New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

David Mumpower: I was braced for the worst; I had always worried that this production was too rushed. The early reviews, particularly the hatchet job from Hollywood Reporter, reinforced a lot of my concerns. Perhaps the lowered expectations helped for me, because I was quite impressed with Iron Man 2 overall. I like that there are two villains in the film and one of them is used entirely as incompetent comic relief. Because of that, the other one is liberated to be in attack mode throughout the film. I don’t feel that we see enough of this in movies. Too many times, the villain should win but doesn’t because he fails to go for the jugular. That makes the process too fake, too similar to professional wrestling.

Iron Man 2 has a realism in this regard that is magnified by the way that Stark and his foe, Ivan Vanko, are demonstrated to have similar personalities. Each of them gains a level of tunnel vision as they seek to implement and enhance their creations. It works for me on a fundamental level just as was the case in The Fugitive when the Tommy Lee Jones and Harrison Ford characters were shown narrowing down their search results for a one-armed man who may be a murderer. We see this in Iron Man 2 as both inventors try to create a new iteration of their model that will eliminate the competition. Something I loved about Iron Man that still stands with its successor is that Favreau reveals the creative process in a way I find relatable.

Pete Kilmer: I think it was a very strong followup to Iron Man. It expanded the world of Iron Man/Tony Stark very nicely to work with the upcoming Marvel movies. But even better was that the movie just plain worked. As David mentioned before, the villians really worked here quite nicely to take down the hero in different ways that didn't overshadow each other. I really liked how Vanko and Hammer were reflections of the men Tony might have been if life had gone a bit differently for him.

I also found that this movie had a little more emotional heart in this one than in the last film. Vanko had a real '"mad-on" for Tony for what Tony's father "did" to him and it was understandable. Pepper and Tony (those two need to make an old school fast talking 1940s film) had a great connection. A lot of this really worked for me; in fact, the part that really worked for me is the part a lot of critics say that nothing happened in. When Tony has to figure out what his Dad meant and find the new element was showing Tony at what he really is. An inventor. Sure he's the playboy billionaire, the brash hero, the rich man who stick his middle finger up to the government, but at his heart...he's an inventor. Loved it.

Matthew Huntley: Like the original, this is a very solid popcorn movie. It's light, exciting and action-packed, but it's also sort of standard as far as superhero movies go. It's not as intelligent or patient as its predecessor, but the action is tighter and more rhythmic. It also has a better Rhodey (courtesy of Don Cheadle), a more interesting villain (Mickey Rourke speaks with a Russian accent quite well) and there are some nice director touches along the way (shooting in a doughnut shop; two Iron Men fighting in Stark's house; the film strip of Tony Stark's father). As a whole, the Iron Man franchise has yet to transcend its genre like Spider-Man 2 or The Dark Knight did, and it lacks some heartfelt emotion, but it's entertaining and fun. Let's just hope Iron Man 3 raises the complexity levels of the characters and situations a bit.

Continued:       1       2       3       4