This supposedly iron clad sequel is only fit to rust in the superhero scrap yard.
2008's Iron Man completed Robert Downey Jr’s phoenix from the flames journey to superstardom. But this supposedly iron clad sequel is only fit to rust in the superhero scrap yard. Fast-talking loveable megalomaniac Tony Stark was a role Downey Jr was born to play with his superhero stylings a lively antidote to more established comic book crossovers like Batman and Spidey. So what went wrong?
Sadly for director Jon Favreau rumours that final cut was in the hands of a studio intent on using the sequel as a platform to promote future films like The Avengers, Captain America and Thor appear to be true. With terrorism vanquished, part two avoids the pitfalls of racist overtones that tarnished the original, but what’s left for the canned crusader to kick against?
An uninspired opening montage introduces Stark’s new nemesis Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) – the son of a Russian physicist with an axe to grind. In the film’s one stand out action scene (there are only two) Vanko (aka Whiplash)gets busy with his electric whips carving up an F1 racetrack. Mumbling something about 'when God bleeds, the chaos begins', Rourke does his best to be to this Marvel Comics behemoth what Brando was to Apocalypse Now.
And with the government desperate for Tony’s tech he’s got to deal with Don Cheadle (replacing Terrence Howard as Rhodey) under pressure from the military to do the dirty on his pal. And then there’s Sam Rockwell as rival weapons manufacturer, Hammer. Rockwell is entertaining as ever and delivers quips about a new super weapon called the ex-wife with relished gusto.
But look closely and you can see the fake tan on the actor’s hands… Like the film, scratch the shiny surface and the conceit is revealed. And meet Black Widow – a high-kicking Scarlett Johansson doing a Hit Girl – moonlighting as Tony’s new PA now Paltrow’s Pepper Potts is Stark’s CEO. But can she be trusted? Who cares?
Book-ended by eye-shredding high concept it may be. But where’s the meat in the action sandwich? With shades of Superman’s Kryptonite, Stark’s Palladium power source is keeping him alive but slowly killing him. The fight and flight balance of the original is lost as Tony retires to the augmented reality of his pad for a spot of superhero navel gazing to rival Will Smith’s Hancock while getting a shouty Pulp Fiction-style lecture from Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury.
Cue morose introspection and a middle third that’s all-talk-no-trousers while heavy on exposition for the aforementioned films not even made yet! And in an embarrassing scene to rival Peter Parker’s meltdown in Spider-Man 3, Stark throws a party, gets drunk, smashes up his gaff like a petulant rock star and takes a leak in his suit. But you won’t be pissing yourself.
The frantic finale smackdown featuring Favreau fisticuffs and the canned crusader taking on Whiplash and Hammer’s drones is an orgy of FX porn sure to have fanboys drooling. It avoids the perils of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen keeping the action overload the right side of noise.
But with so many plates left spinning and SHIELD dude Samuel L Jackson rocking up again in clunky fashion with some awkward product placement for The Avengers that adds nothing to the story the film cements its position with the promise of thrills to come and fails to deliver the bang for your buck payload.
Will rumours of re-cuts make for an acute case of sequelitis?
Downey’s wisecracking war of words with Rockwell doesn’t make up for the lack of action.
A below average follow up bereft of the element of surprise enjoyed by its predecessor. And does the world really need the planned nine Nick Fury spin-offs?
View 50 comments
RayM
• 3 years agoMatt Bochenski
• 3 years agoHere you go Will. All you questions answered.
JASI
• 3 years ago@MatthewWebb666
• 3 years agoThe Avengers film is a comic books geek's (like me) dream. The action is perfect; and for the record, the best action scene was the one with Iron Man and Warm Machine Vs. Hammer drones.
Don't forget to stay after the credits for the introduction of Thor. However I am more excited for a tease of Captain America.
browntails
• 3 years agoabbr title
• 3 years agomshamanm
• 3 years agoA below average follow up bereft of the element of surprise enjoyed by its predecessor. And does the world really need the planned nine Nick Fury spin-offs?"
Wow, you should do some research BEFORE you open you uninformed mouth! SLJ signed on for a max of 9 movies (not that he'll be used in them all, AND he will only have small roles til the Avengers comes out....IDIOT!
Luvagoo
• 3 years agoI also don't understand how you complain about the Avengers reference which number, what, about two in total? It's just a good balance of giving you a sense of excitement for what's to come, while keeping the emphasis on that movie.
This review is very immature and uncohesive.
