Plot: On one side is Justin Hammer (Rockwell), a fast-talking weapons manufacturer who fancies himself the next Tony Stark; on the other, Vanko (Mickey Rourke), who, while incarcerated in a Russian prison, creates his own battle-suit, which shoots devastating, whip-like beams. Hammer and Whiplash join forces to take Downey's character Tony Stark down.
Adding more flesh and blood to the new movie is Stark's mysterious new assistant, Natasha, who has an alter ego of her own, Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson). That introduction inevitably sparks romantic tension between Stark and former assistant Pepper Potts, who's been promoted to CEO of Stark Industries.
When Jon Favreau described the first day of principal photography on Iron Man 2 as “It’s like we picked up where we left off” he wasn’t kidding. IESB has learned that the scene that was shot is a continuation of the final scene of the first Iron Man film, where Tony Stark reveals to the world that “I Am Iron Man.” We can only assume that the new scene opens the sequel.
Loved the first one. Only part of the movie that bothered me was gwenyth paltrow. I don't think she should be in these kinds of movies, you know, the kinds of movies that I watch (Seven was great, no flame please). Still, these castings excite me. Robert Downey Jr - Tony Stark/Iron Man
Don Cheadle - Col. James Rhodes
Mickey Rourke - Ivan/Whiplash
Sam Rockwell - Justin Hammer
These 4 actors are easily some of the best actors in the world today. Sam rockwell in moon was just insane to watch.
On August 11 2009 07:15 hardehar wrote: super hero movies are mega dumb
every one is the same as the previous one
Special effects are different, action scenes are different, and that's enough to entertain/amuse. It's about integrating this comic book character into a movie as seemlessly as possible.
1st one was good, I hope this one will also be good. Weird how they dropped Terance Howard for Don Cheadle but Cheadle is a very good actor so not so bad :D
i heard there were all these irl tensions on set because gwyneth paltrow was being a diva and jealous of all the attention scarlett johansson was getting
Terrence Howard portrays James Rhodes in the 2008 Iron Man film.[83] In the film, Rhodes is a U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, who serves as the military's chief liaison to Stark Industries. He is also Tony Stark's most trusted ally and best friend. Rhodes is depicted in the film wearing a "Brass Rat", the MIT school ring, indicating that in the film, he and Stark were graduates of the same college,[84] and on his other hand he wears an Air Force Academy ring, suggesting that he received his masters degree from MIT after earning a "grad school slot" for high academic achievement while at USAFA. Though the War Machine armor makes no appearance in the film, two nods to Rhodes being War Machine were made. During a scene when Rhodes looks at the Iron Man Mark II armor, he says "Next time, baby!" hinting Rhodes' future as War Machine. The second nod to War Machine is made when animation of War Machine's shoulder cannon appears during the film's end credits. Director Jon Favreau told Ain't It Cool News that War Machine would appear in the sequels and Howard was casted with this in mind[85] After a contract dispute, the part of Rhodes was recasted for the sequel Iron Man 2 and Don Cheadle was selected for the role.[1] The War Machine armor will be featured in the sequel and the armor itself was revealed in footage shown at the 2009 San Diego Comic-Con.
On August 11 2009 07:59 Hot_Bid wrote: i heard there were all these irl tensions on set because gwyneth paltrow was being a diva and jealous of all the attention scarlett johansson was getting
worddd
LOL man Paltrow got shit on Johansoon. Younger... HOTTER... she should be jealous
On August 11 2009 07:58 Slaughter wrote: 1st one was good, I hope this one will also be good. Weird how they dropped Terance Howard for Don Cheadle but Cheadle is a very good actor so not so bad :D
Yeah, I thought Howard was a good actor and played the role as Rhodey well, but his desired for money killed it. He was the first actor cast for the movie with the biggest salary and the director stated that he was difficult to work with sometimes because they would do a lot of takes. When the sequel was in the works, Howard wanted the same salary as the first, or more money, which made Jon drop Howard and get Cheadle instead.
