Well this is it. What we've all been waiting for. Robert Downy Jr. sporting a red metal suit and a quippy attitude. Again. Unfortunately that's not what we got. What we got was a two hour and thirty minute long prequel to The Avengers- the horrible idea to join Iron Man, Nick Fury, The Hulk, Thor, Captain America and others all together for one big huge epic (fail of a) movie. There's no way The Avengers will be a good movie. With all those stars and all that story the only way it could be even decent is if it were over three hours long and lots of big name people died. That's the only way I'll be satisfied. I think Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) should get eaten by a genetically enhanced smart shark much earlier than expected and The Hulk (Edward Norton) should get curb stomped or curb stomp someone (listen I'll just be happy if someone gets curb stomped). But they won't do that. They can't put these characters in any actual danger because then how will they make The Avengers 2 and Superfriends Vs. The Avengers! It's all a huge gimmick and I hate gimmicks.
I focus so much time on The Avengers, because that's what this movie wants. It doesn't want us to see a good Iron Man flick (It doesn't show us one). It wants us to see how sweet The Avengers is going to be! Look at everything from the (un) cleverly hidden Captain America shield that turns up in the film to the last seconds of the movie (after the credits) when they set up next summers Avenger's prequel Thor. But if I must say things about this movie then it was your typical sequel- bigger, louder, faster, stronger, and a much, much worse film. Now, lets clear something up: The first Iron Man wasn't nearly as good as people thought it was. They were just confused by Robert Downy Jr.'s comedic timing and facial hair. He's great in both these films and he's really the only reason to see them. Ask anyone who loves the first one why they loved it. "Robert Downy Jr. is awesome!" Ask them what else. "Uhh... explosions?" And those are just the articulate ones. Now Iron Man isn't a bad film by any means. It ranks somewhere between Spider-Man and X2 on the good comic book films list (that's about 4-5 notches from the top if you're wondering), but it's more of a cultural phenomenon like Napoleon Dynamite than it is a great comic book movie like Batman Beings.
This one had even less going for it since we saw inside their bag of tricks with the first one. They try to insert conflict with Tony Stark slowly dying. Know how I know they ran out of cool ideas? He had to f***ing create a new element to survive. And he does. Over a weekend. Ridiculous. Also they gave Pepper Potts something cool to do in running Stark Industries only to have it yanked out from her by the end of the film because she wants to jump in bed with Tony. Take it from The Office- once the 'will they won't they' sexual tension becomes the "they did" sexual confusion, your series is over. That's how I feel about these movies. They had a great start, but didn't prepare enough pre race and now they're just panting into the finish line. Oh well at least when (not if) they make more, we'll still get to watch RDJ be smart and quippy (until after the third film when they reboot the series with Jake Gyllenhaal.)
C+
Whoa. Things really go bad for you if you don't give reviews in a while, don't they? You are pretty scathing in your reviews this time around. Haha! Not that I don't agree with you about the other movies, though I haven't seen them. Hollywood is painfully redundant, idiotic, and mind-numbing, but you have to look at the brighter side of things sometimes. ;)
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your review on Iron Man 2. You should ask me why I like the Iron Man franchise some time and I will tell you more than just Robert Downey Jr and explosions. Not that you aren't right in some areas. Robert IS a major part of what makes those movies good and I don't see anything wrong with that seeing as it is called Iron Man, implying it is about a man in iron so that would be an important part of the films now wouldn't it? Haha!
And you tell me that you like comic book films? See, I just don't believe you. You really rip into them and you have this obsession about putting the characters in "real danger". Superheroes cannot die. Period. They are never going to die. They are always going to be making new elements, coming back to life, etc. It is just the way it is, Rad. It is the way of the comic book world universe. You either like it or you don't. :)
Do you ever watch movies that you do like?
See you're pointing out the problem right there. You're proving my point. Yes they are never going to die so why put them in situations where you think they might. I love a good (emphasis on GOOD) comic book film. Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Spider Man 2, Spider Man, hell even X2. If you're not going to let your characters get hurt, why even put them in danger. It's piss poor writing and this movie had it in spades. Have the danger mean something or you whole film will mean nothing.
ReplyDeleteUm, other than Batman (though Batman still can't die), the Spiderman and Xmen series didn't have real danger either! What are you talking about? Did you really think Spiderman was going to die? I don't think so. They ended up killing Xmen people off in X3 but I thought that was so wrong and was a betrayal to the characters. Comic book films can only have danger as real as it can be. They are superheroes, which you don't seem to get. Haha! They are NEVER going to lose. That is the point! Batman is obviously the best made films in the entire genre, but not all movies have to be Batman. The Iron Man films aren't as serious and I feel they, more than any other comic book film, are about Tony Stark's character transformation/struggles than him fighting bad guys in "real danger". That is how Tony Stark gets "hurt", that is his weakness: himself. I don't see him as being an invincible character, even though technically he is. I believed in his down times in the second film, even though it was obvious he wasn't going to be defeated at all. I don't think you need "real danger" to make danger meaningful.
ReplyDeleteObviously, the Iron Man movies aren't these amazing pieces of cinema, but they are really good (I personally think they are amazing! hehe) because of the characters. A story is only as good as its characters NOT if they are in "real danger" or not. THAT is actually what makes danger meaningful.
The characters are blah too. Besides Tony the only person i even remember is Pepper Potts. And she's played by a Gwenyth Paltrow who is trying SO hard to be Elizabeth Mitchell. Take the villain in the first movie for instance. I don't remember him. I remember them trying to fool us into thinking he wasn't the villain (it didn't work) and i remember he was played by Jeff Bridges and if Jeff Bridges can't even make the character memorable then obviously something is lacking in the writing. X-Men you may be right about, but i was just pulling X Men out to put more movies above Iron Man to spite you. It's probably not better. But yes i felt like Spiderman was in legitimate danger. Like the part where he stops the train and is getting torn apart and passes out. I at least believed that. But Tony Stark in his (key word) Invincible suit and well rounded sarcastic defences? Nope. Or when it's not even a fight? Come on. RDJ just looked at Don Cheadle, said something cliche and they won. Very blah and you're letting your personal opinion of this movie get in the way of seeing it objectively. I know that super heroes are never going to die but if they're fighting for their lives at least make us believe it. That's all i'm saying.
ReplyDeleteI think YOU are letting YOUR personal opinion of the movie keeping you from seeing the point of Tony Stark's character. *smirk* I agree that Tony didn't have a Spiderman-tattered-on-the-train moment, but THAT isn't Tony Stark. He wouldn't have that type of moment because he is much more confident. No, his "tattered-on-the-train moment" happens with his character. HE is the one who causes his own downfall. Iron Man 2 showed how he is full of pride and narcissism to the point he can't even humble himself just a little to ask for help even though he is dying. I really believed that Tony Stark hit a major low when A. He went totally drunk and crazy B. Kept secrets from Pepper to the point of alienating her and C. Caused major damage in an angsty brawl with his best friend who was forced to steal his own friend's suit because of Stark's stupid behavior. There are different ways of showing weaknesses in characters without almost killing them, you know. Besides that is what makes Tony Tony. It isn't in his character to be all emo about his responsibilities as superhero. He just goes out, throws some sarcastic lines, and saves the day. So yes, Tony *did* just look at Vanko, beat him up, possibly said something cliche but it was funny, and they won. The whole comic book save the world thing plays second fiddle to what is happening in Tony's life and I don't see that as a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why Iron Man is about the MAIN characters. The villains aren't so important, though I think they are given a significant part in the story. (I really liked Hammer's character as a villain! He was definitely a contrast to Tony Stark, and really funny too!) I don't recall the villain's name in the first one, I always forget names, but I do remember him and what part he played so I think you just have a bad memory. :P
As you can see I have arguments, Mr. Soupy Twist, and very valid ones so you can't brush me off that easily. Haha! ;) I won't deny that the Iron Man movies don't have some of that Hollywood franchise redundancy that litters movies with major blemishes. I can agree that there is some. However, if you say that Iron Man 1 wasn't as good as everyone thought it was, then I say the Iron Man movies aren't as bad as YOU think they are. So there!
Also, Gwenneth is NOT trying to be Elizabeth Mitchell, you just wish she was. Hehe!
Wow, you're a heavy drinker on the cynicism these days. Do you think it may be causing you to therefore be observing and writing under the influence? ;-)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Danielle on all accounts. Tony Stark's weaknesses are not like other heroes or other comic book stories. They come from within, and it's that uniqueness that makes him my favorite comic character and him and Pepper my favorite couple. They have the most real and lovable relationship.
