For Pete's Sake, People, Iron Man 2 was a Good Movie

[Silvercrest]

Sure beats committing character assassination on a Justin Hammer who shouldn't have been there.

Is it really character assassination if no one has heard of either Cord or Hammer?

And the Russian guy was a mixture of character too, was that character assassination?

Hammer and Cord aren't like Lex Luthor known. I read comics for years, not a lot of Iron Man, true, but I had never heard of those two.

I only counted it as character assassination on Hammer because I thought he was a well-known Iron Man villain. If someone's just a minor character, not so much.

Besides, the filmmakers obviously did their homework and knew who all these guys were. (You don't pull the name Anton Vanko out of thin air.) I'd be surprised if they didn't know Edwin Cord just as well. So why not use him?

 

[Shazam!]

The Avengers stuff wasn't the problem; it was the 'Tony's dying' subplot. The resolution was so weak and so out of nowhere (Tony's dad magically invents the very thing that could cure him) that it killed the whole angle and left one wondering if it should have been omitted completely.

 

[flemm]

The Avengers stuff wasn't the problem; it was the 'Tony's dying' subplot. The resolution was so weak and so out of nowhere (Tony's dad magically invents the very thing that could cure him) that it killed the whole angle and left one wondering if it should have been omitted completely.

This chimes with my impression that the Tony's father/Tony's disease/Tony discovers a "new element" in his lab after waving around some pretty computer graphics that mean nothing plot thread was the movie's main weak point. This scene resolves the movie's central conflict, after all, which is that Stark's Iron Man technology is eating away at him, literally and metaphorically.

I also agree with the general impression that film was a bit jumbled and would have benefited from some stream-lining.

That said, I think Batman Begins was mediocre at best. This was a competent but generic reboot that took surprisingly few risks. So I think Iron Man 2 compares quite favorably to it, though neither are great movies.

 

[Timby]

Iron Man 2's problem is that its script is just all over the place, and it hits on several ideas but never takes any time to actually develop them. It feels so uninspired, too: The first movie is Stark learning to not be an uncaring jackass and grappling with near-death, so what's a good idea for the second film? Do the same thing! Neither primary plot (Stark's armor killing him / Whiplash raising hell) is satisfactorily resolved, either. Stark's life is saved by magic element out of fucking nowhere that was hidden in a decades-old architectural rendering, while Whiplash does some stuff and then blows up real good.

Some parts of it are just hilariously hypocritical, too. "Vanko's father was a bad man, because he wanted to use the arc reactor technology to make money!" *has this discussion in an oceanfront mansion on a private island*

 

[flemm]

Neither primary plot (Stark's armor killing him / Whiplash raising hell) is satisfactorily resolved, either. Stark's life is saved by magic element out of fucking nowhere that was hidden in a decades-old architectural rendering, while Whiplash does some stuff and then blows up real good.

The first point is much more important than the second, though, I think, because really all the movie needed from Whiplash was that he raise some hell and then get blowed up real good.

In fairness, the "new element" doesn't come out of nowhere exactly, it is a sort of family legacy, a gift from Tony's father, but I agree that the culmination of this plot thread needed to feel less like a magic wand of plot resolution was being waved somewhere off screen.

Nope. By mirroring Tony in many ways (occupation, trying to seduce the reporter), he helped Tony see not only how amoral he used to be before his capture, but also how shallow he used to be... thus playing another part in Tony's maturation. Just because no one ever said this onscreen doesn't mean that's not what they were going for, and it totally works, imo.

I think that's a stretch. Mostly Hammer came across as a lame, impotent and resentful version of Tony Stark: he fails miserably at making weapons and at seducing women, whereas Stark is good at both. I don't think he was pointless exactly, but his main function seemed to be to remind us of Tony's innate awesomeness. It was probably overkill, and I do think one could argue that making Justin Hammer a character who was potentially just as good at making weapons and seducing women (or one or the other) than Tony Stark would actually have been a more meaningful challenge for the character.

 

[exodus]

Iron Man 2's problem is that its script is just all over the place, and it hits on several ideas but never takes any time to actually develop them. It feels so uninspired, too: The first movie is Stark learning to not be an uncaring jackass and grappling with near-death, so what's a good idea for the second film? Do the same thing! Neither primary plot (Stark's armor killing him / Whiplash raising hell) is satisfactorily resolved, either. Stark's life is saved by magic element out of fucking nowhere that was hidden in a decades-old architectural rendering, while Whiplash does some stuff and then blows up real good.

Some parts of it are just hilariously hypocritical, too. "Vanko's father was a bad man, because he wanted to use the arc reactor technology to make money!" *has this discussion in an oceanfront mansion on a private island*

I didn't find it uninspried at all.
Tony Stark was a representation of the USA before 9/11.
He believed he singled handedly can & could bring world peace and that his suit made him untouchable. Ivan was the random element that even a poor disgruntled terrorist can make equal weapons of distruction. He attacked the USA(Stark) proving that the US(Stark) isn't untouchable and if you can make the most powerful country(thing) bleed infront of billions world wide, then the US(stark) is nothing but a fraud. Whiplash has paved the road for someone like the Mandarin to destroy Stark Enterprises and usurp power and manipulate his version of world peace under his design.

Ivan honored his father by seeking revenge as his means to an end.
Tony honored his father by finding a new beginning by finishing the project his father couldn't.
The film is about what everyone from Pepper to Fury and even Ivan was trying to teach Tony, Humility.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I'm sorry...I'd really like to agree with you for once Gaith but I have to respectfully disagree.

Someday, Admiral... someday.

I think they're all great movies, but the truth is, when I'm in the mood for a more serious movie, I'll pop in a Nolav Batman movie and when I want a fun, goofy movie, I'll pop in one of the Iron Man movies.

Well, I think Batman Begins is about as serious as Zombieland, so...

Yes, the movie does pull all of that together nicely, but it isn't necessary. But, I fail to see why it makes it superior over other movies. Some movies are grander in scale and others are more toned down. Neither necessarily makes the movie better or worse.

Well, call me a history nerd, but I think that a movie's brains and overall quality often go hand in hand, and whereas, say, Batman Begins is a pretty dumb movie with nothing to say, IM2 is a pretty smart movie that says a lot about the past and present.

I agree Justin Hammer was useless. A poorly written character who really posed no threat to IM in any way. In fact his character could have been eliminated completely from the movie and been replaced by the Senator character at every point in the story.

Nope. By mirroring Tony in many ways (occupation, trying to seduce the reporter), he helped Tony see not only how amoral he used to be before his capture, but also how shallow he used to be... thus playing another part in Tony's maturation. Just because no one ever said this onscreen doesn't mean that's not what they were going for, and it totally works, imo.

History nerd.

 

[DarthPipes]

Iron Man 2 was a bust. The film thought it could get by with Robert Downey Jr. screwing around the entire time but it didn't work. It actually has less action than the first movie and the first movie didn't exactly have a lot to begin with. The movie has a "Tony is dying" storyline to drum up drama. It fails to do so because we know Tony is in no real danger. We also learn that Tony has brought about world peace but see none of it in the movie.

The villains are completley underwhelming. How anyone can say Mickey Rourke was good in IM2 with a straight face is a mystery to me. He spends the majority of the film lurking around in the background and mumbling. While funny, Sam Rockwell's character is a complete joke. His only purpose in the movie is to make Tony look good by comparison and he can't even threaten Pepper Freaking Potts. The final battle with Tony and Rhodes vs Vanko lasts about two minutes. Completely underwhelming and disappointing.

 

[Gojira]

I enjoyed IM2. Not as good as the original. It had too much going on. They tried to fit too much into one movie. But all in all still a good movie to re-watch and enjoy.

 

[Skellington]

Enjoyed it. Have the DVD. Seven out of ten, perhaps. Maybe not quite as good as the first, as it was a bit rushed and seems to lack focus. (But then, it's advertising at least two other movies if you count the clip after the end credits.) My favourite bit was Scarlett kicking ass in that corridor.

 

[Trekker4747]

Enjoyed it. Have the DVD. Seven out of ten, perhaps. Maybe not quite as good as the first, as it was a bit rushed and seems to lack focus. (But then, it's advertising at least two other movies if you count the clip after the end credits.) My favourite bit was Scarlett kicking ass in that corridor.

Well any red-blooded straight American male named that as his favorite part, well second to her changing in the back seat of the car showing of bits of her lucious, creamy, body.

 

[Admiral_Young]

The Black Widow fight sequence in the hallway was perfectly filmed and the musical cue was great. It's one of my favorite tracks on the score.

 

[Aragorn]

Well any red-blooded straight American male named that as his favorite part, well second to her changing in the back seat of the car showing of bits of her lucious, creamy, body.

Well her changing in the back seat was actually her. The fight scene was Heidi Moneymaker.

 

[Gaith]

I'm sorry...I'd really like to agree with you for once Gaith but I have to respectfully disagree.

Someday, Admiral... someday.

Well, I think Batman Begins is about as serious as Zombieland, so...

Well, call me a history nerd, but I think that a movie's brains and overall quality often go hand in hand, and whereas, say, Batman Begins is a pretty dumb movie with nothing to say, IM2 is a pretty smart movie that says a lot about the past and present.

I agree Justin Hammer was useless. A poorly written character who really posed no threat to IM in any way. In fact his character could have been eliminated completely from the movie and been replaced by the Senator character at every point in the story.

Nope. By mirroring Tony in many ways (occupation, trying to seduce the reporter), he helped Tony see not only how amoral he used to be before his capture, but also how shallow he used to be... thus playing another part in Tony's maturation. Just because no one ever said this onscreen doesn't mean that's not what they were going for, and it totally works, imo.

History nerd.

Touche.

 

[Nowhere Man]

Someday, Admiral... someday.

Well, I think Batman Begins is about as serious as Zombieland, so...

Well, call me a history nerd, but I think that a movie's brains and overall quality often go hand in hand, and whereas, say, Batman Begins is a pretty dumb movie with nothing to say, IM2 is a pretty smart movie that says a lot about the past and present.

Nope. By mirroring Tony in many ways (occupation, trying to seduce the reporter), he helped Tony see not only how amoral he used to be before his capture, but also how shallow he used to be... thus playing another part in Tony's maturation. Just because no one ever said this onscreen doesn't mean that's not what they were going for, and it totally works, imo.

History nerd.

Touche.

I'm one too

 

[barnaclelapse]

I haven't actually seen the movie yet, but almost everyone I know who has seen it and mentioned this to me (which would be a lot of people) have pretty much summed things up by saying that it was good but not as good as the first one. I've honestly yet to run into somebody who expressed a strong dislike.

 

[Admiral2]

(Just a little rant inspired by many things, including io9 recently putting IM2 on their "worst of" sci-fi list when "Predators" made the best")



Why is IM2 a good movie? Glad you asked...


The Script/Story

IM2 tells the story of how Tony's self-imposed social isolation becomes too much for his body to handle as the only Iron Man, and how, with the help of some cooler heads, he regains his mojo just in time to prevent a psychotic and an amoral arms dealer from proliferating WMD-like technology and killing the one woman who sees him for his potential inner worth.

Yeah, I'll take that over "rich douchebag with a tank but nothing to say fights a guy planning to infect a city's water supply with hallucinogens with a magic microwave that'll boil the water but not people's bodies" any day.


The Cast

Let's get one thing straight: IM2 isn't the Keanu-tastic Matrix sequels or even X3, where apart from Jackman, you're saddled with Kelsey Grammar and Halle Berry at their most tedious, and need a razor-sharp, first-rate script to stay afloat. No, the pairing of the always awesome RDJ with the awesome-with-RDJ Paltrow inherently elevates this sequel to memorability. And no, that's not to be taken for granted.

Moreover, you get Mickey Rourke as a crazy, tattooed Russian, Sam Rockwell at his kookiest (dropping a James Joyce reference!), Samuel L. Jackson with an eyepatch, and ScarJo in tight leather, to say nothing of Cheadle, that senatordude and the legendary Coulson. I call that an embarassmeant of riches

This movie, like The Wolfman (but more so), pretty much succeeds on the strength of its cast alone.


A Sense of History

How often does a superhero movie engage with history in any meaninful (let alone interesting) way? To most tentpole pics, "history" either refers to strictly personal family history (an anecdote or two of Aunt May's about Uncle Ben), or total bullshit (an alien robot frozen inside the Hoover Dam). IM2, however, gives us plot points integrally tied to the post-War economic and technological boom, the military-industrial complex, the Cold War and World's Fairs, with hints of Disneyesque Americana and the inherited weakness for alcoholism. Even its outlandish present (North Korea building WMDs) engages with reality rather than ignoring it in favor of some urban decay fantasy (The Dark Knight and its preposterously powerful mobs) or random/anonymous shiny city (Superman Returns, Tron).

This, folks, is that rare gem: a blockbuster with brains.


Avengers Stuff: Tease?

Lots of IM2 complaints have centered upon the Avengers material, calling it superfluous to the movie's story and mere shilling for the upcoming Avengers movie. Both points are crap

First, the notion that the Fury/Black Widow scenes aren't important to the plot. This is the first time since college that Tony has had cause to look up to anyone as any kind of authority figure, and they represent the first group (apart from the Taliban, naturally) that hasn't welcomed him with open arms in his whole life. When Tony sees how close the Avengers are coming to muscling him out of Stark Industries via the Pepper-Widow business alliance, he's inspired to get his act together and grow up a bit. Fury thus doesn't just advance the plot, he helps our protagonist mature. Take out the Avengers scenes and you've got a much flimsier story - unlike the Gambit/Blob/Electric Hobbit stuff in Wolverine, which was mere plot filler.

With this in mind, as for the notion that those bits are building to the Avengers movie: so the heck what? What Marvel is doing with this shared cinematic universe of theirs is literally unparalleled in more than a century of film history. It's innovative and exciting, and even if the Avengers movie falls flat on its face, isn't it more admirable to have too much artistic ambition than too little? The vast majority of superhero movies are still designed to inhabit one isolated franchise, and I therefore frankly welcome something different


The Action

It was pretty damn cool. Also, ScarJo in tight black leather instantly invalidates any and all possible conflations of this and Spider-Man 3.


Not Perfect

Granted, IM2 wasn't perfect. I would have liked to see Sen. Stearns identified as a Republican, Tony's poisoned veins healed way too quickly twice, Happy and Pepper driving against the race traffic was as dumb as the bronto chase in PJ's Kong (albeit far, far shorter), and the suitcase suit would have worked better as a skeletal frame similar to Vanko's suit. But these are minor quibbles


Conclusion: enough with the whinging. Iron Man 2 was a damn fine flick.

Wow.

Here's an unparalleled moment in history for you Gaith:

For once, I agree with practically everything you said here.

 

[lennier1]

Didn't care about the main villain and Hammer was wasted on that script (even the 1994 kids cartoon made better use of him).
There are only two reasons why I even bothered:
1. A pal was involved in the "garden shootout" scene
2. They finally let War Machine do some creative redecorating with his firepower

 

[Thestral]

Nope. By mirroring Tony in many ways (occupation, trying to seduce the reporter), he helped Tony see not only how amoral he used to be before his capture, but also how shallow he used to be... thus playing another part in Tony's maturation. Just because no one ever said this onscreen doesn't mean that's not what they were going for, and it totally works, imo.

You're joking, right? That's an... interesting interpretation of Hammer, and especially of his attempt to seduce the reporter. flemm's got the better understanding of it, which I've quoted below.

I think that's a stretch. Mostly Hammer came across as a lame, impotent and resentful version of Tony Stark: he fails miserably at making weapons and at seducing women, whereas Stark is good at both...his main function seemed to be to remind us of Tony's innate awesomeness

By mirroring - and comically failing at trying to be - Tony Stark, Hammer in IM2 serves to show the audience how awesome Tony is. Hammer doesn't fail to seduce the reporter or succeed in copying the Iron Man tech because we're seeing how immoral Tony Stark was, Hammer fails to seduce her, etc. because Tony is awesome (and Hammer is not).

 

[Gaith]

Just because he's a goofball who doesn't have Tony's style doesn't mean he can't serve as an example. But while I may have overstated my case, I still think it's a great character and performance, and I don't give a hamster's dick about its comics origins.