Yes.
Iron Man 2
- Thread starter Brian in Mesa
- Start date
Yes.
Louis
DJ Roomba
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Posts
- 5,316
- Reaction score
- 2
Yes and yes. Excellent humor as well. Loved the Happy fight scene and of course the bunker buster.
A really fun flick; better than the first. RDJ is always a hoot, Sam Rockwell was good and the eye candy sweet indeed. 4 out of 5 stars. 
I just had seen this yesterday and I have to say It was a tad disappointing. The movie really stalled out of the gate. Took too long to setup some situations and was downright boring at some parts.
Having said that, there was some really kick ass parts. The action sequences were very cool. Sam Rockwell's character was a blast and don't get me started on Black Widow. Her fight scenes were freaking sick and awesome to say the least. I am not a huge SJ fan (I think she is overrated as an actress) but my gosh she was uber hot in this movie.
This movie was much more uneven IMO then the first. When it worked, it worked well and when it didn't work the pace of the movie crashed and burned.
It's a Worthy followup IMO but not better then the first IMO. The first movie was more fun. I have to be honest and say here that if it wasn't for the addition of Black Widow and the actions sequences towards the end....I wouldn't be recommending the movie at all.
P.S. I won't spoil it but the reveal or scene at the end of the movie......I see cheese written all over bringing that character to the big screen. I personally don't think they should go there.
Having said that, there was some really kick ass parts. The action sequences were very cool. Sam Rockwell's character was a blast and don't get me started on Black Widow. Her fight scenes were freaking sick and awesome to say the least. I am not a huge SJ fan (I think she is overrated as an actress) but my gosh she was uber hot in this movie.
This movie was much more uneven IMO then the first. When it worked, it worked well and when it didn't work the pace of the movie crashed and burned.
It's a Worthy followup IMO but not better then the first IMO. The first movie was more fun. I have to be honest and say here that if it wasn't for the addition of Black Widow and the actions sequences towards the end....I wouldn't be recommending the movie at all.
P.S. I won't spoil it but the reveal or scene at the end of the movie......I see cheese written all over bringing that character to the big screen. I personally don't think they should go there.
Last edited:
azsportsfan01
Registered
They already announced it and have it cast. Plus they have to do it to make the Avengers movie.
MigratingOsprey
Thank You Paul!
wife and I both really enjoyed .... a fun flick
First off they DO NOT have to do it to make an Avengers movie. You don't have to have an individual films of each character. You just don't. The X-Men movie franchise is proof of that.
Second, I know it's been cast and underway but I am willing to bet this character won't translate well to film if it's anything like the comic book. I could be wrong but this film is going to be extremely hard to do without it coming off as cheese or only catering to comic book fan boys. Just my opinion.
azsportsfan01
Registered
The way they have been going about all this you do need to do it. These movies have been an introduction to the characters for all those who don't read comic books. I doubt the Avengers can really be pulled off as well but I'll still go see it. This recent run of comic book movies has been quite good.
I just don't agree. There is not enough screen time for all of these characters anyway. Some of the characters are just going to be seen on a much smaller scale then the others. You could easily use some exploration time during those movies to take care of some back story.
The reason for all of these separate movies is not to give the fans back story as much as it is to capitalize on all the DC Comics properties before doing an ensemble film with the Avengers.
I agree though that comic films have been much better as of late. Honestly, though...The Dark Knight, Iron Man (the first couple Spider Mans) really set the bar high. That is why I am worried about ****. **** wasn't exactly a "grounded" comic to begin with IMO and how they translate this is going to be tricky.
azsportsfan01
Registered
By doing each movie you eliminate the need to do any backstory and can hit the ground running. It would save a ton of time for the Avengers movie by having each get their own movie. Add to the fact that these are cash cows and they will probably each have a sequal by the time an Avengers movie ever comes out.
I went into this movie with really low expectations. From the trailers I thought this movie would be a complete dud. However I was pleasantly surprised that it greatly exceeded my expectations.
It was a fun popcorn flick that didn't surpass the original but held its own. My wife even enjoyed it and she has only seen bits of the first one.
It was a fun popcorn flick that didn't surpass the original but held its own. My wife even enjoyed it and she has only seen bits of the first one.
Last edited:
scXfreakX
Huh?
I thought Iron Man 2 was pretty good. Did I think it was as good as the first? No. But I thought they did a pretty good job with it. I just wish Scarlett's character had a bit more time. I felt like she was given a big role, but yet wasn't developed that much.
Dr. Jones
Has No Time For Love
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2004
- Posts
- 27,383
- Reaction score
- 16,261
Chaplin
Better off silent
Finally saw it.
Technically, it was very well-made, but I left feeling... empty. Maybe it's seeing almost the same movie as 1 (guys in suits fighting each other... again). But I also think it's seeing Robert Downey Jr play the same character he does in almost every other movie, whether it's Tony Stark or not.
Technically, it was very well-made, but I left feeling... empty. Maybe it's seeing almost the same movie as 1 (guys in suits fighting each other... again). But I also think it's seeing Robert Downey Jr play the same character he does in almost every other movie, whether it's Tony Stark or not.
Watched this again. I liked it after: 1) ignoring how annoying Downey Jr is as Stark; 2) ignoring how annoying Pepper Potts is; and 3) ignoring how slow the movie gets at times.
Mickey Rourke is a bad ass and is so much better at acting than Downey Jr.
Mickey Rourke is a bad ass and is so much better at acting than Downey Jr.
Cardinals.Ken
That's Mr. Riff-Raff to you!
So, all things considered, you ignored the movie?
-or-
So, all things considered, you put yourself in "Transformers doesn't suck" mode?
So, all things considered, you ignored the movie?
-or-
So, all things considered, you put yourself in "Transformers doesn't suck" mode?
Cardinals.Ken
That's Mr. Riff-Raff to you!
So, all things considered, you ignored the movie?
Amount of the film with Downey Jr. on screen: ~40%
Amount of the film with Paltrow on screen: ~20%
Amount of the film that could be considered "slow moving": ~30%
By ignoring those three things, you ignored roughly 90% of the film.
Math Nerd
Cardinals.Ken
That's Mr. Riff-Raff to you!
I did "watch" mostly all of it, but another answer to your post is "yes". I just multitasked during a lot of it.
Fun movie! I agree with Mulli about Mickey Rourke, he is bad ass. And not just in this film.
That's a great point.
That's a great point.
Similar threads
