IMDb > Iron Man 2 (2010) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Iron Man 2
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Iron Man 2 More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 16 of 74: [Prev][11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [Next]
Index 738 reviews in total 

Sequels don't always cut it.

Author: tankace from athens
21 September 2016

Iron Man 2 is not on part with the first movie, not even close ,if anything this is the worst movie of the MCU as yet. The main reason for the decrease in quality from the Iron Man, is that Iron Man 2 is by default a filler,though quit an expensive one (it had a budget of 200 million, 60 million more than the first movie), but filler none the less which exist only to introduce S.H.I.E.L.D. and Black Widow in to the MCU and set the stage for the Avengers.

Not that I am complaining for any of this things (:p), what can I say I am only human. So what is good with it?

First the new actor who plays Rhodey Rhodes is really good and I buy why he and Tony are best friends, Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts is decent on her role, but the person who steal the show are Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury(one of the best casting ever) and Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow, the role that made her in to the A-list actress she is today. For real why anyone in six years after this flick hasn't made a movie with her in the lead role?

Second the action scenes are well executed and the CGI are great and don't disappoint either.

Now the main drawbacks from the film: One the villain is just there in order for Iron Man to have someone to fight. Two the movie's plot is slow and though it is only two hours and five minutes long it feels much longer. Third and final is the man himself (Not Stan Lee) Tony , whose character doesn't change from the whole situation, to be honest after the first Iron Man ,his character will remain mostly the same up to Civil War eight years and five movies later.

In the end Iron Man 2 is an enjoyable movie with good action and a mostly functional plot. An the fact that is the worst for what the Marvel Studio has gave us or among the worst if you include Thor and Thor the Dark World.,which aren't also bad, just not the best, is a sign that this one of the best Franchices in history.

Was the above review useful to you?

It's not the armor that makes the hero, but the man inside.

Author: Gavin Henderson
3 September 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Now, this may be an unpopular opinion but I actually enjoyed Iron Man 2. I mean sure It has It's problems here and there but that's mostly just down to the casting of Mickey Rourke as the primary antagonist and Gwyneth Paltrow staying on as Pepper Potts. Other than that, there's not a lot I didn't like about Iron Man 2. It gives us action, It gives us a better actor as Rhodey and scene stealing Sam Rockwell as secondary antagonist Justin Hammer, some in depth scenes with the man behind the mask and his past with his father, oh and how cool was It to see Black Widow and War Machine on screen for the first time? Mind you as I said before as per usual Paltrow just couldn't fit right with the movie and as much as I liked Mickey Rourke in movies like Sin City and The Wrestler, he really is just so out of place as 'Whiplash' in this movie. Horrendous casting. I think at the end of the day, Iron Man 2 whilst It did suffer when released due to reasons above, It is still a somewhat enjoyable,laid back superhero movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

Has no real focus, apart from setting up the avengers

Author: Roadman Reviews from United Kingdom
1 September 2016

Unlike iron man, iron man 2 doesn't really have the same sort of focus as the first, its feels rushed and in some cases makes no sense. The story feels rushed and has a large number of plot holes, i don't want to talk to much about the story as to avoid spoilers, but i will say that several scenes feel rushed and have weird inconsistencies that don't add up. The actors all do fine jobs in their respective roles, with Robert Downey Jr. doing good as ever as tony stark. The action is as fun as ever, especially one scene half way through, but they feel lacking in comparison to the first. There are also some serious problems with the villain, he has clear motivations, but he doesn't seem at all interesting or unique. Its hard to spoil some of the real problems with this movie, but trust me there are serious issues with this film. The original iron man focused on tony stark and only him, this one however focuses on more than just him, and sacrifices screen time that could be dedicated to him on focusing on the other characters. The plot isn't that poor but its not particularly memorable, it has elements that work but overall doesn't feel interesting. The cgi effects with the iron man Armour are still impressive and do hold up even 6 years later, but so is the case with the original as well. When this movie works it works well, but the rushed nature of it holds it down, it feels like it only exists to pass time until the avengers, which came out 2 years after this. I enjoyed parts of this movie, its well acted and has great cgi and action, but in comparison to the original, this is far to forgettable an entry in the marvel cinematic universe

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Boring and Unoriginal

Author: thecringeconnoisseur from Murica
20 November 2016

It was really bad. Mostly meaningless dialogue and very little action. I came to watch Iron Man, not people do nothing but talk. The movie was boring, Mickey Rourke was a miscast, and Whiplash's motives are super cliché.

It's amazing that the same guy directed both Iron Man and Iron Man 2, considering the former was a masterpiece and the latter sucked.

