• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

For Pete's Sake, People, Iron Man 2 was a Good Movie

I don't get how people keeping arguing that "Iron Man 2" being a set up for the "Avengers" was the thing that hurt the film. I disagree with that as well. The elements that would pertain to the "Avengers" would be the introduction of 'Tasha which again I think was one of the film highlights, the Captain America shield joke, the scenes with Nick Fury which actually helped I thought to steam roll the plot along, must be something else I'm missing here too. "Iron Man 2" just had a whole lot going on and tried to be too many things at once.
 
I realize you're poking fun, but it wouldn't be hard to reverse this:

BB tells the story of a tortured man who struggles with the tragedy of his parents' deaths while he trains himself to become a weapon to prevent similar tragedies. This pushes him to the point where he realizes he has to sacrifice everything to prevent his city from delving into madness.

I'll take that over, rich prick pisses off everyone while slowly dying due to turning himself into a key component of a weapon, which is copied by his enemies who he has to defeat in the middle of a crowded venue where, luckily casualties are kept to a minimum despite a major battle occurring all around them.
I hear you on the casualties front, but the difference for me is RDJ's Stark is an immensely charming and interesting character, whereas Bale's Wayne is dull and underwritten (I can't imagine losing my parents like he did, but to have it shape his entire teenage life just wasn't adequately explained). Winner: goofy movie with fun hero. :p

I guess it's all dependent on what type of movie you want to watch. It's like saying Airplane! is a better movie than Citizen Kane because it's fun.

The point of Batman is that Bruce Wayne becomes the mask. Hell, Alfred even needs to teach him how to be human in the first movie. But you don't watch a Batman movie for Bruce Wayne.

I guess I'm just confused as to why you are trying to compare the movies. I think they're all great movies, but the truth is, when I'm in the mood for a more serious movie, I'll pop in a Nolav Batman movie and when I want a fun, goofy movie, I'll pop in one of the Iron Man movies.
 
Ok, for Pete's sake i'll agree. Who's Pete?:p I do agree though, IronMan A+, IronMan2 B+. I liked Transformes 2 also, Tranformers A, Transformers 2 C+/B-. I don't have much of a problem with IronMan 2 at all, it just seemed a little cluttered. I loved the suitcases Armor.
 
^ Will agree with the suitcase armor. Favs found a way to make that work. The theater I saw it in started clapping.
 
Sam Rockwell was a complete waste as Justin Hammer. I felt no threat whatsoever from him, he was an unnecessary comedic element and the attempt to make him a kind of shadow of Tony Stark was I think the wrong way to go with the character.

He would have been fine if they just renamed him "Edwin Cord." ;)

Seriously, am I the only one who compared him to Cord?
 
Sam Rockwell was a complete waste as Justin Hammer. I felt no threat whatsoever from him, he was an unnecessary comedic element and the attempt to make him a kind of shadow of Tony Stark was I think the wrong way to go with the character.

He would have been fine if they just renamed him "Edwin Cord." ;)

Seriously, am I the only one who compared him to Cord?

Yes. Well. Maybe. Yes.

Until I just looked him up, I had never heard of Edwin Cord.
 
Sounds like this along with the Ultimate version of Justin Hammer youth wise are what this version of Hammer was based on. I'd never heard of Cord either.
 
Sounds like this along with the Ultimate version of Justin Hammer youth wise are what this version of Hammer was based on. I'd never heard of Cord either.

That said, I had never heard of Hammer either.

They could have named Rockwell's character Mr. Donuts really... He was just a generic corporate villain anyway.
 
Sam Rockwell was a complete waste as Justin Hammer. I felt no threat whatsoever from him, he was an unnecessary comedic element and the attempt to make him a kind of shadow of Tony Stark was I think the wrong way to go with the character.

He would have been fine if they just renamed him "Edwin Cord." ;)

Seriously, am I the only one who compared him to Cord?

Yes. Well. Maybe. Yes.

Until I just looked him up, I had never heard of Edwin Cord.

Sounds like this along with the Ultimate version of Justin Hammer youth wise are what this version of Hammer was based on. I'd never heard of Cord either.

:(
 
I agree Justin Hammer was useless. A poorly written character who really posed no threat to IM in any way. In fact his character could have been eliminated completely from the movie and been replaced by the Senator character at every point in the story. You would only have needed to change the ending a bit. Instead of getting arrested like Hammer he escapes and while pinning the medal on Stark he whispers to him that this isnt over yet.
 
I find IM2 to be a decent movie, FWIW. Like others have said, it's not anywhere near the quality of the first one, but that doesn't in anyway mean it sucked as others so eloquently put it.

I will also agree the movie's biggest problem was the Fury/Avengers stuff, which detracts from the A Plot (Hammer/Vanko). Without changing the movie drastically, I don't know how you could remove that stuff, but I found that it slowed the movie down tremendously. I also think the Tony/Rhodey fight lacked some of the gravitas it should have had... maybe save that plot for a 3rd movie? If the plot necessitates War Machine, you could still have Rhodey get the suit just by going to the basement and then simply flying away with it at some point.

However, there were some excellent individual pieces and scenes that ultimately make the film worth it. As others have noted, the performances across the board are good to great, no one is phoning it in, IMHO. RDJ and Rourke both in particular stand out. The entire Monaco sequence is incredible, up there with the genre's best. As others have noted, the ScarJo fight in the hallway is fun for multiple reasons :drool:. I also really enjoyed both sequences with Garry Shandling's Senator Stern. The first sequence more for RDJ, but his line at the end about "how annoying a little prick can be" makes me LOL every time I see it. great delivery and build up.

Ultimately, no, I haven't and probably won't ever revisit this one as often as IM1, but that doesn't mean it's bad. I would give IM1 a solid A (really close to A+), one of the genre's 5 best ever... and IM2 would get a B or B-. For me, it's on the same level as X-Men 1, Superman 2, and The Incredible Hulk. Watchable and fun, many worthwhile ideas and/or scenes, but not a classic.
 
Last edited:
(Just a little rant inspired by many things, including io9 recently putting IM2 on their "worst of" sci-fi list when "Predators" made the best") :p



Why is IM2 a good movie? Glad you asked...


The Script/Story

IM2 tells the story of how Tony's self-imposed social isolation becomes too much for his body to handle as the only Iron Man, and how, with the help of some cooler heads, he regains his mojo just in time to prevent a psychotic and an amoral arms dealer from proliferating WMD-like technology and killing the one woman who sees him for his potential inner worth.

Yeah, I'll take that over "rich douchebag with a tank but nothing to say fights a guy planning to infect a city's water supply with hallucinogens with a magic microwave that'll boil the water but not people's bodies" any day. :p


The Cast

Let's get one thing straight: IM2 isn't the Keanu-tastic Matrix sequels or even X3, where apart from Jackman, you're saddled with Kelsey Grammar and Halle Berry at their most tedious, and need a razor-sharp, first-rate script to stay afloat. No, the pairing of the always awesome RDJ with the awesome-with-RDJ Paltrow inherently elevates this sequel to memorability. And no, that's not to be taken for granted.

Moreover, you get Mickey Rourke as a crazy, tattooed Russian, Sam Rockwell at his kookiest (dropping a James Joyce reference!), Samuel L. Jackson with an eyepatch, and ScarJo in tight leather, to say nothing of Cheadle, that senatordude and the legendary Coulson. I call that an embarassmeant of riches

This movie, like The Wolfman (but more so), pretty much succeeds on the strength of its cast alone.


A Sense of History

How often does a superhero movie engage with history in any meaninful (let alone interesting) way? To most tentpole pics, "history" either refers to strictly personal family history (an anecdote or two of Aunt May's about Uncle Ben), or total bullshit (an alien robot frozen inside the Hoover Dam). IM2, however, gives us plot points integrally tied to the post-War economic and technological boom, the military-industrial complex, the Cold War and World's Fairs, with hints of Disneyesque Americana and the inherited weakness for alcoholism. Even its outlandish present (North Korea building WMDs) engages with reality rather than ignoring it in favor of some urban decay fantasy (The Dark Knight and its preposterously powerful mobs) or random/anonymous shiny city (Superman Returns, Tron).

This, folks, is that rare gem: a blockbuster with brains.


Avengers Stuff: Tease?

Lots of IM2 complaints have centered upon the Avengers material, calling it superfluous to the movie's story and mere shilling for the upcoming Avengers movie. Both points are crap

First, the notion that the Fury/Black Widow scenes aren't important to the plot. This is the first time since college that Tony has had cause to look up to anyone as any kind of authority figure, and they represent the first group (apart from the Taliban, naturally) that hasn't welcomed him with open arms in his whole life. When Tony sees how close the Avengers are coming to muscling him out of Stark Industries via the Pepper-Widow business alliance, he's inspired to get his act together and grow up a bit. Fury thus doesn't just advance the plot, he helps our protagonist mature. Take out the Avengers scenes and you've got a much flimsier story - unlike the Gambit/Blob/Electric Hobbit stuff in Wolverine, which was mere plot filler.

