Featured Audience Ratings

• John M

  
  Not as awesome as the first one but a whole bunch of ass kicking goodness involved!! Cant wait for Thor, Captain American and the Avengers.

• Albert K

  
  Imma tell this straight up: I wasn't a fan of the original Iron Man. The sequel comes around and tries to throw the same formula and charm the first one had; it didn't work. What really angered me was the fact that this movie dared to pitch in a subplot to support another… More
  Imma tell this straight up: I wasn't a fan of the original Iron Man. The sequel comes around and tries to throw the same formula and charm the first one had; it didn't work. What really angered me was the fact that this movie dared to pitch in a subplot to support another Marvel movie that is in the works. Please, stop marketing and let the movie play out. Absolutely disappointed with this weak and uninteresting movie.

• Nikhil N

  
  Amazing villain, hero, and story line. Still Iron Man 2 proves to be a worthy sequel although not as brilliant as the first. Understandable, considering the movie was just a set up for "The Avengers." Worth every penny.

• Jeff "

  
  After the exhilarating Iron Man, it was obvious that the filmmakers were going to follow up the film with a sequel. The result is an average sequel that is quite good but lacks in terms of what the first one did so well, delivering a great story with some awesome action. I found that… More
  After the exhilarating Iron Man, it was obvious that the filmmakers were going to follow up the film with a sequel. The result is an average sequel that is quite good but lacks in terms of what the first one did so well, delivering a great story with some awesome action. I found that this one had some effective action sequences, but that the plot a bit lacking in some parts to really make it a stand out sequel. The villain played by Mickey Rourke is decent, but comes off as a subpar performance due to the fact that Rourke uses an awful Russian accent, and it really distracts from everything else. However the casting of Sam Rockwell as rival weapons manufacturer was very good and Rockwell was just fit for the part. I find him to be quite an underrated actor, and with his performance here, he really showcases his talents as an actor. For me, he is one of the strongest aspects of the film. One of the biggest problems of the film is that it lacks memorable action sequences that the first one was able to pull off so well. There was some good action and thrills, but there never was anything that really stood out. Most of the time, the fight sequences were quite fast and it was over before you knew what was happening. This one had the potential of being a great follow up, but it was clear that the filmmakers were trying too hard at delivering something that would match the original. This is still an enjoyable action film, but it leaves a lot to be desired, and it could have been much better as well. Luckily the third entry would be a much more accomplished sequel. I enjoyed the film, but I felt that there were too many imperfections to really make it a stand out sequel to the far superior Iron Man.

• KJ P

  
  Just as good, if not better than the original. The story from the original may be the origins, but the action is much improved and the heart is displayed to be much stronger. The tones of this movie were much more enjoyable than the first, but it is brought down by don cheadle, who is… More
  Just as good, if not better than the original. The story from the original may be the origins, but the action is much improved and the heart is displayed to be much stronger. The tones of this movie were much more enjoyable than the first, but it is brought down by don cheadle, who is good, but could never replace the likes of terrance howard. There were many more small plot lines in this film than the first, which kept me more interested. With a much more fun, action-packed ride over the original, it fullfilled my expectations dead-on, and it could not have been portrayed any better than it was. The great summer popcorn flick with a great story has a arrived and it is better than ever. Great start off to the summer movie season. I was on the edge of my seat with a smile on my face for the full 2 hours, and I was happy that it wasn't a let down. The execution was kind of thrown into perspective too fast, but it was saved by all the action within, great film and great performances. I actually teared up at some points, because this film truly knows how to show emotion!

• Chris W

  
  I want to just say upfront that I'll be ending the review on a high note, so the stuff I liked will come last. There was a lot of anticipation for this one, as there should have been. How could there not be? Iron Man helped changed the world's ideas of how comic book… More
  I want to just say upfront that I'll be ending the review on a high note, so the stuff I liked will come last. There was a lot of anticipation for this one, as there should have been. How could there not be? Iron Man helped changed the world's ideas of how comic book adaptations could be done right. Like many sequels though, this one tries to do a lot (too much perhaps), and as a result, fails to quite match or surpass its predecessor. After having outed himself as Iron Man, Tony Stark must deal with the repercussions, namely in the form of business rival Justin Hammer, and a vengeful psychopath named Ivan Vanko/Whiplash. There's also some more build up in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, sowing more seeds for The Avengers and other related films. I like that they tried to build on the story, but given the film's runtime, they should have made the film longer. It needed it, and for two reasons: action scenes and characters. They added a handful of new characters, and, while they aren't cardboard cutouts, they could have used a lot more fleshing out. As for the action: there's not enough. One action set piece per act is a let down, especially since the action closes out each act. Like the first film, this one has a good amount of humor. However, I think there was a bit too much of it, and it really hurt the tone. The blending of drama and comedy didn't gel real well here, resulting in scenes that were lighter than they needed to be, or lighter when they didn't need to be, ie the Monaco attack scene: there's some slapstickish moments when there needed to be fear. It stuck out and took off a little too much edge. Back to characters: besides all needing to be fleshed out more, I didn't like how they handled Justin Hammer. He's too goofy and over the top...and annoying. Rockwell does a good job, don't get me wrong, I just thought he could have talked less and not been such a tool. They also could have used Whiplash a lot more. Another thing I didn't like was how the darker elements with Stark's situation played out. I'm happy they had him drinking more and raised the stakes with his health, but the plot points with his situation and Pepper needed to happen earlier. Look, I didn't hate this movie. I actually rather enjoyed it. It was decently made, had great effects, was very entertaining ,and had ambition. It just tried to do too much given the run time. The performances were pretty good, the casting was likewise good, and it was never boring. A lot of my issues with it are nitpicks, so that's why my grade isn't lower. The issues are still something that can't be ignored though. Besides being made longer, I think a few more re-writes with the script would have been great as well. I can be forgiving because sequels are tricky, but I really hope that future Iron Man films avoid the missteps that this one had. I like to laugh, but they should darken the tone and tone down on the jokes. Also, with the plot, they either need to just pick one or two things to focus on, or push up the run time but then execute it in a way which doesn't feel too bloated or forced. And of course, more action. It's not impossible to throw in tons of story and character yet still have plenty of action as well and make it all work. I didn't want to have to do this, but just use Spider-Man 2 and The Dark Knight as examples.

• Dan S

  
  Although not exactly up to par with the first, breezy-feeling film, still a capable sequel which features a regular outstanding performance from the great Robert Downey Jr. The plot is definitely heavier than the first film, and Jeff Bridges energetic villain was more interesting and… More
  Although not exactly up to par with the first, breezy-feeling film, still a capable sequel which features a regular outstanding performance from the great Robert Downey Jr. The plot is definitely heavier than the first film, and Jeff Bridges energetic villain was more interesting and engaging than Mickey Rourke's slimy, mostly mute character in this film (although Rourke does an admirable job playing this character - I just preferred Bridges' bad guy more). It definitely moves along slowly at parts, and it nearly saves itself with it's action-filled conclusion, as well as a terrific supporting performance from the little-known Sam Rockwell. I still say the first film is better. Completely missable but not terrible.

• Directors C

  
  [img]http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/user/icons/icon14.gif[/img]

