posted
Wondering what it means that no one started this thread yet...
Quick review: liked it. Not as much as I liked the first one, but still quite a lot. Robert Downey Jr was still perfect, there was more action, Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell were great, Gary Shandling was perfect, and I seriously want Tony Stark's computer desk setup.
What didn't work for me: Scarlett Johansson was kinda wooden, Don Cheadle, while good, didn't seem as close a fit to Rhodie as Terrance Howard did, and the plot had tons of holes in it. The filmmakers need to have Nick Fury actually be a badass, rather than just throw Sam Jackson in there so we know he is.
What I actively disliked: the final fight between the Iron Men and Whiplash. After all that buildup it was weak tea indeed. Why would he just stand there, holding them, while the heroes discuss their plans? Why not do something cool, like hit one of them with the other one? And, as James Gunn pointed out, his face was exposed. Granted, I'm not a tactician, but why not, for the heck of it, shoot him in the face?
So reasonably top marks, way ahead of the FF movies, Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3, Superman Returns, etc.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wondering what it means that no one started this thread yet...
Why it was polite difference to you!
I liked IM2 quite a bit, I pretty much agree with all your comments. But then again the fight against the drones was so drawn out, I'm not sure how they could have one up'd it with whiplash. My favorite moment was Black Widow using that mace on the last guard. It felt just so right in the context of what had just taken place.
I actually found it kinda rediculous that neither Iron man or War Machine could simply fly up 40 feet and shoot at Whiplash. I can't recall if Whiplash had rocket boots, does anybody else?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with pretty much everything you guys have said. I too felt that the fight with Whiplash was a little anti-climactic, but the fight we'd seen just before it was pretty intense, so I took it as a whole, and gave them a bit of a pass. I also liked the part where she maced the guy in the hallway fight.
I'd say it's ahead of pretty much any other superhero movie I've seen to date, though I too liked the first one better.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
- The narrative in the first Iron Man was very "point A to point B". That being said, it was a very strong narrative -- good for the comic novice to the ubergeek -- and full of comedy, drama, action, and thought.
- The narrative for this movie was very multilayered. Some of the critics were confused, but I thought that it allowed the filmmakers to set up a lot more of the universe and a lot more nuanced performances (especially from the Vanko / Whiplash character). This narrative style was very different, yes, but it allowed a much more "epic" story to be told. There was a lot going on, but I thought that it worked well.
- The casting was spot on. Don Cheadle played a much more forceful Rhodes, much more believable as a person and a soldier. Rourke was great. Johansson -- while wooden -- was less wooden than she normally is (Lost in Translation? Seriously?).
- The "character building" was heavy, but it made for a better movie. The only minus is all of the time that was used to setup the Avengers movie. Sure, it was fanservice, but it was unnecessary and the only real deterrent to the story flow.
- The fight against Whiplash was too short and anticlimactic. I agree on that point.
Overall, I thought it was better than the first movie. Except for the gravity of the Middle East scenes, the character building in this was much more powerful. And in opposition to all of the critics, I thought it was FAR superior to the whole "I don't want my powers anymore" whining that was Spiderman 2.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I actually found it kinda rediculous that neither Iron man or War Machine could simply fly up 40 feet and shoot at Whiplash. I can't recall if Whiplash had rocket boots, does anybody else?
In the final fight he had a suit similar to his drones, which were all flight-capable. And since all the manned suits were apparently invulnerable to mere bullets, it doesn't seem that making it a dogfight would have helped any, unless you wanted to draw the movie out for another ten zooming minutes. ALthough it would have neutralised Whiplash's main weapon, so it would have been good tactics that way.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
His suit was probably immune to bullets, and arguably proof against repulsor rays. But I'm pretty sure his completely unprotected face wasn't. Good strategy: backing away 41 feet and having at it.
Anyway.
I'd argue that Spider-Man whining about his powers was an integral part of the character's history, but Peter Parker was played as such a dink that I have to agree. Love the 1st two Spider-Man movies, but the stumbling, can't string-three-words-together Parker was a poor substitute for the wise-cracking one we've gotten used to. Maybe SM4 will bring him back.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Don Cheadle, while good, didn't seem as close a fit to Rhodie as Terrance Howard did
I love Don Cheadle, but he did seem kinda wooden in this movie. I think this was a writer/director issue, though. Don Cheadle is most certainly not Terrance Howard, and it was a mistake to give Rhodie the same lines and mannerisms as if Howard was still playing the role. Cheadle should have been able to make the character his own and run with it, not imitate what Howard did. Hopefully he'll be given a bit more freedom to do this in the next film.
