IRON MAN 2 Review

I walked out of this movie loving it. However the more I let it sink in, the more I started having problems with it. My problems had nothing to do with the entertainment value of the movie, just more smaller things that really make up the movie. This is more entertaining than the first IRON MAN, but it is not a better movie. IRON MAN 2 is almost half movie, half commercial, we got half of it dealing with the plot, and the other half just hyping up the upcoming AVENGERS movie. While it is entertaining to see all those hints, they really don't help the plot of the movie any.

It takes place 6 months after the first film and moves along at a great pace. Has a great action sequence and fun time with the characters, but then concentrates on the drama. I don't have a problem with that. But I did hear people complain about lack of action and excess of chatting, but someone told me that the IRON MAN comics were dialogue heavy. I love dialogue, so I really enjoyed it. But the pacing did seem off and on throughout the middle of the film.

All the actors return, save for one replacement, and everyone does a really good job. What I thought was really clever was how they handled the switch from Terrance Howard to Don Cheadle. Just one line of dialogue that is subtle yet effective on letting everyone know "hey, we know, let's just get on with the story."

I like the additions of Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell. Only problem with them is that Jon Favreau doesn't know how to make a truly villainous bad guy. Sam Rockwell's Justin Hammer, granted, isn't really a bad guy, he's just a guy who hates Tony Stark. But with Mickey Rourke's Wiplash, we could have had a really good villain. Only thing is he's not really in the movie a whole lot and he's never really developed in a menacing way. Yeah, you can tell he's a bad guy, but he doesn't really do anything to make me truly hate him.

I guess there could have been a part where Wiplash could have seemed really evil, but during that scene everyone is kind of joking around that the consequences aren't really even touched upon. Without giving anything away, there is a scene where hundreds of people could have died, probably should have died, but we don't see a single person even injured and no one seems to be truly worried about the ones who could have been injured. Granted, the tone of the movie isn't really dark in anyway, so that might not have fit the general tone of the movie, but it still doesn't help.

This movie keeps the same light-hearted tone of the first one. I know some people, not including myself, expect something more along the lines of THE DARK KNIGHT as far as darkening it up and creating something much more serious, but Favreau, for better or for worse, decided to keep things feeling very much like the first film. It's a very funny and entertaining movie, and in that sense it works amazingly well.

It does have a slightly darker note with Tony Stark being poisoned with the arc reactor he built to keep himself alive and he finds himself going into self destructive tenancies. It works and it actually feels like the biggest threat in the movie. It's not only that he may kill himself, or the poison, but he's really starting to piss off his friends who have had enough.

While people will complain about lack of action, the action that does happen in this movie is incredible. Favreau has definitely improved as far as action directing goes. In the first film I felt the action scenes were underwhelming, especially the climax, but here everything is really fun to watch, and a lot of it is very creative. Probably the most creative was with Black Widow (Scarlette Johanson) taking on a bunch of dudes in a hallway. Great choreography that doesn't feel like a choreographed fight with very cool camera work. And the part I was waiting for, Iron Man and Warmachine fighting a bunch of drones was a bit short, but worth the wait. It's not an underwhelming climax like the first film.

Now the things that didn't really fit the movie completely, but didn't ruin it were all the AVENGERS hints. Nick Fury coming in, while fun, only had one thing to add to the actual plot of the movie, which did work really well. His banter with Stark is great. The scene involving the two of them in a coffee shop was amazing. A bunch of other things in the movie do make me feel that the Marvel Universe is actually coming together into one is pretty damn cool. I'm hoping there's no more feel of complete isolation between these marvel characters. It would actually be cool to see some characters from other movies appear in the background somehow, but not I'm going off in a different direction. If you want a final tease, stay after the credits. It's small, but it is kind of cool.

While I had a lot of fun with this movie, I just couldn't help but to feel that there was stuff missing, yet too much in there at the same time. For example, no explanation on how Rhodes knows how to use the Iron Man suit. He just goes downstairs, throws it on and fights Tony in his Iron Man suit. Remember how long it took Tony to get used to the suit in the first movie? Justin Hammer, while played brilliantly by Sam Rockwell, just kind of seems like comic relief at times. Lack of menacing development for Wiplash, and overall lack of concern for what may happen to anyone. At no point did I really feel like anyone was in jeopardy. But, all that aside, I did leave the theatre really pumped. If nothing else, it's an amazing popcorn summer movie. But it's not anywhere near my top 5 super hero movies.

Sadly we are seeing a trend, I think. Movies based on comics or novels or anything of that sort are going to be missing some key points. Without these points, nothing would make sense unless you already read the novel or comic or what not. It seems they are taking logic and reasoning for a grain of salt just relying on the fact that people have some sort of emotional connection to the characters and they would be happy just to see them on the big screen.

Example (Sorry people) Twilight Saga: New Moon - In one scene Bella is walking with Jessica over in Port Angeles, she realizes through a series of events that she can see Edward if she puts herself in dangerous or reckless situations. After that realization the next scene you see her with two bikes in her truck heading over to Jacobs to get them fixed up. Not once did they explain where she got the money to buy them or where she got them. We all know what happens in the book but I think that quick change from scene to scene would cause a great deal of whip lash.

Do you think that this is an okay direction to go in with literature to big screen movies? I personally am happy that both Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn are going to be represented in two parts. That way more of the story should be able to be told.

Eclipse wrote:Sadly we are seeing a trend, I think. Movies based on comics or novels or anything of that sort are going to be missing some key points. Without these points, nothing would make sense unless you already read the novel or comic or what not. It seems they are taking logic and reasoning for a grain of salt just relying on the fact that people have some sort of emotional connection to the characters and they would be happy just to see them on the big screen.

Example (Sorry people) Twilight Saga: New Moon - In one scene Bella is walking with Jessica over in Port Angeles, she realizes through a series of events that she can see Edward if she puts herself in dangerous or reckless situations. After that realization the next scene you see her with two bikes in her truck heading over to Jacobs to get them fixed up. Not once did they explain where she got the money to buy them or where she got them. We all know what happens in the book but I think that quick change from scene to scene would cause a great deal of whip lash.

Do you think that this is an okay direction to go in with literature to big screen movies? I personally am happy that both Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn are going to be represented in two parts. That way more of the story should be able to be told.

1. Twilight is absolute shit. It's an appalling excuse for "literature" and in 10 or 15 years, people will look back in embarrassment for having actually thinking it was in any way, shape or form "good".
2. I actually like when movies take creative liberties with properties as long as they capture the main picture of the source material. FIGHT CLUB is a great example of how the director took great source material, made some changes to it while keeping the same tone and making an improvement to it. (Chuck Palahniuk even said the movie was better than his book)
3. The best HARRY POTTER film was THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN (spelling?). A lot of fans got butt hurt for it leaving out so much, but my friend who's an avid Harry Potter fan said the stuff they left out was just fan service stuff. The story was left fairly intact.
4. You can't take a book/comic/t.v. show and make a direct translation to film. It just doesn't work. They're different story telling mediums and you can't fit everything of a 400 page novel, 26 episode show, or 14 issue comic and fit it all into a 2 hour movie. There has to be changes made, just make the right changes and it will work and accept that it won't be the same experience. If you want the same experience as the source, just go to the source and enjoy it that way. With adaptations, it's ADAPTING. And adapting by definition involves change. Sadly, people just automatically reject change.

Yes I agree with number 3.