Iron Man 2

Le réalisateur Favreau utilise brillamment le potentiel de la distribution d'acteurs célèbres, où même les "seconds rôles" ont des rôles qui leur vont comme un gant - Samuel, l'homme à l'œil unique en manteau de cuir, Rockwell, le vendeur en costume-cravate, Scarlett, qui se bat froidement, ils profitent tous de chaque instant (seul le psycho-inventeur russe Rourke mériterait d'être plus développé psychologiquement). Cependant, l'histoire elle-même n'a absolument rien pour captiver - il n'y a pratiquement pas de drame ou de tension, et les scènes d'action durent à peine deux minutes et couvrent à peine 10 minutes du film (!). En fait, c'est un petit miracle de voir comment une bande dessinée avec un scénario si peu excitant parvient à rester à un niveau aussi agréablement conversational. (27/04/2010)

I wouldn't expect a warning about the power of (media) imagery from a film whose main protagonist spends half the time drinking and goofing around. Stark is just as amoral a character as the other arms magnate, Hammer, but he knows how to impress people and make fun of himself, a trait that characterises the whole film and distinguishes the Iron Man franchise from the dark comic-book adaptations along the lines of The Dark Knight, which don't make light of the superhero mythos. Favreau doesn’t follow the trend of psychologically more intense comic-book movies. Iron Man 2 is darker solely in what happens to Stark’s body, not in what he goes through. This focus on the surface can be seen as the reason for the popularity of Stark and those like him, who know how to perform in front of television cameras (through which we also see the protagonist several times). That focus on the surface is also the reason that Scarlett Johansson, whose curves are manna for the eyes, has a generally superfluous role in the film. Mickey Rourke, who doesn’t talk much but speaks to the point, is also delightful, as is Gwyneth Paltrow, whose verbal shootouts with Downey are reminiscent of classic screwball comedies with their double entendres and timing, and the roughly two action scenes added in just for fun (since they gave us money for them...) are a joy to watch. Throw out abundant one-liners, look good doing it and quickly fade from memory. Mission accomplished. 75% (06/05/2013)

This doesn’t work, man. A by-the-numbers comic book movie with zero interesting scenes. I wasn’t particularly thrilled by the first Iron Man, either, but I had no trouble watching it as a mind breather. What I liked the most were the dialogues and the interactions among the characters, something that unfortunately I can’t say about the second one, and thus the lower rating. And the worst is that when there finally was some action, it only took a moment for me to long for it to finish quickly. Bland, without any spark or ideas. (04/09/2010)

Two days after watching it, the only memories left in my head were strawberries, great actors, and a lot of missed chances (for everyone - Scarlett's absolutely tragic fight in the corridor, like the rest of the action). Even the first film wasn't particularly perennial, but this is a pretty sad downgrade. (11/09/2010)

Where is the taciturnity and momentum of the first film? Where is Stark's strong personal charm? The second film amounts to watery, scattered, and terribly lifeless blabbering of the star-studded characters, whose dialogues and jokes often feel like they were written by a five-year-old (I admit that the problem may be the dubbing, but unfortunately, that is hardly going to change my impression until I see the version with subtitles). I forgave Favreau’s routinism in the first film because Downey's character had an edge. In the second film, most of the beautiful things are gone, and all that remains is chatter, outdated humor, and surprisingly Downey, who seems to be so convinced about his own irresistibility that he completely ignores the emptiness of his dialogues. There is something wrong with a comic book film that does not get me out of my seat in two hours with even one ballbusting moment. I cannot give the dubbed version more than one star... (27/04/2010)

Business as usual. As long as Downey is playing himself (or, if you like, Stark) it is mostly fun, but as soon as he puts on the suit then he just stares and it’s time for something else than verbal action, and then comes boredom, routine and... more boredom on top. Next time it needs a lot more of those “mating call" comedy scenes like those in Stark’s former CEO’s office and a lot less action. Or else a director who is good at action. (03/05/2010)

This is a film where you can see the high budget in every shot, with a polished visual, and lots of digital effects, so it's nice to watch as things explode, fly around, and shocking technological inventions and cute robots appear. Many stars parade on the screen, mostly unused and only used as decorations, and when they do appear, they don't have much to do because the story itself is a broken mess. It's the type of film for the whole family, which my 8-year-old son could consume without any problems because the world and events it shows are either directly childish or desperately immature. When you want to cater to the market to maximize profits and attract as many viewers as possible, you inevitably have to lower the content demands. Because I've been eight years old a few times already, I lost interest in the plot quickly, and the fate of the heroes was as meaningless to me as a grain of sand in the Sahara. Overall impression: 40%. (22/10/2010)

Just as good as the first one (I know I was over the moon about it and gave it five stars, but that was because Tony arrived with such a bang and so this time I simply expected it) with better action scenes, dialogs full of equally snappy lines and no longer just winking, but literally hitting you over the head with Marvel Cinematic Universe references. Downey Jr. is just as awesome as ever - this is the role he was born to play. We don't get to see much of Mickey Rourke, but while he's on screen, it's well worth it, just like Rockwell's slippery Justin Hammer, who relishes the part. I'm afraid of what dubbing will do to the movie, because I personally enjoyed the intense verbal exchanges much more than the action itself. Superb. A light yet grown-up entertainment that will always have a place in my heart. And I want that briefcase! Claridge Hi-Tec, semi-automatic, 9mm pistol. Too downtown? I agree. M24 shotgun, pump action. Five-round magazine. You know what? You’re not a hunter. What am I talking about? I’m getting rid of it. This is the FN-2000 from Belgium. They do make something better than waffles. It’s beautiful, but I can tell this isn’t disco enough for you, so I’m gonna put it right here. You’re looking at a Milkor 40mm grenade launcher. Tear gas, smoke. Hippie control. You’re tough. Let me tell you something. Size does matter. Don’t let anyone tell you different. This is an M134 7.62 Minigun. Six individual barrels. The torso taker, powder maker. Our boys in uniform call in Uncle Gazpacho or Puff the Magic Dragon. Okay. These are the Cubans, baby. This is the Cohibas, the Montecristos. This is a kinetic-kill, side-winder vehicle with a secondary cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine RDX burst. It’s capable of busting the bunker under the bunker you just busted. If it were any smarter, it would write a book. A book that would make “Ulysses" look like it was written in crayon. It would read it to you. This is my Eiffel Tower. This is my Rachmaninoff’s “Third"... My “Pieta". It’s completely elegant. It’s bafflingly beautiful. And it’s capable of reducing the population of any standing structure to zero. I call it the Ex-Wife. (04/09/2010)

Considering that in terms of Robert Downey Jr.'s current characters, I tolerate Iron Man more than his version of Sherlock Holmes, I can have more fun with this sequel than with A Game of Shadows. The second film is funnier and more straightforward because Iron Man is already defined, but on the other hand, the primary fun is hampered a bit by Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell, or dumb and dumber. Scarlett Johansson is also very weak, but the main aspects still work. Gwyneth Paltrow has managed to stop aging and I'm actually quite looking forward to the third film mainly because of her. I probably won't see anything as stupid as Stark Expo 1974 again, but why not? And yes, Stan Lee is still with us. (02/05/2013)

A demonic Mickey Rourke, a captivating Robert Downey Jr., and three monumental and magnificently shot action scenes. You can see the budget, the big picture looks good, and so do the details, everything is sleek in this über fucking cool blockbuster. But I think that one installment was more than enough, this sequel reeks of milking money for as long as possible. That said, it is evident that Robert enjoyed the role. (18/09/2010)

Bigger, better... Iron Man 2 is a more than worthy sequel, with the same flawless Downey Jr., a kick-ass Rourke (that entrance he made in Monaco - oh my!), a charming Paltrow, an excellent Rockwell, a not-at-all-useless Johansson, a few energetic action scenes that are worthwhile, great special effects, and - yay - an intelligent and funny script with dialogue that isn't dumb. There was definitely no boredom. Iron Man may come a third time. (24/10/2010)

Sterile is the right word to describe. Less humour, a worse villain and more boring direction than the first one. The highlights are the wickedly hot Scarlet and the charismatic Downey, the rest is a well made but absolutely forgettable comic book concoction. (15/08/2018)

The second part of Iron Man is comparable in quality to the first one, with Nick Fury and especially Black Widow entering the story more this time, so the cast is getting fuller and better. In addition, a charismatic villain played by Mickey Rourke appears on the scene to give the protagonist a proper hard time. From a technical standpoint, again, a job nicely done, so along with the passable story, I was satisfied. A film that mainly acts as a bit of a connector and breeding ground for later team-ups, but it works, and that counts. (19/07/2016)

Peu de gens s’amuseraient à regarder la suite d’un film auquel ils n'ont attribué qu'une étoile. C'est pourtant ce que j’ai fait étant donné que Mickey Rourke y jouait et je peux dire qu'il ne m’a pas déçu, tout comme Sam Rockwell. Mais bon, pour le reste, la morosité du premier film était au rendez-vous. Car une seule scène d’action par cinquante minutes, c’est vraiment maigre – et ce n’est pas le léger regain de dynamisme à la fin qui sauve la mise ! Je trouve que Mickey Rourke aurait dû avoir plus d’espace. Ce sera donc deux étoiles pour lui et Sam Rockwell et une demi-étoile pour les quelques coups de pied remarquablement envoyés de Scarlett Johansson. (23/02/2011)

"Iron Man 2" was a qualitative decline compared to the film "Iron Man". This decline is mainly due to the fact that Iron Man actually didn't move anywhere and is just spinning its wheels. Essentially, a similar scheme is used as in the first film. Fortunately, the characters are interesting enough to hold your attention. It's not below average, but if the scripts don't improve, Marvel's comic book movies will become very worn out. More: http://www.comics-blog.cz/2013/08/226-iron-man-2-2010-65.html (02/08/2013)