StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Flyerplesys Perfectly adorable

Inadvands Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

Twilightfa Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Shaun What do you do when you're a young director with a hit on your hands? You go off and direct a flop like Superman IV. Then you get talked into doing a needless sequel to your big hit, only a few years ago. Well that's what happened to Sidney J. Furie. In an attempt to tell a more serious, or adult story Furie reject everything about the first film that made it work. Instead he chose to take all the fun out of the film with in the first few minutes of the picture. The first film was more of a Teen movie, it stood out because of that fact. It was fun and energetic, but this one is dry and slow. As a stand alone film, it's sort of boring. As part of the Iron Eagle franchise, it's down right depressing. First it's about the US and Russia teaming up on a mission to stop some terrorist from launching a nuclear bomb, but it never really is clear why one or the other can't just take on the mission by themselves. The characters seem either cardboard flat, or outright dumb. The biggest mistake they make is the under use of Louis Gossett Jr. His character doesn't seem to really have a place, except standing around and barking orders. He never seems to have the same energy as he did in the first film. The ending was fine, if not reminiscent of Star Wars. The contrived Love story didn't work at all for me, it felt like they were again trying to take the story into more adult territory and in that lost the point of what makes the first one so good...

MovieBuffMarine . . .and you can't accuse it of being a "Top Gun" ripoff. But this one? No excuses! It is! Especially when you got one of the characters trying to carry himself like the Maverick character in Top Gun.I can see why the U. S. Air Force wouldn't lend a hand and its jets (again) for this one.

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".

maitreg They should never have attempted a sequel to a not-so-good movie, but 3 of them?!?!? The series falls into the "what planet does the producer live on" category, like Jaws (after Jaws 2) and Police Academy (after the 1st).