• Michael E

  
  RDJ is already well developed as Iron Man by now and does his fantastic job as Tony Stark as he usually does and Gwyneth Paltrow does a good job reprising her role as Pepper Potts and the inclusion of Don Cheadle as a replacement for Terrence Howard doesn't do as good of a job as… More
  RDJ is already well developed as Iron Man by now and does his fantastic job as Tony Stark as he usually does and Gwyneth Paltrow does a good job reprising her role as Pepper Potts and the inclusion of Don Cheadle as a replacement for Terrence Howard doesn't do as good of a job as Howard but is still a good replacement. but the two new inclusions really steal the show for me. Sam Rockwell does a great job as the prick rival to Tony Stark, Justin Hammer, and Mickey Rourke does probably one of his best roles I've seen him portray as the main villain Whiplash (one of my favorite Iron Man villains BTW.) He has this amazing powerful sound to his voice and every time he appears in a scene he just steals the show with this presence of power he brings to the character. Also the action I think is a bit of an improvement compared to the first film. Now I do think the first Iron Man has some of the best action scenes in a superhero film but the 2nd film I think, while having less action, takes every single bit of advantage of every scene with action and just makes it look amazing. My favorite fight aside from the fight at the end of the film an the fight between Tony and Cheadle at Starks house, is the scene where Whiplash splits the cars in half when he is on the racetrack with his electric whips and actually is a legit threat to Tony and does a lot of damage to him. While I do recommend both films, I do prefer this film a little bit more so I say check both films out. I just hope 3 can make the Mandarin an interesting villain for once.

• paul s

  
  As so many have said, Iron Man II simply isn't the first film - doesn't have the fun element of discovery, nor the "this is new" factor. That it still remains a reasonably good entertainment is mostly due to Downey, however for the time that Black Widow (Scarlett… More
  As so many have said, Iron Man II simply isn't the first film - doesn't have the fun element of discovery, nor the "this is new" factor. That it still remains a reasonably good entertainment is mostly due to Downey, however for the time that Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) is on screen - it makes you salivate for The Avengers! There are times though, when the film seems at odds with itself - it has this nice, glib, devil may care kind of attitude (mostly provided by Downey's portrayal of Stark), which is strictly comic book fodder - but then tries to go deeper, as, as the film so succinctly puts it "the gismo that saved your life is killing you". So, faced with his own mortality, Stark goes kinda nuts - and really, if you had the world by the balls and still couldn't prevent your immanent demise, wouldn't you go a bit nuts yourself? Still, it flies in the face of his persona and causes some rather awkward scenes of over the top foolishness (like Downey and best friend, military colonel Rhodey (played by Don Cheadle) duking it out in their iron suits). Entertainment wise there is enough cool CGI (the mech drones especially), that you can give a pass to a bit of been there seen that. The Mickey Roark character (the "villain" of the piece), is just like the film - entertaining to a point, but a bit of a caricature as he straddles the line between eccentric cartoon character and serious psychopath. Along for the ride you have a wonderful turn by Gary Shandling as a blowhard Senator (he gets in the best line of the film - when forced to pin a medal on Stark, he pricks Starks skin and deadpans "see how such a little prick can cause such big problems?"). You also have Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury - head of Shield, a secret organization that want to recruit Stark (introducing, along with Black Widow, characters who will all join in and give birth to The Avengers). All good comic book stuff (and yeah, I had all those early comics), and really, the film does an admirable job of shoehorning this tie in. Certainly there have been better sequels, but for sure there have been many that are far worse than this one, which while not reaching the "coolness" factor of the original, still managed to hold my attention in spite of some overlong fight scenes and a bit of sensationalism for sensationalism's sake.

• Stuart B

  
  Good sequel, keeping up the humour and special effects. Only downside is that the bad guy just ain't that bad.

• Megan S

  
  I thought this movie was pretty boring at times.

• Josh L

  
  It's pretty clear early on that this isn't going to be as strong of a movie as the first one, but it still has most of the things that made the first a hit. Robert Downey Jr. is still great, the special effects and action are still fun, and the movie is plenty funny. The… More
  It's pretty clear early on that this isn't going to be as strong of a movie as the first one, but it still has most of the things that made the first a hit. Robert Downey Jr. is still great, the special effects and action are still fun, and the movie is plenty funny. The story is not as strong as the first, mainly because the villain's motivations in this one are so poorly done. Mickey Rourke's performance is fine, but the screenplay doesn't give his character any depth. Tony Stark's character development throughout the first two movies is really impressive though. I like that the filmmakers have made this series more mature than most outside of the new Nolan Batman franchise. Most sequels to blockbuster hits go with bigger and less elaborate film-making and usually are not as strong (and Iron Man 2 is not one of the exceptions), but is still plenty of fun and a worthy sequel. Bring on Iron Man 3.

