Iron Man 2
May. 9th, 2010 02:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sinanjuWe went to the 11:30 a.m. showing of Iron Man 2 today, to avoid the crowds. And we succeeded admirably. There were other people in the theatre, though not a lot of people. Whether we avoided the crowds because they were either at church, or doing Mother's Day stuff, or because business is still really slow (the theatre has been nearly empty the last few times we've been there over the last months), I can't say. Anyhow, here's my take on the movie.
I enjoyed the movie, but it was not as much fun as the first one. On the other hand, I didn't expect it to be. It was all brand spanking new in Iron Man. First Iron Man movie ever, first one with Robert Downey, Jr. as Stark/Iron Man. What could be better?
So, in IM2 we had several villains. There was Gary Shandling as a Senator who wanted Stark to turn over his armor to the government. Stark, to my lack of surprise given trailers, refused. The Senator was a prick, but never much of a threat. Then we had Ivan Vanko (Micky Rourke) as Whiplash. And if that weren't enough, we also had Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer, another CEO of a major corporation who really, really wanted to be Tony Stark but just couldn't pull it off.
That was too many bad guys for one movie, in my opinion. I think the story would have worked better if they'd focused on one or maybe two of the villains. Probably not the Senator; while he might be a threat, he's mostly a political and legal threat, which doesn't make for great action movie fodder.
Justin Hammer was too much a doofus to be a serious threat. Much as I like Sam Rockwell--his role as Guy in Galaxy Quest was wonderful--he just didn't come across as a major player in this movie. He made a great wannabe playboy billionaire inventor, but that's all he was. A wannabe. (And he clearly was intended as such, as demonstrated by his initial meeting with Ivan where we can see self-tanner stains on his hands. He's a poseur.) It doesn't help that I know that the Justin Hammer from the comics was a lot more like Peter Cushing than Sam Rockwell. Cushing--now there's a billionaire rival I could take seriously as a threat to Tony, personally as well as politically and financially.
Ivan Danko could have made a much better villain than he did (though he was pretty good). I'd have liked to have seen the story focus on Ivan causing trouble for Tony/Iron Man using the ARC reactor tech to power his various machinations, which Tony wondering how the hell he got hold of that technology. I'd like to have seen their big confrontation fueled by the fact that they both believe the other man is a thief; Tony think Danko stole the ARC tech, Danko think Tony's father stole it from his dad. Both of them believe themselves to be in the right, which would push them to fight that much harder. This point was addressed, very briefly, when Tony saw Danko in his cell after their initial conflict*, but wasn't milked for nearly as much drama as it could have been.
*I was pleased to see that once Tony got his (armored) hands on Danko, the battle ended almost immediately. Which is as it should be. A man with electrified whips--no matter how powerful--but with no armor on, is no match for a man in powered armor. I was afraid they'd play it otherwise, but they didn't. Danko held the whip hand (har har) for only as long as it took Tony to armor up and finally strike back. Good for them. The appearance of the suitcase armor (implausible as it is, amongst all the other implausibilities of this comic book movie) was entertaining.
I've read reactions to the movie that didn't think there was enough action. Frankly, I think there was more than enough. If I'd felt more invested in the conflicts, perhaps I'd feel differently. But I wasn't. While this movie was clearly based on the "Armor Wars" plotline from the comics, in which Tony's technology is stolen and used by lots of actors, many of them bad guys, it wasn't personal enough for me to care nearly as much as I did in the first film. I did like it, howver, that they showed that nobody else--with the exception of Danko--was anywhere close to copying the Iron Man technology. Unsurprising, really, given that Tony's holographic interface, the Jarvis AI, and the seemingly-self aware waldos would each, independently, make him a billionaire many times over. Then there's the miniature ARC reactor itself, to say nothing of the suit.
I really liked Scarlett Johansen's Natasha Romanov/Black Widow character. I liked it that she first turned up dressed like a normal person, and working undercover like a--*gasp!*--actual spy. Getting close and working with her target with no action movie shenanigans. Almost like real spy work. She didn't turn up in her black leather superspy suit until later in the movie, when she revealed that she was working for Fury and SHIELD. Her assault on Hammer's minions late in the movie, as she went after Danko, was fun too.
One misfire, however, was her response when Tony (dying of palladium poisoning) asks what she'd do she knew she was about to celebrate her last birthday. She says, "I'd do whatever I wanted with whoever I wanted." One can easily assume she was suggesting that he have his way with her. I think it might also have been taken as her wanting Tony and Pepper to get over themselves, admit their attraction to one another, and act on it. Given that she was there to keep an eye on Tony for Nick Fury and SHIELD, who are worried about Tony's behavior, that would make sense. But in order for that reading to come across to the audience, we'd need to know a) that she's there to safeguard Tony as an asset, and b) that she knows about the Palladium poisoning (which we learn later she does). That scene could have been a lot more powerful if such groundwork had been laid beforehand.
The movie was fun, but not as much fun as the first. It was full of action--maybe too full of action--but it lacked some of the sparkle of the first film. That wasn't a surprise. Sequels seldom match or surpass the original story. But it was worth seeing.
