SOUND OFF

1

The first one wasn't great and this one fared much much much worse. Zero time to spend with new or old characters and confusing pointless action sequences. Aggravated and a annoyed with Robert Downey jr. at this point. I wanted a lot more depth from him but there was none to be found. Too much plot and action. Typical of paramount big budget trash. Not good. Actually the whole thing was very forgettable.

Linkfx on May 7, 2010

2

Im 100% with you on this one Alex... this was a filler.

bltzie on May 7, 2010

3

I loved the first one and I thought the second one was just as good, it was alot funnier than the second one, Tony Stark is even more arrogant its hilarious! I didn't think the action sequences were as good as the first one though. Still really enjoyable and obviously not to be taken too seriously (unlike comment 1) because its not supposed to a serious movie its supposed to fun and entertaining which is exactly what it is.

Ian on May 7, 2010

4

I think the sequel is in par with the first one. Robert Downey Jr. was and still is the casting coup, although he was on a thin red line to overact this time, but hey, it’s still a comic movie. Lighter in tone than Batman, much better plot, characters and action than Fantastic Four (not to mention the actors). I had great fun in front of the big screen. So, let’s see what Thor will be, and especially Captain America - in my opinion the most delicate character to adapt for a movie.

Frank on May 7, 2010

5

Don't give me that crap about not meant to be taken seriously. Any movie that has key serious dramatic moments like that(no spoilers) is trying to build tension. Sure it's also trying to be fun, but it is definitely wanting you to take it seriously. It just failed at it.

Linkfx on May 7, 2010

6

Also, Terrence Howard is way better about Rhodes than Don Cheadle. I liked Don Cheadle until I saw Traitor. Now I hate every performance he's in retroactively, that movie was so bad and he was so brutally unconvincing that it has tainted him. I know why Howard isn't in this one, still they should have paid him the money no matter what so we didn't have to be punihsed with don cheadle.

Linkfx on May 7, 2010

7

going to see it on my lunch break

Trey M on May 7, 2010

8

I hate to say it but I am not expecting a whole lot from this movie besides the entertainment factor. I am waiting a couple of weeks to see this at the IMAX, due to terrible theater experiences with the younger crowd not knowing how to shut their mouths (even with all the commercials before the movie regarding this annoyance) when trying to enjoy anything movie theater related. (I remember reading and commenting on a similar blog on Firstshowing.) Unfortunately by then I will probably know exactly how the movie plays out, but what the hell the studios have ruined any chance of enjoying any movies now-a-days ever since they raised the price of tickets and of course you can't even afford the basic bucket of popcorn without chopping off your arm to pay for it. Let's just hope "The Avengers" can make up for all of Hollywood's hurry up lets make this movie as fast as we can without trying to recreate something that makes the audience draw drop and wanting more.

Cameron on May 7, 2010

9

terrence howard is war machine. thank you

Have Hope on May 7, 2010

10

omg. Why is it that every movie that comes out all you guys do is rip it to shreds, just because it doesn't reflect good cinema, from what you think it is. Just because you don't think the movie is changing YOUR views on life or making YOU think doesn't mean you have to come on here and rip it apart for no apparent reason. Watch the movie. Enjoy yourself.

nighthawk 352 on May 7, 2010

11

o and btw the movie was AMAZINGGGGG

nighthawk 352 on May 7, 2010

12

Couldn't agree with nighthawk 352 more. It really doesn't take itself particuarly seriously. Slightly too quick at points (it never really slows down) but the acting talent on display is very very awesome. Very.

dude... on May 7, 2010

13

Can't wait till all the hipster critics rip this to shreds as a comic fan I heavily enjoyed it if your going to see it stay after the credits.Also the stan lee cameo in this was pretty funny.

Sofa-king-we-tawd-ed on May 7, 2010

14

the action in the first one wasn't that great. The action in 2 is way better (choreographed by Genndy Tartakovsky.!) Rourke was good. Rockwell was GREAT.. Black Widow was kinda awesome. I'm amazed that people don't think this is as good as the first one. I thought it was definitely an improvement in every way.

Ballyhoo on May 7, 2010

15

I have to say that this movie was enjoyable to a point. If you follow comics at all, you know that Tony Stark let's the fame of being Iron Man get to his head. That's what this movie was trying to accomplish. The introduction of Ivan Danko (since he's never called "Whiplash") was good, but then his character development was wasted being Justin Hammer's (played magnificently by Sam Rockwell) lapdog. Don Cheadle was very enjoyable as Terrance Howard's replacement as James Rhodes; even better as War Machine. Just could have been a little bit more thought out in the finale. It felt a bit rushed. Supporting cast was not too bad either. The dynamic between Downey's Stark and Gwenyth Paltrow's Pepper Potts was awkward at times, but that's the way the relationship is. I was not thrilled about Samuel L Jackson in this film. But it's SLJ, right? A couple of easter eggs thrown in helped push the whole "Avengers" thing into becoming a reality. The action sequences were good for the most part. It could have been better if it was less CGI. And did anyone notice how bad Rourke looked at the end in the "Whip-monger" (yeah, I'm definitely calling it that, as it was basically the Warmonger from IM1 with whips on it)?? It was as if they ran out of money and said "let's Photoshop his head on there, filmgoers won't notice." Well, this film is getting a 3.75 out of 5 stars from me.

Mel on May 7, 2010

16

Saw a midnight show last night. Was going in expecting it to not live up to the expectations of the first one. Was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be pretty much just as good. Rourke was awesome. Rockwell was cool in a bumbling bad guy way. Downey Jr. was slaying people with one liners. Overall it was pretty great. I have no real complaints to be honest. Oh, don't forget to stick around after the credits.

Stevo on May 7, 2010

17

BLOATED. The best scene was in the first 30 mins of the movie. Mickey Rourke didn't have enough screen time.

Mikel on May 7, 2010

18

I'm sick of these ignorant little kids who have been so barinwashed by mass media, horrible education, drugs and terrible Saturday morning cartoons that their entire generation is basically "a bad batch". You know what, young'n? If I didn't like a movie, I'm going to say so! This movie didn't do it for me, I love Robert Downey Jr. and Mickey Rourke(and I remember Mickey Rourke back when he was in Body Heat)...and I love a great popcorn movie where I can shut my brain off(to a certain extent, like with The Losers) but make no mistake, this movie was made by marketing executives trying to cash in on the first one as best they could. You all should demand more from your entertainment, or Paramount and every other company out there is going to continue to sell you shit and tell you it's gold. This movie is just like the transformer films...it was too fast, too illogical and not enough character development. Jon Favreu obviously isn't an action director. No amount of whiz bang vfx could save this film.

Linkfx on May 7, 2010

19

*brainwashed, correction. Comic book movies shouldn't pander. Dark Knight was a great example of how to make an intelligent film that also had big brass entertaining balls.

Linkfx on May 7, 2010

20

You guys are the same ones who are ruining star wars because you liked the new trilogy and aren't even aware of the original one. You think that's impossible? I live with two kids who are huge new trilogy fans completely unaware of the death star...

Linkfx on May 7, 2010

21

[spoiler alert, tried to avoid them but there's still a few] Personally I thought the first hour or so was amazing, it really set up for an awesome movie. Everything was perfect, the acting was great, and it walked the line between serious and hillarious. Unfortunately I thought the rest of the movie was a major let down, starting with the drunk brawl between Spoiler1 and Spoiler2, a scene which could have been brilliant, if not for the awful soundtrack. They decided to go for an easy deus ex machina fix for the Paladium issue and then had a final "climactic" battle with Micky Rourke which lasted about 40 seconds, after all the time they spent fighting all those (far less interesting) drones. It went from amazing to okay pretty fast, and settled somewhere around "pretty good" a disappoinment when the first act promised so much more. Also, it struck me that the Avengers thing might be a little hard to follow if you're not initiated with the rest of the Marvel universe. Still worth seeing, it's still great fun and massively entertaining, it just could have been better.

Square Shaped Softness on May 7, 2010

22

Square Shaped Softness, I agree with your criticisms. Good points.

Linkfx on May 7, 2010

23

Wha??????!! Why is everyone hating on the movie??! Iron man 1 and 2 is the best superhero franchise to come out of the Marvel Superheros lineup so far!! At least for now....unless Thor and The Avengers can prove otherwise. Robert Downey as usual lives up to the name of Tony Stark and the plot for the first Iron man blew me away with its "realness" and snarkiness at the same time. Of course, i must say that the visual effects and the fantastic CGI of the Iron Man costume plays a part in making this franchise such a hit. Iron man 1 was f***** awesome and this sequel was just as good, if not better, simply because the cast of Mickey Rourke, Scarlette as The Black Widow who was smoking by the way and funnyman Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer all did stellar performances and added more oomph! to this sequel. Come on, what else are you guys expecting??? Surely Spiderman and Xmen couldn't match up to this! Although i can't say it can surpass Dark Knight..

monleo on May 7, 2010

24

But i must say the only let down of the movie was Don Cheadle for the Rhodey character. HELLOO!!!!! That dude is way older and not cooler than Terence Howard the man! Terence would have been perfect and he and Robert had great chemistry!! Watching Don as War Machine made me feel awkward.

monleo on May 7, 2010

25

Don Cheadle is War Machine!

WTF on May 7, 2010

26

I don't see the point of avoiding spoilers here. This article is about people discussing why the movie was good or bad, so, the original assumption is that we all saw it! So, based on that and with a lot of "spoilers" included: 1. The first Iron Man is great. It has an element of simplicity within it and that makes it very very funny, without any moment of philosophical-super-heroe-complexity like The Dark Knight. It's such a fun ride with great performances and a cool story. Iron Man 2, on the other hand, is kinda dull and it lacks of the charm of the first. 2. The characters have some cool scenes, but overall, I felt like everyone was sleeping throughout the entire first hour. Too much seriousness from Don Cheadle, Gwyneth Paltrow and from Downey himself. 3. The second part was full of action but nothing extraordinary. 4. The drunken scene?? it was worthy?? really?? The Tony Stark character has some problems with the bottle, but it could have been treated some way different... 5. The soundtrack is an ac/dc greatest hits album!! come on! put some effort in it!! 6. Scarlett... oh my god... she looks incredible!!!!! Damn you Ryan Reynolds!!! 7. Thor Hammer: yeah! if you go again to see the movie, stay until the very end after the credits if you didn't catch it the first time. 8. The villain (Whiplash) was just decent, not great, just decent. 9. Sam Jackson, he plays... well... Sam Jackson... perfectly!! 10. The part of the captain's shield was very funny! And well... I think that's pretty much it. Anyway, in spite of all, this movie is the "flavor of the month", so you have to see it...

leinergroove on May 7, 2010

27

A bridge film to the Avengers. That's all this film is...nothing more or less. It could've and should've been better than the first.

Cory on May 7, 2010

28

Haven't seen the movie yet but Linkfx comes off as a serious D-bag. Its a supehero movie, and a sequel at that. Was it better than the first Hulk movie? then i'm sure it will be fun to watch.

Most of you are haters on May 7, 2010

29

Downey Jr. does not relinquish Iron Man’s reputation as the wittiest superhero ever brought to the big screen. “Iron Man 2? provides just as much of a humorous joyride as the 2008 film, backing up all the subtly outrageous dialogue with superb visual effects and action that seizes all attention. It all still works because Favreau has locked down the blend between not taking the story too seriously but still telling it with conviction. http://moviemusereviews.com/2010/05/review-iron-man-2/

Steven on May 7, 2010

30

Rourke started off great but as the movie continued he had less and less time on screen to flesh out his character and was reduced to a typical onedimensional bad guy.

Loser on May 7, 2010

31

Iron man 2 was fantastic. I loved the first film, this was just as good if not better

dave on May 7, 2010

32

[b] I actually loved it, I thought it was better than the first as in we saw more Iron Man and less Tony Stark. I am not saying i don't like the Tony Stark bits , but this is a super hero comicbook movie. I liked the post credit footage, I got goose bumps just seeing Mjlonir lying there in all it's glory!! YATTA! [/b]

NeoSlyfer on May 7, 2010

33

The movie was decent but in no way as good as the first

SkaOreo on May 7, 2010

34

WOW!!! Mickey Rourke looked really gay in that outfit. His light whips (pom-poms) are so FABULOUS!!

???? on May 7, 2010

35

To me it was very dissapointing.....to much like a Sat. morning cartoon

XXX on May 7, 2010

36

I liked it. But I agree it wasn't great. I don't think it had the same level of energy as the first. And the pacing was a bit off at times. And it was kind of anti-climactic honestly. But at least it was an enjoyable summer movie. If it had been shitty like Terminator Salvation was last summer, then I would have been pretty pissed off. I get the inkling that I'd like it more if I saw it a second time.

FilmMaker2003 on May 7, 2010

37

caught the movie last night. weighting it all together it's about comparable to the first film. there's some stronger parts than the first and some weaker parts. of the new people rourke and rockwell were awesome. cheadle and scarlett were ok. terrence is still a better rhodey and i can't help but imagine emily blunt for the black widow. she would have been perfect.

CL on May 7, 2010

38

Love Downey! Love Rourke and Johanson was ***** hot! Thought the first Iron man was great!! Iron man 2 was great for the First 40 mins.... then it just started to bore me. i wouldnt say it was crap because its a pretty good flick. but its true. half of us agree it was a lil boring and are blinded by the hype and the fact that were fans..... but i admit i was bored a big chunk of the film.

Viewtiful Joe on May 7, 2010

39

As a voter from across the pond, I loved it. But then I loved the first, the characters, the style the sense of fun so maybe I'm too "into it" to be objective. I didn't see it as filler before the rest of the movies, I thought it soared high in its own right. It is the best comic-booky comic book film in my humbled opinion because it was balls to the wall ott yet sharp and meaningful in all the right places.

Mikestar on May 7, 2010

40

It boarded the FAILboat in a spectacular manner. The first film was much better. This one felt like a meandering mix of cut-scenes from the first film. Roake was a complete bad-acting joke, and the final battle was a massive let down. I own and love the first film, and I will NOT be grabbing this film.

NeuroMan42 on May 7, 2010

41

I expected 'IRON MAN 2' to be the 'Spider-man 2' of the 'Iron Man' franchise. Instead, it ended up like 'Spider-man 3'. It was convoluted, dull, noisy, plot less... and very Revenge-of-the-Fallen-esque. There were some pretty awesome sequences and some laugh out loud funny jokes, but other wise it was just a film made for the sake of being made. And at a point, I got sick of the Avenger cameos. They stuck out of the screenplay like sore thumbs! Robert Downey Jr. was a true hero though... he 'saved' the movie from falling flat on its face. 3/5

Krishna Shenoi on May 7, 2010

42

The second film failed on a lot of aspects it seem to be a mish mash of a storyline why i think it failed to deliver on the hype was the villains where not evil enough Sam Rockwell, Mickey Rourke. There were not enough of Iron Man the action failed on all levels the big fight between Whiplash, the War Machine, Iron Man was over two fast. I still preferred the first Iron Man film.

Cineprog on May 7, 2010

43

Not as good as the first movie but entertaining as well. 3.25 out of 5

Jake the snake on May 7, 2010

44

Iron Man 2 was just as good as the first one, I don't understand why everyone puts the first one on a pedestal. They are both fun movies and the second one definitely has more action... At least is a better sequel than Transformers 2 was.

almartva on May 7, 2010

45

Since the site just chewed up and lost my previous comment when I hit the "submit comment" button, I'll summarize. Act I - 8 Great intro, sets up what could be a really good plot, characters and delivery Act II - 3 Train wreck. Characters, story, dialog all fall off a cliff. Starks drunk party is the perfect metaphor for the entire second act. Act III - 5 After act II, there was almost nothing that could have been done. Mickey Rourkes character had been almost completely dismissed (except for his uber-micro?), and the rest of the "plot" involved the bad guy trying to get a Pentagon contract. Final scene with the other bad guy was over as soon as it started. Don Cheadle and Mickey Rourke were asleep during most of the movie. Summary: The movie could be re-cut, lose 20-30 minutes of useless thrashing dialog and it could probably be much better than it is. Score: 5/10

Andrew on May 7, 2010

46

Best movie ever? No. However it was supremely entertaining for me (a dabbling comic book nerd). I can understand the criticisms of people saying that it's too fast, too much, but at the same time, being part of the ADD generation, I think it was pretty spot on for pacing. Rourke was underused, the drunken brawl was a little over the top and I'd say that Black Widow's neck-kick-flip thing was overused, but even still, enjoyable all the same. I'd say it was slightly inferior to the first. Also, I'd prefer it if Linkfx stopped trolling.

phillibuster on May 7, 2010

47

I enjoyed Iron Man 2 a bit more than the first, I enjoyed the increase of Shield in this one can't wait to see more of Nick Fury ad Black Widow

Duck on May 7, 2010

48

Highly enjoyable if you take your head out of your ass and watch it.

Shaun on May 7, 2010

49

I LIKE IT not best movie of the year but still it was really goooood! Im happy I went to see that anyway!!!!!!!!!!

seyo on May 7, 2010

50

@ Linkfx - I agree with you on the latest comments about the youngn's. But to all, everyone has a right to their own opinions. I haven't seen it yet, going tomorrow but as I expected. The reviews are half and half. And I repeat the success of Avengers all falls on the hands of both Cap and Thor.

blue & orange ny on May 7, 2010

51

Never follow the hype it only leads to dissapointment.

Xerxex on May 7, 2010

52

I liked it!

Trey M on May 7, 2010

53

Linkfx just repeat after me "its only a movie" its only a movie its only a movie

Jimmy Love on May 7, 2010

54

Hey, I haven't seen it yet (can't until next Wednesday) but can anyone tell me if the new trailer for The Last Airbender was attached to it?

Dresden on May 7, 2010

55

I saw it at midnight release and I thoroughly enjoyed myself. It felt alot more like a super hero movie than recent super hero movies. I felt like it was a lot more over te top and didn't take itself too seriously. But my most anticipated film of the year has yet to come. Inception. :DDD

Aaron on May 7, 2010

56

If Iron Man 1 hadn't happened, what would you have thought?

