Tools
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.
Stranger Personals
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. ![]()
4
6
And man... what happened to Garry Shandling?
7
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…
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.
11
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.
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.
16
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.
17
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?







RSS
Comments (24) RSS