Film

Iron Man 2: More Iron, Less Fun

Iron Man 2: More Iron, Less Fun

As a rule, superhero movies get better when it comes time to make the sequel. Without the origin story to clog up the first half hour, and without the need for the hero to announce a statement of purpose in the last half hour, the filmmakers are actually free to... you know... make a movie. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2 was a perfect cinematic representation of what Spider-Man should be. The Dark Knight was the complex study of heroism that Christopher Nolan has probably always wanted to make. It's unfortunate and confusing, then, when you discover that Iron Man 2 is somehow less fun and less action-packed than its predecessor.

Which is not to say that it doesn't have its fun moments, but most of those are reprisals of what made the first Iron Man movie such a sparkling surprise. Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow effortlessly revive their sexy, loving, bitchy repartee from the first film; Jon Favreau continues to provide understated comic relief; and Samuel L. Jackson reprises his post-credits cameo from the first film (much more about that later) as a superspy who is kind of the Biggest Fanboy in the Universe.

And the new additions to the cast keep that same winking charm. Don Cheadle's James Rhodes has a depth—a clearly defined conflict between his duties as a soldier and as the best friend of Downey's Tony Stark, a billionaire industrialist who has suddenly stopped making weapons for soldiers—that evaded Terrence Howard in the same role last time around. Sam Rockwell's Justin Hammer alternates between appropriately campy menace and genuinely frightening envy as a tech manufacturer who knows he simply can't match up with Stark's genius. And Mickey Rourke's Ivan Vanko, a mad Russian scientist who holds a secret from Stark's past, is a menacing, physical foe. Only Scarlett Johansson seems out of place; as a superspy, she aces the physicality of the role—in a black Lycra jumpsuit, she whirls around her opponents like an ice skater before bouncing them off the ground—but mentally, her acting strategy seems to consist of a furrowed brow while all the banter flies around her.

So the parts are there for an intelligent superhero movie. Why don't they all work together? It's pretty simple: The plot for the damn thing is so unintelligent and perfunctory that it drags everything down. Vanko wants revenge against Stark for some past transgressions. Rourke plays him as a ruthless, intelligent man. So what does he do? He charges, bull-like, at Stark... twice... without devising anything remotely resembling a plan, leading to a climax that feels like a warmed-over rerun of the first film.

Stark claims to have "privatized world peace," and he is wasting away from a disease caused by his own technology. Besides a few funny, genuinely moving scenes where Downey manages to squeeze charm and peril from both of those developments, he spends an inordinate amount of time having a dumb fight with his best friend simply because the middle of the movie would be a swamp of exposition without it. And then he wanders around, aimless, for a good while longer, dealing with his daddy issues before he can get back to kicking ass and taking names.

There's a lot of talking here, and really only three (admittedly gargantuan) action pieces to liven things up. Part of the problem of Iron Man 2 is that the film has to deal with the repercussions of the post-credits scene from the first Iron Man movie, when Jackson's superspy Nick Fury tries to recruit Iron Man for the Avengers Initiative, a superhero team that will presumably protect America from grave threats. Too much of Iron Man 2 is a response to that scene and an obvious build toward the expanding slate of Marvel movies—next year will see the debut of the Thor and Captain America movies, with an Avengers movie following the year after that—that would be meaningless without the metaknowledge that Marvel is planning a team-up movie in the near future. There's no payoff for any of it here, and the movie concentrates so much on future franchise developments that the actual climactic battle is a huge disappointment.