The only good things in this movie are the Monaco fight scene and Black Widow and War Machine's scenes. Everything else was bad.

Tips for improvement: They should've cut the dialogue time and unnecessary scenes. They also should've cast someone else as Whiplash and add another action scene to give us a break before cutting back to more useless dialogue.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A Caged Bird

Author: tjsdomer2 from United States
8 August 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Iron Man 2 is definitely a superior film, and unlike most sequels, is not a huge let down from its predecessor. I would argue that Iron Man 2 has aged almost as well as the first Iron Man. It examines some real world questions of weapons accountability and the mental and physical toll playing a superhero can have on one person.

Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johannson make solid appearances in the film, and Don Cheadle takes over as Rhodey, with a few surprises in store for the character. Jon Favreau, who directed the first two Iron Man flicks, has an increased role as Tony and Pepper's assistant and driver Happy Hogan, and along with Clark Gregg's Agent Coulson, provide some funny moments throughout the film.

The film also develops Pepper Potts, but the true newcomer is Mickey Rourke as Ivan Vanko aka Whiplash. I quite enjoyed the idea of this character and his main entrance is quite cool, but like Vanko's caged bird, he becomes too much of a lab rat and I think this is a misuse of the character. In other words, one can say Whiplash enters with a bang but goes out with a whimper that is a bit too reliant on special effects.

My only slight complain is this portion of that character and Iron Man 2 still handles the issue of Tony's legacy very well and gets 3.5 out of 4 stars.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Simply put... not as bad as the internet puts it out to be.

Author: Sean Nasuti (seannasuti)
7 July 2016

This film certainly must have been an anticipated one following the huge success of the first 'Iron Man'. And yet this is now commonly viewed as one of the weakest MCU films. Is it? Yeah kind of but it certainly isn't 'terrible'. Sure the film does suffer from a lack of focus and perhaps it tries a bit too hard to set up 'The Avengers' but it is still a pretty entertaining film throughout. Robert Downey Jr. is once again excellent as Tony Stark, even when the film makes Tony just a bit too damn arrogant. Admittedly the main villain, Whiplash, is a bit of a let-down, especially considering that he's played by Mickey Rourke, but Sam Rockwell makes up for it (for the most part) as the secondary villain, Justin Hammer. The action sequences are once again excellent, especially the finale, and the film once again maintains the MCU's trademark tone and atmosphere. In short, 'Iron Man 2' certainly isn't perfect and by no means 'better' than the first film. However, I will admit that when I first saw it, I actually did think it was better because I actually wasn't too big on the first film when I first saw it. Nowadays things have obviously changed but I still love 'Iron Man 2'. Good solid fun.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

God, that was fun!

Author: barbagvido from Zadar, Croatia
27 June 2016

Whenever someone mentions Iron Man 2, they usually call it bad or say something bad about it. But I think it was actually pretty good and I had so much fun. I guarantee, you won't be bored for a second.

It wasn't better than the first Iron Man, but it was better than The Incredible Hulk. It's lighter than The Incredible Hulk, but darker than Iron Man. Robert Downey Jr. shines again in the leading role and this time we is developed a lot more than in the first one. In the first one, he is shown as this cool, funny scientist who becomes a superhero, but what I liked here the most is that we get to see that he is no more than just another ordinary human with his own personal conflicts. We get to see who Tony Stark really is. This movie also brings us some new faces: Scarlett Johansson as a super-cool female hero Natasha Romanoff a.k.a. Black Widow, Sam Rockwell as one out of the two villains is really annoying but that's probably the way his character is supposed to be so I don't blame him, with the other villain being played by Mickey Rourke. And why Rourke was decent, he was just that typical Russian villain you see in many Hollywood movies. And also, Terrence Howard was recast and Don Cheadle got his role and I can say that Cheadle may even be a bit better. Some people say that a big problem of this movie is that it's setting up MCU too much. But if you ask me, that kinda had to happen eventually and they made it fit with the plot so it isn't all over the place.

Overall, this movie was very entertaining and it's also probably the best of the "weaker" MCU movies so far.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Highly entertaining superhero flick

Author: Wuchak from Ohio/PA border
29 March 2016

Released in 2010, "Iron Man 2" naturally continues where 2008's "Iron Man" left off. With the knowledge that Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is also Iron Man being made public, he must contend with serious heart problems, Daddy issues, alcoholism, a competing rat (Sam Rockwell), a mysterious new employee (Scarlett Johansson), a personal assistant who is now CEO and who also loves him (Gwyneth Paltrow), a friend who becomes a War Machine (Don Cheadle), Nick Fury of S.H.I.E.L.D. (Samuel L. Jackson) and a vengeful Russian with ties to his father's legacy (Mickey Rourke).

I like this sequel better than the popular original because I generally don't like "origin stories," as far as superhero movies go. More than that, "Iron Man 2" brims with confidence and is just full of kinetic entertainment from beginning to end, highlighted by a rockin' soundtrack and some curvy cuties, most notably Scarlett as The Black Widow (the character's film debut). On top of this, the writers add some meatier elements to the table, like Tony's father/son issues and his sad struggle with alcoholism (which comes straight from the 80's comics, the first superhero to be depicted with this problem).

The film runs 124 minutes and was shot in the Greater Los Angeles area of Southern California, Monte Carlo, Monaco, and New York City.


Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Dip in quality for the MCU

Author: michael-3204 from Portland, OR
19 March 2016

For the third entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Marvel went back to the well with a sequel to its first entry, reuniting most of the creative team in front of and behind the camera. Unfortunately, this time it feels like a lot of wheel-spinning and set-up for future issues ... um, movies ... where most of the excitement is generated by promises of things to come rather than anything that is happening here. Scarlet Johansson's Black Widow is introduced and spends much of the film playing a functionary with nothing particularly interesting to do. Clark Gregg's Agent Coulson wanders in with the sole purpose of previewing MCU #4, "Thor." At least Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury has something going that affects this story and helps with the thematic resonance of fathers and sons. "Iron Man 2" might will have been subtitled "The Sins of the Fathers," with its A-story involving Mickey Rourke's bizarre performance as the son of a man who felt he was wronged by Howard Stark, who himself was no peach of a father to our hero Tony. But the movie is less interested in exploring this than in perfunctory world-building and in repeating beats from the first film, right down to a climactic battle that is a retread of "Iron Man"'s climax. The one saving grace of this film is Sam Rockwell as Tony Stark wannabe Justin Hammer. Rockwell, who was a leading contender for Tony Stark before Marvel settled on Robert Downey, Jr., shows what he could have done with the role. It's not that Rockwell would have been better than Downey's by now iconic personification, but it's fun to see a variation on Stark's snarky, egocentric megalomania that can hold his own with the master. And fun is something this film could have used a lot more of.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

The MCU's Worst Film To Date, Thanks to Bill O'Reilly

Author: Nick Holland from Missouri, United States
6 March 2016

Jon Favreau returns to direct Iron Man 2, once again starring Robert Downey Jr., this time as the open superhero Iron Man; open meaning he has no secret identity. When things begin to stop going his way, he becomes very irrational, drinking at parties and ruining his reputation. When an enemy comes around, a Russian named Ivan Vanko, Tony must put aside his immature actions, and once again assume the role of the one and only Iron Man.

To begin, I don't know what happened to Jon Favreau's mind in between Iron Man (2008) and this movie. Some movie-hating parasite must've crawled inside of Favreau's ear and influenced him to make a bad movie. This movie isn't, in my opinion at least, absolutely horrible, but no normal human could say this film is good. The cheap plot, bad dialogue, horrible villainization, and the fact that the whole film is a trailer for The Avengers (2012).

To start with the pros, Robert Downey Jr. does pretty good as Tony Stark, and Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts is pretty good as well. Mickey Rourke as Ivan Vanko isn't really an overwhelming performance, and neither was Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer. The best casting choice, however, was Bill O'Reilly as himself. Yes, Bill O'Reilly is in this movie. And he's the highlight. Just kidding.

The special effects aren't the best, and it shows most during the fight scenes. The CG on Whiplash (Ivan Vanko) is really bad, especially during the final fight scene, in which the main villain fights for about two and a half minutes. There is honestly more arguing in this film more than any actual physical fighting.

The plot is also very bad. Many plot holes exist throughout this movie. I feel as if Marvel sacrificed this movie so that The Avengers (2012) could be good, which paid off. However, I also feel that Marvel could have made both of the films good, without have making Iron Man 2 bad like it is. There's many ways this movie could have been better, starting with the introduction of our villains. There's an old saying that says "a movie is only as good as its villain." This is true most of the time, including this film as an example. Whiplash, or Ivan Vanko, is a villain that is only introduced by the history between his father (Anton Vanko) and Howard Stark, Tony's father.

Overall, Iron Man 2 is a very washed down film, with a poor villain and some bad acting. The plot was cheap, and the exposition was way too heavy. I'm going to give Iron Man 2 a C-, or a 7 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 16 of 74: [Prev][11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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