Ironman 2

[phantom stranger]

I don't know anything about the story (which is how I like it) but do know the film was rushed, which is never a good thing. Apparently, they started filming without a completed script.

Well, looks like my worries were justified. Overall, I liked the film but the script was pretty weak. The dialogue wasn't as sharp as the first film and (much to my surprise) Cheadle made for a weak War Machine. Jackson's Nick Fury was cool but he didn't really add much to the movie that we didn't already see in his initial cameo.

And I don't really see why they felt the need to include Black Widow in the movie except to showcase Scarlet Johansson in a skin-tight costume.

Well, no complaints there. 

[Gotham Knight]

I enjoyed the film but will not deny the faults.

I think the movie was doing fantastically (for the most part) until Rhodes decides to steal the Mark 2 armor because Tony's a drunken idiot. I grant you, the film was showcasing Tony's irresponsibility and generally that's the one of the movie's core topics, however Rhodes going off like that over a minor idiocy was ill conceived, not to mention that this goofy fight scene is the segue to the second half of the picture, which falls tragically short of my expectations.

At the end of the day, I look back at a bunch of ideas (Irresponsibly Tony, Tony as just one more cog in the military industrial complex whether solo or under armed forces command, dieing and reconnecting with his late father, etc) that are all fertile story ground but are barely established and allowed to fade away very quickly. If they had gone with just one or two of those ideas maybe they'd have had something better or maybe if they had established Tony's daddy issues earlier than nearly 3 quarters into the film it would have been more fulfilling, but oh well.

Finally, it just seems like old Stark was just like he was in the beginning of IRON MAN I rather than a recovering war monger. This film isn't as story streamlined/character complex as the first one and if I may, is actually the reverse. Such an abrupt gear change amidst a tun of new characters and half thought messages leaves me feeling empty, albeit pleased with the overall product.

I give it about a 7.2 out of 10.

PS. Black Widow Hotness Wins... Flawless Victory.

[phantom stranger]

Finally, it just seems like old Stark was just like he was in the beginning of IRON MAN I rather than a recovering war monger.

I actually didn't catch that but you're right--he had grown as a character in the first movie and in this one...well, he was back to being a good ol' boy.

Ultimately, Marvel should've listened to Favreau who wanted more time to develop the script. But they didn't have anything else coming out this summer and Avengers MUST come out in 2012 so they figured an Iron Man movie was a no-brainer, at least financially.

Ultimately, I view it more as an Iron Man 1.5 or a prequel to the Avengers rather than a full-fledged sequel. It was certainly no Spider-Man 2, which I believe is the standard-bearer against which all Marvel sequels should be measured against.

[Gotham Knight]

Finally, it just seems like old Stark was just like he was in the beginning of IRON MAN I rather than a recovering war monger.

I actually didn't catch that but you're right--he had grown as a character in the first movie and in this one...well, he was back to being a good ol' boy.

Ultimately, Marvel should've listened to Favreau who wanted more time to develop the script. But they didn't have anything else coming out this summer and Avengers MUST come out in 2012 so they figured an Iron Man movie was a no-brainer, at least financially.

Ultimately, I view it more as an Iron Man 1.5 or a prequel to the Avengers rather than a full-fledged sequel. It was certainly no Spider-Man 2, which I believe is the standard-bearer against which all Marvel sequels should be measured against.

Agreed. I think each problem this film has can be connected back to the crossover coming. It seems like there was ground the film was not allowed to cover based entirely on that upcoming team up, and thus, the the entire movie seems like its treading along a uncrossable impasse.... called THE AVENGERS.

[Gotham Knight]

Release Date for IM III (III-D Im sure, ughs)

Surprising news is Jon favreau isn't expected to return. THE CURSE OF 3s CONTINUES!

http://www.newsinfilm.com
/2010/10/18/disney-to-dis
tribute-the-avengers-iron
-man-3/

Walt Disney Studios has closed a deal with Paramount Pictures and Marvel Studios that grants the Mouse House worldwide marketing and distribution rights to The Avengers in 2012 and the officially announced Iron Man 3 in 2013.

The $115 million payment will be dished out to Paramount in two installments, half when The Avengers assemble in theaters May 4, 2012 and the other half when Iron Man 3 opens on May 3, 2013. Those were the last two Marvel movies in their six-picture deal with Paramount, who will still distribute 2011s Thor on May 6 and Captain America: The First Avenger on July 22.

Disney already owns these marquee characters after their $4 billion acquisition of Marvel Studios in January 2010, but now has more control over how theyre sold and released to audiences. Other familiar comic book properties like X-Men and Spider-Man will remain with other studios (Fox and Sony, in this case) as long as payments are made to Marvel and they regularly finance new films. (Hence why were getting an unwanted Ghost Rider 2.)

As for the average filmgoer  who lets face it doesnt particularly care which studio is behind the movie  Disney has ownership of the Avengers from the very beginning of shooting, scheduled for February 2011, which should be good news after the disjointed disappointment of Iron Man 2. It also gives the studio an opportunity to clean up the (rumored) mess of a script written by Zack Penn and re-worked by the ensemble movies director, Joss Whedon. Disney might even bring in the Pixar Brain Trust to consult on the story, as they have with upcoming Disney titles Tron: Legacy, The Muppets, and Tangled.

As for Iron Man 3, though it was just announced, they signed Robert Downey Jr., Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, Don Cheadle, and the rest into contracts month and years ago that include this sequel (and more). Director Jon Favreau, however, isnt likely to return, especially after reports of a creative struggle over IM2. As for the villain, its widely considered to be Mandarin, but lets keep in mind they havent even hired a writer yet.

[gordonblu]

Not re-hiring Favreau wouldn't be the first bone-headed mistake Disney has made. Here's hoping Pixar advises them get him on board!

[Gotham Knight]

CONFIRMED...and people are still acting as if they didn't see it coming...

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=72397

NO Favreau. Only reason is that he'll be too busy. Across the board -o-sphere rumors are flying about politics, money, and herr director falling out with Downey.

My money is on Marvel rushing Favreau into IM II in the aftermath of IM I's success, and thus delivering a sub par sequel, that gets less and less interesting the more I watch it. 

[Grissom]

favreau should have had more creative control, although quite honestly I don't think he's a great direcotor, just that the subject matters are interesting. let's hope they find a good director for the third.