April 28, 2010

What do the early reviews tell us about 'Iron Man 2'?

Well, they seem to indicate that the film is a step down from its predecessor, though far from a bad popcorn flick, according to most. Rotten Tomatoes currently has it at 82% here, based on a small sampling of 17 reviews.
What does this mean? Well, I think we might be able to scuttle talk of a Best Picture nomination for Iron Man 2, but beyond that, not much...though it's interesting to take note of.
-Thoughts on the early reviews for Iron Man 2?


  1. It certainly does sound mixed. Fans seem to be happy but critics disappointed. Opens tomorrow here in Australia so I'll check it out and offer my two cents on it :)

  2. More or less. As a movie, it's fine, but as a sequel to Iron Man, it seems to be mildly lacking.

  3. I think the bar was set really high with the first one--and the trailers are so well-made--that people had really high expectations. Im sure it will be a great time, but saying that it is good, it just isn't as good as the first doesnt bother me that much. Im sure I'll still like it.

  4. I expected a drop off, because honestly, Iron Man is one of the best superhero movies out there. They don't just do that again.

    That being said, I'm sure I'll enjoy this one as well.

  5. I saw the film Tuesday night at the early screening at the Alamo Drafthouse. Honestly, I've got to come out and say it. The movie is so damn awesome it's hard to explain. I would say that the only thing missing is simply the novelty of the first, but that's not to say it's inferior to the first film at all. In fact, it feels like a much more confident and assured from a story-telling standpoint. The acting, writing, and direction are all top notch, and the action scenes are a huge step above the first film. Lastly, I will say that while the first film faltered and fizzed out a little in the lact act, the final act of Iron Man 2 is probably my favorite part of the whole film.

    Bottom line, it's just awesome. See it!

  6. Excellent to know.

    I doubt the less than unanimous praise from critics will hurt it any at the box office, and I'm anticipating it being very good. I think you hit on something...the novelty. Instead of being surprised at how good Iron Man was, you're now expecting Iron Man 2 to be good, so that's always iffy.

  7. Pretty much. Iron Man was a surprise hit with critics and audiences alike. This one has more expectations riding on it. I think the critics all were just longing for that same spark, but like all things like this, capturing the same lightning twice is difficult. The good news is that it's far more successful at this than 99% of sequels. Unlike Pirates 2 and 3, which tried too hard and just came off as kind of imitating and somewhat parodying the great aspects of the first film, Iron Man 2 succeeds in that Robert Downey Jr is still great, as is the whole returning cast. Rourke makes for one hell of a villain. I feel the film will play slightly better to people at least somewhat clued into the comics and characters, as some critics have cited the use of Nick Fury as a way to help the story along as well as set up The Avengers more as one of their problems. As a fan of the comics and such, I found this actually worked in the film's favor.

  8. Well, that's good to know.

    I'll report back next week once I've seen it...

  9. Just saw it. Personally I found the film to be a bit disappointing. It's just pretty much the same experience as the first. Plot is thin. Thinking back I'd have a hard time explaining what the plot was. There's really no journey for any characters that we didn't get in the first. Just Tony Stark struggling with a lot of the same issues again.

    The film doesn't ever really get boring, but it really falters in rarely giving its audience something to be excited about. There was a surprising lack of action, the finale being far shorter and less epic than one might have hoped for. In a first film, this is totally acceptable cos we're learning characters, we don't need action. In a sequel we expect bigger and better, more action, more excitement and new kinds of character development.

    To its credit, it's still very, very funny. RDJ still has it. And it's not a bad film, not by any measure, it's just not a great one. It sustained my interest but didn't offer anything I didn't already get out of the first. Rourke would have been awesome had they given him more to do.

    On the whole, it was a decent enough movie experience, but in a sequel, you really expect the stakes to be raised and I felt they just pretty much stayed the same.


    On a side note... Scarlett Johannson, yes, yes yes. :D

  10. That seems to be what a lot of people are saying.

  11. I felt like the stakes were raised as the film really took Stark to a new low point. He really hits rock bottom in the film, much more so than the first, which more chronicles his epiphany/wake-up call to the shit happening out there in the world that he is essentially responsible for creating. The idea is that, despite the fact that he has effectively scared off any real conflict in the world, he's created a monster in the Iron Man technology that people still want. I found it a much more thoughtful exploration of the politics of arms races than the first film, and Stark's character arc was extremely compelling. Plus, the two villains this time around, Vanko and Hammer, especially Vanko, are far more dangerous and threatening than Stane was in Iron Man. This is made especially effective by the quiet yet scary as shit performance from Mickey Rourke, who makes Vanko someone you do NOT want to fuck with.

    The more I think about the film, the more I love it, to be honest. I really love where they took the story and the characters this time around.

  12. I do hear very good things about Rourke.