Movie Review: Iron Man 2
by Justin Velasquez
May 12, 2010
A quick two years after the surprising success of Iron Man, the sequel is upon us and it promises to be bigger and better than its predecessor. Jon Favreau returns to direct from a script penned by Justin Theroux (Tropic Thunder) and of course, many of the original players are back for this second go-round. In one change, Don Cheadle plays Tony Starks' friend, Rhodey, replacing Terrence Howard. Three new stars join the cast - Scarlett Johansson, Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell are along for the ride.
Iron Man 2 picks up about six months from where the original left off and it's up to Tony Starks (Robert Downey Jr) to deal with his newfound celebrity. His creation has brought forth an era of peace the world had not seen in a very long time. Also, a maelstrom of attention from friends, the media, the public and potential enemies has showered the billionaire playboy. All of this interest has apparently made Tony more egotistical and much more reckless than many remember him. His attitude has the viewer wondering when he might lose his edge, his sanity, or even his life.
Stark, though, hides a secret that is the crux of his seemingly careless words and actions. This secret is so big that he opts to not tell even Rhodey (Cheadle) or his loyal confidant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), now the head of Stark Industries. Besides his internal strife, there are forces brewing externally that threaten his current existence. A Senate hearing officially makes it known that they want Starks' Iron Man suit for "defense" purposes. But Tony remains steadfast in refusing to give up the suit and the technology surrounding it, for fear that it will end up in the wrong hands. To drive his point home he makes a mockery of the hearings with bravado and brio. It's classic Tony Stark, and more importantly, classic Robert Downey Jr.
Other problems arise as a new nemesis makes his way to the forefront. Ivan Vanko (Rourke), a ruined physicist, plots revenge on Stark in the name of his father, Anton. Vanko replicates the arc reactor technology that keeps Starks alive and powers the Iron Man suit, then introduces a powerful new suit that rivals Starks' invention. Starks' problems are extended when his rival, weapons manufacturer Justin Hammer (Rockwell), looks to cash in with iron suits of his own while at the same time run Stark Industries into the ground. Just in case that wasn't enough, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) makes an appearance on behalf of S.H.I.E.L.D. to further whet the appetites of fanboys everywhere.
On its own Iron Man 2 is a very entertaining film, though not quite as good as the first. That's okay because it's still fun to watch. The fear coming in was that with so many new characters being introduced a result similar to that of the convoluted Spider-Man 3 might've been expected. SP3 suffered from having too many characters and not enough character development. The story shifted too often and that lack of focus yielded a lackluster film. Luckily, IM2 avoids that outcome because its focus is clear and defined. Every storyline here has a common thread and both Favreau and Theroux do a decent job of routing them all back to that thread - Tony Stark.
One thing that makes the film worth seeing is the acting, a trend in comic book films that started with Iron Man. Downey Jr is unflappable as Stark and after two films it's inconceivable to believe another actor could play the role any better. Paltrow is stunning, as usual, even though the banter between her and Downey is a little annoying this time around. But the chemistry is certainly more refined and ultimately there is a reason for the current state of their relationship. Cheadle, thanks to his pedigree, is actually a better Rhodey better than Howard. It's no disrespect to Howard and his acting talent, just merely validation of just how good Cheadle is. Add to these impressive roles strong showings from Rourke, Rockwell and the beautiful Johansson, and what you have is a delightful film which will spawn, whether you like it or not, a few more sequels.
Three Stars out of
Four
Comments (3)
Great review! I saw it last night and it was worth the money. The only thing i disagree with you on is cheadles role in the movie. He is a good actor but there was no chemistry with him and downey. It was like he was a different character not rhodes. He looked lost in the movie. And definately didnt fit the part. Imagine Howard Stern playing arnolds role in the terminator then you'll understand what i'm talking about. Its just my opinion. But Howard screwed himself by his demand to be paid more than the other actors and was a diva on the set so its his loss. I give it 3 out of 4 stars too. :)
Louie Thompson | May 12, 2010 10:47 AMLouie, I definitely see what you're talking about when it comes to Cheadle. From a continuity standpoint Cheadle's at a disadvantage because so many viewers have already identified Howard as Rhodey. But my interpretation was that just like Tony & Pepper, the three characters' personalities changed somewhat from the first film. You can tell that both Pepper & Rhodey were becoming increasingly impatient with Tony, and Cheadle (in my opinion) was able to convey that better than Howard would've. But alas, we'll never know how Howard would've taken the role. I was surprised at the humor Cheadle was able to bring to the character and that kinda won me over. Personally I'm a fan of both actors but I think if either one of them had played Rhodey in both films rather than just one then everything would be okay. But hey, I liked the film anyways, & it seems like you do, too, so it's all good! Thanks for the kind words and if you keep reading them I'll keep writing them!
Justin Velasquez | May 12, 2010 12:24 PMI disagree with this review although not a terrible film it also is not very good. It adds nothing to the story arc or to the characters and the plot is all over the place.See my review here.
Ethan Pepper | June 18, 2010 8:52 PMPost a comment