User Score
6.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 677 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 50 out of 677

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 28, 2010
    4
    I have to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed the predecessor of this Iron Man franchise. Well it was not exactly cerebral as The Dark Knight (its Summer opponent of 2008), it was fast-paced and indeed had enough action to fill its run time. I wish I could say the same about the sequel, Iron Man 2. What was a franchise known for its action, is now a dull plot-developing movie. The majority of the movie focused on the foolishness of Robert Downey's character. Although well-acted, I wish there was more "Iron Man" than of Tony Stark. The final scene of the movie does go back to it comic-book roots with the duo of War Machine & Iron Man, but it feels empty because there was not much to support it. It is an acceptable and somewhat enjoyable blockbuster, but I could not get over the mindless drama and lack of action. Expand
  2. Jan 28, 2011
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The whole movie was crap. The movie never had its "climax". All was pre-pre-pre-pre-pre- final scene. All the movie i was thinking "so...whats next... i already saw this at iron-man 1...boring....joke not funny..."

    The scene protagonized by Scarlett Johansson sucks... In general i think the writers said :
    - "how we can make a better movie"
    - "Iron-man 1 was great"
    - "oh, i know! what if... if 1 iron-man is great, then we should put 30 iron-men in scene"
    - "yeah!! spectacular"
    - "but the story?"
    - "does it matter? Fill it with anything"
    Expand
  3. Feb 29, 2012
    3
    Its a 2 hour movie with what feels like 15 minutes action. Endless babbling plus a bad story. Waste of time except for kids. Great animations though. Its probably a good movie for the youngest.
  4. Nov 15, 2010
    3
    I was pretty bored to tears while watching this movie. It's a real shame since the first one had some nice moments to it, the film just stays within the constraints of those people who would be satisfied with classifying every no-brain-required movie as "hey, it's just entertainment". Once again it could have more than the sum of its highly expensive parts and give us something other than by-the-book action sequence after sequence. Stark is pretty much the same except that now he has a bit of angst, but don't worry that's quickly solved by some BS that the writers threw in to wrap things up quite nicely. Nothing has importance or impact, and I was just waiting for the happy ending that inevitably followed. The only glimmer of light in the whole movie was Mickey Rourkes and Sam Rockwells performance. Let's end these superhero movies while we still have some diginity...or take a freakin leap of faith and someone start writing better ones instead. Expand
  5. Aug 27, 2010
    4
    It's easy to write off "Iron Man 2" as easy enjoyment, but let's look at what we have here: Mickey Rourke plays the blandest Russian villain imaginable; Robert Downey Jr. pulls off the role of Tony Stark as well as last time, but the bickering between him and Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper gets worn thin pretty quickly; Scarlett Johansson shows up supposedly to introduce romantic strain between Stark and Pepper, but it soon becomes apparent that she is more there for the audience to ogle at (which I did). Saddest of all, the most interesting part of the movie was the Avengers subplot, which in the end really has no influence in the realm of the movie. And the discovery of Thor's Hammer at the end of the closing credits reveals all - "Iron Man 2" really isn't much more than a mediary between the (deserved) hype of the first "Iron Man" and the hype of the upcoming "Thor" movie. And this is why no one likes a critic. But seriously, Scarlett Johansson is hot. Expand
  6. Oct 4, 2010
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. What a let down, I thought the first movie was pretty good (except for the fact that Iron man gets his %$# kicked by the bad guy and then defeats him without the need of his iron man powers!). The action scenes were boiler plate stuff, nothing special, the final battle was short and lame, and Downy's character was just plain annoying throughout the movie, and yes, once again Iron Man could not beat the bad guy with his Iron Man suit, he needs help this time around. Glad I waited to rent it! Expand
  7. Oct 25, 2010
    0
    Paycheck movie extraordinaire.
    Just awful. RDjr's and Don Cheadle's talents are utterly wasted on this exercise in big budget Hollywood garbage. Gwynth Paltrow has no talent, so she's well within her element here. The writing is so uninspired, and the BIG part Jon Favreau plays is frankly lame, and not a little self serving. Where were the editors on this movie too, because it has massive
    balance problems, and endless filler scenes? This was no doubt a bridging movie to get us into the much vaunted trilogy territory. If there is an I.M.3, and it seems impossible there won't be, you can count me out. Expand
  8. Oct 6, 2010
    2
