Iron Man 2 (2010) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
925 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Awesome suits
MR_Heraclius24 February 2020
This movie contains some throughly enjoyable moments that are on par with some of Downey Jnr's highlights as Tony Stark. The relationship between Pepper and Tony is taken further and built upon brilliantly in this movie. It contains some really cool and innovative action scenes which are taken for granted now. However the poor villain, a pattern in Iron Man Solo Outings, and the lack of direction meant this is easily the poorest Iron Man Performance. It's still an entertaining watch but you wouldn't be wrong if you skipped this movie when rewatching MCU Classics.
54 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Really good sequel
masonsaul21 November 2019
It isn't as good as the original but Iron Man 2 is still a really good sequel. Robert Downey Jr. once again gives an incredible performance and is extremely charismatic. Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson and Sam Rockwell all give great performances. Jon Favreau's direction is really good and it's consistently funny. The CG is impressive and the music by John Denney is good. However, Mickey Rourke is wasted as a forgettable villain and the final battle is a little short.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Iron Man 2 is Totally Worth it.
BwSwim10 May 2010
For some reason this movie had not been getting the greatest critic reviews. I do not understand that at all. I thought the movie was very enjoyable and a successful sequel in the series.

For anyone who has seen the first Iron Man you can expect much of the same in this movie. Robert Downey Jr. plays Tony Stark like he is meant for the part. He has the same sarcastic wit and self-confidence that is evident in his other movie roles. Gwyeneth Paltrow, as Pepper Potts, has a comes more to the forefront in the sequel. I also personally love that Jon Favreau is the driver for Stark/Potts, and that he gets into the action a little bit. You have to respect the director for that, even though Jon has done plenty of acting himself.

Normally in when they replace someone in a sequel with a different actor/actress I am very upset. However, Don Cheadle replacing Terrence Howard in Iron Man 2 as War Machine/Lt. Rhodes made me happy. This is similar to what happened with Maggie Gylenhal in the Dark Night.

Samuel L. Jackson playing Nick Fury has a bigger role, and it leads all the viewers into wanting The Avengers movie to come out immediately. Scarlett Johansson also showed up with some impressive stunt work, along with her always gorgeous looks.

All in all it was a well done sequel. The plot is not too convoluted to follow. The new villain, played by Mickey Rourke, is very impressive and fun to watch. The action scenes are all entertaining but they do not completely drive the movie. The only thing that I wished for leaving the theater was a longer final fight scene.

Also, make sure to watch after the credits!! It is short, but worth it.
171 out of 298 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Time for an Upgrade
xamtaro4 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The sequel to Marvel studio's surprise hit of 2008 is here, bigger than ever. But is it better? After the surprise success of Iron Man, expectations for the sequel, from both movie viewers and long time comic books fans, were no doubt high.

Picking off where the first film ended, billionaire genius Tony Stark has just revealed to the world his identity as the armor clad superhero, Iron Man. Now he reaps the whirlwind consequences of his actions as both the military and unscrupulous competitor Justin Hammer vie to obtain the secrets of Stark's Iron Man technology for their own gain. Too add to the flames, Stark soon discovers that the very technology that is keeping his heart alive is also poisoning him. As he tries to salvage a life that is slowly falling to pieces and his growing feelings for his long time assistant Pepper Potts(Gwyneth Paltrow), Starks has to contend to with a foreign weapons genius named Ivan Vanko who seems to bear a deep seated grudge against the ailing billionaire; a grudge that stemmed from the legacy of Tony's father, Howard Stark.

Whatever was good in the first movie is carried on in true sequel fashion. The acting and chemistry among the cast is definitely the highlight of the whole film. Robert Downey Jr IS Tony Stark, though less of a playboy following his "change of heart"(figuratively and literally) in the first movie, but still the same wisecracking, smirky eccentric. Everyone is just so natural in their roles including the villains, especially The character of Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell. Hammer had all the makings of a silly one dimensional villainous caricature, but manages to be a well rounded scumbag of a corporate competitor, providing some excellent comic relief while still presenting a credible threat to the hero.

That being said, the script is just littered with witty banter, intelligent jokes and a good number of "Easter eggs" for the long time comic book fans. Writer Justin Theroux had a good number of interesting themes going for this movie, most notable of which is the theme of "legacy", of what people leave behind when they are gone; their impressions on their successors and how the effects of their past actions would echo down the years long after one has passed. Stark himself, faced with his inevitable demise, does not want to leave a legacy of death as a weapons designer. Aside from that, we see how the legacies of both Stark's and Ivan Vanko's fathers have affected their present lives.

Now, Vanko's (played by Sin City's Mickey Rourke) is a truly tragic tale. It is easy to pass him off as a "darth maul" type character with no other purpose than to provide the hero with a powerful opponent for the mandatory climax. But to the more attentive viewers, one can see how Vanko is basically the dark opposite reflection of Tony Stark. Both are geniuses, both are where they are because of their respective fathers yet different circumstances in life brought them down entirely different paths. The parallels between his origin story of creating the "whiplash" powered armor from scrap, getting captured(in a similarly explosive manner) in order to develop weapons for one man to bring down his competitor all the way to his cunning escape plan and his mistaken impression about his dearly departed father are all uncannily similar to Tony Stark's experiences in the first movie that led up to his debut as the hero Iron Man and his mistaken impression about his own father.

The one thing viewers might not appreciate is that this sequel seems to lack that sense of "fun" that the first film had, taking on a more serious tone at times to dish out the more complex themes and even a romantic sub-plot. It really is too bad that the more complex themes are there but not really expanded upon. This leaves a lot of "could have been more" moments hanging by the time the show ends. At least the action is satisfying high octane eye candy as Jon Favreau's steady directing hand brings out the intensity of every battle scene. Special effects are top notch as usual except for a couple of cartoony looking moments that do require some suspension of disbelief, for example the briefcase that transforms into an iron man armor with armor parts seemingly appearing from out of nowhere.

By the time the all too familiar final battle is over and the credits start rolling, one gets the impression that Iron Man 2 could have been a lot more than the sum of its parts. A little longer running time would have fixed most of the story kinks but perhaps Marvel is merely using this movie as a money generator and spring board to something greater.(Blatant teasers are thrown into the narrative itself almost like a running catalog of future Marvel film projects).

Topping the first film is no easy feat and of course Iron Man 2 would disappoint a few here and there. But it is nonetheless one of the most entertaining comic book movies that mixes action, wit, drama and cast chemistry so well. If widespread appeal is its purpose, then Iron Man 2 has fulfilled that function magnificently in that even a newcomer to the franchise can kick back and enjoy the show. Marvel studios has started a new legacy beyond great comics. Here is a legacy of comic book movies, true to the spirit of its source material yet tailored nicely to the tastes of the modern movie audience.
105 out of 182 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It's solid entertainment, but lacks the class of it's predecessor
EddyOne28 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Saw the movie in a press screening here are my humble thoughts:

Before I start with my short review of Iron Man 2, I have to say two words about Iron Man 1. I really dug the first one despite of being a little disappointed by the grand finale. Robert Downey Jr. kills it, action, humor, pacing... loved it. I'm not a big comic geek, and not that familiar with the original Iron Man comics, so please excuse if some of the stuff I thought was weird, was actually accurate adapted.

So while the opening credits where rolling and I saw all the big names of actors that I happen to love, I really thought that it might be hard to give all of them a fair amount of stuff to do in the movie. And as it happened to turn out, I was right. I was especially disappointed by Mickey Rourke's part as Whiplash. Don't get me wrong, Rourke was great. He looks mean as usual and I loved every scene he's in. Unfortunately Favreau really pulled a Darth Maul on him. After the last fight I honestly sat in my chair and was like "that's it? you can't be serious?!". Rourke's Character had almost the same potential (at least from his talent as an actor and his looks in the movie) as Heath Ledger's Joker in Dark Knight. But he never lived up to that expectation due to the lack of screen time and, well... a purpose.

But the main problem I had with Iron Man 2 was the lack of a meaningful story and motivation for almost all of the characters. We are introduced to Scarlett Johansson's "Black Widow", and blame it on my lack of knowledge of the graphic novels, but I had no Idea what her purpose in the movie was. The first part of the movie she's just the hot secretary with almost no lines. Eventually she puts on a tight super hero costume and tries to find Whiplash. There is a brief action-sequence, where she kicks some ass, but truth be told, Hit-Girl would wipe the floor with Black Widow. What I really liked though, was Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer. He totally killed it and you can tell he enjoyed his part as the sleazy scumbag pulling the strings in the background.

I also liked Don Cheadle as James Rhodes (he was on par with Terrence Howard on this one), but I felt his character suffered from the lack of time for character development. There is this scene, where Tony Stark is seriously messed up, partying at his home in his Iron Man suit and randomly shooting stuff. Rhodes is tired of the situation and grabs himself another one of the Iron Man suits, battles Stark and than leaves. With the suit. I don't know if that's the way it was done in the comics, but I didn't like it at all. In the first movie we witness how Stark becomes Iron Man, how he needs to learn to use the suit and become one with it, how he builds it and we can understand, that he is the only one, who could use it that way. Apparently we're wrong, because all you need, is the suit. It's like anyone could be Batman, if he just could get a hold of his cape. There is no explanation as to why Rhodes can fly this suit like he owns it, there isn't anything told about the relationship between Stark and Rhodes. I just felt this part was incredible weak.

The whole movie felt like a setup for another movie. Characters are introduced, stuff happens, but nothing really matters, at best it hints, that there COULD be happening something in the future.

Another big problem I had though, was the lack of 'magic moments' and thrilling action, like in the first flick (I still get goosebumps, thinking about how Tony Stark flew in his suit for the first time). Everything just runs too smooth, there is almost no tension, you never think anything could harm Tony Stark, you never feel something bad is about to happen. If I compare this with the incredible Dark Knight, it feels like a kids movie, something like the ranks of Sky High. Plus, there was just to little Iron Man in Iron Man, to little I care about. Iron Man 2 was made to prepare us for The Avengers and Thor, but by being that, it kinda forgot to be something in it's own. That's the biggest difference to the first flick, who was original, fresh and smart.

Sounds pretty much like a bash, but all that being said, I was fairly entertained. The performances of the main characters each were pretty good. The cast was perfect. Of course all the special effects are amazing, with a lot attention to detail. I loved all the 'augmented reality" stuff going on in Starks garage. The movie is funny (actually it felt more like a comedy than an action flick) and when the action happens, it's looking great. The biggest let down is the potential this movie and most and for all the characters had, which wasn't used. However this is only the review of someone who's fairly unfamiliar with the graphic novel.
329 out of 623 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Something's missing
Villings30 April 2010
There's RDJ and his immeasurable charisma, there's Rockwell and Rourke rocking their lines, there's classy Paltrow and shallow ScarJo (bait for the horny nerds), there's good action.. and yet, something's missing. Don't get me wrong: this movie is FUN, from beginning to end. Too much talking? No way. Not enough action? Maybe, but there's plenty (2 fights, 1 'friend ruckus'). But the thread that ties it all together don't seem to be that strong (I blame it on Theroux). Anyway, go see it, you won't regret. One more thing: don't believe people telling that this movie talks way too much about the Avengers: a few bits here and there is not too much. And stay for the after-credits scene.
280 out of 545 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Another magnificent superhero sequel.
Romarth28 April 2010
Reading Iron Man 2's plot summary, things sound bleak for our characters. But not at all. This is a breezy, light-hearted, inoffensive affair that saunters at a magnetic pace, with emotional discomfiting a far thought. Which is pretty refreshing, to say the least. In fact, Iron Man 2 is the complete of antithesis of recent comic book movies. For one, it certainly isn't darker than its predecessor, absent its slow-burning first half and latched-on social commentary. It also gives itself the poetic license to stretch credulity. This is a movie about a man who flies around in metal suit, blasting away multicolored-haired Russians with electric whips. Realism simply doesn't apply, and thankfully director Jon Favreau and writer Justin Theroux take affectionate liberty with the bonds of belief. Yes, Ivan Vanko can secretly build super technology unbeknownst to his suppliers. And yes, the only way to incapacitate a drunken Tony is to beat the crap out of him in a Iron Man suit. No complaints here!

Iron Man 2 is also very much Iron Man's superior, although partly by default. The first movie was stuck with a pedantic origin story. However, the sequel had no shortage of possible paths to take. Which did it choose? The way you should always go; the road of characterization. Rather than tediously expand upon its universe, Iron Man 2 simply reprises its dramatis personae and sticks them into situations graver than before, upping the ante but reiterating the overall heart and spirit of its predecessor. The characters are well-etched, each snappy exchange rendered with a mature pathos that contrasts with the spurious scenarios that they feature in between of. Iron Man 2 could easily be called a comedy, but the naturalism of the comedy is seamless; you get the sense that it would be impossible to write this movie without having these vibrant characters joke and jeer.

To bring the clever screenplay to life is the phenomenal cast. Robert Downey, Jr., as always, is effortlessly captivating. Charisma defined and an scandalously unsung master of versatility (he's not just playing himself, people!), it's no breaking news that he's still one of the most watchable actors ever. He is the perfect Tony Stark, and a more-than-worthy representative of the thinking man's action star. His chemistry with Gwyneth Paltrow as the pragmatic Pepper Pots is electric, and she too turns in a fine performance. Wistful, but by no means a damsel in distress, she is probably the realest character.

The baddies, just as essential as the hero, don't disappoint either. Another wrong from last time round successfully remedied is the lack of genuinely menacing villains. Jeff Bridges honored us with his always-welcome presence in Iron Man, but his warm affability was anything but menacing. This time, however, Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell (oddly, both novices to blockbuster attention) are on duty, offering more than enough bang for your villainy buck. Rourke as Anton Vanko/"Whiplash", supplements a composite of the unintentionally hokey showman, supercilious mastermind, and the seemingly unstoppable behemoth. This effectively fends off one-noteness, and Rourke perfectly embodies the duality of Vanko's deceptively boorish visage and surprisingly vast intellect, while still indulging in the welcome irreverence that comes with the comic book villain (his Russian drawl is humorous but gives him an otherworldly conviction).

Rockwell, on the other hand, is flat-out comic relief as Stark's weaselly rival – though not necessarily a threatening one – Justin Hammer. He is excellent in the part; an absolute delight to watch, whether irascibly mugging in a loss for words with his insubordinate partner Vanko or, in one of the movie's best moments, shamelessly accolading his own (faulty) inventions with juvenile zeal.

Unfortunately, with all these characters butting heads for screen time, co-stars Don Cheadle and Scarlett Johansson as Tony's pal Colonel James "Rhodey" Rhodes and eventual partner War Machine and alluring temptress of a new assistant Natalie Rushman, respectively, are given the short straw. Both are more than able of carrying a scene, but while the script lavishes Tony with many moments in which to brood his way into some fine character development, and to convey Pepper's many grievances, neither supporting character is as lucky. Cheadle's moments of potential are all obstructed by the War Machine suit, and everything otherwise requires him to lucidly voice reason as a foil to the devil may care Tony. Johansson is a non-event, her Natalie Rushman an amoral nothing role, and her Black Widow guise is not so much daring femme fatale as listless sex symbol. She acts as merely a vessel for fan service, be it in her skintight suit for the general audience or that she represents another stepping stone to an Avengers movie for esoteric comic book fans.

The movie is inter cut between the scenes of terse characterization and octane action. The latter is a dizzying combination of rapid vicissitudes and toe-to-toe skirmishes, high on CGI, low on genuine peril. In fact, Iron Man 2 could quite possibly have been a masterpiece of the genre had it lived up to its first forty minutes of exuberance and intrigue. But once the clumsy pugilism of Iron Man and Whiplash takes place, the movie falls flat. The power play is nonexistent, because it's hard to believe anyone could stand a chance against ol' Shellhead. And if no sense of alarm can be conveyed when Iron Man is caught in an unusually melee showdown, the flight sequences leave no impression. Yes, the special effects are astounding, but it's all for nothing if there's no dramatic undercurrent.

Otherwise, please, don't mistake my raving for fanboy hyperbole; Iron Man 2 is great. It's well-written, well-acted, and simultaneously a loving throwback to comic book norm and a break from recent tradition. It's a rare occurrence to be thankful for, because God knows if this follows the superhero trilogy formula, the third one will suck. Which would tragically make this movie's thrilling departure from cliché null and void.
200 out of 385 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Marvel fanboys strikes again
Seth_Rogue_One20 November 2016
Yet another ridiculously high rated Marvel movie, we get it Marvel fanboys you just love it when a new Marvel movie comes out, so much that you forget any flaws in it and give it a 10 or a 9 anyways.

But come on seriously? Wouldn't you rather they spent a little time at actually writing a somewhat decent script and making it a bit more entertaining than to praise EVERYTHING they do to the skies just because you want a new chapter in the Marvel universe?

Cause this is NOT a good movie, 35 minutes of decent at best action and 85 minutes of nonsensical blabber.

Mickey Rourke was the only highlight in this movie, the scene at the racetrack with him was really cool but then he just became a wasted opportunity just like the rest of the movie.

A really boring turd of a film.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great beginning and end, not so great in the middle
Velociraptor25629 April 2010
At its high points - the first act and the climax - Iron Man 2 is actually better than the first film. Everything up to and including the action scene in Monaco is just great fun to watch: the action, the character interactions, and of course Robert Downey Jr's wonderful portrayal of Tony Stark. And the action scene at the end is pretty epic.

The problem is, the film just stops being so much fun in-between. In a large proportion of this time, it's either going too slowly with little happening that's exciting or even particularly interesting, or it's providing some silly moments like Iron Man lounging on a giant display donut. To be fair, there's no problem with the many subplots this movie has: they all blend together quite smoothly.

The acting in this film deserves credit: almost everybody does a great job. Robert Downey Jr and Gwyneth Paltrow are just as entertaining as they were in the first film, Jon Favreau gets more to do as Stark's chauffeur, Don Cheadle is actually a little better than Terrence Howard as Rhodie (again, maybe because he has a bigger role), Mickey Rourke portrays a decent but overall ordinary villain, and once Scarlett Johansson is allowed to do something substantial with her own action sequence, she's well worth watching. The only weak link is Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer, who gets quite annoying after a while.

Overall, Iron Man 2's slow middle section prevents it from being better than the first film as a whole, which is a shame considering how brilliant the beginning and end segments are.
204 out of 395 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Overall, disappointing...
ddin029 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, if you expect to see lots of action in this movie - you will be disappointed!

Basically, all the action you will see in this movie is what you saw in trailer. I know people have different tastes. I prefer action over drama and comedy, some people prefer different. So just so you know, this is written from action lovers point of view. First Iron Man had lots of action and was pumped with adrenaline, that is the biggest reason I liked it. This part just doesn't cut it for me.

Here are few things I disliked a lot about this movie:

  • there are a lot of random things in this movie, an example: while there is formula race about to begin, Tony decides to jump in one and race. I don't know if i missed some important part in this movie but I was like "What the hell??? That makes no sense how the hell did they let him???" or Tonies birthday party, man that was some random stuff right there.

  • there is this agent played by Scarlett Johansson. To describe her shortly: she is James Bond 2. She can do anything: beat 20 guards? you bet, hack system made by a guy who hacked into important military system in 10sec? no problem. Just an examples, you will see through movie, don't want to spoil it for you.

  • I expected 20-30min intro and then some epic action with great special effects, but I had to wait an hour and a half for that and it wasn't even epic!

  • OK, movie is coming to an end, time for epic battle! Just kidding, fight is over before you say "cookie"

  • stupidity of some scenes concerning highly sophisticated technology and system (also jail) security, an example: guy breaks through pentagon-like security system in 10sec, there are more things I'd like to add but I don't want to spoil it much for you as I mentioned.

  • this movie is... boring. Talking, talking, talking, more talking, the worst part is - this talking isn't even interesting! After 30min of talking all I heard was bla, bla, bla... If at least it was something worth listening to, but only parts worth listening to were where Tony makes a good joke.

Now, why did I give it a "high" 5/10 if it was disappointing (overall)?

1. Great special effects

2. This movie made me laugh A LOT

3.Scarlett Johansson looks better then Megan Fox in Transformers.

This movie should be tagged as (in this order) Comedy, Drama, Thriller, Sci-Fi and Action as last if you ask me.

I don't think I wasted 2h on watching this, but I expected more, much more...
170 out of 327 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Solid action-packed funny sequel
brockparks10 May 2010
I liked it a lot better than the mixed reviews I was reading would have led me to believe. It's not as fresh as the original, but the charisma and humor were there, and so were some great surprises. RDJ was amazing as always - it's hilarious that Iron Man is a funnier superhero than Spiderman, but the improv makes it work. Thumbs up! I think that anyone who enjoyed the first movie will like this as well, and enjoy a great thrill ride! And don't forget to stay after the credits for yet another Marvel movie tie-in that leads towards the inevitable Avengers movie in 2012! Don Cheadle did a good job - ScarJo was good, but not what I imagined the Black Widow to be like, but she *was* hot... And Gwyneth did her usual impeccable job. Mickey Rourke added weight to what could have been a cardboard cutout stereotype, and Sam Rockwell's character, though annoying, was well played.
84 out of 158 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"leave your brain at the door" movie ; a "from 6 to 12 years" movie
bass7-730-8809565 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
First, let me get this right; I am a FAN of the first Ironman movie;

the American war propaganda machine looses its hero (the best weapon producer) when the Ironman character realizes after being confronted with suffering and death that peace is guaranteed by "having a bigger stick" than your opponent (good so far,.., but nevertheless fun with a bit of criticism);

"welcome tony stark, the most famous mass-murderer in human history"(Ironman 1)- great;

and so Ironman is created by tony stark, a charismatic, smart genius (very good performance from Robert Downey Jr.);

and here in Ironman2: NOTHING, NO STORY, NO PLOT, EVEN NO ACTION; NO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT; just nothing; the tony stark character isn't even smart anymore; he is just arrogant and sometimes accidentally funny;

when you watched the trailer you have seen ALL the action sequences (and i really mean ALL!) in the whole film; the whole film is filled with senseless dialogues; why replacing Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle??? Terrence did a good job, Don Cheadle doesn't fit in (although he was great in Traitor) Mrs. Paltrow is just annoying, annoying, annoying; Samuel L. Jackson just makes a 2 min commercial for the avenger movie; Sam Rockwell, well.., not so good:)

the only positive thing are the action scenes with Mickey Rourke at the beginning (just at the about 5 min)and Scarlett Johanssons scenes ;) If you liked transformers 2, you will be satisfied with this brainless try of entertainment;

My native language isn't English.
192 out of 390 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Fails to expand on the original, a filler for the proposed Avengers movie
Faizan1 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
In Iron Man 2, Tony Stark's ego swells to enormous levels. Written as some kind of Steve Jobs meets Richard Branson amalgam in a superhero costume, Robert Downey's wise-ass treatment of the character (still at tangents to what he represents in the original comics) seems self absorbed and cheeky. How could anyone find him likable as a hero? But beyond all of this is a simple fact, this sequel fails to do what every sequel must i.e. expand on the original and take the premise into uncharted territory.

Stripped down in this second outing to its bare essentials - one liners and scant cartoonish action - the films defects (glaringly obvious even in the first) conspicuously swell and rise to the surface. The story puts Stark in mortal danger; the miniature arc reactor that keeps him alive is now poisoning his body, discharging lethal toxins that weaken him and leave limited time to find a cure. Amidst this he finds himself embroiled in a wrangle with the US government over the ownership of the Iron Man armour and what it represents (weapon or instrument of peace). If all of this weren't enough, he is threatened by the random appearance of Mickey Rourke's Ivan Vanko, who as Whiplash thumps Start and his Iron Man armour in the movies best scene, set in an over-crowded Monaco racetrack.

Once the initial dust has settled though, the film turns into a self absorbed, faux character study. This superhero Bucket List setup, where our hero may be dying and therefore disregards all concerns about his image and worldly perception, does not make for good entertainment. Even with all its flaws, the original film never sank to a level where it didn't amuse us, whether it was in exploring (but also exploiting) the socio-political landscape of the war on terror or Stark's guilt-stricken conscience, bruised by the extent of his organizations exploits. Because director Jon Favreau is no Sam Raimi, even his attempts at parodying the character (ala Spiderman 3) in self deprecation mode – with Tony Start dancing around in full armour on his birthday - feels embarrassingly unfunny. For action junkies, the cluttered night time scenes with Stark and Jim Rhodes (underwhelming Don Cheadle in armour as War Machine) lack the aerial panache of Iron Man fighting it out with Jet Fighters from the original.

The film makes one fact glaringly obvious; comic book movies are not comic books themselves, they are movies and are expected to function in ways that films do. That Iron Man 2 doesn't is a failure that stems out of its short-sightedness to connect itself to something bigger and greater. Intended as a tie in to the upcoming, proposed (and so far non- existent) Avengers movie, it instead becomes filler for it. The movies tone implies it is a setup for the teams ultimate formation, and the blink and miss appearance of Captain America's shield and Thor's hammer, intended to provide drug like highs in audiences viewing pleasure, only confirms this observation. This is not a film but bait for a much bigger commercial franchise on the horizon and depending on how you see it, you will either enjoy it or feel duped by it.
86 out of 166 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Clash, Bang, Boom! Tony Stark is back.....
madhavb8 May 2010
Jon Favreau knew exactly what he was doing with this movie. This is a sleek, no-holds barred superhero movie, with great performances from Robert Downey Jr. and Mickey Rourke. Let's face it, it was almost impossible to top the first one; nevertheless this a good sequel to one of the best superhero movies ever made.

Scarlett Johansson fulfilled her role as the the sexy and cunning agent Natasha Romanoff, and Gwyneth Paltrow is fine as Pepper Potts. Sam Rockwell plays Tony Stark's competitor, and does a pretty good job at it.

The only problem I have with this movie is that too many things have been fitted into 124 minutes. I understand that the movie was meant to be a roller-coaster ride, intended to thrill, but a little more character development would certainly have helped the movie. For example Samuel L. Jackson ans Johansson's characters are underused. Also, the ending was a little disoriented and predictable; something just didn't feel right about it.

All in all, Jon Favreau has made a movie that would please the fanboys and satisfy the critics. This is a movie that entertains, while still complementing the first movie, and setting up a third movie. If you liked the first movie, just go ahead and watch this movie - you won't see a masterpiece, but you'll have a fun day at the movies.

P.S.- Watch out for the after credits scene
107 out of 215 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Rusting already.
Egg_MacGuffin20 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
.SPOILERS WITHIN. -----------------

Take note, ladies and gentlemen. This is what happens when you rush a sequel into production without first having a quality script...or even a good script. This is simply a poor movie. No doubt that it's fun, but when the fundamentals are not there, you still end up dissatisfied.

What is Tony Stark's goal? This is the most important part of any film story and here, it's missing. How does this happen? You can argue that his goal is to stop Whiplash, but Whiplash is never threatening anybody apart from the Monaco scene and the extreme end of the story, which is too few and far between to function as a proper goal for Stark. You can argue that his goal is to find the cure to his blood toxicity to keep himself alive, but he is only actively working toward that goal for less than 5 minutes, most of which is spent on a gag with Captain America's shield. Then he cures himself with such ease, all tension and conflict is completely killed. SO that can't be his goal, either. Hell, he spent more time driving around for the Audi commercial, which ironically meant as much to the remainder of the story as the new power cell - nothing.

What is the villain's plan? First of all, who the hell is the villain: Whiplash or Justin Hammer? Hammer simply wants a defense contract, which poses a threat of zero to Stark if he succeeds in getting the contract. Whiplash has a pasted-in motivation that is as weak as a wet noodle. He fights Stark at the racetrack and then spends the remainder of the movie sitting in a room on the other side of the country, not threatening anybody at all (until the very end). It's good that he showed up with a security uniform on the off-chance that Stark would be driving a race car that day. Did anybody see where logic went? So with no villain posing any kind of threat to Stark for the entire second act of the story, and Stark having no goal of his own, we're left with a jumbled mess in the middle of the film. Stark acts out and does nothing remotely interesting or exciting because he simply has nothing else to do. His conflict with Pepper was so manufactured, I could almost hear the clatter of an assembly line every time they were together. It was entirely non-emotional, and because of that, I couldn't care.

The hero and villain don't even encounter one another at all in the second act of this movie! They are off on their own doing boring crap instead.

Nick Fury shows up and drops information in Stark's lap instead of Stark actually finding out for himself. Then Fury is basically gone for the remainder of the movie. Whatever the hell Scarlett Johansson's character's name was served no purpose at all. Why were these characters even in the movie? I know Scarlett was in because she got to wear tight leather and kick ass, which I personally loved, but I would appreciate it a bit more if it was somewhat story-related. Of course, you need a story first.

You can argue that Scarlett had to stop Whiplash from maintaining control of the War Machine suit, but I don't even know how Whiplash gained control of it to begin with! We are never presented with that information. And if he can control War Machine, why not take control of Stark's suit? Hello? Logic? Where did you go? Logic, come back! The climax involves an long fight with drones, which becomes nothing more than robots slugging each other. In the first film, Stark was battling the technology that he created and had to learn to outsmart his opponent because he couldn't outgun him. Here, it's just mindless action. There is no threat of danger. The drones pose a threat as severe as a field mouse. Then Whiplash shows up to a scene where a battle was already fought, and they have another battle that is twice as short as the one with the drones. If you blink, you'll miss it. There is no struggle. No reversals. No tension. No anything.

Why can't we have a summer action movie that is both fun and good? You can even site the first Iron Man as an example. What happened here? This movie is a complete joke and a borderline insult.

But I think we all know by now that Hollywood only makes sequels because they want money, not because they have a story worth telling...or a story at all.

If I didn't see this movie for free, I'd ask for my money back on account of a faulty product.
126 out of 262 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Disappointing to say the least
nikomailand2 May 2010
Do you remember how you felt right after having watched 'The Empire Strikes Back'? 'The Return of the Jedi'? 'The Matrix'? Or the first Iron Man movie?

If you are like me, I would guess pretty darn excited -- 'Can't wait to see what happens next'! Now try to remember how you felt after watching 'The Phantom Menace' and 'The Matrix Reloaded' --

Well, after watching two of the biggest travesties in the world of sequels... I felt completely frustrated, angry and cheated!

I won't say I feel the same resentment after having watched Iron Man 2 but it comes pretty darn close.

Iron Man 1? A fantastic movie! Iron Man 2? I want my money back! And my travel expenses!

What is wrong with Iron Man 2? Do you have a couple of hours? script? Really, are these guys serious? They make a movie costing around $150 million dollars and the script SUCKS BIG TIME.

Plot holes anyone? There is NO motivation: you have no idea why you should care about the characters, since the characters themselves don't have a clue what they are supposed to do or feel and why in this story. I'm not saying the actors are bad, they are doing all they can, but they are given a crappy script to work with.

No sense of suspense or danger: despite one hundred of explosions and a couple of thousand stray bullets in crowded areas, NOT ONE PERSON gets killed or wounded in the whole movie! The closest you get to 'wounded' are a couple of bruises. How am I supposed to care for someone when I KNOW he won't get hurt? This is a MAJOR difference from the first Iron Man movie, where the threat was real.

Somebody desperately tried to make Iron Man 2 into a movie for all ages -- well, it worked, in the worst possible way.

This is also why all of the action scenes are boring, since all you see is CGI animated cartoon robots bashing into each other -- sounds a lot like Transformers you say? That's right, but with EVEN LESS human emotion, since no one gets hurt.

It was pretty difficult to mess this up, but they somehow managed to do it.

I've read all the rave reviews -- "action packed!", "entertaining!" "terrific!" Are we talking about the same movie here? Seriously guys, either you have a very low standard or you have never watched a movie that truly deserves those rave reviews, like: The Matrix and the original Star Wars trilogy.

And no, I'm not comparing Iron Man 2 only to 'classic movies'. Even newer movies like Star Trek or Kick-Ass or even Iron Man 1 were ten times better!

Kick-Ass was made for $30 million, instead of $150 like Iron Man 2 and it completely kicks Iron Man 2's ass in every department.

I want to erase Iron Man 2 from my memory but I'm afraid it will be very difficult -- still having nightmares about Jar Jar Bings --

Thank you Iron Man 2 screenwriters, for ruining the Iron Man 1 experience for me. I wish I could sue you.

Why I still give it 5 stars? Because the actors tried. And because I smiled a few times. That's it. A DVD throwaway movie at most, it really wasn't worth my money.
54 out of 105 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The first one steps all over this one
pinkliz4130 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The hype for Iron Man 2 to be great was pretty big, by me anyway. But i was let down considerably. Sequels are usually the ones that are much harder to get right and pull of, and Iron Man 2 nearly falls flat. The last thirty minutes are diabolically bad compared to the rest of the film, which, whilst it lasted, was pretty damn good. Things that could have certainly been improved upon were; Mickey Rourke as Whiplash, who i didn't think had enough screen time, and could have been fleshed out slightly better. The introduction of War Machine fighting alongside his ally Iron Man, was completely inappropriate as it made the climactic fight sequence corny and stupid. His fight with Iron Man at Starks home was also un called for, as if the director was adding the sequence just for the sake for a longer running time. Also, Starks witty personality died out pretty quickly, so we are left annoyed and pleading him to stop by the credits.
67 out of 133 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Very mediocre and didn't live up to the hype
andreasilmjarv26 December 2018
Iron Man 2 isn't as bad of a movie that people say it is, although it isn't great either. It is one of the weakest movies in the MCU, which was a surprise especially when Iron Man 1 was one of the best MCU movies.

Tony stark doesn't have the same motivations and doesn't care if people get hurt, which is completely out of character for him, since he started being a Superhero because he realized how many people his weapons were harming.

Not a good movie, watch it only if you really like Robert Downey Jr. Otherwise skip this movie.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Rourke was good. The rest was terrible
HrutkaPal5 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was absolutely terrible. Seriously, everyone involved(except Rourke) should be ashamed. I don't know what was the worst thing: -Starks annoying love for himself, which was good in part 1, but here it was over the top. -The even more annoying Paltrow character, which just wouldn't shut up for one second -The fact, that the movie had a ridicilously flat story, which is close to not existing -Or all those wannabe side-characters which had almost no role at all, and were just in to provide some big names to the cast

After like 20 minutes it was pretty obvious for me, that this movie is gonna suck. But I thought, hey, maybe the actions scenes could spice things up a bit. But not even those were really entertaining. The ONLY part, where I thought that it might become interesting, was where all those robots showed up, and they were outnumbered. Cool. What happened? They killed them in like 30 seconds. What a joke.

Rourke's character was the only thing that was a plus.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
And that's coming from a neutral viewer:Iron Man's astonishing return!
drakula200530 April 2010
At first, when a heard about a second installment, i thought, i was unsure in it, because Jon Favreau is relatively new on the director's chair, so could he pull of another classic superhero movie?The answer is simple-YES! I saw it in its opening day and the theatre was full.I went along with a few friends, and all of them loved it!Here are some things, we all agreed we liked.

CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT:It was pretty good in this movie-making aspect, although it is an action movie, there is some quite exciting development, especially the leads.Don Cheadle made a perfect substitute of Terrence Howard, and looked pretty good in the movie.So did the Gwyneth Paltrow and Scarlet Johansson's heroines.For me, Scarlet is one of the most gifted and talented and in the same time, the most beautiful actresses in the last decade and even more.And last, but not least, of course, the Iron Robert Downey Jr., making one of his unique, specifically for him, roles.He is smart, funny and in the same time, well, action hero type of guy-he adds so much to this otherwise, stereotyped role.Sam Rockwell was a little irritating, but that's what his role is supposed to be, and to those who have doubts, yes, Mickey Rourke made a decent and interesting role again.

TIMING:Almost perfect, except, maybe, the opening credits and a few over timed scenes afterwards, everything was alright and on the perfect spot.

PLOT/STORY:I finally can say it-YES, the day has come.A day, where superhero movies haven't got just CGI, put a pretty decent story, attached to the normal amount of CGI.Well, hard to say normal, a little bit over-the-top, but nonetheless fun, when you get use to the headache.The humor was perfect, brilliantly touched to the smallest line.And most importantly-it's not that predictable-i don't mean the ending, but the development, leading to it.Excecutet skilfully, when looked from this point of view.

CGI:10/10, nothing else to add.Believable Flawless.Perfect.

With no big flaws or plot holes, very funny dialogue, skillful acting and good directing, Iron Man is definitely the best movie of the year so far.The perfect blockbuster as well.I'm glad a saw it, and if the first one didn't made me a fan, this one did.I can't wait to see it again.Cheers to Iron Man Amazing! I would've given this a ten, but with some very few weaknesses, i'll lower this a little, although it did make me a bigger fan than before...

My rate: 7.5/10
35 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Acceptable sequel packed with frantic action ,thrills, moving scenes and dazzling production design
ma-cortes27 June 2011
A well-intentioned and interesting plot based on the characters created by Stan Lee , following the events developed in ¨Iron Man I ¨ and repeating the main actors . Because of his superhero alter ego, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) must contend with deadly issues involving the government, his own friends and new enemies . With the world now learns of his dual life as Stark is submitted to the armored pressure from the government, the press, and the public to share his technology with the military , being only helped by SHIELD agency formed by colonel Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) . Unwilling to let go of his invention, Stark, along with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), and James "Rhodey" Rhodes (Don Cheadle) at his side, must forge new alliances and battle evil enemies as Vanko (Mickey Rourke) and Justin Hammer ( Sam Rockwell).

Nice performance by Rober Downey Jr as superhero Iron Man, the billionaire inventor named Tony Stark who faces powerful enemies . This spectacular comic-book movie contains fantasy, noisy action, humor ,romance , thrills and is pretty entertaining. This is a dynamic, fast- paced and entertaining movie . Full of action , it's complemented by exciting images, thrills and breathtaking scenes , including groundbreaking computer generator special effects. The picture relies in terrific flying sequences , rousing fighting, and relentless pursuits. The moving story is made believable and the script has more pace to it than former film titled ¨Iron Man I¨ also directed by Jon Favreau ; both movies result to be an intense variation on Stan Lee's comic book creation. Our superhero, well incarnated by Downey Jr dons splendidly the metallic armor , for that reason he can to be identified with the rest of his life as Iron Man and he deserves credit for remaining true to character. Breathtaking array of technical effects with impressive set pieces illuminate the Iron Man's full-blown adventures. The amazing plot is pure entertainment and with screenplay by the actor Justin Theroux, based on characters created by Stan Lee, as usual appears in a brief cameo . Overwhelming production design , though full of digital effects with impressive scenes and portentous fights . Stirring musical score fitting to action by John Debney and colorful cinematography by Matthew Libatique .The motion picture is professionally directed by Jon Favreau , an ordinary secondary actor who triumphs as director with ¨Zathura¨, ¨Elf¨ and of course in this ¨Iron Man 2¨ . Rating : Interesting and passable sequel .
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Masterfully Executed Sequel! Action AND Heart... A Perfect Mix
IronBallsM26 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, I'm one of the fortunate few who got to see this gem a bit early and I'm happy to report that they took what worked so well in Iron Man and ran with it in an extremely gratifying way. The complexity, depth, heart and action are even more off the charts than the first film. It's is not just a great comic book movie but a great movie period. They took the complexities of Tony Stark that they established in movie one and built upon it masterfully. Now we get a reformed and guilt ridden weapons manufacturer weaved with a celebrity who should have never let the cat out of the bag in the final moments of Iron Man 1. They promised to up the action from the first film and they certainly did but the storytelling never suffers for it. Like in 2008, the evolution and growth of the characters is of paramount importance. It has the same flavor and humor of the original and it may even focus more on the fabulous relationships already developed. I was stunned at how they managed to deliver a better film. I didn't think that was possible. Everyone came to play and this great cast brought their best stuff and it shows on screen. Everyone knew Downey, Paltrow and Cheadle could act but Bill O'Reilly and The CNN anchor? Yes, they show up and do a GREAT job in extended cameos. Rourke and Rockwell are PERFECT as the duel foils for Tony Stark, I mean PERFECT. From the Grand Prix in Monaco to the amazing finale, buckle up because this is one intense, interesting, intelligent and fun ride. My only real complaint is that Scarlett's Black Widow has too little screen time. Still, a film that leaves you clamoring for more isn't the worst sin in the world.

When I was done viewing this movie, all I could think about was how it instantly stacks up to the all-time great sequels. What was said about classics like Spider-Man 2, X2, Empire Strikes Back, TDK and even Godfather 2 holds true for Iron Man 2. I honestly can't wait to see it again.
62 out of 126 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Messy storyline, no real plot, no theme
evan_harvey3 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Just saw Iron Man 2, and while I thought the first one was a bit overrated, I had hopes. They quickly dissipated.

Firstly, there was no theme. The first Iron Man had a theme - it was about Tony Stark changing his life and becoming a better man. Iron Man 2 had no theme at all.

Secondly, the plot was messy: there just happens to be another brilliant scientist who can build an advanced power source in a squalid Moscow shack? Okay, we had to swallow that Tony Stark could build one in the middle of freakin' Afghanistan, but twice? That's too much.

