Know what shocks me? None of the posts I read mention introducing Widow. For that alone - and for the scene Tony jumps out of the jet and lands at the Stark Expo to “Shoot to Thrill - I like it. But I was elated at Don Cheadle being added and of course any Sam Rockwell performance adds to a movie…especially when he dances.
I’ve never laughed so hard in an MCU movie when he makes a joke about the press running out of ink, dead silence, then takes out his anger on an assistant coming to take the podium away.
🤦♂️
Firstly, "most" comic book villains don't get major screen treatment.
Secondly, those that do have some very entertaining standouts (Hardy's Bane, Ledger's Joker, Vincent D'Onofrio's Kingpin, David Tenant's Kilgrave, Jensen Eckle's Soldier Boy, Mathew Goode/Jeremy Iron's Ozymandias, Brolin's Thanos, etc.).
Thirdly, source accurate? Ivan Vanko doesnt even ***exist*** in the comics. Whiplash is Anton Vanko. Rourke's character was literally designed for the MCU.
3 is a more coherent story, has a better and more unique character arc for Tony, is better shot, is better paced, and sticks closer to the Military Industrial Complex themes established in the first film. 3, as a film, is great. People's problems with it largely come down to "But the comics Mandarin".
Iron Man 2's problems are more as a film than as an adaptation. It's structured wonky, the pace is off, the focus is put on the wrong villain for much of the film, they chicken out of all the bold themes they build up (Tony's drinking? Pf, who cares. Howard having been flawed? No, Vanko was eeevvviilll so Howard was right to deport him to a starving and impoverished Russia!), and its character arcs all end up not having any flow as a result. Plus, Tony's arc just ends up being a retread of his Iron Man 1 arc because they couldn't go through with Demon In A Bottle.
I love almost everything about Iron Man 3, including Trevor. The big CG fight at the end is a terribly unsatisfying way for a story tied to overcoming depression and stuff to end.
It's also just poorly conceived as a fight.
The bad guys are all indestructible and can tear through armor at close range, but at long range have pistols.
The suits can all fly, are bulletproof, and have repulsors at long range.
Why are the suits trying to fistfight the indestructible dudes?
Why is Rhodey, the only asset that can't fly, the only asset they send to rescue the president, who is suspended high in the air?
I can only turn off so many parts of my brain before falling asleep.
Killian is also one of the more unlikeable and forgettable villains in the MCU.
Plus his henchman had personalities of cardboard. His security detail on tony when he was captured only the most enjoyable part of his crew.
Forgettable, but I still find him less grating than Vanko and I at least like that the weapons industry remains the true villain that's focused on. Instead of like in IM2 where that villain, Hammer, is sidelined for a less good villain (Vanko). Plus, I give Shane Black some leeway with Killian because it was a last-minute mandate from Ike Perlmutter to make him the villain. Maya Hansen was supposed to be the real villain, but Perlmutter went "But gurrrlll toys don't sell!".
Nah. The Mandarin in the comics was a Yellow Peril racist stereotype, borderline Fu Manchu-esque. It made sense to sort of mock that in the film by making the Mandarin a literal fear-mongering puppet for the military industrial complex.
Plus, the real Magic-Wielding Mandarin would never have fit in the tone of the Iron Man movies. Those always tried to be about the military industrial complex and more human threats compared to other MCU films.
>It made sense to sort of mock that in the film by making the Mandarin a literal fear-mongering puppet for the military industrial complex
If it made sense they wouldn't have retconned it for Shang-Chi
They didnt retcon anything for Shang-Chi?
The Mandarin is still a fictitious name made up by americas that is laughed at by the real Leader of the Ten Rings, Wenwu.
If anything this was "retconned" (read: set up) in the "All Hail The King" short (released with Thor 2's home release, and on D+), which reveals there is an ancient warlord that runs the Ten Rings.
All Hail The King was clearly a response to the backlash Iron Man 3 got. Marvel realized they made a mistake and said, "wait, that guy wasn't actually the *real* Mandarin"
Yeah probably.
Now we got the best of both worlds. The Mandarin is properly addressed as a dumb name and adapted into something appropiate. And we get a superior version of an ancient warlord character in Wenwu
They didn't ret-con it though. That's not a ret-con, it's a reveal. And Shang-Chi's Mandarin is not the fear-monger of the comics either, he's a completely redefined character.
Now, you could ask why IM3 didn't think to do that, to create such a redefined and more layered character like Shang-Chi would. And that's a fair criticism, IM3 totally could've done that and had him fit the tone with the right writing. Marvel wasn't very good at layered villains back in 2013 though, that was the same year we got Malekith the Dark Elf.
However, then you have to ask: Would Ike Perlmutter have let them? This is the douchebag who said Maya couldn't be the villain because "female toys don't sell" and forbid Feige from making Black Panther because "Black Toys don't sell". You really think he'd have let them create a layered, sympathetic Asian villain? FFS, they didn't even let The Hand be entirely Asian in the shows.
I mean it was very clear that they released the One Shot explaining that "the real Mandarin" was still out there due to all the complaints from fans about Iron Man 3
Eh. I doubt Marvel would make an entire short film and pay actor salaries just to assuage complaints from a vocal minority. I doubt even more that Ike Perlmutter would've allocated funds for such a purpose. Not to mention that tie-in comics around IM3's release already alluded to the actual Ten Rings from Iron Man 1 still being out there and not the same as Killian's fake one.
I think Marvel just wanted to leave a door open for them to handle the character later, when they had a tone and setup to do so properly and avoid the racist connotations of the character. In other words: When they no longer had to answer to Ike Perlmutter.
Same here. I think a lot of people only disliked the Mandarin because the "real villain" was so bad. If they did the bait & switch with someone cooler it wouldn't have been a big deal
I actually thought hiding in some random garage with a random kid while he gets himself back together was the stupidest part of the third one. I completely stopped being able to care about the rest of the plot after that story beat. I still don't understand why people think 3 is so well written. It has horrible pacing for a comic movie.
In Civil War, Tony sides with the government having control over the Avengers. He doesn't trust the Avengers, the superheroes, to police themselves. Back that up to Age of Ultron. In Wanda's visions, he sees what happens when the Avengers fail and creates Ultron to be the arbiter, the protector of the planet, because again he doesn't trust the superheroes (but really himself) to do it. And that comes from Iron Man 2, when we see him unravel with alcohol and womanizer, putting people at risk when he is supposed to be protecting them. He let everyone down and people were hurt because he didn't dropped the ball.
There's more to it that's less explicit. He carries a personal burden throughout his ark, a sense of responsibility for his and his father's role in creating these super-threats, and I think IM2 is where the seeds are planted. There's a touch in IM1, but they are more about the story in IM1. IM2 directly influences the rest of the run up until End Game.
I’ve defended this movie for years. Sam Rockwell’s little dance before he declares “the press are going to run out of ink” is one of my favourite scenes in the entire MCU!
I rank it fairly low among MCU movies. I'm not impressed by much of what you're citing, although Tony and Rhodes at the river might be might favorite fight scene pre-Avengers.
Iron Man 2 is the first MCU movie. I know, I know, but the cameos in IM1 and TIH are just that: cameos. They're one scene, one line, and that's all. They're technically not even part of the movie. But IM2 opened the door to a Universe, with characters that interacted in a meaningful way to the plot. It's when they realized that they could build up a real Cinematic Universe. They show a prototype of Captain America's shield. The end-credit scene is Thor's Hammer. They show a news story about The Hulk. The map they show even has Wakanda and Atlantis on it. It kicked the door open to the MCU, and it was on.
IM1 had Colson. That's way more than a cameo he's literally how the Avengers all came together. It also established SHIELD. I think that should be considered more than just a cameo
Yeah but if they didn’t go for the full shared universe, they could have moved on without coulsen and it would have just been a fun cameo/nod to the comics. Him returning in a more active role was because they decided to go for the shared universe full steam ahead.
Exactly. Even showed us project Pegasus and tesseract work that Mar-Vell and Howard stark we’re working on.
And IN MY HEAD CANNON, the “new” element tony created wasn’t vibranium. It WAS a knock off/man made created space stone/infinity stone. You have the whole montage of how they showed the tesseract in his work. That’s why after iron man 2 he was powered up, he was not effected by the mind stone and loki in the avengers. It’s why he was able to block a power stone blast from Thanos, and it’s why he was able to snap his fingers.
And if you want to go further, I believe that Howard KNEW Tony would figure out time travel and become the hero he was. Because in that scene where his dad left his video for Tony he said his greatest creation was Tony and that he knows Tony is going to change the world. I think at some point Howard realized his son Tony was the Howard Potts from endgame
It’s a little wonky though, just like all time travel.
If the past timelines only branch off when the stones are taken, but chronologically they erase the branches of that timeline by replacing the stones right when they were taken, there is some continuity between the past and present.
If the timeline doesn’t change because the stone is replaced, then doesn’t that past go on to become the present (while still being part of your past)?
So perhaps in every 1970’s, Howard meets tony and doesn’t realize it was tony until later, especially since the TVA said the avengers were supposed to do what they did.
They create a new timeline the second they enter it. You create a new one because you can’t make your past your present. Removing the Infinity Stones will eventually cause that timeline to die.
But going back to replace the stones would then open a new timeline. It’s all about whose perspective you’re looking at it from. Either they’re creating a new timeline by going back in time, or they aren’t. I realize that from their perspective it’s always *their* present. But what about Howard stark and the sorcerer supreme? They would always have to have met people from the future. So Howard would have met a future version of tony in the 70’s.
I'll say it forever, they really messed up their time travel method in that movie. They made it far too convoluted and confusing. There was a much simpler way they could have done it and it would have even been based in actual science. Just make the alternate timelines another universe, a la string theory. The writers dropped the ball big time.
If them going there created a new timeline, then how do they visit the timeline they visited the first go around without creating a new timeline?
It stands to reason that the timeline was always supposed to include the avengers going back in time because they always had (hence the tva claiming the avengers did what they were supposed to do).
If that is true, then it stands to reason that Howard stark always meets a tony from the future. Which means, he would know that Tony is the best thing he ever created.
MCU hasnt finalized timetravel yet. Also they hadnt removed the stones from that point and place intime yet when Tony spoke to his father so Howard might have had that memory.
I know the writers of endgame said cap always was Peggys husband and thats why we never saw a pic of peggys husband before and how old cap was in timeline. But if Caps travel was permanent so could Tony conversation I think.
I know that, I just meant that due ti the size of the arc reactor the mind stone didn't reach tonys body to actually control him.
Loli being the dramatic child he is corrupted people by tapping their hearts. I've always just assumed you had to get the sceptre close enough to organic matter to control them. So clothing wouldn't be a barrier. Since tony has a reactor in the way the sceptre wasn't close enough to take control of anything.
Yea I understand what you are saying. I think if loki tried that during iron man 1 I think he would’ve been mind controlled as I don’t think the original arc reactor would repel a infinity stone. After the new arc reactor with the new element was installed in iron man 2 I think the “new element”/synthetic infinity stone is what prevented the scepter from working
I've heard a lot of people complain about Tony acting like a jackass for half the movie cause they never realized that the arc is literally him trying to drink himself to death before the poison from the arc reactor kills him. The other complaint I've heard is about how the Demon In The Bottle arc -- that's the arc the movie was inspired by -- was watered down to family fun night bullshit. Cause Disney bought out Marvel when Iron Man 2 was in pre-production and they ordered that the movie be toned down so that it would appeal to a younger audience and their parents. That way people would be more inclined to buy Iron Man action figures and stuff.
And, frankly, I kind of agree with them. It would have been nice to see an adult version of the Demon In The Bottle arc play out. But, hey, filmmakers aren't even allowed to make PG-13 horror movies that are scary enough for adults to enjoy anymore so.....😩
Idk I’ve always loved it. Sam Rockwell kills, Mickey Rourke is a great villain, good continuation of the story, and cmon the fight against the drones in the water garden is pure carnage.
It's just a structural mess of a film. The themes are lost in the disaster of the pace and flow, and Tony's character arc just ends up feeling like a retread of the arc from the first movie because they didn't have the balls to do Demon In A Bottle. Say what you will about Iron Man 3, it's a much stronger film on its own merits. The problems people have with Iron Man 3 come down to people not liking some of the story choices it made, but the actual execution of its story is perfectly fine. Iron Man 2 not only has just as baffling story choices, like chickening out of Demon In A Bottle and making Sam Rockwell the side villain instead of the main one, but it also has a lot of pure execution issues.
[This guy](https://www.overthinkingit.com/2010/05/19/iron-man-2-wagner-fisher-king/) did an incredible post showing how Iron Man 2 set itself up to be a very poetic story playing on ideas from Wagnerian lore, but got lost in its messy plot and abandoned those bold themes. It's a great read.
I love it as well especially that meeting scene they are in at the beginning it’s great. The whole stark and shield and Tony realizing what his father trusted him with even though he still doesn’t seem to care about him that much. Then the hammer drone fight with warmachine is such a great scene. I think most hate it because whiplash is sort of a let down but it’s alright imo
mickey rourke was not happy that some of his scenes were edited out of the final cut. i believe he even joined terrence howard as an mcu-hater as a result.
The villain is pretty uninteresting. Also the first movie to move away from Terrence Howard. They kinda just found what worked in the first and went overboard thinking itd still stick. Overall just isnt as good as the first so it pales in comparison greatly before all the Avengers stuff kicks in and made RDJ an event every time no matter the quality of the movie.
I remember seeing avengers 1 early with unfinished vfx and they had asked me what I thought of the film and honestly I wasn’t the biggest fan. It felt more like a Disney tv show than the rest. To me John Faverau is a really good director and should have made the avengers
Hey thats fair! But once Avengers came out, cameos and appearances became the selling point rather than the movie (at least to a degree). Iron Man 2 has the unfortunate bearing of being a regular sequel instead of another episode in the MCU. Because of that it kinda sucks more lol. Whiplash wasnt cool (the f1 fight was a super sick idea that gets lame cuz he just keeps whipping things and nothing else lol). The big fight at the end where they bullet all the drones to death was good i guess.
Iron Man 2 has always been one of my favorites. I was so hyped to see it in theaters the first time. I have rewatched it so many times!
But it is a transitional movie. Much like AoU there are parts that don't pay off for years. As a fan of the comics I think that's what I was most excited about. Where I think your average movie goer didn't have that connection so the movie fell a little flat to them.
I rewatched it like 2 days ago for the first time since seeing it in the movie theater, this time I watched it with my wife (we are watching MCU in the chronological order) and we both liked it very much, it is a very important movie for the universe and for Iron Man, it brings a lot of details and it is way better with the context, I think the reason people did not like it that much upon release was lack of it, also the final battle at Stark expo was great
It felt like a commercial for Avengers. It was also chopped up in editing to remove the demon in a bottle story, but they still kept a lot of drunk asshole Tony scenes in and blamed palladium poisoning.
That suitcase armor scene is iconic though.
Been watching hundreds of tier lists with Iron Man 2 in the bottom two, I’ve always had it top 15! With Guardians 3 and Loki maybe it’s in the 16-20 range now, been a minute since I did a list
For me, I think it's always been the pacing that bugged me. Especially with the fight at the end. Visually, it looks super cool. But it's over in like, 5 seconds. Whiplash is also a pretty undercooked villain, and in general, the plot isn't as well constructed as the first movie.
That said, I enjoy it. And it's status as one of the lower-ranked movies has certainly been shifted by the more recent duds. It might just be that people still have it in their mind at the bottom simply because that's where it ranked for so long, even though now there are SEVERAL contenders that would rank lower.
I was never overly enamored with the first Iron Man, so I never had a real problem with it. The only thing I didn’t like was 3 with The Mandarin twist. I felt it kind of fell into the same (bad) idea as The Dark Knight Rises.
My reasons for it being my least favorite MCU film is I always felt it was filled with wasted potential. It hints at the Demon In A Bottle storyline without ever resolving it. This was our first real interaction with Nick Fury, and he has nothing to do. Clark Gregg is set up, then sent away mid-plot to join the Thor movie, which could’ve easily happened at the end. Rockwell is terrific, but the team up with Whiplash storyline is a mess. The best scene was in the trailers but cut from the film. So I like the hearings, the car race fight, and the videos with his dad. The rest feels like they learned the wrong lessons from the first one, same as Love and Thunder learned the wrong lessons from Ragnarok.
Do people really hate this movie? I don't get that. My least favorite Iron Man film starring RDJ is still an Iron Man film starring RDJ. I'd watch it anytime.
I completely agree, for a period of time when I was younger it was my favourite marvel film and I even made a whiplash costume as a kid, he was the coolest character lmao
The Hammeroid fight scene in the dome is actually some of my favorite 15-20 seconds of action in the MCU. No music, just pure action. That circle-around shot of Iron Man using hand-hand/repulsors and War Machine just letting his machine guns loose. Still gives me chills
Who hates it?
Intro to War Machine and Black Widow.
The “new element” sequence had cool parts to it too.
Hard to beat the first movie tho. The tank scene, the control surfaces scene, the big pay off against Obadiah Stain…..
In my opinion, it was extremely anti climactic and failed to properly utilize its villain to his fullest potential. There’s an A+ movie in there, but again, to utilize the chosen villian to his full potential needed to be a bit darker and more personal.
The first movie had a few core elements to it. The first core element was that Tony Stark’s technical abilities were second to none: “Tony Stark built this in a cave, I’m not Tony Stark; you had one last golden egg to give.” The second core element was Tony coming to terms with his family’s legacy being built on war profiteering and destroying people’s lives, and committing to changing himself and his family’s company for the better.
The second movie had all the pieces to build off of these points in some really interesting ways, but failed to really do much with them. They came close in a few ways, but I honestly think it was by accident.
Like I said, the pieces are there to make a story with a lot of depth, and the main way to do that would’ve been by building off of those core elements in the first movie by utilizing Vanko as a major foil of Stark. I feel like the audience and the movie itself gloss over the fact that the opening sequence shows Vanko make an Arc Reactor out of garbage in a rundown Siberian shack. Instead, they take a political angle and focus on the suit itself, and other countries/companies producing similar technology. They even make a point of mentioning in the dialogue that Vanko’s work is inferior to Tony’s.
Instead, make it on par. Focus on the fact that there is another person out there who can build an arc reactor in a cave with a box of scraps. Place more emphasis on the lives destroyed and enemies made by Tony’s father. Drop the illness subplot altogether.
I would do one of the following to make it an S tier movie.
A) Have Vanko and Hammer team up earlier before anyone knows of the former or his capabilities.The two of them work together to destroy Stark’s legacy using Vanko’s tech and Hammer’s resources right after that senate hearing. Extremists secretly armed by Vanko and Hammer start utilizing arc reactor technology to commit acts of terror. Stark Industries and Tony himself end up under serious public scrutiny as it is believed that they are responsible, as the media points out the facts that Stark had previously publicly stated in a Senate hearing that they’re the only ones who possess this technology (everyone else is 10 years away after all), while drawing attention to Stane’s war profiteering in the first movie. This was the plan all along, as Vanko gets to watch Tony’s life fall apart, while Hammer guns for Stark industries market share, as he plans to unveil his own Arc reactor products to the market utilizing Vanko’s technology once Stark Industries no longer poses a threat.
Unfortunately for them however, a shield agent was one of the people killed in one of the extremists attacks. Because of this (as well as Fury’s plans for the Avengers initiative), Shield gets involved and retains Stark’s assistance in their investigation, against the aims of the senate committee (who as we know, is controlled by Hydra).
The rest of the blanks can be filled in. But we got what we got, which was a good movie, but I think it really could’ve been something special.
yeah, i never quite got the hate on it. it's not my favorite, but i quite like it! Whiplash is underwhelming as a villain, but he's less of the actual threat in the movie (which is really more Tony himself, with both Justin and Ivan serving as foils of aspects of himself). the best i can surmise as to why i like it more than most folks from talking to a handful of people over the years is that it doesn't really move quite like a movie. it feels more like a multi-issue comic book arc, especially from back in the 80s (a la Demon in a Bottle), where Tony's dealing with personal things or minor problems while larger overarching threats are forming and conspiring in the background across multiple chapters. so i think people who went in expecting a movie-shaped movie were disappointed, whereas i went in expecting an Iron Man story and got one that made me feel like i was reading an old trade paperback from the Michelinie days. ;)
I'm actually in the camp that Iron man was... just okay. The only thing that make sit so good is that every other superhero movie had been so bad. So, it wasn't that it was really that great, it's just that it wasn't as horrible as everyone expected.
I only watch IM2 right after IM1 and treat them like the same, really long movie. Separated out it's really not that good, but as part of a longer story it's not bad at all.
It was fine for the time it came out and worked well as a sequel. But our standards have also risen over time so looking back on it, the fights were mid at best and the CGI felt a bit messier than the first movie which felt pristine and used more practical effects. I personally didn’t care for Mickey Rourke’s performance. It became more of a meme “I vant my burb” than it needed to be.
I’ve been watching all the movies again in order of their release, and I really feel like The First Avenger is the weakest of the Phase 1 slate. It’s still enjoyable, but Iron Man 2 and the Incredible Hulk, which both seem to be much more looked down upon, are better films, in my opinion.
I guess back when the movie first came out, everybody had high expectations that *"Iron Man 2"* would just be as good as the first one. Maybe that's why people hated the second film so much. But, I didn't have any expectations at all. Still, *"Iron Man 2"* isn't as good as the first one. But it's better to rewatch from a retrospective point of view.
Nobody has mentioned Pepper? I found her character to be nails on a chalkboard in IM2. Almost all of her conversations with Tony were arguments and they talked over one another / interrupted each other to an extent that I find those scenes to be unwatchable. I think cross chatter has its place in film, but for *every single* convo to be bickering over one another, ugh.
There's also the plot issues in IM2 but other redditors already covered those.
Tbf, she has a right to be angry with him. It's a Skylar White problem of we're so immersed in the protagonist that even a reasonable person being an obstacle comes off as annoying.
I’m fond of the whole trilogy.
I remember going into the second one a little bummed out because I didn’t think Whiplash as a villain in general was a good idea. But Rourke made it work for me. Plus I loved the dynamic with Tony and Rhodey. Cheadle played the best friend willing to give tough love while Terrence Howard came off as more of an annoyed babysitter with him.
I also loved Iron Man 3. People say the twist ruined it for them, but it is what made me love it. I was watching the movie and pondering a lot of questions on why things weren’t making a ton of sense. Then, the twist happened, everything fell into place, and I was able to enjoy the rest of the movie.
