When I began reading the negative and mixed reviews for Iron Man 2, I started formulating a review in my head, based on what I was expecting. I had a phrase in my head - "It's better to be a spectacular failure than a mild success." I was going to talk about how the film strives to be something different, how it focuses on character development over action and plays against the expectations of the mainstream, and though it might not quite work, it's still better than just an efficient summer blockbuster that ticks all the boxes without really aspiring to be anything more memorable. Sadly, upon seeing the film, I find myself still using that, "It's better to be a spectacular failure than a mild success" analogy, but not in the way I was expecting.
See, Iron Man 2 is not a bad film. There isn't really anything seriously wrong with it. It's good, I enjoyed it. But I've already pretty much forgotten it. It was an efficient summer blockbuster. It ticks all the boxes. It was, well, a mild success.
But first, the good stuff. Like in the first film, what really elevates the movie is the strength of the ensemble cast. And once again, absolutely the star of the show is Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark. Even before Iron Man, Robert Downey Jr was one of my favorite actors, and in my opinion he was one of the finest actors of his generation. He just has so much charm and charisma, he could make two hours of reading the phone book compelling. And Tony Stark is just the perfect role for him. Like Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow, it is the perfect outlet for bringing his off-kilter appeal screaming into the mainstream. His role in Iron Man was a superstar performance, and though it might not be his BEST work from an ac-tor standpoint, it certainly deserves to long stand as his iconic, calling-card signature role that he'll be remembered for, like Indiana Jones is for Harrison Ford or James Bond is for Sean Connery.
Thankfully, Downey Jr. once again knocks the ball out of the park as Stark in Iron Man 2, starting with what should come to be ranked with the great entrances of cinema. With "Shoot to Thrill" by AC/DC blaring, Iron Man jumps out of a plane, and the camera follows him as he plummets through the sky. It's an adreanline rush, the thrill of pure cinema. Then Iron Man lands, amidst a scene of fireworks and dancing showgirls, the crowd bursting into applause as the suit is removed to reveal Tony Stark in a smart suit (a clever play on James Bond's entrance in Goldfinger - Favreau has said that Stark is the American Bond, after all), and then Stark joins in with the dancing just in time for the big drum-bashing finale. The crowd goes wild. It's audacious, it's egomaniacal, and it's totally perfect. This is a superhero unlike any other we've seen at the movies.
Plenty of reviews have bashed the film for not having Iron Man show up enough. But let's face it - what made Iron Man so great was that it was a rare instance of the hero being every bit as compelling - if not moreso - when he's out of his costume, such is the appeal of Robert Downey Jr. I could watch a 2 hour film about Tony Stark going out for a night on the town, with no Iron Man in sight. Though that's not to say Iron Man doesn't deliver too - I'll get to the spectacular Monaco setpiece in a bit, but right now I'll mark out what was so great about the brawl with War Machine in Stark's home. It's about the characters first. Rather than just being "Okay, now we stop the story to have a fight scene", it grows organically out of the scene and the characters. Tony Stark drunkenly dancing and pissing himself in his costume naturally extends to him getting reckless and putting his guests in danger, which in turn naturally segues into getting into a drunken brawl with Rhodey. And that's what's so fun about the fight. It's correographed like a sluggish drunken brawl - only with guys in suits of armor. Hilarious.
But it's not all style and no substance for Mr. Stark. His showmanship is undercut by this great sense of sadness, loneliness, and even a sense of inadequacy when compared to his father, and a growing sense of desperation over his time running out, the very technology that saved his life slowly killing him. There is a whole lot of pathos in the moment where Stark asks Natasha, "What if this was the last birthday you'd ever have?" Tony Stark is a character with layers and nuances, self-destructive and stubborn, a flawed hero who's problems aren't neatly resolved by film's end. We get a sense his development is ongoing.
But enough gushing about Robert Downey Jr. I think the point I'm making is clear. A much worse film than Iron Man 2 could have been single-handedly kept afloat purely by the awesomeness of Downey Jr's Stark. But thankfully, this film has more to recommend it.
If it weren't for the magnetic lead, Sam Rockwell would come perilously close to stealing the show as Justin Hammer. For many years, I've recognized Sam Rockwell as a fantastic talent, long criminally underrated, but thankfully starting to get some well-deserved recognition now. Empire Magazine calls him The 27%er, in that he makes any film he appears in at least 27% better. And Iron Man 2 is no exception. Rumor has it that Rockwell was Favreau's back-up to play Tony Stark should the studios have balked on Robert Downey Jr, so it's oddly appropriate that Rockwell play this odious, cringing funhouse mirror image of Stark. Hammer works hard at the coolness and the wit that comes naturally to Stark - it's a studied charm, a false charisma. And while Stark is a genius, Hammer's technology falls apart and is frequently ineffective. Even the girl on his arm is the one Stark already bedded in the last film. Try as he might, Justin Hammer just can't be Tony Stark.
In this way, perhaps even moreso than Rourke's Vanko, Justin Hammer just might be the perfect nemesis for Stark. I would certainly love to see Sam Rockwell return to the role in the future. He is the best thing in just about every scene he's in, making Hammer funny and almost likeable - until the mask drops and he reveals his nasty true colors in one scene later on in the movie.
Not that the other villain is any slouch. The first film had the legendary Jeff Bridges as the bad guy, so to keep up the high standard, the sequel got Sam Rockwell AND Mickey Rourke. Good luck keeping that momentum going in film 3. If Hammer is the funhouse mirror reflection of Stark, then Ivan Vanko is the opposite side of the same coin. A genius who built his revolutionary technology with limited resources, only without the moral awakening Stark benefitted from - as much his father's son as Stark is. Mickey Rourke has long been a precocious talent, his screen presence walking the fine line between magnetic and awkward. When that abrasive, edgy persona of his is focused - like in Sin City and The Wrestler - the results are extraordinary. Here he is not quite so successful, but it's no disaster either. Rourke doesn't seem to be obviously phoning it in as he does sometimes when the material doesn't compel him. It's clear he's taking the role of Whiplash seriously, and as such he brings a palpable sense of danger and coiled-up fury into his characterisation.
Much of the film's first act is anchored by the inevitable collision course brewing between Vanko and Stark - Stark's excess and glamorous high life balanced against Vanko losing that which he holds dearest, and fighting his way up from the gutter to strike out against the only person left to blame for a whole lifetime of anguish, bitterness and percieved injustice ("That should be you up there", his dying father tells him as they watch Tony Stark on TV). It all comes to a head on the Monaco race track, the most thrilling action set-piece of the movie. I silently commended Favreau for setting up a different villain dynamic than just "bad guy in a bigger suit of armor." But it turns out I was a bit premature.
After this intense battle, we get an equally intense verbal confrontation between Robert Downey Jr and Mickey Rourke - one of those great examples of two actors just owning the screen and generating explosive chemistry - but then Vanko spends over an hour just sitting around, in various locations. And when he does come back towards the end, it's as - sigh - a bad guy in a bigger suit of armor. And oddly, he feels less threatening in this instance than he did on the Monaco race track. I cited the same problem with Jeff Bridges as Obidiah Stane VS Iron Monger, or indeed Tim Roth as Emil Blonsky VS Abomination. A great actor is always going to make for a more compelling bad guy than a special effect will.
As for the rest of the cast, Gwyneth Paltrow continues to shine as Pepper Potts. Too often the female leads in superhero films are simpering damsels in distress, but Pepper Potts is the perfect foil for Tony Stark, and actually feels like his match. They actually have a good chemistry when on-screen together, with the back-and-forth line exchanges - so that we don't actually view these "lovey dovey" scenes as the boring lowpoint of the film, just padding in space until we get to the good stuff. And as struggling CEO this time round, Paltrow gets to explore new territory - including hints of ambition from someone so long known for her selflessness, interestingly - rather than just rehashing what she did in the first film. Don Cheadle makes for a better Rhodey than Terrence Howard, so I for one was happy with the changeover. Funnily enough, though, despite getting to become War Machine in this film, Rhodey isn't given all that much more to do in this film than he was in the first one. Samuel L. Jackson essentially just plays Nick Fury as Samuel L. Jackson, but I happen to find the Samuel L. Jackson on-screen persona consistently entertaining, so I didn't really mind that. And in a brief cameo, John Slattery brings a good serving of his Roger Sterling from Mad Men cool to Howard Stark, making him a perfect choice to play Tony Stark's dad.
I don't really buy the whole "building towards The Avengers hurts this movie" argument, as there is in fact comparatively little overt building to that movie here - most plot developments, apart from a certain "New Mexico incident", all link back to what's going on in Iron Man 2. But the inclusion of Black Widow was to me a clear instance of "one character too many" syndrome. Yes, Scarlett Johanssen does kick ass in her one big fight scene, as glimpsed in the trailers. But even that feels contrived, as if it was shoehorned into the movie just to give her character SOMETHING to do. Aside from that, Black Widow (who is never actually called that in the film) does little other than stand around and cast furtive glances.
But in spite of all that there is to like about the film, it feels like a lot of likeable bits and pieces, rather than an impressive whole. The plot itself is rather messy, some hashed together set pieces seperated by a bunch of aimless driving around. Actually, I find my conclusion about the movie to be rather similar to what my thoughts were on the first film: the plot is fairly pedestrian and unremarkable, but the strength of the acting - particularly from Robert Downey Jr - makes the film much more than the sum of its parts. I don't know if it was because the plotting was tighter in the first film, or just because back then there was more of a novelty factor, but I just feel that Iron Man pulled off that formula more effectively than Iron Man 2 did. Still a good film, though.
***/*****