Weren't Pepper and Tony supposed to get together at the end of the first film? In this one they stay at arm's length, and I wondered if there was any romance there at all. That scene from the preview where Pepper kisses his helmet and Tony jumps from the back of the plane after it? Gone.

The Avengers? Samuel L Jackson with an eye patch? Who the hell wears an eye patch today and doesn't get laughed at? Why introduce paper-thin characters that really do nothing? And it's not like anything actually happened with them anyway, so why waste out time and goodwill?

Thirdly, the film didn't really go anywhere in terms of advancing the Iron Man story. There were a few interesting concepts - what does Iron Man do now that everyone knows who he is? Will the US military get their hands on it? - but these, while addressed, where never really given much thought. Instead, Tony's best friend (Cheadle) steals the other suit. What? Even after being given an order to do so, why would his friend do that?

Fourth, the acting: Gwenyth Paltrow is a terrible actress. So it Scarlett Johansson, but at least she's smoking hot. Don Cheadle is no Terrance Howard. While Howard himself isn't a great actor, he owned the role in Iron Man 1. Cheadle just didn't have the personality and charisma, and you'll note he gets very little screen time too.

It wasn't a completely horrible film, but it wasn't worth the 7.9 IMDb gives it. Much closer to a flat 5.0. The direction is a bit messy - the action scenes aren't as clean as they should be. Some great SXF, as you'd expect. Save your money for the DVD.
36 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"- People often ask me how I go to the toilet in this suit? .." ©
BiiivAL4 June 2018
So, after the publication of the first full-length Iron Man and its success with the audience (the box office speaks for itself), many with genuine interest waited for the sequel release - and Casey Cooper is no exception to this long list.

As a result, I looked, I was glad with all my heart and made an inspired conclusion - the potential of "Iron Man" on the whole scale resulted in the second part in an excellent entertaining blockbuster and one of the best comic book adaptations that I saw.

But let's start with the laws of sequels, or rather not from laws (after all, they are not always fulfilled in the production of film products), but from the expectations of the audience: from the second part we expect even more scope, more humor, more battles, more heroes than in the original - and "Iron Man" all these expectations justified.

In addition, he gave an occasion to be stunned by characters with Russian roots - how nice it was to hear that China, Korea, Iran for another 10 years will not reach the technology of Tony Stark (and the competing American company "Hammer" - all 20), and Russian, well and let the villain on the film, Ivan Vanko in the handicraft conditions did not worse, and even made so much noise!

Now back to the original - remember all that you liked the first "Iron Man" - so all this you will find in the sequel, only in places you need to multiply by 2 - and above all it concerns characters.

Tony Stark did not change from the first picture and remained an amazing combination of playboy / genius / showman - so Robert Downey Jr. did not disappoint and gave out the same standing image, maybe even with some deeper into the inner world of the hero (again he does not everything is smooth with health, yes, even here my father was attached).

Gwyneth Paltrow gave exactly the same image, exactly the same - no more, no less.

For a couple of moments, that is, a couple of appearances on the screen pleased Nick Fury in the performance of Samuel L. Jackson, although there is no need to expect any action from him.

Tony Stark's best friend changed face - in the original played Terrence Howard, and now Don Cheadle - but I somehow did not notice the difference (probably because the first part looked a long time and the character there was not the most important place), but he had to act much more - including in the suit of an iron man.

Mickey Rourke portrayed a gifted mind, a hatred for the Stark family and a bunch of tattoos of the villain Ivan Vanko (in the comics - Whip), as it is required from comics, that is, beyond the PG-13 with any profanity or something did not come out, but the image was on the whole turned out worthwhile.

Scarlett Johansson was beautiful and with dark hair, but her character presented a couple of surprises - first of all, I repeat: I did not expect such an image (or I interrupt memories from memories) - so as not to spoil, I will not describe all this, but in the course of the picture, all expectations around her character were covered with a copper basin, although what happened turned out to be different, but not bad at all - a couple of spectacular appearances in the course of the film, to finally shine in the finale.

Sam Rockwell - did not even know that he was playing here - I can not really single out his character - Justin Hammer - the head of a competing company (primarily because Tony, as it should be, was simply eclipsed), but the actor did everything that was required of him.

Final - this is generally a separate merit - the ending of the original and next to it was not compared with the large-scale, spectacular and numerous finale of the second part. Bravo for such a brilliant finishing touch! Although neither the beginning nor the middle was disappointed - another brilliant combination of Tony Stark's humor, an excursion into his rampant life, a fight scene in the beginning and the middle as a foretaste of a much more significant and multifaceted final fight.

Result: the first "Iron Man" was remembered by the bright, but classic manner of adaptations of comic strips with the appropriate filling in the plot plan, which allowed him to become not a breakthrough, but the primacy of traditions and a worthy spectacle for entertainers in general and comics in particular - and the second part from the original in no way fell behind, and in many ways even surpassed him.
63 out of 129 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pretty good sequel that's entertaining, explosive and sexy.
blanbrn9 May 2010
"Iron Man" is not my favorite superhero(that place goes to Batman)nor does he rank ahead of Wonder Women still Tony Stark is an interesting cocky sucker of enough character to watch. As "Iron Man 2" for a sequel really delivered. As director Jon Favreau once again kept the action rolling with special effects and kick ass action sequences. Once again Robert Downey Jr. is back as Tony Stark former weapons mogul turned special agent Iron Man. This time his challenge is a Russian villain named Ivan(Mickey Rourke fresh off his classic performance in "The Wrestler") who wants to destroy the world with his new chemical and high tech weapons. And Sam Rockwell struts as a money hungry arms dealer.

Returning is Gwyneth Paltrow as Tony's girlfriend now company CEO. And to spice up the picture a real treat of eye candy is Scarlett Johansson as Natasha who's sexy as hell! She becomes a new superhero! Really this film is a showcase for cutting edge technology that shows human inventions. And it was nice to see a cameo by Bill O' Reilly too. Overall this picture is a good treat of action and explosive technology. Probably a watch for any comic book fan.
37 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed