Advertise here.
 |
Title: Iron Man 2
|
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ | CONSUMER ADVICE |
Parents, there is some war violence, sexual situations, and minor language. Recommended for ages 12 and up. |
I start off my review of “Iron Man 2" at a bit of a crossroads. See, there is nothing wrong with this movie. It’s technically sound. The story is predictable but easy to swallow. The cast all perform their parts with enough life they are people we care about. The action is a bit of an improvement over the last film. This is not a boring movie. It’s actually easy to go down this checklist and cross off the “OK” box next to many of the qualities a good movie should have. Therefor it would be impossible not to recommend it...and yet it feels so much like the first movie that it’s difficult to justify passing it either. Yes this is a good movie. I admit it. It is, and there would be no trying to convince myself otherwise.
 |
So why do I feel so lukewarm about it? It could be because the story doesn’t strive to be any better then the last film. This film should be deeper considering the movie mostly revolves around Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) turning to alcohol under pressure from fame and discovering that his electric heart is actually killing him. The story also continues the evolving love story between Stark and Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), who might get some competition from new secretary Natalie (Scarlett Joansson), who might have more then just secretary skills under her...never mind. The movie throws in a new villain since Jeff Bridges died in the last film and has since gone on to win an Oscar.
 |
The new villain is a Russian named Ivan, who also goes by the name Whiplash (Mickey Rourke). He is named Whiplash because he whips mechanical wires at Iron Man most of the time. He is a good character to have during action sequences, but not very interesting to know in person. I sat there and I watched the movie. I made mental notes. I noted I was never bored, never annoyed, and yet I wasn’t enjoying the movie as much as I hoped. Why? After some thought I think it’s because the movie is neither any better or worse then the previous film. Sequels have an opportunity to build on what they started. Since “Spider-Man 2" was released the potential for better sequels in superhero films always lingers.
 |
I think this reached a peak last year when “The Dark Knight” did everything better in a sequel that you could hope for and became an instant classic in the process. “Iron Man 2" in comparison feels shallow, perfectly content to be nothing more then what it is: Good popcorn entertainment. Which is not bad. People tend to rewatch the good popcorn flicks over the prestigious Oscar winners any day of the week. But it’s also disappointing to see so much money and time go into something so big, with so much anticipation, only to discover everything is as good as it’s going to get and nothings going to get any better.
 |
Yeah, it may not get any worse, but that almost feels like a small consolation. What do I know though? Disappointed though I am, this movie still gets three stars from me. I can’t fail it, it’s too enjoyable, and in at least one noticeable improvement, director Jon Favreau appears to be getting more comfortable directing action sequences. For now that will have to hold us over. But when we get “Iron Man 3" I would like the story to have some meat to it and the action sequences to have some weight where the outcome is earned rather then anticipated. Whether we get this before or after the planned Avengers movies I guess we’ll see.
 |
 |
|
|
Spaceriffic Review
Want to see us review this? Send a donation with your title request, and it will be done (might take awhile, but it will get done).
Click here for a list of films that have already been requested before you request something.
