Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Spoiler-Free Iron Man 2 Review

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the where's-my-arc-reactor dept.

Movies 118

Although it's not out until May 7, brumgrunt sent us a spoiler-free review of Iron Man 2. The short verdict is that it's not as good as the last one, but considering how much acclaim was piled on that, I don't really think anyone was expecting that.

cancel ×

118 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Jews for Nerds! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31999432)

Jews, also known as kikes, hebes, hymies, yids, gold niggers, oven magnets, hook noses, sheenies, swindlers, criminals, "firewood", and Arabs in denial are a subhuman species of reptilian extra-terrestrials and adherents to one of the world's oldest major religions, called "Judaism", otherwise known as "The Worship of Money" or "Eating Arab Babies".

Judaism was the world's first master race theory. The Jew religion teaches that Jews are the Chosen People of God and that there is a sacred mystical quality to Jew DNA. In olden times, Jew prophets would, under the command of YHWH, frequently lead the Jews on genocidal rampages against neighboring populations, and even today Jew leaders often cite Jewish religious ideals to justify their ongoing genocide of sandniggers. Judaism ironically found its mirror-image inversion in the anti-Jew Aryan racialism of the Nazis.

Despite only being 0.22% of the world's population, Jews control 99% of the world's money. Not only do the Jews control the world, but also the media, the banks, the space program, and LiveJournal's porn communities and Gay communities. All Jews possess the following features: an extremely large nose, fake boobs, curly hair that reeks of faggotry, one of those gay hats, a love of coke, a law practice, a roll of money, a small cock, or shitty taste in dental hygiene.

Jews invented both Communism and Capitalism. Karl Marx, of course, was a Jew, which was why he understood money so well, and in fact he was converted to Communism by another Jew, Moses Hess, the actual founder of Zionism, who ghost-wrote Marx's The German Ideology. Capitalism was created when Christian Europeans threw away their morals and decided to embrace Jewish practices like usury (see: John Calvin). Jews were the first group to create a sophisticated banking system, which they used to fund the Crusades in order to pit Christians and Muslims (both adhering to religions derived from and controlled by Jews) against each other to kill as many people as possible in a macabre human sacrifice to YHWH.

The Jew banking system was based on fraud and lies, so when it inevitably collapsed, the Jews just pwned as many people as possible by unleashing the Black Plague on them. Later, Jews economically controlled medieval Venice (the first modern maritime trade empire), and then crypto-Jewish merchants economically controlled the Spanish Empire, including the slave trade. Openly Jewish bankers orchestrated the Dutch Empire and founded Jew Amsterdam (later Jew York). Later the Dutch Jews moved to London because they thought it would be a better base for a global empire, and actually brought a Dutch nobleman, William III, with them, who they installed in a coup d'état (more like Jew d'état, amirite?) as new King of the British Empire. For hundreds of years, Jewish bankers controlled global trade through their bases in Jew York City and London. European colonialism was, through its history, essentially a plot whereby Jews could gain control of gold and diamond mines in poor countries and increase their stranglehold over the global economy.

Jews also enjoy slicing up baby penises for fun, some even enjoy sucking them. See below.

Jews also created Jew search engine Google, so now they can find all Jew information on Internets.

Some suggest that we should use Jews instead of dogs to sniff out large amounts of concealed cash or anything else worth smuggling at airports due to their sensitive Jew noses. Obviously, this is a horrible idea, because the pay is bad, and the dirty Kikes would probably form a union and demand moar money, thus increasing the burden on taxpayers everywhere.

Justin Hammer? (1)

MrTripps (1306469) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999526)

Iron Man Vs. Justin Hammer. Sounds like a.... Oh well, at least Schumacher isn't there to put nipples on the suit.

Re:Justin Hammer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31999578)

I'm told the working title was Iron Man vs Justin Timberlake.

Re:Justin Hammer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32000276)

but the cycle repeats itself, louder, more explosions. He might as well be. I don't want a repeat of what happened to (pre-Dark knight) Batman or Spiderman. Well, throw in Scarlett Johanssen and I'll STFU.

Who cares: it's SHIT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32000512)

Just like the first, it will be utter fucking shit, but the comic book nerds on Slashdot will love it. Understand this: they are fucking idiots, and they are wrong, because this movie will be shit. Anyone who pays to see this, let alone queues in line like a Slashdot comic book nerd, is a fucking idiot by association.

Re:Who cares: it's SHIT (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32000674)

You have lots of credibility, anonymous Internet troll! I'm going to not see Iron Man 2 so I can be smart and happy like you clearly are.

Re:Who cares: it's SHIT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32001154)

I'm talking undistputable, cold, hard, scientific fact when I say that this film is shit. My credibility and anonymous-cowardness is irrelevant - is water suddenly dry just because an oaf exclaims it to be wet? No! Just as water is wet, Iron Man 2 is shit. Again: this is undisputable, cold, hard, scientific fact. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it. I will not hold my breath.

Re:Who cares: it's SHIT (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001882)

Scientific, eh? Please cite peer-reviewed journal articles that have established these facts so that we may be suitably enlightened. Something along the lines of the well-regarded Transactions on Cinema Quality "Iron Man 2: A Study in Movie Deficiency", 2010 would do.

Re:Who cares: it's SHIT (1)

Sethumme (1313479) | more than 4 years ago | (#32002056)

AC is simply pointing out the underlying truth that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder and that artistic quality can be rated on an absolute, objective value scale.

Re:Who cares: it's SHIT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32002074)

You know, when you're trolling you're supposed to be more subtle.

Joel Schumacher invents the nipple-suit (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001756)

Iron Man Vs. Justin Hammer. Sounds like a.... Oh well, at least Schumacher isn't there to put nipples on the suit.

You know, the interesting thing about the nipples on the Batman suit is that initially they weren't part of the design. When Joel Schumacher first had Val Kilmer wear the suit, he realized something was missing - and so he suckled Kilmer's chest until the now-well-known nipple features of the Batman suit emerged.

The Real Iron Man!!! (4, Funny)

oztiks (921504) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999536)

The Real Iron Man [openjokes.com]

Re:The Real Iron Man!!! (1)

Higaran (835598) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999662)

That the best costume that I've ever seen.

Are you buying horse steroids? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31999566)

If they're good enough for a $100,000 race horse, they're good enough for me.

Yes but... (1)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999636)

...does it blend ?

Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (5, Informative)

drgruney (1077007) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999668)

/. says "Spoiler-free" First line of article says "spoiler-light." I'm glad they said that so I could stop reading and save myself the blind rage I would have been in.

Re:Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (3, Insightful)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999726)

I'm tagging as !spoilerfree and spoilerlight. Might help others avoid making a mistake.

Re:Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (3, Informative)

nangus (1026732) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999746)

The only things in tfa that could be considered spoilers is the same data that one would get from the trailers.

Re:Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (2, Insightful)

drgruney (1077007) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999792)

Some of us avoid trailers.

Re:Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31999842)

Some of us avoid trailers.

Especially now, since it is tornado season.

Re:Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (2, Insightful)

nangus (1026732) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999978)

so if you go to see a movie you cover your eyes and go lalala till opening credits roll?

Re:Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 4 years ago | (#32000878)

I knew people who did this for the fourth Star Wars movie. They were so excited about it that they didn't want to know anything going in. I imagine it was pretty tough for them.

Re:Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001802)

so if you go to see a movie you cover your eyes and go lalala till opening credits roll?

It's not a bad way to go, really. I mean, it's a drag having to avoid information, but the trailers provide too much information. By the time you actually see the movie, half the scenes wind up being stuff you've already seen, or at least enough of it that there's no potential left to be surprised by what happens.

Re:Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (3, Funny)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999848)

The only things in tfa that could be considered spoilers is the same data that one would get from the trailers.

Trailers aren't very indicative of what kind of movie you're going to get though. Link. [youtube.com]

Re:Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 4 years ago | (#32000338)

And some movies are nothing more than filler between the parts that were included in the trailer.

Re:Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32002364)

I know its a joke, but it's true that trailers can mislead people. The TV trailers for KickAss are a very good recent example. No one who saw those, without doing any further research, would suspect the movie to be as brutal and violent as The Watchmen.

Re:Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (2, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999846)

/. says "Spoiler-free" First line of article says "spoiler-light." I'm glad they said that so I could stop reading and save myself the blind rage I would have been in.

That would have been great prep for going to see a Daredevil movie.

Ben Afflick is DAREDEVIL... (1)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 4 years ago | (#32000752)

That would have been great prep for going to see a Daredevil movie.

So would have been a lot of alcohol....

Re:Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (5, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999864)

It says spoiler free in the title, but then the subtitle says "spoiler light". As we all know, "light" is a word that's not regulated by the FDA, so it's impossible to determine how much spoiler content actually exists in a review using that term, other than that it contains fewer spoiler than one marked "regular" or "full spoiler" or something of that nature.

Re:Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (1)

mdielmann (514750) | more than 4 years ago | (#32002140)

It says spoiler free in the title, but then the subtitle says "spoiler light". As we all know, "light" is a word that's not regulated by the FDA, so it's impossible to determine how much spoiler content actually exists in a review using that term, other than that it contains fewer spoiler than one marked "regular" or "full spoiler" or something of that nature.

I can only assume that "full-spoiler" would be the entire movie, with director commentary. At least, that seems to be the most completely spoiled version of a movie when you view the DVD.

Re:Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31999884)

Fuuuuu. There's a huge spoiler at the end of the 6th paragraph. :-(

Re:Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32001854)

Fuuuuu. There's a huge spoiler at the end of the 6th paragraph. :-(

Hey buddy, ever hear of a SPOILER ALERT? You just ruined the whole review for me.

Re:Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (2, Funny)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32002060)

Fuuuuu. There's a huge spoiler at the end of the 6th paragraph. :-(

Hey buddy, ever hear of a SPOILER ALERT? You just ruined the whole review for me.

Thanks a lot... I ended up reading your post before his and you totally ruined it for me.

Re:Okay, submitter and editors need a brain check. (1)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 4 years ago | (#32003268)

I don't understand your problem. If you don't want to spoil the movie then don't read about it. A review can't be spoiler-free; as long as it gives away *any* information about the movie then it is by definition not spoiler-free. Just say no! And let us little people enjoy the article. (ahem).

The Review is Not Spoiler Free (2, Insightful)

Manatra (948767) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999704)

I RTFA'd and that review is not spoiler free. It gives out a good chunk of the plot of the movie as well as several pivotal scenes. So for anyone who hasn't RTFA'd yet, here's your warning. It would be nice if the Slashdot editor's RTFA'd, and while we're at it, I want a pony for my birthday.

May 7th? (1)

greebowarrior (961561) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999734)

It's coming out on Thursday on this side of the pond :p

Re:May 7th? (1)

dHagger (1192545) | more than 4 years ago | (#32003450)

It is coming already tomorrow (Wednesday) in some parts of the world. IMDB has a list [imdb.com] .

I have ticket reservations for it tomorrow evening (I'm Swedish).

read it, not really spoiler free (2, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999748)

i mean, you can't review a movie at all without giving SOMETHING away, but if you want your iron man 2 experience to be spotless, you already know not to read any reviews at all

me personally, i read lots of reviews and don't mind anything being "spoiled." in fact, many times i purposefully read the wikipedia entry for a movie to get the entire plot in my head before i see the movie. because unless you are talking about "the crying game", plot points aren't really the issue in terms of your experience being ruined. the single biggest destroyer of movie enjoyment is: expectations. movies you expect a lot from disappoint more easily. simple as that

so here goes:

!!!!!!!!

SPOILER WARNING FOR ANY SEQUEL YOU WILL EVER SEE

!!!!!!!!

1. you enjoyed the first iron man a lot,
2. so you look forward to the second iron man a lot,
3. therefore you will not be as impressed by the second iron man

with that in mind, try to enjoy iron man 2, realizing that the psychology of pleasure (anticipation more influential than delivery) means you are your own worse enemy in the entirety of your lifetime of moviegoing experiences. this lesson applies to all other experiences in your life you do for pleasure to: from going to a restaurant, to buying a car, food, to sex. there's a good reason why women tease, whether they realize it or not: the buildup of anticipation drives your pleasure more than the actual mechanical act of sex

understand psychology, master the pleasure you derive from life

Re:read it, not really spoiler free (4, Funny)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32000386)

It can't possibly live up to the preformance he gave as Sherlock Holmes. Now that's a sequel I'd like to.....damn. /reads above post. Never mind.

Re:read it, not really spoiler free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32005488)

There have been quite a few of superhero movies where people liked the original, looked forward to the sequel, and the sequel blew away their expectations: The Dark Knight, Spiderman 2, X-Men 2. Something that builds on the original and fixes the flaws of the original. If people don't like the sequel as much, I'd say it's more because it suffers from typical sequel problems (rehashed plot, out-of-characterness, trying to cram in too much plot) than biased nostalgia for the original.

Re:read it, not really spoiler free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32005830)

anticipation of sex is better than the act of sex? Damn CTS you aren't doing it right.

goat (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999794)

There might be a goat in the movie. Just sayin'. Also, explosion!!!!!!!!!YEAH

Also, Italians are spying on you.

Spoilers Here (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31999866)

1. Stark does what Stark does, flies around promoting Stark Expo. He works to keep Ironman away from the government.
2. Whiplash attacks Stark. Stark kicks the hell out of Whiplash using the portable in a case Ironman Suit
3. Natasha begins to work for Stark, and eventually steals a suit
4. Justin Hammer springs Whiplash from the French jail and gives him a job reverse engineering the stolen suit
5. The stolen suit becomes War Machine, and is given to Rhodes
6. Rhodes turns over War Machine to Stark which is given back to Rhodes
7. Justin Hammer and Whiplash create a bunch of automated Ironman suits
8. Warmachine and Ironman kill all the robots and work with SHIELD to take down Justin Hammer
9. Stark finds a replacement for his implant

Wallah.

Re:Spoilers Here (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001830)

Wallah.

What the hell is "wallah"?

Re:Spoilers Here (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32003054)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/voil%C3%A0 [wiktionary.org]

it is supposed to be voila. The AC just doesn't know how to spell it, and I don't know how to make the accent work in slashcode.

Re:Spoilers Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32003138)

Wallah is the redneck version of voila.

Re:Spoilers Here (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#32005328)

What the hell is "wallah"?

Presumably, Iron-wallah would be a steampunk Indian version of Iron Man during the British Raj.

First one (4, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999892)

RDJ is charismatic. The first film was fun. It may be the best looking BluRay I own. But most of us went in with relatively low expectations and were impressed. That doesn't mean the first film deserved all the praise it got. It doesn't hold up really well to repeat viewings. There isn't a whole lot of great action or tension.

Watch Iron Man again. Then watch Dark Knight again. Tell me Iron Man is in the same class.

I've been hoping this film would be a marked improvement over the first one and have better action sequences.

Re:First one (4, Interesting)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32000138)

RDJ is charismatic. The first film was fun. It may be the best looking BluRay I own. But most of us went in with relatively low expectations and were impressed. That doesn't mean the first film deserved all the praise it got. It doesn't hold up really well to repeat viewings. There isn't a whole lot of great action or tension.

Watch Iron Man again. Then watch Dark Knight again. Tell me Iron Man is in the same class.

Iron Man is a perfect popcorn movie. You're absolutely correct, RDJ has tremendous charisma. He's one of those genuinely fun characters to watch. Plays Stark perfectly. There were also plenty of laughs built into the story. The only real weakness with the movie is that the villain was underdeveloped. But seeing as this was also an origin movie, there's only so much that can be shoehorned in. Good action, good laughs, a complete surprise. The whole premise of a super suit is absurd, naturally. And building one in a cave with scrap metal? Don't let Osama get a hold of this guy. But like any good movie of this nature, it embraced the absurdity and then followed through with it. So many moments of "Oh, wow. Now that's cool." Loved seeing him develop the idea and go through the mental process of accepting his new role.

I saw it on a free preview and went in expecting to still feel ripped off. Was completely surprised. A light, fun, enjoyable movie that leaves you grinning like a 12-yr old when it's done. This really shouldn't be all that difficult to do but so many movies screw it up. As I understand it, the movie was sort of a happy accident. The producers said they spent so much time on developing the effects for the suit, they'd forgotten to write a story for the rest of the movie. All of RDJ's best lines were adlibbed, were not in the script. It really should have been a mess but somehow wasn't. My only fear is that they try to replicate this for the next movies and we end up with tedious, over-processed crap like the usual mindless comic book movies.

Re:First one (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001058)

The only real weakness with the movie is that the villain was underdeveloped. But seeing as this was also an origin movie, there's only so much that can be shoehorned in.

Does Iron Man really have an iconic archenemy? A Joker to his Batman? I'm not so sure.

Re:First one (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001862)

The only real weakness with the movie is that the villain was underdeveloped. But seeing as this was also an origin movie, there's only so much that can be shoehorned in.

Does Iron Man really have an iconic archenemy? A Joker to his Batman? I'm not so sure.

Oxidization Man?

Re:First one (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001966)

Magneto.

No, not really, not as far as I know, but you'd expect it'd be a serious problem.

Re:First one (1)

CubicleView (910143) | more than 4 years ago | (#32003162)

He didn't get on very well with the Mandarin...

Re:First one (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32003936)

The only real weakness with the movie is that the villain was underdeveloped. But seeing as this was also an origin movie, there's only so much that can be shoehorned in.

Does Iron Man really have an iconic archenemy? A Joker to his Batman? I'm not so sure.

I believe The Mandarin is probably the closest thing he has to a true nemesis.

Beyond that he has a decent range of villains that've made things difficult for him, some of which with a personal grudge. Ultron usually fairs pretty well since he eventually learns to control Stark's armor, but he's someone else's nemesis.

Then again, not every comic book character has a nemesis as closely tied as Batman's Joker. I'd say maybe 1/2 have something similar.

Flash? A large rogue's gallery, though I *guess* one of the Zooms is his "Joker"

Wonder Woman?

Punisher?

Henry Irons?

Don't get me wrong, they all have decent villains with a personal grudge against them. But a big iconic archenemy like Joker, I don't know.

Re:First one (1)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 4 years ago | (#32000452)

Watch Iron Man again. Then watch Dark Knight again. Tell me Iron Man is in the same class.

I can't hear you over the sound of Bale's Batman Voice.

Re:First one (1)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001072)

"Batman with a tracheotomy" is the only way I can describe it.

Re:First one (1)

hiryuu (125210) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001642)

I can't hear you over the sound of Bale's Batman Voice.

A friend pointed this out a while ago, and while I really enjoyed "The Dark Knight," I still found this pretty funny: spoof of the interrogation scene [youtube.com] .

Re:First one (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32000906)

I actually like Iron Man better than the Dark Knight.

Re:First one (1)

SageinaRage (966293) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001314)

Likewise. Dark Knight was good, but overlong, with too many unnecessary bits, and too much pretension. Iron Man was a more cohesive experience.

Re:First one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32002256)

Well, the absence of Christian Bale is always a plus, but both films are painful to watch.

Re:First one (1)

priegog (1291820) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001694)

Agreed. And to think some relatives won't even watch TDK because it's a "superhero flick", oh well... I've always thought of it as one of the greatest movies... with a superhero trown in. Or rather as "Joker Begins"

Re:First one (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32002444)

I agree. I liked Iron Man, and I think there are a few reasons it got such acclaim, but one of the major reasons was that expectations were low. I know I wasn't expecting it to be good, and low expectations lead to being pleasantly surprised. I think a lot of people were even more pleasantly surprised since, relative to Batman/Superman/Spiderman, Iron Man was downright obscure stuff.

Sorry, I know someone here will get mad at the claim that Iron Man is obscure. Maybe he's your favorite superhero ever, but my parents and even my friends and siblings hadn't heard of him before the movie. They knew Spiderman, they knew the Hulk, but they didn't know who Iron Man was. So you had a decent percentage of the movie-going population walked into a superhero movie about some superhero they'd never heard of, and it was actually pretty good. If Superman Returns had been equally good, people still would have complained.

Not only was the acting good, but it quickly went through the origin story in a way that felt organic. The stereotype of first-time superhero movies is that they spend half the movie going through a plodding/annoying origin story in a way that feels brutally forced, and then break from that to an entirely different story about the "main villain". As I recall, Iron Man somehow managed to sidestep the issue and made it feel like you were watching a coherent story, which was helpful.

Still, if you ask me, the Batman movies are almost in a different genre than the rest of these superhero movies. They're more like a cross between a superhero movie and a gritty independent crime thriller.

Re:First one (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32002612)

Iron Man is popular in comic book circles, but I think it is fair to say that Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Punisher, Iron Man, etc. are second-tier heroes to the Batman, Superman, Spiderman, X-Men first-tier.

The new Batman films (Nolan-verse as I call it) are good films in their own right. They aren't just good by superhero standards.

Maybe I'm not entirely fair because The Dark Knight is a second film. Sometimes the second film in a superhero franchise moves away from the already known origin story and hits the ground running.

Superman 2 > Superman
X-Men 2 > X-Men
Spiderman 2 > Spiderman
The Dark Night > Batman Begins

I'm hoping Iron Man 2 makes the same leap. If this reviewer is correct, it doesn't make that leap.

Re:First one (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#32005276)

Watch Iron Man again. Then watch Dark Knight again. Tell me Iron Man is in the same class.

You're right, they're not in the same class: Iron Man is a fun superhero movie with an interesting and likable actor playing the main character, while Dark Knight is a poorly edited mishmash of incoherent action sequences and dollar-store philosophy with a plastic mannequin in the title role.

I understand that this may be a minority opinion. ;)

Re:First one (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32005286)

Watch Iron Man again. Then watch Dark Knight again. Tell me Iron Man is in the same class.

I think Iron Man is the best comic-book hero movie ever made. It's at the top of its genre, from a long line of comic-book heroes.

The Dark Knight is a fantastic drama, that just happens to be about Gotham's favorite hero. It's left the genre baggage behind and opened up a new kind of storytelling.

Re:First one (1)

boxwood (1742976) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006018)

Iron Man and The Dark Knight are different kinds of movies, so its unfair to compare them. The only thing they have in common is they are both based on comic books.

Iron Man was a fun comic book movie and TDK was more like a psychological thriller. Comparing them is like comparing "Silence of the Lambs" to "The Hangover"

Re:First one (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007388)

It doesn't hold up really well to repeat viewings. There isn't a whole lot of great action or tension.

I've seen it about 20 times, straight through (~2 hours), and at least another 15 times watching the "Iron" parts (~45 min).

Generally I don't do that with movies. I've seen Dark Knight exactly once. It was good, but Iron Man is amazing.

I suppose they both speak to the geek in us; however, Dark Knight speaks to the geek with discipline (or as my grand master used to say, "disciprine") enough to hone his martial arts skills. Iron Man speaks to the geek in all of us.

Sadly, Part 1 was not SF (1)

thms (1339227) | more than 4 years ago | (#32000004)

Naively looking at Ironman (well, 1) as a science fiction movie (it does star a technology-loving closet-nerd after all) shows that it gets most science stuff wrong as usual.

Ignoring the effects such harsh accelerations would have on a person (and the lack of an internal waste management system), it e.g. suffers from The One Secret Prototype syndrome. Technology is tightly coupled with the first implementation, and nobody but the creator understands it and nobody ever copied the blueprints. Research is done by the Lone Scientist, in this case at least a Good Guy and not a fringe groups which makes absurd advances on their own, and without anyone else noticing. Other effects of technology such as the quite advanced AI available and the power source per-se are ignored to concentrate on the action part. I wonder how well part 2 does in these areas.

Re:Sadly, Part 1 was not SF (1)

UziBeatle (695886) | more than 4 years ago | (#32000112)

Hey, THMS.

  I suspect you'd be as much fun at the movies as Chloe O'Brian from the series
24 would be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloe_O'Brian [wikipedia.org]
  Dry.

    Chill.

Re:Sadly, Part 1 was not SF (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32000488)

Naively looking at Ironman (well, 1) as a science fiction movie shows that it gets most science stuff wrong as usual.

That was your first mistake. Iron Man was an action movie (and not an especially good one at that).

Watch Iron Man again. Then watch Dark Knight again. Tell me Iron Man is in the same class.

The mans got a good point. It'll never hold up against the Dark Knight but RDJ did a decent job with the character. I blame the script.

Re:Sadly, Part 1 was not SF (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001500)

Iron Man was a much more enjoyable movie than Dark Knight.

I would say that's only my opinion, but I wrote on wikipedia they use it as a standard of measurement nowadays, so it's established fact.

Re:Sadly, Part 1 was not SF (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 4 years ago | (#32004566)

Agree with many other posters, I enjoyed Iron Man more than TDK. I even bought the movie and have watched it a ton (replay value). I saw TDK in the theaters once. That was enough.

Re:Sadly, Part 1 was not SF (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001678)

Naively looking at Ironman (well, 1) as a science fiction movie (it does star a technology-loving closet-nerd after all) shows that it gets most science stuff wrong as usual.

Ignoring the effects such harsh accelerations would have on a person (and the lack of an internal waste management system), it e.g. suffers from The One Secret Prototype syndrome. Technology is tightly coupled with the first implementation, and nobody but the creator understands it and nobody ever copied the blueprints. Research is done by the Lone Scientist, in this case at least a Good Guy and not a fringe groups which makes absurd advances on their own, and without anyone else noticing. Other effects of technology such as the quite advanced AI available and the power source per-se are ignored to concentrate on the action part. I wonder how well part 2 does in these areas.

