Review: Iron Man 2 – Not Quite Bulletproof?
Details via IMDB
Directed by: Jon Favreau
Written by: Justin Theroux (screenplay)
Plot: Billionaire Tony Stark must contend with deadly issues involving the government, his own friends, as well as new enemies due to his superhero alter ego Iron Man.
Finally, a sequel we actually asked for.
As someone who loves movies and often goes beyond the average person when it comes to learning about what’s down Hollow-wood’s
Hollywood’s pipelines, it was a no-brainer that the success of the first Iron Man was a guarantee of sequel(s) and cross-overs with Marvel Studios
finally calling the shots. Unfortunately, the chances of sequel-itis kicking in were high.
To his credit, Jon Favreau did his best to temper the urge to make common sequel mistakes and while he still committed a few of them he didn’t let them steer the movie too far out of the range of being enjoyable.
What did we actually get?
This movie suffers from pacing & bloat issues, typical symptoms of being a sequel no doubt but notable as it represents a chink in Favreau’s armor. Without going into too many spoilers, I’ll do my best to explain my stance.
The movie starts with a whirlwind of events that sum up to an exposition of the life and times of Anthony Stark after revealing he was man in the iron mask. He’s still an admirable filthy rich egotistical douche with daddy issues but clearly he’s got real problems. Government issued problems. Meanwhile he’s also dealing with physical toll of being kept alive by the nuclear alternative power source in his chest keeping fragments from piercing his heart and the crushing expectations of being a hero, patriot, celebrity and CEO. Everyone wants a piece of Tony and Tony is running out of pieces and looking for ways to run away / hide. (demon in a bottle hints).
As a result, he’s pushing his secretary “Pepper” Potts away as well as Rhodey is wing man played by the-better-suited-than Terrence Howard (pun unintended), Don Cheatle and anyone else that gets close.
Sounds like a great movie so far right?
As Charlie Murphy said it when referring to Rick James’ behavior, WRONG, WRONG! We need War Machine! We’ve got to lay the seeds for The Avengers! We’ve got to add in multiple villains!
What happened?
Rourke’s Vanko / Whiplash wasn’t exactly needed. I can understand and appreciate why he was there; he represented the mirror held up at Tony, tortured genius, father issues, only Tony got to live the life and Vanko got to see Siberia. A bitter son seeks to avenge his bitter father using the technology left behind in his belongings. A deeper look though suggests that everything he did could’ve been done by a lesser character and left Justin Hammer (played excellently by Sam Rockwell ) as the main foil for Stark. Instead we got the inevitable team-up and the resulting combination only brought us Obadiah Stane’s ghost making a cameo.
Why Hammer over Vanko?
I’ll admit, going with Vanko alone could have made the film better as well but that would involve listening to Mickey Rourke do his usual rubber-faced mumbling in a thick Russian accent for longer than should be legally allowed. A silent stalker / genius angle could work well as a contrast but that may have not worked for the overall flavor of Favreau’s flicks.
Hammer on the other hand is also sort of a mirror for Tony; it’s clear he admires Tony and aspires to be as much like as possible. Everything he does however comes across as a con man’s impression of Stark, where Tony seems like a Howard Hughes powered by red bull, vodka and a pound of yayo, Justin is Nicholas Cage channeling Howard Hughes powered by red bull, vodka and a pound of yayo. It’s easier to follow, relate to and enjoy the simplicity of Justin’s actions in the film plus his bankroll puts him in a position to be a long term enemy for stark to contend with.
Other fat to trim
Sam Jackson’s sort of long-term important bit parts in the movie with about 10 minutes of Scarlett Johansson in a leather outfit(!) channeling her husband’s (Ryan Reynolds) one cool scene in X-Men Origins: Wolverine (as Deadpool) while Favreau’s character fumbles around with a single goon, seemed tacked on for the sake of the action they had been denying us. Had it not been necessary to set up the future franchise(s) this hitting the cutting room floor could’ve shaved 30 or so minutes of film to channel into fuel for more of an original confrontation between Iron Man / War Machine & The U.S. Government / Hammer.
That’s right, too much attention was spent on the wrong aspects of storytelling.
They tried too hard to put too many elements to something that needed to be as straight forward as the original and what we’re left with feels very rushed and incomplete. There just isn’t enough action to make up for the lulls in the expository parts of the film. It was so prevalent that it made the movie feel like a reboot. In a way, this was Tony’s origin story b-side edition.
Should I watch it then?
If you’re a fan of the comics, yes. If you like decent comic book movies, spend your money. If you’re just getting into it for the movie, sure it’s worth a little time on the weekend. If you were expecting it to top the first one or your attention span gets super short at the talking parts, save your money.
TL;DR Summary:
The movie is watchable and for most it will be enjoyable. For the ADHD crowd this will bore you in places. Feels more like the second half / “gritty reboot” of Iron Man 1 rather than an actual sequel.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Iron Man Marvel: Julian Chambliss Explores the Meaning behind the Masks (inkwest.net)
- Marvel Brings “Iron Man” to the iPhone (mashable.com)
- Iron Man 2 Is Allegorical To Gates Vs. Jobs, Says Reader (techcrunch.com)
View Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks