Mmm. . . geekalicious.
Don’t worry, this entry is spoiler-safe.
I really, really liked “Sherlock Holmes”. (I don’t name my fish after just anyone.) It’s the best movie I’ve seen this year by quite a bit. So I couldn’t help comparing Iron Man’s sequel to Robert Downey Jr’s other 2010 movie. And, not surprisingly, it wasn’t as good.
“Iron Man 2” was still very good – Robert Downey Jr has fantastic chemistry with Gwyneth Paltrow, Scarlett Johanssen, Sam Rockwell, Mickey Roarke, Don Cheadle, Samuel L. Jackson, and a robot. I thought Mickey Roarke as the main bad guy was genuinely interesting and compelling (usually I find bad guys deeply boring – including the “Sherlock Holmes” ones).
This movie’s biggest flaw was what I called “Pirates of the Carribean sequel syndrome” which is when there are too many big stars and each has to have their special screen moment. No. Stick to perhaps three main characters, including one main bad guy, and add one wild card character if you need them for a subplot (eg. Scarlett Johansson as a potential love interest). You can have the other characters, just spend much much less time on them. Repeat after me: Only three truly main characters. Three! Not seven.
I was most annoyed that things between Iron Man and Miss Potts had to take a back seat. That whole plot required memories from the first movie to sustain it. Also, the things that happened with Rhodes didn’t actually make sense motivationally. And a certain scene with Scarlett Johansson just made me giggle – and not in the way they were aiming for.
“Iron Man 2” has enormous charisma, and countless priceless/intriguing moments. (Robert Downey Jr’s first scene is perfect.) It also understands what the purpose of it is – to be geekalicious – and it makes sure it has about a dozen supercool moments of sheer geeky joy (a normal good movie has 2-3 excellent moments). I think 90% of the S.H.I.E.L.D. subplot should have been canned – but I’m certain my husband would disagree. He is a serious comic book geek, while I just read a few of the really good ones. And I admit I enjoyed SHIELD, too.
It’s less than 24 hours since I saw the film, and I’m looking forward to seeing it again (though not paying for it a second time).
This movie is more than a guilty pleasure, and it’s more than just a geek movie. The action is excellent and interesting (I also generally find action scenes boring, but this franchise puts genuine character into them, which makes them worth having), and the characterisation is way above average (just without the time to do properly for so many).
I really enjoyed it.
As I researched (*cough* Wikipedia *cough*) this entry, I discovered that most of the great aspects of Mickey Roarke’s character were invented BY MICKEY ROARKE. I’m going to have to go and watch everything else he ever did.
Play along at home: See “Iron Man 2” (or for bonus points, see “Sherlock Holmes” instead).
My plan for tomorrow is to spend many hours in bed with the heater on re-reading “Deep Water” (book two of Pamela Freeman’s Castings trilogy – written for adults, not kids). This is very awesome for me but not super awesome to read about, so I’ll be borrowing a post from Emmy Lennevald, who is also diving into Steff Metal’s list of awesomeness and blogging about it. Enjoy!
3 thoughts on “#151: Watch “Iron Man 2””
Ugh… I saw the movie. Honestly, I thought that there were flashy parts, but for the most part, I was either bored or disgusted. The entire thing seemed to be too canned for me, and I was particularly dismayed at the treatment of science (the first movie actually did a decent job of presenting science; this one just made a mockery of it), as well as some of the particularly one-dimensional characters (if you’ve seen it, you know _exactly_ who I’m talking about). Which is sad, because I thought that the first movie was excellent. Ah well.
…Might wanna avoid ‘9 1/2 Weeks’ and ‘Heaven’s Gate’…
Can you recommend any that are good?