The trick for any sort of super-hero story is to have only a few absurd assumptions and then try to scrupulously follow logic in how they play out. It's just like with the usual science fiction idea of inventing a technology and seeing how things play out based upon it. Star Trek is an example of that done poorly. So they invent a transporter which is a matter disassembler/assembler. Well, what if you took something apart and put it back together differently? Use simple feedstocks to create complex products. Ok, that's the replicator. Kudos for them thinking of that. But this means you could also reverse aging by disassembling a person and reassembling them younger. This would completely change society and is overlooked by the writers.

For an Iron Man suit to work like we see in the movies, you're pretty much talking about god-tech. A tremendous compact power source for starters, probably the energy density of a small atom bomb. There would have to be gravity manipulation tech inertial dampening. Really smart AI to keep the suit doing what the operator means and not what it thinks he means. His "push people back and break things" hand weapons would also be some form of gravity manipulation, a force beam. And then there's the way of cancelling out the reaction since the force it takes to knock a guy two hundred feet and make a dent in a wall two stories up would also be hitting back at the Iron Man suit. Maybe a surge in localized gravity to anchor the feet to the ground? The Army's Hardman suit, an attempt at making a powered exoskeleton, had tremendous problems with the limb augmentation. They never put a test operator in it because they thought they'd break bones.

The tech is certainly more than 20 years out. A hundred years? Two hundred? Hard to say. But it's completely out of place in a modern setting. It's like watching the 6 Million Dollar Man with their giant banks of computers with spinning tape reels. Shit, we can barely make passable thought controlled cybernetic limbs in 2010, let alone anything that could turn an amputee into superman!

Re:Sadly, Part 1 was not SF (1)

ryllharu (1441751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32002734)

Star Trek is an example of that done poorly. So they invent a transporter which is a matter disassembler/assembler. Well, what if you took something apart and put it back together differently? Use simple feedstocks to create complex products. Ok, that's the replicator. Kudos for them thinking of that. But this means you could also reverse aging by disassembling a person and reassembling them younger. This would completely change society and is overlooked by the writers.

I'm going to hate myself for knowing this, but there was an episode in TNG, Season 6: "Rascals", where Picard and others were turned into children by a transporter accident.

Iron Man is never really meant to be serious science. It may be founded in it, but it is really about a regular guy (compared to other superheroes) creating a suit that turns him into technological titan. Invulnerability, strength, speed, and as a side effect, saves/sustains his life. A lot of his traditional enemies are US Cold War enemies. Iron Man is very much a product of the science and engineering boom the US created as a reaction to the Soviets launching Sputnik.

Re:Sadly, Part 1 was not SF (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006760)

But this means you could also reverse aging by disassembling a person and reassembling them younger. This would completely change society and is overlooked by the writers.

Sure, if you wanted them to lose all of their memories from after the first scan. And if you had enough storage space for the older version. Or if you have some incredibly complex merging support for two independent physical models.

Going from transporter to anti-aging machine is amazingly difficult and it's almost certainly easier to reverse ageing in half a dozen other ways than via complete disassembly and reassembly of the person.

Re:Sadly, Part 1 was not SF (1)

boxwood (1742976) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006110)

Yeah but if they were limited to real physics and technology available today it would be a really boring movie.

Spoiler ! (4, Funny)

godrik (1287354) | more than 4 years ago | (#32000092)

Tony Stark is Iron Man ! OMG SPOILER!

My Review Full of Spoilers (5, Funny)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32000108)

There is this dude. He's kewl. Then there is this chick. She's hot in a quirky kind of way. Then there is this other dude. He's bad-ass. Then there is this smarmy guy who wants to exploit the bad-ass dude. The bad-ass dude eventually double crosses the smarmy guy and total fucks with the kewl dude. The hot-in-a-quirky-way chick gets caught in the middle. Then there is this other dude who isn't quite as kewl as the kewl dude who is like "dude!" and the other dude is like "no dude" but "dude!", They team up to fight bad-ass dude all the while the chick, the kewl dude, the not quite as kewl dude deal inbetween relentless violence deal with periodic moments of character development. Eventually kewl dude wins.

So was that a review of Iron Man 2, Robocop, Star Wars, Gone with the Wind, Star Ship Troopers, or Freddie vs. Jason?

Feel free to include any other films this review may cover....

Re:My Review Full of Spoilers (1)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32000210)

Forgot Blazing Saddles

Re:My Review Full of Spoilers (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 4 years ago | (#32000690)

Kramer v. Kramer

Re:My Review Full of Spoilers (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001040)

Hmm...

