Iron Man 2 Review

Posted by on May 9th, 2010   Filed under: Action, Books/Comics, Featured, Movie Review

Iron Man 2
Directed by: Jon Favreau
Written by: Justin Theroux
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johansson, Don Cheadle, Gwyneth Paltrow, Sam Rockwell, Samuel L. Jackson, Clark Gregg, John Slattery, Jon Favreau

ironman2_1

As successful as most comic book movies have been over the past decade, the first Iron Man flick was definitely not expected to be a gargantuan blockbuster. It ended up being a surprise hit based mainly on the fun factor and Robert Downey Jr.’s performance, but as talk turned to the necessary sequel, many people were wondering what Marvel could do for an encore. Are there really a lot of story options available for a guy who wears a ridiculously powerful and nearly indestructible metal suit?

Of course, it’s the man inside the suit that makes Iron Man interesting, but with all the financial expectations being placed on this film, that human element seems to have been completely overlooked. Apparently Marvel was more concerned with adding big name stars to the cast and connecting the dots to The Avengers movie than creating an exciting and worthwhile successor to the first Iron Man movie. Just when this franchise should have been hitting its stride, it stalls out and slows down a crawl, lending proof to the possibility that maybe Iron Man really isn’t that interesting after all.

When we last left Tony Stark, he had just revealed to the world that he was, in fact, Iron Man. Since then he has become a rock star superhero of sorts, and he has apparently made the world a much safer place. However, the U.S. government is uneasy about one man wielding so much power, and they are trying to lay claim to the technology behind the suit. Enter Russian scientist Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), the son of Tony Stark’s father’s ex-partner, who builds an energy source of his own in order to seek revenge on Tony Stark. He finds an ally in Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), a competitor to Stark Industries, and while they team up to build an army of drones, Tony is dealing with the fact that he is slowly being poisoned by his own arc reactor.

The biggest and most obvious problem with Iron Man 2 is that it has serious pacing issues. I’m normally not the kind of guy to count action scenes, but there are literally three of them, the first coming a good half-hour into the film. The vast majority of the action arrives at the tail end of the film, which might not have been such a big deal if all the plot leading up to it wasn’t so dull. There really is not much driving this movie forward. Iron Man 2 can be best summed up as the story of two scientists who spend two hours building stuff in their separate workshops so they can fight each other for the final 5 or 10 minutes. It does end fairly strong, but the suit vs. suit CGI battles somehow never feel as thrilling as they should. The only respite from this is Scarlett Johansson’s few minutes of screen time in full-on Black Widow ass-kicking mode.

ironman2_2

Director Jon Favreau attempts to carry this film with a lot of dialogue-driven scenes, and although that was definitely a strength of the first Iron Man movie, Robert Downey Jr.’s one-liners do not quite click this time around. So much of this movie feels like it is coasting on Tony Stark’s cockiness, but that only works when we have a reason to root for him. This time around he just feels like an asshole. The movie tries to create drama by exploring Tony Stark’s mortality and his strained relationships with Rhodey and Pepper (as well as, I guess, his father) but none of these elements really come together in any meaningful way.

Although they’ve always said that they’ll never deal with Tony Stark’s alcoholism in the movies, they sort of come close here with his dangerous and erratic behaviour that results from blood toxicity levels and depression. Unfortunately, this also proves why it is probably best that they don’t address his alcoholism on screen, because it all ends up becoming a bit of a joke. The scene where he shows up to his birthday party wearing the Iron Man suit, leading to a tussle with Rhodey, is a bit of a disaster, and once Samuel L. Jackson enters the picture as Nick Fury, it almost starts to feel like a sitcom. I guess it’s not that surprising considering that the script was written by Tropic Thunder screenwriter Justin Theroux.

Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer is one of the few bright spots of the film, bringing just the right balance of sliminess and comic relief, as well as Jon Favreau in a slightly expanded role as Stark’s personal assistant Happy Hogan. Mad Men‘s John Slattery has a decent (albeit brief) appearance as Tony’s father Howard Stark, but both Don Cheadle and Mickey Rourke are severely underused. In fact, Rourke barely has any lines of dialogue at all, and never feels truly fleshed out as a villain.

