Skip to main content

I’ve successfully privatised world peace. What more do you want?

Iron Man 2
(2010)

(SPOILERS) Difficult second album syndrome. So difficult, the main architect subsequently surrendered control to – or was tactfully pushed aside for – Shane Black, and the trilogy ended on a blissful high (although mileage on that view varies). Iron Man 2 is as typically over-stuffed as has become the de rigueur cliché for sequels, and you’d have hoped studios would have learnt by now. Two villains (neither of whom quite come together, one through intent – he’s vaguely comic relief – and the other through being a bit shit), two Iron Men (well, one War Machine and an Iron Man), the escalating involvement of SHIELD, and with it Black Widow. Oh, and the inclusion, in part anyway, if not as habitually, of the fan favourite Demon in a Bottle addiction storyline. Where Favreau’s spitballing command of the ship got the 2008 original over its bumps, here he actively seems to get in its way (or the demands of Marvel do), with the result that its mostly down to its very watchable cast that Iron Man 2 manages to entertain despite itself.



Curiously, Justin Theroux is pegged as sole screenwriter on Iron Man 2, particularly since he’s only ever mustered a co-credit on other pictures (Rock of AgesTropic ThunderZoolander 2). The resulting picture manages to be both very busy and fatally lacking in momentum. I suspect Favreau thought he had a slow build on his side, but the movie instead feels like it’s treading water most of the time. It exudes an unappealingly self-satisfied, bloated feeling, in no hurry to get anywhere, taking for granted that it has its audience captive already, so cutting itself far too much slack. It also, surprisingly, is thrifty on the action front. Fine if you’re constantly building tension, but problematic when you’re casting about aimlessly (there’s the Grand Prix scene, a fight with Rhodesy and the climax… and that’s about it). 


Tony StarkYou know, the question I get asked most often is, ‘Tony, how do you go to the bathroom in the suit’… Just like that.

Where Iron Man 2 mostly lands on its feet is with Tony Stark. And that in turn is mostly because of Robert Downey Jr. It’s potentially dangerous territory, going straight from establishing your hero to puncturing his armour, and having Tony coping with dangerous levels of blood toxicity throughout ran the danger of weighing him down with a The World is Not Enough-type injury that proved entirely off-putting. It isn’t, fortunately, and repositioning him as the underdog only ultimately falters because Favreau’s unable to juggle the different elements his protagonist must cope with entirely successfully. Tony getting blotto to dull the pain is both amusing (going to the toilet in his suit) and dangerous (leading Rhodey to steal one). 


The scrutiny of a senate committee (the late Gary Shandling on top form: “Do you, or do you not possess a specialised weapon?”) and Tony’s resistance to its demands delivers probably the best scene in the picture (which means it’s a shame its front-loaded, quality wise. More could have been made of the theme of Tony – reasonably – believing the government can’t be trusted with his tech while simultaneously illustrating that he can’t be trusted with his tech either. Instead, the plotline rather peters out).


Amid Tony’s tribulations there’s also a sloppy family heritage subplot – albeit we get the first appearance by Tony Slattery as his deceased father, so that’s a positive – in which he must work out the legacy he’s to make a good on and thus create his own periodic element… from a scale model of the 1974 Stark Expo that’s effectively a treasure map. No, I’m not really buying it either. 


Pepper PottsWhat do you mean you’re not dying?
Tony StarkI was going to make you an omelette and tell you.

If that’s iffy, the Tony-Pepper relationship really scores on revisit. The chemistry between Downey and Gwynie is dynamite and it feels entirely appropriate to Stark’s reluctant growth that the characters get together (regardless of Rhodey’s disenchantment: “You look like two seals fighting over a grape”). Paul Bettany is also great as Jarvis, obviously. And Don Cheadle’s a vast improvement over Trevor Howard as Rhodes, even if the character remains one of those second fiddle types (see also Hawkeye, Falcon) who fail to stoke sufficient interest to root for either way.


Pepper PottsShe is from legal, and she’s a potentially expensive sexual harassment law suit. 

Talking of characters that are a bit of a bust, I’ve never made any secret of my lack of enthusiasm for dead-eyed ScarJo as Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow. Emily Blunt would have killed it in the part, but you only have to see how alive Gwynie is in a scene with Downey and how… notJohansson is. Her stunt double is kickass of course, but the main takeaway from her action set piece is Fav’s comic relief chops as Happy Hogan. Indeed, it’s only reaction to the character that allows her any kind of impact (“Are you blending in well here, Natalie? Do you even speak Latin?” quips Tony of her continued presence at Stark Enterprises once her true identity has been revealed to him). I suspect one of the reasons we haven’t seen a Black Widow movie so far – despite the many vocal adherents of the character – is that deep down Kevin Feige knows there’s no traction to her as portrayed by ScarJo, so when the solo movie does land, the lead won’t be the star of last year’s flop Ghost in the Shell.


You can argue the necessity of SHIELD as the glue that leads to Avengers, but it doesn’t make them feel any more vital to the proceedings or any less intrusive. Nick Fury is basically an exposition machine with an eyepatch rather than a character (“Please step out of the donut” is a good line, though), and Agent Coulson’s essentially a twat. How could you not want him dead? What idiot thought he could conceivably headline a TV spinoff? Sir Ken’s teaser with Thor’s hammer is nice enough, I guess. But employing Ken as a director is a guarantee against greatness.


Ivan VankoIf you can make God bleed, the people will cease to believe in him.

The biggest stumble with Iron Man 2 is probably the lead villain, though. Much hype preceded Mickey Rourke’s casting, on the basis of an Oscar nominated turn in The Wrestler, but he comes with so much baggage, not least his Rhett Butler tache perched atop a face that speaks a thousand misadventures, that he never really convinces. Ivan Vanko has been retconned as vitally linked to Iron Man’s genesis (their fathers worked together, but Ivan’s was motivated by money…. Okay…), which just feels clumsy, and there’s never any sense that Whiplash/Crimson Dynamo is much of a mastermind, however much he may tell his erstwhile ally Justin Hammer to “Learn to let go”. We needed a villain who felt like an equal to Stark, but Ivan’s never remotely that; the character only ever comes across as faintly silly, while opening on his development of his father’s plans is a mistake; we aren’t invested in his revenge and the character ends up something of an also-ran.


Tony StarkI’ve successfully privatised world peace. What more do you want?

Favreau also comes a cropper at the Monaco Grand Prix with the first action set piece. Ivan with his electric whips are neither especially cool nor especially threatening; it’s just gammy old Rourke, stripped down and gnarly. Added to which, the choices for the destruction derby represent errors of cutting; you don’t show an F1 cut in two as a prelude to the same thing happening to Tony’s car; all the shock value is spent by that point. The suitcase suit isnifty, though.


But, if Hammer’s also no kind of serious menace to Tony, Favs was on the money casting Sam Rockwell; a guy as charismatic as Downey is hard to find, but Rockwell knows exactly how to deliver Hammer as Tony’s sleazier, inferior, not-really competition. Hammer’s sales pitch is showmanship of a rich used-car dealer (“This is my Eiffel tower… I call it the ex-wife”), while his increasingly uneasy interaction with Ivan works a treat (just watch Rockwell trying to process Rourke’s pronunciation of “I want my bird”).


The big climax, when it gets there, rather underwhelms, once again stuck with going for suits (more and more suits, drones this time) fighting it out with each other. The only point where tension is derived is from Tony rescuing Pepper; that aside, it’s a big expensive bout of déjà vu. The unfortunate truth of Marvel Phase I is that the goodwill of its inception carried the next four pictures. And the unfortunate truth of Iron Man 2 is that RDJ carries a picture that has no real get up and go.




Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.