Print Article | Email Article | Write To Us

Daily News

Secrets Pave the Road to Action Hero’s Redemption (8393)

Movie Review: Iron Man 2

05/06/2010 Comments (11)
Francois Duhamel / Industrial Light & Magic

IT'S COMPLICATED. Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) in ‘Iron Man 2.’

– Francois Duhamel / Industrial Light & Magic

His suit may be iron, but he’s still got feet of clay. Tony Stark may not be the same narcissistic jerk he was at the beginning of Iron Man two years ago, but that doesn’t mean he’s someone completely different either. The road to redemption is seldom so straight as that.

There’s a scene in Iron Man 2 in which Tony makes an extraordinary effort (extraordinary for him) to patch up a quarrel with his long-suffering personal assistant Pepper Potts. “Did you bring me strawberries?” she asks with only vestigial incredulity, and so, of course, we know that she’s allergic to strawberries. Tony, though, sees the silver lining: “I am getting better at this — I knew there was a correlation between you and strawberries!” He’s trying to have the thought that counts.

Jon Favreau’s Iron Man was something of a surprise hit, a popcorn conversion story with the shiny chassis of an efficient summer blockbuster and the flighty soul of a screwball comedy. The sequel is much the same, only more so, and improves on the original, in my book. (That may put me in the critical minority, but I think the original was overpraised by some, and now the sequel, perhaps in reaction, is being underrated.)

Iron Man wasn’t a perfect movie, but its energy came from a nearly perfect power source: Robert Downey Jr.’s crackling performance as an action hero with a difference. Almost as crucial was the franchise’s secret weapon, Gwyneth Paltrow’s Pepper Potts, a heroine as self-possessed and discreet as her boss was fickle and self-indulgent.

What Iron Man most crucially lacked, and the sequel offers, is a worthy antagonist for Iron Man. Jeff Bridges’ Obadiah Stane in the original was an effective foil for Tony, but his transformation into the armored super villain known in the comics as Iron Monger wasn’t especially convincing, and the third-act robotic smackdown was anticlimactic. The real climax, in fact, came in the final heartbeat of the film with four electrifying words at a press conference: “I am Iron Man.”

That’s where Iron Man 2 begins, and in this new world, Tony “Iron Man” Stark is the world’s biggest celebrity hero. There are faint echoes of Steve Jobs and Bono in his tech hero-rock star-global do-gooder persona, but analogies limp; Iron Man’s stature is without parallel on the real-world stage.

Operating unilaterally outside government channels, Iron Man eases international tensions and cools global hot spots of violence and unrest. “I have successfully privatized world peace,” Tony insists at a Senate hearing, responding to an attempted government takeover of what one senator calls “the Iron Man weapon.” Tony glibly demurs: “That is not an accurate description of my device. … I define it as a high-tech prosthesis.” Upon such technicalities Senate hearings stand or fall.

In his other suit, Tony Stark reboots his father’s brainchild, the Stark Expo, a global technology event in Queens’ Flushing Meadows Park (site of the 1939 World’s Fair). When Iron Man touches down at the expo to deliver the keynote, de-armoring amid pyrotechnics and a lineup of “Ironette” cheerleaders (in outfits about as suggestive of the armor as such, um, suggestive outfits could be), the crowd goes wild.

World peace and better living through technology: In Tony’s mind, this is the Stark family legacy. But Camelots are never as shining as their architects intend.

Tony now has a social conscience, and his former casual womanizing seems to be a thing of the past (as far as we know). In some ways, though, his behavior is more erratic than ever. Pepper is horrified when he donates his entire collection of modern art to the Boy Scouts (“It’s a good cause,” he says defensively). On another occasion, he risks life and limb on a racetrack in Monaco.

Beyond this unpredictable behavior is a secret: The chest implant that keeps Tony alive and powers the suit is slowly poisoning his body. Then there’s the dark secret Tony doesn’t know about: An unknown enemy watches his success from afar, nursing an old grudge. “You come from a family of thieves and butchers,” Ivan Vanko (an intimidating Mickey Rourke) tells Tony in one of the movie’s most thoughtful lines. “And like all guilty men, you try to rewrite your history — to forget all the lives the Stark family has destroyed.”

