Home » Movies & Entertainment » Reviewing the critics who reviewed ‘Iron Man 2’

Reviewing the critics who reviewed ‘Iron Man 2’

Blog Stats

  • 244,578 hits

Over the past week, I’ve been reading A TROTH of “Iron Man 2” reviews. A number of them bad.

I saw the film on Mother’s Day and when asked THAT DAY, how was it, I said that it is better than the first. I’ll reel back that statement a bit — the action sequences ARE better than the first and there are MORE actual Iron Man scenes in No. 2 than in the first one, which I loved (I wondered why there was only like eight minutes of actual Iron Man time in the first). The fun factor IS better than the first. Believe it or not, I actually thought Don Cheadle did a great job as Rhodes. Mickey Rourke was great too.

Critics and reviewers dislike Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, but who else do you want? The original Fury — David Hasselhoff?

The review, like most others I do, will debunk the bad ones. This review, will briefly tell why many say that the movie is bad. And, this review will briefly say why I agree with them too.

What gets lost in peoples mind when they view “Iron Man 2” is that there has been a time lapse between part one and two. What keeps coming up is how Rhodes know how to ‘man’ Iron Man’s suit. That’s simple — Tony himself taught him. We, as viewers, have to assume that since it’s been two years between films, there has been A LOT going on. Remember, Rhodes was the first to know that Tony was Iron Man so why would he NOT show him how to man the suit? They are best friends — EVERY THING doesn’t have to be explained. That is the reason why Tony didn’t try to stop him. (Does that make sense people?)

True War Machine wasn’t built to stop Tony like in the comics BUT the premise is the same in the movie. Rhodes SAW the destructive path that Tony was going because of his drunkenness SO he wanted War Machine built to protect the people from Tony. (In the comics, Rhodes took over when Tony was too drunk to be a hero any more.) And yes Tony got drunk because he believed he was going die, but the message was implied, not stated because of the kids. (SAY NO TO ALCOHOL.)

If you don't go see 'Iron Man 2' for any other reason, it would be for this moment.

I do agree with critics and reviewers that “Iron Man 2” is too busy. The reason for that is because the writer is trying to force feed viewers the Avengers. Having ANOTHER calculated but misguided unfinished Captain America shield is one thing, but having Nick Fury and Black Widow in the movie JUST to recruit for the Avengers is another. The story arc with S.H.E.I.L.D does tie-in because of Vanko and Stark (Tony’s father created S.H.E.I.L.D) and the whole learning your destiny aspect but having Tony looking at an Avengers’ folder at the end of the movie is a bit much. The Thor’s Easter Egg at the end can pass but was it necessary?

My critical advice is that let each individual Marvel character stand alone. That will prevent helter skelter scripts. Write the stories with the assumption that the viewers do not know about ANYTHING. (Use the first Avengers movie to introduce these characters, not put them in other peoples movies.)

“Iron Man 2” is by no means great. “Iron Man 2” is by no means bad either. Despite it’s flaws (mainly the written aspect) “Iron Man 2” takes on the eye of the beholder. And for my eyes, it’s good.


1 Comment

  1. […] previous two movie reviews that I wrote (“Revenge of the Fallen” and “Iron Man 2″) were to discredit the critics. They were written to flat out tell anyone who happens to read my […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: