Sorry, this movie sucks

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

hyped garbage

Good movie but grossly overrated

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.

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.

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".

I have seen this film several times not and, although they tried to pass off American F-4 Phantoms as Russian MiG-29's (and several other technical mistakes) the film concept and story line were good, and the acting was also not bad.