This is the third part in my 21 part series reviewing the MCU films in chronological order. Reading these in chronological order is not a necessity, but will help understand the ways in which Marvel films improve or regress.
Written Review:
Iron Man 2 is a really disappointing movie in the worst way imaginable. Everything I liked from the predecessor is retreaded but without style and intellect. Everything new the film introduces is rather boring, and the characters introduced here are extremely weak in both development and writing. The audience is left wondering what happened to the most interesting parts of the first movie, and why they felt the need to ignore the developments in the first beyond some simple plot points.
Most of this review will be an illustration as to why Iron Man 2 manages to both ruin its own plot in isolation and ruin whatever was left from the first movie. I don’t think this was out of malice, subversion, or laziness, rather, I feel as if it was done unknowingly, or maybe the best parts of the first movie were done unknowingly. Favreau struck gold the first time, but if his initial plan didn’t reflect this goal then maybe one could draw the conclusion that Iron Man’s successes were pure luck.
To focus on the good carry-overs first, I would like to mention again that Robert Downey Jr.’s performance is really, really, really good. There’s something about his on-screen chemistry that is both egotistical and romantic at the same time. He’s pretty rude, but the audience falls under the same curse that his women do. Once again, the ensemble are really just boards for Tony to work off of, each a part of his personal life. Pepper is again the love interest, and Happy is the “work guy.” Hammer reflect Tony’s present standing as a Musk-type bureaucrat, and Whiplash reflect Tony’s past, and the skeleton’s that follow him.
We do reach a clear problem here, however. Though the carryover characters and villains fit this style well, some of the more important individuals get ruined because of this. I think we can trace Black Widow’s poor character development to this film, actually. She’s really nothing more than a sex object for Tony to be subverted later in the film. In fact, she’s literally a pretty face with badass kicks during the ENTIRE film. The subversion of her character is not one of value, rather, it’s just a reflection on Tony. This works for smaller characters that Tony is directly responsible for, but the series tries to illustrate Black Widow as an Avenger of Shield. None of this is reflected at any point in the movie, and it wasn’t really responded to until Age of Ultron.
To a lesser extent, Nick Fury receives the same treatment. He introduces a few lines of plot and suddenly leaves the film. To Stark, he is a babysitter, a well-needed role in Tony’s life but one that fails to realize the value of Fury’s character. This leads to the understatement and underutilization of most of the cast.
In the first film, this is allowed because the story of Tony Stark was written so well, and the subtext behind the situation reflected something genuinely interesting in the world beyond the film. To have a good film is to have a meaningful one, and without meaning, you have a waste of time and money. This leads to one of the crucial points against this film, that being the degradation of the foundation laid in the one before it.
By the end of the first film, Tony Stark recognizes the fault of his company and the business practices levied by Obadiah Stane. No longer will Stark Industries be the company weaponizing the war economy, rather, it has completely removed the weapons development branch. Tony has recognized the danger of weaponizing the world and has actively taken actions to prevent such. This lays the groundwork for the second film, and I find three contradictions to this characterization in Iron Man 2 which I will detail now.
First, Tony Stark is clearly against the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) in Iron Man but promotes the Peace Industrial Complex in Iron Man 2. This isn’t a plot hole, rather, it neglects to understand the real conclusions drawn by Iron Man. Tony didn’t think he would be the one to end the war, instead believing that he would stop the terrible impacts his company made on wartime suffering. For some reason Iron Man 2 changes Tony’s mind to one of a savior, and that the peace of the world will be his industry of choice. The first film clearly illustrates Tony’s distaste for the marketing of weapons, so he should logically be against the marketing of peace. It is also worth mentioning that Tony’s decision to go against the MIC is not reflected in the Stark Expo, a clever reference to Epcot/The World’s Fair that promotes the sales of weapons for war. Hammer did not invade the Expo, he was invited. Apparently Tony only had a problem with HIS weapons being sold overseas, and not the general complex as a whole.
Second, Tony’s moral philosophy is questionable at best. In Iron Man, Tony directly states that selling weapons to the enemies of the United States is bad as it promotes further war and undeserved profit. The assumption clearly made in the first film is that war is bad, and Iron Man is there to stop both those making money from it and those furthering the suffering (the army). Maybe I read it incorrectly, but I would argue that the first movie is an anti-war film. Iron Man never helps the army and is one moment of overseas fighting is done against army orders and exclusively to destroy his company’s weapons. In Iron Man 2, however, Tony advocates for “Big Stick” diplomacy akin to President Teddy Roosevelt. The Iron Man suit is not neutral, rather, it is a means of deterrence for the enemies of the United States. Essentially, don’t mess with the U.S. Armed Forces or Iron Man will mess you up. Though one could argue that Iron Man’s plot could be stretched to fit this mold, I don’t think the interpretation would lend itself well to criticism. Iron Man at no point sides with the military, but unlike the first film, he isn’t recognizing the flaws of the wartime effort. In fact, James Rhodes is seen as a good guy but actively looks to continue the United States’ intervention overseas. Iron Man 2 could have taken the MIC argument one step further, responding to the weaponization of man as a tool of senseless warfare.
Finally, the last point I’d like to draw attention to focuses on the character of Iron Man further into the MCU. This is done with prior knowledge of future films, and thus does not pertain to the scoring but should be mentioned here. In this film, Iron Man refuses to give any of his tech to the government, saying that “privatizing world peace” (yes, that’s a quote from the guy who saw the evils of the privatized military) will be the next industry. This mantra is still held at the end of the film, even after the terrorist attacks are done using his own technology. Tony doesn’t reflect on this beyond a recognition that he can stop anything, and he continues to promote independence over his suits. However, in a later film, Tony Stark (following the Sokovia attacks by Ultron) recognizes the need for regulation over superheroes as his tech led to the deaths of many. I’m not sure why this instance doesn’t draw the same conclusion. Captain America’s change of sides from die-hard Patriot to skeptical citizen following the events of Captain America: The Winter Soldier are justified, but it’s illustrated in this film that Tony does not have any interest in giving the government power over his suits, in fact, he sees the opposite as more beneficial to the wellbeing of all. I see his future shift as a forced one to allow for Civil War, but that’s a future topic.
One of my key compliments of the first film was the manner in which it blended reality and cartoon, creating action that was believable but bombastic. Besides a couple of flying scenes, Iron Man felt extremely grounded and respected the visual flair of a red robot suit. Iron Man 2, however, delivers action that is both boring and devoid of character. The scene between Stark and Rhodes at the Birthday party is laughably slow, and cartoonish sound effects really hammer home the audience this film was trying to reach. It’s too silly here, and the best aspects of the first movie are suddenly diminished to slapstick. On the other end of the spectrum, the race fight between Whiplash and Stark is extremely sluggish. For a character defined by electrical whips, Whiplash just moseys around as Stark flips a couple of times.
Thankfully the climax of the film deserves some praise, at least visually. The Stark Expo is a colorful and diverse backdrop for some extensive action scenes displaying the kinetic energy intrinsic with the Iron Man character. There’s not much to say here, as the action is meaningless, but the eye-candy is nice.
Overall, Iron Man 2 is a weaker version of Iron Man. Though the film retains Robert Downey Jr.’s acting and some of the action, it loses the subtext so important to the identity and purpose of the first film. No longer does Iron Man hold the MIC responsible for the unnecessary suffering of millions in pursuit of profit, treating the United States as idyllic heroes in the world devoid of the fault presented in Iron Man. I wish the film went deeper into important issues surrounding the overlap of science and war, instead of presenting a useless conflict like a serialized comic would on issue 5XX.
I give Iron Man 2 a 4/10. The film has merits but fails to live up to the standards set before it.
Ryan Dorman is a Columnist and the Content Director for the Boardwalk Times. He can be found on Twitter at @OpentheDorman, and as a host of the Boardwalk Talk podcast on iTunes.
