The following is an in-depth story analysis. If you haven't seen this movie, you might want to before reading this review
Comic book and superhero fans are notorious for being relentlessly critical, and obviously I'm helping that image a lot; and with the critical acclaim the first Iron Man film garnered and the new found fame it brought to the character, taking him to the A-list status that he's never seen amongst the most popular of Marvel superheroes, it was a given that this film had to work extra hard to impress. Along with The Dark Knight in 2008, Iron Man helped legitimize superhero films in a new way: it made general audiences and critics alike take these movies more seriously. These two films were more character driven. They were, overall, less formulaic, unlike previous films of the subgenre, and there was a real emotional weight to them, that audiences weren't used to seeing from these sorts of films. That's not to say that previous films hadn't accomplished similar things in the past, but having two radically different superhero films do that in the same summer was unheard of, so the pressure was on.
Justin Hammer: These are the Cubans, baby. This is the Cohibas, the Montecristos. This is a kinetic-kill, side-winder vehicle with a secondary cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine RDX burst. It's capable of busting a bunker under the bunker you just busted. If it were any smarter, it'd write a book, a book that would make Ulysses look like it was written in crayon. It would read it to you. This is my Eiffel Tower. This is my Rachmaninoff's Third. My Pieta. It's completely elegant, it's bafflingly beautiful, and it's capable of reducing the population of any standing structure to zero. I call it "The Ex-Wife."
A lot of moviegoers thought Iron Man 2 didn't rise to the occasion. A lot of people are especially vocal on their opinion on this. Most fans, or at least in my opinion, seemed to really like it, or really loathe it, and it's all a matter of balance. The people that really dislike Iron Man 2 feel that it had too much of some things and not nearly enough of other things. Common complains are: too much comedy, not enough drama; too much build up to Avengers, and not enough focus in the story at hand; too much unnecessary talking and not enough action. For a long time, I heard people dismiss this movie as a poor successor to the surprisingly fresh, entertaining, and sometimes thought provoking Iron Man, and I just didn't understand the hate. In the theatre, I didn't think it was as exciting as the first film, but I thought most of that was just the novelty wearing off. When I saw Iron Man, I didn't expect to love Tony Stark or find him nearly as fascinating as I did. When I went to Iron Man 2, charisma, charm and lovable arrogance was exactly what I expected. That was still there, it just wasn't new. I still got to see some fantastic action, especially on the race track with the suitcase suit; incredibly entertaining performances not only from Robert Downey, but a villain I've never seen with Mickey Rourke's Ivan Vanko, or Whiplash as he is never called; and the hilarious and unexpected Tony Stark wannabe, Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer, having as much fun as I've ever seen him have in a roll. That scene where he sells Rhodey all his weapons and he describes the missile he calls The Ex-Wife, makes me laugh out loud every time.
I love Don Cheadle over Terrence Howard as Rhodey. I think he seems a little more military and has a less soft-spoken and understated presence onscreen. I love the little acknowledgement to the actor change when he was introduced to the senate hearing and he says to Tony, it's me, I'm here. Let's move on.
But on this viewing, I picked up a lot of story problems. Especially after that initial fight with Whiplash, and I found the pacing to be uneven. I guess before, I just liked Downey in the role so much, I wasn't paying attention to what was really going on in this movie. There's a standard villain; he wants revenge on Tony for something Tony's father did to his father; he tries to ruin Tony's reputation and kill him; Tony is self-destructing because he's dying; he finds a new appreciation for his father when he discovers an old secret that saves his life, and allows him to beat the bad guy. He then beats the bad guy, fixes his reputation, the end.
Tony Stark: I'm not saying I'm responsible for this country's longest run of uninterrupted peace in 35 years! I'm not saying that from the ashes of captivity, never has a Phoenix metaphor been more personified! I'm not saying Uncle Sam can kick back on a lawn chair, sipping on an iced tea, because I haven't come across anyone man enough to go toe to toe with me on my best day! It's not about me. It's not about you, either. It's about legacy, the legacy left behind for future generations. It's not about us!