This movie was awesome, it delved deeper into Tony's problems and showed him in a not so great light. The transformation of character in stories, as in real life, is a painful ON GOING process. I am glad this film went into the vulnerability of Tony. Danielle's point about putting the hero in danger is spot on. If that's what you are calling "piss poor writing" your view is undeniably skewed. Tony Stark isn't like the other comic book guys whining and debating about who he is or what he should do, he just goes for it and kicks ass. He lives large. The danger that Tony faces isn't from outside forces, it's himself. When destruction is happening, it's self inflicted. That is what makes the Iron Man story original. You could make it analogous to a Christian walk as well. It isn't what is on the outside of a man, but the inside that destroys him. Iron Man 1 was like Tony's redemption, and 2 is like his sanctification (in metaphor). He still has far to go.
Also I thought Tony creating a new element was amazing, that was one of my favorite parts in the film, It had sharp science to it, they didn't just fling words around like other comic book movies expecting the audience is too dumb to get it anyway. Is it a bit far-fetched? Of course! It would have to be to be to match up to such a big story. All of the actors were great, Sam Rockwell awesome as always. I just don't see what you're seeing at all. I disagree with you completely, but what's new there? LOL
And Gwenyth is not trying to be Elizabeth at all, you're just blinded by your love for her. :-P She was being vulnerable, adorable, and loyal Pepper Potts. Gwyneth was landing A-list roles before Elizabeth even had a career glinting in her eyes.(Which incidentally, the only good thing she's ever done was LOST, maybe her guest role on House too, but that's all, and it's unfortunate). I love them both, but if anyone was copying it would be the other way around I think.
You know what I would agree with you guys. Everything you described about Tony Stark is amazing and had it actually been in these movies it would have gotten a much better review from me. It wasn't however. You guys are really over expositing because though the first movie may have tried to do some of this, the second didn't even get that far. They used Tony's story as an excuse to set up the Avengers. I really wish they had made the films you were describing because they would have been AMAZING. Like Dark Knight level Amazing. Unfortunately we are left with X2 level of decency.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes I'm well aware that Gwenyth was famous long before Elizabeth Mitchell. I'm not an idiot. She has an Oscar. She's a very accomplished actress. Pepper potts in smart, sarcastic, and has a lot going on under the surface. Gwyneth does a good job of her, but Elizabeth would have done better because that's her MO. And I've seen parts of this movie probably ten times more than either of you have seeing that I walk it in work every day and therefore I have seen Gwyneth's best Elizabeth impression multiple times. I know what I'm talking about.
You are right, Rad. We totally are just making this up and none of what happened in the movie actually happened. It just was all about The Avengers. When Tony and Rhodey were having an angsty fight, that was about the Avengers. When Tony pushed away Pepper and didn't disclose that he was dying, that was about the Avengers. When Tony was having an emo moment with his dad's video tape, that was about the Avengers. ;)
ReplyDeleteCome on, Rad. Really? The Avengers were hardly in the plot to warrant that sort of response from you. They are building up towards The Avengers movie, so of course it would be interwoven into the story, but it also fit into the Iron Man 2 plot. For Tony to join with the Avengers is to give up the loner act that he holds onto, which is the whole point of Iron Man 2! (Also I might add Iron Man WAS part of the Avengers and seeing as they are adapting Marvel Comics I would think you would expect it.)
Now I agree that Alexis and I are expounding some with the whole symbolism, redemption, sanctification, etc. That wasn't the intent of the directors or producers or anyone in Hollywood. However, Rad, as Christians were are given an insight because we know that all things speak of God's glory. Sometimes there is truth, no matter how small or watered down, in books, poems, movies, etc when it isn't the intent of the artist at all. Now I am all for maintaining the purity of Author's Intent, I have never liked reading into things that aren't there, yet as human beings we aren't God and so therefore cannot be omnisciently aware of the full implications of the things we create. There are realities that are deeper than the mere surface level appearances that are given to us. So though I agree Iron Man is not on the level of Batman or on the level that could have true Christian symbolism, it still has what we say it has in it because Jon Favreau couldn't help it. He is telling a story that is about a man who has inner struggles, and he has to hold to the contours of that Greater Reality.
If you see the movie so much at the theaters maybe you should actually WATCH it sometime. Haha! I think in your reviews you get way, way too caught up in the technicalities of the movie. Let's face it Hollywood on a whole is worthless. They have run out of ideas. They latch onto franchises and feed on money like ravenous leeches. They don't care about Art or even about entertaining people. Liberalism ravages every part of that place and it has its foul hand on every movie that comes to the silver screen, even the really amazing ones. We shouldn't expect anything profound, original, or great from Hollywood. It just isn't going to happen. However DESPITE itself, Artists DO thrive there and every once in awhile you get really great films and the ones that aren't as great as those great films are still good. You have to look at the situations as the glass half full instead of half empty. So when I look at Iron Man 2 I do not see the franchise, though it is there. I do not see the fact that they could have really driven home the point of Tony's "sanctification" on the level of Batman, though I know it is true. I see what IS there and you cannot deny what IS there anymore than you can deny reality, Rad. :)
I don't fault you guys for looking into the movie and pulling these awesome traits out of it. I think it's really cool. But remember that you go into the movie with that intention and therefore it's slightly skewed to your perception. This isn't a bad thing. I am a very firm believer in that you can feel however you want about any movie you want. I do this. But not on this blog. On this blog i review movies from a completely objective opinion (or alteast I try to) and from an objective opinion i didn't see anything like what you guys saw. I saw things trying to be what you saw but not quite making it because they were too busy making sure there was enough action and that they set up the Avengers. That was the purpose of this movie, like it or not, was to set up the Avengers. They put Tony stuff in there which was good, i'm not denying that. I'm just saying that as a whole the movie's job was the push for the Avengers and that's what I have a problem with.
ReplyDeleteSo basically you're saying your opinion is objective, but ours isn't? You're viewpoint isn't skewed, but ours is? We are all going in with intentions, even you.
ReplyDeleteYour opinion in your reviews hasn't really been objective at all. No one can be purely objective, because our feelings will always play out. Even someone like Ebert, who thinks he's objective, totally isn't his opinion drips off every review he writes, and there's nothing wrong with that. Being objective doesn't mean that you ignore the deeper meaning and only observe the technical. Each word you type has Rad written all over it. You are looking at it from a purely technical standpoint, and you are missing out on a lot because of it. Films must also be viewed like literature or any form of art. Not only the technical things but also the theme, moral, symbolism, character arc, and meaning. There is a heart of every story, even bad ones like Transformers are saying something.
You are looking at this from a completely sterile standpoint. The film isn't just how it's told, but what it is telling. That is why you like films like Notes on Scandal or others where the acting, directing, and all things technical are good but it's missing so much heart, or that heart is tainted and impure of meaning.
You can't just look at films for quality alone, there must be substance there must be a reason they are told. Films are art, and you can't view it like a checklist of quality items, you also have to view it's meaning and I think you miss that a lot and it does hurt your reviews, and dare I say your enjoyment of movies.
What she said! Hehe! I was over her place when we read your response. You are up against the Pajak Ladies, you cannot possibly win. Haha! ;)
ReplyDeleteAnyway, we wouldn't say that you are never objective in your movie reviews. Obviously you know a great deal about movies and I think we are all speaking from a substantial knowledge of films. I just think you have to consider what is a movie is telling and why it is telling it.
As for the Avengers, I just don't see that. I can see it somewhat, seeing as they are making an Avengers movie with everyone in it, but I don't see that as being the whole movie. Also, what action? Tony beat Vanko on the racing track and didn't even fight him again until the end of the movie! That is only two times! I have heard people complain that there wasn't enough action! No, the action was just the right amount and I see no problem with the Avengers being in it. All Nick Fury did was give Tony a fatherly discipline talk and Natasha/Natalie kicked some butt while looking beautiful. Wow. That is really taking over the movie.
This is why I don't believe you when you say that you like comic book movies because whenever comic book movies act like comic book movies, you have a problem with it. Iron Man is part of the Avengers. They are planning on adapting the Avengers to screen. Therefore they need Iron Man to join with the Avengers. They are just staying true to the comic books they are adapting. So what is wrong with Iron Man 2 having Avengers in it? Nothing. ;)