Which is not to say you shouldn't see it. Odds are, you'll see it anyway. Iron Man 2 has enough clever acting, sly humor, and over-the-top action to make it a fine kickoff to the summer movie season. But it's all kickoff and very little kick-in-the-pants, with too much expository lifting where there should've been more tons more fun. recommended

 

Comments (24) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
mrbombit 2
Agreed. About the most interesting thing in the movie was the Bill Oreilly cameo. Lol.
Posted by mrbombit on May 7, 2010 at 4:40 AM · Report
3
Does anyone at the Stranger like any movie? ... EVER?
Posted by Not that I've seen it ... on May 7, 2010 at 10:51 AM · Report
Paul Constant 4
@3: I liked Iron Man, Spider-Man 2, and The Dark Knight, and I said that right at the top of my review.
Posted by Paul Constant http://https://twitter.com/paulconstant on May 7, 2010 at 1:46 PM · Report
5
Not trying to be a troll ... I just don't think I've read a positive review on here. Nothing against you personally. It seems like it's the IN thing to rip on all movies these days. Again, I haven't seen it, and when I do, I'll probably agree with you ... just sayin'
Posted by Not that I've seen it on May 7, 2010 at 2:52 PM · Report
RJF 6
Stark and Hammer's dueling philosophies of "privitizing world peace" provided plenty of conflict, enough to make Whiplash entirely unnecessary. Stark vs. Hammer with Rhodey at stake would have been a much better film.

And man... what happened to Garry Shandling?
Posted by RJF on May 7, 2010 at 3:16 PM · Report
Lindy West 7
@5: Since you claim to be "not a troll," let me help you. These positive reviews all ran in our paper in the past couple of weeks.

Tehran Rock City
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/tehra…

Mid-August Lunch
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/roman…

Ajami
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/creat…

Greenberg
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/green…

The Eclipse
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/conce…
Posted by Lindy West on May 7, 2010 at 4:24 PM · Report
8
@5: The Stranger is rag for indie contrarians. If its popular, they'll hate it, right or wrong. If its not popular, they'll pride themselves on getting on the bandwagon while its underground.

See, its a pretty low risk strategy. If the indie movie bombs, no one will remember, and if a major blockbuster is well received, they can dismiss it as not having any indie cred.
Posted by Its a good strategy on May 7, 2010 at 4:40 PM · Report
9
And the links @7 seem to confirm #8's response... How apropos.
Posted by Hmmm. on May 7, 2010 at 5:41 PM · Report
10
a movie critic finds some things wrong with a movie titled Iron Man 2?! i don't think it was overly negative for a movie based on a comic book...if i recall i got burned on a positive review of the second star wars prequel a few years back...i was sure lucas was paying the stranger...but then i like to make up my own mind
Posted by popcorn movie on May 7, 2010 at 8:51 PM · Report
notfloats 11
"Iron Man 2 has enough clever acting, sly humor, and over-the-top action to make it a fine kickoff to the summer movie season. But it's all kickoff and very little kick-in-the-pants, with too much expository lifting where there should've been more tons more fun."

Okay, discount it all you want, but letting Robert Downey, Jr., Don Cheadle, and Mickey Rourke have fun with some silly superhero bullshit and do an excellent job at it is reason enough to see the movie. If you don't think that it's fun to see those three excellent actors fuck around for two hours (not to mention the excellent performances by Ms. Johansson and Ms. Paltrow, who as a consequence of traditional comic book gender dynamics are relegated to supporting roles) and then get to watch shit blow up, man you don't know what fun is.
Posted by notfloats on May 8, 2010 at 12:12 AM · Report
12
I liked the Scarlett Johahnsson role. She presented Tony with a nut he couldn't crack.

TONY: I'm having trouble getting a read on you. What would you do if you knew you were about to celebrate your last birthday?
NATALIE: I'd do whatever I want to do with whoever I want to do it with.