The science-fiction of Iron Man 2 is also lazy and lame, but that’s really the least of its worries. In the end, I just don’t think there is a compelling story here, instead it is a series of scenes that provide all these new characters with an excuse to interact with each other. This is a flaw that many comic book movie sequels suffer from, but at least they usually make up for it by amping up the special effects and delivering memorable action set pieces. Iron Man 2 does not really do that either. Yes, it is a disappointment on a lot of levels, but given what there was to work with, perhaps the outcome was inevitable. Will we see a third Iron Man film? The story certainly doesn’t seem particularly interested in preparing us for that, but hopefully we can at least look forward to Tony Stark surrounding himself with a few more interesting characters in The Avengers movie. — Sean

SCORE: 1.5 stars



Recommended If You Like: Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, X-Men Origins: Wolverine



  • Nick Robertson

    You’re crazy. I liked the movie best when the action was nowhere to be seen. I really enjoyed how Tony created the new chemical compound, I’m a bit of a nerd for those types of scenes in films, though. And I HATED Scarlett Johansson in this movie – I don’t get why people think she’s hot. If I passed her on the street I’d turn and look at her ass but that’s about it – and I do that a lot already. The end was pretty messy but I thought that Favreau handled everything pretty well, Marvel should want him for Avengers now. He basically made The Avengers with this film, as you said.

    N

  • J.G.

    I have to really disagree with your review of this film Sean. Yes the movie suffers from some of the pitfalls of producing a comic book movie sequel, but I think it overcomes those shortcomings with fun performances and steady characterization. A buddy of mine who saw the film had the same problem with not enough action scenes, but I think that in this film it is a case of quality and not quantity.
    The action scenes in the film are quick and clear, and I think that makes sense in the movie world they’ve established. If this technology is really as powerful and expensive as they say than a fight shouldn’t last for three hours. Also modern blockbuster movies are so loud I was thankful that the scenes in question didn’t go on for ages. Still they were memorable and I think stand out from set pieces in other films of the genre. The whole sequence with the race cars and whiplash really appealed to my younger comic book reading self.
    I think that if all the performances from big name stars attached to the picture were weak than the stunt casting would have been a bad idea, but everyone did a good job. Yes Rhody and Pepper got shorted, but would we have gotten as much of that awesome Justin Hammer performance if they weren’t.
    I love that they really celebrated the elements of Tony Stark that made him a popular character in the comic books. Ivan Vanko and the black widow were introduced together in the comics. I liked the world building connect the dots for the avengers movie, because I think its about time they started acknowledging that you can have a shared superhero universe that fans can follow.
    Most of all I was entertained by the film. I don’t regret a minute of it. It stands tall with Spiderman 2, and X-men 2 as a strong entry in a franchise and a fantastic superhero genre film.

  • I think Sean’s mind was made up before he saw the movie. When he posted about the film receiving negative reviews from critics.

  • Steve

    I didn’t mind this film but have 4 points

    1) Don Cheadle sucked. I don’t mind him in most movies but it was obvious that he was hired in the last moment because all his scenes with Downey lacked all the chemistry, rapport and friendly smacktalk he shared with Terrence Howard in the first film. Instead of us observing 2 friends behaving as such, we had to be told every second time he’s “Your best friend” as if to remind us. He was too stiff and humourless

    2) Too much Avengers crap. There’s a time a place for that. I never watched the post-credits stuff. And that’s what they should be. little easter eggs for the hardcore fans, not half an hour shoved down our throat. And for those who didn’t watch the Iron Man post credits, Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) appears seemingly out of nowhere unintroduced and talks to Stark like it’s normal. NOT EVERYONE WATCHES POST-CREDIT SCENES. And don’t get me started on the wholly gratuitous Captain America reference.