On December 17 2009 19:01 Always wrote: totally excited, but scarlett johannson does look really weird. i normally find her really attractive, but eh. not so much right now.
God this looks good. There are so many good movies coming out lately including the Hangover with new extra features (and pictures!!!!) that came out on Tuesday.
On December 18 2009 01:43 Gangrel wrote: Is iron man batman's movie rival?
If so this just might be the most epic movie rivalry since batman and superman back in the day.
The difference, imo, is that Batman generally has better story and character development. While Iron Man excels in the holy shit badass awesome factor, the story really doesn't extend past Iron Man beating people up. Mind you, they're still both good movies - they're just better in different areas.
I bet the Avengers do next to nothing in this movie. Also, WAR MACHINE.
On December 18 2009 03:33 GreEny K wrote: Damn, the way they ended the last movie i was thinking that the would get the avengers together (i think thats their name).
Thats for the avenger movie thats gonna happen in the future. I think their still gonna make a captain america and thor movie before then.
It shouldn't be far away until we see a movie starring the powerful Franklin Richards and another with as well as the omnipresent omnipotent The Living Tribunal
^^ something happened with howards contract and he decided not to return. I don't think they've given exact details, but it was a huge story about four+ months ago
Plot: On one side is Justin Hammer (Rockwell), a fast-talking weapons manufacturer who fancies himself the next Tony Stark; on the other, Vanko (Mickey Rourke), who, while incarcerated in a Russian prison, creates his own battle-suit, which shoots devastating, whip-like beams. Hammer and Whiplash join forces to take Downey's character Tony Stark down.
Adding more flesh and blood to the new movie is Stark's mysterious new assistant, Natasha, who has an alter ego of her own, Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson). That introduction inevitably sparks romantic tension between Stark and former assistant Pepper Potts, who's been promoted to CEO of Stark Industries.
This plot seems like they just decided to take the first iron man movie script, fuck with it a little bit then just have Tony Stark fight the warped version of him from the first movie.
On December 18 2009 15:07 KiLL_ORdeR wrote: ^^ something happened with howards contract and he decided not to return. I don't think they've given exact details, but it was a huge story about four+ months ago
When the first Iron Man cast were finalized, Terrence Howard was the highest paid actor out of everyone. Although Howard did a pretty good job portraying Rhodey, it was a pain in the ass for everyone else. Jon Favreau, the director, explained that out of everyone, Howard was the hardest to work with which ended up with a lot of reshoots and spend extra time editing. When they started talking about the sequel, they told Howard that his salary will be cut down. It pretty much ends there since Howard's publicists and Marvel/Favreau stopped talking, so they ended up going different ways.
So far the plan is:
Iron Man 2 Thor - 2011 The First Avenger: Captain America - 2011 The Avengers - 2012
Expect the release dates to change since it takes a lot of trial and error to finalize the plot for all movies to end up in The Avengers.
Oh, and there are a lot of tie ins now from Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk (movies).
In Iron Man, Captain America's shield can be seen in Tony Stark's workshop when JARVIS is removing his armor and Pepper Potts spots him. According to an exclusive comic book released with the Wal-Mart deluxe DVD version of Iron Man, Howard Stark created the technology for the shield, and Tony Stark used a discarded prototype to help design the alloy used for his armor. In the film The Incredible Hulk, General Ross mentions to Emil Blonsky that there was a World War II program that created a supersoldier serum. The supersoldier serum is shown as well as Dr. Reinstein referenced as its inventor. Blonsky is then injected with the serum in order to take on the Hulk. In the film's deleted opening, Bruce Banner goes to the Arctic to commit suicide but transforms into the Hulk, smashing the glacier. A buried human figure and shield is visible, who are meant to be Rogers and his shield
Robert Downey Jr is such an amazing actor, so geniune all his performances and reactions, so into character I put them right there with De Niro, Pacino, Nicholson, and Edward Norton and the late Heath Ledger but unfortunatly he threw most of the 90s doing alcohol drugs and rehab. I can't imagine what he would've achieved if he didn't do all those drugs and drinking.
