Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, I just went to see this movie. In terms of a rating I gave it a 6.5 out of 10
Here's why

post what you think

Huffy wrote:Really Samuel L Jackson with an eye patch. . . .

Nick Fury has an eye patch. It's part of the character's look. And Ultimate Nick Fury, who had his looks based on Samuel L. Jackson has an eye-patch. It's not some thing they made up to make him look scary or daring or whatever - it's always been there.

Iron Man 2 was dreadful. Despite a couple of good one-liners and another excellent performance from Mickey Rourke, there was really nothing new to distinguish it from the first film. Frankly the second half was just a glorified advert for future avengers movies. Sigh.

J.Black wrote:Iron Man 2 was dreadful. Despite a couple of good one-liners and another excellent performance from Mickey Rourke, there was really nothing new to distinguish it from the first film. Frankly the second half was just a glorified advert for future avengers movies. Sigh.

You act like that's a bad thing?

I like that they're trying to tie all the Marvel continuity together now.

Kanluwen wrote:

J.Black wrote:Iron Man 2 was dreadful. Despite a couple of good one-liners and another excellent performance from Mickey Rourke, there was really nothing new to distinguish it from the first film. Frankly the second half was just a glorified advert for future avengers movies. Sigh.

You act like that's a bad thing?

I like that they're trying to tie all the Marvel continuity together now.

Well, let us hope the giant build up does not turn into x-Men 3 or something akin to The Matrix Revolution.

All that good build up for nothing.

why does everyone hate on summer action flicks? they are for action not plot. if you want plot see a tv movie this summer.

WarOne wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

J.Black wrote:Iron Man 2 was dreadful. Despite a couple of good one-liners and another excellent performance from Mickey Rourke, there was really nothing new to distinguish it from the first film. Frankly the second half was just a glorified advert for future avengers movies. Sigh.

You act like that's a bad thing?

I like that they're trying to tie all the Marvel continuity together now.

Well, let us hope the giant build up does not turn into x-Men 3 or something akin to The Matrix Revolution.

All that good build up for nothing.

Point of fact:
Those are both Fox movies.

That's all the explanation I really feel I need to give.

Well, that and that "The Matrix" should never have gotten sequels to begin with.

It didn't really bother me to much that it was about other suits because 75% of Iron Man stories have to do with him dealing with other people using his tech or a variation on it, so it isn't that odd, that is fairly normal for the series. Excluding a few characters, Iron Man is a tech based comic. The other 24% is alcoholism, of course.

Ultimate Nick Fury, from before Iron Man 1 was shot:



Seem familiar?

I like that they are trying to create a comic book continuity in films, but for people who have no idea who Nick Fury or the Avengers are it could probably be a bit confusing.

Overall it was a fun, if not as clean or efficient as the original, film. There are one or two 'lolwut' moments to be sure but overall it was a fun ride. The performances were still good, the action was still good, the plot just suffers somewhat from trying to cram a bit to much into it. Not as good as the first, but still worth a see.

garret wrote:why does everyone hate on summer action flicks? they are for action not plot. if you want plot ...read a book.

Fixed.

Personally,I don't "hate" popcorn movies,but I do find many of them dull and predictable (loads of CGI and boompowbang don't really do it for me),so I'm a bit selective about what "blockbusters" I choose to go see.

Yeah, but it also makes people want to learn more and builds up the backstory for "The Avengers" movie(which is being done by Joss fething Whedon!).

Could you imagine how long an Avengers movie would have to be if they weren't building up all this backstory in the other flicks?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FITZZ wrote:

garret wrote:why does everyone hate on summer action flicks? they are for action not plot. if you want plot ...read a book.

Fixed.

Personally,I don't "hate" popcorn movies,but I do find many of them dull and predictable (loads of CGI and boompowbang don't really do it for me),so I'm a bit selective about what "blockbusters" I choose to go see.

It's a very hit or miss thing with summer movies.

There are people who felt "The Dark Knight" was nothing more than a popcorn flick--when it was actually a really damned good movie in terms of story.

Kanluwen wrote:Yeah, but it also makes people want to learn more and builds up the backstory for "The Avengers" movie(which is being done by Joss fething Whedon!).

Could you imagine how long an Avengers movie would have to be if they weren't building up all this backstory in the other flicks?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FITZZ wrote:

garret wrote:why does everyone hate on summer action flicks? they are for action not plot. if you want plot ...read a book.

