By Kyle Maxwell
Format:Blu-ray
I've loved Iron Man ever since my first Tales of Suspense comic, so I might not be the most unbiased person to write a review. Still, I'm going to try and be as honest as I possibly can. In some ways, Iron Man 2 improves on the original. For instance, the brawl between Iron Man and War Machine was perfect, and RDJr was even better this time around. However, there were some weak moments. For example, Pepper Potts is almost absent from the movie, and is shrill and unpleasant during her brief appearances. Whiplash has never been a particularly compelling villain, and the movie doesn't do much to make him any more exciting. Also, they really need to STOP with the "Iron Man fights someone who has the same technology" plots. It's already boring. Plus, I couldn't help but wonder where a drunken hobo managed to get the equipment to build an Arc Reactor. Stark did it in the first movie because he had several billion dollars worth of his own weaponry to cannibalize. How does a homeless Russian manage it? Furthermore, the character of Justin Hammer was silly and played for laughs, which was the wrong move. It had a real "Jim Carrey in Batman Forever" vibe to it.
Others have mentioned the unnecessary plot lines, and they're right. We could have done entirely without the "Paladium Poisoning" and the "Under House Arrest by SHIELD" plots, since neither of them really went anywhere, and felt like padding in a movie that didn't need any. I didn't mind the Black Widow showing up, but eventually it felt like we were tripping over minor characters. Also, they're not fooling anyone with the whole "The Avengers don't want Tony Stark" subplot. None of us believe for a moment that they'd do an Avengers movie without the only Avenger that's proven to be a box-office success.
Still, it was a good movie. Perhaps not a GREAT movie like the first one, but at least it wasn't a franchise-killing fiasco like Spiderman 3 or Batman and Robin. Honestly, if none of us had ever seen the original Iron Man, we'd all be talking about how this movie was one of the best Comic Book movies ever. But as it is, it's over-shadowed by it's phenomenal predecessor.
Others have mentioned the unnecessary plot lines, and they're right. We could have done entirely without the "Paladium Poisoning" and the "Under House Arrest by SHIELD" plots, since neither of them really went anywhere, and felt like padding in a movie that didn't need any. I didn't mind the Black Widow showing up, but eventually it felt like we were tripping over minor characters. Also, they're not fooling anyone with the whole "The Avengers don't want Tony Stark" subplot. None of us believe for a moment that they'd do an Avengers movie without the only Avenger that's proven to be a box-office success.
Still, it was a good movie. Perhaps not a GREAT movie like the first one, but at least it wasn't a franchise-killing fiasco like Spiderman 3 or Batman and Robin. Honestly, if none of us had ever seen the original Iron Man, we'd all be talking about how this movie was one of the best Comic Book movies ever. But as it is, it's over-shadowed by it's phenomenal predecessor.
Format:DVD|Amazon Verified Purchase
While Iron Man 2 may not be perfect, it is a very solid and fun sequel. Improvements include better action sequences and some great characters added to the franchise. Unfortunately there is a lot going on here and even though it isn't hard to follow, there isn't enough time to give each sub plot the proper screen time it deserves. Oddly enough for a super hero film, I think they could have edited some of the talky scenes down and added a little more Iron Man action.
A good example of this is when we meet Natasha Romanova she isn't given much to do and I found myself wondering if she was going to be The Black Widow on screen. She is only in one action sequence(a great one with one of the funniest moments in the film)late in the movie and she and Nick Fury are really only there to set up The Avengers movie. I'm not saying it should be edited out, but there is only so much ground you can cover in two hours. Whiplash is played with gusto by Mickey Rourke, but he doesn't have much screen time either and that seems to be the problem with this film, no one but Tony Stark gets enough screen time.
After the first encounter with Whiplash in Monaco on the race track, we don't really get a good dose of Iron man until the final battle, which means there is over an hour of time where there isn't that much action. Considering what I had read about this being an action packed film, I found it to be very talky. This isn't necessarily a bad thing because the characters are well developed and the actors are all really good here.
The final battle is very good with some very cool Iron Man destruction and some nifty moves, but it's surprising and anti-climatic when Whiplash is defeated very quickly. In the first film, I thought the final battle was too long and in this one, it just seems to end too abruptly. I'm not bashing this film in any way as it is a very fun film that I will most certainly own the DVD/Blu Ray when it is released, but I think the story may have been a little too ambitious for one film.
Overall I give Iron Man 2 a solid B(4 stars)and I think Favreau did a very good job all things considered. Of course if you are seeing this in a theater, then stick around until the end of the credits role for a little teaser scene about another Marvel Hero who will be hitting theaters next year.
A good example of this is when we meet Natasha Romanova she isn't given much to do and I found myself wondering if she was going to be The Black Widow on screen. She is only in one action sequence(a great one with one of the funniest moments in the film)late in the movie and she and Nick Fury are really only there to set up The Avengers movie. I'm not saying it should be edited out, but there is only so much ground you can cover in two hours. Whiplash is played with gusto by Mickey Rourke, but he doesn't have much screen time either and that seems to be the problem with this film, no one but Tony Stark gets enough screen time.
After the first encounter with Whiplash in Monaco on the race track, we don't really get a good dose of Iron man until the final battle, which means there is over an hour of time where there isn't that much action. Considering what I had read about this being an action packed film, I found it to be very talky. This isn't necessarily a bad thing because the characters are well developed and the actors are all really good here.
The final battle is very good with some very cool Iron Man destruction and some nifty moves, but it's surprising and anti-climatic when Whiplash is defeated very quickly. In the first film, I thought the final battle was too long and in this one, it just seems to end too abruptly. I'm not bashing this film in any way as it is a very fun film that I will most certainly own the DVD/Blu Ray when it is released, but I think the story may have been a little too ambitious for one film.
Overall I give Iron Man 2 a solid B(4 stars)and I think Favreau did a very good job all things considered. Of course if you are seeing this in a theater, then stick around until the end of the credits role for a little teaser scene about another Marvel Hero who will be hitting theaters next year.
Format:DVD
At the end of 2008, I made two bold assertions: (1) That "Iron Man" was one of the year's best films; (2) that "Iron Man" was one of the greatest superhero films ever made. I still believe both to be true. Now we have "Iron Man 2." While it is thoroughly entertaining, it's also a bit conventional when compared to its predecessor, having less of a compelling story but more in the ways of action, special effects, gadgets, humor, and stunt work. It's a comic book through and through. That's fine by me - what it lacks in introspection it more than makes up for in sheer fun. We have plenty to cheer for, not the least of which is our hero, billionaire industrialist Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.), who when we last left him had shut down the weapon's division of his company to focus on more humanitarian uses for technology. The result was a high tech metal suit equipped with rocket boosters and missile launchers.
It's now six months after Stark revealed himself as Iron Man at a press conference. Despite the demands of a United States Senate committee, he refuses to share his technology with the American military, believing that world peace can be maintained only if it's privatized. At this meeting, he humiliates Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), the CEO of a rival company who has unsuccessfully tried to outdo Stark's technology with his own prototype machines; in an effort to get ahead, Hammer appeals to Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), a Russian physicist who publically revealed his grudge against Stark by attacking him as he was car racing in Monaco. For as yet unknown reasons, Vanko has constructed an arc reactor very similar to the one implanted in Stark's chest. He has improved the design by attaching whips that surge with bolts of electrical energy.
Stark, meanwhile, is realizing that his chest implant, originally constructed as a way to keep him alive, contains an element that's slowly poisoning him. He doesn't handle it well. He acts out. He drinks in excess. He hastily appoints his former personal assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), as the new CEO of his company. If he's to survive, he must replace the core of the implant with an entirely new element, one he has tried but failed to create on his own. Out of the blue comes special agent Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), who suggests that Stark look to his father's research for guidance.
New to the cast is Don Cheadle, who replaces Terrence Howard as Stark's dedicated but weary friend Lt. Colonel James Rhodes. Also new is Scarlett Johansson as Stark's newly hired personal assistant Natalie Rushman, who says she's from the company's legal department.
Watching this movie, I was quite dazzled by the sights and sounds, and I found the plot engaging in a suspension-of-disbelief kind of way. I did not, however, find it persuasive, as I did the first film, which I felt put a refreshing and thought-provoking spin on the traditional comic book adversary; Stark might have physically battled with the power-hungry Obadiah Stane, but his real enemies were war and injustice, both of which he took part in by selling weapons of mass destruction. This time around, it's much more by the book - a superhero pitted against a madman out for revenge, a fight to the finish that includes a lot of things blowing up, a showcase of digital wizardry and highly choreographed stunts. There are a number of films that can give you pretty much the same thing.
That being said, there's no denying the quality of the performances, especially Downey, whose cocky take on Stark makes the film fun but not jokey. Rockwell is quite good, playing Hammer is if he were Stark's slightly goofier evil twin - comedy relief with a hint of something darker, you might say. Credit also to Rourke, who truly does convey the anger, resentment, and pain his character feels in every one of his scenes. He isn't given all that much screen time, but when he's on, he's on, resonating with a deep, calm, frighteningly low voice and an imposing build.
If there is an "Iron Man 3," and I have no doubt that there will be, I can only hope it doesn't follow its predecessor's lead and decline in quality. The original "Iron Man" was a superb film, redefining the superhero genre for both old and new generations of moviegoers. "Iron Man 2" is a great looking and wonderfully performed sequel, although its approach to the story is routine, more so than I had preferred it to be. Still, you've got to hand it to director Jon Favreau and writer Justin Theroux - they sure know how to entertain an audience. There's an early scene in which Stark, dressed as Iron Man, jumps off a plane, flies through the sky, and lands unharmed in the middle of one of his own lavishly high tech expos in New York City. Throngs of people cheer him on. I suspect the audiences for this movie will do the same when it's over
It's now six months after Stark revealed himself as Iron Man at a press conference. Despite the demands of a United States Senate committee, he refuses to share his technology with the American military, believing that world peace can be maintained only if it's privatized. At this meeting, he humiliates Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), the CEO of a rival company who has unsuccessfully tried to outdo Stark's technology with his own prototype machines; in an effort to get ahead, Hammer appeals to Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), a Russian physicist who publically revealed his grudge against Stark by attacking him as he was car racing in Monaco. For as yet unknown reasons, Vanko has constructed an arc reactor very similar to the one implanted in Stark's chest. He has improved the design by attaching whips that surge with bolts of electrical energy.
Stark, meanwhile, is realizing that his chest implant, originally constructed as a way to keep him alive, contains an element that's slowly poisoning him. He doesn't handle it well. He acts out. He drinks in excess. He hastily appoints his former personal assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), as the new CEO of his company. If he's to survive, he must replace the core of the implant with an entirely new element, one he has tried but failed to create on his own. Out of the blue comes special agent Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), who suggests that Stark look to his father's research for guidance.
New to the cast is Don Cheadle, who replaces Terrence Howard as Stark's dedicated but weary friend Lt. Colonel James Rhodes. Also new is Scarlett Johansson as Stark's newly hired personal assistant Natalie Rushman, who says she's from the company's legal department.
Watching this movie, I was quite dazzled by the sights and sounds, and I found the plot engaging in a suspension-of-disbelief kind of way. I did not, however, find it persuasive, as I did the first film, which I felt put a refreshing and thought-provoking spin on the traditional comic book adversary; Stark might have physically battled with the power-hungry Obadiah Stane, but his real enemies were war and injustice, both of which he took part in by selling weapons of mass destruction. This time around, it's much more by the book - a superhero pitted against a madman out for revenge, a fight to the finish that includes a lot of things blowing up, a showcase of digital wizardry and highly choreographed stunts. There are a number of films that can give you pretty much the same thing.
That being said, there's no denying the quality of the performances, especially Downey, whose cocky take on Stark makes the film fun but not jokey. Rockwell is quite good, playing Hammer is if he were Stark's slightly goofier evil twin - comedy relief with a hint of something darker, you might say. Credit also to Rourke, who truly does convey the anger, resentment, and pain his character feels in every one of his scenes. He isn't given all that much screen time, but when he's on, he's on, resonating with a deep, calm, frighteningly low voice and an imposing build.
If there is an "Iron Man 3," and I have no doubt that there will be, I can only hope it doesn't follow its predecessor's lead and decline in quality. The original "Iron Man" was a superb film, redefining the superhero genre for both old and new generations of moviegoers. "Iron Man 2" is a great looking and wonderfully performed sequel, although its approach to the story is routine, more so than I had preferred it to be. Still, you've got to hand it to director Jon Favreau and writer Justin Theroux - they sure know how to entertain an audience. There's an early scene in which Stark, dressed as Iron Man, jumps off a plane, flies through the sky, and lands unharmed in the middle of one of his own lavishly high tech expos in New York City. Throngs of people cheer him on. I suspect the audiences for this movie will do the same when it's over