ETA that I did really enjoy the movie. In fact, I think I enjoyed it at least as much as the first. Yes, it had more problems, but it also had way cooler stuff to make up for it. All in all just great entertainment.
ETA2:
quote: I'd say it's ahead of pretty much any other superhero movie I've seen to date, though I too liked the first one better.
Ahem. The Dark Knight? Still tops in my book anyway.
posted
I liked the lack of a huge scene with whiplash. I agree the tactics were a bit silly (surprise!) but I'm sick of every movie feeling they have to make sure that the last fight with the main villain takes twice as long as any other fight (and is twice as ludicrous).
I like Johansson in general, but my main problem here wasn't so much her acting as her character. It seemed like she was given very little screen time and had to spend all of it just setting up who the character was so we could be surprised by the next transformation.
Actually that was my main problem with the movie as a whole: each plot revelation seemed to be packed in so tightly that I was unable to assign any of them any importance. None of the characters nor the story seemed to follow any kind of arc. It was more like a collection of things someone wanted to make a movie about all just jumbled together in no particular order ("Hey, Jake, we should have some kind of Father-Son relationship thing in here." "Good idea, I'm looking at page 48 now so I'll just pencil in some lines here.").
For the writing, I felt it was a step down from last time. It didn't seem like the humor flowed well with the actual story: rather it felt like someone wrote the original script, realized it wasn't funny and then went back and added random jokes willy-nilly. However, I think they did a decent job with Stark in making him both try to be a better person and yet not have an obvious abandonment of who his core personality is.
I liked the action scenes which I thought were interesting and well filmed. Though there was a lot of cutting it wasn't as over-the-top as a lot of movies are these days where you can't tell at all what's going on because of the constant close-ups and cuts every quarter of a second. I liked that the actors in general were able to bring something to their characters (particularly Rourke). Overall good eye candy (and here I'm talking about things blowing up and some very good looking women. Both of which I like).
Something less important but is a personal peeve of mine: if you're not going to make any effort to get the science right that's fine, but why you can't you just be super vague about it so I don't have to spend the whole dang movie rolling my eyes like I do when you start talking about inventing a new element?
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Something less important but is a personal peeve of mine: if you're not going to make any effort to get the science right that's fine, but why you can't you just be super vague about it so I don't have to spend the whole dang movie rolling my eyes like I do when you start talking about inventing a new element?
Hobbes
What was eye-rolling about that? I don't know much about chemistry/science so I'm just curious.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I wish they would've just said "molecule" and left it alone. There's an infinite variety of molecules and they really can be engineered. There is some variety in elements, particularly as you vary the number of neutrons but that would be isotopes not elements. An element is defined by the number of protons in its nucleus and is numbered on the periodic table as such. Hydrogen is first because it has one, Helium second with two and so on and so forth. As I said, any given element may have various isotopes by adding or subtraction nuetrons (you may hear of carbon 16, or Uranium 239 which is a refernce to the element followed by the atomic weight which is the number of protons plus the number of nuetrons). However, Mr. Stark wanted a new element. We've discovered all the elements up past 100. Because of the range of the strong force, the nucleus will start breaking apart when it gets too big (all those protons repel each other, and eventually the forces that hole a nucleus together can't counteract that). We're past the point where there are elements left that would be created in nature: all that's left is very unstable. More to the point, elements can't really been engineered that way: where the electrons are wont impact the nucleus's stability, particularly since they have to be in the specific orbitals quantum physics has assigned them to. It looked to me like they were trying to have Stark build a particle accelerator to create the new element (I'm not sure what that whole reflect off some silvery metal onto a triangle thing was) which would be a correct way to get a new element. However, anything it created would decay in a fraction of second.
I liked that in the first one they handed over a new technology without explaining it. It wasn't important to the story how it worked so they basically just said: "Wow! It's small, it's new, and he built it in a cave." Which doesn't get my reality-check dander up like trying to add in a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. It's obviously impossible but not in any specific way and no movie time is wasted trying to explain it. Making it a lot easier to just move on instead of having to sit there and listen to people talk about something that obviously wrong! [/End Liz Lemon voice]
posted
I liked the short scene after the credits. I'm not a comics guy, but I like the way Marvel advertises its movies.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I like Johansson in general, but my main problem here wasn't so much her acting as her character. It seemed like she was given very little screen time and had to spend all of it just setting up who the character was so we could be surprised by the next transformation.
Yup, this. It wasn't so much that ScarJo was wooden, but that there wasn't much time for her to be anything but expository. Or kicking some serious tail, which in itself is also expository, come to think of it. Either way, though, she certainly looked the part and was a whole lotta fun to watch, especially when contrasted with Happy.
