Film: Iron Man 2

I liked the first one. Saw it on the Saturday night of a tournament at York if I remember rightly. Anyway, it struck a great tone; fun, slightly self-referential but not annoyingly so, , a decent villain, good action, great banter between Potts and Stark etc. It had it easy in some ways; not a well known story (cf Batman, Spiderman) and it was an origin story which is, in my book, always the most fun.

Onto Iron Man 2. First off, let me say it's not bad. I'm going to talk about all the stuff I didn't like which is going to make it seem bad, but it isn't. I enjoyed watching it, I'm just in no desperate rush to watch it again.

I came out of the cinema feeling like the film had everything it needed to be but had somehow failed to put all the elements together in the right way. Nothing is too obviously wrong but it just doesn't quite work. It is unbalanced, I think; not enough action interspersed throughout the film, just a lot of talking and then a big action sequence at the end. Plus Stark doesn't get to be much of a hero in it (the saving Potts thing is a bit lame and doesn't really make up for all the abuse he's taken from her) and it is meant to be a hero movie.

The villains and the ending
I thought the villains of the film were excellent. Some have argued that there were too many, citing SarJo's character as a potential villain that distracted from the others (cf Spiderman 3) but I never saw her as a villain so for me she didn't get in the way.

Vanko and Hammer paired up nicely - they complemented each other and the themes of the film (morality of an individual with that much power etc).
Hammer provided a counterpoint and mirror to Stark both for comic effect (trying to command the stage at the Expo like Stark did) and also reflecting Stark's arrogance back at him. Sam Rockwell is seriously good in this role bringing vanity, jealousy, neediness, corruption and a desperate desire to be loved to a few short scenes.
Rourke was fantastic as Whiplash, grimy, tattooed and almost impenetrably accented. His character reflects another side of Stark - the inventiveness and ability (compare the opening scenes of both films) but also single-mindedness and inscrutability. Whiplash however, was seriously underused. This guy is the villain, the big threat, the monster we're all supposed to fear. And how much screen-time does he get? (not much) And how much of that screentime is him tinkering in labs (quite a lot). The big climax mostly involves him sitting at his computer and typing something every time one of his drones dies. That's not very intimidating.

The ending generally was a bit of an anticlimax. There was a lot of flying around at high speeds which wasn't very exciting (couldn't see much, just lots of swooshing - compare that to the fighter jet scene from the first one). Then when they hit the ground and take out the drones it's just a lot of the camera swirling around static figures. Then Whiplash comes along and he's got a new suit which is cool and he's finally a bit scary. Then 30 seconds later he's dead. Even this fight is poor. Whiplash gets ended with that blast Iron Man and War Machine accidentally discovered - fine - but is he really so good there was no other way of beating him? Same as the first film a bigger suit seems to have no weakness. Is there no disadvantage to building 4inch thick armour that the lighter, faster Iron Man can utilise? If not, then why doesn't he build like that? So Whiplash gets beaten and he's like "actually, I win" and sets his bomb. To which the response is "not if we fly away." And then he's all like "oh." Come on! Just blow the bomb without the whole big beeping red light and 10 second timer. Obviously they're trying to set up the whole superhero saves the girl thing but it seems like a pretty weak attempt.

Oh, and Hammer. The other villain. His 'big' ending - a whimper as he walks away with the cops. Wow - that was cool (N.B. sarcasm). They're probably keeping him alive for future films (I hear in the comics he provides super weapons on the black market thus creating baddies for Stark to fight) but surely he could have a better ending than that?


Rhodes/War Hammer
I said above that I enjoy origin stories. Rhodes becoming War Machine is the origin story in this film and I think they really botched it up. This could have been really cool; Rhodes overcoming an obstacle, mates banter, learning the new suit, kicking ass together etc. Instead we get something that felt morally dubious. My problems are as follows:

- It ties in to the Senator issue. What is the film's standpoint on the morality of one man owning such a powerful tool? Rhodes steals the suit, Stark never gives him permission. Rhodes represents the army and the US Govt. So that's the military intervention which Senator Stern wanted all along. But Stark could turn the suit off any time he wants it is later revealed. He doesn't, so does he approve of the State having it?

- Stark isn't really into weapons any more, how does he feel about his suit being made into a walking armoury?

- There's no learning. Rhodes just steps into the suit, it fits him perfectly and he instantly knows how to work it. Not only that but he can fly it pretty well. There is a nice moment in the fight when War machine slides across the floor and Iron Man controls his descent, but that is it. The best bit about an origin story is getting to grips with the new powers. None of that here though.

- Stark doesn't give him a single tip or software update to help him and show official nod of approval. Stark's suit can fly higher (cos of the gold, see film 1) and presumably has a whole load of updates and bug fixes. None of this seems to affect War Machine though. Not so sure what my point is here... Also, why the hell has Stark got a load of mini arc reactors (power systems) already loaded into his old suits? He doesn't use them, he just changes the palladium in his own...


Pepper Potts
Pepper, and her relationship with Stark, was great in the first film because we knew nothing would happen between them. Why did we know this? Because she was his PA and he ran a large business. No matter how equal they were in terms of banter that disparity meant they couldn't get it on without it becoming a bit sleazy and unfeminist. That frisson of excitement between them came in part because of that slight taboo. That frisson was what made the relationship special. In this film they get rid of the only obstacle almost straight away. No obstacle, no drama. In making her CEO they did try and do the whole 'servant is master for a day' role-reversal thing but it didn't really work 'cos Robert D-J is too charming.


Too much going on
Despite restraint on villains there is too much going on:
- Pepper as ceo
- Pepper as love interest
- ScarJo
- Sammy L
- Agent Coulson
- The driver character (played by director Jon Favreau)
- Father relationship
- retconning big reactor/Expo
- illness
- War Machine/Rhodes
- Hammer getting War Machine
- Hammer/Vanko
- Vanko family history

These elements combine with the fact that there are too many 'themes' (using the term loosely). Usually in Hollywood films the character has an arc (ie changes for the better over the course of the film). Usually this arc follows a theme e.g. man doesn't trust anyone, gets in a scrap and loses, learns to trust his friends, they all get in a scrap and win together. Iron Man 2 has far too many themes, any one of which would be sufficient to hold the story. This is why it feels so narratively muddled I think.

Themes include (and note, some overlap)

- Self destructiveness
- Lone gunslinger act
- Egomaniacality
- Romantic Love
- Parental Love
- Buddy Love
- Who should own a superweapon

So for anyone of these Stark should have had a big problem and then clearly faced up to it by the end and used that new-found knowledge about himself to save the day. This is a superhero film, we don't need subtlety, that sort of stuff can be written big, bold and obvious. Instead we get different beats (specific moments) of different arcs kind of glued together to form a Frankenarc. For example he is dangerously self-destructive and we get a great scene showing this - drunk at his own party he nearly kills everyone. Does he ever face up to this? No. He learns instead that his Daddy did love him after all. Does he put this knowledge to use to defeat the bad guy? No. He realises that teamwork will save the day. Any of these would be effective themes to build an arc from. All of them together is muddled and underwhelming.


Little bugs and plot points that annoyed me
- Tony getting in the F1 car was a surprise to everyone, the driver, Potts, ScarJo, everyone. Except Vanko who apparently read his mind months before and sorted out the papers to get himself trackside

- If you didn't stay after the end of the first one you musta been hella confused when Samuel L Jackson turns up and starts rattling on about the Avengers with no preamble or explanation.

- The whole illness thing made no sense at all. If the palladium is poisoning him, why not just put the reactor in the suit (or anywhere away from his body) and just connect the couple of wires needed to run the magnet, you know, like the original battery worked. Also, when he puts his new, triangular, reactor in why does that suddenly make him feel better and more powerful? Surely it's just providing the same current to the electromagnet to keep the shrapnel out of his heart?

- In the first film he flies home, turns off the power 4ft above the ground and promptly crashes through two floors of his house. Funny moment. Pretty sure he drops a few feet onto random buildings in this one and the same thing doesn't happen though.

- What happened to the stuff from the trailer (it got cut obviously, my question is why?) That image of Stark guiding ScarJo using the Iron Man hand never cropped up. No biggie. More of a problem for me was the awesome scene from the trailer just before he dropped into the Expo. You can watch it here. Basically, in the plane Stark asks Pepper for a kiss for luck, she kisses his helmet and chucks it out the back, he jumps out after it calling out "you complete me!" Great line, lots of banter, generated a good buzz online. Wasn't in the film. Could have been easily.


Wow - well that was epic-er than I thought it would be. Hopefully future film thoughts will be a little less verbose.