Also her fight scene was the best action sequence of the whole movie.
Posted by jhaberman on May 8, 2010 at 11:53 AM · Report
13
I didnt see anything bad with this review at all. They noted the negatives but overall gave it a positive review, which is what I've seen from several other newspapers as well. Also, not all the reviews on the stranger are bad. Granted sometimes I strongly disagree(Ah the beauty of opinions) generally they do hit what they need to. A review should always tell you the good and the bad and leave it to you to make your decision. I think this review and many other from the stranger do just that.
Posted by Milkshake on May 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM · Report
14
@7: It's always kinda surprising and a little weird when you go all serious-adult like that.
Posted by Ben on May 8, 2010 at 9:15 PM · Report
15
@14: LINDY WEST IS MUCH MORE THAN A STUCK CAPS LOCK BUTTON. Which is what makes her so entertaining to read.
Posted by eweb on May 9, 2010 at 9:41 AM · Report
Knat 16
I went to see it yesterday, and I have to say that Paul's baseline review of it--kinda lackluster for a superhero sequel, but not all bad--is about right. There's still plenty of gems in it that I was entertained (like @2 said, the Bill O'Reilly "cameo" was great), but it did seem like a one hour movie stretched out to two. I'd still recommend it if you enjoyed the first one, however. I did appreciate the sly nods to other franchises they're starting, one of which is after end the credits roll.

SPOILER: My biggest issue with the movie was the motivations by the villain, Ivan Vanko. His father used to work for Stark Industries when Tony's father was running the show (and evoking Roy Disney while he did so), and was deported when Daddy Stark found that he was interested in the potential for profit from their inventions. (So...he was deported for not being a philanthropist, I guess...?) So Vanko decides to destroy Tony Stark's for Stark Sr.'s douchebaggery. Pretty standard fare for comic book writing I guess, so I can't truly fault it, but it still felt like a thin plot.
Posted by Knat on May 9, 2010 at 1:08 PM · Report
Knat 17
@16 SPOILER section follow-up: Also, let's not forget that this lack of a philanthropic streak was enough to get this guy deported by his boss, a weapons designer and manufacturer. So you have to be a compassionate designer of bombs and bullets or you can't work at Stark Industries.
Posted by Knat on May 9, 2010 at 6:45 PM · Report
18
came here for the line and sinker, "is robert downey jr. still a conceited dick in iron man 2? find out at thestranger.com/film," and am still curious, left to bake on dry sand with hook still firmly in cheek because i'm waiting, praying on high for the ultimate miracle of his ego appearing under control to restore my faith in god.
Posted by prollystiladick on May 9, 2010 at 11:43 PM · Report
19
Thanks Lindy - Persian Cats looks good, but the others aren't my cup of tea. I think I just wanted to believe IronMan2 was at least as entertaining as the first. Took my disappointment out on Paul - my appolgies. :)
Posted by Not that I've seen it on May 10, 2010 at 10:57 AM · Report
20
wasnt mdj in a movie called less than zero or something like that where he sucked dick for crack. never could get that image out of my head when i see him in any other movie. sad really
Posted by gillettebret on May 12, 2010 at 12:31 AM · Report
21
google says...i was right ! look it up here . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Less_Than_Z… a sad movie though it departed a lot from the book.
Posted by gillettebret on May 12, 2010 at 12:38 AM · Report
22
If I'd have known potato head Bill O was in this movie I'd have blown it off. It was bad enough that Amanpour debased her profession by appearing in this comic book movie. Assholes.
Posted by Crash on May 14, 2010 at 10:39 AM · Report
23 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
24
If I'd have known potato head Bill O was in this movie I'd have blown it off. It was bad enough that Amanpour debased her profession by appearing in this comic book movie. Assholes.

Hey dufus, he's a part of the real world, which Marvel loves to depict in it's comic books!Same with Amanpour. If you'd read the comics instead of being a big dick like this reviewer, you know that. But you didn't, so...

Chalk this review to not getting it, as usual. But what else is new? These are the same critics who bitched because Superman didn't do enough beating up of the bad guys in Superman Returns, yet now they bash this movie for doing just that-what gives?
Posted by Sky Captain on May 29, 2010 at 4:00 AM · Report

Add a comment

Most Commented in Film

  • The Spazz Age Baz Luhrmann Glitter-Bombs Fitzgerald in the Explosively Entertaining Gatsby