Ravek018 on May 7, 2010

57

I liked this film alot but I do agree with some of the comments above, the first 40 minutes or hour were great setups to characters and plot, the second act got kinda crazy with the drunken fight scene and the "discover a new element" thing (was I the only one like wtf?), the avengers characters like Nick Fury and Black Widow felt kinda forced, and Don Cheadle and Mickey Rouke felt somewhat wasted, though I felt like Cheadle was getting into the role during the last act. As for the acting, phenemonal as usual, Sam Rockwell stole every scene he was in. This DID feel like a filler movie, just a mere set up for the Avengers characters and the Avengers movie In short, this was a good movie, but parts of it (especially the second and third act) felt loose and uneccesary. Good film though. Can't wait for Thor!! 😀

julian on May 7, 2010

58

Good movie and is true is a filler for avengers. And for those who were saying kick-ass had the potential to be better than Iron Man 2: you were right kick-ass is the best film of the year so far

Eldivo23 on May 7, 2010

59

Crap, Crap and Crap.

movieman on May 7, 2010

60

I think Patrick Swayze would make a good president, I don't think Jim Carey would make a good president. I would vote for Patrick Swayze. Wouldn't it be cool if Patrick Swayze was like Bill Pullman in Indenpendence Day where he was and ex-Iraq War Fighter Pilot who became President and saved us all from Obama Bin Laden, then we could celebrate our new Independence Day. Independence from all the persecution and oppression suffered by the Polish-Italians in this country. GOD bless America and GOD bless Patrick Swayze. (Roadhouse Patrick Swayze, not Ghost Patrick Swayze) U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!!

West Texas Big Rig on May 7, 2010

61

I second #59. What a pile of shit. Disappointing on virtually every level.

JasperTX on May 7, 2010

62

Garbage, tries to be serious but inserted flat jokes that consantly took away tension from the action and drama. That wouldn't be bad if Downey didn't come off like he did in the first, instead in this film he's just a complete asshole. Also has to be the worst offender in the useless special effects department. Way to many sequences felt like the Director was just showing off the effects budget and wasting screen time. The film has made me loose all respect I had for Favreau.

shadow on May 7, 2010

63

Saw the movie. loved it. Awesome. It sets you up for the rest of the movies. And can you say THORS HAMMER and CAPTS SHIELD!

Shawn Keim on May 7, 2010

64

This movie felt like a filler as a whole. I would have to agree. Did this movie further anything in the Iron man story? No. Did it set up the Avengers movie? Yeah. Sitting through the movie it felt like a 1 and a 1/2 hr trailer for the Avengers. Also the big scene at the end with Mickey Rourke might not have even been a minute.

Jason Statham on May 7, 2010

65

3RD TRAILER INCEPTION http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd83zu_inception-trailer-3-hq_shortfilms

Nolanfan on May 7, 2010

66

Nobody cares about Iron Man 2 3RD TRAILER INCEPTION http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd83zu_inception-trailer-3-hq_shortfilms

Nolanfan on May 7, 2010

67

seen it last week i really liked this but didnt love it .... big fan of the first one i loved it but id say the first one was better, it seems like there was to much goin on, sam rockwell as justin hammer was awsome in this movie would of loved to seen more of him, also mickey rouke & scarlett johansson would of liked to of seen more of the final fight seen with all the other machines was awsome but as soon as whiplash gets there it didnt last long enough

Mark.E on May 7, 2010

68

i loved it 8/10 was fun, interesting, dialogue was great, funny, directing good, action awesome, story very well put together, almost every scene had a purpose to continuing the plot. bad guys... a little lame, War Machine and Iron Man were sooo bad ass. Easter egg at the end of the credits was fun as well. and very focused on advancing to the Avengers movie. I say see it, its a really damn good time.

DoomCanoe on May 7, 2010

69

i thought it was better than the first (despite the flimsy set up to the warmachine/iron man fight, that setup scene was really off) but i only really came on here to ask if any1 knew where to get the poster tony puts up above his desk (when hes arguing with pepper) it looked so damn cool

m.a.russell on May 7, 2010

70

I loved it. I fucking loved it. I saw Avatar just the week before I think (didn't had the time before that) and I enjoyed Iron Man 2 WAY more. I'mma see it again next week!

Erwin on May 7, 2010

71

I'm surprised a lot of the Iron Man fans can't "read" trailers yet. If you could, you wouldn't have been let down. It's strange to watch a trailer and just KNOW that the movie will not live up to it's insane hype. Boy, I remember when that first Iron Man II teaser hit, everyone was just flabbergasted by its brilliance. And now... Well, its just a very annoying circle these days. Here's hoping Thor is really impressive.

Cracky on May 7, 2010

72

I thought 2 was pretty good, though not as good as 1. Don Cheadle definately gives the military presence better than Terrance Howard, who was too passive and laid back IMHO. I thought that change was very good. Gwyneth was also very good as Pepper. Robert Downey Jr was made for this role, he is Tony Stark, so once again great casting there. Scarlett Johansson was serviceable as Black Widow, although her action sequences were obviously cut and spliced, etc. I was a little irritated at the lack of a Russian accent, but I guess they really wanted her. Sam Jackson is playing his type of character, though not on par with the comic version of Nick Fury, he was written well for Sam and Sam delivered. Mickey Rourke was also good as the villan and so was Sam Rockwell. Overall the casting was fantastic. Lots of good one liners in this one, it kept me entertained. The action was all there at the end, but I think some folks may be disappointed and think it was a little lacking, thought I wasn't surprised. Clearly they were further developing Tony Stark as a character. Nice tidbit including the Captain America shield, which was such a big deal as an easter egg in 1. Overall I was thoroughly entertained and I would see it again. Loved the post credit Thor lead in as well. I'm very interested in seeing how the timelines tie together between the characters in The Avengers. I would recommend to all, just don't go in expecting 2 hours of fights and explosions.

Tim on May 7, 2010

73

I loved it!!!!

zeldaprimed on May 7, 2010

74

So after leading the hype on iron man 2 many people are enjoying that really good others didin't First it was dark knight then kick ass I LOVE IRON MAN 2 AND Robert Downey Jr IS THE FUCKING TONY STARK SAM L JACKSON WAS VERY BADASS HE SO LOOLKS LIKE ULTIMATE NICK FURY WHO EVER DIDN'T LIKE HIM YOUR A DUMBASS Black Widow was very sexy and hot, love her introduction at the start Whiplash not enough screentime but hey he still badass War machine more badass then i ever imagine 8/ 10 stars

Richard on May 7, 2010

75

hey man i loved it all the man even the boxing match for you who saw it you know the one it was kinda funny

akira3669 on May 7, 2010

76

@45, Andrew: how you summed up the movie in three Acts was spot - on. I agree that Act II was the weak bit of the movie. I do think that the First Act, climaxing with the Whiplash scene in Monte Carlo, is the best thing I've seen in cinemas this year. I also liked Act III with War machine, although I agree that Rourke has been underused. Act II indeed is too slow and too long, and with the drunk party scene and the long scenes of Tony by himself they are obviously trying to work the Demon in a Bottle-storyline into the movie, but it also shows what Downey Jr himself said about this: the alcoholoc superhero line wouldn't really work on screen. I still loved Iron man 2 and I'm going to see it at least one more time at Imax. So much snappy dialogue, and eventhough the movie was bloatred, the performances were great all around.

Jules on May 7, 2010

77

@74. never spoken better. I don't understand why people watch these movies just to bash them. stop being so god damn negative.

Jesus loves you. on May 7, 2010

78

I thoroughly enjoyed Iron Man 2, Thought it was better than the first one. 8/10 Epic.

Xerxex on May 7, 2010

79

I really liked the first half and disliked the second half. But I knew going into the movie that it was not going to be as good as the first becasue i did not get caught up in the hype. To be honest I didn't really like any of the trailers to the film. The best part of iron man is watching Robert play Tony Stark. He is fantastic in the part.

last son on May 7, 2010

80

i agree with you there 79, he is fantastic as tony. ...as for the film, i'm gonig to pass. i dont watch these crap films anymore.

Jacksion on May 7, 2010

81

good, not great, first was better. cheadle was a much better rhodey though. bad guy went down too quick in the end. scarlett johansen was great.

harrison on May 7, 2010

82

I loved it. Definitely agree with #79, RDJ is by far the best part. He takes what would otherwise be a generic superhero movie and turns it into a real gem.

Craig on May 7, 2010

83

It was awesome. I loved the first one -- this one wasn't as good, but just as enjoyable to watch. RDJ is pure charisma.

Lost on May 7, 2010

84

Love love loved it. Best movie of the year so far. Yea I liked it more than kick ass. So what?

Daniel Felts on May 7, 2010

85

I enjoyed it enough. 2, along with its predecessor, is a breath of fresh air for the fact thats it allows itself to be silly and fun. Tone like that is seldom seen in the superhero genre without coming off as camp. Solid B, not bad, not amazing, just pretty good.

Al on May 7, 2010

86

Absolutely enjoyed myself. I enjoyed all the characters they managed to get in the film, and given the number of stories, I thought they were tied together as well as any comic Ive ever read. Thoroughly enjoyed the whole thing. It seems a lot of the criticism is due to how great the first film was, and this faced near impossible expectations. Im as harsh a critic as they come, but this was a comic book movie done very well. And I'm very excited to see whats next.

Mark D on May 7, 2010

87

This is why I read reviews before going to see a movie. People trash it, lower my expectations, then I go watch and enjoy it like crazy! Freaking loved Iron Man II, and if that means I have to turn in my movie connoisseur license somewhere, I'll gladly do so.

Chocolate Supra on May 7, 2010

88

Wow, it was... meh. The entire narrative was surprisingly dull. The biggest problem is that there's no real gravity, no threat, it's as if the film is incapable of being serious and approaches embarassing cartoonishness in parts. The villains are too goofy to be menacing, the humor feels forced and the CGI is shamefully fake-looking. Overall, just... meh.

SlashBeast on May 7, 2010

89

#88 agreed...very underwhelming a lot of noise, could have been much better the problem with Hollywood today is people line up to see movies like this that are just OK thankfully, about every 10 years we get a movie like DISTRICT 9...just a shame we have to wait so long in between all these loud, mediocre storied CGI love fests

darthwhitey on May 7, 2010

90

I thought it was very fun. But not nearly as engaging as the first one.

movie mike on May 7, 2010

91

Loved it!!! Will go see it again!! Robert Downey Jr is great in this film. War Machine= Awesome.

