Superman has Kryptonite. Green Lantern is powerless against the color yellow. And if Iron Man 2 is any indication, Tony Stark’s big weakness could be scripts. The first Iron Man showed that Jon Favreau and Robert Downey Jr could take a very loosey goosey approach to the script and come out with something very special. Iron Man 2 shows that lightning doesn’t always strike twice.
The problems with Justin Theroux’s script – which come to a head in the big, saggy, boring and redundant second act – hurt all the more because everything else works so well. Favreau ups the ante on the action in a major way with this film, essentially shutting up the critics of the first movie who found the action lacking. Iron Man 2 isn’t wall to wall action (and in fact that aforementioned soggy second act could have used a big action scene to pep it up), but the action scenes are well done, thrilling and character motivated. Each action scene feels different, and each action scene speaks to the film’s characters, their motivations and their relationships. Obviously a lot of thought went into these elements – why couldn’t as much thought have gone into the story as a whole?
Iron Man 2 takes place six months after the end of the first film; the outing of Tony Stark as Shellhead has changed the international scene, bringing an unprecedented level of peace to the world. Meanwhile, Tony Stark has become even more famous than before, and has turned into a rock star. But all is not well; the palladium that powers Tony’s arc reactor is also poisoning him, and the US government isn’t happy having this loose cannon flying through their airspace. Meanwhile, the son of a disgraced colleague of Tony’s dad is looking for revenge on the Stark family name.
There’s a tendency in superhero sequels to throw too much stuff into the mix, and this film, with the additions of rival arms manufacturer Justin Hammer, War Machine, Whiplash and SHIELD agent Black Widow, looked like it might succumb to that tendency. But in fact Iron Man 2 manages to juggle all of these elements, allowing the characters to organically exist together without anything feeling shoehorned or too tacked on*. The trouble is it seems like the film was able to achieve this clean and simple addition of new elements by simply jettisoning any sort of narrative drive. The first act of the film sets everything up nicely, and the third act includes some excellent action, but the second act is a meandering slog where nothing happens and no one seems to actually do anything.
The second act is filled with scenes that replicate previous scenes – Nick Fury and Tony Stark have two sit down talks, Whiplash and Justin Hammer have at least two scenes talking about their villainous partnership, Rhodey has a trio of scenes at a military base that barely advance anything and that contain maybe a nugget of necessary info each. Through all of this repetition there’s no sense of danger; while we know that Tony Stark is sick thanks to repeated checks of his blood toxicity and a growing techno-organic rash coming out of his arc reactor, this illness has no impact on him at all. He is never unable to perform an Iron Man duty because of the illness, and the solution to it is more or less handed to him in the least dramatic fashion imaginable. After Whiplash first encounters Iron Man in a rollicking action scene set at the Monte Carlo Grand Prix everybody thinks he’s dead; since nobody thinks Whiplash is a threat nobody is doing anything about him, and he is actually just sitting in a room getting ready for act three (pretty much literally). This all feels like reshoots intended to smooth over plot holes, although some – like why anybody mistrusts Iron Man in the second act since he seems to do almost nothing – but it’s a shoddy spackling.
There are some mid-movie bright spots; Tony, convinced he’s going to die, gets drunkenly out of control at his birthday party and Rhodey is forced to don the silver Iron Man Mark II armor to deal with him. And individual scenes work – Favreau has assembled a fine cast with terrific chemistry, and almost every single individual scene is fun. It’s just that when they play out one after another in the middle of the film there’s no feeling of momentum or danger or even a noticeable plot moving forward.
That really bums me out because so much of the rest of Iron Man 2 works. Sam Rockwell plays Justin Hammer as a sniveling Tony Stark wannabe; the character doesn’t get much in the way of backstory but he feels like a weaselly arms dealer who ended up going legit but who can’t quite cut it in a world where the Stark genius gene is on the loose. Pepper Potts is one of the few superhero girlfriend characters who feels like she has an actual arc of her own, and Gwyneth Paltrow is lovely and screwball in her scenes with Robert Downey Jr (and I hope that the ambiguous ending of her arc at the finale of the film isn’t what I think it is – I like where the movie took her, and the character seemed to prove herself. Taking it all back at the last minute feels cheap.
Scarlett Johansson is an actress who has an inherent flatness; when a director knows how to use that she’s great, and Favreau gets that flatness. Her Natalie Rushman is inscrutable, playing all sides and displaying a casual lethality that especially comes in to play in a kick-ass hallway fight scene. Black Widow isn’t allowed to take over the movie, but she’s given enough to do that she feels like a real character and not a bit of fanwank. Or boywank in general, since Johansson is astonishing in her superhero outfit. Seeing her in the IMAX version of the film was almost revelatory, but even when seen on a normal sized movie screen Johansson is the best looking actor in the piece. Unfortunately her story feels sort of truncated; it seems like there may have been a cut of the film where Black Widow was a potential romantic rival for Pepper Potts. While Tony Stark is obviously (and understandably) attracted to her, the movie never seems to commit to the idea that he’s really interested.
Looking much less good than her is Mickey Rourke as Whiplash. Rourke brings a bizarre charisma to the role, grumbling lines in a fairly ludicrous sounding Russian accent. The Whiplash character is a weird one; there’s very little to him when it comes to the actual film – he has very, very little screen time – but you get a true sense for the inner character and the turmoil going on within him. It’s the kind of performance that’s weird and sort of broad but that also works perfectly.
But there’s still not enough of him. Besides sitting out the entire middle of the film, Whiplash never seems to really connect with Tony Stark. Their feud is deeply personal, as Whiplash blames Howard Stark for his father’s ill fortunes, but the two don’t really hash it out. What’s worse is that both of Whiplash’s encounters with Iron Man are pretty short; a third encounter in act two, where Whiplash creams Iron Man, might have upped the ante and given the character something more.
At the heart of it all is Robert Downey Jr, and you get a lot of him. Maybe too much of him. Iron Man doesn’t really do anything in the film, and most of the running time focuses on Tony Stark. Unfortunately Tony Stark also isn’t really doing anything except doing his charismatic charming asshole Tony Stark thing; Downey doesn’t even get many great scenes to play against other people, as his most emotional moment seems to come with a 16mm film strip. It’s not something you’ll notice while watching the film the first time because Downey remains one of the most insanely magnetic presences in modern film, and turning the entire movie over to his particular charms is a good idea in that it basically works. It’s a bad idea, though, in that the film’s lack of dramatic cohesion seems to stem from this character’s lack of a dramatic arc; while the movie is technically about Tony Stark learning the value of team work, it’s one of those lessons more spoken aloud by other characters than experienced emotionally by the lead.
The other new addition is Don Cheadle replacing Terence Howard as Rhodey, Tony Stark’s best friend and the eventual War Machine. I’m mixed on this development because on the one hand Cheadle is a great actor who does very well in the role, but on the other he doesn’t have that louche, slightly naughty rapport with Downey that Howard did. When Howard and Downey did a scene together in the first Iron Man you felt like you were watching two guys who connected on a lot of levels, one of which was a mutual appreciation for getting lapdances. That feeling isn’t in Cheadle; he’s just slightly too straight and stolid and good to be fully believable as Tony’s best friend. Terence Howard has taken a ride on the Stark jet to Tijuana while Don Cheadle politely begs out of such an expedition.
That’s a problem because one of the best scenes in the film is all about the two great friends finally coming to blows, and while it works and works well, the scene would have popped in a very different way with Howard in the armor. To me this is the refrain of Iron Man 2 – it’s good, but man could it have been so much better!
Favreau has the action thing down pat, and he doesn’t lose sight of his characters or tone while delivering very fun action beats. I hope he comes back for Iron Man 3 but this time really develops the hell out of the script. I hope he gets the thing down to a finely tuned piece of crackerjack storytelling, and that he finally gets a chance to bring together not just great characters and good action but also a propulsive, involving and awesome story.
6.5 out of 10
* The SHIELD stuff is grating, though. There are scenes in this film that exist solely to establish Thor, and that offer nothing in Iron Man 2, and the group seems so ahead of the curve and so ready with all the answers you wonder why there’s even a need for Iron Man to do anything. Oh wait, he pretty much doesn’t do anything for most of the movie!
57 comments
You could telegraph this from a mile away: film popular, Devon hate; film utter shite and fanboi favorite (Kick-Ass), Devon love.
Get a new job, guy, seriously.
But, Kick-Ass had a lot to love and proves every superhero film before and after is utter shite.
Hey Dev, do you know what movie RDJ is shooting right now? The only reason I ask is that the beard he is sporting right now is shaped a little too closely to look like his Tony Stark goatee… What's up with that?
Why am I not suprised. Devin doesn't like sequels and is just all around and idiot. contradicts himself a lot…like Ebert. I hate seeing him on G4 because he ruins it….I have yet to hear him, on there, say something right. Gain some more weight and keep being a douche, you fuck head.
It seems everyone here has watched Iron Man 2 already, and feel that the general reaction is amazing, which contradicts most critic reviews(from people who have seen the movie) which is mostly decent. Kick-Ass is better than your bland big budget movies, get over it.
I know a review isn't really supposed to examine outside circumstances surrounding a film, but since that's never really stopped Devin before, why no mention of the fact that Marvel and Paramount rushed this movie like a Saw sequel? I wouldn't blame Justin
Theroux's scripting as much as the lack of drafting that typically goes into developing a script (save for the Transformers movies). Half of Devin's reasoning for giving Star Trek a pass was because he understood the limitations the they were under due to the writer's strike. This review just seems especially whiney to me for some reason. Is Devin succumbing to the fanboy "they didn't make it my way!" crying he so vehemently rails against constantly?
This is dissappointing news. It doesn't surprise me now that we've only seen about the same four or five money shots over and over again in all the promos. It sounds like there's not much to the movie.
If I remember, it's pretty well documented that the script was rushed in order to get the movie out no more than two years after the first, and then they continued to rewrite it during filming. These are not circumstances under which genius flourishes. But hey, scripts don't matter as long as there's lots of explosions and punchlines.
#6, that's a good point. Devin DID like TREK, and DID excuse it for the same reasons this one failed. But I'd chalk it up to franchise favoritism on his part (a sin we're all guilty of…I'll probably forgive the new ALIEN movie too much). Personally, I thought STAR TREK was pretty weak for the same reason that this one is pretty weak: when the primary author behind a film is a giant corporation…then there isn't much chance of actual art occurring. You can get craft, but not art, and you don't even get craft if they rush to meet a date.
Trek was good, it delivered.
Are the people complaining about Devin serious? This is one of the fairest reviews I have read on a niche film site in quite some time. So the guy watched a blockbuster movie and found some flaws in it. Not only did he enjoy the action and other "prettier" elements, he gave the damn thing a positive score.
What did he say that isn't supported by the trailer? IM2 looks like a ton of fun without much of a narrative.
Reviews are subjective. Go see the movie then come back and argue. At least then you will have stuff to argue for and against.
Devin loved Kick-Ass, and I felt it had a fairly flawed narrative. Oh well…
I love how it's the middling (but fair) reviews of superhero movies that bring out the bile.
I don't get the bagging on Devin over THIS review, he's echoing what MANY critics and bloggers are saying — that the movie has a mess of a script.
He's not the only one saying it. In fact, his review is much more positive than Latino Review's or others I've seen.
Yeah, Latin American friends who've seen it all said that Spider-Man 2 and X-Men 2 are still the best Marvel sequels. Expectations lowered.
Iron Man 2: It ain't the sequel The Dark Knight was!
so IT WAS a bad thing to rush this movie, after all huh?
And how many people is this gonna stop from seeing it? Answer: 0
Devin, do you think that the Incredible Hulk was a better or more satisfying film than Iron Man 2?
I can't believe people are heckling and abusing Devin over this review, which is actually one of the least bilious and nasty 'average' reviews he has written. The text seems to make valid points and the criticisms are all fair expressions of Devin's critical opinion.
Some people are a wee bit sad and need (and I HATE using this cliche) to go and get a fucking girlfriend.
To pretty much every poster so far: Devin said the second act is slow and lackluster compared to the first and third acts, and that Mickey Rourke didn't stay on screen all that long. And you all go ape shit on him? Well done. You certainly have made a good case for why no one takes the majority of the geek community seriously, and, furthermore, why that's not a bad thing. We all know you'll watch the movie and love the Hell out of it, so what does it matter what any one person says about it? Why can't people like all of you put this much passion and effort into things that actually matter? Christ.
You are aware that all these films are supposedly being structured like comic book arcs that are all constantly supporting, building and leading into OTHER STORIES, correct? Do you have a problem with Marvel establishing a film universe? I think it's a pretty cool idea. So much so, I'm willing to take these first few movies as they come and appreciate the in-jokes and references to other films down the road, because at the end of the day, these movies are made for Marvel fans first and I love that.
You can't say that about ANYTHING Warner's has done with their DC properties.
ALSO FIX THE FUCKING VERIFICATION SYSTEM PLEASE!!!
Dev – very even-handed review, though I disagree with it and thought the movie was truly fantastic and completely character driven. However, I'm now waiting for you to tell us that "Kick Ass" was a terrible movie because nobody saw it (I'm calling this your "Serenity Theorem").
Devin also gave Kick-Ass a 10/10….which is ridiculous, imo. General rule of thumb: if Devin gives a movie a high rating (9-10), knock it down two points. If Devin gives a movie a low score (1-4), add two points.
Devin loved Watchmen and we know how that turned out. He had the balls to say that "Zack Snyder gets it", when anyone who has read Watchmen at leas once could clearly see that Mr. Awesome barely got the action scenes and nothing else. That doesnt prove that IM2 is great, but gives us a little hint Devin's taste in films.
If you love watching these characters, and I did, then you'll gave no problems with the films pacing c
it's not a flawless 10/10, but it's mighty fine stuff to watch
It is freaking hilarious how so many people get so uptight if a review doesn't claim that Iron Man 2 is the greatest thing since slice bread.
Lighten up people! It's called an opinionated review for a reason.
I can't believe I'm about to type this, but I have to give Devin some credit for this review. The way he blows his load over everything Jon Favreau does (based solely on personal connections), and how much he has hyped this movie and overpraised the first one, I thought we were headed for 10/10 territory regardless of quality. Devin actually seems to have judged this movie by its own merits instead of sugarcoating it. I still think it's strange that a "journalist" can send tweets to directors telling them how cool they are, and then review their films, but whatever.
"The way he blows his load over everything Jon Favreau does (based solely on personal connections)" – Yeah I remember him going gaga over Couples Retreat!
According to the review the movie has the exact same problems the first one had with the exception of the the mundane action sequences. So with all things being equal if the action is better shouldn't that make the overall experience better?
To all the commenters trying to knock Devin down. It may help your case if you didn't frame your arguments like cuntsore little bitches. He's been championing the Collective Universe/Avengers thing for a while now and it seems to be factor that actually hurt this movie. Instead of nursing old slights and grudges (Serenity? In 2010, Really?) how about you try and join in a current conversation?
Sounds like there is no bad guy for Iron Man to fight from Devins review. Why put Rourke in the movie if the script isn't going to use him? I thought the lack of a menacing villian that could match the power of Iron Man was what was lacking in the first film. Its disappointing that it appears to be the same mistake in 2.
thanks Dev great analytical review, as always. 50% of the people need to go back and read the review with out interjecting their own hate and idiocy in between the lines. god i only hope there is someone out there at each of your jobs attacking you for no reason each step of the way.
The way I'm reading this review is that this review is supposed to make us forget about the article he posted just yesterday about SPOILING the THOR Segment in the after credits portion and us going off on him for acting like a bitch over it as though the internet wouldn't do such a thing anyway.. At the end of the day, I'm already sold on the movie and don't care whether a 2nd act is lackluster or not.. No movie folks is PERFECT.. All movies at 1 point or another (including, YES, TDK folks) have slow parts that drag so what's the big deal???? And DEVIN says the THOR part adds nothing to the IRONMAN 2 movie itself, but of course he knows it leads to the AVENGERS which is also what he's hawked for the last year now as well.. 6.5/10???? Really???? You couldn't of gone a little higher, even with a 2nd act that wasn't action packed like the 1st and 3rd act??? Good Lord..
I'm not knocking Devin's opinion, just the lack of consistency with which he reviews films. This is an even handed review, but it doesn't match his general MO for reviewing films. I generally take a lot of stock in his reviews, this one just seems off for some reason.
I just hope they cast Gary Busey as MODOK for the next film.
meh. it's iron man 2 dude.
FIX THE MOTHERFUCKING VERIFICATION
I've cocked an eyebrow at some of Faraci's diatribes at one time or another, but this one doesn't sound too bad. The refrain is probably true: Iron Man 2 is a cool movie, but it could have been a lot better. Of course, just about any movie could have been better, but concerning this "review," it sounds solid.
Iron Man 2 may be many things, but Scarlett Johansson is most definitely NOT flat. My God, man, don't you have eyes?!
"and almost every single individual scene is fun. It's just that when they play out one after another in the middle of the film there's no feeling of momentum or danger or even a noticeable plot moving forward."
For what it's worth, I didn't think KICK-ASS had a propulsive story. But if the action is indeed improved and the cast is this good, that is all I expect from an Iron Man film
I disagree plenty with Devin's reviews, but I'll at least wait to see the movie myself rather than bashing the review beforehand.
I do find that he's is harsher on, and gives lower scores to movies, that he expects more from, and it gives an inconsistency to his number rating.
For instance he gave FF a 7.1 rating. I know I said I don't like to prejudge his reviews before I've seen the move, but I will guaran-fucking-tee that Iron Man 2 will be better than Fantastic Four was. Though that doesn't mean is gripes with Iron Man 2 are not legit.
Oh, and FIX THE VERIFICATION YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS.
Saw the film last night and think the review is fairly accurate (did think Rourke was pretty menacing though). While eye-candy a plenty, the film as a whole isn't particularly compelling. Figure it'll be a flick that I'd revisit scenes and sections rather than in its entirety.
You know what? I just saw this and it's pretty great. The tide of negative early reviews seems pretty bewildering to me. It's really a pretty direct continuation of the (great, beloved) first film. If they make the Thor and Captain America movies even near-as-good-as this, it'll be a small miracle. Funny, exciting, good-looking, true to the spirit and detail of the comics… what more could anyone want from a b-list superhero sequel? Or, for that matter, from any blockbuster-type thrill-ride?
I couldn't sit thru TDK again if you paid me $5.00!
Iron Man 1 ROCKS!
Iron Man KICKS ASS!
I tend to disagree with Devin as much as any rational-thinking human being (ie several times a day), but I've got to say, he nailed the problems with this movie and they all seem to come from the script.
It's too slow, the plot is so slight that it's barely existent, it's lacking in action and when it gets to the climax it feels rushed. Mickey Rourke was great but spends most of his scenes sat in a warehouse tinkering with bits of metal.
Not sure how it went wrong but since Favreau's character's role has expanded significantly maybe he took his eye off the ball.
Sam Rockwell was awesome though.
OK, just saw the movie yesterday.
A strange mix of boring and entertaining.
Devin pretty much nails it: some great "character"/individual scenes but a messy whole.
Action scenes in IM1 didn't make any impression on me (don't remember them !), in IM2 they're not stand-out either (the very last part of the last fight is quite nice, though).
Indeed, Favreau should have spent more time on the script, and less on acting (I liked the Monaco scene though, overall the best action sequence in the movie and comes… in the first act – ouch !).
Actually, I realize I enjoyed Sherlock Holmes more, and I guess it sums it all up…
DF is so freaking out of touch with reality that his reviews are beginning to make no sense!
This movie kicked so much ass so do yourselves a favor and don't listen to his venomous diatribe!
Therefore I'm awarding this bad ass of a sequel a score of 6.6!!!
Take that Mr. Ferrari
I agree with devin's review but would rate it much lower. 5.0 seems fair. It had none of the sense of fun that the first Ironman had. Very dissappointing indeed.
Mickey Rourke was fantastic though, him and Sam Rockwell were by far the best part of the movie.
You Devin haters make me hard as a rock. I want to eat you, your bile and hate is so delicious to me. In fact I am eating you right now. I love the taste of fresh imbecile.
"Rourke brings a bizarre charisma to the role, grumbling lines in a fairly ludicrous sounding Russian accent"
Yeah, accent was fine, but I speak fluent russian and can`t understand a word, what he was speaking in russian.
Strange, is it too expensive at least to offer some russian prostitute, who could translate and tech some spelling? 😀
this movie is pure fucking garbage. i am fucking seething at having paid to see this fucking dreck.
and fuck the devin haters, get aids and cancer and die motherfuckers
I like sucking black dicks$$$
IM2 has lots of problems unfortunately. It's not horrible, but it's definitely an average sequel. There is no depth to these characters (despite how much make-up they wear or spray tan they use). Cheadle doesn't have the rapport with Downey that Howard did. Too much rapid fire banter that doesn't actually build on any of the relationships. The main problem is that it all feels recycled. Practically every major story element comes from Tony's chest piece or his suit. Tony's sick because of his chest piece, everyone wants to replicate his chest piece and build an armor suit, Whiplash gains his powers from creating a chest piece, the military wants control of Iron Man, Hammer creates an army of machines to fight Iron Man (just like Stane already did). It's like, you've got the whole fucking Marvel Universe to work with here people, can we bring some fresh, outside concepts into this series? Something beyond shameless plugs for future films?
Oh, and mom…….I'm gay.
You guys have no idea – Devin is being waaay too generous with this review. Honestly, I wouldn't sit through this again if I could have my $20 wasted dollars back. 6.5?? 5.0, tops. What a terrible, terrible script.
Hmm, the first Iron Man was good, people bitched about not having enough action. The second Iron Man, action packed, now bitching about not having enough story and action… seems to me you guys will bitch either way. Does anyone remember the days when superhero movies REALLY sucked? I'm talking about the original Punisher with Dolph, Captain America with the no name guy who had the oddly unproportioned shoulders and the disturbing Hulk tv movie that had Thor? I'm sure there were more but I've eliminated them from my memory. In short, stop bitchin bitches, cause it could be worse.
Oh, and number 52, "anonomoose", Really? Really? What do you have typing TS?
#56, Don't forget the movie version of The Flash. That one was a humdinger. Anyhow, I FINALLY got to see this film tonight (As in the 4th of July). And I have to say, there is nothing worse than a mediocre sequel. Call me crazy, but I think a sequel should either be amazing or a complete travesty. That way, you can say: "Well, the director took it a new direction and created something that not only sets itself apart from its predecessor but surpasses it entirely." And if the sequel is awful then you can say: "Fuck it, I'll just pretend like it never happened." You know you've done it! But, if it's lukewarm… Dev's review was spot on for me. The first Iron Man kept me, if not on the edge of my seat, at least completely engrossed from the beginning until the credits rolled. With IM2 I nearly fell asleep during the second act. It didn't have nearly as much of the charisma, the style, and most importantly the fun of the original. That's not to say it completely lacked those qualities, but they seemed to have lost touch of what made it great to begin with.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.