Fixed.

Personally,I don't "hate" popcorn movies,but I do find many of them dull and predictable (loads of CGI and boompowbang don't really do it for me),so I'm a bit selective about what "blockbusters" I choose to go see.

It's a very hit or miss thing with summer movies.

There are people who felt "The Dark Knight" was nothing more than a popcorn flick--when it was actually a really damned good movie in terms of story.

I most definatly agree, "The Dark Knight" was indeed a very good movie (popcorn or otherwise),with an entertaining story.

I have yet to see Iron Man 2,but I plan to as I really enjoyed the first one.

Ahtman wrote:It didn't really bother me to much that it was about other suits because 75% of Iron Man stories have to do with him dealing with other people using his tech or a variation on it, so it isn't that odd, that is fairly normal for the series. Excluding a few characters, Iron Man is a tech based comic. The other 24% is alcoholism, of course.

What's the extra 1%? Cocaine? Love? Tears of unfathomable sorrow?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
There are people who felt "The Dark Knight" was nothing more than a popcorn flick--when it was actually a really damned good movie in terms of story.

Well, there's also the issue of Christian Bale. He was good in the first flick, but terrible in The Dark Knight. Though that may have been because Michael Caine cast a pox on his house with god-like power.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
There are people who felt "The Dark Knight" was nothing more than a popcorn flick--when it was actually a really damned good movie in terms of story.

Well, there's also the issue of Christian Bale. He was good in the first flick, but terrible in The Dark Knight. Though that may have been because Michael Caine cast a pox on his house with god-like power.

See, I don't get that argument.

What was the "issue" with Bale? The voice? Because he did that in the first one.

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:It didn't really bother me to much that it was about other suits because 75% of Iron Man stories have to do with him dealing with other people using his tech or a variation on it, so it isn't that odd, that is fairly normal for the series. Excluding a few characters, Iron Man is a tech based comic. The other 24% is alcoholism, of course.

What's the extra 1%? Cocaine? Love? Tears of unfathomable sorrow?

Have to leave room for miscellaneous one-offs and such.

I found it dissapointing as a standalone movie. But, like Kanluwen said, hopefully it's just a stepping stone in the build-up of an Marvel Community of some sorts.

That said, the momentary cameo with Stan Lee got a bit of a chuckle out of me.

I actually didn't even see the customary Stan Lee camo. When was it?

Kanluwen wrote:I actually didn't even see the customary Stan Lee camo. When was it?

Tony addresses him as Larry King as he is leaving an event, much like he was dressed as and referred to as Hugh Hefner in the first.

Kanluwen wrote:
See, I don't get that argument.

What was the "issue" with Bale? The voice? Because he did that in the first one.

Too much Batman, not enough Bruce. Batman is boring when he isn't punching people.

Also, Bale didn't convey the struggle of being Batman very well. I thought he felt too confident given that this was his first supervillain.

Personally, I thought Iron Man 2 at least warranted about a 7. The dialogue was good, the action sequences were good, and it did retain a fair amount of humor. The problem was, they were trying to put too many plot points into one movie. It might have been better if they hadn't tried to stuff it full of plotlines to try and follow over the course of the movie. Well, with any luck, the Thor, Captain America, and Avengers movies will be better. Hopefully they'll do a good enough job of mixing all the various heroes together.

(SPOILERS)

Liked it, didn't love it. For the purposes of giant robots punching each other it did a fine job.

Didn't like Fury (took me too much out of the film) didn't liek the deus ex machina of the fairgrounds giving the pattern for a new element (y'know if they'd called it a new alloy I would ahve been fine, the problem is I know how elements work).

Loved seeing my old stomping grounds of Flushing Meadow Park take a staring role. But Men In Black made better use of them.

Missed the Stan Lee cameo!

Right now 10 million people are going on line to find out what the #$%^ that hammer means. Again, takes me out of the movie.

And WHY, WHY OH WHY, can I not buy those hammer drones now. I swear I would buy 5 of each Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. All they have are those damn Kubrick pattern ones.

I'd agree with K_K.

It was pretty good, but not super awesome.



Oh, and Scarlett Johansson is still fething hot.

Ahtman wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I actually didn't even see the customary Stan Lee camo. When was it?

Tony addresses him as Larry King as he is leaving an event, much like he was dressed as and referred to as Hugh Hefner in the first.