    3) Too much shit going on. With the Avengers plot shoehorned in, there’s no time for Vanko to seem like a legitimate villain. Instead, he’s just another guy with a suit who turns out to be a huge pushover.

    4) The dialogue wasn’t as snappy as the first movie. RDJ is innately entertaining and every scene is fun. So why bother with unfunny slapstick from Jon Favreau’s Happy character when Stark is so damn watchable anyway? And another point about the dialogue… The first movie’s dialogue is so much more punchy and spontaneous, no surprise when you consider it had no script. All the lines were either improvised or made up on the morning of shooting. Perhaps this very fact made the film FEEL so much more realistic and endearing?

  • 1,5 out of 5 stars ?
    Thats what you would rate the fantastic 4 if in a
    bad mood..
    be fair, homo

  • Great review Sean. Looking forward to hearing what Jay and Gregg have to say about the film as well.

  • chewrog

    Agree with your review Sean, out of any I’ve read for this movie yours best sums up the problems I had with it. There is no real story here, a sequel for the sake of a sequel. A fun performance by Rockwell but that’s about it. Tony is a dick, there is no character development or arc to speak of. Too many characters with nothing to do, Scarlet Johansen’s character could be completely removed and the film would lose nothing. Whenever it looks as if it’s going to go to interesting places (specifically Tony’s father screwing over Whiplash’s for the technology, rewriting history etc.)it completely drops the ball. The action is boring, there are no stakes and the film seems mostly concerned with maintaining the staus quo. Bloated and dull when the first was breezy fun.

  • TheAllKnowingGod

    Scar Jo seems to be movie poison.

    A tragedy she lost so much weight for such a lame movie and role.

  • bullet3

    Agreed, I think this review is dead on. This is on all fronts a terrible movie, that is kind of saved by the charm of the actors. There is no structure to the movie, its all over the place, no arc to any of the characters.
    And the action is what really pisses me off. I swear to god, the first Iron Man has more action than this movie, and worst of all, I thought the cgi was way more sloppy this time around. There were some shots where it was obviously computer models bouncing around unrealistically, which is unacceptable for a 200 million dollar movie.

  • It’s 1.5 out of 4. I gave the first Fantastic Four film 2.5 and the second 3. They were fun films, Iron Man 2 was not.

    If I do have a bias, it’s that I don’t know the comics very well and I don’t get the same thrill out of simply seeing these characters that some fans seem to be getting. Also, keep in mind, I didn’t think the first Iron Man was as mind-blowing as others did either.

  • 1138

    Interesting review. I haven’t seen the movie yet but looking forward to it. I really liked the first Iron Man and it surprised me with how well it was paced a nice dose of RDJ.

    I’m surprised you didn’t like the first iron man Sean. I thought it was good material with plenty of good actors.

    I do agree with above posts of missing Howard. I love Cheadle as an actor but he looks way out of place after only seeing the trailers! Howard seemed comfortable in the role and I thought good casting. To bad Marvel was cheap.

    As for the FF films Sean, those films would have gotten -stars from me. They were far from entertaining and just plain dummed down material.

  • Tim

    I agree for the most part but I still think RDJ does a good job maintaining the audience’s attention. They spent too much time lingering on Stark’s mortality and don’t do a very good job with it. They would have been better off fleshing out Black Widow and Mickey Rourke’s character, who i thought gave a strong performance. Rourke’s death was a bit anti-climactic as well. He was beaten much too easily.

  • Don’t get me wrong, I did like the first Iron Man. It is a 3 star movie for me. I just don’t think it is the pinnacle of comic book movies and it has some weaknesses.

  • james

    nice reviewman,i totally agree!