I think I always liked the ideas of this film, and didn't look closely enough to realize the follow-up is much weaker than the initial setup. The themes are a natural progression for where we're left at the end of the first film. Legacy: what you leave behind. Personal identity versus public perception. Public service versus public enterprise. And the responsibility from creating something intended for public good that could be used by the wrong hands as a weapon, which is a classic comic book motif, but it's usually used by mad scientists rather than with the superhero themselves. There's even a Cold War parallel here when Tony calls himself a nuclear deterrent. The very existence of Iron Man has merely created world peace; terrorists are afraid of Iron Man and it's keeping them from carrying out their awful plans. The two things that threaten this peace is someone creating the same thing Tony created, and Tony Stark himself. One mortal human being not being up to the task of maintaining that peace singlehandedly.
These are all interesting ideas to explore, but there are two obstacles that prevent the movie from fully taking advantage of them. One is a lopsided comedic tone. Sometimes it feels to me like a big budget superhero version of Whose Line Is It Anyway? other than a progression of the narrative. The other is a break in the film's internal logic, with a villain plot that becomes more nonsensical as it goes along. I think it's overall a riot of a movie. It's often wildly funny and it's easy to get lost in its charm and ignore the problems. This is a movie I'll happily watch again. I'd love to just ignore those problems now, but sadly, I have got to put on my critical-thinking hat once again.
The thing I find most fascinating is that Iron Man 2 was all about the superhero identity, and Tony Stark revealed his to the public at the end of the first film. It takes the idea of the secret identity and turns it on its head. Tony is still keeping a huge secret: that he's dying from palladium poisoning, as J.A.R.V.I.S not so subtly points out, the substance that is keeping him alive is also killing him. Thanks J.A.R.V.I.S, I think Tony knows that already. That's why he's been pricking himself and checking his toxicity level constantly. Side note, there are a couple of irritating blatant moments of unnatural exposition in this film, and that's the worst one. Anyway, I suppose you can say that in a way, Tony is still keeping Iron Man a secret, not that he is Iron Man, but that he's not Iron Man, or at least, that he can't figure out how to save himself and he won't be Iron Man for very long. At the public hearing, where senator Stern insist Tony give up the Iron Man weapon to the government for the sake of public safety, Tony says that he is Iron Man, and makes a joke about indentured servitude and prostitution.
I love that in this movie, naming one guy for his one defining character trait is acceptable, but we have to avoid letting the villain ever be referred to his whiplash. Even at the end of the film, Tony can't understand why Natasha Romanoff would recommend Iron Man for the Avengers Initiative and not him, because he and Iron Man are one in the same. He says you can't have one without the other and he's in denial of this distinction; all the way up until he hears a list of his character flaws read back to him. In Tony's head, being Iron Man is the same as being Superman; you have to be perfect all the time. If you tell your whole country that you can protect it; that you have "privatized world peace"; that, thanks to you, the world is safer than it ever has been, and you can keep that going, you can't afford to show any weakness or people won't trust you and they'll panic. And so Tony is saying the same thing over and over again. I am Iron Man. I think, it's because he's hiding behind that façade; that in reality, he knows he's just a man, but he set himself up for incredible failure; because he can't come close to reaching that pedestal he put himself on, and people are buying it. All the while, he's dying, and he can't tell anybody about it. He's created and branded the idea of this superhero, and it's that idea that is saving the day, not him. Except that one time, last movie, and at the end of this one. He's just a man. A brilliant man, who, up 'til now, thought he could fix anything.
He's finally discovered a problem he doesn't have the first clue of solving: saving his own life. He's keeping the secret that he's not the superhero everyone thinks he is. That he is not capable of keeping that peace he's promised everyone. Ultimately, as the toxicity level drops, and he measures his own life as a percentage on a digital screen, he lets himself go completely to pieces. And so, he feels that he can't even tell Pepper Potts that he's dying. On one hand, he's trying to continue playing hero and that he can do no wrong, so he doesn't want to reveal this to anyone. On the other hand, he gets to a point where he doesn't care who sees him self destructing and ruining everything, especially his own legacy, when he makes a mockery of himself at his birthday party, and he acts completely irresponsibly in his suit. At first, breaking bottles with his repulsor rays, and then blowing up his home in a fight with Rhodey in the War Machine armor. I suppose how he handles things makes sense with what he's going through emotionally, though, I do resist his going so far as to having a knockdown drag out brawl with Rhodey. I have a hard time buying he'd go that far, but the movie is going out of its way to get him to that irrational of a place, so I'm trying to accept that it just strikes to me as extreme, even for drunk, broken and dying Tony. Even going as far as he goes, I would've appreciated seeing Tony go to Pepper at some point midway through the film, and confide with her that he's dying, desperate, and doesn't know what to do. Keeping it from her for a while, I guess it's ok, but at this point, he has nothing to lose, and this is the women that, last movie, he made reach into his chest and pull out a smouldering arc reactor, saying she was the only person he could count on. She was also instrumental in helping him stop Obadiah Stane. It seems like a step back for him to never confide for the entire movie, and for her to find out on her own, overhearing him talk to Rhodey over communications toward the end. Although, I love the line I was going to make an omelette and tell you.
Tony Stark: [to Pepper] I am appointing you CEO, why aren't you listening to me? You know, I've been lately thinking what legacy I want to leave behind, and who should do what when I'm gone. And I think, in terms of Stark Enterprises, that you should take over it. You've always managed to handle it, so far it's been good. I hereby irrevocably make you CEO of the company.
Although the idea of Tony refusing to accept his own mortality because it conflicts with the identity he's built for himself is my favourite idea in the film, and the one that is the most paid off at the end, in a pretty sophisticated and subtle way, his relationship with Pepper doesn't work for me at all. I find it hard to believe that Pepper wouldn't start to suspect that he's dying with as many clues that he's dropping. He suddenly decides to give away their entire modern art collection, he drives a racecar in Monaco, he blows up his own house, and he makes her CEO of his company. All at about the same time. These seem like the choices of a man who doesn't have long to live. Not just an eccentric billionaire, because he's never done anything nearly as out there as all of this. Sure, making her CEO isn't that crazy; she just thinks he's spread too thin being Iron Man while running a mega corporation, so that makes sense; what seems strange about it to me, is that he calls her his successor. Bad word choice, Tony. Aren't you about the same age? Successor implies that she gets everything when you die. If I was dying, I wouldn't use the word successor.
I realize the film wants Tony to be in a rock bottom place, to feel like there's no one there for him; no hope, until he discovers his father's secret, and turns it to a father-son story, where the son is redeemed whilst the father is finally redeemed in his own eyes. It makes sense that Pepper wants nothing to do with him after the fight with Rhodey, but I think their relationship is somewhat regressed from last film to make that work.
I realize the film wants Tony to be in a rock bottom place, to feel like there's no one there for him; no hope, until he discovers his father's secret, and turns it to a father-son story, where the son is redeemed whilst the father is finally redeemed in his own eyes. It makes sense that Pepper wants nothing to do with him after the fight with Rhodey, but I think their relationship is somewhat regressed from last film to make that work.
The main thematic focus of the film is legacy, which Tony spells out the first time we see him. He says, it's about legacy. There are three major threats to the Stark and Iron Man legacy. I think it's important to separate them because, even while Tony says that they're one in the same, they're really not. One is a weapons manufacturer, though he doesn't do that anymore except for the Iron Man weapon, and the other is a superhero. Both, in their day, would say they're trying to protect people. But legacy is about the public perception of a person, not about actual truth. Thus, it can be tarnished, or rewritten. So, Stark's legacy in the first film was in danger of being that of a man who created weapons for destruction, not weapons for protection, and his conscience about that let him stop making weapons altogether and focus on being a superhero. Tony, himself, is the first threat of his legacy, as he emotionally falls apart and proves to the world that he can't handle the role he's forced himself to be in.
The second threat is Ivan Vanko: the dark foil for his private, intellectual persona. His equal in the arena of scientific invention. Whose motive is revenge for what he feels is the destruction of Anton Vanko's legacy by Howard Stark, who had Anton deported back to Russia for trying to cash in by inventions Howard claims were his, alone, and stolen by Vanko.
The third threat is Justin Hammer: the dark foil of Tony's public persona. The man who's taken over the main stage of weapons manufacturing since Tony got out of the game. He has an inferiority complex. He's not nearly as good as making weapons, or is as suave and charming as Tony. He wants to be Tony, so he decides to ruin Tony's reputation to solidify that position. He break Vanko out of prison to do it.