Dem0nHusky on May 7, 2010

92

NOT THE GREATEST ONE YET BUT FUN MOVIE ID BE DOWN TO SEE IT AGAIN THO

Henry on May 7, 2010

93

AMAZING! It was better than the original and even more bad ass, which i didn't think was even possible. I'd give it 5 stars forsure. The story was solid enough for a super hero movie and the action was just constant bad assary. I originally thought it was going to turn out like spiderman 3 with all the new characters and what not, but I was massively mistaken. They did an amazing job of balancing the characters out and keeping with a consistent story line. It was easy to keep up with and it was super entertaining the whole way through. The party scene with drunken stark was hilarious too. The VFX are also brilliant and the epic battle at the end is amazing as well. I didn't want it to end. Great movie.

Guy on May 7, 2010

94

I called it....hype strikes down another one.

Cody w on May 8, 2010

95

FUCKING AWESOME! haters. i don't know what movie YOU were watching.

blum on May 8, 2010

96

it was kool 🙂

DaftPUNKFAN on May 8, 2010

97

I just got back from it and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was full of plot holes and a lot of sketchy science...just like a good Marvel comic should be. It's actually a nice change of pace from a lot of super hero movies lately that are trying to be dramatic and serious-face after the masterpiece that was The Dark Knight. The problem is, that type of story telling works for a hero like Batman and a lot of the other DC characters. Marvel characters on the otherhand have always been a little over the top and a little more comical and that's what I want from a Marvel comic book movie. This movie and the first Iron Man film both nailed the combination of dramatic + overthe top action + comedy that makes Marvel comics so much fun to read. That being said, this movie will probably not appeal to a lot of people and I respect that, but seriously, stop trying to find The Dark Knight or even Batman Begins in a movie like Iron Man. It's just not that type of movie and it's not trying to be. My only complaint was that the dog-fight with the Hammer-oids was too long and the Whiplash climax was too short. If they had swapped the screen time of those two fights, it would have been better. I felt like Mickey and Don were a little underused for how great the two of them were.

HardcorePuffNStuff on May 8, 2010

98

Loved it! Two thumbs up from me. 😀

Daas on May 8, 2010

99

I fell asleep watching this movie. It happened somewhere towards the early half going into the middle of the film. Too much dialogue bored the shit outta me. Ironically I fell asleep during the first movie too. I think its just me. I never really liked this franchise. Although I did like part 2 better than the first film, oddly enough. The final battle sequence in the end was awesome, but WTF HOLY BALLS TO THE FUCKING WALLS MAN. Not even a 5min fight scene with Mickey R? WTFUUUUUCK mAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN! What a way to waste such talent. Scarlet Johanssen did an ok job. She seemed too robotic. Samuel L "Snakes on the MOTHER FUCKING plane" / "ACTION" Jackson had much more of a role, but it didnt fit the character of Nick Fury. Nick F was more serious but S. Jackson played his normal BAD ASS semi-comedic role for Fury. It just didnt seem right. Laslty, WTF is Farveau, sorry if I mis-spelled that. Too much time on the director as an actor. He couldve cut his scenes out and have a more developed Scarlet J. part. Well thats IMHO. Anyway, Sleeping Pill Iron Man 2 is 6 1/2 out of 10 stars for me. Sand Man found another way to find me. Thats my opinion.... ....WHATS YOURS?!

The movie man on May 8, 2010

100

Reminded me of Transformers. Bad thing, that.

Felix on May 8, 2010

101

it was awesome! the thor thing after the credits was, i think, the most exciting part

nick on May 8, 2010

102

Reminded me of Transformers 2, good effects but bad plot, Transformers 1 and Ironman are the best!

George on May 8, 2010

103

Reminded me of Transformers 2, good effects but bad plot, Transformers 1 and Ironman 1 are the best!

George on May 8, 2010

104

Does anyone remember that this is a world based off of comic books? The world is too uptight with itself Shut the fuck up and enjoy the movie Terrence Howard knew at the beginning that it was most likely going to be a sequel, so instead of saying "Cool I get to be War Machine!" He said "Cool, I'll be bigger than Iron Man and I will make this movie!" T Howard is a d-bag and the way he played Rhodey, I thought he would've been coming out of the closet by the end. He was gay as shit! Go Cheadle!!

CHIZZY on May 8, 2010

105

So Iron Man 2 was the biggest hype for this year and yet again many people didn't like well thats great first off it dark knight fanboys now you got Kick ass fanboys wow wow just fucking wow, you people are sad really fucking sad IRON MAN WAS GREAT LOVE NICK FURY HOPE TO SEE MORE OF HIM

aussie fan on May 8, 2010

106

I'd say for the first 1/3 of the movie, I agreed mostly with the negative critics in that there was too much going on and I was hesitant to like it. I just wasn't invested then and I was more stressed with just trying to keep up. But then, all of a sudden it took that turn into where the first one was and it became a really good movie. One thing however, is that it never had the feel of the scene from the first one where he busts outta the cave in the prototype. I don't know how to describe it, but I liked the style they did a lot there and there wasn't anything in the second one like this. By the end of the movie though... DEF worth my money. I liked it a lot, it just took some time. Also SCARLETT JOHANSON! She's mega hot ya'll. Just sit back and watch dat ass swagger across the screen. Oh man and in that red dress in that one scene... girl's got it, she knows it, and she owwwwnnnns it.

Pricetag on May 8, 2010

107

KICKASS IS STILL THE BEST Iron Man 2 is my second best but hey you can't compare them I still think marvel should buy hit girl i mean shes better than the other marvel women, shes like deadpool

Ben on May 8, 2010

108

@107 Itsn't Hit Girl part of marvel

chris on May 8, 2010

109

I enjoyed the first one, although I didn't think was anything spectacular, but enjoyable nonetheless. But, I was seriously falling asleep about half way through this one. I couldn't believe it! All the characters never take any of their situations seriously and neither does the film. They keep talking about these "serious" situations the introduction of the Iron Man suit is bringing but we never SEE any evidence that there's anything serious going on. There's only two real action scenes, count them, TWO! That scene where DJ Iron Man was drunk and in a bitch fight with Rhodes was so painful to watch, it's like the film was actively making fun of itself. The CGI was AWFUL! Not one single thing looked even remotely real. I can't believe the ILM who put in such phenomenal work with Transformers put in such mediocre work with this.

Governor on May 8, 2010

110

@ 18 Are you seriously judging an entier culture based on what you think we are involved in ? If being a young'n means being more open minded and not judgemental i'm proud to be young.

Maro Leon on May 8, 2010

111

The Dark Knight has finally met its match... Now don't get me wrong the Dark Knight is by far the best superhero movie ever made however, Iron Man 2 gives it a run for it's money. The dark brooding and intense scenes of the Dark Knight are great but that movie is an epic struggle that pit’s Batman’s internal baggage against that of a maniacal psycho bent on watching the world burn using Gotham as a back drop. Iron Man is set in California it’s main character, Tony Stark, is a fun, witty, playboy who becomes an overnight rock star when he reveals that he is Iron Man. It’s like comparing a steak dinner to popcorn and candy…With that being said I think that Iron Man 2 is phenomenal. John Favreau has succeeded in capturing the comic on film. The characters may be a bit shallower and the scenes probably run together quicker than they should but it is one of the funniest movies of the year so far and it has more action per frame than most other superhero flicks put together. Marvel has finally done a super hero movie the right way and with the crossovers coming in Thor, Captain America, and The Avengers the next year and half could prove to be a great thrill ride of action packed ass kicking.

Greg on May 8, 2010

112

Wow seriously people...its a comic book movie...shut up and listen to how hypercritical your posts are coming off. People may not list a spoiler here, but its sometimes no different for someone who wants to just go to the theater and get entertained. Your ruining the experience f*ckers!

Marqwest on May 8, 2010

113

Well I saw it, it was fun.....like someone else said I felt like you just werent meant to take it as seriously as other superhero movies like TDK. It wasnt a masterpiece by any means but, the action was awesome some solid acting made a decent movie. I do however think hype still killed this one, it didnt nearly live up to my expectations, I was expecting to be blown away. PS The Inception trailer almost felt better than IM2 as a whole.

Cody w on May 8, 2010

114

#10 nighthawk Its because most of these people are still up The Dark Nights ASS People keep saying that this movie isnt serious enough but yet they all wet there pants when The Joker asks the same question in TDK????????????

Dave on May 8, 2010

115

I loved Iron Man 2. I have always been a huge Robert Downey Jr. fan and he never disappoints. The only negative I have is that I prefer Terrence Howard to Don Cheadle. I thought the 2nd movie was better than the first. I love the chemistry between Gwenyth Paltrow and Robert Downey Jr., and I love the addition of Scarlett Jo and Jon Favreau. I thought it was a great adventure.

Carolyn McNutt on May 8, 2010

116

was of time, talent and money as well as a waste of my time and money watching it. No real story, gay fight scenes that only lasted a couple of minutes....fell far short of the first.

one on May 8, 2010

117

Truthfully, it was mediocre. Which is surprising considering the first one was decent and and they seemed to have all their cards right. There's no real narrative thrust to invigorate the story with the energy it needs. The characters just keep on bantering with no real sense that there's anything at risk. Everything just plays out so la-di-da with no real weight to the situations. The villains are weak and the CGI was awful, ILM should be ashamed of themselves.

1-7 on May 8, 2010

118

Honestly, I was prepared to walk out when Stark and Rhodes started having a bitch fit and smacking around with each other. It was so horrendously campy, I was embarassed watching it. They may as well have added nipples to the Iron Man suit.

BookWorm on May 8, 2010

119

What are you guys expecting froma Comic Book movie, yes, Dark Night has been by far the BEst Comic book movie made, but Iron Man doesn't have to live up to it. Batman has been made 100 times over, this is the first time anyone has done a live action adaptation of Iron Man, and Jon Favreau is doing a pretty damn good job. There's not going to be depth in it because its and superhero action movie, that kicks ass. Read the old comic books and you'll see there isn't much more than fighting bad guys, and inventing new gadgets. I just don't understand why people have to hate s much. Are you unhappy that you werent able to make the movie yourself. If you don't like it don't see it, ecspecially i you didn't like the first one. What? your going to go to a movie you already know your not going to like ao you can get on here and complain about it, go watch boring mellow dramas and get off my ass for enjoying the shit that Hollywood spews out

Schuyler on May 8, 2010

120

@109 and others like him. WTF? Seriously, it's a comic book movie. Chill the eff out and loosin up a bit. Don't be so anal. The story doesn't have to be some hardcore 3 hour long event like the dark knight. It's Iron Man. It's bad ass. It was constant action and the writing was ace. Action scenes: Race scene - 1, Amazing dancing iron man scene - 2, Black Widow scene - 3, Ending battle scene - 4. Also the ending battle scene was nearly 20 min. It easily had more action than the 1st. ILM did an amazing job. I have no idea how anyone can say the VFX were bad or things like "Not one single thing looked even remotely real". Give me a break. Tell me thing that didn't look "remotely real" then. Haters will be haters.

Guy on May 8, 2010

121

All I have to say is " why have the Black widow in this movie if she is not going to be used to the fullest". This was basically a prequel to Thor, Captian America and the Avengers. This moving left me wanting more because it did not satisfy. It was entertaining, but if I want to be entertained I would watch Youtube allday.

dav0919 on May 8, 2010

122

sooo awesome and bad ass! felt like the cinematography and editing needed some work.

taylor on May 8, 2010

123

The problem is that there's nothing at risk. The villains never really feeling like a threat, the drama is made to be more internal, with Stark searching for a cure and confronting his own mortality, he becomes increasingly self-destructive. Except because Downey Jr.'s so light and funny throughout, there's never any doubt as to his survival, so again, it never feels like anything's at stake. And, yes, I was appalled at how fake the CGI looked. Incredibly subpar work.

Mr. Astronomy on May 8, 2010

124

First of all thats just who tony stark is. He's not a serious guy. The villians don't feel like a threat? Whiplash almost kills iron man, then creates an army of robots and his own crazy suit. Obviously iron man's going to win in the end. He is after all iron man and considering that I think they did solid job with the villians feeling threatening. Secondly, the cg was great. Im taking 3d at school right now. Have been for the past 2 years. I can't see any subpar work here. Sorry. Again, give an example of what looked so subpar, then you might have an argument.

Guy on May 8, 2010

125

I LOVED THIS MOVE!!!!!! HOw can peoplesay that it was just okay it was epic and probobally gonna be considered as one of the better movies of this summer. al you haters how can you hate on this movie. Only prolem was don cheadle because i thought robert and terrence had great on-screen chemistry

max s. on May 8, 2010

126

Even since Batman I've not seen many people even coment about liking movies ...Most of them say it sucks or it' has a loop hole so it sucks!!! LOL, nerd fail. Just like Avatar, so many people think it was bad, when it was amazing and the story was quite good just a tad slow and predictable up to a specific point. First showing is a lot like People on GameFAQ forums, they love to hate, they will love the movie but yet talk shit about on the internet to feel special and different and not like a normal person saying it was pretty good.

Kris on May 8, 2010

127

Here's a Q&A site. You can ask or and questions or become an expert. It's nice, friendly place for everyone. http://www.askusweb.com/forums/ or Askusweb.com

Terry on May 8, 2010

128

I liked the movie a lot. I don't know why people say that there's too much nods to Avengers, I can count on one hand how many scenes involved avengers and that's not a lot at all. I also don't understand how people felt there were too many characters or too much going on. Anyone with a brain should be able to focus enough to understand the story to this movie. Get it together folks.

Chris H. on May 8, 2010

129

i thought the movie was awesome yeah the first one was a lil better but lets face it what sequal really is now and days for those of you who said it was boring why dont you try picking up a comic book they had a lot to cover and they did so very well and for all you that keep comparing it to the dark knight you guys are idiots yeah the dark knight was good but i guarantee tht if heath didnt die right before the release the dark knigh wouldnt have did as good and nobody wouldnt have given him that much credit anyways iron man 2 was good no GREAT and thats that

mr.kidd on May 8, 2010

130

@ 128. Dude, the movie had waaaaaay too much going on. This doesn't mean it was hard to follow. A movie CAN have too much going it. It was so jumbled and awkward and lots of things were forced. Was it hard to understand this movie? No. Anyone complaining about not being able to follow this is probably half retarded anyways. But there really was a lot of crap and too many characters, none of which had any character building whatsoever. I'm not hating on the movie, but I didn't think it was that great. Was it bad? No. Was it great? No. It was just ok. It was good entertainment. And, just to be clear, I DID love the first one. Also, I don't feel like going back through the comments... but certain CGI parts WERE teeerrible. Whenever someone was in a suit with the helmet's mask off, it looked like an awful copy/paste MS Paint job, not even Photoshop hahaha.

Chazzy O on May 8, 2010

131

I thought this film was perfect in every single way, I literally rank it in my top 3 comic book films of all time and I was amazed when I came here and read all overwhelming negative comments. This film definitely did not feel like a filler at all and if you knew anything about Iron Man you'd know that Tony Stark's worst enemy has always been his arrogance and ego; he is his own worst enemy. The drunken scenes and bickering are what separate Stark from the rest of the Marvel world of "heroes" because he is the anti-hero of that universe. The humor was spot on and the acting top notch; not to mention the scene at Hammer industries with Black Widow was the best fight choreography I've ever seen. I thought this was loads better than the first film and I applaud Favreau for staying so true to the character and the Marvel world. I'm shocked that everyone didn't love this, I thought it was much better than The Dark Knight as well so I don't get why people are discussing the Inception trailer in this forum.

peloquin on May 8, 2010

132

# 130 ---- you think a f***ing sequel needs character development, its a sequal. they only added 3-4 characters. Screw their backstory. If people care enough about a new character, then they will probably make a movie about them. A sequal dosen't have character development. We learned what we needed to know and were moving on to the good stuff, no boring shit, just the bare knukle brawls that happen in the comic books. And like many other people said, the CGI was good, mabye not as good as Avatar, but they put this out within 2 years, i would like to see you do better, with the time and budget they had, the studio cuts budgets of movies from the first to the second, they don't give them more, if something does good, they cut its leg off and see how it does, if the second movie does good the cut off the other leg and try it again its happening constantly

Schuyler on May 8, 2010

133

Some of these comments don't even make sense. Try as i might i can't actually understand Linkfx's comment on young'ns. I think you're a a-hole but i'm not quite sure....

dude... on May 9, 2010

134

Great movie with more effects, like it better then the first. All you who say it fails, need to come out of the closet and learn again what it means to enjoy yourselves. If you can't do that then you have way too many issues!!!

ZombiePride on May 9, 2010

135

Here's the major reasons why Iron Man 2 was no where near as good as Iron Man 1. STORY The motivations were weak. Too many characters. Bumbling villians. Too many subplots. No real threats. Poor character arcs. Weak love story. Forced drama. Why? Different writers used. They used the Tropic Thunder writers making this too much a comedy and failing in the dramatic portion of this film. MUSIC Odd tempos and scores that just didn't fit the mood and didn't feel epic. Why? Different composer. Sucked donkey balls. ACTION SEQUENCES All of them ended abruptly with no real peril. Night time action sequences was extremely difficult to follow as well. New board artist Gendy Tartakovsky was brought in to "design" these action sequences who has never done a live action film. He's good with 2D cartoons for sure. Gendy brought in his team. I wonder where the original Iron Man 1 team was? WAR MACHINE Zero chemistry between Stark and Rhodey. Was not funny like the first. No memorable moments Why? Rhodey was re-casted with Don Cheadle. TONY STARK Weak. Why? Roberty Downey Jr. was too much himself in this film. He broke out of character too much. It was like Tony Stark hired Downey Jr. to fill in for him in his absence just because they look the same. JOHN FAVREAU Why did he expand his character in this film? Why did he give himself so much screen time? It completely hurt the film and changed the tone everytime he was on. If you watch the first one he was just a minor character that was played straight. Here he had to be his "funny" self. They should've left his antics on the editing room floor. IMAX Totally not worth seeing in IMAX. Image was soft. Obviously blown up from a smaller resolution. So all of this means Iron Man 2 is no where near as fun to watch as Iron Man 1 nor does it have the repeat viewing factor. I never want to see this film again.

kal-el on May 9, 2010

136

The problem is that after Whiplash is defeated in the first act there's nothing driving the plot. Stark's character becomes surprisingly uninteresting and unable to move the plot himself because he's a character that never takes anything seriously and recovers from any set-back. This means that the film never presents any seriousness to it's story. None of the main characters (apart from Whiplash) suffer any personal loss, there's nothing learned in this film, nothing that affects the intentions and motivations of the characters. The villains are laughable, not frightenting or challenging in the least. Some scenes were just so awful I was shocked they made it past the cutting room floor. When Iron Man and Rhodes were having their brawl to the DJ's "phat beats" it was just as embarassing as dancing emo-Peter in Spider-Man 3. It's disappointing because even the first one presented some seriousness when it needed it. This one just lacks maturity. The CGI was also very poor, incredibly fake, Transformers came out years before and looks more real than this.

WordSearch on May 9, 2010

137

It was... a comic book movie. Nothing more, nothing less. The same fluff that keeps these types of films ghettoized and relegated to the realm of childrens' fare. There's nothing in this film that advances it's characters, it doesn't build on the foundations of the first one and doesn't expand upon it's themes. None of the characters develop in any signifanct way and at the end of the day it's a forgettable entry more designed to set up other films than provide any meaningful progression of it's themes and characters. And I actually enjoyed the first one, this one, not so much.

Prototype on May 9, 2010

138

It was a great Tony Stark film but just a good Ironman film. It needed about 30% more iron. There were only three fights. The first one was over way to quickly, the second one is a drunken brawl in power suits and the third is mostly taking place in the air, at night, so all you see are jet trails across the sky or blips on a computer screen. I guess you could say there were four fights since there was the Black Widow/agent of SHIELD one and it was pretty cool. The extra slow mo on her legs and arms though was a bit much. Thought I was watching 3D without the glasses for a minute. Someone asked why fans rip apart comic book movies all the time. The reason is we love the comics and over the years there have been brilliant stories written about all the bigs in both universes. We want to see that on screen. Don't just throw up an average story. We want to be wowed. You're rarely wowed by these films.

Moviegimp on May 9, 2010

139

reading half these comments shows how dumb people are and why others actually get paid as critics...c'mon night action sequence was hard to keep up with?!?!? what are you 80 yrs old?!!?!? plain and simple, it was a fun movie and in no way boring...gives you a solid story and yea it is a bridge movie to the avengers. the ties that it has to the future avengers movie were put in nicely within the main story...movie was fun and entertaining, scarlett is drop dead sexy... To those idiots who will do nothing better than criticize my grammar, shut up this isn't work! 🙂

ray on May 9, 2010

140

Personally I thought this movie was the shit! It was awesome from begining to the end. It had all the components to make it a great movie, Action, Suspense, Comedy, and a Hot Chick Running Around in a Tight Black Suit Kicking the Shit Out of People 😉 Although they could have made the final fight scene between Iron Man & War Machine vs Whiplash a lot better. My favorite part though was finding the Easter Eggs in the movie

Peace Love & GaGa on May 9, 2010

141

Great summer slick/ comic book movie, I felt it was better than the first. It is definitely the second act in a story. The plot holes kind of annoyed me, e.g. Whiplash can cut a formula one car in half, but can't cut thru their suits especially after he figures out how to increase the power?

blester on May 9, 2010

142

As a life long comic fan I loved it. I thought it touched on Stark's Alcoholism just enough without being too much. Mickey Rourke was good as Whiplash and Whiplash as a character was fun. Black Widow was cool but where was the Russian accent? Sam Rockwall was as the sleazy competition was fun too. I loved the easter eggs and the continuing development of S.H.E.I.L.D. The homage paid in the scene after the credits was awesome - looked just like the comic book. Marvel continues to make great adaptations of their characters capturing decades of mythology effectively. I can't wait for the next one.

David on May 9, 2010

143

Iron Man 2 sucked. How about an actual fight with a villian at some point? Where was the epicness? ... nowhere to be found in all that canned laughter

John on May 9, 2010

144

Plot holes galore... I'm still trying to figure out how Jon Favreau overlooked the scene where Stark's driver(Jon Favreau) repeatedly hit Whiplash with the car and his legs weren't crushed? ... ... wtf?! And Iron Man ... IRON MAN (a guy who can kick a car 50 feet away) punches Whiplash's bare human face and he wasn't immediately dead, his teeth weren't smashed in, his face wasn't broken? No, no, no, its just a little bloody lip thats all. Effing wow...

John on May 9, 2010

145

Cracked down and saw it. I'm so exhausted from it that it's painful to write about. 4/10 For so many reasons already listed. Save your money... rent it if you must. Download if you can. But $10+ for tickets is theft. Who is more stupid, the companies trying to charge it or the ones paying? I feel stupid.

Dan the Fan on May 9, 2010

146

You try to satisfy everyone while be forced by Marvel to set up the Avengers and there individual franchises for the second time. Marvel should have had more faith in Hulk and gave it a second film. This would have given Iron Man more room to breathe. Jon did a good job, and hopefully Iron Man 3 will be free to make its own movie.

MJ on May 9, 2010

147

The great part of the Marvel Studios thing is that they can have all these interconnecting parts. And it's a bad thing too, because you can't pave your own path as much as the superhero movies have done in the past. The first movie was so good because it was such a break out hit. To live up to it as a sequel, the sequel has to be bigger, more this, more that. I think they did a great job. The Iron Man movies are like the big brother of Spiderman, which to me in retrospect are unfortunately a bit sophomoric. I think they're on par with the X-Men movies for me (1 & 2, let's not speak of 3). Certainly head and shoulders above Spiderman 3, which didn't succeed with adding in not 2, but 3 villains and the awful evil!Spidey plot aaaaand the breakup with MJ. The pairing of the villains made sense in IM2, the new characters weren't useless and unnecessary (movie Gwen Stacy, I'm looking at you), and I liked Don Cheadle more than Terrence Howard. Howard's performance was a little flat, I felt. I do agree that it all cleaned up too neatly. And they probably should have waited on the whole blood poisoning/new metal thing, but it probably will be the one introduced in Cpt America/Avengers. And I guess the middle bit there was as close to Demon in the Bottle as they'll get. While a bit disappointing for comic fans, the bit of drunken Tony/IM in the movie was awkward enough. Unless you make it comedic, drunken superheroes are just... maybe "too real" is the right expression? I mean I loved the Comedian in Watchmen, but I as a moviegoer don't want to watch IM battle alcoholism any more than I want to watch any movie about an alcoholic. It's like being forced to watch a train wreck. Uncomfortable and off-putting. I don't know why I read the comments, because they depress me. I loved the movie despite, I think, minor flaws and can't wait to see it again. In IMAX

Lana on May 9, 2010

148

There are 3 main ingredients to say it is a good film: 1. Artistic 2. Touching 3. Entertaining IM2 for me is entertaining, what more do you need!? The film producer doesn’t care about the critics. As long as it is box office. They will still continue to create entertaining film. Specially if this is wholesome movie. People who watch it, is not stupid to say the film has no quality and a waste of time. That’s why it’s called movie, solely just to entertain us.

jerrym on May 9, 2010

149

First off , I want Terrence Howard back. Secondly Scar Jo is nice to look at, but doesn't do anything besides kick ass once. Whiplash was way to easily defeated in the end, and what was up with the lame Thor Spoiler at the end? Having said all that I give this one a SOLID B+. Not as good as the first, but great action and definitely worth seeing on the big screen and even more definitely worth seeing in IMAX. After reading all these comments, I find it funny how deeply we care about these silly things that entertain us called movies. (Matt Hansen) Actor and Director.

MMH on May 10, 2010

150

I respect Terrence H. as a good actor, but to inform why Terrence Howard left IM. He has difficult behavior on the set, apart from that he is asking to be paid more than the other cast and main actor Robert Downey Jr. Favreau and his producers were ultimately unhappy with Howard's performance, and spent a lot of time cutting and re-shooting his scenes. Check the this site: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20236884,00.html

jerrym on May 10, 2010

151

Oh my fucking God!...I read through all the posts and not even ONE mentioning of the music which did a lot of the film! Come on people, it got AC/DC!! Even a black/white movie would have kicked some ass as long as it had AC/DC!!

Robert on May 10, 2010

152

AC/DC started sucking when Bon Scott left dude sorry to burst your bubble.

Cody w on May 10, 2010

153

The movie sucked ass. The first part was way better.

Dhiram on May 10, 2010

154

sure Dhiram, and you can do better right?

ray on May 10, 2010

155

@150, I don't know if you know this or not, but after the economy crashed in the fall of 2008, the actors that were to appear in Iron Man 2 agreed to take paycuts. Terrance wouldn't, and that's another reason why he was passed over for the sequel. I remember watching him on a episode of New York Undercover, where he was a bank robber in the Bonnie and Clyde episode from, 1993 I believe. Next time I say him he was in Dead Presidents. After the sucess of Hustle and Flow, and Crash, I suppose all of the fame and attention went to his head, and he forgot just how perniscious Hollywood is.

Mike on May 10, 2010

156

Assuming everyone saw this, I'm gonna say, there wasnt enough whiplash out side of what we saw in the previews and he was waaaaay too easy to kill at the end (all fought in that Epcot Center thingy??).... Considering he had an Ironman-like Tech suit, there simply wasnt enough of it and I honestly could not remember what it looked like. Also thought Rodney's instant usage of the suit was kinda cheesy since it took stark so long to figure his own technology out. (That role was soooo Terrance Howard's) All in all, I liked but didn't love it, like say X2, T2, TDK or Pirates 2. Good, not great.... and WTF is up with seeing an Iron man movie and not hearing Sabbath's Iron man or KISS' war machine (YOU BETTA WATCH OUT!!!). Just my take. Let the summer movie season begin!!!

jomba joose on May 10, 2010

157

It was incredibly dull, about as mediocre as a Michael Bay movie. There's nothing propelling the story after the first act, nothing feels threatening, you never once doubt that Stark is going to recover, the villains are hammy and unthreatening, the CGI is bad, lots of tie-ins to other films that do nothing for the film itself and the action scenes were few and far between. This film is just designed to be filler for other Marvel films.

That Guy on May 10, 2010

158

that guy is wrong as he can be, i had ablast and a half and everyone in the room did too

jojoe on May 10, 2010

159

They missed a big opportunity with this, they could have improved upon the original and raised the bar for comic book movies, but they didn't. There were tons of uninteresting scenes, the investigative committee scene and the scene where Hammer showcases all the weapons drag on WAY too long and aren't very funny (like much of the film, the humour is forced and unnatural). The ending is just a redo of the first film except louder and bigger, the villains were underdeveloped and many of the side character tie-ins to the Avengers were unnecessary, Scarlett Johanson in particular didn't bring an ounce of character to her role, she was bland as usual. Unfortunately, this film falls short.

Extractor on May 10, 2010

160

Iron Man 2 rates 2 1/2 stars out of 5 in my opinion, whereas the first rates 5 out of 5. Iron man 2 drags and has less action than its predacessor. And the action it does have is nothing special, just shooting and more shooting. While Mickey Rourke does a good job acting, he is not given enough screen time and is defeated way to easily. Worst of all, the awesome "Iron Man" is reduced to a drunk who pees in his armor, which was probably the worst part of the movie. This movie tries too hard to be funny, where the first was naturally and cleverly funny. It's not the worst movie and I don't hate it, but it is a lot worse than the original.

aikidoist01 on May 10, 2010

161

@ 232. Yup. In sequels theres no need for further character development. Paper thin characters with no motivation are the best. STFU, honestly. And just because I don't have the money and resources to create CGI effects as good a million dollar Hollywood production means I can't criticize the work they put out? Oh, I forgot. You aren't allowed to be critical of movies these days.... because everyone is just a stupid dumb f***in idiot who has to enjoy every single piece of shit that comes out these days. Again, this movie wasn't one of those pieces of shit, it just wasn't that great. And the lack of motivation, in both the plot and the characters, was one of the biggest reasons. I love all the people hating on the people who actually have a working brain during movies. If you say anything slightly critical about the movie you watched, everyone hates you for not being a dumbshit. People these days......

Chazzy O on May 10, 2010

162

@161 lol Your a hypocrite and just as much of a hater as anyone hating on you... calling anyone who likes it a dumb shit. Wow. Get a life. People can have opinions. Let it be.

Apple on May 10, 2010

163

I personally thought the first Iron Man was overated. Iron man 2 was a weaker film in my opinion for a few reasons. It had a terrible plot. The fight scenes were either too quick or just plain stupid (Whiplash's death was weak).Stark's character tries way to hard to be funny and that shit gets annoying quick. There is plenty more wrong with this movie but i just decided Ive wasted enough time comenting on this half ass movie.

Walker on May 10, 2010

164

@ 162. I didn't call a single person a dumb shit for liking it. I myself enjoyed it. Wtf are you talking about? Seriously... idk wtf you're talking about.

Chazzy O on May 10, 2010

165

Iron Man and Iron Man 2 combined still cant beat the mighty THE DARK KNIGHT!!!

safichan on May 10, 2010

166

"If you say anything slightly critical about the movie you watched, everyone hates you for not being a dumbshit." To me this sounds like your saying anyone who has nothing critical to say about the movie(ie. likes it) is a dumb shit. Just because someone likes the movie and doesn't have anything critical to say about it, doesn't make them a dumb shit. It's just their opinion. Sorry if I misunderstood your comment though and you didn't mean it like this, but thats just how it came across to me. Just think about what you type before you type it next time.

Apple on May 10, 2010

167

Oh yeah then you also said "I love all the people hating on the people who actually have a working brain during movies". This also makes it seem like you think that all people who like it or don't have any major criticism's about the movie don't have working brains(ie. dumb shits).

Apple on May 10, 2010

168

Lol no no no. I hate when people are raggin on those being critical. Everyone says "shutup, its just a movie. stop being critical. shut your brain off. theres no reason to be critical, etc etc." I have no problem with people enjoying a crappy movie (again, I didn't think this movie in particular was crappy, I liked it to a point), and I don't think people who like crappy movies are dumb shits. I'm just sick of every time someone else likes to be critical and critique movies, they are attacked for their "inablity to shut their brain off." My comments refer to specific people, particularly the person who told me that characters don't matter in a sequel, but after addressing him personally, my comments were at people in general, not this movie. I was in no way calling the people who liked this movie a dumb shit (i still don't see how you saw that, even after reading the parts you quoted), but rather calling people dumb shits who insist that you can't critique movies anymore, and that you HAVE to shut your brain off.

Chazzy O on May 10, 2010

169

Its not that characters don't matter in a sequal, its that there should be no need by the second movie to develope charaters in the past movie, and for the new characters, whiplash, i thought that if he had just shown up on the race track and started beating the shit outta iron man, it would have been better then iron man would have to find out why he attacked him, and the audience is also in the dark about why this guy hates iron man. And i love dumb movies. But i never turn my brain off during a movie, u knoe when the parts are dumb and u laugh at them. This movie wasnt a movie at all where u should turn ur brain off or anything. It had so many easter eggs hidden in the film, like the news footage from hulk playing in the background of the SHIELD bunker. If u want to see a movie where peple should actully turn their brains off watch Dead Heat, the Zombie Buddy Cop Comedy

Schuyler on May 10, 2010

170

@168 Alright. Thanks for explaining that and I'm completely with you. People should be able to openly critique movies. I'd also like to see who said you can't critique movies and HAVE to shut your brain off. That's just ridiculous. Who says that.

Apple on May 11, 2010

171

I agree, Rourke's character would have been a lot ominous had they not given him a story or made his goals more complex, for example show the world who is the better scientist and destroy Tony Stark's reputation. Then again, Rockwell's character lacked just that, because he was not the menacing type and it would have been very interesting to see more of the fan gone crazy viewpoint. Johannson and Favreau were unnecessary and had too much screen time at the cost of much more interesting and much more important characters. Monaco should have been the end sequence and as said before, more realistic. This would have been a perfect way to make Downey's Stark deal with other problems first and not make the the scenes change too fast between the characters. The element creation story did not have much of an impact as I expected and that is also where the story went from realistic into another comic book movie. All in all, it was probably a worse movie than the first one as it tried to overdo Iron Man 1 in every field and forgot that fans are not always right when it comes down to making a story for non-comic book fans to enjoy.

Peter on May 11, 2010

172

I liked the first one, but this was even better.

Logical1 on May 11, 2010

173

@ 171. Good, i'm glad we are on the same page. Yay!!!!!!! And a few of the posts that rag on us critical people: 10, 104, 112, 120, 132, 134, 139. While they didn't specifically say you should shut your brain off, it was basically the same thing. I guess it was more or less the quick succession of these comments after mine, so i blew up, hahaha. After being able to think about this movie for a few days, I still think it is heavily flawed, but I think I'd definitely enjoy it more a 2nd time around, now that I know I won't be getting a movie as good as the first.

Chazzy O on May 11, 2010

174

@ 173. lol. We'll have to agree to disagree. I liked the second a bit more than the first. It didn't have the same nostalgic feeling of the original, but I just personally liked the overall entertainment factor of the second over the first. I felt the story was just as strong and there was more action.. and at the end of the day that's why I'm going to watch an Iron Man movie, for the action. Although there were a few more characters in the sequel, I felt they helped make the movie more entraining than the original and the story more intricate and enjoyable. I'm guessing they had no choice but to include them too, since it's a lead in to the Avengers. Also, considering the amount of characters in the film I thought they did a remarkably good job of balancing them out and controlling their screen time/subplots, avoiding the batman & robin/spiderman 3 effect. The movie is after all, called Iron Man and they did a great job keeping the focus on him as much as possible. The VFX were amazing once again as well. ILM did a great job. Notably in the fight scene at the end. Sure the story could have been better, as it could have been in the original as well and they could have stretched the runtime to 3 hours to flesh out the characters a bit more. However that would have possibly made it too long. Overall, I thought it was a very fun ride. A very strong summer blockbuster movie IMO. I completely respect your opinion about the characters.

Apple on May 11, 2010

175

im not reading all of these comments, but ima see the movie anyway and have my own opinion of it.

KING on May 11, 2010

176

Is this film a redo of the first one?? Because that's what I saw. Enemy steals Tony Starks invention made it to a weapon to get rich and eventually use it against him... Don't you think its almost the same plot as the first one? Please don't tell me you guys were blinded by the glimmer of his armor, caps shield and thor's hammer (just eye candies).. Just a comment =]

Jack on May 11, 2010

177

Great movie hey number 176 ever read a comic almost all of Iron mans enemy's had armor of some kind or another, that's just how it is. anyway no complaints, I'll leave that for thee (cough cough) critics

Jimmy Love on May 11, 2010

178

The first Iron Man was a pleasant surprise and I thought the movie was excellent, even though my spouse read Iron Man Comics but I didn't. Yes I enjoyed Iron Man 2, even though I had seen "Kick Ass" 15 minutes before IM2. Two great movies back to back. It doesn't get any better than that!

