My week-long Marvel Movie Marathon, wherein I watch each Marvel Studios film leading up to the Avengers, continues with Iron Man 2. How does the film compare to when I first saw it?
This is a very tough film to review for me. On the one hand, the comic book nerd in me cannot deny the many awesome easter eggs to the larger Marvel universe. The growing presence of SHIELD represented by the returning Nick Fury and Phil Coulson, plus the introduction of Black Widow (along with her own kickass action scene) was great to see. The shoutouts to Captain America's prototype shield, a quick reference in Howard Stark's notebook to the Cosmic Cube, and of course the after credits sequence with Mjolnir were all welcome additions to the film to help set up the Marvel Cinematic Universe. With that said, as a fan of good films, I thought that these very same easter eggs ended up making the film more of a giant commercial for the Avengers, instead of trying to be the best film it could be the way its predecessor was.
RDJ saves the film with his continuing charisma as Tony Stark, and his banter with Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts was great. I mentioned this briefly in my previous review, but I really wanted to see Terrence Howard return to the role of Rhodey as he evolved into War Machine. Don Cheadle is a good recast, and there is a nice chemistry between the two of them, but somehow I never really got the sense that they were lifelong friends the way RDJ and Howard connected. With that said, the evolution of the War Machine suit was played out brilliantly, and was one of the few things that was integrated organically into the film's plot. The other factor was Justin Hammer, played with gusto by Sam Rockwell. While the Justin Hammer of the comics is an elderly businessman, I didn't mind this change from the comic books. Rockwell plays Hammer like a pretentious douche, but what I like about this portrayal is that we truly see that at heart, he's a nobody who has tried his entire life to replicate Tony Stark's success, but as a result of living in his shadow just comes off as a poor imitation of him. His motivation to "make Iron Man look like an antique" felt real to me. If only the same could be said about the other villain of the film.
Now don't get me wrong: Mickey Rourke plays the character of Ivan Vanko really well. Vanko, for the comic book savvy, is a composite character of two minor Iron Man villains, Crimson Dynamo and Whiplash, with Vanko taking the Russian background of the former but the armor design and name of the latter. Rourke, from what I hear, actually spent time in a Russian prison in order to get in character. It's a shame, then, that his character is given so little to work with. I do like how he and Hammer end up together, as I felt that combined they could pose a large enough threat to Tony. But the thing is, he never does. The best part of the movie was without a doubt the race track scene, not only because it displayed what I think is the coolest of the movie armors (the Mark V briefcase armor) but it actually puts Tony in a sense of danger. You get the idea that he could actually die. At that one moment, Whiplash comes off as an honest to god threat. Too bad he spends the rest of the film locked up in a laboratory, upgrading the Whiplash suit while screwing over Hammer by taking control of his Iron Drones. The second act completely lacks momentum because of this. There is not a central threat. Sure, there's the battle between Tony and Rhodey that is meant to be a tribute to the Demon in the Bottle story arc, but it's over before it begins.
This leads me to my next point: again, while the comic nerd in me loves the expanded role given to SHIELD, their only purpose in the film is to help set up the Avengers, and they're basically shoe horned into the plot when Tony is in need of a way to build a new arc reactor to keep his heart going. Never in the comics do I recall the chest piece killing him. Tony's alcoholism always stemmed from him doubting his self-worth, and coming under pressure from a variety of outside sources. The filmmakers only included the dying subplot to get SHIELD and Tony's daddy issues into the film. Once Tony creates the new element, we move onto the Vanko/Drones set piece and it's like all of that didn't even matter. Tony didn't learn anything from almost dying, he overcomes it as quickly as we learn about it. The alcoholism should've been a result of the Vanko attack and increasing pressure to turn over his suit to the military, not because he was dying. I know this doesn't really do a lot of good because I'm criticizing the film for being something that it's not, but given the plot they decided to go with, it would make a lot more sense to minimize the SHIELD role and remove the dying subplot to focus on characterizing Vanko and emphasizing Tony's alcoholism.
Further proof that more screen time should have been devoted to Vanko in place of SHIELD is found in the way the final battle is set up. Half of that battle is just Black Widow beating up guards. More attention is given to that then the actual battle with the drones and Whiplash. When it does happen, the drones, and ultimately Whiplash, are defeated in under a minute. Iron Monger had a larger fight scene in the first film. That, to me, speaks volumes about how weak this film is in terms of plotting. I don't want to blame Favrau, because I'm sure he did the best with what he was given, but I can see why he left Marvel and the chance to direct Iron Man 3. At this point, Marvel had a direction as to where they wanted their characters to be for Avengers. SHIELD had to have a larger role, so more time was given to that, and as a consequence the main villain was left without much screen time and therefore had no chance to develop as a character. I felt like we got to know Obadiah Stane in Iron Man 1. We never got that chance with Vanko. And as it goes with all superheroes, the hero is only as good as his villain. If Whiplash wasn't badass enough to hold his own against the Iron Man/ War Machine "Ghostbusters" method, then he wasn't worthy of being this film's antagonist.
Now after saying all this, you'd think I hate the film. On the contrary, I find Iron Man 2, even after this repeat viewing, to be highly enjoyable. A lot of the humor still works, and again while the easter eggs are unnecessary they do help set up the larger universe, which may not have seemed that important back during the initial release but is more important now that the Avengers is actually a reality. The fact of the matter is, I feel the same way about Iron Man 2 that I do about films like Return of the Jedi, Temple of Doom, or Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: they are highly entertaining films that fall short of the high bar set by their predecessors. They don't do enough wrong to be considered a disgrace, but the weaknesses are apparent enough that the film is a significant step down in quality.
Iron Man 2 does still continue the themes set forth by Iron Man 1, and in that regard it does handle the themes pretty well. The court scene does a really good job of capturing the effect Iron Man has on the world, with the government wanting it while other countries try to replicate it to no avail. The Whiplash attack just goes to show how Tony's revealing of his identity has made him a target, and the fallout afterward shows the dark side of being a celebrity superhero: the public turning against you when you fail to live up to your promises, and the pressure building because it's you being accused, not just your alter ego. In that respect, the fight with Rhodes and the creation of War Machine was inevitable, and I love not only how it was done, but how on a very subtle level Tony shows he's ok with Rhodey wearing the suit. It shows the depth of their friendship, and how Rhodey is the only other man in the world Tony trusts to wear his creation.
So all in all, Iron Man 2 isn't a bad film, just a little disappointing considering the high bar set by Iron Man 1 and the wealth of material they were working with (traces of Demon in the Bottle and even the famous Armor Wars story arc can be found in here). I just thought that the SHIELD stuff was a double edged sword, both acting as fan service that set up the Avengers but at the same time doomed the film to be too stuffed with underdeveloped subplots. It's no "Spider-Man 3", thank god, but that's more due to the charisma of the actors then the strength of the story. Still, it cements the Iron Man films as truly part of a larger universe, and primes viewers for the other films necessary on the road to the Avengers. Tomorrow I will be reviewing Thor, since the end-credits scene sets up the film (for future reference, I am reviewing the movies in a semi-chronological order rather than release order). As a bonus, I youtubed the Marvel One Shot short "A Funny Thing Happened on the way to Thor's Hammer", which bridges the gap between Coulson's disappearance in Iron Man 2 and his arrival at Mjolnir's crater site. While the scene was unnecessary, it did show off how much of a badass Coulson is. No doubt he is becoming one of the breakout stars of these films despite his non-comic roots. I can't wait to see what they do with him in the Avengers. And on that note, I must bring this review to an end. I look forward to continuing my revisit through the Marvel Cinematic Universe as the Avengers draws ever closer to its release.
No comments:
Post a Comment