The question on everyone's mind: Is Iron Man 2 as good as Iron Man?
For myself the answer is no, it's not as good, it's better. That's my pure gut reaction and subject to change after I've seen it again (and again). It's not a fair comparison at the moment because I've seen Iron Man more than a few times, and enjoy it each and every time.
Nonetheless, there's a certain something to the sequel. Generally in the pattern of superhero films, the first film tells the tale of how our hero became super. The second film is about the period of adjustment, how our superhero is adapting to their new role in life. The best examples include Spider Man and Spider Man 2, as well as Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.
In loose fashion, Iron Man 2 hews to that template, but gives it a gentle spin. The significant difference between Iron Man and other superheroes is that he doesn't have a secret identity. Tony Stark has already publicly declared he's Iron Man, so unlike other films there's little time spent on how our hero deals with his new-found dual nature.
What Iron Man 2 substitutes for this is what makes the film work so well for me. Succinctly put, what's keeping Stark alive is also killing Stark. That wonderful arc reactor in his chest is not-so-slowly poisoning him. And so in Iron Man 2, our superhero is not conflicted between his alter egos, but by his impending death, wondering what legacy he can leave behind and if there's enough time for him to even build a legacy. This leads to, how shall we put this, reckless and erratic behavior.
Legacy is the theme that drives the film, from hero to villain(s), and maybe that's why I liked it more than the first. As with The Dark Knight, Iron Man 2 gives you something to chew on after the theatre lights come up. Or maybe I'm over-thinking a simple superhero film.
Maybe, but this one has great delights. It revels in the "great man" theory of history, it clasps capitalism to its chest and trumpets its wonders, even while illustrating its excesses, and it utterly rejects government as being the Source of All That Is Good. Much has been written about the film's senate hearing but words don't do the tone and texture justice. It's clear that the filmmakers paid particular attention to Howard Hughes experience before a Senate committee and just took that to the next level.
What I enjoyed most about Iron Man 2 is that it feels less plot-driven and more character-driven. The story is more about watching Stark deal with mortality than whether or not Whiplash will succeed in slicing and dicing him. In the first film, it was very much about Stark discovering what's been going on within Stark Industries, and thus seizing control and responsibility. Here, it's about Stark dealing with Stark...and seizing control and responsibility.
In the sense that Stark is battling Stark, Stark himself is the film's true villain, and Robert Downey Jr. plays this confrontation to perfection. Indeed, the film's success rests entirely with Downey. He carries the film in ways unseen by modern man. He is at once cocky and arrogant, yet remarkably vulnerable. Truly only at home with his computers and robots, Downey's Tony Stark is a man desperately trying to find himself before his clock runs out. Even when he's chewing the scenery, Downey is a thing of wonder. It's just a fact, Downey can do no wrong.
The rest of the cast is up to the task, their task being to set the stage for Downey and to give him material to play off. Gwyneth Paltrow does a nice job as the secretary given the reins of a massive corporation; Don Cheadle steps into the shoes of Rhodey so well you find yourself thinking, "Terrance who?"; Samuel Jackson is completely badass as Nick Fury, the most badass agent in the history of everything; Mickey Rourke does an excellent job as the villainous villain, at once evil and remotely sympathetic; and Scarlett Johansson...well, her screen time is preciously minor, but oh my, she should never, ever go back to being a blonde. Never, not ever.
Special kudos for Sam Rockwell, though. It would be easy to toss his character, Justin Hammer, Stark's chief competitor, off as a buffoon, but Rockwell succeeds in imparting nuance to the character almost as well as Downey. Whenever he's accused of something, he goes into instant denial. At first this just seemed business as usual, deny even in the face of overwhelming evidence, but toward the end it becomes pathological, as though Hammer really doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong, that he truly doesn’t believe anything is his fault. How well this works is to Rockwell's credit.
The special effects are well done, if nothing new and exciting. The music is decent, if nothing to write home about. In both regards, this film matches the first. The action sequences are well done; again, we have a director -- Jon Favreau, who also appears in the film -- who rebels against the shakey-cam plague and a film that is the better for it.
In the end, though, I enjoy the sequel better than the original because it paints a fuller picture. Downey’s Tony Stark is a man working against his own flaws; the opposition he faces have their own demons driving them. Yes, there’s all sorts of noises going on, and maybe a tad too many balls are in the air at any given time, but in the end it all wraps up nicely. There are just enough threads left lying around to mean we’re going to get Iron Man 3, and that’s just more of a good thing.
Comments