RSH on May 12, 2010

179

I loved it. I hope that they don't ruin other comic book movies with 3d

FuturePhilmMaker on May 12, 2010

180

It was pleasantly entertaining enough. I just expected more than this. This movie tried so hard to set up the Avengers franchise that it didn't really advance the Iron Man universe. Even though it lasted over two hours, there was basically nothing to talk about as we walked out of the theater. It felt more like an Avengers prequel than an Iron Man sequel :/

Anomalous Material on May 12, 2010

181

@ 35 O My Gosh? Do You Mean That A Superhero Movie Is Like A Saturday Morning Cartoon? What Kind Of Bastards Would Do Such A Thing?LOL C'mon man its a superhero movie, go rent shawshank redemption and find another thread.

............... on May 12, 2010

182

I agree with what most of you guys have said already. Iron Man 2 is definitely not better than the original, which I thought was absolutely awesome, but in a way it still lives up to it. It has a lot humor and 4 or 5 good action sequences. Its entertaining and worth seeing. But its still not great. There are many flaws in this movie but its easy enough to simply look past them and enjoy it. I saw the midnight showing and I must say its best to watch it with a crowd. Overall there are really no boring parts. Also, Scarlett Johanson as the Black Widow, totally kicks ass. Lastly, it sets things up pretty well for the Avengers. Cant' wait to see Thor and Captain America.

Fac on May 13, 2010

183

the saw a midnight show last night. Was going in expecting it to not live up to the expectations of the first one. Was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be pretty much just as good. Rourke was awesome. Rockwell was cool in a bumbling bad guy way. Downey Jr. was slaying people with one liners. Overall it was pretty great.

world on May 13, 2010

184

Decent film, does what it says on the tin & it entertained the hell outta me!! To all the detractors, this film is as serious and as fun as it needs or has to be, relax, Suspend your disbelief, enjoy the ride. This, like many superhero movies requires that you leave your brain at the door (with the exception of Batman Begins, The Dark Knight & Watchmen) if it's serious you want then stick to Taxi Driver, Bad Lieutenant, foreign or art house movies which I appreciate from time to time but to only watch films of that intensity would drive me nuts and I don't take myself that seriously. I personally prefer to try and appreciate big budget movies for what I believe them to be........ escapism, pure & simple, I escape from the real world for a couple of hours. When we over think or criticize to the nth degree we strip away the very essence of what they are designed to do which is to entertain!!

Nic on May 14, 2010

185

It was alright, pretty decent. Not as good as the first one though. It's a classic marvel movie not too deep and not too shallow, just the way a marvel movie should be. Rockwell did a good performance just as Downey Junior. Rourke was playing on his usual tempo (smart computer nerd:P) I would have expected more from Johansen and Cheadle but oh well. Maybe when war machine's role is bigger he can show some acting like in traffic or snatch. Although there are some changes from the original story the movie still stays true to the characters and don't make up entirely new ones. Thor and captain america next and maybe then avengers. How that's going to play out..

cancertje on May 15, 2010

186

I loved the first one! Coming into this one, I thought there was no way they would top the first - especially with Terrence Howard not returning. Don Cheadle did an amazing job and Scarlett was absolutely stunning! Cant wait for the next realease! A++

Mike Vanderwall on May 15, 2010

187

I was RALMAO at comments like the ones posted by Linkfx, I mean you want more depth, but there was too much plot & action??? Many got it right, a comic book adaptation isn't on the dramatic side no matter what serious moments are introduced. Don Cheadle is a much better actor than Howard, but either would have done the same for this film, not bad but not great. I think the lines were written poorly. Hopefully they writers will redeem War Machine in the upcoming films. I'm not excited to see a grown man run around in furry underwear and carrying a hammer...tase him already!!!

OC on May 16, 2010

188

It's a great summer movie! Drink a Coke, eat some Kettle Korn and be entertained, and don't be shocked when it doesn't get any Academy Award nominations!

Desmojay on May 16, 2010

189

Yeah, Iron Man 2 was definitely not as good as its predecessor, but I really enjoyed the first one so it had high expectations. I think there was much too much dialogue from RDJ; he can only hold the movie together for so long and they're running out of things to say. There was not enough action to keep my interest for more than a few minutes at a time. It was the polar opposite of Transformers 2, which had too much action. Tony is also getting too many Iron Man suits too soon. He's not using them, and it feels like there was a huge gap between the movies, but very few changes are mentioned in the time space between. I like Don Cheadle, but I hate actor-swapping, especially with such an essential character. The one thing that could have overcome these flaws was more casualties. there was so little collateral in this movie beside Tony's cars, Tony's house, and Tony's expo that it didn't feel like Iron Man was actually saving anybody. I don't recall seeing one innocent mercilessly slaughtered at the hands of Iron Man's terribly formidable foes. I mean they could have at least shot a cat of something. THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE BLOODSHED! I know that's terrible, but if there isn't I just can't get that into the whole "saving-the-world" story line. Despite all these shortcomings, Iron Man 2 was decent, and I believe it did do pretty well as a filler movie. It left me wanting more, but not necessarily in a good way. I'll definitely see Avengers, Thor, and Captain America and hope they'll be much better quality films.

Thesoccerguy13 on May 20, 2010

190

This is typical summer movie. Lot of eye candy explosions , action and a couple of hot babes. I do think that Terrance Howard was a better LtCol. Rhodes, but that is a personal opinion. Don Cheadle didn't ruin the role and everything made sense from a comic standpoint. Really though, you can not expect much from a comic based movie so for what it was it was a pretty good film.

GJ McGurk on May 24, 2010

191

Ok first of all i understand you all have your opinions on the movie but i've been collecting comics since 1983 and yes Tony Stark was a drunk and yes he did fight war machine in the comics. Now both of these movies are from the Ultimate Storyline which is a marvel side storyline where the timeline is different hence Nick Fury as an african american whereas the original Nick fury from the 60's to the 90's was a Caucasion. So they are attempting to follow the storyline and since Marvel has gained the creative rights to all of its movies back this is how they do their comics as well you have filler comics that lead up to a big event. You also have crossover stories that interconnect. So if you are a true comics fan and have read any of the ultimate Avengers storyline you would know that both Iron man movies are close to them.

Kevin redmond on May 27, 2010

192

needed more fights or interaction between Ivan and Tony/Iron Man

tankmaster on May 31, 2010

193

The 1st act is the best thing in the movie. Mickey Rourke makes a great villain and for the first time, there is a hint of darkness in the genre which relies too much on fluff (Dark Knight is an exception). They should explore the fact that the Arc reactor tech is co-founded, the past conflict between 2 fathers, their dark history is completely swept under scenes of uninteresting fluff. Some of the folks here are right that Tony as a character never really takes anything seriously, he never for once needs to overcome any great obstacles at all. In the first film he is captured by terrorist, treated like forced labor, betrayed by his daddy's friend back home, poisoned, beaten, blown up, and in the end he raises above it all, like a regular superhero.

Zack on Jun 5, 2010

194

Very mediocre movie. It presents no distinct vision to set it apart from it's contemporaries. There's no character development, tension or any real reason to accept this as anything significant. It's one of the highest grossing movies this year but it's already been pretty much forgotten about.

Carson Dyle on Jul 11, 2010

195

Was there a more forgettable sequel this summer? (If there was, I've forgotten about it). Iron Man 2 came and went, it's only been a few months since it's release and it's already been forgotten. Also, Jon Favreau can't compose a scene (or an image) to save his life. He may have the worst composition of any modern director.

Strange Apparition on Jul 27, 2010

196

The villain, for being a genius is really stupid about how he plans to take out Stark. From the get go his actions make no sense. All the character development for Pepper and Stark, their relationship and Stark's angst of having the blood of innocents on his hands, seem to be thrown out the window and started anew like the 1st movie was a sitcom and this is a new episode where everything starts over again. The actions sequences were pretty good, but not enough of a struggle, not enough tension or conflict, again due to the failure of the villain to have an even remotely interesting or effective plan. I'll say it again, for an evil genius he's pretty stupid. Good acting by all, bad script, bad story, decent action sequences/effects. If the actors could of gotten a script worthy of them, this would have been a much better movie. There was exactly nothing epic about this story, at all. After the masterpiece that was Iron Man I didn't expect this to come close, unfortunately I was right.

Snake Eyes on Jul 29, 2010

197

This is the worst of the so called "summer blockbuster". I sick of being force fed garbage every summer. Here it is already august and this movie was so bad i'm still pissed off about it. Tony Stark is no Bruce Wayne. And Robert Downey Is not an Action movie star. If you want to know how to make a superhero comic book movie. Watch THE DARK NIGHT!!!

Jon Crocker on Aug 26, 2010

198

Mickey Rourke's performance ruined the whole movie. His performance was unintelligible, and his character made no sense.

Levern Staples on Aug 27, 2010

199

This is a perfect example of how NOT to write a movie. There's no real conflict, all the characters talk about how there's a serious problem that the Iron Man armor raises on a global level, but this threat is never once deomonstrated. Instead, they treat the existence of the Iron Man armor like it's a new haricut fad. There's absolutely no character development, nothing is learned or lost, everything just happens and at the end of the day is forgotten.

Baxter on Sep 25, 2010

200

#120 - Guy No, it's not badass. It's Iron Man and Rhodes having a bitch fight to pop music. It's completely pussy.

Governor on Sep 25, 2010

201

#124 - Guy What threat? You mean when Whiplash can't hit a target 2 feet in front of him? Seriously, you need to stop supporting this trash, this is the worst of cinematic bilge.

Mr. Astronomy on Sep 25, 2010

202

#158 - jojoe You had a blast like a shot of semen to your face. Funny that everyone who saw this movie and had a "blast" have completely forgotten about it only a few months after it came out.

That Guy on Sep 25, 2010

203

The Inception trailer was better than this whole movie.

Perspectival on Sep 25, 2010