| 
| 
Is it worth $10? No
“Iron Man 2” is big, loud, and more narcissistically self-indulgent than Tony Stark himself. Practically every scene screams “aren’t these visual effects fabulous?” or “look how sexy Scarlett Johansson is!” or “did you notice how awesome the visual effects look”? This movie has “blockbuster” written all over it. What it doesn’t have is a story.
Instead, director Jon Favreau’s popcorn-muncher has a number of subplots that fail to add up to a whole. Picking up where “Iron Man” (2008) left off, billionaire weapons manufacturer Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) has been asked by a smarmy senator (Garry Shandling) to reveal the secrets of his alter ego Iron Man suit. Lt. Col. James Rhodes (Don Cheadle, taking over for Terrence Howard and registering no difference) finds himself caught in the middle, and their tension manifests in a forced fight sequence in which much of Stark’s home is destroyed. As an aside: No billionaire superhero has ever so willingly destroyed his own home to the extent that Stark does here. I know money is no object to him, but his homeowner’s insurance must be exorbitant.
Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) is a weapons manufacturer and Stark’s rival. After seeing presumed-dead Russian physicist Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) nearly kill Stark with electric whips (giving Vanko the name “Whiplash”), Hammer hires Vanko to create the weaponry needed to compete with the Iron Man suit. We’re told Vanko and Stark’s fathers were once partners, but Justin Theroux’s script forgets about that for the sake of watching Johansson in skin-tight suits. She plays Stark’s new assistant Natalie, and her presence makes Gwyneth Paltrow’s Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) look old.
Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) also makes an extended appearance, and most of his screen time moves the story sideways rather than forward. Marvel Comics fans understand his presence, but his relevance will not make sense to filmgoers until “The Avengers” in 2012. Hint: We’ll see Fury again in “Thor” and “Captain America” next summer.
The first “Iron Man” – which I liked but didn’t love – was a winner because of good action, an intriguing story, and Downey’s charm. That charm is certainly here again, but it’s not enough. And regardless of how good the action looks (and it does look awesome), it often feels senseless. Action for the sake of action is fun, but it doesn’t make for a good movie.
“Iron Man 2” is an example of why it’s hard for sequels to succeed: They need to embrace what the predecessor did correctly and build a newer, better product at the same time. “The Dark Knight” did this perfectly. “Iron Man 2” doesn’t even come close.
Did you know?
Rourke visited a real prison in Moscow to prepare for his role, and he wanted the majority of his dialogue to be in Russian (there’s some Russian, but not much). Also, the tattoos on Vanko’s body are authentically Russian in accordance with the character’s heritage and personal history.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
