Comwayon
A Disappointing Continuation
Haven Kaycee
It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film
odiseo-alecto
One of those films you play during a hang-over... in this case with sound very low. A simple "Dirty Dozen" plot, played in "modern times", using the "bad guys" of that period, and paying back the Israeli Airforce for previous hollywoodian shows. Cartoonish characters in a cartoonish world. Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing remarkable. Trash or not to trash, that is not a dilemma here.----Spoilers--- It is extremely difficult to write a spoiler. After 10 minutes watching the film any average person would notice the kind of propaganda film is this and how is going to end. Just like in the old Star Trek, look for the red suit to know who dies.These comments are absolutely valid for the 3 "Iron Eagle" chapters. One wonders how much money to spoil have these persons.Complete ashamed to say that I like "war movies" after these have been "aired".
chapinr-1
It troubles me to see how many low votes and negative comments that "Iron Eagle II" has received. I think it is an entertaining film that has a good mix of action, drama, and even a few laughs. It really bothers me that the movie is among the worst 100 movies as voted by the users of this site, especially when I didn't see either "Aces: Iron Eagle III" or "Iron Eagle IV" on that list. I don't really mind the third installment of the series, although it doesn't have the same feel as the previous two. However, the fourth in the series should never have been made, because of its poor plot and cheap budget. Maybe there aren't enough people that have seen this movie to even vote on it, but believe me it makes "Iron Eagle II" look Oscar-worthy by comparison.I also don't like the fact that the "Iron Eagle" films are remembered as "Top Gun" rip-offs either, because the first part preceded the Tom Cruise blockbuster. People complain that the MIGs in the film are actually F-4 Phantoms, but what is often overlooked is that the MIGs in "Top Gun" are actually F-5 Tigers, which have been used as enemy trainers in the actual Navy program.With that being said, I do have to say that there are some flaws with the movie that do bother me slightly. My biggest problem with the whole thing, like several others have noted, is that they kill the hero of the first film, "Doug Masters", in the opening sequence of "Iron Eagle II". Like another user said, he barely gets to put up a fight before he gets shot down. Since he became a full-fledged Air Force pilot, I'm not sure why the filmmakers couldn't have used the character for the mission later in the film. It would have been better to blow away his wingman "Cooper", whom the audience wouldn't have gotten a chance to know. Also, I'm still a little unsure of whether he was killed by the Soviet missile or if his plane had a malfunction after his hot dog maneuvers. The biggest slap in the face really is that the actor that played "Doug", Jason Gedrick, wasn't even credited for his role. He definitely was the hero of the first film, not Lou Gossett's "Chappy" character, but maybe he wanted to try something different as an actor.There are basically two other problems I've noted. The first is that they don't ever name the Middle Eastern country that poses the nuclear threat, although they don't name the enemy nation in "Iron Eagle" either. The makers of the films probably don't wish to cause controversy by doing so is my guess. The other problem is that it is very unlikely that there would ever be a joint U.S.-Soviet Union mission, especially in 1988 during the end of the Cold War era. That's not an irritating problem though. It's actually an intriguing concept, although not necessarily original.Regardless of the film's flaws (which no movie is exempt from), "Iron Eagle II" is far better than the votes and comments it has received. It certainly is worth at least one viewing anyways. If anything, watch it for the sheer beauty of the dogfights and because Lou Gossett Jr. is a good actor and "Chappy" is one of his best characters alongside "Fiddler" in "Roots" and his drill instructor character from "An Officer and a Gentleman".
Jason-Druebert
It's all bad, the story, the acting, and special effects. Some of the flight sequences are recycled from `other sources', i.e. they were obviously not filmed for this movie. It is hard to believe that they made more in the series after this one.
refinedsugar
Let me start off by saying that there isn't anything to be found within Iron Eagle II that you haven't saw before. You may or may not find some fun here, but for me, Lou Gossett Jr. was the sole reason to watch and even he feels like he's only appearing for a quick paycheck at times. Being blunt, I chalk up IEII as another shining example of poor cash-in sequels. The first Iron Eagle wasn't a blockbuster, but it was mildly well received and this sequel feels like a money grab. A real disservice to the original.Anyhow, the second of the sequels finds Gossett putting together a bunch of virtually unknown Canadian actors. Some who play Americans and some who play Russians. Who when they splice in the old cold war 'we can't get along together because of nationalities' cliché story element, you have this movie in a nutshell. A movie that I find myself surprised to say I've sat through twice on late night.