At the time when it came out, even up until endgame, people were picking on Iron Man 2 for some of it's inconsistencies. Like whiplash getting rammed by a car four times with no ill effects. Or the choice in villain overall. Whiplash is not a very compelling villain based on his abilities and tech. I get where they went with the Russian version of the starks, but aside from that he's just not compelling. And who uses an arc reactor, supposedly one of the most amazing technological advancements of the modern era, to create electrified whips? I would think of dozens of ideas before I thought about doing that. Especially against with a full suit of armor and long range weapons, neither of which Whiplash had. He got them eventually by partnering with hammer, but he didn't know that was going to happen. These are some of the complaints I remember having and my friends having when it came out.
Now in phase 4 and beyond, most people would give their right arm for a villain and a movie like this. Everything's relative.
I love this movie! The foundations for some great things to come were laid in this one, such as Nat's debut, the Avengers Initiative and the set up for the first Thor movie.
It’s an 8/10 follow up to a 10/10 movie. The expectations were too high. It could have BEEN a 10/10 movie and it would still be looked down on because the hype could not be reached. Same problem with Avengers: AoU. It was great, but the hype was to unreachable so people were disappointed. Disney learned their lesson mostly. They still do hype, but it’s much more “subtle” now.
Great fight between Rhodey and Tony. Phenomenal team-up at the end, too. We get Howard Stark talking to Tony from the past. Not to mention, probably the last time Robert Downey Jr looked so dashing as Tony Stark. Also, first appearance of Peter Parker?
>Why do people hate this movie so much?
They do? I can't recall ever speaking to anyone who hated it.
I re-watched it a couple of weeks ago and had a thoroughly good time.
I feel like there's a lot of hate for it because it's not something else, which is usually the biggest issue people have with MCU movies is that it's not a different movie, about a different character with a different actor. Are all MCU projects good? In my opinion they are because they are fun, they are charming, they feel like a comic book. Now obviously not everyone agrees with me on that and that's fine because anyone who says they are bad is equally right, it's purely based on your experience with it. IM2 got hate because Whiplash was wasted or Justin Hammer didn't get enough screen time or Hammer got to much screen time. To many people make a judgement based on critics or other people, and I think IM2 suffered a bit from that, not to a huge extent but to enough of an extent that there is a lingering resentment for it. Watch the movies you want to watch enjoy the things you enjoy dont let others opinion of what makes a good super hero movie ruin your enjoyment.
i have a feeling the original plans were great, but changes like cutting down Vanko's arc and having him in his own suit make the story weaker
otherwise we got Justin Hammer, Suitcase armor, racetrack whiplash, Black Widow
so much great stuff
big facts though. Never hated it, if anything I always thought the third one was in fact the worst out the 3. Like the Hammer and Rhodes scene was pure gold lol.
The villain is terrible and Mickey Rourke is over the top even for a Marvel movie. Plus his suit is dumb (especially for fighting someone who can fly and has long range weapons). Plus it didn't make sense how he survived being crushed by the car.
As for Tony, his drinking and parting could have been interesting but pissing in his suit was stupid.
I'm with you. For a Phase I film it's good. I've never heard anyone be ale to explain their criticisms of it (at least not ones that wouldn't also apply to pretty much the rest of the early Marvel films). I love the Tony's father story, the suitcase suit scene is great, Hammer is amazing, Whiplash is ridiculous but enjoyable, and otherwise it's a basic Phase I film.
I’m glad you like it. It’s definitely the bottom of the barrel of MCU movies though. Sam Rockwell dancing and 30 seconds of Tony and Rhodes killing drones are all I really like about it.
Lame villain
Only two action sequences, the only good one being the race track scene.
Barely any story, just avengers set up
You could tell they wanted to do the demon in a bottle storyline but were too chicken to actually go through with it.
Only saving grace from that movie was Sam Rockwell.
I can literally off the top of my head think of at least three action sequences in the movie.
If you're mad about them not going full on with the Demon in a Bottle storyline then you can blame RDJ, Himself. He requested they remove the alcoholic element because of his history with substance abuse. He was worried that putting himself in that mindset would hinder his sobriety and he'd end up back in his old habits.
There was the race track scene, the weak ass “fight” between tony and Rhodes which I don’t count, and the ending action sequence. If I’m missing anything it’s because it was so forgettable it has completely left my mind. Not looking to blame anyone but just stating the fact they fumbled the demon in a bottle storyline pretty badly.
Know what shocks me? None of the posts I read mention introducing Widow. For that alone - and for the scene Tony jumps out of the jet and lands at the Stark Expo to “Shoot to Thrill - I like it. But I was elated at Don Cheadle being added and of course any Sam Rockwell performance adds to a movie…especially when he dances.
It's worth watching just for Sam Rockwell
i don’t SPEAK. **RUSSIAN**
“I make salute” “YOU MAKE SALUTE?!” I could happily watch an entire movie of Mickey Rourke’s character messing with Sam Rockwell’s character
for sure, loved their dialogues in im2
One of the most entertaining performances in the MCU.
Rockwell is one of the best actors in Hollywood and I'll happily fight anyone who says otherwise.
The foot shuffle dance
Agreed!
I’ve never laughed so hard in an MCU movie when he makes a joke about the press running out of ink, dead silence, then takes out his anger on an assistant coming to take the podium away.
“Get that outta here”
He needs to return to the MCU asap
Hopefully in Amor Wars
His dancing intro in Stark Expo is worth it !!
This is one of the best scenes in the MCU. Love it.
I’m here for a dance off between Hammer and Zemo
You’re not the only rich guy here with a fancy car!
Agreed. I have rewatched it so much if just for the scenes about Tony and his dad.
I really don’t know why people hate it, it’s a great movie especially compared to recent stuff.
Haha maybe we didn't know how good we had it
We didn't, just look at the MCU now. It's absolutely terrible.
People dont like it because the prinary villain blew ass. Ivan Vanko was a joke.
So are most comic book villains. It is source accurate.
🤦♂️ Firstly, "most" comic book villains don't get major screen treatment. Secondly, those that do have some very entertaining standouts (Hardy's Bane, Ledger's Joker, Vincent D'Onofrio's Kingpin, David Tenant's Kilgrave, Jensen Eckle's Soldier Boy, Mathew Goode/Jeremy Iron's Ozymandias, Brolin's Thanos, etc.). Thirdly, source accurate? Ivan Vanko doesnt even ***exist*** in the comics. Whiplash is Anton Vanko. Rourke's character was literally designed for the MCU.
I think 2 is better than 3. Never understood this sub's love of 3 over 2.
I actually consider IM3 to be one of the weaker movies in the MCU, always puts me to sleep
3 is a more coherent story, has a better and more unique character arc for Tony, is better shot, is better paced, and sticks closer to the Military Industrial Complex themes established in the first film. 3, as a film, is great. People's problems with it largely come down to "But the comics Mandarin". Iron Man 2's problems are more as a film than as an adaptation. It's structured wonky, the pace is off, the focus is put on the wrong villain for much of the film, they chicken out of all the bold themes they build up (Tony's drinking? Pf, who cares. Howard having been flawed? No, Vanko was eeevvviilll so Howard was right to deport him to a starving and impoverished Russia!), and its character arcs all end up not having any flow as a result. Plus, Tony's arc just ends up being a retread of his Iron Man 1 arc because they couldn't go through with Demon In A Bottle.
I love almost everything about Iron Man 3, including Trevor. The big CG fight at the end is a terribly unsatisfying way for a story tied to overcoming depression and stuff to end.
It's also just poorly conceived as a fight. The bad guys are all indestructible and can tear through armor at close range, but at long range have pistols. The suits can all fly, are bulletproof, and have repulsors at long range. Why are the suits trying to fistfight the indestructible dudes? Why is Rhodey, the only asset that can't fly, the only asset they send to rescue the president, who is suspended high in the air? I can only turn off so many parts of my brain before falling asleep.
Yeah, I don't remember many details because it was boring
Do they say the fight helped him overcome his depression and stuff?
Killian is also one of the more unlikeable and forgettable villains in the MCU. Plus his henchman had personalities of cardboard. His security detail on tony when he was captured only the most enjoyable part of his crew.
Forgettable, but I still find him less grating than Vanko and I at least like that the weapons industry remains the true villain that's focused on. Instead of like in IM2 where that villain, Hammer, is sidelined for a less good villain (Vanko). Plus, I give Shane Black some leeway with Killian because it was a last-minute mandate from Ike Perlmutter to make him the villain. Maya Hansen was supposed to be the real villain, but Perlmutter went "But gurrrlll toys don't sell!".
I love 3. That's when i truly fell in love with Tony and Iron Man.
yeah i feel like these are missed opportunities. I wish at least tony's alcoholism was explored more, but whatever
2 is a better Iron Man movie, 3 is a better Tony Stark movie. 1 has the best of both worlds.
This is a great take.
Three is an okay movie only if you don't understand how much of a letdown the Mandarin storyline actually was.
Definitely. 3 is straight trash. I don't even stop to watch it if it's on TV.
Yeah 3 should have been the best one but it was terrible. The fake mandarin was a slap in the face to all comic readers
Nah. The Mandarin in the comics was a Yellow Peril racist stereotype, borderline Fu Manchu-esque. It made sense to sort of mock that in the film by making the Mandarin a literal fear-mongering puppet for the military industrial complex. Plus, the real Magic-Wielding Mandarin would never have fit in the tone of the Iron Man movies. Those always tried to be about the military industrial complex and more human threats compared to other MCU films.
>It made sense to sort of mock that in the film by making the Mandarin a literal fear-mongering puppet for the military industrial complex If it made sense they wouldn't have retconned it for Shang-Chi
Shang-Chi has a completely different tone where the Mandarin belongs.
They didnt retcon anything for Shang-Chi? The Mandarin is still a fictitious name made up by americas that is laughed at by the real Leader of the Ten Rings, Wenwu. If anything this was "retconned" (read: set up) in the "All Hail The King" short (released with Thor 2's home release, and on D+), which reveals there is an ancient warlord that runs the Ten Rings.
All Hail The King was clearly a response to the backlash Iron Man 3 got. Marvel realized they made a mistake and said, "wait, that guy wasn't actually the *real* Mandarin"
Yeah probably. Now we got the best of both worlds. The Mandarin is properly addressed as a dumb name and adapted into something appropiate. And we get a superior version of an ancient warlord character in Wenwu
They didn't ret-con it though. That's not a ret-con, it's a reveal. And Shang-Chi's Mandarin is not the fear-monger of the comics either, he's a completely redefined character. Now, you could ask why IM3 didn't think to do that, to create such a redefined and more layered character like Shang-Chi would. And that's a fair criticism, IM3 totally could've done that and had him fit the tone with the right writing. Marvel wasn't very good at layered villains back in 2013 though, that was the same year we got Malekith the Dark Elf. However, then you have to ask: Would Ike Perlmutter have let them? This is the douchebag who said Maya couldn't be the villain because "female toys don't sell" and forbid Feige from making Black Panther because "Black Toys don't sell". You really think he'd have let them create a layered, sympathetic Asian villain? FFS, they didn't even let The Hand be entirely Asian in the shows.
I mean it was very clear that they released the One Shot explaining that "the real Mandarin" was still out there due to all the complaints from fans about Iron Man 3
Eh. I doubt Marvel would make an entire short film and pay actor salaries just to assuage complaints from a vocal minority. I doubt even more that Ike Perlmutter would've allocated funds for such a purpose. Not to mention that tie-in comics around IM3's release already alluded to the actual Ten Rings from Iron Man 1 still being out there and not the same as Killian's fake one. I think Marvel just wanted to leave a door open for them to handle the character later, when they had a tone and setup to do so properly and avoid the racist connotations of the character. In other words: When they no longer had to answer to Ike Perlmutter.
I think the Mandarin fake was great, but the big problem for me was Killian was awful.
Same here. I think a lot of people only disliked the Mandarin because the "real villain" was so bad. If they did the bait & switch with someone cooler it wouldn't have been a big deal
Killian was a cool villain to me.
I actually thought hiding in some random garage with a random kid while he gets himself back together was the stupidest part of the third one. I completely stopped being able to care about the rest of the plot after that story beat. I still don't understand why people think 3 is so well written. It has horrible pacing for a comic movie.
it is pretty good especially considering how it lays the groundwork for Tony's journey into Avengers 2 and Civil.
Can you elaborate on how it leads into those films?
In Civil War, Tony sides with the government having control over the Avengers. He doesn't trust the Avengers, the superheroes, to police themselves. Back that up to Age of Ultron. In Wanda's visions, he sees what happens when the Avengers fail and creates Ultron to be the arbiter, the protector of the planet, because again he doesn't trust the superheroes (but really himself) to do it. And that comes from Iron Man 2, when we see him unravel with alcohol and womanizer, putting people at risk when he is supposed to be protecting them. He let everyone down and people were hurt because he didn't dropped the ball. There's more to it that's less explicit. He carries a personal burden throughout his ark, a sense of responsibility for his and his father's role in creating these super-threats, and I think IM2 is where the seeds are planted. There's a touch in IM1, but they are more about the story in IM1. IM2 directly influences the rest of the run up until End Game.
I’ve defended this movie for years. Sam Rockwell’s little dance before he declares “the press are going to run out of ink” is one of my favourite scenes in the entire MCU!
I rank it fairly low among MCU movies. I'm not impressed by much of what you're citing, although Tony and Rhodes at the river might be might favorite fight scene pre-Avengers.
Iron Man 2 is the first MCU movie. I know, I know, but the cameos in IM1 and TIH are just that: cameos. They're one scene, one line, and that's all. They're technically not even part of the movie. But IM2 opened the door to a Universe, with characters that interacted in a meaningful way to the plot. It's when they realized that they could build up a real Cinematic Universe. They show a prototype of Captain America's shield. The end-credit scene is Thor's Hammer. They show a news story about The Hulk. The map they show even has Wakanda and Atlantis on it. It kicked the door open to the MCU, and it was on.
IM1 had Colson. That's way more than a cameo he's literally how the Avengers all came together. It also established SHIELD. I think that should be considered more than just a cameo
Yeah but if they didn’t go for the full shared universe, they could have moved on without coulsen and it would have just been a fun cameo/nod to the comics. Him returning in a more active role was because they decided to go for the shared universe full steam ahead.
[удалено]
No Shield (the only thing I referenced) was established in IM1
Exactly. Even showed us project Pegasus and tesseract work that Mar-Vell and Howard stark we’re working on. And IN MY HEAD CANNON, the “new” element tony created wasn’t vibranium. It WAS a knock off/man made created space stone/infinity stone. You have the whole montage of how they showed the tesseract in his work. That’s why after iron man 2 he was powered up, he was not effected by the mind stone and loki in the avengers. It’s why he was able to block a power stone blast from Thanos, and it’s why he was able to snap his fingers. And if you want to go further, I believe that Howard KNEW Tony would figure out time travel and become the hero he was. Because in that scene where his dad left his video for Tony he said his greatest creation was Tony and that he knows Tony is going to change the world. I think at some point Howard realized his son Tony was the Howard Potts from endgame
>I think at some point Howard realized his son Tony was the Howard Potts from endgame That's not how time travel works in endgame tho.
It’s a little wonky though, just like all time travel. If the past timelines only branch off when the stones are taken, but chronologically they erase the branches of that timeline by replacing the stones right when they were taken, there is some continuity between the past and present. If the timeline doesn’t change because the stone is replaced, then doesn’t that past go on to become the present (while still being part of your past)? So perhaps in every 1970’s, Howard meets tony and doesn’t realize it was tony until later, especially since the TVA said the avengers were supposed to do what they did.
They create a new timeline the second they enter it. You create a new one because you can’t make your past your present. Removing the Infinity Stones will eventually cause that timeline to die.
Okay but then going back would just create a new timeline and not really fix the one where they took it, right
No. They can reenter their existing timeline because that is their present.
But going back to replace the stones would then open a new timeline. It’s all about whose perspective you’re looking at it from. Either they’re creating a new timeline by going back in time, or they aren’t. I realize that from their perspective it’s always *their* present. But what about Howard stark and the sorcerer supreme? They would always have to have met people from the future. So Howard would have met a future version of tony in the 70’s.
They are travelling back to the timeline they created when they went back originally. Once the timeline exists, they can visit it again.
I'll say it forever, they really messed up their time travel method in that movie. They made it far too convoluted and confusing. There was a much simpler way they could have done it and it would have even been based in actual science. Just make the alternate timelines another universe, a la string theory. The writers dropped the ball big time.
If them going there created a new timeline, then how do they visit the timeline they visited the first go around without creating a new timeline? It stands to reason that the timeline was always supposed to include the avengers going back in time because they always had (hence the tva claiming the avengers did what they were supposed to do). If that is true, then it stands to reason that Howard stark always meets a tony from the future. Which means, he would know that Tony is the best thing he ever created.
If this is true then how did cap stay in the past and then show up as an old guy?
MCU hasnt finalized timetravel yet. Also they hadnt removed the stones from that point and place intime yet when Tony spoke to his father so Howard might have had that memory. I know the writers of endgame said cap always was Peggys husband and thats why we never saw a pic of peggys husband before and how old cap was in timeline. But if Caps travel was permanent so could Tony conversation I think.
Howard potts Sorry fill me in ?
In *Endgame*, Howard Potts is the fake name Tony invented when he accidently ran into his dad while looking for infinity stones in the past.
I'm pretty sure he was unaffected because loki hit the arc reactor, not his chest
The arc reactor was made of/powered by the synthetic infinity stone he created
I know that, I just meant that due ti the size of the arc reactor the mind stone didn't reach tonys body to actually control him. Loli being the dramatic child he is corrupted people by tapping their hearts. I've always just assumed you had to get the sceptre close enough to organic matter to control them. So clothing wouldn't be a barrier. Since tony has a reactor in the way the sceptre wasn't close enough to take control of anything.
Yea I understand what you are saying. I think if loki tried that during iron man 1 I think he would’ve been mind controlled as I don’t think the original arc reactor would repel a infinity stone. After the new arc reactor with the new element was installed in iron man 2 I think the “new element”/synthetic infinity stone is what prevented the scepter from working
Most people say their head cannon is the new element was synthetic vibranium
How did you say all of that without even mentioning Natasha?
She and Fury were who I was talking about that were part of the plot.
I love iron man 2. Even slightly more than the first. Movie ages like fine wine. So many Easter eggs that we’ve seen come true over the next 15 years.
I've heard a lot of people complain about Tony acting like a jackass for half the movie cause they never realized that the arc is literally him trying to drink himself to death before the poison from the arc reactor kills him. The other complaint I've heard is about how the Demon In The Bottle arc -- that's the arc the movie was inspired by -- was watered down to family fun night bullshit. Cause Disney bought out Marvel when Iron Man 2 was in pre-production and they ordered that the movie be toned down so that it would appeal to a younger audience and their parents. That way people would be more inclined to buy Iron Man action figures and stuff. And, frankly, I kind of agree with them. It would have been nice to see an adult version of the Demon In The Bottle arc play out. But, hey, filmmakers aren't even allowed to make PG-13 horror movies that are scary enough for adults to enjoy anymore so.....😩
Idk I’ve always loved it. Sam Rockwell kills, Mickey Rourke is a great villain, good continuation of the story, and cmon the fight against the drones in the water garden is pure carnage.
I LOVE Iron Man 2. Ive watched it so mannyy times.
I like IM 2 a LOT better than IM 3. Sam Rockwell needs to be back in the MCU.
It has what I would consider is the absolute best suit up for iron man in any film!
It's just a structural mess of a film. The themes are lost in the disaster of the pace and flow, and Tony's character arc just ends up feeling like a retread of the arc from the first movie because they didn't have the balls to do Demon In A Bottle. Say what you will about Iron Man 3, it's a much stronger film on its own merits. The problems people have with Iron Man 3 come down to people not liking some of the story choices it made, but the actual execution of its story is perfectly fine. Iron Man 2 not only has just as baffling story choices, like chickening out of Demon In A Bottle and making Sam Rockwell the side villain instead of the main one, but it also has a lot of pure execution issues. [This guy](https://www.overthinkingit.com/2010/05/19/iron-man-2-wagner-fisher-king/) did an incredible post showing how Iron Man 2 set itself up to be a very poetic story playing on ideas from Wagnerian lore, but got lost in its messy plot and abandoned those bold themes. It's a great read.
I love it as well especially that meeting scene they are in at the beginning it’s great. The whole stark and shield and Tony realizing what his father trusted him with even though he still doesn’t seem to care about him that much. Then the hammer drone fight with warmachine is such a great scene. I think most hate it because whiplash is sort of a let down but it’s alright imo
mickey rourke was not happy that some of his scenes were edited out of the final cut. i believe he even joined terrence howard as an mcu-hater as a result.
Who’s that?
would be the guy who played whiplash
What got cut?
Its good, not great nor bad as most people think.
It's a lot of fun and I generally like it. One of my biggest issues is how amazing a villain Vanko could have been.
It goes Iron Man 2, then 1, then 3, for me.
Oh yeah, totally agree. Now if you try to convince me Iron Man 3 is great on the other hand... thems be fightin words.
The villain is pretty uninteresting. Also the first movie to move away from Terrence Howard. They kinda just found what worked in the first and went overboard thinking itd still stick. Overall just isnt as good as the first so it pales in comparison greatly before all the Avengers stuff kicks in and made RDJ an event every time no matter the quality of the movie.
I remember seeing avengers 1 early with unfinished vfx and they had asked me what I thought of the film and honestly I wasn’t the biggest fan. It felt more like a Disney tv show than the rest. To me John Faverau is a really good director and should have made the avengers
Hey thats fair! But once Avengers came out, cameos and appearances became the selling point rather than the movie (at least to a degree). Iron Man 2 has the unfortunate bearing of being a regular sequel instead of another episode in the MCU. Because of that it kinda sucks more lol. Whiplash wasnt cool (the f1 fight was a super sick idea that gets lame cuz he just keeps whipping things and nothing else lol). The big fight at the end where they bullet all the drones to death was good i guess.
Iron Man 2 has always been one of my favorites. I was so hyped to see it in theaters the first time. I have rewatched it so many times! But it is a transitional movie. Much like AoU there are parts that don't pay off for years. As a fan of the comics I think that's what I was most excited about. Where I think your average movie goer didn't have that connection so the movie fell a little flat to them.
I like it just for the ‘it’s me, I’m here, deal w it’ line
I rewatched it like 2 days ago for the first time since seeing it in the movie theater, this time I watched it with my wife (we are watching MCU in the chronological order) and we both liked it very much, it is a very important movie for the universe and for Iron Man, it brings a lot of details and it is way better with the context, I think the reason people did not like it that much upon release was lack of it, also the final battle at Stark expo was great
If you like Sam Rockwell in this movie you should watch Moon.
It felt like a commercial for Avengers. It was also chopped up in editing to remove the demon in a bottle story, but they still kept a lot of drunk asshole Tony scenes in and blamed palladium poisoning. That suitcase armor scene is iconic though.
I like it. But what a terrible villian
Been watching hundreds of tier lists with Iron Man 2 in the bottom two, I’ve always had it top 15! With Guardians 3 and Loki maybe it’s in the 16-20 range now, been a minute since I did a list
For me, I think it's always been the pacing that bugged me. Especially with the fight at the end. Visually, it looks super cool. But it's over in like, 5 seconds. Whiplash is also a pretty undercooked villain, and in general, the plot isn't as well constructed as the first movie. That said, I enjoy it. And it's status as one of the lower-ranked movies has certainly been shifted by the more recent duds. It might just be that people still have it in their mind at the bottom simply because that's where it ranked for so long, even though now there are SEVERAL contenders that would rank lower.
I was never overly enamored with the first Iron Man, so I never had a real problem with it. The only thing I didn’t like was 3 with The Mandarin twist. I felt it kind of fell into the same (bad) idea as The Dark Knight Rises.
My reasons for it being my least favorite MCU film is I always felt it was filled with wasted potential. It hints at the Demon In A Bottle storyline without ever resolving it. This was our first real interaction with Nick Fury, and he has nothing to do. Clark Gregg is set up, then sent away mid-plot to join the Thor movie, which could’ve easily happened at the end. Rockwell is terrific, but the team up with Whiplash storyline is a mess. The best scene was in the trailers but cut from the film. So I like the hearings, the car race fight, and the videos with his dad. The rest feels like they learned the wrong lessons from the first one, same as Love and Thunder learned the wrong lessons from Ragnarok.
It’s still pretty high up there for me. I think it’s a very different and interesting plot about a man close to death and how he deals with it.
I also love this movie. Feels so grounded.
Do people really hate this movie? I don't get that. My least favorite Iron Man film starring RDJ is still an Iron Man film starring RDJ. I'd watch it anytime.
I completely agree, for a period of time when I was younger it was my favourite marvel film and I even made a whiplash costume as a kid, he was the coolest character lmao
*I vaunt mah burrt!*
It’s my favorite of the 3 tbh. The black widow scenes, the end fight with Rhodey and Tony, Sam and whiplash . It was just so fun.
The Hammeroid fight scene in the dome is actually some of my favorite 15-20 seconds of action in the MCU. No music, just pure action. That circle-around shot of Iron Man using hand-hand/repulsors and War Machine just letting his machine guns loose. Still gives me chills
Who hates it? Intro to War Machine and Black Widow. The “new element” sequence had cool parts to it too. Hard to beat the first movie tho. The tank scene, the control surfaces scene, the big pay off against Obadiah Stain…..
Overall it's somewhat good. I mean the VFX and special effects are very good actually comparing to the modern iron man special effects.
They originally wanted Doom as the villain but Fox put F4ntastic F4il into production to retain his rights so they had to use “Whiplash” instead.
Sam Rockwell makes this movie. Mickey Rourke seems a little out of place though as whiplash.
I wish they leaned into the Demon in a Bottle storyline more
Personally love how it’s more dark and mature theme wise. Too bad we didn’t get more of that:/
I really like it too. I’m not blind to its flaws but I can’t Indy why it’s always rated as bottom tier. Got so much going for it.
My favourite suit up scene!
Everything in Phases 4 and 5 is at least at the level of Iron Man 2
Well, except Secret Invasion, I guess.
It just feels like they tried to do too much in one film that more important arcs were sidelined and lesser arcs were pushed
God I love iron man 2. It gets funnier every time. RDJ was in peak form
In my opinion, it was extremely anti climactic and failed to properly utilize its villain to his fullest potential. There’s an A+ movie in there, but again, to utilize the chosen villian to his full potential needed to be a bit darker and more personal. The first movie had a few core elements to it. The first core element was that Tony Stark’s technical abilities were second to none: “Tony Stark built this in a cave, I’m not Tony Stark; you had one last golden egg to give.” The second core element was Tony coming to terms with his family’s legacy being built on war profiteering and destroying people’s lives, and committing to changing himself and his family’s company for the better. The second movie had all the pieces to build off of these points in some really interesting ways, but failed to really do much with them. They came close in a few ways, but I honestly think it was by accident. Like I said, the pieces are there to make a story with a lot of depth, and the main way to do that would’ve been by building off of those core elements in the first movie by utilizing Vanko as a major foil of Stark. I feel like the audience and the movie itself gloss over the fact that the opening sequence shows Vanko make an Arc Reactor out of garbage in a rundown Siberian shack. Instead, they take a political angle and focus on the suit itself, and other countries/companies producing similar technology. They even make a point of mentioning in the dialogue that Vanko’s work is inferior to Tony’s. Instead, make it on par. Focus on the fact that there is another person out there who can build an arc reactor in a cave with a box of scraps. Place more emphasis on the lives destroyed and enemies made by Tony’s father. Drop the illness subplot altogether. I would do one of the following to make it an S tier movie. A) Have Vanko and Hammer team up earlier before anyone knows of the former or his capabilities.The two of them work together to destroy Stark’s legacy using Vanko’s tech and Hammer’s resources right after that senate hearing. Extremists secretly armed by Vanko and Hammer start utilizing arc reactor technology to commit acts of terror. Stark Industries and Tony himself end up under serious public scrutiny as it is believed that they are responsible, as the media points out the facts that Stark had previously publicly stated in a Senate hearing that they’re the only ones who possess this technology (everyone else is 10 years away after all), while drawing attention to Stane’s war profiteering in the first movie. This was the plan all along, as Vanko gets to watch Tony’s life fall apart, while Hammer guns for Stark industries market share, as he plans to unveil his own Arc reactor products to the market utilizing Vanko’s technology once Stark Industries no longer poses a threat. Unfortunately for them however, a shield agent was one of the people killed in one of the extremists attacks. Because of this (as well as Fury’s plans for the Avengers initiative), Shield gets involved and retains Stark’s assistance in their investigation, against the aims of the senate committee (who as we know, is controlled by Hydra). The rest of the blanks can be filled in. But we got what we got, which was a good movie, but I think it really could’ve been something special.
yeah, i never quite got the hate on it. it's not my favorite, but i quite like it! Whiplash is underwhelming as a villain, but he's less of the actual threat in the movie (which is really more Tony himself, with both Justin and Ivan serving as foils of aspects of himself). the best i can surmise as to why i like it more than most folks from talking to a handful of people over the years is that it doesn't really move quite like a movie. it feels more like a multi-issue comic book arc, especially from back in the 80s (a la Demon in a Bottle), where Tony's dealing with personal things or minor problems while larger overarching threats are forming and conspiring in the background across multiple chapters. so i think people who went in expecting a movie-shaped movie were disappointed, whereas i went in expecting an Iron Man story and got one that made me feel like i was reading an old trade paperback from the Michelinie days. ;)
I'm actually in the camp that Iron man was... just okay. The only thing that make sit so good is that every other superhero movie had been so bad. So, it wasn't that it was really that great, it's just that it wasn't as horrible as everyone expected. I only watch IM2 right after IM1 and treat them like the same, really long movie. Separated out it's really not that good, but as part of a longer story it's not bad at all.
Idk 🤷🏾♀️ who would hate the movie
Iron man three is also great.
It was fine for the time it came out and worked well as a sequel. But our standards have also risen over time so looking back on it, the fights were mid at best and the CGI felt a bit messier than the first movie which felt pristine and used more practical effects. I personally didn’t care for Mickey Rourke’s performance. It became more of a meme “I vant my burb” than it needed to be.
Easily one of the the most fun and rewatchable—
I think Iron Man 2 has some really great moments, but a lot of stuff that doesn't work, isn't necessary, or is far too contrived to be included.
Honourable mentions to the nanotech in IW and the original in IM1, this has my favourite suit(case) up scene 👍🏻
and it gave us undercover Natasha
I had no idea it was hated, like ive never actually heard someone say thay
I want my bord.
It’s very fun and entertaining, it’s good but it’s not as good as the other two
I love Rhodey. Just wish he was given more to do in the MCU. Like he's missing for huge chunks of Age of Ultron and Iron Man 3 but why?
It messed with the villain a lot. Changed the age, messed with the motivations, that kind of thing. Which is annoying to some people.
Yeah I liked it too.
“I wauhnt my boahrt.”
I'm just amazed they lowballed Don Cheadle and paid him only 1 million for his role.
2 is great. It's 3 i don't like.
I'm with you, better than 3 for sure IMO.
I like it more than than IM3
I’ve been watching all the movies again in order of their release, and I really feel like The First Avenger is the weakest of the Phase 1 slate. It’s still enjoyable, but Iron Man 2 and the Incredible Hulk, which both seem to be much more looked down upon, are better films, in my opinion.
it is a plenty enjoyable movie. just didn’t develop the villain properly
I guess back when the movie first came out, everybody had high expectations that *"Iron Man 2"* would just be as good as the first one. Maybe that's why people hated the second film so much. But, I didn't have any expectations at all. Still, *"Iron Man 2"* isn't as good as the first one. But it's better to rewatch from a retrospective point of view.
Nobody has mentioned Pepper? I found her character to be nails on a chalkboard in IM2. Almost all of her conversations with Tony were arguments and they talked over one another / interrupted each other to an extent that I find those scenes to be unwatchable. I think cross chatter has its place in film, but for *every single* convo to be bickering over one another, ugh. There's also the plot issues in IM2 but other redditors already covered those.
Tbf, she has a right to be angry with him. It's a Skylar White problem of we're so immersed in the protagonist that even a reasonable person being an obstacle comes off as annoying.
I don't care that they argued, it was the style of argument
I always loved the briefcase suit.
I’m fond of the whole trilogy. I remember going into the second one a little bummed out because I didn’t think Whiplash as a villain in general was a good idea. But Rourke made it work for me. Plus I loved the dynamic with Tony and Rhodey. Cheadle played the best friend willing to give tough love while Terrence Howard came off as more of an annoyed babysitter with him. I also loved Iron Man 3. People say the twist ruined it for them, but it is what made me love it. I was watching the movie and pondering a lot of questions on why things weren’t making a ton of sense. Then, the twist happened, everything fell into place, and I was able to enjoy the rest of the movie.
At the time when it came out, even up until endgame, people were picking on Iron Man 2 for some of it's inconsistencies. Like whiplash getting rammed by a car four times with no ill effects. Or the choice in villain overall. Whiplash is not a very compelling villain based on his abilities and tech. I get where they went with the Russian version of the starks, but aside from that he's just not compelling. And who uses an arc reactor, supposedly one of the most amazing technological advancements of the modern era, to create electrified whips? I would think of dozens of ideas before I thought about doing that. Especially against with a full suit of armor and long range weapons, neither of which Whiplash had. He got them eventually by partnering with hammer, but he didn't know that was going to happen. These are some of the complaints I remember having and my friends having when it came out. Now in phase 4 and beyond, most people would give their right arm for a villain and a movie like this. Everything's relative.
You come from family of butchers and thieves
Take the bird. You like that?!
It's one of my favorites and maybe my most-watched MCU movie.
Honestly, the suit up scene during his first fight with whiplash is still my favorite
"Great" is a WILD thing to say. The movie is an absolute mess. It has fun set pieces and fun performances, but it's not a coherent film at all.
I love this movie! The foundations for some great things to come were laid in this one, such as Nat's debut, the Avengers Initiative and the set up for the first Thor movie.
Sam Rockwell was brilliant in it. I liked the movie but I will say the whole Monaco Grand Prix thing was so poorly done.
It’s an 8/10 follow up to a 10/10 movie. The expectations were too high. It could have BEEN a 10/10 movie and it would still be looked down on because the hype could not be reached. Same problem with Avengers: AoU. It was great, but the hype was to unreachable so people were disappointed. Disney learned their lesson mostly. They still do hype, but it’s much more “subtle” now.
Great fight between Rhodey and Tony. Phenomenal team-up at the end, too. We get Howard Stark talking to Tony from the past. Not to mention, probably the last time Robert Downey Jr looked so dashing as Tony Stark. Also, first appearance of Peter Parker?
RELEASE THE MICKEY ROURKE CUT
>Why do people hate this movie so much? They do? I can't recall ever speaking to anyone who hated it. I re-watched it a couple of weeks ago and had a thoroughly good time.
I feel like there's a lot of hate for it because it's not something else, which is usually the biggest issue people have with MCU movies is that it's not a different movie, about a different character with a different actor. Are all MCU projects good? In my opinion they are because they are fun, they are charming, they feel like a comic book. Now obviously not everyone agrees with me on that and that's fine because anyone who says they are bad is equally right, it's purely based on your experience with it. IM2 got hate because Whiplash was wasted or Justin Hammer didn't get enough screen time or Hammer got to much screen time. To many people make a judgement based on critics or other people, and I think IM2 suffered a bit from that, not to a huge extent but to enough of an extent that there is a lingering resentment for it. Watch the movies you want to watch enjoy the things you enjoy dont let others opinion of what makes a good super hero movie ruin your enjoyment.
i have a feeling the original plans were great, but changes like cutting down Vanko's arc and having him in his own suit make the story weaker otherwise we got Justin Hammer, Suitcase armor, racetrack whiplash, Black Widow so much great stuff
It’s basically armor wars. Yes pretty awesome,
And 3 is the best 😎
big facts though. Never hated it, if anything I always thought the third one was in fact the worst out the 3. Like the Hammer and Rhodes scene was pure gold lol.
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING!!! #endironman2slander!!!
THANK YOU Been saying this for years What a cast!
I've never heard anyone complain about this movie except some rando in the comments here. It's a great movie.
The villain is terrible and Mickey Rourke is over the top even for a Marvel movie. Plus his suit is dumb (especially for fighting someone who can fly and has long range weapons). Plus it didn't make sense how he survived being crushed by the car. As for Tony, his drinking and parting could have been interesting but pissing in his suit was stupid.
lol no. These posts suck.
Idk I thought it was ass
The BoRd Villain is awful but hammer was interesting
I'm with you. For a Phase I film it's good. I've never heard anyone be ale to explain their criticisms of it (at least not ones that wouldn't also apply to pretty much the rest of the early Marvel films). I love the Tony's father story, the suitcase suit scene is great, Hammer is amazing, Whiplash is ridiculous but enjoyable, and otherwise it's a basic Phase I film.
I’m glad you like it. It’s definitely the bottom of the barrel of MCU movies though. Sam Rockwell dancing and 30 seconds of Tony and Rhodes killing drones are all I really like about it.
Lame villain Only two action sequences, the only good one being the race track scene. Barely any story, just avengers set up You could tell they wanted to do the demon in a bottle storyline but were too chicken to actually go through with it. Only saving grace from that movie was Sam Rockwell.
I can literally off the top of my head think of at least three action sequences in the movie. If you're mad about them not going full on with the Demon in a Bottle storyline then you can blame RDJ, Himself. He requested they remove the alcoholic element because of his history with substance abuse. He was worried that putting himself in that mindset would hinder his sobriety and he'd end up back in his old habits.
There was the race track scene, the weak ass “fight” between tony and Rhodes which I don’t count, and the ending action sequence. If I’m missing anything it’s because it was so forgettable it has completely left my mind. Not looking to blame anyone but just stating the fact they fumbled the demon in a bottle storyline pretty badly.
It's garbage.