Iron StripAt one point, I actually remember having high hopes for 2010. About three quarters of the way through last year, I was ready to give up hope and set might sights toward the following year, in which there was a plethora of new releases that I was eagerly anticipating. But to be honest, this has steadily become the year of disappointment, with films like The Wolfman, Alice in Wonderland, and Shutter Island disappointing on large scales. So I quickly shifted my gaze to the summer season, the time when the cineplexes get some excitement at least. Like its predecessor, this opens the summer. But unlike it, this one is less effective in delivering solid entertainment.
It's a few months after we last left Tony Stark proclaiming to the world his secret identity. Now Stark has a more increased size of celebrity, but still has some issues to work out. Some of those issues would be the government wanting to take away his suit, Mickey Rourke as a vengeful Russian scientist nicknamed Whiplash, and a rival CEO at a competing weapons manufacturing company (Sam Rockwell).
At one point I did think that Robert Downey Jr. had better talents as an egotistical supervillain rather than an iron-clad hero. But I was genuinely surprised by how well he managed to convey that sparkling energy that was thoroughly joyful. This time around, there are times when Stark's manic personality feels a bit much, particularly during a Senate hearing that goes on for a little too long, even though Garry Shandling as an irritated senator does get some laughs. Even still, Downey is the film's greatest asset and he continues to prove his worth in this series
While I really enjoyed the first film, I thought the one thing that is suffered from was a villain who was pretty lackluster (with all due respect to Jeff Bridges). This time around, it feels like the villains still aren't given a lot of room to shine, as fine actors like Rourke and Rockwell are forced to share the spotlight. Rockwell is good in his role, but it doesn't feel like the film gives him enough range to fully develop his character. Rourke is quite effective, but he's better without the hammy Russian accent.
Gwyneth Paltrow had one of her best performances in the original film, one I thought was even better than her Oscar-winning turn in Shakespeare in Love. However, no longer does she seem to possess the spunky energy that allowed her to create a nice tension between her and Downey. Now she's more whiney and nagging, not a great combination. Characters like Don Cheadle as Terrence Howard's replacement, Scarlett Johansson as the new secretary with some special skills, and Samule L. Jackson as the that mysterious Nick Fury are severely underweritten and lack any substance to feel gravely important. There's a lot more characters this time around, but perhaps that's not good enough.
I still say that Jon Faverau is an odd choice of director for an action franchise, but he proved his chops with the first outing, and actually managed to create some really exciting moments in the beginning of the film, the highlight being the racetrack encounter between Iron Man and Whiplash, one of the few scenes that actually caries some danger and suspense. But then he lets the action get very clunky and the plot meanders, making the movie go on and on. Though, he does rebound in the closing part of the climax (the first is just a big, noisy mess). The script by Justin Theroux is a hodgepodge of conflicting tones, meddling paces and hit or miss humor. The last fifteen minutes of the film almost saves the whole damn thing.
As one throwaway side note, this film gave me small remembrances of The Dark Knight. Rourke breaking out of prison is similar to the Joker walking out of the exploding hospital, Stark's chase through an exploding parking lot feels like the batpod racing to get on the street, and this film even has role played by someone who notably had a premature death (in this case, it was Adam "DJ AM" Goldstein). But all of those cases feel like downgraded homages to another, better film that this one shouldn't have tried to emulate.
It's hard for comic book movies these days as a majority have to contend with heavy hitters like The Dark Knight. Iron Man isn't attempting to be anywhere as serious, but it feels like the fun was bled out a bit. Downey continues to be a blast, and some action scenes are well executed. But this film sags a lot in the middle, and some clunky action and underwritten roles don't help the case. Is it a terrible film? I wouldn't say so. But as a follow-up to the original film, one which had enough courage to rely solely on the hero's personality without introducing the alter ego for half the movie, this one comes up short. If you end up seeing it, I won't look down on you (and if you do, stay for a bonus scene after the end credits). Unfortunately, I still have to add this film as one of the year's disappointments. Now I'm really starting to worry for Inception.
B-
Hmmmmm....Where you see Dark Knight comparisons I don't see this trying to be anything like the Dark Knight. Rather than developed characters they have line after line of good clean fun.
ReplyDeleteI've heard it said that the Dark Knight doesn't have enough superhero-ish batman aspects to be considered a super hero movie. This film, on the other hand, may not have had enough of a bad guy, but who cares? See it without expectations of action and it does what it wants to do. It combines special effects with witty one-liners and delivers what it sets out to do, create a party atmosphere film similar to that of Zombie-Land or even Animal House
The Dark Knight comparisons aren't really apt here. I just noticed some scenes that reminded me of that other film.
ReplyDeleteHowever, being sold as a summer blockbuster, I would think that going in with an expectation of action is necessary. In that regard, the film is hit or miss for me. It's not all bad, but I do think it doesn't have as nearly the same amount of wit and playful energy as the first one had. And, by the way, I also gave Zombieland a B-.