  • Maopheus

    Sean, you’re not really missing a whole lot by not having avidly read the Iron Man comics. It’s enough to know the back story, the main characters and Stark’s issues and flaws. The Iron Man Blu-ray is pretty good at explaining the history. But in reality, Iron Man is overall pretty thin from a point of view of having a lot of stuff that could be translated into movie material. Basically a lot of it is him going up against adversaries who are like him but evil. Geniuses and scientist types who build suits and technology to fight him. I guess that’s a flaw in a lot of superhero stories in general where the bad guy is basically the mirror image of the hero. Essentially that was the story of Iron Man 1, but it worked because it was the first movie, and everything was fresher. This time it definitely felt like everything was being set up to set up the Avengers movie. Ivan Vanko wasn’t really important as the bad guy he was just there to provide the obligatory “mirror image” bad guy to Stark/Iron Man in order to have a movie to set up the Avengers. Unfortunately it has the effect of making the movie very anticlimactic because you know what it’s all leading to. Having said that, I sure hope that the Avengers movie is going to be amazing. It’s going to be hard for Marvel to continuing upping the ante.
    I will agree that the movie had a major lag in that middle. It didn’t necessarily need an action scene but it needed something. The cliched fight between Rhodes and Stark seemed very strange. I could understand it as the obligatory scene where the best friend has to slap some sense into him. But it seemed to be executed very strangely. I do also agree that Cheadle was not either not very good in this role or just wasn’t given anything. I really liked Howard in the first and regardless of whatever reasons they gave for replacing him, I think it came down to $$. Howard wanted more money, and the producers didn’t want to pay it. Cheadle’s a great actor so I think he was pretty much wasted.
    But I think I know why Sean was disappointed in the movie. It’s a difficult movie to evaluate on its own because you have to put it into the context of the next two movies (Thor/Captain America) and the Avengers. The movie definitely then suffers from the occasionally awkward middle movie feel where it leaves you intentionally wanting. I don’t think it necessarily excuses Favreau et al. from making a poor movie but it does make it harder.

  • Primal

    I saw a midnight opening night showing of the film, so most of the people at my screening were marvel/iron man fanboys. They seemed to have loved it, but I’m in the same boat as Sean and didn’t think the movie was good at all.

    I thought the performances were just fine by RDJ, Rockwell, and Rourke. It was the quality of the writing that severely was lacking here.

    My favorite part of the original was the creation/testing of the suit. In the sequel, the comparison to that scene was the creation of the element which wasn’t just lame, but frankly insulted my intelligence with “that was easy” line. It was also done in several minutes only serve up a visual gag for all Capt. America fans.

    I don’t think, however, that any of the FF films are better than Iron Man 2. Both franchises try to aspire to having that “fun” tone throughout, but the FF films had horrendous dialogue which is on par with Iron Man 2.

    Sam Jackson’s extended cameo was just weird and out of place. I usually love Scarlett Johansson in anything she is in even if the movie is shit, but I think she wasn’t very striking in this film. I dunno, maybe Favreau & co. just don’t know how to probably sexualize a hot women on screen. He should of done his homework and watch ScarJo’s work with Woody Allen or something. At least see Match Point for f sake.

    As for Cheadle, well it’s a nice paycheck he got for work he pretty much did with his eyes closed I’m sure.

    I did like that they focused a little more on Stark’s alcoholism, but then he had to be dancing in his suit which reminded totally of Mr. Fantastic on the dancefloor in FF. Lame!

  • Primal

    btw, the best part of the night was watching the new Inception trailer before the film. It blew my mind. Super duper pumped for it.

  • J.G.

    I’ve heard some comments on other sites also complaining about the avengers material in this film. I know I’m biased so could someone explain to me why this is such an egregious sin on the part of the filmmakers. As far as I can tell about ten percent of the film was taken up by that sub plot. Tony meeting Nick Fury and finding out about Black Widow, Shield Agent at his house, sitting with nick fury at his house, the final meeting with Fury and Black Widow’s report. I think its an exciting idea connecting all these major blockbuster movies that a large population of people see every summer anyways. I guess I understand if you have absolutely no interest in seeing an avengers movie that it would be a minor annoyance. I think the avengers stuff works within the context of the movie and that the film is funnier than the first.

  • bullet3

    J.G. : I personally didn’t mind the avengers stuff, but the problem is that the main storyline and villain is really badly executed. Rourke gets less screen-time than the Happy Hogan character, so there is no buildup with him (and we learn nothing about him), and then he’s killed in like 10 seconds. I think that people are jumping on the Avengers stuff because if you took it out and replaced it with proper character buildup and payoff in the main storyline, you’d have a much stronger movie.

  • Fatbologna

    I actually found this to be a pretty fun flick. I don’t really take these big summer comic movies as anything more than candy. I do think the middle was a bit sluggish but only because they packed a lot in. Being an avid superhero fan growing up I feel like the Marvel movies have so far been spot on for the most part.

    The stories in those books were never exactly Dickensian so I don’t expect that from the films. Superhero comic books tend to be cluttered messes with too many references to other story lines and characters. This was that. I watched it. I liked it. I’ll soon forget it. To discuss these films in as much detail as people do seems like an exercise in futility. If you had fun watching it, great. If not, that’s fine too. It’ll still make it’s money and spawn more films like it.

    I’m just happy that this summer has a better mix of action films. There’s a really solid line-up of great old-school 80s style action flicks this year and I’m more stoked for those than any of the upcoming comic book movies.

    Bring on the A-Team, Expendables and my personal fave, MACHETE!

  • Maopheus

    I think Marvel made their bed now they have to lay in it with their Avengers grand plan. It’s pretty ambitious to merge three superhero movies (four if you count the Hulk but who knows if the Hulk will actually be a part of the Avengers or not) into the Avengers so there’s a lot of juggling involved. It makes each movie (and character) a bit of a cog in a larger wheel. Hence it diminishes each part a bit. Also it puts a pressure on each movie to not be too different or offbeat because they have to be merged into one (supposedly) unified whole. Imagine asking the Christopher Reeve-era Superman and the Michael Keaton Batman to both be in the Justice League. Wouldn’t work in my opinion. You’re taking Iron Man with it’s hip/cool/humorous take, Thor with it’s apparently more epic, sweeping tone based on Kenneth Branagh’s previous work, and who knows what kind of tone from Captain America and making it all work together in a film being directed by someone else. Pretty tough task I’ll say. It also puts pressure on each movie to kind of more or less be a commercial for the next one, and then eventually the Avengers. Marvel knew they had to balance that need to advertise for the next movies along with establishing IM2’s own tone. That’s the part that I don’t think they achieved well. I think they certainly did their best to drop the hints and the little nods to the next movies (albeit a bit too heavy handedly with the Captain America shield, what was that supposed to mean, that it was a failed prototype for a Cap shield or what? I wonder if they inadvertently introduced their own continuity error with the shield) and they succeeded there better than the actual movie itself. But I think we always knew that the movie would in the end be just a commercial for the next movies. But it made it a fait accompli that the actual movie’s individual worth would be diminished for the greater good. If this movie were totally amazing and spectacular it would hurt Thor’s potential, Capt. A’s potential, and the Avengers’ potential.

  • J.G.

    I think it will be like league of extraordinary gentlemen, except it won’t suck. Yes Reeves era Superman and Keaton Batman would not work well in a movie together, but they are from a different time. I think they are trying to prop up some characters who would have a harder time establishing movie franchises on their own by building ties to other successful characters. I have no doubt that the directors are in charge of their respective movies, just encouraged and fed some information that would help with a tie-in movie later. To read some of these complaints/reviews of the movie you’d think that every other line was about the avengers. I don’t think it diminishes anything from these movies, if anything it gives them something else to do with these characters. We all know the superhero genre flick formula by now: First movie origin story, second movie awesome ramping up of action, third movie huge mess, reboot, repeat. At least if these movie build up to something else altogether fans might get something new/bigger than before.

  • My two cents, I agree with Sean if what he is ultimately saying is the film left him wanting more, because that is what it left me. There was no real purpose, no Tony Stark TOTALLY near death, no damsel in distress, no ticking clock, and no scores of people at stake. I would be the first to say that these clichés get old but this film doesn’t try to be a “different” type of superhero film so it might as well use these clichés.