Working in conditions not much better than Tony’s original workshop in the terrorist-occupied caves of Afghanistan, Vanko, a gold-toothed, tattooed Russian, fashions a high-powered gladiator suit that puts him in Iron Man’s league, or close enough to prove his point: The Iron Man tech isn’t as unique as Tony claims.

Good thing Vanko doesn’t have Tony’s resources, or he’d be even more dangerous. Oh wait, I forgot the other antagonist: sleazy industrialist Justin Hammer (a priceless Sam Rockwell), who’s like a cut-rate Bill Gates to Tony’s Steve Jobs. The unctuous Hammer may not have the genius of a Stark or a Vanko, but he’s got the resources Vanko lacks, and he woos the taciturn, dangerous Russian like a bow-tied freshman bent on taking a Goth biker chick to the prom.

Hammer and Vanko’s uneasy dance rivals Tony and Pepper’s banter for Iron Man 2’s funniest couple, which is saying something. The screwball vibe is even more pronounced in the sequel, with wittier dialogue and even more deadpan delivery.

There are casting changes. Don Cheadle effectively replaces Terrence Howard as Tony’s military buddy Jim Rhodes. (“I’m here; it’s me. Deal with it,” Cheadle says by way of introduction, speaking as much to the audience as to Tony.) In the comics, Tony’s Achilles’ heel was drink, and when he fell off the wagon, Rhodey was obliged to don the suit — and even to smack down his friend. The film shrewdly transposes Tony’s “blood toxicity” troubles to the suit, but at a birthday party he believes will be his last, Tony does get sloshed — while wearing the armor no less — and Rhodey must step up to the plate.

Scarlett Johansson joins the cast as a femme fatale who calls herself Natalie Rushman and ostensibly works for Stark Industries, although few people will be surprised to learn that she too is hiding something.

While her role mostly involves standing around looking good (and, in a big set piece, looking even better not standing around), her presence here, along with Samuel L. Jackson’s government intelligence honcho Nick Fury, is part of a franchise crossover project building toward an ensemble film featuring Marvel’s Avengers team (which will probably include the Hulk, Captain America, Thor and Black Widow as well as Iron Man).

Natalie is supposed to be a complicating factor in Tony and Pepper’s relationship, which is already complicated enough. But Pepper continues to ground the franchise as well as her boss — even if, in a startling turn of events, he isn’t her boss any more. There may not be many actresses you would want to see the hero wind up with instead of Scarlett Johansson, but Paltrow is one of the few.

Steven D. Greydanus is editor and chief critic at Decent Films. He also blogs at NCRegister.com.

CONTENT ADVISORY: Much comic-book action and mayhem; brief fatal violence and bloody aftermath of a deadly attack; limited profanity and some crude language; suggestive dialogue and innuendo; a scene of drunkenness and operating dangerous machinery while intoxicated; a couple shots of a woman in states of undress (nothing explicit); a production number with scantily clad cheerleader-type dancers. Teens and up.

 

Filed under movies

Comments

Post a Comment

Thank you for this review! I was getting a bit bummed out by all the negative reviews and was wondering if somehow Jon Favreau had managed to get himself all “Spider Man Three-three’d up” (as our commander-in-chief might say). It sounds like it’s not quite the franchise character pile-on some other reviewers have implied.

Natasha Romanov (the Black Widow) is now “Natalie Rushman”?  Why?
In the comic books she went from being a Soviet agent to working for S.H.I.E.L.D. (Yes i’m a geek.)

This review is spot on. I saw IM2 this morning, and it was fantastic. At least as good as the first one, if not a smidge better. The comic geek in me loved the universe building, and it was nice to see Pepper, Rhodes and even Happy play a larger part in supporting Tony this time around.

As for the Black Widow, “Natalie Rushman” is just the alias she uses while working undercover at Stark Industries.

And don’t forget to stay through the (painfully long) credits if you’re a fellow geek.

“Natasha Romanov (the Black Widow) is now “Natalie Rushman”?  Why?”

In the comic books she went from being a Soviet agent to working for S.H.I.E.L.D. (Yes i’m a geek.)
 
I too am a geek, and I have a closet full of comics to prove it. You may have noticed I wrote that she “calls herself Natalie Rushman.” I was trying not to spoil it.
 
Victor, you’re welcome, and Paul, thank you!

P.S. Victor, unfortunately whether the film has or hasn’t been “Spider Man Three-three’d up” may not be a useful metric in my case, since I am one of the rare fans of that film. :)

Narcissism is now a virtue? This country is headed in a dangerous new direction. This is not the Iron Man of the comics, it is the emboldening of the MTV generation and their lack of moral virtue. Everything now is about sin a.k.a. Vegas. This is not my worldview nor is it a virtue to be celebrated or imitated. A lie no matter how well told is still a lie. Iron Man has been stolen, and a sick impostor is currently occupying his suit.

Totally offensive movie. Glad we had to leave because of one of our children. Waste of time. Why National Catholic Register would allow such a review when the entire movie was a slam at anything good and for that matter Christian is cause for pause.

Brief shots of innuendo, you’ve got to be getting me. Can anyone say “kickback”

No Teen should see this movie - its pathetic at best. Batman doesn’t have anything to worry about. Came in fifth by luck - no talent here.

This article is really boring!!!
Too long and without content.

I didn’t find the movie totally offensive.

In fact, I think it’s a good thing to discuss finding God in Ironman2, and it’s not that hard to find. The OT promise of God giving us a new heart is certainly there. The symbol for Ironman’s new heart in this film is a triangle, the symbol of the Trinity. The stigmata-like beam weapons/jets on his hands are pretty cool.

Whiplash’s ironic line that “if you can make God bleed, people will cease to believe in him” is clearly the devil’s narrative of how the world should look at (and reject) Jesus.

More, although I’m not a geek and can’t remember as much detail as I’d like:

Stark being called in front of a Congressional committee is sort of like Jesus before the Scribes and Pharisees. They specifically set out to trap him, but are not able to.

The elder Stark giving the message to his only beloved son that he is supposed to save the world.

Perhaps the symbolism for the regenerative waters of Baptism in the water of the fountains through which Ironman flies as he makes some comment about it (I can’t remember which part of the film that was in)

The “Mary-as-new-Eve” symbolism of Pepper Potts’ rejection of the fruit Stark offered her to which he knew (or should have known) she was allergic.

The Transfiguration of energy when Tony Stark gets his infusion of the new element he creates, courtesy of his father.

The Judas-like betrayal when LtCol Rhodes takes Stark’s super suit and turns it over to the authorities, who immediately give it to Hammer.

Nick Fury and the other Avengers, who are looking after Ironman but unable to do so openly, aare kind of a figure of angels comforting Christ.

And so on.

@Susie

What part did you call it quits at, and why?
Just curious.

Wow, I’m wondering whether Mr. Greydanus and I even watched the same movie as some of you guys.

@Lanl, I was especially confused at your comment - where in the world did you get the idea that Tony’s narcissism was presented as a virtue? Did you somehow miss the parts where Pepper and others called him out on it again and again and again? He may have improved in some ways since the first movie, but his ego is still clearly presented as his biggest flaw. (Though I think the agreement he made with Fury at the very end shows some hope that he no longer thinks he HAS to be the center of the universe, I don’t really want to go into details because spoilers for a month old movie are still spoilers.)
 
Anyway, thank you so much for writing this, Steven. It’s what finally convinced me to go after being put off by some of the unenthusiastic reviews I was reading (along with my natural distrust of sequels). Even after seeing it again tonight I agree that this movie improves on the first one…which I liked well enough the first time but became increasingly bored with on every subsequent viewing. I guess it really is amazing the difference an interesting villain can make.

Post a Comment

By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.

Name:

Email:

Write your comment:

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

     

Notify me of follow-up comments.