I THOUGHT that was Stan Lee, but the end credits mentioned using Larry King's likeness so I shrugged it off.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:(SPOILERS)
Didn't like Fury (took me too much out of the film) didn't liek the deus ex machina of the fairgrounds giving the pattern for a new element (y'know if they'd called it a new alloy I would ahve been fine, the problem is I know how elements work).

That was probably the king 'lolwut' moment. I could have believed that it was some circuit design his father had hid in the map but the only thing he got out of that entire map was the globe in the middle, which really could have been any globe.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Right now 10 million people are going on line to find out what the #$%^ that hammer means. Again, takes me out of the movie.

People complain that comic book movies have no continuity to each other and are separate affairs, and then Marvel finally creates a film Marvel Universe where the heroes all exist together and people still complain.

I could sort of see your point if it happened during the movie, but to do so after the movie was over doesn't really detract from the film since it came after the film was over. I also like the idea of actually having the characters exist in the same world for once.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:(SPOILERS)
Right now 10 million people are going on line to find out what the #$%^ that hammer means. Again, takes me out of the movie.

You mean the hammer in the post end credits teaser? If so, it 'means' Thor doesn't it? Or are you wondering why they were looking for the hammer in the first place? Be interesting if that aspect forms part of the plot for Thor (Thor loses hammer? Did he drop it when he went out for coffee? I'm always doing that with my wallet), but I'm guessing it was just an excuse for a Thor reveal. Regardless, the secret archeological dig in the desert is an overdone movie cliche. Why do ancient civilisations always bury things in deserts?

Damn. I missed the hammer at the end.

Flashman wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:(SPOILERS)
Right now 10 million people are going on line to find out what the #$%^ that hammer means. Again, takes me out of the movie.

You mean the hammer in the post end credits teaser? If so, it 'means' Thor doesn't it? Or are you wondering why they were looking for the hammer in the first place? Be interesting if that aspect forms part of the plot for Thor (Thor loses hammer? Did he drop it when he went out for coffee? I'm always doing that with my wallet), but I'm guessing it was just an excuse for a Thor reveal. Regardless, the secret archeological dig in the desert is an overdone movie cliche. Why do ancient civilisations always bury things in deserts?

It wasn't a dig site, it was a crater from the hammer falling to Earth.

Flashman wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:(SPOILERS)
Right now 10 million people are going on line to find out what the #$%^ that hammer means. Again, takes me out of the movie.

You mean the hammer in the post end credits teaser? If so, it 'means' Thor doesn't it? Or are you wondering why they were looking for the hammer in the first place? Be interesting if that aspect forms part of the plot for Thor (Thor loses hammer? Did he drop it when he went out for coffee? I'm always doing that with my wallet), but I'm guessing it was just an excuse for a Thor reveal. Regardless, the secret archeological dig in the desert is an overdone movie cliche. Why do ancient civilisations always bury things in deserts?

I know what it means, my cousin sitting next to me did not.

Basically the hammer bit was not part of the Iron Man movie, it was a teaser for another film entirely (two other films really Thor and Avengers). Which takes me out of the story and reminds me I'm seeing a mass market, multiplatform marketing campaign.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Flashman wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:(SPOILERS)
Right now 10 million people are going on line to find out what the #$%^ that hammer means. Again, takes me out of the movie.

You mean the hammer in the post end credits teaser? If so, it 'means' Thor doesn't it? Or are you wondering why they were looking for the hammer in the first place? Be interesting if that aspect forms part of the plot for Thor (Thor loses hammer? Did he drop it when he went out for coffee? I'm always doing that with my wallet), but I'm guessing it was just an excuse for a Thor reveal. Regardless, the secret archeological dig in the desert is an overdone movie cliche. Why do ancient civilisations always bury things in deserts?

I know what it means, my cousin sitting next to me did not.

Basically the hammer bit was not part of the Iron Man movie, it was a teaser for another film entirely (two other films really Thor and Avengers). Which takes me out of the story and reminds me I'm seeing a mass market, multiplatform marketing campaign.

Ok, but the hammer was after the end credits, which was kind of 5 minutes after the 'story' had finished. I will however allow you to use the appearance of Captain America's shield (albeit an unfinished prototype) halfway through the film to support your argument

Absolutely loved it, and liked the little cameo of the old cartoon-style briefcase suit.

The "Element" wasn't just the globe at the centre, the globe was the nucleus, but then all of the round topped buildings became the number of protons, hence why he had to scan the entire map and remove everything but them.