There is a handsome rogue who pilots one of the fastest freighters in the system. He's hired to rescue a sarcastic and bossy princess with an odd hairstyle. They are at odds with Darth Vader, a Sith Lord with who is strong in the Dark Side of the Force. Grand Moff Tarkin (what the hell is a Moff?) is a general in the Emperor's military and relies on Vader's influence and fearsomeness to command the troops. Vader eventually takes control by abolishing the Senate and declaring rule by fear. The princess is captured as a Rebellion spy. Enter Luke Skywalker, a teen coming of age in the ways of the Force: "I got one!" "Don't get cocky, kid!" are quips as they team up to battle Vader and the Empire, rescue the princess, and blow up the Emperor's new toy with a resounding, "Yeehaw!"

Damn, dude. You're spot on with that review.

Damn it! (2, Funny)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 4 years ago | (#32003144)

At least put up a Spoiler Alert before you do that. I was finally going to get around to watching Star Wars this weekend.
Bastard.

Re:Damn it! (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006302)

Bah. It's in the subject.

Re:My Review Full of Spoilers (1)

AzureDiamond (1314257) | more than 4 years ago | (#32003090)

SPOILER

Worrying about spoilers in reviews of popcorn movies based on comic books past puberty means you are probably developmentally disabled.

Re:My Review Full of Spoilers (1)

boxwood (1742976) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006142)

The Big Lebowski?

Re:My Review Full of Spoilers (1)

npsimons (32752) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007814)

So was that a review of Iron Man 2, Robocop, Star Wars, Gone with the Wind, Star Ship Troopers, or Freddie vs. Jason?

Yes.

SPOILER (0, Troll)

Norfair (845108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32000266)

Its just another mediocre comic-adaptation like, say, most of them??

CUM (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32000398)

FreeBSD at ab0ut 80

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32000688)

And I thought that the first Iron Man was a 2hr long Audi Commercial...

Iron Man 2 clips (2, Informative)

bagsta (1562275) | more than 4 years ago | (#32000766)

Here [scifiwire.com] are five clips of IM2 which are not in the official trailers(there is a 30 seconds advertisement in the beginning of the clips).

No spoilers? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32001078)

SNAPE KILLED DUMBLEDORE!

Oh boy, another PG13-rated CGI-fest. (1)

mattcsn (1592281) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001326)

Wake me up when Kick-ass 2 is out. Bloodless Bluescreen Battles are getting real old, real fast.

Boole (1)

noz (253073) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001366)

Is tagging this article !spoilerfree the same as !!spoiler and !!!spoilerfree and !!!!spoiler, and perhaps spoiler?

Spider-man 2 was good? (1)

CubicleView (910143) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001946)

What you don't get however, ... a comic book movie that can be mentioned in the same breath as The Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2 or X2

All the Spider-man movies were deeply disapointing, except maybe the 3rd one, since I was still so bored from the 2nd one that I couldn't care less about it. Anyway, that takes alot of credibility from the review IMO, so I'm still hopeful of a 4+ star film.

Not as good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32002162)

"[...] it's not as good as the last one"

I'm having some trouble processing the "not as good" part of that statement. Do you mean it's "even worse" than the first one?

I've seen Sesame Street songs with more depth (not to mention less clichés) than the first Ironman movie.

I watched Iron Man 1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32002380)

... on a flight from the US to Europe on screens attached in the aisles (Delta Airlines). I disliked it so much I wanted to leave the cinema, but they didn't let me...

But seriously: Boy, that movie was a blow below the belt.

How Iron Man Should've Ended... (1)

Rembrandt Q Einstein (1799078) | more than 4 years ago | (#32004286)

a buddy of mine just did a cartoon short of how the first Iron Man should've ended. check it out: http://www.howitshouldhaveended.com/ [howitshouldhaveended.com]

UYUO FAIL IT!? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32005558)

goodbye...she had another folder. 20 today. it's about

American fascination with certain superheroes (1)

Reservoir Penguin (611789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007722)

In Russia we call these types VOBBBL (Restorer of Balance, Rich, Flying, Armored). In other cultures a superhero comes from the downtrodden masses, he/she suffers the same kind of abuse and injustice so the people associate themselves with him. But take for instance Batman, he used the system to make untold fortune, well beyond the hopes of an average person and then.. decided to impose his own kind of justice. Why do you like these kind of types?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>