I still want to see Tony get into some serious hot water, and watch Pepper suit up and go kick some ass as Iron Maiden, though. But maybe that's just me
I enjoyed the movie, but it was not as much fun as the first one. On the other hand, I didn't expect it to be. It was all brand spanking new in Iron Man. First Iron Man movie ever, first one with Robert Downey, Jr. as Stark/Iron Man. What could be better?
So, in IM2 we had several villains. There was Gary Shandling as a Senator who wanted Stark to turn over his armor to the government. Stark, to my lack of surprise given trailers, refused. The Senator was a prick, but never much of a threat. Then we had Ivan Vanko (Micky Rourke) as Whiplash. And if that weren't enough, we also had Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer, another CEO of a major corporation who really, really wanted to be Tony Stark but just couldn't pull it off.
That was too many bad guys for one movie, in my opinion. I think the story would have worked better if they'd focused on one or maybe two of the villains. Probably not the Senator; while he might be a threat, he's mostly a political and legal threat, which doesn't make for great action movie fodder.
Justin Hammer was too much a doofus to be a serious threat. Much as I like Sam Rockwell--his role as Guy in Galaxy Quest was wonderful--he just didn't come across as a major player in this movie. He made a great wannabe playboy billionaire inventor, but that's all he was. A wannabe. (And he clearly was intended as such, as demonstrated by his initial meeting with Ivan where we can see self-tanner stains on his hands. He's a poseur.) It doesn't help that I know that the Justin Hammer from the comics was a lot more like Peter Cushing than Sam Rockwell. Cushing--now there's a billionaire rival I could take seriously as a threat to Tony, personally as well as politically and financially.
Ivan Danko could have made a much better villain than he did (though he was pretty good). I'd have liked to have seen the story focus on Ivan causing trouble for Tony/Iron Man using the ARC reactor tech to power his various machinations, which Tony wondering how the hell he got hold of that technology. I'd like to have seen their big confrontation fueled by the fact that they both believe the other man is a thief; Tony think Danko stole the ARC tech, Danko think Tony's father stole it from his dad. Both of them believe themselves to be in the right, which would push them to fight that much harder. This point was addressed, very briefly, when Tony saw Danko in his cell after their initial conflict*, but wasn't milked for nearly as much drama as it could have been.
*I was pleased to see that once Tony got his (armored) hands on Danko, the battle ended almost immediately. Which is as it should be. A man with electrified whips--no matter how powerful--but with no armor on, is no match for a man in powered armor. I was afraid they'd play it otherwise, but they didn't. Danko held the whip hand (har har) for only as long as it took Tony to armor up and finally strike back. Good for them. The appearance of the suitcase armor (implausible as it is, amongst all the other implausibilities of this comic book movie) was entertaining.
I've read reactions to the movie that didn't think there was enough action. Frankly, I think there was more than enough. If I'd felt more invested in the conflicts, perhaps I'd feel differently. But I wasn't. While this movie was clearly based on the "Armor Wars" plotline from the comics, in which Tony's technology is stolen and used by lots of actors, many of them bad guys, it wasn't personal enough for me to care nearly as much as I did in the first film. I did like it, howver, that they showed that nobody else--with the exception of Danko--was anywhere close to copying the Iron Man technology. Unsurprising, really, given that Tony's holographic interface, the Jarvis AI, and the seemingly-self aware waldos would each, independently, make him a billionaire many times over. Then there's the miniature ARC reactor itself, to say nothing of the suit.
I really liked Scarlett Johansen's Natasha Romanov/Black Widow character. I liked it that she first turned up dressed like a normal person, and working undercover like a--*gasp!*--actual spy. Getting close and working with her target with no action movie shenanigans. Almost like real spy work. She didn't turn up in her black leather superspy suit until later in the movie, when she revealed that she was working for Fury and SHIELD. Her assault on Hammer's minions late in the movie, as she went after Danko, was fun too.
One misfire, however, was her response when Tony (dying of palladium poisoning) asks what she'd do she knew she was about to celebrate her last birthday. She says, "I'd do whatever I wanted with whoever I wanted." One can easily assume she was suggesting that he have his way with her. I think it might also have been taken as her wanting Tony and Pepper to get over themselves, admit their attraction to one another, and act on it. Given that she was there to keep an eye on Tony for Nick Fury and SHIELD, who are worried about Tony's behavior, that would make sense. But in order for that reading to come across to the audience, we'd need to know a) that she's there to safeguard Tony as an asset, and b) that she knows about the Palladium poisoning (which we learn later she does). That scene could have been a lot more powerful if such groundwork had been laid beforehand.
The movie was fun, but not as much fun as the first. It was full of action--maybe too full of action--but it lacked some of the sparkle of the first film. That wasn't a surprise. Sequels seldom match or surpass the original story. But it was worth seeing.
I still want to see Tony get into some serious hot water, and watch Pepper suit up and go kick some ass as Iron Maiden, though. But maybe that's just me