I also thought Jim Carrey was amazing in/the best part of Batman Forever.

I was largely bored... not near enough action, and what was there was either cheesy (the DJ house fight) are far too short (the last battle).

I also thought Scarlett Johanssen was wasted... her entire part was to infiltrate a largely empty building and beat up 8 lowly security guards who were too stupid to find the 2 dead ones that Mickey Rourke killed a while ago.

It wasn't as bad as Transformers 2 by any stretch, but there were moments I felt like it was going in that direction. In the end, it just felt like a typical Superhero sequel. The first one always feels a little more fun and exciting as the superhero discovers his powers and has a blast with them. The second one always seems to go in the more depressing direction with things falling apart and a lot less fun.

But, I do like most of the male actors (never was a fan of Scarlett or Gwenyth). So, I'll give it a C-

I agree with your assessment and was surprised at the number of high grades this film got here at KJ.

Your response is simply typical of someone who knows what I'm saying is true, so stop acting like a dickhead over it, especially from someone such as yourself who hasn't even seen the damn thing yet based on that hack review you put up..

[quote="Price"][

I thought Rockwell was entertaining. No real complaints, though I would have preferred that they went with the older British character from the comics instead of trying to make him a rival of the same generation as Tony Stark. Wasn't a necessary story element, and would have worked better if he didn't seem like a poor man's Tony Stark instead of a worldly adversary with years of experience over Stark.

Why? Was #1 and #2 the exact same movie? Does my enjoyment level have to be the same for every sequel? If so, apparently Airplane II, Dumb and Dumberer, and the Phantom Menace are some of my new favorite movies!

But, I thought #2 was more joyless, soulless, and more stupid than #1. I don't see why I must view them as the same.

Heck, you could take a "major" character (Black Widow) out of Iron Man 2, and still not effect the movie at all. It's that kind of brain dead writing or terrible plot development that wasn't in #1.

This whole Avengers thing is stupid. Movies are not comic books and they can't be formed like them. If you're going to do the Avengers, don't mix it in with other movies.

I'm not against tie-in, they give a sense of a fully developed universe, but the thing with IM2 is that it probably works better as the Avengers set up than as an IM movie.

I guess my problem is that I just don't give a rip about comic books, and know virtually nothing about the world. The only Avengers I care about is the 60's classic TV show. I don't know what a shield is or why everybody kept talking about it during IM2.

I don't like it when these movies require knowledge of the comic book universe to appreciate them. I go to see IM2 for a fun IM movie (more like #1), not some massive setup to a universe I don't know about.

I never gave a hoot about comic books, at least not about those with superheroes. I loved Martin Mystere and Alan Ford, but that it's.

I recognized the shield and that's one of those tie-ins that I can appreciate, because the scene works even without the knowledge of whose shield that is. It fits with a gimmicky Stark person - using children toys to prop up the big pipe thing (which itself could be viewed as a toy his father left him when he gets older and understands it all) and it was just a bonus that it's a captain America shield, with whom Iron Man will be in The Avengers. But the countless things with recruiting, etc. were completely out of place.

I disagree. The tie in more fully develops the universe. I think the indication that in these worlds of supernatural events and characters, where supervillians pop up all the time, there is only one superhero in the whole world is silly. The development and tie in with shield works perfectly well in this film, and I had no problem with it. What I did have a problem with was the flat jokes, awful characters, and lack of action or excitement in this film.

The best thing about the first Iron Man movie was the absence of any supernatural foolishness - - it's just a guy and his mad engineering skillz.

this

Yep, that's why the first Iron Man and the last couple of Batman films are the best for me. You could feel that it has some realm of possibility if you are smart enough and have enough money.

More villains, more sidekicks, more love interests, more iron man suits. But as it often goes, more is less here.

I thought the first movie was very good, and this is a considerably lesser film. The story never finds any kind of focus, and with all it's countless of characters and subplots it never develops a dramatic narrative I could have cared for. IM2 isn't exactly boring, but there is a serious case of emotional disconnect.

I also felt that that the Monaco sequence was the only genuinely strong action sequence in the film, where as in the first movie all the major action beats (escape, jet fighters, final battle) were memorable and exciting. It's also worth noting that in the first movie the mid-point action scene was an epic battle including terrorists, tanks and jet fighters. In the sequel we have a friendly home-brawl with Stark and his friend... How did that happen? - This was supposed to be a big scale action movie.

And in the previous film Stark had to fight the main villain for a good 15-20 minutes or so before killing him, in this one the final fight lasts for approximately 1 minute. And the drone henchmen were not very exciting, they were so easy to kill that there was no tension at all.

In the first film it felt as if the bad guys actually had a chance to win, in the sequel Stark is so overpowering that even the main villain takes only one minute to finish off, and Iron Man eats battle-drones for breakfast. All this makes the action a lot less engaging to watch. The Monaco scene was the one single moment in the movie where there was some tension in the air, and Stark actually had to work on his victory. Also it was the only moment where I was awed by the special effects and the execution of the action.

Acting is good as expected, including Rockwell, who simply had a dislikable role to play. There are some funny and witty lines here and there. And at least you can follow the action clearly. And the Monaco scene does kick ass.

But the story is messy and unfocused, there is a serious lack of proper dramatic conflict, and the action is too rare and too generic except for one scene.

Not bad. But not really that good either.

Just wait, Tuuka! BKB will be here in a moment to tell you that you haven't seen the movie and just assembled bits and pieces from the web and that you are a TDK and Avatar lover, etc etc...

Admins/Mods:

Can you please revoke BKB's posting privileges in the "Everyone's A Critic" forum - - I don't believe he has ever posted an actual review of a movie here, and even though I have had him on my personal ignore list for more than a year, his troll-lite posts are just cluttering the place up.

Thank-you in advance,

B. Witherberry

Like The Incredible Hulk, this film has a decent setup, and some nice progression for the characters. However the end battle is just as shit as that film's. Not worth the hate it gets, but not great either.

C+