Will
• 3 years agoCan you explain what you mean by this?
jase
• 3 years agoDJP
• 3 years agomshamanm
• 3 years agoSteve Wright
• 3 years agoAs well as calling him an idiot, uninformed, and asking him how he got a job as a reviewer.
Overall though I liked it - my only real gripes were Mickey Rourke's Revenge of the Sith Darth Vader esque 'anguished scream' at the start (apart from that he was pretty good), and the final fight scene was a tad anticlimatc.
As for the Avengers references, I can see how they would confuse people unfamiliar with the comics, but I think they erred just about on the right side of subtlety (but only just).
mshamanm
• 3 years agoAlso, the film wasn't made to solely promote the other marvel films in the pipeline, Marvel is doing something VERY ambitious, and laying the ground work for most of the marvel universe to have a connect to each other. Cameos, mentions of other characters, etc just helps people unfamiliar with the comics to make a connection. Having Sam Jackson as Nick Fury, and giving him shots in a lot of these movies helps that (granted he's not in Thor-but agent colsoun (sp) is.
Anyway, I will not argue the point anymore, the movie comes out in 4 days and I will decided if i am in the wrong, or right on target with my evaluation of the reviewer.
@MatthewWebb666
• 3 years ago300, Sin City and The Watchmen (to a degree) did perfect shot for shot (should it be panel for panel?) adaptations of the comics.
When studios try to make films accessible you get Fantastic Four and Spider-Man 3.
RayM
• 3 years agoSo for the meter reading when reviewing comic based films maybe LWL can have a "If you liked Watchmen you will like this" rating. Same can be used for fans of the bay naff-fest Transformers.
The one thing I love about fans of watchmen is you tell them it's dire and they ask "Have you read the book?" you say no and get an all knowing "Ah well that's why you didn't get it"...No I got it you moron it was just awfully bad as a film and should never have been made.
Again it's not like this film is bad more like it's a bit of fluff.
Matt Bochenski
• 3 years agoAs a final point, the idea that you can enjoy a film 'if you switch your brain off' is the kind of crass, recidivist, masochistic thinking that saw the blockbuster devolve from the likes of Raiders of the Lost Ark to Transformers 2. You get the summer films you deserve. You have to try and demand more, and hold filmmakers to account when they fail.
Actually, as another final point, the idea that a film like Iron Man 2 is 'just entertainment' at heart is also fundamentally wrong. At heart, Iron Man 2 is an entry on a corporate balance sheet, not so much part of cinema as corporate planning. When a comic-book film works, that doesn't matter, when it fails you're left with a soulless piece of marketing propaganda.
Matt Bochenski
• 3 years agoSubs!
Dan Brightmore
• 3 years agoRegardless of whether I've read 1 or 100 comic books I was reviewing the film and not the comic it's based on. While I admit that having read Watchmen I probably got more out of that film than those that hadn't - with a family friendly popcorn cruncher like Iron Man 2 you'd hope the filmmakers would keep the in-jokes to a minimum and concentrate on entertaining in the here and now.
I'm no Hollywood hater but I do find it sad that so few 'tentpole' experience movies live up to the hype and even fewer are original ideas not based on previous source material. District 9 was a rare triumph and succeeds where Iron Man 2 fails because the simple movie mechanics of utilising a beginning middle and end makes for more engaging viewing. Despite multiple villains Tony Stark was in so little danger he had time to buy donuts and strawberries! Maybe Favreau believed Downey Jr was his trump card and that's all he needed but target practice with watermelons just didn't do it for me. This scene as with the entire middle act was, to borrow a phrase, 'immature and incohesive'.
Having an opinion that someone else disagrees with doesn't make a reviewer an idiot and I'll stand by my point - whether it's three, six or nine Nick Fury appearances/spin-offs (call them what you will) isn't it sad that
movies can no longer stand alone? Studios are so desperate for your multiplex dollar that they're turning the movie you paid to see into a shop window and delivering fewer thrills in the process.
Brian
• 3 years agoMike
• 3 years agoAnton Bitel
• 3 years agoSlightly more accurate might be: "If you liked Iron Man, you'll probaly like Iron Man 2..." It's also, of course, not necessarily true, but at least the films in question here are analogous entities.
Anton Bitel
• 3 years agoYour point being?
mshamanm
• 3 years agomshamanm
• 3 years agomshamanm
• 3 years agoSame could be said about Top Gun, Iron Eagle or any of those other 80s hack fighter pilot movies.
mshamanm
• 3 years agoA side note- the whole doughnut shop thing i think is typical for marvel. I mean what would a xmen comic be without a occasional baseball game ;) true fans know what i mean. It doesn't have to "forward the plot" it's just a devise to branch things together.
I think marvel is doing their best to create cohesive universe for the future of their films. I also think the movies are "mainstream" enough for layman to "get it" and there's enough "inside stuff" for the comic fans to appreciate.
Brian
• 3 years agoBrian
• 3 years agoBrian
• 3 years agoBrian
• 3 years agoLim
• 3 years agoAnton Bitel
• 3 years ago1) Lim is a she;
2) by 'that' (in her statement 'that ain't good'), she is referring not to the mecha subgenre, but to the fact that some people in the audience fell asleep during IM2. Obviously sleep is hardly a promising response to almost any kind of film, but it would seem a particualrly discouraging response to a film that depends largely on loud, spectacular set-pieces (in place of substance) to achieve its status as 'just entertaining'. Even the greatest fans of, say, Antonioni or the Brothers Quay, might concede that their films can occasionally have a soporific effect - but if IM2, say, for all its big, brassy machine battles, can still send viewers to sleep, it would seem to be in trouble. Hence Lim's: "Don't know how anyone could call it "just entertaining" as it was quite dull. I know people who fell asleep and for a film essentially about machines fighting each other, that ain't good."
Personally, though, I could not imagine falling asleep in IM2...
Anton Bitel
• 3 years ago1) Lim is a she;
2) by 'that' (in her statement 'that ain't good'), she is referring not to the mecha subgenre, but to the fact that some people in the audience fell asleep during IM2. Obviously sleep is hardly a promising response to almost any kind of film, but it would seem a particualrly discouraging response to a film that depends largely on loud, spectacular set-pieces (in place of substance) to achieve its status as 'just entertaining'. Even the greatest fans of, say, Antonioni or the Brothers Quay, might concede that their films can occasionally have a soporific effect - but if IM2, say, for all its big, brassy machine battles, can still send viewers to sleep, it would seem to be in trouble. Hence Lim's: "Don't know how anyone could call it "just entertaining" as it was quite dull. I know people who fell asleep and for a film essentially about machines fighting each other, that ain't good."
Personally, though, I could not imagine falling asleep in IM2...
Matt Bochenski
• 3 years agoI think that speaks to the different perspectives that people have here. My answer to your question would be 'almost every movie you'll ever watch that isn't part of a corporate comic-book franchise.'
Anton Bitel
• 3 years agoLim
• 3 years agoAdam
• 3 years agoThe problem with this mshamanm is that most audiences will not be aware of Stark's in-comic antics and so the question you have to ask is not 'Why is he getting drunk and fooling around?' but 'Does this work within the narrative of the film?'
Clearly the reviewer didn't feel it did work, and I stand by his criticism on this point.
Striking a balance between keeping the 'real' fans happy and your average popcorn crunching cinemagoer is something which few comic book films have managed to pull off. I certainly can't recount a single comic book film being praised for both its cinematic poise and fan pandering authenticity.
Out of interest, have you seen the film yet?
mshamanm
• 3 years agomshamanm
• 3 years agomshamanm
• 3 years agoAs far as falling alseep- I find that extremely hard to believe. PLUS- I don't see the way these movies are written as "relying" on big explosions to keep the audience entertained. I love the little quips back and forth between Tony and Pepper... to me that makes the movie more grounded and interesting.
mshamanm
• 3 years agoYa, I do get that people won't understand the "demon in a bottle" theme, main because the director didn't want to take that path, but keep in mind, it is sort of hinted at, due to the fact that practically anytime he's not in the suit he's got a drink in his hand. (Saki first thing in the morning?)
Anyway, I realize I can't expect the same respect towards those types of intricacies from the avergae movie goer as opposed to the comic fan.
Lim
• 3 years agoJust a difference of opinion, I found the constant bickering between Tony and Pepper extremely annoying. But that's me.
Anton Bitel
• 3 years agoOf course, you may not have been referring to Lim here, but to someone else - like I said, I struggled to understand your point.
mshamanm
• 3 years agoAnton Bitel
• 3 years agoAnton Bitel
• 3 years agoIf I am completely missing your point (I suspect I am), could you please rephrase it in language that idiots like myself can understand...
RayM
• 3 years agoRayM
• 3 years agolol
• 3 years ago