Iron Eagle II (1988) User Reviews

Everybody was kung fu fighting, with airplanes!

[fmarkland32 · 4/10 · 16 August 2006]

This time Louis Gossett Jr returns to whip new American and Russian recruits in line to prepare them for a mission against middle eastern terrorists who have gotten a nuclear launching site, of course the mission is meant to fail but in the heat of it all heroism prevails over the differences of the soldiers in question. Iron Eagle II was as ridiculous as it's predecessor however the edge of the first one and the overall amusing teenage vengeance angle is in favor dropped in favor of your basic military mission that for the most part is watchable if not too interesting. Iron Eagle II is fun in short spurts it is just that there is just too much character development and Gossett while good is not there nearly enough to bail out the movie's lame drama. Still it is at least better than the next two entries.

* * out of 4-(Fair)

"In Detroit my home town. They shoot everybody in the streets".

[lost-in-limbo · 3/10 · 1 July 2011]

Let's get down to briefing. This mission would see director / writer Sidney J. Furie returning after the success that was "Iron Eagle" to provide us with the franchise's first sequel. "Iron Eagle II" would also see Charles "Chappy" Sinclair (with Louis Gossett Jr. reprising the role) getting some more screen time, but as for Doug Masters (again by Jason Gedrick) it's not so the case. It's no real biggie… as this trivial sequel was nothing more than predictably bland, unfunny and tepid follow up with little in the way of excitement. Too bad that's so, as it starts off decent enough and actually has a surprising plot device (which is later wasted in the feature) before it nose dives. The first time I tried to watch it, I fell asleep. Some cracking aircraft action sequences aside, the story was limpidly told and the performances fairly uninteresting (led by Mark Humphrey) with its odd assortment pilots / soldiers (Americans and Russians) trying to come to terms with each other so they can complete a proposed assignment. The script offers up the same-old, pushy patterns; conflict, tragedy, love, pride and payback. A team is chosen, a mismatch group destined to fail (which their generals would like to see), but they prove them wrong by training hard and working together to achieve their goal of destroying a nuclear weapon facility. This actual threat is kept rather vague with the focus more so on what's happening inside the ranks of this mission. The back-end does offer up some rough and ready action, but quite customary. Making an amusing appearance is the always dependable Maury Chaykin as one of the recruits. Textbook, but lacklustre comic action.

Where'd the fun go?

[stoney24 · 4/10 · 30 January 2009]

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...

You murderers! ONE BIG SPOILER!

[Neonsamurai · 1/10 · 10 October 2002]

Throughout my teens I looked to the character of Doug Masters as a kind of big brother that I never had. He was cool, a hit with the ladies and had pretty much single-handedly wiped out a small Middle Eastern country in the film Iron Eagle. Like many teenage boys in the 80's I wanted to wipe out a Middle Eastern country of my own, but was never given the opportunity, so when I heard that there was going to be an Iron Eagle 2 I was very excited.

Now, bearing in mind that Doug had shot down dozens of evil, nasty non-American pilots in the first film, and that was without any training, he would now be an even better pilot, since he'd joined the US air force. But who could stand in Doug's way now? Surely this young pilot could single-handedly wage war on pretty much any country he wanted. Libya, Iraq, Columbia, Canada, no one could stop him.

However in the first two minutes of the film he was shot down and killed.

The rest of the film is a kind of blur to me now as I was in a state of shock and going through the early stages of post-traumatic stress disorder. I had just witnessed my elder brother (I know, I know I am seeing a therapist) getting killed by a Russian pilot! What made it all the more worse was that he'd not even put up much of a fight. Through the shock my mind started ticking over and analysing the situation.

`If Doug was capable of obliterating a country the size of Wales or the State of Washington and he'd just been shot down by some naughty communist, then surely a single Soviet pilot could wipe out the entire USA!'

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's very realistic. I've seen Red Dawn, so I know how easy Russians are to kill and this film failed to realise that But to make matters worse, the Americans then team up with the Russians to attack a small Middle Eastern country together! Hang on a minute! Doug could have done that by himself!

Don't watch this film. It killed the big brother I never had.

Not that good

[fenoixrising · 1/10 · 8 September 2005]

As an aviation buff, I thought that this movie sucked. Passing off F4's as MiG's is just the beginning. The army sergeant is WAY too fat; he would have never been allowed to remain on active duty. The Soviet Union did not use women combat pilots in the 80's. (I know this because I used to study and teach Soviet combat tactics.) And the incident at the beginning of the movie would not have been something that could just be "hushed up." Much of the footage is from the first Iron Eagle. And that movie, although fanciful, is much better and many times more realistic. There are much better aviation movies out there. I was greatly disappointed by this one.

I've seen worse.

[jaziro1 · 4 February 2019]

Oh come on, this movie isn't that bad. The 80's has definitely applauded cheesier things. The dog fights were fun to watch, the sound effects were great, and the over maniacal General who's twisted plans get thwarted by the misfits was spot on, the out of place love story, I mean... if you hate this movie then you probably hate just about everything coming out of the 80's.

Bad for the stomach

[Rammstein-2 · 1/10 · 20 February 2000]

The first film was so-so, and the sequel is rock-bottom. Never mind the fact that they try to pass F-4 Phantoms for MiGs (and MiG-29s at that!), it's the entire idea that the US and Soviet would cooperate in a military operation to knock out a nuclear missile plant (and what the hell is THAT if I may ask?) in an arab country. The Soviet Union would probably have struck back at the US for doing it...

This film sucks.

Don't Waste Your Time

[refinedsugar · 4/10 · 16 September 2000]

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 be offended by the opening sequence. Being blunt, I chalk up IEII as another shining example of poor cash-in sequels. First 'Iron Eagle' wasn't a blockbuster, but it was mildly well done and this feels like a money grab.

Anyhow this sequel 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' cliche element you have this movie in a nutshell.

'Iron Eagle II' is once again co-written & directed by Sidney J. Furie. Still an Israeli co-production (like the original) filmed there and utilizing their air force. Lou Gossett Jr was the sole reason to watch for me. It's a movie that I find myself surprised to say I've sat through twice on late night.

It doesn't get much worse then this

[Jason-Druebert · 1/10 · 20 December 2002]

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.

not bad aviator action movie

[jimakros · 5/10 · 14 July 2010]

This "sequel" is not really a sequel as it doesn't have anything to do with the first movie,except the main character is again the one played by Gossett Jr.The plot is about a joint team effort of a bunch of Soviet pilots and a bunch of US pilots who are assigned to destroy some nuclear facility somewhere in the middle east. The story about these characters is really thin but the aviation scenes are pretty decent,so again since this is supposed to be a movie for aviation fans its not bad.I don't think people who don't care for fighter planes would bother with any Iron eagle movie anyway. One better thing than the original, is that these pilots don't listen to music while flying which was annoying in the first movie.

The first movie was passable. . .

[MovieBuffMarine · 2/10 · 16 December 2003]

. . .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.

Not as stupid/bland... but FUN

[Tom_the_Knowing · 8/10 · 19 October 2022]

After watching Maverick with my best friend, a movie we much anticipated, both of us had a lackluster feeling about it. We were not as exhilarated as the rest of the world seems to be. So I proposed to watch Iron Eagle 2 in the aftermath. And it was a blast! (No pun intended.)

Let's get the elephants out of the room: Yes, Mark Humphrey being a Tom Cruise lookalike is stupid, yes inserting Sharon Hacohen as female pilot/love interest is stupid and please stop ranting about the the MiGs that are actually F-4s. And please spare me modern day difficulties.

This movie is fun and entertaining and not in The Room way. Louis Gossett jr. Gives a hard-boiled perfornance . Yeah, checked. The the plot is plain and simple: A bunch of misfit pilots have to blow up a nuclear facility *somewhere in the desert*. The interesting angle is that part of the misfits are a Soviet fighter/strike group that are ordered to work alongside with their former adversaries. Guess what happens.

The fun stuff is that the filmmakers had to make up a scenario, where the Soviets are not the bad guys anymore. Interestingly, this plot device makes this Top Gun-knockoff way more character-driven. It not The Godfather though, because the filmmakers could not decide to go for a stupid action flick or something more meaningful. Believe or not, it becomes more meaningful.

The result is not artsy-fartsy though, luckily, hell no. Explosions, gunfire shootouts and 80s scores in spades. Air combat scences that are nice to look at (YES, they are F-4s! Get over it). The dumb socialazition scenes between Rednecks and Commies are somewhat dumb, but endearing. But who cares when the afterburnes are fired up and stuff gets blown up?

In all seriousness: I like this one more than Top Gun: Maverick. No kidding.

Not nearly as bad as depicted here

[cny_cd · 7/10 · 22 February 2006]

I think that some of the comments are VERY exaggerated here. I personally prefer this movie to the first one, and the next two were just awful. Sure, there are some story lines that have been seen before. Sure, there is a bit of "Schlock" in here. But overall, this is very watchable, and pretty entertaining, especially considering how inexpensive this DVD is. I have seen this movie a few times, and I think that it is a pretty good movie. People that just pick apart every detail need to get a life. How many movies have incorrect footage of airplanes, or footage that has been used before? Who cares??? We know these people aren't actually flying these planes!! It's not like the scene in "Bullitt", where Steve McQueen is actually driving.....geez people....give this a break....it ain't that bad, in fact it's pretty good.....

I would have rather had a root canal....

[cashflow2 · 1/10 · 15 February 2005]

Yes, the first Iron Eagle movie was predictable, totally 80's and far-fetched...BUT it was entertaining and fun to watch. I guess the producers of this movie figured they could write a movie with airplanes in it, name it Iron Eagle and it would be another sleeper hit. Those idiots could not have been more wrong.

I was excited when I heard about this movie and eagerly tuned in to watch when lo and behold you see the hero from the first Iron Eagle, Jason Gedrick, get KILLED in the first 5 minutes! Then you think, well maybe he's still alive, after all, in the first movie you thought Lou Gossett Jr's character was killed and yet he turns up alive and well at the end! Alas, the very next scene after you see Gedrick's plane explode, they cut to a military guy saying "No, the kid's dead and buried..." thus removing all doubt that the entire rest of the picture will be without him. I sat stunned for the next 10 minutes, mouth agape, missing several key plot points while I sat there thinking to myself, "They really killed him? That's it? You mean they really KILLED HIM?!?". Then that's when I started getting upset and hating this movie and everything about it....that clinched it....

This movie continues to be the only movie I have ever walked out on...I watched up to the point where his fly buddy that is up there when he gets killed sits down with the Russians to plan the attack to take place later in the film and then I couldn't take it anymore...I never saw what happens next, nor do I ever care to find out.....

The reason Gedrick didn't make this movie is because he was busy making the Oscar-winning movie "Rooftops" (note HUGE amount of sarcasm here)at the time it was made. Maybe if Gedrick actually starred in this movie all the way through instead of being deleted from it, it could of had a slight chance of being a halfway decent film.

Damn you, stupid producers of this movie, for making such vile filth -- if I could exact an equally torturous punishment upon you it would be having you watch the Spanish language version of "Rooftops" with French subtitles in it's entirety six times back to back without a break.......

Highly Overlooked Gem ***Spoilers***

[shyjones2 · 5 August 2002]

***Spoilers ahead**** Another overlooked gem, the last good Iron Eagle movie. Same familiar Heartbreak Ridge/ Dirty Dozen plot: whip up a bunch of misfits into shape for some heavy duty combat in the end. This flick never slows down, full of action, macho talking, fist fighting, jets, missiles, explosions with the inevitable exciting climax of a Death Star trench run (except this time its a canyon in the desert). Louis Gossett is GOD!! Mark Humphrey is Jezus!! Cooper was a bad mutha(shut your mouth), when Lebanov pushed him, he went and took care of his business.

The supporting cast of misfits is great, Clark Johnson as the street talking Graves and Colm Ferrore (the always entertaining Colm Ferrore) as the pushy Lebenov. Yeah, the Mig29s are really F-4s, yeah there are inconsistencies with the armaments on the pylons and yeah some shots are reused ones from the first Iron Eagle but hey, nobody's perfect. In some shots in Top Gun you can see Goose's red helmet in the back during the final firefight!! Even greatness isn't perfect.

Only confusing thing: it wasn't properly explained that Murray was the C-130 pilot...

It's like getting the 2nd of 4 wisdom teeth removed.

[ScottyK · 1/10 · 12 March 1999]

Doesn't it bother anybody that the movie's producers kill off the star of the first movie within the first 10 minutes? If his death meant something for the movie, fine. But during the rest of the movie, it really doesn't come back up!

Never mind that the "Migs" were actually F-4's. Sheez.

Prop-agenda

[Odiseia · 1/10 · 17 September 2015]

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".

Nice Try

[whpratt1 · 1/10 · 30 April 2006]

Enjoyed viewing Louis Gossett,Jr.,(Charles 'Chappy'Sinclair),"Window",'05, who started out in the film as a Full Bird Colonel and wound up a One Star General. Chappy received this high rank because he was drawn out of the National Guard to complete a mission with Russian forces and a crew of so called Misfits. There is plenty of comedy through out the entire picture and I really do not know if it was intended to be taken that way. Mark Humphrey, (Capt. Matt Cooper),"JAG",03 TV Series" was a pilot who simply could not take any orders from anyone and held a vengeance toward the Russian forces he had to work with. However, he got the hots for Sharon Brandon,(Valeri Zuyeniko) a Russian Pilot who was the only gal in the crew and had the face of a Russian woman, and despite that fact, they were in LOVE. If you like Lou Gossett Jr., then watch this film.

