countdown boutiques-francophones Learn more vpcflyout Pets All-New Kindle Music Deals Store sports Tools Registry

Customer Reviews

4.3 out of 5 stars
4.3 out of 5 stars
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Showing 1-3 of 3 reviews(1 star). Show all reviews
on December 3, 2010
For some reason, Tony Stark's negative qualities - egotism, sarcasm, misogyny and general distain for everyone not him - are emphasized in this movie leaving no room for his good side, and no reason to sympathize with our protagonist. Pepper Potts has lost her sweetness too. And the new actor playing Rhodes is nowhere near as good as the former one. The plot is weak, the sub-plots are illogical. The ending leaves you not wanting more Iron Man but, rather, wanting back the two hours you just wasted.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 5, 2010
Huge dissapointment for comic book fans. Utter drivel. The film portrays Stark as a self-centered, self serving,egotist, which is non reflective of his comic book persona. In fact, if you recall from the first movie, after the heart issue, Stark was a changed man, no longer the self-centered industrial playboy but a hero for humanity.Utterly ridiculous action scenes, the worst of which was an Indy Race that contained no yellow flags after an accident and cars kept speeding full throttle into the fray.Mickey Rourke would have been a bright spot had you been able to understand a word he was saying.I was fine with Johannsen as Black Widow but all fan geeks know that Natasha Romanoff is a Russian spy and speaks with a hint of an accent strangely absent in the film. Her action secnes were actually decent but there weren't enough of them. All of the action scenes, which are all seen mostly in the last 15 minutes, were at night and seemed like a gigantic stage show circus act. After a brilliant first film, they really dropped the ball on this one.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 7, 2010
Iron Man 2, in retrospect was AWFUL. Just AWFUL. I am surprised it didn't get more attention for that. The ideas were just so bad.

We know Stark has daddy issues. His father never loved him....or so he thought. So in one segment, we have him discovering that his father left a film clip behind in which he tells his son that he is limited by his technology, but he knows his son is the future. So, son digs out an old 3-D map of his dad's concept of a supercity. It has a giant globe in the middle. Stark then converts the model to a virtual reality model and goes deeper and deeper into it, until he discovers, in the globe, a NEW particle, heretofore undioscovered by mankind. And he uses it to power his heart.

This just makes no sense at all on so many levels.

And how is Iron Man, the ultimate weapon, defeated by his enemy (Mickey Rourke)? Rourke uses Stark technolgy to make energy-whips, which cut through stuff. Ah, no doubt that WOULD lead to world domination (well, unless scientists could come up with some weapon which could project a small missle-like thing at his exposed head. Perhaps Professors Smith and Wesson could be tasked with that).

But it was well executed. I am ashamed to say I was halfway in before I even realised how badly it sucked.

But it was baaaaaaaaaaaaaad. So bad, that that is probably what makes it worth watching. No, scratch that. The first one was kind of unexpectedly fun, and we all should just leave well enough alone.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse