Poll: Is Iron Man 2 Better Than The Original?
By Krystal Clark
After two years of waiting the big day is finally here! Iron Man 2 was released in theaters everywhere this morning at 12:01 am. Over the past few weeks the film’s reviews have been rolling in and for the most part they’ve been mixed. From a critical standpoint I can understand the issues journalists have with the movie but as an Iron Man fan, I wasn’t disappointed. What do you think? Is Iron Man 2 better than Iron Man 1? Vote in our poll and let us know…
In my opinion the first Iron Man was a great movie. Its only flaw was its action, or lack there of. You could tell that director (Jon Favreau) wasn’t quite sure what he could or couldn’t do with the character. With the sequel he tries to compensate for that tenfold by filling the screen with explosive fight sequences featuring both human and metal casualties.
Loading ...As for the multiple villains, Ivan Vanko was more of a “heavy” while Justin Hammer stayed behind the scenes. More than anything his character came off as a corrupt business man. He wasn’t out to necessarily “kill” Tony Stark as much as his partner. Their motivations were completely different.
As for Scarlett Johansson’s portrayal of Black Widow it was “meh.” She didn’t disappear into her character. All I saw was Scarlett not Natasha/Natalie. Robert Downey Jr was able to turn into Tony Stark, Gwyneth Paltrow was able to become Pepper Potts, and even Don Cheadle mutated into James Rhodes (in more ways than one) so what was her problem? She was boring. Her dialogue was sleep inducing.
Iron Man 2 was a good film but it wasn’t great. Some of the action scenes ran too long and there was a lack of character development for the newbies (Vanko, Hammer, Widow). Aside from that it’s still entertaining and manages to progress The Avengers story arc that leads us into the next film, Thor.
Loading ...That’s my two cents, what did you think of Iron Man 2?
Sunday, May 9, 2010 3:53PM
I loooved-especially the action-packed ending!!! So worth the price of admission!! Wouldn't mind see it a few times!!
Sunday, May 9, 2010 8:58PM
I liked it better than the first one, but that's said with a few caveats. I saw a double feature showing of Iron Man and then Iron Man 2, so I had a good base for comparison. The first movie, while less action packed, had a more fluid story, and more well rounded characters. Maybe that's the gift an origin story has, is that you know what points you have to hit andstreamline the plot to focus on that story. All the performances in the first movie were excellent, and my only real gripe was how unoriginal the last "boss" felt.
The sequel wasn't as…straightforward I suppose the word would be as the first. Sam Rockwell stole the show for me, and Mickey Rourke was good in his role as what you described as a "heavy". I also liked Don Cheadle better as Rhodey than Terrence Howard. Which made how wooden Scarlett Johansson was all the more noticeable. The character was confusing, even though I knew she was Black Widow. Her flirtations seemed an afterthought. Did she mean to test him? See how far he would go if pushed? It was strange. It was also strange to see Favreau have an expanded role, especially when there were so many other characters clamoring for time. The rest of SHIELD was bland. Samuel L. was Samuel L. and the agent was the nerdy all business type. This supergroup doesn't make for a threatening menagerie if you didn't know what they were in the comics. Though I thought every moment they had on screen was amazing. They have influential powers that most shadowy government groups have. I guess they were the ones that stamped down the furor over the Iron Man/War Machine fight with civilians around?
I enjoyed the lighthearted nature of the movie. The first encounter with Whiplash and the attempts at trying to get the suit along with the repartee between Tony and James before the showdown in the park made those scenes better. Which made the "serious" scenes muted. His "problem" was so easily solved by SHIELD that when he finally fixed it, it made the whole worrying process seem pointless. His father issues came and went.
While this movie had more action scenes, some action scenes had a Transformers feel to it. That's not a compliment. Considering all this, I think that the plot itself wasn't bad, but the direction wasn't on point to follow. I usually don't like the "wink wink" type of nods to the audience, though during the movie I ate them up. Cheadle's first words are something to the effect of "I know I'm not who you remember, but let's just move along and get this movie going". The notes towards the Marvel universe was fun, like Captain America, the Avengers and Thor.
I made it seem like I didn't like this more than the first, but I said I did. So I guess I do. Basically, this movie doesn't stand on its own nearly as well as the first, but as part of a building superhero universe, this was an excellent piece. I suppose I'm saying that damn, I can't wait for the Avengers movie now.
Friday, May 14, 2010 3:05PM
BETTER THAN AVATAR BY FAR!!!!!! PROBABLY THE BEST MOVIE IN CINEMA HISTORY!!!
Saturday, September 18, 2010 9:08PM
Part 1 was best, more story and less crap, and Terrence Howard is by far better for Rhodey cast than Don Cheadle he has no chemistry with the character.