Reviews & Ratings for
Iron Eagle II More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Index

28 reviews in total

---

18 out of 27 people found the following review useful:
Not that good, 8 September 2005

Author: Randy Young (fenoixrising@yahoo.com) from hot springs, ar

As an aviation buff, I thought that this movie sucked. Passing off F4's as MiG's is just the beginning. The army sergeant is WAY too fat; he would have never been allowed to remain on active duty. The Soviet Union did not use women combat pilots in the 80's. (I know this because I used to study and teach Soviet combat tactics.) And the incident at the beginning of the movie would not have been something that could just be "hushed up." Much of the footage is from the first Iron Eagle. And that movie, although fanciful, is much better and many times more realistic. There are much better aviation movies out there. I was greatly disappointed by this one.

---

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Not As Bad As Everyone Says *Spoilers*, 5 August 2003

Author: chapinr-1 from Michigan

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It troubles me to see how many low votes and negative comments that "Iron Eagle II" has received. I think it is an entertaining film that has a good mix of action, drama, and even a few laughs. It really bothers me that the movie is among the worst 100 movies as voted by the users of this site, especially when I didn't see either "Aces: Iron Eagle III" or "Iron Eagle IV" on that list. I don't really mind the third installment of the series, although it doesn't have the same feel as the previous two. However, the fourth in the series should never have been made, because of its poor plot and cheap budget. Maybe there aren't enough people that have seen this movie to even vote on it, but believe me it makes "Iron Eagle II" look Oscar-worthy by comparison.

I also don't like the fact that the "Iron Eagle" films are remembered as "Top Gun" rip-offs either, because the first part preceded the Tom Cruise blockbuster. People complain that the MIGs in the film are actually F-4 Phantoms, but what is often overlooked is that the MIGs in "Top Gun" are actually F-5 Tigers, which have been used as enemy trainers in the actual Navy program.

With that being said, I do have to say that there are some flaws with the movie that do bother me slightly. My biggest problem with the whole thing, like several others have noted, is that they kill the hero of the first film, "Doug Masters", in the opening sequence of "Iron Eagle II". Like another user said, he barely gets to put up a fight before he gets shot down. Since he became a full-fledged Air Force pilot, I'm not sure why the filmmakers couldn't have used the character for the mission later in the film. It would have been better to blow away his wingman "Cooper", whom the audience wouldn't have gotten a chance to know. Also, I'm still a little unsure of whether he was killed by the Soviet missile or if his plane had a malfunction after his hot dog maneuvers. The biggest slap in the face really is that the actor that played "Doug", Jason Gedrick, wasn't even credited for his role. He definitely was the hero of the first film, not Lou Gossett's "Chappy" character, but maybe he wanted to try something different as an actor.

There are basically two other problems I've noted. The first is that they don't ever name the Middle Eastern country that poses the nuclear threat, although they don't name the enemy nation in "Iron Eagle" either. The makers of the films probably don't wish to cause controversy by doing so is my guess. The other problem is that it is very unlikely that there would ever be a joint U.S.-Soviet Union mission, especially in 1988 during the end of the Cold War era. That's not an irritating problem though. It's actually an intriguing concept, although not necessarily original.

Regardless of the film's flaws (which no movie is exempt from), "Iron Eagle II" is far better than the votes and comments it has received. It certainly is worth at least one viewing anyways. If anything, watch it for the sheer beauty of the dogfights and because Lou Gossett Jr. is a good actor and "Chappy" is one of his best characters alongside "Fiddler" in "Roots" and his drill instructor character from "An Officer and a Gentleman".

---

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Highly Overlooked Gem ***Spoilers***, 5 August 2002
Author: J. Anderson

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

***Spoilers ahead**** Another overlooked gem, the last good Iron Eagle movie. Same familiar Heartbreak Ridge/ Dirty Dozen plot: whip up a bunch of misfits into shape for some heavy duty combat in the end. This flick never slows down, full of action, macho talking, fist fighting, jets, missiles, explosions with the inevitable exciting climax of a Death Star trench run (except this time its a canyon in the desert). Louis Gossett is GOD!! Mark Humphrey is Jezus!! Cooper was a bad mutha(shut your mouth), when Lebanov pushed him, he went and took care of his business.

