“Iron Man 2”
Written by Justin Theroux, based on the Comic Book by Stan Lee, Dan Heck, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby; Directed by Jon Favereau; Stars Robert Downey, Jr., Mickey Rourke, Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson, Sam Rockwell, John Slattery and Samuel L Jackson. Story: Tony Stark is under pressure from the government to provide his design for the Iron Man suit as a matter of defense. Stark refuses, claiming the world is safe and no one else is developing anything close to the suit. He soon learns that’s not so true.
Seen by Adam and Lars May 9, 2010
LARS:
Superhero movies generally follow what I call “The Godfather Exception”, which states that the 2nd movie will be better than the first and the 3rd movie will suck and end the series. Normally, of course, it’s always the first movie in a series that’s the best, but look at the first Batman flicks, the X-Men series and the Spiderman movies. The 2nd one is always the best. Usually, it’s because you have to get over the origin story in the first movie, which you can’t fuck up too much without pissing off the fanboys. It’s almost like everyone involved feels a certain kind of freedom, once they’ve delivered the origin story and not completely screwed the pooch in the process. The sequels are always more playful (think Catwoman in “Batman Returns”) and have better plots because you’re allowed to pick from the entirety of the back catalog of stories to find the one you really want to do.
When “Iron Man” became the surprise summer hit of 2008, it was because they got a few key things right. They took a relatively unknown Marvel hero and cast him perfectly. Tony Stark and Robert Downing Jr. have so many traits in common it’s almost uncanny. They are larger-than-life characters who have been through the shit and have come out on the other side with a newfound lease on life. They are maniacal and driven, which leads them to good places, if they are guided well and not just listen to their inner voices. It was a match made in heaven and, frankly, made Iron Man one of the few superheroes that you don’t want to shut up, whenever they are their alter egos. It was done by a director, Jon Favreau, who’d never attempted anything remotely at that scale, and was mostly known as an actor’s director, being a proficient actor himself. He added great humor, an all-round wonderful cast and a sense of romp to the whole thing. It wasn’t to be taken too seriously, like all those brooding woe-is-me superheroes we normally have to deal with. Listen, can someone invent a super-shrink already?
With all the key players returning to duty in “Iron Man 2”, why is it that I’m left with a feeling that it’s much less than the sum of its parts this time around? Maybe because they really miss the boat in terms of storyline? Surely, somewhere in the Iron Man universe that’s been growing since the inception of the character in 1963, there’s a better story than this floating around? The casting is great again this time around. Mickey Rourke does a fine job with his completely one-dimensional Russian baddie and Sam Rockwell has composed yet another of his whiny, annoying yet somehow hard-not-to-like characters. Scarlett Johansson is just there to show off how great she looks in a catsuit and Gwyneth returns as Tony Stark’s foil, Pepper Potts. The highlight of the movie is their banter. They have chemistry and their verbal sparring brings back memories of romantic comedies before they turned unbearably crap (His Girl Friday, When Harry met Sally etc). Strangely for a superhero movie, it’s all the fights that somehow end up being nothing but filler between the action. The only fight scene that really works is the one during the Formula One race in Monaco, the rest are ho-hum, lots of shooting, bad robots and generally meh.
Of course this pisses me off no end. I actually enjoyed the first Iron Man movie quite a bit and I really wanted to like this one as well, but, frankly, I thought it was disappointing, if not altogether bad. But even worse, it may be the end of my “Godfather Exception” theory. I guess I was thinking it would stay arguable till Christopher Nolan puts out the 3rd film in his Batman cycle in 2012. Dammit.
But Tony Stark’s computers… I want to go to there… These are some of the most awesome visions of future computers I’ve ever seen. If you’re a tech geek like me, it’s almost worth seeing the film just for that. Hell, it IS worth seeing the film just for that. Preciouuuuuusssssss…
ADAM:
I’m glad this review is following Kick Ass. In my last review, I mentioned that I’m not the biggest Comic Book fan on the planet, certainly not as learned about the subject as Lars. I should probably be lumped in with the group who finds most cinematic versions of the tales of superheroes to be similar and repetitive; kid who is a loser and misunderstood falls victim of experiment gone wrong and develops super powers, then focuses on the bullies of the world who mirror the bullies he faced pre-accident.
Thank goodness we have the Batman series that bucks that trend under the supreme guidance of Christopher Nolan. There are still villains, personal anguish, but the feel and the accessibility work. Also, Bruce Wayne/Batman is a regular guy equipped with super toys. Makes him more relatable to us than being ten feet tall, green and angry. What was I talking about again? Iron Man. 2. Right…
I really enjoyed the first Iron Man; the creation of the character and suit and Stark’s relationships to those around him. The cast was great. Downey was born to be Stark, Paltrow great as half charming and half snarky; and their chemistry together is obvious. They’re back in Iron Man 2 and the relationship still has it’s almost-kiss moments(for a while), but mostly it’s the humorous bickering you’d expect from Neil Simon or Aaron Sorkin. It works, even if Paltrow gets a touch whiny in places. Stark faces two foes in this sequel: Vanko, played perfectly by Mickey Rourke and Hammer, played well, if not a cookie cutter performance by Sam Rockwell. A note on Rockwell: I have a love-hate relationship with the guy. When he makes a movie “for him,” that is, a quality film, like Moon, Confession of a dangerous mind, etc. He’s predictably outstanding. When he makes a movie “for them,” a commercial picture like Iron Man 2 or Charlie’s Angels, he seems to be the same guy and he annoys me. I suppose this is okay, since there really isn’t a moment after his character is introduced (the first scene of the movie) when you have any misconceptions about whether he’s up to no good.
And that’s probably my biggest problem with the film, and it’s a big one. There is no mystery, twists or turns going on here. So what that leaves us with is akin to walking up to a big outdoor roller coaster during the day. You can see what’s going to happen, so it’s about the ride, which hopefully will be fun. And in the case of Iron Man 2, it’s fun, but not a whole lot of fun. If this film lives and dies on action, it should be in ICU. The action scenes are lackluster, sometimes shot too close to know what’s going on. There’s a lot of repetition as well, slow motion shots of people going through glass panels, fireworks going off…Clearly director Jon Favreau is capable; the first film showed off action well. But other than the Monaco F1 scene where Vanko makes his sinister, electric debut, nothing seems fresh.
Who’s Your Daddy?
It’s the scenes between the action that play well, and it’s actually something I appreciate. A common school of thought in screenwriting and storytelling that I happen to subscribe to is “Characters don’t really live within a story, characters are story.” And this actually rings true in Iron Man 2. In addition to the witty banter between Stark and Paltrow’s Pepper Potts, we see an interesting parallel between Stank and Vanko that is the theme of the film. As much as it’s about mortality, it’s about fathers and sons – Vanko’s who died indirectly at the hands of the Stark corporation and Starks, who never seemed to have time for his son and didn’t care about young Tony…or so Tony thinks.
