The Week Later Review: “Iron Man 2”

Sometimes, it takes me awhile to appreciate a film.

Mickey Rourke as the guy with whips. Seriously.

It’s part of the reason I admire a film critic, or at the very least a good one. They can go to a viewing and that night, or the next day, formulate a coherent analysis of what they saw and make a solid determination of whether or not they liked it. I have a bit more trouble; often, I need a few days to digest what I saw. And often, I’ll look back and realized I liked a movie a lot more once I had a chance to think about it.

Hence, the Week Later Review.

I went to see “Iron Man 2” with a group of people that included fellow TU Blogger Kacey Bruce (of Savings Source and Press Start) last Friday. And while it has some minor failings, it carries with it a greater sense of purpose and stronger arcs and developments for the principal characters than the first film.

Comic books are hailed by Hollywood financial backers and aspiring producers as the perfect medium by which to acquire film rights. Often times a director doesn’t even have to go put much effort in constructing a storyboard for the film, since much of it is already laid out in the source material. Comics are also chock full of action and the closest equivalent we have to the mythic characters of old, which gives the benefit of public awareness prior to viewing. Their stories have been told and re-told countless times, just as tales of Achilles’ adventures or Beowulf’s slaying of Grendel were told in town centers and around campfires.

What’s often missed, however, is that this also means these are tales that people either already care about or go in wanting to care about, meaning they are already invested to some degree. This comes in direct conflict with the prevailing attitude in Hollywood that comic books are simple, two-dimensional tales full of costumes and explosions with no dramatic tension or depth of character. This is why comic book films from the same parent company can run the gamut from the absurdly off-base “Fantastic Four” film to the first installment of the “Iron Man” franchise, the latter of which is considered the best example of a comic book franchise launched effectively and successfully, both critically and financially.

In that sense, “Iron Man 2” doesn’t just live up to the potential of the first film, but easily surpasses it in terms of quality and depth.

Part of what makes the Tony Stark/Iron Man character compelling is that it flies in the face of common misconceptions about comic book characters. Stark isn’t a man out for revenge, or trying to save a particular person, or even necessarily trying to do good. He’s a self-destructive alcoholic with deep insecurities and an eagerness to be loved and accepted, a failing that stems from having a father who was largely absent in his emotional upbringing due to the demands of the company Tony himself now runs. Tony Stark didn’t watch his parents get gunned down or land on this planet in an alien rocket, though he does still find plenty of trouble relating with other people on anything other than a superficial level. And that’s before he dons the multi-billion dollar suit that turns him into a walking weapon of potentially mass destruction.

The greatest success of “Iron Man 2” isn’t Tony Stark’s conflicts with super-villains (Mickey Rourke as “Whiplash”) or industry rivals (a deviously charming Sam Rockwell as “Justin Hammer”). It’s the continuation of Stark’s character arc and conflicts with his inner demons. In this film, Tony as well as the audience come face to face with these demons, which explode in an alcoholic binge. The scene is shocking, not only because it explodes the idea of Tony Stark as a hero in a white hat, but also because it’s a scene where a protagonist has a very major failing for which he is not fully redeemed by film’s end.

Though much is said of the cast, credit for this and all of the film’s success starts and ends with director Jon Favreau, who was and s the perfect choice to direct any and all of this franchise’s installments. In addition to knowing what an audience wants, Favreau also has a stubbornly independent streak common in directors that came out of the period (eg. Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino). This allows him to stage a thrilling special effects sequence that doesn’t show you robot suits flying around so much as take you with them, but only after he has Tony Stark’s reckless behavior put everyone’s life in danger for the sake of his own amusement, ego, and insecurities.

Unconvincing, uncharismatic, untalented...but hey, those teenage boys aren't going to give THEMSELVES boners (I guess?).

Though the cast still deserves all the praise it has received. We all know how perfect the casting of Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark was; however, to infer that Downey is simply playing himself and his own personal demons in a super-hero setting would be a great disservice to his abilities and his performance. Mickey Rourke is captivating as the criminally insane Russian ex-convict “Whiplash,” a character that would be largely forgettable and disposable if not for Rourke’s dark charm. Then there’s Gwyneth Paltrow, who is given the benefit of having a more fleshed out and active player in Pepper Potts in this second installment. The only weak link is Scarlett Johanssen, whose complete inability to develop something resembling range over the course of her career is almost as perplexing as her enduring popularity despite an anti-charisma that sucks the life out of every scene she’s in. Yes, she’s great to look at; but so are plenty of other, better actresses in Hollywood.

The script is overall very strong, with sensible and well-paced sub-plots that enhance rather than detract from the main narrative. The only weaknesses occur when scenes and developments seem shoe-horned in, which I am sure only occurred after the crux of the story had been solidified. Such is the problem with these films: they are often written by committee, and you can almost tell the moment where the script digresses because somebody had a great idea that they had to force in like a stubborn child shoving a square block into a round hole. It’s distracting and off-putting; almost as if you go twenty minutes watching a film and then, suddenly, see three minutes of an entirely different film before the other (better) film resumes.

Still, the film holds up on a critical level and as an action-packed blockbuster. The only way in that it does not top the original is that it fails to recapture that sense of awe and excitement the audience feels the first time Stark dons the suit, but that’s an impossible task to recreate. For the purposes of a sequel,

It may not top the original, but it certainly holds up to expectations and provides everything that the film needs to provide in order for this franchise to progress and blossom into something more than just another tack mark on the Marvel Comics movie board.

A third installment, if coming, will have to occur after “Thor,” “Captain America,” and “Avengers” movies respectively. Though I hope they do still go through with “Iron Man 3,” since there’s still plenty of Tony Stark’s story to tell. Besides, we need to see him as Iron Man fighting a villain that isn’t a dude with whips for crying out loud.