Iron Man 2

i'm very disappointed this is getting suchy iffy reviews, i really wanted to like it. there seems to be too many people in it too - spiderman 3 was the same, though i assume it isn't as bad as that pile of toss.
 
I went and was expecting it to be awful following reviews but it was enjoyable enough hockum. I guess the thing is to switch off yr brain during it. Personally Id say there were meandering bits, and perhaps too many characters, but overall its fun.

If you're looking for boring, laden with filler bloomin Marvel movies Id head for the Hulk series. Dull as!!:rolleyes:
 
Saw it tonight. Didn't think it was good as the first, but I still really enjoyed it & it still had some awesome bits in it.

Fail to see how anyone could compare it to the rather poor Spidey 3.
 
i know its been a month since it was released, but my local Cineworld is only showing this movie once a day now. seem to remember the showings for the original movie a number of times a day for at least 2 months after it openned.
poor Box Office draw perhaps?
 
I dunno, I saw it again last Monday and the cinema was packed. Probably had something to do with it being a Bank holiday though...

It's had a pretty good run though as it's on it's sixth week now.....:)
 
we didnt get that bank holiday in Scotland :( , but i guess locality depenRAB i suppose.
when i saw that film on openning day, Ian Rankin the author was in the queue watching the same showing as me :)
 
I saw the film and although I enjoyed it, I didn't think it was as good as the first film. The lack of big action scenes was one and as I much as I like RDJ as Tony Stark, he featured more in it than Iron Man. Mickey Rourke was good as Whiplash but I thought Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer was the better villian.

There is some things I have thoughts on:

How was Rhodey able to control the armour without any problems? in the first film, Stark had to attempt it several times yet Rhodey was able to use it with ease.

When the SHIELD agent saw Captain America's shield, he had a look on his face but yet Tony wasn't all that bothered by it.

Also does the film take place before or after The Incredible Hulk? plus
it seems they are building towarRAB The Avengers Movie with the scene where they find Mjornill. Thor's hammer and Agent Coulson is also appearing in Thor and Nick Fury in Captain America
 
It's bleeped on purpose because the word is said on a TV news channel within the film, just like they'd bleep it on ITV or BBC news. And the second bleep comes almost immediately after the first one when the senator says "BLEEP you, Mr Stark, BLEEP you, buddy". It's nothing to do with any kind of censorship by the studio or ratings boarRAB which some people seem to be making out.

As for the film, i thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it was just as good as the first one. The critic complaint that it features too much SHIELD is a load of crap too (it all fits into the story, and it's never over excessive), so pay no attention to any reivews that say that.

My only complaint would be that
Mickey Roarke seemed to be defeated rather quickly, i'd have preferred his battle scene to last a bit longer before they beat him.
 
That's a good point, this despite the fact that this film has been given the full IMAX treatment.

The first film was still in the cinemas, when it's unoffical sequel, The Incredible Hulk, was opening over 2 months afterwarRAB.
 
Thought I'd post my musings on Iron Man 2. Firstly, thought the first movie was a pleasant surprise, primarily due to RDJ and some good set-pieces, with nice character building and of course, impressive FX.

Had read a few reviews prior to going in, and regret to have to side with those rating it as a pretty poor second outing. This movie should get done under the trade descriptions act firstly; the 'iron' Iron Man barely features in the film. Instead, we get treated to interminably long stretches of dialogue, some of which were just plain rambling and appeared to be ad-libbed (particularly by Sam Rockwell). The whole middle act was a yawn fest and killed the movie stone dead. KiRAB / teens might get pretty restless during this stretch. There is definitely an excess of characters, some far fetched plot contrivances, RDJ veering from annoying to sulky, the prime villain under utilised and just general filler scenes (step forward Sam L Jackson). By the time the final battle comes around, I was past the point of caring - particularly when you see the 'army' IM takes on. Few laughs in between the (ahem) mayhem, so no relief there either.

Visual flourishes were there, but night time battles with whizzy metal men and explosions wasn't as satisfying as even the rather weak battle at the end of the first movie. A saving grace was the eye-candy on show - Scarlett Johansson, with a Hit Girl take down scene...but not quite as gory.

But ultimately, if all Iron Man films are going to feature 'metal men' slogging it out in a grand finale, then on the evidence of the sequel perhaps a third showing is unwarranted and maybe a relief. 2/5.
 
I saw this last night and thought on the whole it was okay

it didn't have the "wow this is fun" factor of the the first film, but it's not as bad I thought it would be (based on reviews)

Loved
RDj performance again, this man can carry nearly any film (I really liked Sherlock Holmes)
Mickey Rourke was good, when he was on screen
Sam Jackson's extended cameos worked for me
Gwyneth's Pepper Potts is fun
loved Garry Shandling's snarky Senator
and I liked Sam Rockwell's version of Justin Hammer

Meh
Black Widow was okay, but kinda pointless in this film
ditto War Machine, infact I'd go so far as to say a complete waste of time (should have been saved for third film)

as for staying till after the credits, only bother if you're a fan. It won't mean much or make that much sense when you see 40 sec footage, if you're not familar with the Avengers/Marvel Universe

7/10
 
a very very long time it right at the very end - we were the only people left in the cinema apart from the staff waiting for us to leave
 
The normal run for a major film is 8 weeks. Remember all that fuss over Alice in Wonderland because Warners wanted to pull it quickly.
There haven't been a lot of big films come along to take it's place. Also Cineworld's screening policy isn't brilliant too.
 
Back
Top