Iron Man 2: More Iron, Less Fun


Agreed. About the most interesting thing in the movie was the Bill Oreilly cameo. Lol.
Does anyone at the Stranger like any movie? ... EVER?
@3: I liked Iron Man, Spider-Man 2, and The Dark Knight, and I said that right at the top of my review.
Not trying to be a troll ... I just don't think I've read a positive review on here. Nothing against you personally. It seems like it's the IN thing to rip on all movies these days. Again, I haven't seen it, and when I do, I'll probably agree with you ... just sayin'
Stark and Hammer's dueling philosophies of "privitizing world peace" provided plenty of conflict, enough to make Whiplash entirely unnecessary. Stark vs. Hammer with Rhodey at stake would have been a much better film.

And man... what happened to Garry Shandling?
@5: Since you claim to be "not a troll," let me help you. These positive reviews all ran in our paper in the past couple of weeks.

Tehran Rock City…

Mid-August Lunch…



The Eclipse…
@5: The Stranger is rag for indie contrarians. If its popular, they'll hate it, right or wrong. If its not popular, they'll pride themselves on getting on the bandwagon while its underground.

See, its a pretty low risk strategy. If the indie movie bombs, no one will remember, and if a major blockbuster is well received, they can dismiss it as not having any indie cred.
And the links @7 seem to confirm #8's response... How apropos.
a movie critic finds some things wrong with a movie titled Iron Man 2?! i don't think it was overly negative for a movie based on a comic book...if i recall i got burned on a positive review of the second star wars prequel a few years back...i was sure lucas was paying the stranger...but then i like to make up my own mind
"Iron Man 2 has enough clever acting, sly humor, and over-the-top action to make it a fine kickoff to the summer movie season. But it's all kickoff and very little kick-in-the-pants, with too much expository lifting where there should've been more tons more fun."

Okay, discount it all you want, but letting Robert Downey, Jr., Don Cheadle, and Mickey Rourke have fun with some silly superhero bullshit and do an excellent job at it is reason enough to see the movie. If you don't think that it's fun to see those three excellent actors fuck around for two hours (not to mention the excellent performances by Ms. Johansson and Ms. Paltrow, who as a consequence of traditional comic book gender dynamics are relegated to supporting roles) and then get to watch shit blow up, man you don't know what fun is.
I liked the Scarlett Johahnsson role. She presented Tony with a nut he couldn't crack.

TONY: I'm having trouble getting a read on you. What would you do if you knew you were about to celebrate your last birthday?
NATALIE: I'd do whatever I want to do with whoever I want to do it with.

Also her fight scene was the best action sequence of the whole movie.
I didnt see anything bad with this review at all. They noted the negatives but overall gave it a positive review, which is what I've seen from several other newspapers as well. Also, not all the reviews on the stranger are bad. Granted sometimes I strongly disagree(Ah the beauty of opinions) generally they do hit what they need to. A review should always tell you the good and the bad and leave it to you to make your decision. I think this review and many other from the stranger do just that.
@7: It's always kinda surprising and a little weird when you go all serious-adult like that.
@14: LINDY WEST IS MUCH MORE THAN A STUCK CAPS LOCK BUTTON. Which is what makes her so entertaining to read.
I went to see it yesterday, and I have to say that Paul's baseline review of it--kinda lackluster for a superhero sequel, but not all bad--is about right. There's still plenty of gems in it that I was entertained (like @2 said, the Bill O'Reilly "cameo" was great), but it did seem like a one hour movie stretched out to two. I'd still recommend it if you enjoyed the first one, however. I did appreciate the sly nods to other franchises they're starting, one of which is after end the credits roll.

SPOILER: My biggest issue with the movie was the motivations by the villain, Ivan Vanko. His father used to work for Stark Industries when Tony's father was running the show (and evoking Roy Disney while he did so), and was deported when Daddy Stark found that he was interested in the potential for profit from their inventions. (So...he was deported for not being a philanthropist, I guess...?) So Vanko decides to destroy Tony Stark's for Stark Sr.'s douchebaggery. Pretty standard fare for comic book writing I guess, so I can't truly fault it, but it still felt like a thin plot.
@16 SPOILER section follow-up: Also, let's not forget that this lack of a philanthropic streak was enough to get this guy deported by his boss, a weapons designer and manufacturer. So you have to be a compassionate designer of bombs and bullets or you can't work at Stark Industries.
came here for the line and sinker, "is robert downey jr. still a conceited dick in iron man 2? find out at," and am still curious, left to bake on dry sand with hook still firmly in cheek because i'm waiting, praying on high for the ultimate miracle of his ego appearing under control to restore my faith in god.
Thanks Lindy - Persian Cats looks good, but the others aren't my cup of tea. I think I just wanted to believe IronMan2 was at least as entertaining as the first. Took my disappointment out on Paul - my appolgies. :)
If I'd have known potato head Bill O was in this movie I'd have blown it off. It was bad enough that Amanpour debased her profession by appearing in this comic book movie. Assholes.
If I'd have known potato head Bill O was in this movie I'd have blown it off. It was bad enough that Amanpour debased her profession by appearing in this comic book movie. Assholes.

Hey dufus, he's a part of the real world, which Marvel loves to depict in it's comic books!Same with Amanpour. If you'd read the comics instead of being a big dick like this reviewer, you know that. But you didn't, so...

Chalk this review to not getting it, as usual. But what else is new? These are the same critics who bitched because Superman didn't do enough beating up of the bad guys in Superman Returns, yet now they bash this movie for doing just that-what gives?