With this in mind, as for the notion that those bits are building to the Avengers movie: so the heck what? What Marvel is doing with this shared cinematic universe of theirs is literally unparalleled in more than a century of film history. It's innovative and exciting, and even if the Avengers movie falls flat on its face, isn't it more admirable to have too much artistic ambition than too little? The vast majority of superhero movies are still designed to inhabit one isolated franchise, and I therefore frankly welcome something different


The Action

It was pretty damn cool. Also, ScarJo in tight black leather instantly invalidates any and all possible conflations of this and Spider-Man 3. :devil:


Not Perfect

Granted, IM2 wasn't perfect. I would have liked to see Sen. Stearns identified as a Republican, Tony's poisoned veins healed way too quickly twice, Happy and Pepper driving against the race traffic was as dumb as the bronto chase in PJ's Kong (albeit far, far shorter), and the suitcase suit would have worked better as a skeletal frame similar to Vanko's suit. But these are minor quibbles


Conclusion: enough with the whinging. Iron Man 2 was a damn fine flick. :bolian:

YESSSSSSS!!!!!! I agree 1000%.:techman::)
 
I'm sorry...I'd really like to agree with you for once Gaith but I have to respectfully disagree.
Someday, Admiral... someday. :p

I think they're all great movies, but the truth is, when I'm in the mood for a more serious movie, I'll pop in a Nolav Batman movie and when I want a fun, goofy movie, I'll pop in one of the Iron Man movies.
Well, I think Batman Begins is about as serious as Zombieland, so... ;)

A Sense of History

How often does a superhero movie engage with history in any meaninful (let alone interesting) way? To most tentpole pics, "history" either refers to strictly personal family history (an anecdote or two of Aunt May's about Uncle Ben), or total bullshit (an alien robot frozen inside the Hoover Dam). IM2, however, gives us plot points integrally tied to the post-War economic and technological boom, the military-industrial complex, the Cold War and World's Fairs, with hints of Disneyesque Americana and the inherited weakness for alcoholism. Even its outlandish present (North Korea building WMDs) engages with reality rather than ignoring it in favor of some urban decay fantasy (The Dark Knight and its preposterously powerful mobs) or random/anonymous shiny city (Superman Returns, Tron).

This, folks, is that rare gem: a blockbuster with brains.
Yes, the movie does pull all of that together nicely, but it isn't necessary. But, I fail to see why it makes it superior over other movies. Some movies are grander in scale and others are more toned down. Neither necessarily makes the movie better or worse.
Well, call me a history nerd, but I think that a movie's brains and overall quality often go hand in hand, and whereas, say, Batman Begins is a pretty dumb movie with nothing to say, IM2 is a pretty smart movie that says a lot about the past and present.

I agree Justin Hammer was useless. A poorly written character who really posed no threat to IM in any way. In fact his character could have been eliminated completely from the movie and been replaced by the Senator character at every point in the story.
Nope. By mirroring Tony in many ways (occupation, trying to seduce the reporter), he helped Tony see not only how amoral he used to be before his capture, but also how shallow he used to be... thus playing another part in Tony's maturation. Just because no one ever said this onscreen doesn't mean that's not what they were going for, and it totally works, imo.
 
I agree Justin Hammer was useless. A poorly written character who really posed no threat to IM in any way. In fact his character could have been eliminated completely from the movie and been replaced by the Senator character at every point in the story.
Nope. By mirroring Tony in many ways (occupation, trying to seduce the reporter), he helped Tony see not only how amoral he used to be before his capture, but also how shallow he used to be... thus playing another part in Tony's maturation. Just because no one ever said this onscreen doesn't mean that's not what they were going for, and it totally works, imo.

Justin Hammer, at least the 616 version, was supposed to be more like the Byrne-era Lex Luthor. A billionaire who's untouchable in a lot of ways. The hero can thwart him, but can't really defeat him because he's too rich, too shadowy and too smart.

Too bad no one remembers Edwin Cord. An industrialist who was in direct competition with Stark and who wanted to prove he was better... and wasn't. He built various suits of powered armor, got involved in nefarious dealings to beat Stark, and finally went down in flames. The character in the movie was tailor-made for this. And playing him as Tony's "mirror" would have given some depth to Cord and improved him over the comics version. Sure beats committing character assassination on a Justin Hammer who shouldn't have been there.
 
Sure beats committing character assassination on a Justin Hammer who shouldn't have been there.

Is it really character assassination if no one has heard of either Cord or Hammer?

And the Russian guy was a mixture of character too, was that character assassination?

Hammer and Cord aren't like Lex Luthor known. I read comics for years, not a lot of Iron Man, true, but I had never heard of those two.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top