    a big disappointment yet again all the summer blockbusters are overhyped rubbish as usual the sequel is not nearly as good as the first.All of us wait in anticipation and for what?
  9. Oct 8, 2010
    1
    terrible, just awful. the clever discovery and good action and characters and humor and everything else from the great first movie is replaced by pure stupidity and disappointment.
  10. Nov 14, 2010
    4
    Very disappointing movie. The first Iron Man movie (2008) was a thousand times way better then this one. It was a long boring pathetic two hours strait. At the end, we were all expecting the big fight between Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) and Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), but it lasted like 45 seconds. It's a little bit stupid because, Ivan was preparing for that fight through almost the whole movie. All a long the film, was a bunch of dialogue with a few action scene.This movie was a big waste of my time. While watching, I couldn't wait until it was over. Expand
  11. Mar 5, 2011
    2
    When ironman 2 started I thought wow impressive, the effects were quite impressive, but then the story ends up spoiled, like a pair of spiked pants. The whole it becomes alot disorientational and uninspiring, I mean what the hell is going
    On here.
    Stark himself is a **** guy, suit gets robbed, drones, the wrestler with whips lmao seriously get a grip.
  12. Nov 30, 2010
    2
    This movie is a dud. It's just as bad as "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." Mickey Rourke as a Russian scientist? Give me a break, or at least my money back.
  13. Jan 17, 2012
    4
    I liked the first Iron Man. It was an origin story but didn't get overly bogged down in that. I also agreed with a lot of others in that Robert Downey Jr made an excellent Tony Stark, but upon seeing this movie I disagree and believe I was maybe wrong in the first place. I'm a comic book geek and I grew up with Tony Stark as a character. He is someone who wants control in order to do the right thing or what he thinks is the right thing, he is a good man at heart but he is misguided, stubborn and egoistical. What's the problem you ask, is that what Downey is playing? Yes, but a shallow version of that, mixed with playing Robert Downey Jr. He's half acting now at best and it's less Tony Stark is Iron Man and now more Robert Downey Jr is Iron Man. We are told who he is but not really shown any depth other than the motivation of being a former arms dealer and the guilt of that. The racetrack scene is exciting though and well filmed as is the final fight, but the rest of the film is pretty dull. The villain Whip Lash just turning into another Iron Monger when he gets the suit bothered me too. Scarlett Johansson is totally miscast. Although I did like the casting of Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer. Expand
  14. Mar 30, 2012
    4
    Okay Iron Man 2 is better than the first because the new actors but yet again there isn't much action and when there it is it sucks. More stupidy throughout the film. But hey its an improvement from the first.
  15. Nov 7, 2012
    4
    This sequel has everything it's predecessor did, but the dialogue doesn't flow and the action isn't exciting. Sequels of this genre need to bring new ideas and visual brilliance to the screen. Iron Man II had neither.
  16. Oct 17, 2013
    4
    this film exaggerated a little in jokes and it ended up spoiling a bit on the seriousness of the film, it would be good since it was a continuation of a good movie.
  17. Nov 17, 2013
    4
    Iron Man 2 is a junkyard.
    The movie takes off where its prequel left off, an explosive beginning with intriguing storyline behind a possibly great villain. Then after nearly no storyline or explanation for most of the following events, the movie finally finishes with a drawn out fight scene. The entertainment is barely there, and the elements that were the keys to success for the original
    aren't apparent. Expand
  18. Aug 9, 2014
    4
    This sequel certainly feels fresh for a superhero movie, but is generally inferior to the original. Downey is great, once again, and Johansson is undeniably a great cast for Black Widow. But you don't get to see something except for action, fights and Stark humour. As soon as you are a dedicated Marvel fan, you 'll be a bit disappointed, perhaps, but will enjoy it nevertheless.
Metascore
57

Mixed or average reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 40
  2. Negative: 1 out of 40
  1. Reviewed by: Nick de Semlyen
    60
    Rourke and Rockwell make satisfying, complementary villains, while Downey Jr. delivers again. Shame this sequel feels inessential, over-busy and a little, well, mechanical. Nothing they can’t put right for Iron Man 3.
  2. Well, that didn't take long. Everything fun and terrific about "Iron Man," a mere two years ago, has vanished with its sequel. In its place, Iron Man 2 has substituted noise, confusion, multiple villains, irrelevant stunts and misguided story lines.
  3. Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    60
    Isn't as much fun as its predecessor, but by the time the smoke clears, it'll do.