Some people didn't like this movie. I basically avoid getting into a fight about it. But I have to be honest that while watching it I was as entertained by it as I was by the first Iron Man. This one may even be a bit more fun without the burden of an origin story. Some fans have been able to catalogue visual continuity flaws, and more power to them. I didn't notice any. I guess my eyes went where the editor expected they would.
An ongoing pet peeve of mine is the ease with which critics publish falsehoods. I don't even mean subjective arguments with which I disagree, but unqualified statements contrary to the evidence on screen. Here is an example, having looked at a review of Iron Man 2 before seeing it, since I was thrown by a claim that caught my eye. Ordinarily I avoid reviews of movies I already intend to see.
False statement number one is that Mickey Rourke doesn't have enough screen time. Fact: he has exactly the right amount of screen time for a primary movie heavy. Does he have as much as in The Wrestler? No. Does he have as much as Nicholson's Joker in the 1989 Batman? Of course not, because there was no writer's strike during the shooting of Iron Man 2 and Tim Burton doesn't always know when enough Jack is enough. Jack had way too much screen time in that flick, entertaining as he was.
False statement number two is that we don't see Iron Man in the suit enough. This might actually be offered as proof the critic didn't even see the movie. We see as much of Iron Man in full costume as the story permits, which is exactly the right amount. Then we also get to see War Machine in his own similar costume, and Mickey again in something still similar. Not to mention the collection of Iron man suits on display in Stark's home. This of course is even clear to people who have seen the trailers. No spoilers here.
I could go point for point through the whole "review," but those were the to most laughable that drifted into my thoughts as I was watching them be disproved during the film. Proof once again that a movie should be seen as cold as possible (despite the omni-present trailer) and there is no point having a critic's nonsense rattling around in your head.
Let's face it, you are in better hands with the team behind Iron Man 2 than with even a competent critic. The themes are well explored, the character flaws of Stark are exploited for substance, and it is as it should be. I don't think I'll show up for any Stark parties or Expos, but I will keep showing up to his movies. If there's a quibble, it can be for the hurdles placed before the filmmakers by the studio when it announced the release date of this flick before telling its director - who then had to round out whatever draft of a script with an ongoing workshop with his cast. Let's hope they are given more time for part 3, but they managed to maintain the standard of the first one to a large extent.
I may never have the time to compile an archive website of disprovable quotes from critics, and there is the danger anyway that it might inadvertently promote their names.
An ongoing pet peeve of mine is the ease with which critics publish falsehoods. I don't even mean subjective arguments with which I disagree, but unqualified statements contrary to the evidence on screen. Here is an example, having looked at a review of Iron Man 2 before seeing it, since I was thrown by a claim that caught my eye. Ordinarily I avoid reviews of movies I already intend to see.
False statement number one is that Mickey Rourke doesn't have enough screen time. Fact: he has exactly the right amount of screen time for a primary movie heavy. Does he have as much as in The Wrestler? No. Does he have as much as Nicholson's Joker in the 1989 Batman? Of course not, because there was no writer's strike during the shooting of Iron Man 2 and Tim Burton doesn't always know when enough Jack is enough. Jack had way too much screen time in that flick, entertaining as he was.
False statement number two is that we don't see Iron Man in the suit enough. This might actually be offered as proof the critic didn't even see the movie. We see as much of Iron Man in full costume as the story permits, which is exactly the right amount. Then we also get to see War Machine in his own similar costume, and Mickey again in something still similar. Not to mention the collection of Iron man suits on display in Stark's home. This of course is even clear to people who have seen the trailers. No spoilers here.
I could go point for point through the whole "review," but those were the to most laughable that drifted into my thoughts as I was watching them be disproved during the film. Proof once again that a movie should be seen as cold as possible (despite the omni-present trailer) and there is no point having a critic's nonsense rattling around in your head.
Let's face it, you are in better hands with the team behind Iron Man 2 than with even a competent critic. The themes are well explored, the character flaws of Stark are exploited for substance, and it is as it should be. I don't think I'll show up for any Stark parties or Expos, but I will keep showing up to his movies. If there's a quibble, it can be for the hurdles placed before the filmmakers by the studio when it announced the release date of this flick before telling its director - who then had to round out whatever draft of a script with an ongoing workshop with his cast. Let's hope they are given more time for part 3, but they managed to maintain the standard of the first one to a large extent.
I may never have the time to compile an archive website of disprovable quotes from critics, and there is the danger anyway that it might inadvertently promote their names.