    I did like seeing Favreau uses of improvising in the dialogue scenes – it added a lot of ‘pop’ even if the things the actors were talking about was bland.

    I laughed when Mickey demanded his bird; it was like we were seeing the real Mickey demanding his bird, dog, etc. on all of those other films. He did a good job but the final fight was way too short, why not reduce the drone fight and make the whiplash fight longer?! You could say the Avenger stuff hurt them here as they were over 2 hours due to some of that shit. Shit no one will remember two days after seeing the film.

    The site model as a clue was telegraphed way too much and lame. The transition wasn’t well done and why make Tony a sloppy scientist? Is that in the comic? Be consistent, don’t show me Ivan as non computer using scientist then show him as an expert hacker?! I agree that Tony building a new reactor every time out is so boring.

    Best film with no purpose ever!

  • Goon

    I agree with Sean, I’m around 2/4

    it was just no fun, the villain(s) were weak, the avengers crap sucks, the charm was not there, the action was kind of bland, no climax or drama

    Iron Meh

  • Kamen Liew

    Agree with you Sean. Aside from the Monaco set piece; ScarJo’s kickass fight scene at the end seems more inspired than any other action sequences in the film.

    Also, Iron Man fighting with A) Iron drones B) best friend turned Iron Man sidekick and C) Iron suit wearing villain?

    Can’t wait to see Jay rip this apart.

  • vader

    Look this is better than the first-Ironman-1.5/4, Ironman 2-3/4.

  • Spot on, I agree with Sean. Too many plot elements and characters tied into a complicated story, something the first film handled fairly well.

    Stark dealing with issues but making a fool of himself is weak character development. With the amount of actual screen time and dialogue delivered, Rhodey could’ve been Tracy Morgan for all I care. Throughout the film, Pepper Potts was lazily incorporated into the plot and a hassle, and Black Widow was worth her sole action scene. Hammer was good, Happy was bad and unnecessary. Vanko was alright, but how come he could outsmart almost everybody but was defeated in minutes.

    Iron Man’s story shouldn’t have to suffer because the writers want to set a stage for what’s next, I don’t care much for the Avengers if the writing will go along these lines.

  • James Fergin

    While I agree with you guys that there was too much plot and not enough focus, I still enjoyed the movie quite a bit. Sam Rockwell practically steals the movie. Everyone else is fine. It may not have had much action, but I didn’t mind that. The character interactions were great. Not necessarily hilarious, but then again this isn’t The Naked Gun. It was still way better than the Fantastic Four movies, which are embarrassments. And you guys gave Hellboy 2 four stars which – like Batman & Robin – has one awful line after another. And you guys are complaining about the technology in the film? Come on. Now you’re just being ridiculous. You guys are sounding more like Reed, and that’s starting to frighten me.

  • Dane

    I think everyone complaining about this movie sucking is nuts. The only dull area was Rourke’s portrayal of Vanko. He was in his own movie apart from everyone else. I thought his final battle was anti-climactic as well, but everything else, to me, was awesome. I had a good time throughout this movie. It was no Dark Knight, but I never expected it to be. Downey is better here than the first one. I suppose if he doesn’t win you over then the movie will be lost on you. I also didn’t mind the Avengers stuff so much, but Sam as Nick Fury is kinda annoying. Bad casting if you ask me.

  • AJ

    Odd review. I don’t disagree with your reasoning, but your final score when contrasted with the Fantastic Four comment is just plain wacky.

    Those movies weren’t fun. At all. They were boring and uninspired. To each their own.

    I’m glad I’ve never read more than a small stack of comics in my life so I’ve never become attached to any of these characters before they hit the big screen.

  • TheOtherJamesTaylor

    Not sure how a movie that’s more than twice as good as the first one gets so many low ratings but whatever, to each his own, I also thought Transformers 2 was awesome.

  • I guess i’m in the minority here but I really enjoyed this film. Yes while watching it I did notice that the action scenes were few and far between, but the reason I didn’t mind it is because the big parts filled with plot were so well delivered by the actors in my opinion that I was still drawn in. I LOVED Mickey Rourke in this movie, even though he was under used. I LOVED Don Cheadle, I LOVED Sam Rockwell, and I thought RDJ was just as good as he was in the first. am I the only one who enjoyed this movie? Can anyone back me up?

  • The film lacked action.

    What action was in the film was barely memorable at all. I have seen better action in Steve Martin films.

    This film just had nothing in it that was worthwhile watching, although the characters were good and well rounded but in context of the film they were boring.

  • The film also never really set up a future that I was interested in seeing. Yes Avengers, enough already we know it is happening you don’t need to slam it in our faces throughout the entire film. WE GET IT.

    Other than that the film lacked a forward moving plot. When the end approached I asked myself, “is this all??” We spent an eternity watching the characters yapping away through scenes to wait for another robot battle that lasted like 6 minutes…?? Is that all that was cool in the entire archive of Iron Man material?? A lame battle in some indoor river thing? Not for me.

  • Ben

    Bitch, bitch, whine, whine.

    There’s too much action in this movie

    There’s not enough action in that movie

  • jason

    i walked out of the theater thinking the same thing. this review is 100% spot on. regardless of what the cry baby fanboys are saying. Iron man 2 was a huge disappointment. the worst of it was the long and flat out boring pacing. followed by the dry and cheap performance by Don Cheadle. this movie feels more like an Avengers advertisement than a movie. Really good review

  • Gortu
  • M

    Awesome review. You possess clear insight into the laziness that was Iron Man 2.

  • This movie definitely sucked verses the 1st one. I cant agree more with your review. I honestly did not think it would be better before watching it and i was right.

    It is way to all over the place there was absolutley no plot as russian really had no presidence to go after tony it almost made no sense, they added in some 2 second part as to why he was doing it and it was so retarded and not believable.

    You would think these actors would stop doing these movies for pay checks somewhere after they hit there millions of dollars but yet again you see a actor in all his glory taking roles for a pay check and not the actual story. Shame on you downy for doing this film, they should of rewrote this whole script from the get go. Im going to watch spiderman now.

  • Brendan

    I just listened to the podcast review. I saw the movie this weekend, and I can’t agree with the 1.5 stars that Sean & Jay gave it. The 2 stars from Greg was still lower than I’d give it, but I can’t believe Sean actually thought the two FF movies were better.
    I think the guys had different expectations going in than I did. For some reason, it sounds like they all expected non-stop action. From that standpoint, I can see why they were disappointed. I can honestly say that I had no real expectations going in. If anything, my expectations were lowered based on hearing that reviews weren’t stellar (though, overall, the reviews are much better than the Film Junk crew’s).
    Another thing, why the complaints about the science fiction not being believable? They used a lot of the same stuff in the first film, yet the guys seem to think it only existed in IM2 and couldn’t exist in realty. Sorry, but I’ve seen nothing but praise for the future-tech in IM2. Complaining about this, especially how Jay did, just sounds like someone who wanted to find things to hate.
    Maybe the film lacked focus, due in part to the Avengers tie-in, but in no way is this a 1.5 out of 4.

  • I really enjoyed watching lost i love Kate and Sawyer, i will definatly miss Lost

  • KPB

    For some reason I have no desire to see this movie, I have no idea why, but it seems a lot of sequals tend to let the viewer down

  • bob

    Crappy movie

  • Snarf

    Ironman 2 was really disappointing. I saw it in the theater and haven’t seen it again until just now. No wonder it’s available on Netflix streaming (only the crappy movies are). It was so cheesey. Sam Rockwell was beyond annoying. I know that was the point but he wasn’t believable as a villain. Jon Favreau put himself in the movie way too much. Scarlett Johannsan sucked. She has a nice ass but had awkward posture in that suit. I don’t mind Don Cheadle normally but didnt really care for him in this role. I HATED Terrence Howard in the first one though. Maybe soemwhere in between.