Iron Man 2
May. 11th, 2010 05:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
khyros10 things about Iron Man 2.
1. It is hard to follow up a good origin story, and Iron Man 2 struggles a bit. At times, some story elements seem thrown in. We learn relatively early on that the power source for the magnet in his chest and the Iron Man suit is killing Tony Stark, and we see some numbers rising at a drastic and unrealistic rate. Granted, this is implemented into a prominent subplot and an overall important point of the movie, but I feel like it could have been done with less overt melodrama.
2. The reason why this matters is that, despite the obvious unreality of the film, there's a lot of effort placed into certain kinds of believability. For example, The Stark Expo, while grander in scale than many, feels just like a corporate conference, ludicrous swag and all. In another scene where someone is eating an obviously expensive meal, there is a reference to salmon carpaccio, (a trendy high-end appetizer rather than something generically fancy like caviar). These may seem like trivial points, but they represent effort which I hate to see undermined.
3. One of the things that made Iron Man the first so awesome was the character development of Tony Stark and the forging of his idealism through the abduction and escape. This made for a great contrast with the backstabbing Obadiah Stane. Very sadly, there are no character shifts in this movie that are as compelling as those present in the first one. Their closest attempt at showing a character develop/change over the course of the movie is with Rhodes and that gets severely undercut by a chemistry problem.
4. Namely that Don Cheadle is not Terrence Howard and does not handle the nuances of Rhodes' relationship with Stark as well. He does the "laying down the law" bit convincingly, when he eventually dons the armor, and manages a capable comrade in arms, but, I was really rather looking forward to seeing Terrence Howard grow into that role, after seeing the somewhat more subdued Rhodes of the first film. There was some kind of transition or refocusing, but we don't really get to see it happen.
5. While we don't get to see an impressive or interesting shift, Robert Downey Jr. still completely and utterly owns the role of Tony Stark and has a great time doing it. To a lesser extent Gwynneth Paltrow's Potts is also still intact, but she is brought down a bit by her newly acquired co-star.
6. Scarlett Johansson is very very very pretty, but is not acting capably here. Yes, her character is supposed to be stoic in this, but, this is about as much emotion as she puts into anything she ever does and her stoic here comes off as disinterested. Nowhere is this more apparent than when she's placed alongside Downey Jr. who simply inhabits the vibrant Tony Stark like a second skin, and Samuel L Jackson's similarly effortless Nick Fury.
7. I'm personally pleased with Nick Fury, but is it too effortless? Jules from Pulp Fiction casts a long shadow over Jackson's subsequent roles. From Mace Windu to the agent in Snakes on a Plane, there's been a bit of Jules in all of them, and Nick Fury is no exception. There's a scene in a restaurant where I was expecting to hear about how tasty a burger was. Is this SLJ getting lazy, or simply doing something he does very well? In answering this, one must however take into account that Ultimate Nick Fury is based directly on SLJ, so any point being made is a little trite. In any event, whether it's due to SLJ's mastery of this kind of character, good direction or witty writing, Nick Fury is living up to his potential so far, and I want more.
8. Equipped with a great Russian accent except (according to a native speaker I trust on the matter) when he is speaking Russian, Mickey Rourke plays a convincingly creepy Ivan Vanko, but his plot and backstory seem like they could have been explored or at least discussed further.
9. A lot of NYC love in this movie, notably to Queens. There is an event which causes the police to explicitly mention that the 7 train is not running at Mets-Willets Point. Also known as an average day.
10. At the end of the day, Iron Man 2 does what a 2 movie should do, i.e. keeps you adequately entertained while they're working on 3, but I am hoping that 3 is a return to the impressiveness of 1 rather than another step down.
1. It is hard to follow up a good origin story, and Iron Man 2 struggles a bit. At times, some story elements seem thrown in. We learn relatively early on that the power source for the magnet in his chest and the Iron Man suit is killing Tony Stark, and we see some numbers rising at a drastic and unrealistic rate. Granted, this is implemented into a prominent subplot and an overall important point of the movie, but I feel like it could have been done with less overt melodrama.
2. The reason why this matters is that, despite the obvious unreality of the film, there's a lot of effort placed into certain kinds of believability. For example, The Stark Expo, while grander in scale than many, feels just like a corporate conference, ludicrous swag and all. In another scene where someone is eating an obviously expensive meal, there is a reference to salmon carpaccio, (a trendy high-end appetizer rather than something generically fancy like caviar). These may seem like trivial points, but they represent effort which I hate to see undermined.
3. One of the things that made Iron Man the first so awesome was the character development of Tony Stark and the forging of his idealism through the abduction and escape. This made for a great contrast with the backstabbing Obadiah Stane. Very sadly, there are no character shifts in this movie that are as compelling as those present in the first one. Their closest attempt at showing a character develop/change over the course of the movie is with Rhodes and that gets severely undercut by a chemistry problem.
4. Namely that Don Cheadle is not Terrence Howard and does not handle the nuances of Rhodes' relationship with Stark as well. He does the "laying down the law" bit convincingly, when he eventually dons the armor, and manages a capable comrade in arms, but, I was really rather looking forward to seeing Terrence Howard grow into that role, after seeing the somewhat more subdued Rhodes of the first film. There was some kind of transition or refocusing, but we don't really get to see it happen.
5. While we don't get to see an impressive or interesting shift, Robert Downey Jr. still completely and utterly owns the role of Tony Stark and has a great time doing it. To a lesser extent Gwynneth Paltrow's Potts is also still intact, but she is brought down a bit by her newly acquired co-star.
6. Scarlett Johansson is very very very pretty, but is not acting capably here. Yes, her character is supposed to be stoic in this, but, this is about as much emotion as she puts into anything she ever does and her stoic here comes off as disinterested. Nowhere is this more apparent than when she's placed alongside Downey Jr. who simply inhabits the vibrant Tony Stark like a second skin, and Samuel L Jackson's similarly effortless Nick Fury.
7. I'm personally pleased with Nick Fury, but is it too effortless? Jules from Pulp Fiction casts a long shadow over Jackson's subsequent roles. From Mace Windu to the agent in Snakes on a Plane, there's been a bit of Jules in all of them, and Nick Fury is no exception. There's a scene in a restaurant where I was expecting to hear about how tasty a burger was. Is this SLJ getting lazy, or simply doing something he does very well? In answering this, one must however take into account that Ultimate Nick Fury is based directly on SLJ, so any point being made is a little trite. In any event, whether it's due to SLJ's mastery of this kind of character, good direction or witty writing, Nick Fury is living up to his potential so far, and I want more.
8. Equipped with a great Russian accent except (according to a native speaker I trust on the matter) when he is speaking Russian, Mickey Rourke plays a convincingly creepy Ivan Vanko, but his plot and backstory seem like they could have been explored or at least discussed further.
9. A lot of NYC love in this movie, notably to Queens. There is an event which causes the police to explicitly mention that the 7 train is not running at Mets-Willets Point. Also known as an average day.
10. At the end of the day, Iron Man 2 does what a 2 movie should do, i.e. keeps you adequately entertained while they're working on 3, but I am hoping that 3 is a return to the impressiveness of 1 rather than another step down.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-13 06:02 pm (UTC)I also agree on the Nick Fury thing. SLJ is being typecast, but if he does the tough black guy thing well...then hey, why not? On another note, could you imagine Wesley Snipes in the role?
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-13 06:11 pm (UTC)Wesley snipes is too serious for the tone these movies have taken.