels like 3 different movies were written and then pages from all 3 scripts were thrown into the air, mixed together and shot as such. The anti-climax climax played better this time but was much cheesier than I recalled.
People don't like this one as much
I like it.
Rewatching it with my boyfriend because he's never seen it. I still think drunk Tony Stark in the Iron Man suit is one of my favorite parts.
A mediocre comic book movie that feels more like an Avengers trailer than a cohesive film.