I don't remember it being this corny

[aova-34915 · 3/10 · 12 October 2019]

The dialogue, the uniforms, it looks like the powers that be when making these movies just guess at it.

what's the point anymore

[SnoopyStyle · 3/10 · 8 October 2017]

Doug "Thumper" Masters and Matt "Cobra" Cooper stray into Soviet airspace. Thumper gets antsy and Soviet pilot Yuri Lebanov (Colm Feore) kills him. The incident is covered up by both governments. A nuclear weapon is being tested by a middle east nation. A secret joint Soviet-American-Israeli operation is planned to stop it. Charles "Chappy" Sinclair (Louis Gossett Jr.) is recruited out of retirement.

I don't get why Thumper is killed right off the bat. I guess that Jason Gedrick is too busy and could only fit an one day shoot. The whole idea of a team of kids fighting back as underdogs is the backbone of the original movie. The whole raison d'être of the franchise has been ejected by this sequel. None of the kids are back. This is a Chappy sequel and he's only a small part of an ensemble. It's still a low grade Top Gun. It's like watching a pig wallowing in mud. One can't expect more. This is a porker.

Worse Than the First One

[adam-90110 · 1/10 · 29 December 2020]

This movie is even worse than the first one. The scenes are a bit too fast for anyone to comprehend what's going on. Like the first one, its very predictable. Two teams from different countries (U.S. and U.S.S.R.) have band together to take down a generic middle east country's ballistic missile. However, both teams except the team commanders can't not stand each other though they will eventually like each other because it's a crappy eighties movie. On a deeper note, because the film mostly focus on the U.S. team you can assume this is how the rest of the world sees the U.S., ignorant. Unlike the first one, this movie is quite boring and I believe its one of those movies where it doesn't need a squeal. Overall it's so bad that it's not really fun to watch, so it gets one out of ten stars.

Nice movie

[rafen-1 · 8/10 · 7 December 2006]

It is a good film based on first Iron Eagle. Film has a good sound and music - i will find the soundtrack, but it can be hard because this film is so old. When somebody has OST from Iron Eagle 1 or Iron Eagle 2, please contact me on my email [e-mail].

And something about the planes and weapons. They must use only US technology, because of the year of made. I think that soviet's would not borough they're original MI 29 in 1988 to US film. Also the enemy planes were mistakes, i think that thees planes a Kfir - Israel army. Im sorry for my English :) They using some good copies of soviet weapons AK 47, Dnetrajev ...

Not As Bad As Everyone Says *Spoilers*

[chapinr-1 · 6/10 · 5 August 2003]

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".

Grounded.

[tfrizzell · 27 July 2002]

Far from anything remotely special, but just as good as its fair predecessor. The only relation between the two films is the Louis Gossett, Jr. character as he is called in to lead a group of pilots that are from the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Another one of those many films made in the 1980s to capitalize off the fear of the Cold War. The direction is mediocre and the screenplay is sophomoric. With that said some of the flying sequences are well-done and Gossett's performance is not bad at all. However he does look a lot more impressive with sub-par players around him. Never really wins its wings by the time it tries to fly. 2.5 out of 5 stars.

Not too exciting of a sequel of this top-gun movie but it works

[charlessmith702210 · 7/10 · 16 January 2011]

In the least, a few of the main characters, especially Louis Gossett Jr., who plays Colonel Sinclair. The movie, I think, is the worst of the movies in the Iron Eagle saga but it is not completely bad.....

Now, Colonel Sinclair, who thinks he is retired from active duty from the United States Air Force, is called upon to do a top-secret mission. Col. Sinclair almost retorts at the idea to get back to classic dogfights in the air but slowly accepts the mission. And like the Chicago Bears and the Green Bay Packers, this mission involves rivalry..but on an international scale. A joint mission.

A combined squadron of several American fighter pilots and Soviet Union fighter pilots, with the help of the Soviet premier, is told that a renegade Middle Eastern country, which is like Bilyad (fictionally made in the first Iron Eagle), is making things even worse for world peace that both of these countries are trying to make.

The fighter pilots who are called to this mission are warned that this country had already built a nuclear weapon facility in a remote desert near the Caviar Gorge. The facility's personnel had made this facility like an impenetrable fortress with 50-millimeter automatic anti-aircraft cannons and a surface-to-air missile canopy with a nearby building compound that houses the guidance system for the surface-to-air missiles.

The facility's personnel is determined to launch its intercontinental ballistic missiles from this facility and target missiles at both the USSR and the USA if they perceive even the slightest of military threats.

I like the part when Col. Sinclair figures out (with the help of the Soviet officer in charge of the Soviet fighter pilots) how to take out the anti-aircraft defenses around the facility, and how the fighters would have to fire Maverick missiles right into the ventilation shafts (Sinclair calls them "ducts"), which are protected by cannons, that lead directly to the facility to ensure its explosive destruction of it.

My favorite quotes in the movie was "What is point zebra?...Enemy air space...the point of no return!"