Iron Man 2

Angrist · 05-03-2010, 07:10 AM

Yaay, we finally get something before America.

But even I think that's weird...

Ginkasa · 05-05-2010, 04:41 AM

I saw this. It was good. The reviews are kind of true, but I think they're being a little harsh. There are a few scenes that sort of feel unnecessary or poorly done, but most of the movie is pretty good.

And the parts that aren't that great aren't really bad, they just sort of feel like more could be done with them. Sam Rockwell's character is sort of wasted. I like Sam Rockwell and he did well with what he had. I just think he was extraneous. A few other things, but again, not deal breakers. Its just not quite as amazing as the first one.

Fox 6 · 05-09-2010, 12:02 AM

Saw it. It was pretty decent. I'm actually here with combine and swan in the theatre right now, waiting for the credits to finish cus there is something you should see

Teuthida · 05-10-2010, 08:53 AM

Heh, funny they take into account my local subway line at the end. I'd be more forgiving of the horrible service if the delays were due to battling robots.

KillerGremlin · 05-10-2010, 07:45 PM

I LIKED IRON MAN 2. IT WAS GOOD. THE WRITING AND FLOW OF THE PLOT COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER BUT ROBERT DOWNEY JR. IS GOOD ACTING.

Also, Scarlett Johansson is fine.

Vampyr · 05-10-2010, 10:20 PM

I saw it tonight. I didn't much care for it - the movie was all over the place, Stark/Iron-Man was much less likable, and there were too many facepalm moments.

"This new element will solve your problem, unfortunately it cannot be made."

*Tony makes it*

Overall not a -bad- movie, just such a disappointment after the first one.

Swan · 05-10-2010, 10:41 PM

Drunk Iron Man was great.

And Scarlett Johanssen has a very nice bottom

KillerGremlin · 05-10-2010, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I saw it tonight. I didn't much care for it - the movie was all over the place, Stark/Iron-Man was much less likable, and there were too many facepalm moments.

"This new element will solve your problem, unfortunately it cannot be made."

*Tony makes it*

Overall not a -bad- movie, just such a disappointment after the first one.

I agree, this scene and the chain of events leading up to it was cheesey and dumb.

Since Iron Man 2 bucked the trend (where the sequel is better than the original for comic movies) I'll offer my theory why. It's actually the same theory for why I feel that the sequel usually is better than the original:

Iron Man 2 was basically an intro/origins movie for War Machine and Justin Hammer. It was also an origins/intro movie for Stark's alcoholism, unless I missed that from the first movie. And an intro/origin for more SHIELD stuff which is building to the inevitable (its in these actor's contracts) and inevitably awful Avengers movie.

On the other hand, Iron Man 2 featured a rockin' cast. Mickey Rourke was awesome and looked awesome, and Sam Rockwell is one of my favorite actors period. And Sam Jackson does a decent Nick Fury as far as Hollywood goes. So sure, the movie was less than perfect and it had a little bit of Spiderman 3 syndrome, but it wasn't an emo mess and it didn't bastardize the Venom story so it is all good by me.

I STILL LIKE IT.

Xantar · 05-18-2010, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I saw it tonight. I didn't much care for it - the movie was all over the place, Stark/Iron-Man was much less likable, and there were too many facepalm moments.

"This new element will solve your problem, unfortunately it cannot be made."

*Tony makes it*

Overall not a -bad- movie, just such a disappointment after the first one.

We can stop blocking spoilers now, right? Besides, this one isn't that big a spoiler.

The creation of the new element was complete bullpucky. He makes the element based on a diagram laid out in his father's plan for a city. The problem is the diagram clearly isn't an element. It's a molecule. You can tell because the picture of the "element" isn't a bunch of stuff orbiting a nucleus but is instead a bunch of particles linked to each other. And there's a huge difference. Creating a new element is nuclear physics and is really hard. Creating a new molecule is chemistry and is comparatively easy (hundreds of new molecules are put together every year).

I know that's scientific nitpicking, but it annoyed me because it was so unnecessary. They could have just said "you must forge a new metal" or "you must synthesize a new alloy." There are lots of molecular structures that existed only in theory back in the 60s that we can now create today because of technological advances.

Oh and also, listen to Nerds on the Rocks. We talk about a lot of this.[/plug]

KillerGremlin · 05-18-2010, 06:37 PM

I was just showering, and I do most of my thinking in the shower....

Why did they recast Rhodey?

First off, what happened to Terrence Howard? Did he punch someone on set in the face? Did he want too much money? WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS SUPERIOR SIDEKICK!!!???

Second, why recast Don Cheadle who had zero chemistry and sucks ass as Rhodey?

I know...I know....it's probably all about the money, and the contracts, and the inevitable Avengers flick.

But the more I think about it, the more I think the whole War Machine origin story was horribly thrown together in Iron Man 2. I mean it sucked ass. Oh, Tony is drunk and dropping number 2s in his suit! Okay, well I guess I'm going to break into his workspace and steal the armor! And fight him! And somehow beat him! I mean what the fuck, that was just lame.

Why couldn't they have just taken the high road and left Don Cheadle, Rhodey, and War Machine out of the Iron Man sequel. Seriously, it would have worked with just Iron Man. The only reason people are watching these films is because of Robert Downey Jr. anyway.

I'm actually kind of upset the more I consider this alternate possibility they could have taken.