Iron Man 2: Grading, Review, Discussion **SPOILERS**

[Samurai8472]

I think i'm going to hold off on buying the blu-ray and wait for "Inceptions" blu-ray release.

Plus Iron Man 2 doesn't have that repeat viewing feeling unlike "Inception"

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I loved Inception. However, repeat viewings of that film don't really appeal to me, unless I am with someone who hasn't seen it. The emotions of the film feel less important upon repeat viewings than the films tricky structure. all repeat viewings would compel someone to do is to analyze that structure!

[JacksonArcher]

Samurai8472 wrote:

---

I think i'm going to hold off on buying the blu-ray and wait for "Inceptions" blu-ray release.

Plus Iron Man 2 doesn't have that repeat viewing feeling unlike "Inception"

Agreed. I'll buy Inception on Blu-Ray but definitely not Iron Man 2.

[Captain Craig]

Inception was a good movie I doubt anyone would argue that. It's one of those movies that like say Sixth Sense, once the reveal or twist is figured out it looses alot of the rewatchability.

Iron Man 2 is still escapist fun. I contend that its a film that the more you watch it the better it gets. It's 'flaws' aren't that bad as many would contest. Even years later people here have said Spidey 3 or Temple of Doom isn't "as bad as they originally percieved it". I'm already in the 'its not a bad film camp' so yeah me.

[JacksonArcher]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

Inception was a good movie I doubt anyone would argue that. It's one of those movies that like say Sixth Sense, once the reveal or twist is figured out it looses alot of the rewatchability.

I don't agree with that at all. What "twist" are you referring to? I don't remember seeing any "twist" and I've seen the movie three times. I would argue that the film has a lot of rewatchability because I learned more from the film the more I saw it. It was a very dense movie with a lot of layers. Watching it again and again was like peeling back a new layer and discovering something I hadn't discovered or realized before.

Iron Man 2 is still escapist fun. I contend that its a film that the more you watch it the better it gets. It's 'flaws' aren't that bad as many would contest. Even years later people here have said Spidey 3 or Temple of Doom isn't "as bad as they originally percieved it". I'm already in the 'its not a bad film camp' so yeah me.

I've seen the film twice and I have no desire to see it again. It's not a bad film by any means but it's a big disappointment and letdown especially after the first film which was so good. I would say the film is mediocre, on par with Daredevil or Ghost Rider but maybe a little better because it has the presence of Robert Downey Jr., which is the film's saving grace but not even him can inject the film with enough cleverness to make it that good. It's very dumb escapist fun, but it wasn't the clever type of entertaining escapist fun that the first movie was. Also, I still hate Spider-Man 3 and I never liked Temple of Doom, even though I'd rather sit through that movie than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull again.

[Admiral_Young]

There is no twist to "Inception" it's a pretty straight forward movie that explains it's self if you payed attention to it. "Iron Man 2" while fun was really disappointing and suffers from many of the same problems that "Spider-Man 3" did that being said I will most likely rent the movie. It's not a must buy...oh and to respond to Anwar...no the movie would have not worked better had it ended on a cliffhanger.

[Captain Craig]

^^^
I used twist I suppose as synonomous with reveal. Sorry for any confusion guys. Maybe if I see it more times I'll agree with the layers aspect. I just don't feel inclined to at this moment.

I would place IM:2 a notch above Ghost Rider and theatrical DD. Directors cut DD though its a tough call.

[JacksonArcher]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

There is no twist to "Inception" it's a pretty straight forward movie that explains it's self if you payed attention to it. "Iron Man 2" while fun was really disappointing and suffers from many of the same problems that "Spider-Man 3" did that being said I will most likely rent the movie. It's not a must buy...oh and to respond to Anwar...no the movie would have not worked better had it ended on a cliffhanger.

Exactly. Inception is a very straight-forward film that unfolds as you watch it, but there's not a "gotcha!" or "surprise!" moment in the film and for the most part the story is pretty linear. I would agree that Iron Man 2 suffered from some of the same problems as Spider-Man 3, primarily the "too many characters" element. Whiplash did practically nothing for most of the movie and Justin Hammer was not even remotely threatening or convincing as a villain.

The "Tony is dying" arc was unsatisfactory and was deflated way too early into the story when the filmmakers had no idea how to convincingly find a resolution. There's something seriously wrong when your film's single most thematically convincing and emotionally resonating moment is when a character is watching a 16mm reel of film.

[Samurai8472]

I guess I wanted more substance. Like someone said it was a 2 hour escapist movie that you'll hardly go back and rewatch again.

Whereas the first Iron Man I still get a kick out of re-watching Tony discover and work on things

[Admiral_Young]

I hope people don't bring up the Demon in a Bottle storyline because even that wouldn't have saved this movie. I think it would have been more interesting had Hammer been the sole villain and been written more sinister and not just a carbon copy of Tony who was jealous of his successes. I would even go so far to reveal that Justin is a pawn of the Mandarin and Ten Rings but that's just me.

[Captain Craig]

If Justin had been more sinister he would've quickly been pegged as Stane 2.0. Not saying he couldn't have come across more threatning just the Stane parallel would've jumped out at you. Then criticism would be that IM:2 is a rahash of the first straight up.

They should've made at least one obvious tie in with the 10 rings. Yes, I know the credits sequence and Favs tell us that Vanko gets his Monacco tickets/connections cause of them but it wasn't apparent. It should've been, at least once.

[Admiral_Young]

I agree that the Ten Rings should have been followed up on in the movie. If that would be an audiences perception then perhaps even Hammer wasn't the right character to use. I think the villains suffered from a weak script and shoddy motivations from from the get go in the movie. Sam Rockwell and Mickey Rourke's talents were wasted. I never felt any real threat from either of them to be honest. The tie in with Ivan's father and Tony's didn't really work and wasn't followed up on at all.

[Samurai8472]

There were too many "fan moments" things to setup the Avengers movie. Only people that watched the after credits scene would know about Sam Jackson.

Then in the second movie it feels like the audience SHOULD KNOW about Fury even though they probably never saw the end credits scene.

There were things for the fans that the general audience wouldn't understand.

[Admiral_Young]

The "Avengers" set up moments were a small reason why this film was lacking what the first one had. I really do believe that the script was weak and ineffectual. The pacing of the film was slow in spots and dragged on.

[RoJoHen]

I enjoyed it a lot when I saw it, but I have to admit that the villain sucked. I'll probably buy the Blu-Ray for the sake of completion, and I will hope that the next film is awesome enough to justify it.