The supporting cast of misfits is great, Clark Johnson as the street talking Graves and Colm Ferrore (the always entertaining Colm Ferrore) as the pushy Lebenov. Yeah, the Mig29s are really F-4s, yeah there are inconsistencies with the armaments on the pylons and yeah some shots are reused ones from the first Iron Eagle but hey, nobody's perfect. In some shots in Top Gun you can see Goose's red helmet in the back during the final firefight!! Even greatness isn't perfect.

Only confusing thing: it wasn't properly explained that Murray was the C-130 pilot...

---

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Not nearly as bad as depicted here, 22 February 2006

Author: cny_cd from United States

I think that some of the comments are VERY exaggerated here. I personally prefer this movie to the first one, and the next two were just awful. Sure, there are some story lines that have been seen before. Sure, there is a bit of "Schlock" in here. But overall, this is very watchable, and pretty entertaining, especially considering how inexpensive this DVD is. I have seen this movie a few times, and I think that it is a pretty good movie. People that just pick apart every detail need to get a life. How many movies have incorrect footage of airplanes, or footage that has been used before? Who cares??? We know these people aren't actually flying these planes!! It's not like the scene in "Bullitt", where Steve McQueen is actually driving.....geez people....give this a break....it ain't that bad, in fact it's pretty good.....

---

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
My favorite movie as a kid., 26 November 2002

Author: crazyeddie

I think I was about ten when I first saw this movie. I loved it. It played on HBO all the time that summer. I never missed a showing. I wanted to be a jet fighter pilot as a result. A couple years ago it was on HBO again and I hadn't seen it in years so I was excited to relive some childhood memories. Sadly, the movie didn't seem so great that last time. As an adult, I can now see the tackiness and plot holes that I didn't notice before. Regardless, this movie will always hold a special place inside me. "Tearin' up the skies".

---

9 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Not as bad as all that, 8 June 1999
Author: DarkStar-14

I have seen this film several times not and, although they tried to pass off American F-4 Phantoms as Russian MiG-29's (and several other technical mistakes) the film concept and story line were good, and the acting was also not bad.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Grounded., 27 July 2002
Author: tfrizzell from United States

Far from anything remotely special, but just as good as its fair predecessor. The only relation between the two films is the Louis Gossett, Jr. character as he is called in to lead a group of pilots that are from the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Another one of those many films made in the 1980s to capitalize off the fear of the Cold War. The direction is mediocre and the screenplay is sophomoric. With that said some of the flying sequences are well-done and Gossett's performance is not bad at all. However he does look a lot more impressive with sub-par players around him. Never really wins its wings by the time it tries to fly. 2.5 out of 5 stars.

---

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
The best of the Iron Eagle series!, 9 August 2001
Author: Christopher Smith

IRON EAGLE 2 is the best of the IRON EAGLE movies with its great sequences of exciting action, cool special effects, and memorable performances. It's not the best action movie ever made, but it isn't the worst one ever made either. It's worth renting at least one time. I wouldn't buy it, but I'd probably tape it off of television.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
not bad aviator action movie, 14 July 2010

Author: jimakros

This "sequel" is not really a sequel as it doesn't have anything to do with the first movie,except the main character is again the one played by Gossett Jr.The plot is about a joint team effort of a bunch of Soviet pilots and a bunch of US pilots who are assigned to destroy some nuclear facility somewhere in the middle east. The story about these characters is really thin but the aviation scenes are pretty decent,so again since this is supposed to be a movie for aviation fans its not bad.I don't think people who don't care for fighter planes would bother with any Iron eagle movie anyway. One better thing than the original, is that these pilots don't listen to music while flying which was annoying in the first movie.

---

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Nice movie, 7 December 2006

Author: rafen-1 (rafen@seznam.cz) from Czech Republic

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It is a good film based on first Iron Eagle. Film has a good sound and music - i will find the soundtrack, but it can be hard because this film is so old. When somebody has OST from Iron Eagle 1 or Iron Eagle 2, please contact me on my email rafen@seznam.cz.

And something about the planes and weapons. They must use only US technology, because of the year of made. I think that soviet's would not borough they're original MI 29 in 1988 to US film. Also the enemy planes were mistakes, i think that thees planes a Kfir - Israel army. Im sorry for my English :) They using some good copies of soviet weapons AK 47, Dnetrajev ...

---

---

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
External reviews	Parents Guide	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user reviews	Your vote history