Iron Man 2 and so begins the 2010 summer blockbuster season
About 2 years ago the first "Iron Man" film directed by Jon Favreau and starring Robert Downey Jr. hit theaters and was quite well received. Even today it currently holds the 16th spot for top grossing weekend according to boxofficemojo.com. So inevitably there was bound to be a sequel. Just this past Friday "Iron Man 2" was released for American audiences, having been released internationally a week prior. Is this a lukewarm sophomore effort or a sequel better than the first like "The Dark Knight?"
The plot for the second film centers around Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) who seeks revenge on Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). Stark's father had apparently worked on the arc reactor with Vanko's father but eventually in a way betrayed him. So Vanko creates his own arc reactor powered armor to attack Stark with. He fails in his initial attack but eventually is hired by a rival tech company run by Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) to assist in creating suits like the one Iron Man wears. Meanwhile Stark is being killed by the arc reactor implanted in his chest as the chemicals poison his blood. Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) of S.H.I.E.L.D. (The acronym stands for a few different things but in the film universe it stands for Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division) comes to Stark to talk about his impending death by Palladium poisoning. And from there everything else plays out and ends in a storybook manner.
The sequel for the most part was able to retain all of the actors involved in the 2008 film. Along with Downey Jr. and Jackson, Gwyneth Paltrow reprised her role as Pepper Pots, Stark's assistant/love interest. However Lt. Colonel James Rhodes, Starks friend, had his actor replaced. The character was originally portrayed by Terrence Howard, who left due to contract disputes. He was replaced by Don Cheadle this time around. And to be honest I feel like Cheadle is a better choice. He and Downey Jr. have a better chemistry overall. All of the acting is fine by me. I especially loved how Downey Jr. was able to be arrogant and conceited yet still very likable.
Of course this film isn't all sunshine and rainbows. My main gripe with the film is the pacing. The film had a strong start and ending however the middle was slow and seemed to drag a bit. I think the main problem is the attempt to set up for the film incarnation of "The Avengers." A decent chunk of the middle involved interactions between Stark and S.H.I.E.L.D. members including Fury. The interactions weren't all too interesting. And they eventually led to the deus ex machina solution to a problem. Now all that wouldn't have been too bad except for the fact that it went on way too long.
Another thing about the film I wasn't too keen on was the action scenes. They were over way too quickly and usually with lame resolutions. The build up for the scenes make it seem like the battles will be epic but then they are resolved in a matter of minutes in some anti climactic way. It might just be me but I feel like this is less like "Iron Man 2" and more like "The Avengers: Iron Man." You know what I mean? The film feels more like a set up for the bigger future film rather than the second film in the Iron Man franchise. The plot of the film itself seemed to take a backseat for the set up of the Avengers. Now don't get me wrong I am looking forward to "The Avengers" as much as the next nerd, especially since Joss Whedon is slated to direct it, but these huge set ups are going to lead to a disappointment if the movie isn't amazing, which movies rarely are.
Now with many of the negatives out of the way lets move onto the pros. The dialogue for the film was very well written and delivered with good timing by the actors. I especially liked the entire senate scene near the beginning. Many of the lines were rather witty and the actors were able to riff with each other and make everything sound natural. Besides that it was a fun movie to watch when it was hitting it's strides, which was just slightly more often than not. It had everything you would want from a "summer blockbuster," explosions, action, weak plot development, more explosions, and more action. You can just almost shut your mind off and enjoy the movie without looking for underlying meaning or anything like that.
When everything is said and done "Iron Man 2" is what it is, a "summer blockbuster." A bit short on plot but more than making up for it with flash and style. It's an entertaining movie if nothing else. After seeing it you won't feel like you wasted your money. If you're looking to be entertained for 2 hours in a nice air conditioned theater then definitely go see it. The only people I wouldn't recommend this movie to is someone expecting to think after the movie about the meaning of life or something. It's a very decent way to kick off the summer movie season.
The plot for the second film centers around Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) who seeks revenge on Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). Stark's father had apparently worked on the arc reactor with Vanko's father but eventually in a way betrayed him. So Vanko creates his own arc reactor powered armor to attack Stark with. He fails in his initial attack but eventually is hired by a rival tech company run by Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) to assist in creating suits like the one Iron Man wears. Meanwhile Stark is being killed by the arc reactor implanted in his chest as the chemicals poison his blood. Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) of S.H.I.E.L.D. (The acronym stands for a few different things but in the film universe it stands for Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division) comes to Stark to talk about his impending death by Palladium poisoning. And from there everything else plays out and ends in a storybook manner.
The sequel for the most part was able to retain all of the actors involved in the 2008 film. Along with Downey Jr. and Jackson, Gwyneth Paltrow reprised her role as Pepper Pots, Stark's assistant/love interest. However Lt. Colonel James Rhodes, Starks friend, had his actor replaced. The character was originally portrayed by Terrence Howard, who left due to contract disputes. He was replaced by Don Cheadle this time around. And to be honest I feel like Cheadle is a better choice. He and Downey Jr. have a better chemistry overall. All of the acting is fine by me. I especially loved how Downey Jr. was able to be arrogant and conceited yet still very likable.
Of course this film isn't all sunshine and rainbows. My main gripe with the film is the pacing. The film had a strong start and ending however the middle was slow and seemed to drag a bit. I think the main problem is the attempt to set up for the film incarnation of "The Avengers." A decent chunk of the middle involved interactions between Stark and S.H.I.E.L.D. members including Fury. The interactions weren't all too interesting. And they eventually led to the deus ex machina solution to a problem. Now all that wouldn't have been too bad except for the fact that it went on way too long.
Another thing about the film I wasn't too keen on was the action scenes. They were over way too quickly and usually with lame resolutions. The build up for the scenes make it seem like the battles will be epic but then they are resolved in a matter of minutes in some anti climactic way. It might just be me but I feel like this is less like "Iron Man 2" and more like "The Avengers: Iron Man." You know what I mean? The film feels more like a set up for the bigger future film rather than the second film in the Iron Man franchise. The plot of the film itself seemed to take a backseat for the set up of the Avengers. Now don't get me wrong I am looking forward to "The Avengers" as much as the next nerd, especially since Joss Whedon is slated to direct it, but these huge set ups are going to lead to a disappointment if the movie isn't amazing, which movies rarely are.
Now with many of the negatives out of the way lets move onto the pros. The dialogue for the film was very well written and delivered with good timing by the actors. I especially liked the entire senate scene near the beginning. Many of the lines were rather witty and the actors were able to riff with each other and make everything sound natural. Besides that it was a fun movie to watch when it was hitting it's strides, which was just slightly more often than not. It had everything you would want from a "summer blockbuster," explosions, action, weak plot development, more explosions, and more action. You can just almost shut your mind off and enjoy the movie without looking for underlying meaning or anything like that.
When everything is said and done "Iron Man 2" is what it is, a "summer blockbuster." A bit short on plot but more than making up for it with flash and style. It's an entertaining movie if nothing else. After seeing it you won't feel like you wasted your money. If you're looking to be entertained for 2 hours in a nice air conditioned theater then definitely go see it. The only people I wouldn't recommend this movie to is someone expecting to think after the movie about the meaning of life or something. It's a very decent way to kick off the summer movie season.
Comments