Movie Review: Iron-Man 2

Image from blog.al.com, courtesy of Sega

This is something I’ve been meaning to do for a while but finally got the push to do it. Dear MacRussianScot, this is for you:

***MINOR SPOILERS. READ ON YOUR OWN ACCORD***

(i.e. don’t get pissed at me if I ruin a plot twist for you)

The biggest question on everyone’s mind when Iron-Man 2 started pre-production was “…how will IM2 weigh up to the first one?” I hope to give you the insight to go find out for yourself (I’ll give my opinion at the end). I don’t know a lot about Iron-Man’s history outside of his alter-ego’s alcoholic past with his up-and-coming self-induced paralysis (oops- I hope I didn’t just unintentially spoil IM3 or a possible plot-twist in The Avengers…), so my first-thought was that I couldn’t think of any immediate fantastic villains outside of Justin Hammer (IM2 villain) or the Hulk, but I doubt Favreau would go that route just yet. And while I’m being honest, I really didn’t know what to expect from the second installment because I felt from all of the TV spots I’d seen through the weeks and months leading up to my own experience, I felt I had already seen it; but I was wrong. I’ll get to that later and you’ll see what I mean. SO here’s how I will be critiquing Iron-Man 2: comic interpretation, antagonists/villains, character development. Normally I would use the same ole’ “plot, action, acting, etc”, but I want to try something new. Plus, the only real bad acting was from Gwyneth Paltrow- I don’t like her.; I think her acting stinks, her facial expressions suck, and she hasn’t landed anything worth paying attention to (except Iron Man 1 and Shallow Hal)—but I digress—on to the review!

Comic Interpretation

As I said, there isn’t a whole lot I know about Iron Man/Tony Stark but from what I do know is that Tony Stark is the anti-hero of heroes. It sounds complex, but it really isn’t. Essentially, he’s the most human out of many of the superheroes because is the most frail at the same time he’s supposed to be the so strong, almost made of…iron..? (tell me you giggled too) But as it turns out, he’s an alcoholic playboy with a lot of personal issues, of which, Favreau illustrates just the playboy side in both of the Iron Man films. In Iron Man 2, Favreau does a good job at interpreting this problem by incorporating it into the plot line, using the alcohol as a way to stave of death for that much longer, but ironically killing him at the same time—just like alcoholism. In both Iron Man films, Stark’s playboy-side is shown incredibly well. Anyone not familiar at all with the character, Downey Jr. simply seems like the misdirected fool that needed a push, but to anyone whose read at least one Iron Man, they’ll see it’s very well played out by Favreau’s team; his alcoholism is portrayed also very well by Favreau’s team in an interesting twist, a really good twist that shows more of Stark’s ingenuity and massive mental awesomeness and because of the awesomeness that is Favreau’s interpretation I say this—mui bueno, senior.

Antagonists/Villains

Sam Rockwell i.e. Justin Hammer was a good and logical choice. Most of Iron Man’s biggest, baddest, and most hard to fall come from Stark’s days in both the Avengers and the West Cost Avengers, and since that movie hasn’t come out yet, then the best choice was the easiest and most logical- and that was to create two enemies; Justin Hammer is Stark’s opponent in the business world, and Whiplash [played very well by Mickey Rourke] as Iron Man’s nemesis. I don’t really know how Hammer was in the comics, but I really enjoyed Rockwell’s take on it. He made Hammer seem like an incompetent and lucky-to-be-where-he-is kind of dude and it worked, it really did. He played it off right and his character was perfect for the semi-villain. You could tell he was never the main bad guy because he wasn’t of any true influence on what Stark did or how he operated. Hammer is a nuisance and Rockwell acted well on the part. Rourke, well, Rourke was incredible as the main bad-dude Whiplash. The part I found most negative about his character was the back story that IM2 provided: nuclear physicist. I’m not sure how that correlates to the comics, but I cringed when they gave it because I don’t think it was fitting for the character and Rourke’s physique. It’s like saying Tara Reid fits the profile of a ‘brilliant anthropologist’ (ref: Alone in the Dark). Outside of the ill-fitted back story, the only other downer I saw to Rourke’s character was his obsession with whips. I know, I know- his name is Whiplash, whiplash, but obviously, as you’ll see, the whips don’t quite work and with all the crazy explosive action, you wish Whiplash would have done something a little more—elaborate with his weaponry. There is also a third villain- Stark himself. His attitude and stubbornness is nearly destructive to himself and his friends, but this is more of a constant villain, as seen through the entire film. I just wanted to note that it’s there. And it’s good.

Character Development [primarily dealing with Downey Jr./ Stark/ Iron-Man]

There are two things I noticed of the film. First, between Iron-Man 1 and 2, Downey’s portrayal of Tony Stark remains relatively the same, if not more narcissist than before. To be honest, a self-made hero that has the badass intellect and swagger to pull it off and “privatize world-peace” deserves the mondo-dose of ego. With that said, it seems like with the work he’d completed between the two films, you think he would have changed somewhat for the better- but he didn’t. His big change came at the end of the film when he realizes that he has the ability, knowledge, and the know-how to create a new element. This wasn’t necessarily a bad thing, but with any kind of superhero, you always want them to learn the error of their ways in the from their super-debut. Iron-Man 2 doesn’t fulfill that sort of viewer desire but it does, however, fulfill the other thing I noticed: Tony Stark’s genius. In the first movie, it showed his ingenuity to create weapons; IM2 shows Stark’s ability to create a NEW ELEMENT and create advanced weaponry/scientific innovations, something extremely prevalent to the comic character. Tony Stark is a genius and IM2 shows this very well.

Overall

Great movie. To get to my earlier notes (1) I felt I had already seen it and (2) Was it better, with the TV spots, it showed so much of the conflict between Iron-Man and the overarching villain, Justin Hammer, that you thought you knew what the movie was about. But, as it will show, the movie has more to do with the battle between Iron-Man and Tony Stark. The whole Hammer and Whiplash is just for action since the story lies with Stark and that, my friends, is the plot that Iron Man 2 needed. We got action and a wicked bad-dude last movie and this film was more on the development of who Tony Stark/Iron Man is and will become. Yeah, there were some pretty sweet scenes, but for the most part, the movie needed to deal with the character, not the explosions. With that said, I don’t think it was necessarily better than the first one. I won’t say it was bad or much worse than the first, but there is something about an origin flick that always sticks out. I really liked Iron-Man 2 and will think it was well done, except the whole creating a new element thing wasn’t explained all that well, but I digress- good film.

IRON-MAN 2 [4.2 high-Fives]

(starring Robert Downey Jr., Don Cheadle, Sam Rockwell, and ugh…Gwyneth Paltrow)

Check it out fool!