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 2 of 75:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 749 reviews in total 

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Not as good as the first but still entertaining.

Author: Bruce722 from United States
24 May 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie was nowhere near as good as the first one. First of all, I hate when they replace main characters in movies. I understand that it's not necessarily the fault of the film but replacing Terrance Howard with Don Cheadle affects the feel of the movie; similar to when they replaced Katie Holmes with Maggie Gylenhaul in Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. Also, a technology that was pushed to be so incredible and impossible to replicate in the first installment is thrown around in this movie like if it's no more rare than an std. Lastly, similar to the first film, there were some huge plot holes. If a villain's weapons are a sort of lasso, wouldn't common sense tell you to just fire on him from outside of the lasso range? I would certainly think a genius like Tony Stark would be able to figure that out. Also, if you access the main computer and can reset the War Machine, why couldn't you also reset the others? Nonetheless, Robert Downey Jr. once again proves to be a top notch actor in Hollywood and the movie's transition to the "Avengers" adds some excitement to an otherwise quick and overrated ending. Still, I was a little disappointed.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A decent sequel

Author: colm-hearne365 from Ireland
23 April 2013

Granted this movie has some flaws (but what movie doesn't?) and not as thrilling as the first Iron Man movie but it's still very enjoyable and has some very good points.

Pretty much all the actors do very well and are well-cast. Like we're introduced to new characters like Justin Hammer, Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow and Ivan Vanko/Whiplash. We see more of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. We see Rhodey (now portrayed by Don Cheadle) become War Machine and battles along with Iron Man at the end. When I saw Cheadle as Rhodey, at first I didn't like how they changed the actor, but surprisingly he fit the role better than Terrence Howard. Robert Downey Jr. of course is spot on with his performance as Tony Stark being both arrogant and full of himself but also likable and charismatic at the same time. However, Gwyneth Paltrow was good as Pepper Potts and I liked how they showed more romance between her and Tony Stark but her nagging got kind of annoying. There's also a lot more lovely ladies in this one than the first one like Scarlett Johansson and the Ironettes.

The action sequences and visual effects are very impressive too. However, the plot seems to be pretty slow in the middle but it gets better in the end.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

a rating for an action movie

Author: Tripmoh
19 April 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Great movie wonderful visual effects wonderful acting wonderful story line wonderful storytelling wonderful characters just amazing action thriller sci fiction movie with some taste of comedy but just if the movie was longest to preview the story with more details to bring some mystery to the movie and specially that iron man 3 is going they could made the story contain stuff you will never see it coming well i was impressed to see Ivan just distress tony stark every time they meet and to be specific when Ivan says and i quote "you lose" and the most interested parts in the movie when tony aka iron man goes wild because his life is about to end very great editing and i loved the music and soundtracks in the movie the bullet sounds also the Coalescence between the suits of Ivan and Iron man and war machine

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

I enjoyed this film...slows down a tad in the middle as far as pacing

Author: mmedesigns34
1 March 2013

I really love people who admit to never having read one issue of Iron Man trying to review this movie. What the hell? How can you accurately review something when you haven't the slightest inkling of the source material its based on? That's like me trying to give medical advice and I'm not a doctor.

I think RDJ's portrayal as Tony Stark is spot on, I've read here people talking about how he is an arrogant, sometimes unlikeable hero. These are obviously more people who have never even picked up an Iron Man comic. Tony Stark is arrogant and can be very self-absorbed until he has his eyes opened. I could have done without some of Paltrow's nagging as Pepper Potts, but again that's how it is in the comics.Potts and Stark have this really inhibited interest in each other that they tried to keep under wraps because they work together but you know they want each other.

My only real complaint is the character Rourke Portrayed is kind of a mix in the comics Ivan Vanko and Whiplash are not the same guy in the comics. But I loved Rourke's portrayal overall. I did like Rockwell's Hammer as it only made us forget how arrogant and likable Stark actually was. I know that we cant have things blowing up for a full two hours, so it slows down in the middle to give Stark some time to contemplate what's slowly happening to him. He decides that 'hey if I'm gonna die I got nothing to lose' so he begins behaving very irresponsibly (even for his normal character).

I admit being drunk off his butt at his party in full Iron Man gear is a bit much, but they needed to set up him behaving so carelessly that Rhodey had to step in. Seeing Johannson in tights is always good, and by the way non comic readers her real name is NATASHA ROMANOV not Natalie (that was just an alias)

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:


Author: piratecannon from United States
29 December 2012

Iron Man 2 is not The Dark Knight. And it shouldn't be.

For my money, I can't think of a movie that better embodies the term "popcorn flick." Like its predecessor, this one is all about fun. There are rock 'em sock 'em explosions aplenty, as well as some slickly filmed fight sequences that are quite memorable (but, honestly, aren't earth-shattering when compared to any number of other uber-energetic comic book films of the last decade). Don't be fooled, though; this sequel to the 2008 hit actually builds on the mythos of Tony Stark in some welcome ways.

Front and center in this particular feature is "the past"—that is, it's very much focused on Howard Stark (Tony's father) and his vision of a futuristic society that thrives on the energy derived from his Arc Reactor. There are also some other juicy tidbits we learn about Stark Sr., not the smallest of which has a little something to do with rewriting the periodic table. Also thrown into the mix is a physicist who worked with Howard back in the day. He's a disgruntled Russian who feels he's been slighted because—among other things—of Tony's success. He's got a son of his own named Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), and he's determined to avenge his father's legacy at all costs. Yes, the plot is driven by a stereotypical variation on the revenge story we're all familiar with, but, given the already superficial nature of the film (which, let's be honest, we all expected), it works well.

Iron Man 2, quite simply, does everything a competent sequel should. In this case, it further highlights the flaws of its protagonist, and it builds on the comedy/action pairing that made the original film so successful. It even ties in new characters—such as Nick Fury and Natasha Romanoff—who are fairly interesting in their own right while settting itself up for a third film that will (hopefully) continue the trend.

Despite all its upward momentum, Iron Man 2 does falter from time to time. As is the case with many-a-movie, our hero solves seemingly impossible "puzzles" in record time (here, we're talking about scientific enigmas that can only be deciphered with the use of improvised proton accelerators). This directly correlates with a looming sense of danger—developed by a specific plot element that I won't ruin here—that's established early in the film, and, because of this ridiculously absurd "quick fix," said surprisingly tangible sense of dread is undercut in an extraordinarily premature manner.

But, again, what did you expect? This is Iron Man 2, not the philosophical diatribe of a makeup wearing psychopath. As tired as I am of this clichéd phrase, it still applies: "It is what it is." Because of that, there should be zero complaints.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

More mega-budget metallic mayhem.

Author: BA_Harrison from Hampshire, England
8 October 2012

The sequel to the excellent Marvel adaptation Iron Man isn't as strong as the original in the story department, being a fairly routine 'villains vs good guy' tale that does little to develop the central character; it also suffers from some interminably inane dialogue (people are talking, but they don't really seem to be saying much). Thankfully, the film compensates somewhat in terms of sheer spectacle and excitement (and I'm not just talking about Scarlett Johansson in a figure-hugging leather catsuit!).

The first of Iron Man 2's incredible action set-pieces introduces Mickey Rourke's Russian villain Ivan Vanko, who causes mayhem during the Monaco Grand Prix in an effort to kill Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) and thus avenge his scientist father, who he believes was cheated outed of fame and fortune by Tony's father Howard. He fails of course, but not until he's trashed several F1 cars mid-race, slicing them in half with his 'power-whips'. Great stuff!

Vanko is given another chance at killing the playboy billionaire turned superhero when unscrupulous weapons manufacturer Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) busts him out of jail and gives him the means necessary to develop an army of drones. The film culminates with the inevitable smack-down between Iron Man and Vanko's obedient robot warriors, a satisfyingly chaotic battle full of big guns, grinding metal, and destruction on a massive scale.

7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Pretty good the second time around.

Author: Theothervip from Philippines
23 December 2010

Rating: *** out of 4.

If the first IRON MAN was the origin story, than naturally its sequel would throw in the consequences. That doesn't make it a better film; in fact it's too much of it actually. But with the right balance of humor, thrills, special effects gimmicks, and more of Robert Downey Jr. as the narcissistic Stark, IRON MAN 2 is an adequate follow-up, even if it goes wildly out of control as it makes like SPIDER-MAN 3 and throws in as many subplots than it can handle.

But unlike the latter, director Jon Favreau and writer Justin Theroux (TROPIC THUNDER) keeps things better in balance and some of the sub-stories don't come quite as pointless as the one's in SPIDER-MAN 3. Still, if your gonna put Mickey Rourke as a cool bad guy named Ivan Vanko, you might as well give him better use than a filler for the grand finale. Vanko is the son of a disgraced Russian physicist who once collaborated with Tony Stark's father. Now, Vank demands revenge to lift his father's legacy. But the movie seems more interested in Stark's own problems with his life as mankind savior. A US senator (played hilariously by Garry Shandling) argues that Stark should hand over his technology to the US Military. Stark declines, taking him one step further to competitor Justin Hammer, who has tried endlessly to apply his own technological breakthroughs akin to Stark's and failing miserably. He now recruited Vanko, who failed in his first attempt to assassinate Stark, to build him a new breakthrough that would rival Stark and shame him in his own "Stark Expo" - Stark's annual unfoldment of his latest inventions. This gives more time for Rourke to play Ivan, not as a kick-ass bad guy, but as a comic relief spending time conversing with his pet Cockatoo. There's yet more plot: Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) gets a promotion as new CEO of Stark Industries, she gets a new assistant named Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson) who's really more than who she is. Plus Stark is being considered to be a part of the Avengers Initiative by Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson, who extends his after-credit cameo in the first as a full-time role), and Stark's buddy Lt. Col. "Rhodey" Rhodes (now played by Don Cheadle) gets his hands on one Stark's earlier Iron Man suit that gets a few modifications. Did I miss anything? Is IRON MAN 2 a crowded movie? Yes. It's not only over-plotted, it's cast reads like a who's who of who would people want to see in the latest Hollywood blockbuster (You want Scarlett Johannson in a tight rubber suit kicking butt? You got it!). But hey! In the heat of summer time, boredom can easily be cured by some explosive blockbuster fun, and IRON MAN 2 works fine.

It's not as great as the first (which I never thought of as great as others think), and too much of it is a bid distracting (Stark is still front-and-center, but sometimes they tend to put him aside, then bring him back, and set him aside again), but it's a certified fun movie on a boring day.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

I think not!!!

Author: jpach34 from United States
11 December 2010

The old saying goes that when people retire, they don't come back head strong. I disapprove very strongly whoever said that. When Iron Man come on the scene in 2008 as a remake of the original comic book, I said it wouldn't last. I was completely, out-of-my-freaking-mind, THIS MOVIE ROCKED!!!!! I'm talking about Robert Downey, Jr. He may have had a rough beginning, but he has shown his true colors, especially the gold and the red colors. Now that they have added a third to make it a trilogy, I can't wait to see that one. I didn't think I would like Iron Man, but I do – here's what I think and believe about this, I think we are going to see Downey, Jr. more and more and more. Great acting, wonderful cast (Downey, Jr., Paltrow, Rourke, Cheadle, Rockwell, Johansson, Jackson) and a wonderful director who by the way made a cameo in the second. Let's give our props to Jon Faverau. Great movie, Great Job!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A Solid Sequel

Author: rundtc from United States
24 October 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I really liked this movie. Robert Downey Jr. is, in my mind, the second best actor at portraying a certain superhero, #1 being Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. RDJr is Tony Stark and knocks it out of the park with his performance. You can't help but love the guy. He's funny, narcissistic, caring, and honest. He was absolutely fantastic in the senate hearing scene.

Gwyneth Paltrow is starting to grow on me. I didn't care for her in "Iron Man" but she seemed to do a pretty decent job in this. I hope they turn her into Rescue in "Iron Man 3".

Don Cheadle also impressed me as Rhodey/War Machine. He's a much better actor than Terrence Howard, who is now stuck doing "Law and Order: L.A.". Seeing Rhodey return as an Avenger would be sweet.

Rourke was great as Ivan Vanko/Whiplash. I just wish he'd gotten more screen time. I also didn't care for his battle armor at the end of the movie. It looked kind of stupid.

Scarlett Johansson (mm, mm) was mostly there to draw in the other males who were hesitant about seeing this. It probably worked. I'm especially glad we'll see her again in "The Avengers". Also, to any Marvel execs who might happen upon this: PLEASE MAKE A BLACK WIDOW MOVIE!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!! Sam Rockwell was also good, though a tad annoying, as Justin Hammer (with his Hammeroids. great line from RDJ). He seemed liked he really had fun with the role.

Samuel L. Jackson. Enough said. He was in 2 scenes as Nick Fury and he was great. Samuel L. Jackson is a real crowd pleaser and never ceases to entertain us.

The action was pretty good, except for the final battle (Iron Man and War Machine vs. Whiplash). It seemed too short and not much happened.

This movie is also very funny. When Natalie is introduced is a great scene (for several reasons) and, as I wrote earlier, the senate scene was my favorite scene.

Jon Favreau, the director, really seems to know what he's doing. I hope is somehow involved with "The Avengers".

All in all, this is a good action packed superhero adventure that will make you laugh and want to watch it again and again.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A Battle of Brains, not Machines (possible spoilers)

Author: Joe Franke from United States
3 October 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There has been a lot written about this movie - about why it works, or doesn't work, about whether it was effective or just felt added-on to the first one, about whether Don Cheadle was preferable to Terrence Howard, whether there was too much action, not enough action... you get the idea.

As a major fan of the first film, I'll admit that it took multiple viewings before I found a way to approach this movie that made me want to give it more than a 5 / 10 rating (good for aficionados, but few others). Yes, I would have appreciated some more character development. I don't think Don Cheadle was BETTER than Terrence Howard, but he did just fine. The action sequences are amazing. Scarlet Johansen actually did quite well as Agent Romanoff (I was skeptical). As in the first one, the comedic element is always just around the corner; maybe that tactic works less well here, but it can be a great tension-reliever.

On to the point of view. My first impression (SPOILERS) was that the final physical fight (not the chase, which was great) should have lasted longer. I felt the terseness gave a "chopped" feeling, and made the final scenes anti-climatic. Then I realized that this second Iron Man film is a battle of minds: Stark's and Vanko's. The final confrontation should be viewed as a battle of intelligence, not necessarily equipment. Seen this way, the "final confrontation" actually begins long before Iron Man and Whiplash actually face-off. Every twist and aerial turn of the final chase is an inter-play of Stark's intelligence versus Vanko's. Viewed in this manner, now the film makes compelling viewing every time I see it. Not only that, but I've noticed little combative elements of their minds throughout the film.

I should add that I have not read the Iron Man comics, so I cannot speak about "accuracy" or "faithfulness" to the original. The first Iron Man film should be seen before viewing this one; but Iron Man 2 is definitely fun, exciting, and actually a deeper film than I thought. Props to Jon Favreau for not bogging the movie down in minutiae.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 75:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [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