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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…