On March 09 2010 11:54 KingKRule wrote: Iron Man is basically just a less cool, less athletic, less smart, less everything superhero than Batman. So no, I won't be watching this movie.
Iron Man has character, whereas Batman is an overly politicized figure, particularly since The Dark Knight. They are different movies, Iron Man is more about an eccentric rich boy doing cool shit for kicks, and I thought it worked really well for the first movie. It was fun to watch.
Not bashing on the new Batman movies at all, just saying I personally think it is unfair to compare them in that way.
it doesnt have to be good. it has to be cool. Explosions and shit. Not like they are trying to win any awards. they are trying to appease the fan boys. So QQ and go watch something with sandra bullock while i watch tony stark rip shit up.
Man this movie looks cool. Story seems kind of meh but Downey Jr can make even shitty lines sound good so it should be fine. Also when Justin Hammer popped up I was like "wtf Austin Powers?" for a moment
On March 09 2010 17:23 PhailSoBaller wrote: it doesnt have to be good. it has to be cool. Explosions and shit. Not like they are trying to win any awards. they are trying to appease the fan boys. So QQ and go watch something with sandra bullock while i watch tony stark rip shit up.
Terrence Howard: he better still be rhodey and not that last guy who was in the suit. SO GAY WHY... i wonder what the story is behind that maybe he is filming another movie so he couldnt make it for iron man 2
On March 09 2010 22:28 wishbones wrote: Terrence Howard: he better still be rhodey and not that last guy who was in the suit. SO GAY WHY... i wonder what the story is behind that maybe he is filming another movie so he couldnt make it for iron man 2
but I find it boring that iron man always fights other robots like himself, like most of his arch nemesis is robot suited guys. hopefully black widow will make this fun.
For those planning to watch Iron Man 2, make sure to stay after the credits like the past Marvel movies. Also there are hints of other heroes such as Captain America's shield (spotted in the first Iron Man movie, but in Iron Man 2, it is seen fully) and Thor throughout the movie.
the best thing about the movie was Scarlett Johansson
it paled in compairson to the first movie, still it was not bad and will be in top 20 movies of the year. i just expected so much more since i really liked iron man1
best scene was the monaco racetrack and that was early in the show, i mean seriosuly, nothings gonna top the fighter jet scene in the first show. this movie also had alot more talking and a 20 second final fight.
the cap american sheild and thor hammer at the end were nice touches but they were blink and ull miss it scenes, NOT throughout the movie as some1 said above.
disappointed by whiplash/warmachine/and his corprate rival, thoguht they were all underwhelming althoguh i do love mickey rouke and his acting the character was weak
So-so. First Iron Man was much better. Scarlett was a valuable asset to the cast.
Russian & French was terrible in the film.
Other American directors should follow Tarantino and use actors who actually speak the language.
Mickey Rourke was still bad-ass but his dialogue involved him mostly sounding like more of a gorilla than Sylvester Stallone; but with a terrible Russian accent and possibly mild Down's syndrome. Who knows?
Was half expecting them to be lame and call Rourke's character 'Ivan Sickle'. Hammer & Sickle Industries. Lame.
This movie was the as interesting and compelling as a $10 box of fireworks. At one point there is a montage where he singularly DIY's what seems to be a particle splitter akin to the LHC. Oh and he gets it to work by hitting it with a hammer.
Tbh the plot was probably put together by eating alphabetti spaghetti and then vomiting onto an A4 pad.
Ah actually I forgot that aspect, she is obscenely hot in it, man the movie must have been bad though to make me only remember the shit and forget the scarlet...