These are two shadows of Tony's personality. The brilliance and the arrogance, but none of the heart. They come together to become a force against Tony, and like Tony himself, they fall apart. Vanko double crosses Hammer and uses him to get the tech he needs to get revenge on Tony. Tony has to constantly keep is ego in check or it consumes him, as we see, that very nearly happens. That ego does destroy Hammer; he's so pleased with himself for thinking of breaking Vanko out of prison, that he can't see passed his own perceived brilliance to notice that Vanko is obviously not building tech for Hammer, but for himself. Vanko was ultimately defeated by Tony because, even while Tony's ego was wrapped up by a factor of five, and his overcompensation by his fear of death, he's still Iron Man to help people, while Vanko was only Whiplash to hurt Tony Stark.
One of my favourite things in the movie is the parallel of Vanko and Hammer's compound and Tony in the cave, in the first film. Both are kidnapped and forced to make weapons for someone else. Both cleverly build something to facilitate their own escape. The difference is, Tony ultimately turns that creation into something to help everyone, and Whiplash is motivated solely by revenge in the first place. His creation is more about killing Tony even than it is to escape. Even if he's right, and Howard Stark really did screw over his father, he might be a somewhat sympathetic villain, but Tony still deserves to have, and develop the technology over Vanko because his intentions are noble and not self motivated.
By the end of the film, Tony's sanity is preserved in two ways. One, by relying on someone else, Rhodey, and not going at a hundred percent alone. Secondly, by the Avengers Initiative, which suggests that there will soon be others to help protect the planet and Iron Man won't have to be the world's nuclear deterrent. Fittingly, the move that takes out Whiplash is the one they used against each other earlier in the film when they fought in Tony's house. When he was dying, he and Rhodey fought because he refused to accept the help he desperately needed. Here, he finally accepts that help, and the shockwave that represented his self destruction now represents his rise back to heroism. That's not to say that I liked everything about this.
Tony Stark: You sound pretty spry for a dead guy.
Ivan Vanko: You too.
From a popcorn eating, entertaining perspective, that last fight was really anticlimactic. After tony acted so incredibly irresponsibly in the suit, it's a little hard for me to swallow that his reputation is completely intact at the end just because he beat up the one guy who happened to develop that technology. It doesn't seem like anyone is questioning if one person had it that fast but maybe somebody else is developing it, or maybe wondering if Tony's an alcoholic after the way he demolished his own property in the suit. The government just pins a medal on him, it's back to business as usual. Maybe things would be better for Tony than they were in the middle of the film, but he makes some pretty major mistakes, and I think he gets off a little too easy. Also, being told by Nick Fury that he's only going to be a consultant in the Avengers Initiative isn't quite enough for me. And again, it feels like Pepper's being thrown under the bus, being the person he has to rely on, putting her in this position of being angry in the whole movie and screaming and yelling a lot. That great chemistry and comedic timing they had in the first film is played up a lot here, but it doesn't work as well, because Tony isn't really himself through a lot of the movie, so it's incredibly awkward. Sometimes funny-awkward, and sometimes just awkward-awkward. Especially because, like I said earlier, I keep thinking that she should be catching up to the fact that he's dying.
So, it's not just a mindless action and comedy fest, and yet, even with a couple of really intrusive and awkward lines of spoonfed exposition, there are several facts that this narrative needs to clear up that gets lost in a lot of the improvised comedy. This movie is so fixated to a lot of comedy and funny visual gags, like the Iron Man Obama poster, and that metal paperweight joke in Pepper's office, that it forgets to give us important information we need to believe character's actions and motivations. Most of those have to do with Ivan Vanko. Though not nearly as fleshed out as I'd like, I at least understand why he does what he does, up until he's broken out of prison by Justin Hammer. He goes after Tony on the race track, but Vanko makes it clear in the prison that scene he had no intention of killing Tony, only to ruin his reputation. This is maybe the best exchange in the movie. If you could make god bleed, people would cease to believe in him. And there will be blood in the water. And the sharks will come. All I have to do is to sit down and watch as the world consumes you. This perfectly illustrates how high of a bar Tony has raised for himself and how impossible it is to reach. This is a great villain plot, because it's not about taking over the world or killing the superhero, but it's to show the world that the hero can't save them. However, this is where things begin to unravel. Before Tony leaves, Vanko says, palladium in the chest. Horrible way to die. Having Vanko know this is a good idea for the narrative. It makes sense that he would try to ruin Tony's legacy just before he dies, but how does he know Tony is dying? Nobody else knows. Pepper doesn't even know, and she has clues. Tony knew all about palladium last movie, and he didn't seem to know that it'd inevitably poison him.
Then, having no idea this was going to happen, he gets broken out of jail and told to make suits like Iron Man, so Hammer can upstage Tony. In far less time he would need to make all the drones, make his own special armor, the electric whips, and reprogram the War Machine armor, he sets this incredibly well thought out involved plan to escape Hammer's compound, and kill Tony Stark.
Wait, why? What happened to "sitting there and watching the world consume Tony"? The kicker is, his first plan worked, and as far as I can tell, just because this is a superhero movie, and we need a climactic battle scene at the end, he tries to kill Tony, who, he has every reason to think, is still dying. He built all this tech to get revenge on a man he already got his revenge on; whom he thinks has mere days or weeks to live, or does he magically know that Tony has synthesized a new element based on his father's secret research and that's why he switches gears decides to kill him just for good measure? A reason could've easily been found to bring Vanko to this point, believably, but instead, it turns a potentially interesting and somewhat atypical bad guy into that stereotypical madman who tries to blow up everything right out at the open for the sake of a big battle sequence. Just like Obadiah Stane in the third act of the first film. The only difference is, Stane's plan makes sense a lot longer than Vanko's does.
Wait, why? What happened to "sitting there and watching the world consume Tony"? The kicker is, his first plan worked, and as far as I can tell, just because this is a superhero movie, and we need a climactic battle scene at the end, he tries to kill Tony, who, he has every reason to think, is still dying. He built all this tech to get revenge on a man he already got his revenge on; whom he thinks has mere days or weeks to live, or does he magically know that Tony has synthesized a new element based on his father's secret research and that's why he switches gears decides to kill him just for good measure? A reason could've easily been found to bring Vanko to this point, believably, but instead, it turns a potentially interesting and somewhat atypical bad guy into that stereotypical madman who tries to blow up everything right out at the open for the sake of a big battle sequence. Just like Obadiah Stane in the third act of the first film. The only difference is, Stane's plan makes sense a lot longer than Vanko's does.
Now that The Avengers has been released, I actually like a lot of The Avengers' lead up stuff quite a lot more than I did when I saw this in the theatre. I like that all the other movies being set up in, what's now referred to, phase one of the marvel cinematic universe, are given chameo references, but aren't shoved in our faces. So, Tony props up a table with Captain America's shield, agent Coulsen goes to contain Thor's hammer in New Mexico, and the climactic battle from Incredible Hulk is actually being played by a TV in the background at the same time as Nick Fury's last conversation with Tony. There is some talk of the Avengers throughout the film, but that's used as a plotpoint to explain why Nick Fury is even having Tony watched in the first place, and if he hadn't set Natasha Romanoff to spy on Tony, Tony would've never figured out how to cure himself. And, though I liked Scarlett Johansson in the role, I think there was a real missed opportunity with Natasha Romanoff.
A lot of people cried foul at how this universe's Black Widow doesn't have a russian accent. I don't mind that it doesn't stick to source material completely, but the only reason seems to be that Johansson couldn't or didn't want to fake an accent the whole movie. The trouble is, she is supposed to be a Russian, or at least, we're sure of that by Avengers, in a movie with a Russian villain, so she feels a little shoehorned in the way the movie plays now. She would've felt much more necessary if something was done with the fact that she and the bad guy are both from the same country. Also, I think there's a really easy way to work around the Russian accent. She's working undercover working as Pepper's new assistant, Natalie Rushman . Why not have the character "fake" an English accent most of the movie, and only do a Russian accent when she blows her own cover at the end and puts on that incredibly inspicuous looking jumpsuit.