I really enjoyed the movie. I'd say more, but everything I thought about it has pretty much been expressed already, so I shan't regurgitate. Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, at the risk of being terribly boring, I seem to agree with the majority here. Good, but not as good as the original. I kind've liked Scarlet Johansson, but she didn't really have all that much to do until the end aside from give Stark an attractive woman's presence to riff on.
I wish they'd kept Howard on as Rhodes. He was terrific in the first film- much more fleshed-out and human. I felt like we got the sense of his conflicts between friendship with Stark and his military loyalty and training much more in the first film; here the best it manifests itself is in the little smile he gives Stark when they're before Congress. The rest of the time, Rhodes seems to do more or less what the script requires him to, and not much more.
I also must confess that my one moment of real suspension-of-disbelief-shaking was the brawl between Rhodes and Stark. I mean, I know Tony's cool, and all that, but shouldn't someone who's been through boot camp kick the intoxicated playboy's rear end?
The revealing of faces in the suits... Well, that was a holdover from the first movie, really. It was dumb then, it's dumb now, but I've learned to let it go. Yes, there are clearly both short- and long- range communications systems between the suits that render revealing your face both unnecessary and a needless risk, but it's done to remind us of the people underneath the CGI. It's a dramatic choice; I'll let it pass.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as the suit faces go, I'm not sure if I see the problem. Stark and Rhodes had their face plates up for a few minutes to chat but they came down as soon as trouble arrived. Whiplash only had his faceplate down for a few moments too, and then put it right back up when the fight started.
If they had left them off DURING the fight, that would have been ridiculous, but in the fight interludes? Didn't strike me as a big deal.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also must confess that my one moment of real suspension-of-disbelief-shaking was the brawl between Rhodes and Stark. I mean, I know Tony's cool, and all that, but shouldn't someone who's been through boot camp kick the intoxicated playboy's rear end?
I chalked this up to Rhodes' suit being an earlier, and at least slightly inferior, version. His personal skills made up for the assumed tech gap.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, how much experience did he have operating a suit prior to that moment?
Though I guess if that were the excuse, the fight would've been a little more slapstick. Tony drunkenly stumbling around and Rhodey stumbling around due to inexperience with the suit.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Stark had one of those sobered-by-police-sirens-while-driving-drunk moments. His face and voice clearly snapped back into focus once Rhodes showed up.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If they had left them off DURING the fight, that would have been ridiculous, but in the fight interludes? Didn't strike me as a big deal.
When Whiplash had them both around the neck, Whiplash lifted up his face shield for some reason. He had it up the entire time Iron Man and War Machine were communicating about the double beam thing. Either of the good guys could have just shot Whiplash in the face instead of doing their plan.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
About the Scarlett Johanson fight scene, I feel like someone should tell her that just because someone falls down it doesnt mean that theyre unconcious. For all the hours of fine-tuning the physics of the IM suit they completely ignored the fact that she was not hurting most of the security guys.
Another point, when the mechs went crazy Hammer starts yelling at his tech guy on site while he has a compound over-flowing with security just waiting to take Vanko down and plenty of techies to solve the murderious robot problem.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The part I was most disappointed in, during the Whiplash battle, was that he didn't outsmart them. We saw him be brilliant all through the movie, and then here, even after he's presumably studied Iron Man's capabilities, he acted like any other bad guy.
I'd also have been happier if Favreau had edited Tony and Rhodes' exchange down to: "Sidekick!" "What?" and Rhodes barely getting his repulsor ray up just in time to meet Tony's. Lightning fast, before Whiplash had a chance to counter (or, in this case, stare and wait for it).
Armchair Director interlude: A nice little touch, when he showed up and had them both under his control? Saying something to the effect of "Ha! Hammer was right. Human better than drone, for some things. The personal touch, yes?"
[ May 11, 2010, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the fact that Iron Man walks away feeling a bit overpowered as that could potentially compound his boredom. I liked the fact that they never show if Ivan never died.
Liked more than the original. Better villain. Effects. Less plot holes.
Not as well paced though. This ones too much of a bottleneck.
2nd fave comic movie behind Batman Begins. DK gets third.
Haven't seen Kickass.
Also, the shooting in the face thing could be explained by not wanting to kill him. And when he had them both, that wouldn't have been an ideal angle.
What didn't work for me: Scarlett Johansson was kinda wooden
Umm...I was kind of wooden whenever Scarlett Johansson was on screen.
I just saw the movie last night, and I enjoyed it. There was a lot of action and the last fight was kind of a let down, but overall I thought it was put together well. I do like they are actively letting it be known that an Avengers movie is coming.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wonder if it is at all possible to have Tony Stark fulfill his character arc in the movies. Most lines end with Stark gone mad with obsession and failure (leading to the deaths of innocent people) and confined to the suit or some proxy thereof due to one reason or another, and completely shutoff from his own humanity. Dont get me wrong, smarmy jack-ass Stark is great dialogue but cruel alcoholic cyborg Stark is better story-telling and more heroic than the playboy gone super-hero.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wonder if it is at all possible to have Tony Stark fulfill his character arc in the movies. Most lines end with Stark gone mad with obsession and failure (leading to the deaths of innocent people) and confined to the suit or some proxy thereof due to one reason or another, and completely shutoff from his own humanity. Dont get me wrong, smarmy jack-ass Stark is great dialogue but cruel alcoholic cyborg Stark is better story-telling and more heroic than the playboy gone super-hero.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious to see what Warren Ellis did with the character, because Warren Ellis is ****ing awesome.
He's probably going to be the way he is for now, since it's going into the Avengers ark (he was himself in his cameo in Incredible Hulk, which is after Iron Man 2). and i wouldn't bee surprised if he invents stuff for the rest of the team.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: About the Scarlett Johanson fight scene, I feel like someone should tell her that just because someone falls down it doesnt mean that theyre unconcious. For all the hours of fine-tuning the physics of the IM suit they completely ignored the fact that she was not hurting most of the security guys.
Why would she want to? She's not there to kill random mooks, she's there for Vanko. Once they're down, they're likely out of such a fast-moving fight whether conscious or not; these aren't robots, ninjas, or pirates, they are working joes who just took roundhouse kicks to the face. They are quite unlikely to get up again if they can avoid it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Because a great tactic for someone who has just had their ass effortlessly and immediately kicked by someone half their size who is then going on to kick the asses of everybody they work with would seem to me to be: get up, shoot at her from a good 30' away down the hall.
*shrug* Anyway, that part didn't bother me, because the fights were action movie fights. If the film was striving for, say, Serenity style of movie fights, though, it'd be a problem.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: *shrug* Anyway, that part didn't bother me, because the fights were action movie fights. If the film was striving for, say, Serenity style of movie fights, though, it'd be a problem.
Hatrack, where any conversation can be about Joss Whedon and his collective works.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, apparently Whedon will be directing the upcoming Avengers film which will feature Robert Downey Jr. and Co. from this movie, so it's not really that far removed to bring him up here.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like how OSC is under the delusion that Iron Man didnt have atleast just as many plot holes.
How did the terrorists even let him build the suit?
WE DONT NEED MORE THAN ONE VIDEOCAMERA GUYS, RIGHT? GUYS.
Also, Rhodey could have disabled the override once he got to the base or Tony could of just realize that he either ****ed up or that the army getting the suit was inevitable.
I'm not even sure where they mentioned the override.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
He let Rhodey take it. Rhodey was his back-up plan for Iron Man if he died, thats why there was a completely spare suit just sitting around that James Rhodes had clearance to operate. You dont just jump in one of those things ya know.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but if he died someone was going to seize it anyway. It's not like he needed Rhodey to take it before he died.
Also, using the override would endanger Rhodey if he's been in the air. Well, maybe ... I dunno ... **** this why am I talking about this when I dont remember when the override was talked about?
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the donut shop with Fury, Johanson was the one to point out that there were extensive programs in place to prevent the wrong person from wearing the suit.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I remembered that, but that's not a flip the switch override to take the suit back after someones already stole it, atleast not inherently.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: I like how OSC is under the delusion that Iron Man didnt have atleast just as many plot holes.
How did the terrorists even let him build the suit?
WE DONT NEED MORE THAN ONE VIDEOCAMERA GUYS, RIGHT? GUYS.
Also, Rhodey could have disabled the override once he got to the base or Tony could of just realize that he either ****ed up or that the army getting the suit was inevitable.
I'm not even sure where they mentioned the override.
Well, not only that, but OSC is actually wrong all over the place in his review. I usually like his reviews.
He says we aren't given motivation for Vanko until later in the film, but that's not true. It's just not spelled out in fingerpaint until later in the film. When we first see Vanko, in the very, very beginning, he's examining blueprints for an arc reactor and get treated to a close up of the two creators, Stark and Vanko. This immediately sets us up to suspect that someone else, who apparently got no credit, was involved in designing the reactor.
I have more complaints but I have to go right now.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC seems to make a lot of silly mistakes like that. You'd think he'd have realized by now that he should watch the movie a couple of times and maybe even do some research before publishing a critical article.
On second thought, you'd think he'd do that with his other articles, too. It's just laziness. And such a shame, really. He's clearly an intelligent man capable of compelling insight.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