On May 08 2010 16:32 decafchicken wrote: All i remember is scarlett looking really really ridiculously good. i think there were some fights or something. but DAMN she was hot
On May 08 2010 16:43 Pika Chu wrote: Very bad movie. I recommend you don't go to the cinema for it.
This movie was really good. A lot of people will say it's not as good as the first but that's only b/c the bar is set so high. As a movie by itself it was really fun.
I've always been a fan of War Machine and he didn't dissapoint in this movie.
It seems clear that Avengers will come out after we have a few more Marvel characters movies released.
I'm really suprised so many of you liked this movie so much, almost everything about it seemed bad to me although mayb im just being too judgemental for an action flick.
just finished watching it. action was good but thought last fight was sorta cheesy and short. like the scene with the car alarms going off was unnecessary and had me going wtf. can't expect much plot-wise but worth the watch.
also, samuel jackson is amazing. honestly, that role was made for samuel jackson. he can only play one characer: loud, authorative, semi-mysterious badass.
On May 08 2010 17:48 redtooth wrote: just finished watching it. action was good but thought last fight was sorta cheesy and short. like the scene with the car alarms going off was unnecessary and had me going wtf. can't expect much plot-wise but worth the watch.
also, samuel jackson is amazing. honestly, that role was made for samuel jackson. he can only play one characer: loud, authorative, semi-mysterious badass.
It was terrible. The first one was good just because it was so adolescent it had a certain charm. It was basically a superhero fantasy, extremely simple with no bullshit. Just if you got a group of 12 year old boys and brainstormed. The second one the plot made very little sense and it lost that fantasy heart. The amount of bullshit vastly increased while the adolescent wet dreaming was scaled back.
Kinda disappointed too. Weak plot, weaker dialogue (compared to the first) and the action scenes were 1980ish. Those drones and warmashine... *yawn*. "Hey, we've got a flying armor that shoots lasers and is powered by some kind of superawesome atomic energy- what can we build in to make it even more awesome? Yeah... a mashine gun." Well done.
Of course, Scarlett makes up for a bit of that. *drool*
As with most movie threads on tl.net (or anywhere on the internets) the people who rate it down do this on the wrong points. I'm not gonna start a rant and do think you should all think and worry less and just enjoy the film in what it is, don't make it into something it cannot and will not be (hell, as a physicist I didn't mind the particle accelerator and the 'new element stuff' )
the first fight vs warmachine and ironman seemed kinda lame, the last battle against wiplash was short and anti-climatic. the robots being rigged with bombs was also weak. the ending wasnt the great to be honet but the rest of the movie and the the movie as a whole was good.
The end fight was very anti climatic but the rest was a fun ride. Wasn't trying to win any awards but I was entertainted for the most part. The part with him trying to solve his little sickness seemed really out of place though.
I was utterly disappointed by this movie, I even went to see it in cinema (I watch most movies at home), not sure what I was expecting, but certainly not this. The first ironman had some substance and charm, this way only style and 80's style at that.
Only Downey Jr and Mickey Rourke were worth anything in that movie. For what it was hyped to be... lame
On May 08 2010 17:48 redtooth wrote: just finished watching it. action was good but thought last fight was sorta cheesy and short. like the scene with the car alarms going off was unnecessary and had me going wtf. can't expect much plot-wise but worth the watch.
also, samuel jackson is amazing. honestly, that role was made for samuel jackson. he can only play one characer: loud, authorative, semi-mysterious badass.
One thing I really don't get:
The original Nick Fury was white. But in 2000 Marvel launched he Ultimate line of comics to run alongside the current universe.Ultimate is a completely different universe, but with the same characters starting from their origins. This was to make it more accessible to new readers who didn't want to know 40 years of backstory to understand the comics.
Someone decided that Ultimate Nick Fury should be black and then they realized this made him look exactly like Samuel L. Jackson and they ran with it.
In the one of the early issues of the Ultimates (Ultimate Avengers) the characters were talking about who would play them if there was to be a movie about them. Fury responds, "Why Samuel L. Jackson of course."
Watched it last night and it wasn't as good as the first, but I still liked it. The action scenes were okay, but the last fight with Whiplash was INSANELY anti-climatic. I was hoping for a long brawl between the 3 at least. Seeing War Machine in action was awesome, but was short. The robotic drones were pretty cool, but it was pretty lame that they were programmed to self destruct since it was pretty cliche. It was cool to see Captain America's shield and Thor's hammer after the credits.
I experienced the first one to be very much like: Marvel Comics/Iron Man + Special FX parade +"America rocks and Iraq (or w/e it was) sucks!!!! We have spaceships and lotsa advanced technology and they live in cardboard boxes loooollll". Which made it a mediocre movie for me, but enjoyable. I've always thought it was overrated a lot. For some reason everyone just jumped the wow it's so awesome!!! bandwagon.
Anyway, I thought Iron Man 2 did a better job than the original, which was very surprising. It seemed that they rather wanted to create some sort of storyline and focus on some character development and build some neat special effects and action around it. The jokes were fun and witty like in the original. And they actually made fun of America itself with some stuff like Tony Stark making fun of the whole court room and easily getting away with it, just because he's a superstar etc. That made the movie a lot more bearable than the original one for me ^^ All in all, an enjoyable movie that I definitely didn't mind watching
On May 08 2010 22:08 Weaponx3 wrote: the first fight vs warmachine and ironman seemed kinda lame, the last battle against wiplash was short and anti-climatic. the robots being rigged with bombs was also weak. the ending wasnt the great to be honet but the rest of the movie and the the movie as a whole was good.
I agree it was just too easy for them to take out whiplash but i thought it was better than Iron Man 1's last fight. I would of liked to see scarlet finish the scene or something, she made it so much better... 'drooling'
This movie rocked. For all the dumb shits that want something better go watch war of the worlds or 300. FFS its 2010 we've seen it all; what more do you want out of a movie? I thought this sequel was 2x better then the first one and wouldn't mind seeing it again. The dialogue was perfect IMO; i dont got time to watch titanic or some boring ass avatar for the action scenes. Yea the action scenes can be predicted but this is not prince of persia with parkour bullshit.
I just saw this and dang I loved every minute of it. It was literally a geeks heaven. The technology that was in it, and the dialog, and the action, oh my god it was awesome... If you can't take the hint my opinion is that it is awesome and you should see it in theaters.
On May 08 2010 16:29 Manit0u wrote: The movie was OK I guess. Do you also think the next movie is going to be The Avengers?
Well actually, there is a reference to the avengers during the movie and after the end credits,+ Show Spoiler +
a little trailer featuring the discovery of Thor's Hammer, so....
yea? I watched an online stream of the movie, which was boot-leg quality, but still, not that bad for free ! =) It definately mentions or preludes that there will be a new "Avengers" movie coming out.. I mean, theres been hints in just about every marvel movie concerning actual Avenger members, liek in "The incredible Hulk" when Tony Stark walks in to the bar at the end and talks w/ General Ross and says that he's creating a special suit (i think) which preludes the Hulk-buster suit that he has to battle vs. Hulk. Then of course theres the S.H.I.E.L.D. references.. Nick Fury.. I mean c'mon. I'm actually hoping they make a new Captain America movie.. for some reason i'm really anticipating a new remake of that..
the actual folder that Tony picks up towards the end that says "The Avenger initiative"
but ya, i totally liekd it.. better than the 1st. War Machine was awesome and i'm liking the new suit designs and that they're putting a lot out there, rather than just the same old one. Normally the sequels are better than teh 1st because in the 1st movie, liek Spiderman, Xmen etc, they have to spend majority of the movie explaining the origin and how the hero came to be and in the sequel u get to focus on the story and new villain battles.
Can't wait for new X-men Origins movies, Avengers, Green Lantern, or Deadpool.
edit: found this making it concrete about the Avengers.. too bad its scheduled for 2012. thats when the world supposed to end, eh? =[
lol saw it today, I thought it was horrible. The cgi was good, although it wasn't particularly remarkable imo: nothing to seperate it from that of any other movie made these days. I don't feel like elaborating much, but I thought basically everything about the plot choices, cinematography, and the acting, etc, was at best mediocre.
Might be unfair to say, but I definitely believe the first one was much better.
saw it opening night in imax.....really enjoyed it. wasn't quite as good as the first but definitely alot better than i thought it would be based on the trailers
On May 09 2010 12:59 Kennelie wrote: The dialogue was perfect IMO; i dont got time to watch titanic or some boring ass avatars.
wh.... whaa...... what...?
once i read that i stopped reading everything else u had to say because your opinion is pretty much opposite the other 95% of people who thought both were movies were pretty sick
in either case, your either really hotheaded, or really biased
I so wanted this movie to be good. I did. The first one gave the series so much promise.
Sadly, Hollywood now only cares about constant action and special effects over a well written and well paced script. Gone is the "mad scientist" aspect of Tony Stark, gone are the semi-realistic and funny inventing scenes, gone are multi-dimensional characters that acted in a semi-believable fashion. Yes, the movie tries the above, but I choose my adjectives accurately as those descriptors are missing from the scenes this movie does have.
Instead, one is given scene after scene of action or just shots of Tony Stark doing "crazy antics" in his Iron Man suit. All plot elements and character development scenes that do exist feel forced, illogical, and sudden.
It still is not a horrible movie by any means - especially comparing it to the crap hollywood has been producing lately. It just is that it is like comparing the original Star Wars (Episode IV) against the new Star Wars (Episode I) - so much potential was wasted that it is hard to not get mad over it.
I enjoyed Iron Man 2, though it wasn't nearly as good as the first (I loved the first). Most sequels aren't as good as the first anyway =/ I do think it did a good job of furthering the Avengers plot, despite the independent Iron Man storyline being a little less interesting than it was in the first movie.
I really liked it, I was only disappointed because when there were action scenes, it was given to us all in one go and not spread out throughout the movie as much as I hoped it to be. Regardless, it was still good. I definitely loved the effects and Scarlett of course.
I guess it I wanted action at every corner I should go back to watching 300 or something. Haha.
It had a few weak plot devices that made me wanna strangle someone but still a good movie overall. I'd probably go watch it again but not immediately because of said weak plot devices, I don't mind the lack of action for most of the movie as that makes it an actual movie but they relied on some pretty overused methods of keeping the plot moving.
Why the fuck didn't all the security guys at the race track (right after the scene we SEE them holding machine guns...) just shoot the fucking russian guy in the face when he walked out on the track and started demolishing shit... movie would have been over lol
On May 10 2010 13:40 -orb- wrote: This movie was a lot of fun and good (I thought), although there was a glaring plot hole that pissed me off all movie
Why the fuck didn't all the security guys at the race track (right after the scene we SEE them holding machine guns...) just shoot the fucking russian guy in the face when he walked out on the track and started demolishing shit... movie would have been over lol
I was wondering that as he had no protection on his face or head or most of his chest.
On May 10 2010 13:40 -orb- wrote: This movie was a lot of fun and good (I thought), although there was a glaring plot hole that pissed me off all movie
Why the fuck didn't all the security guys at the race track (right after the scene we SEE them holding machine guns...) just shoot the fucking russian guy in the face when he walked out on the track and started demolishing shit... movie would have been over lol
I was wondering that as he had no protection on his face or head or most of his chest.
His electric whips can deflect gunfire, DUH! Still doesn't make sense...
Since we're questioning the movie... how is the russian guy not harmed from the heat produced from the suit that disintegrated the orange jumpsuit
Scarlett looks better with blond hair imo, but still amazing. Good special effects and action scenes as expected. I thought the plot/character development/storyline was all "good enough" to make the movie enjoyable and definitely worth seeing.
I rated the first one around 8 - 8.5... Taught it was really good.
Iron Man 2 didnt make me feel the same. it seems that the "old" fresh and snobish Tony was back. He had evolved in the 1st movie and in the 2nd... he was almost lame...
I really like when hes flashy and everything but... i was crappy jokes and really really bad action that make me rate this... a low 5.5.
The best action scene was at the mid at the race track... and it wasnt that big... The fight with War machine was pathetic... its like "We're immortal, we shoot everywhere and everything's fine"... why did you run for 10 min if you could destroy them all that easy...
Didnt like it... 1st one was marvelous 2nd was isnt worth a 2nd watch....
BTW: I really really love superheros movies... really like all spiderman and everything... but this one .... dont feel it...
first half of this movie was pretty much just 2 people talking at the same time, they just changed the people. That in itself irritated me more than anything. The plot was weak, and it really felt like a filler story. a clear indictor for this is in Samuel L. Jackson's character, which appeared to be in the movie for the single reason of introducing him because his role in the 3rd movie is going to be huge.
Only good things about this move were Scarlett, and Stark going crazy because of his belief that death was imminent. The final action scene was underwhelming, and the dialogue and themes were much more primitive than the original, which was quite intelligent by comparison.
Original shits all over this movie, but I will eagerly anticipate the 3rd movie because I feel like they have had a clear direction for how they would begin and finish the trilogy.
On May 10 2010 18:18 SuperJongMan wrote: Eh... Iron Man 1 and 2 are so cool and yet so lacking... its almost but not quite epic enough both times imo.
This is definitely the way I'm feeling about the second one the first one I thought was great but the second one seemed so close and yet so far from being amazing, it had all the right stuff it just didn't seem to hit it right like the first one did
Have to say Loved the Second one more, Drunk Iron man xD and imo was funnier then the first and i think the Bad guys were better... Iron man 1 had that Wow factor i think is why people enjoyed it more?
I expected Scarlet to play a bigger role in the movie. She seemed like a really minor, unecessary character. She's smoking hot though, so I'm sure we all got a kick out of that.
On May 10 2010 18:41 DonkeyPunch wrote: Have to say Loved the Second one more, Drunk Iron man xD and imo was funnier then the first and i think the Bad guys were better... Iron man 1 had that Wow factor i think is why people enjoyed it more?
That's the one thing sequels have the hardest time replicating.
see: Transformers 2 Matrix sequels Men in Black 2 etc
Every single one of them have everything that made the originals great, but because they're not fresh anymore it feels stale.
Well, technically the Dark Knight is a sequel and it's one of the better movies of all time. (I know that there are a shit ton of Batman films, just talking about the current reboot)
On May 11 2010 12:41 holy_war wrote: Well, technically the Dark Knight is a sequel and it's one of the better movies of all time. (I know that there are a shit ton of Batman films, just talking about the current reboot)
Yes, but the dark knight also managed to bring something new and original to the table (heath ledger's joker). None of the movies I mentioned did that, they just copied the originals.
On May 11 2010 12:17 Shenron wrote: I expected Scarlet to play a bigger role in the movie. She seemed like a really minor, unecessary character. She's smoking hot though, so I'm sure we all got a kick out of that.
She's just like Megan Fox in Transformers. I think they only put Scarlett in Iron Man 2 because they might have her appear in other upcoming Marvel movies. I was more disappointed with Mickey Rourke's character because he just didn't seem that evil. I mean, yeah, he is violent, but I just expected more. I thought the final fight at the end of Iron Man was better than Iron Man 2's.
Much of the time, I couldn't tell what people were saying because they were all talking over each other really fast. That's a Tony Stark thing. If he does it, it's fine. Sometimes it's ok for Pepper Pots to join in because they have that synergy. But in this movie *everyone* seems to do it and it's annoying.
Whiplash was underdeveloped. His motivations are weakly portrayed and his scenes are pretty much the same thing over and over again.
Product placement was only a little less obvious, but Kodak was still blatant.
Time line and continuity was inconsistent and unbelievable.
*SPOILER
The element creation scene was wholly unbelievable. He made a magic triangle that cures him *and* is an extreme power source that can change the world? There's no reason for an Iron Man 3 if you follow the logical outcome of the implications.
it was terrible. after watching i felt like it wasnt a sequel, first one was awesome tho. whiplash guy was lame and they couldve gotten another supervillain to make the sequel interesting. the robot fights were just like watching the x-men tearing through a zillion sentinels.
I found the movie to be very linear and predictable. When i first started watching the movie, i thought thought there would be some epic fight scene that would blow my mind away. But sadly i just waited and waited until the end where it was like 3 minute battle that ended with what all cheesy movie finishes with.
Also i didn't find all those 1 liners to be funny. Got bored after a while.
i just finished watching it. imo the whiplash was super shitty, basically getting knock off droids that sucks, and his knock off suit was gg in 30sec. and how is a car ramming three times on him and not kill him?
reminds me of Gundam 00 very much. Celestial beings got the light particles, bad guys got it, copied it. But at the end, good guys gets the final upgrade. win
great movie, couldnt care less if there was a story or not, i loved the whole dying-hero aspect, scarlet was freakin hot, warmachine was sick, tony stark is cute as usual, russians are badass, hammer is a funny bad guy. plus i love triangles: TRIFORCE TIME NIKUHS
Some interesting balloon-based interpretation that FuDDx. Overall I enjoyed the movie, Downey Jr. played Iron Man equally as well in the first movie (actually I think he is a little more comfortable with the role now) and continues to play Tony Stark accurately as a billionaire who does basically what I'd think most people would do if they were that rich. Johansson is hotter than ever in this movie, and not only that, she plays her role well and produces the quality acting we've come to expect of her (is it just me or was her fight scene kick ass?). I'm gonna say it right now Rourke's performance made the movie for me, he does I think a most excellent job of playing the role of a vengeful Russian scientist, and his accent was spot on (no easy feat). All in all the story is pretty predictable, but that's never what a super-hero movie is supposed to be about. Plenty of action throughout, funny parts here and there (I found the War Machine / Iron Man fight in Tony's house to be particularly amusing), see it.
Was it just me, or did the scene where Pepper kisses the helmet and throws it omitted? I just saw him drop down in the beginning. It was so prominent in the trailer and commercials, why did they get rid of it?
I loved the movie, while every super hero movie has a tragic hero theme, I feel like this one tackled it really well.
i watched the late night slot. while the effects were good, the movie was really boring and the fights were pretty plain to me i was literally dozing off in the beginning. Scarlett saved my ticket from being wasted imo
First one was good, storyline, the villain and the ending fight were well done.
2nd was sort of dissapointing, the "nemesis" gets stomped twice in a matter of seconds. The drones are garbage, they could've killed some civilians/blown up some buildings, but no instead they all kill themselves on Ironman/Warmachine while doing no damage whatsoever to them. Sure their suits are damaged a bit but they somehow conserve all their energy/combat abilities. Sadly they will make hundreds of millions out of it.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.moviegab.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/iron-man-audi11.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/zz3a2baebd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/zz35dd2668.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/ironman2ew.jpg)
i so can't wait. i wanna see whiplash in action
![[image loading]](http://superherouniverse.com/superheroes/marvel/captainamerica/images/nickFuryWP2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://blog.korwater.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/KOR_Water_Ironman.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y162/FuDDx/2009_0628ayanna5-12-20100027.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y162/FuDDx/2009_0628ayanna5-12-20100024.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y162/FuDDx/2009_0628ayanna5-12-20100013.jpg)