• Eugene B

  
  Although not as explosive and memorable as the first, Iron Man 2 still does skyrocket on all cylinders. Stunning CGI and visual effects along with the never-ending wits and charms of Robert Downey, Jr. still made the film a solid summer blockbuster that fans and audiences will come to… More
  Although not as explosive and memorable as the first, Iron Man 2 still does skyrocket on all cylinders. Stunning CGI and visual effects along with the never-ending wits and charms of Robert Downey, Jr. still made the film a solid summer blockbuster that fans and audiences will come to enjoy. 4/5

• Joshua W

  
  I know I'm in the great minority, but I actually enjoyed this one a lot more then the first one. I felt like this film was bigger, in a good way. I felt like this film was more comic book like, in a good way and I loved the fact that we actually get to see a inter and outer… More
  I know I'm in the great minority, but I actually enjoyed this one a lot more then the first one. I felt like this film was bigger, in a good way. I felt like this film was more comic book like, in a good way and I loved the fact that we actually get to see a inter and outer growth in Tony Stark. This was a real step in the right direction for Marvel and looking back now it was the best direction they could have taken.

• Ping C

  
  It's as good if not better than the original. Which is pretty damn good. But make no mistake - this isn't high brow cinema.

• Jason R

  
  Eh, just okay.

• Tyler R

  
  When it comes to sequels, they are usually better than the original, or not as good. (I've never seen a movie where the sequel and its predecessor are equally good.) Unfortunately, Iron Man 2 is not as good as the first one. I'm gonna be honest and say that I didn't… More
  When it comes to sequels, they are usually better than the original, or not as good. (I've never seen a movie where the sequel and its predecessor are equally good.) Unfortunately, Iron Man 2 is not as good as the first one. I'm gonna be honest and say that I didn't expect it to be any better. The first one is one of the greatest superhero movies ever made and I didn't think a sequel could top it. Iron Man 2 isn't a bad film though, it just has more flaws than I would've wanted to see. In Iron Man 2, Tony Stark is dealing with a lot of stuff in his life: The U.S. government wants his suit to weaponize it, the arc reactor in his chest is poisoning him, stuff that added more story arcs to the movie. I'm not gonna lie, I liked seeing Stark deal with all of that stuff, but I felt all the story arcs made the movie more convoluted. One subplot I didn't care for was Pepper Potts being made CEO of Stark Industries. It made the movie slow and it was part of the pacing issues the movie had. There's also a new villain, Ivan Vanko (Whiplash) played by Mickey Rourke, Rourke was good in the movie, but his character was overshadowed by another antagonist, Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell. Rockwell was also pretty good and whenever I saw him on screen, he reminded me of Seth Green. Not by the way he acted, but by how he looked something like him. I would've liked to see Stark interact more with the villains (especially since the last fight is about 30 seconds) but I still think seeing Vanko and Hammer work together was cool. The action scenes, as expected, were great. The effects matched those of the original and seeing Iron Man and War Machine fight side by side and against eachother was pretty entertaining. Scarlett Johansson is one of the new cast members in the movie and wow. She is seriously hot. She plays Black Widow and I know she's part of the Avengers set up but come on, any guy who watches this movie is sure to just stare on and on at Johansson. (She was good in her role as well.) The movie did have some pacing issues, the many story arcs made in convoluted and hard to follow, but it had solid acting, fun action scenes, despite the flaws with the story arcs, they were interesting to watch, and the movie is enough for anyone who simply wants to watch a fun movie which provides entertainment for anyone who wants to have a good time watching a good superhero movie.

• Alice S

  
  Second verse, same as the first: fast, incomprehensible, and pseudo-intellectual.

• Ryan R

  
  What a joke. Special effects and Scarlet's hot body can't save this film from a poorly written screenplay.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings