I remember when saw the first “Iron Man” in theaters. It was before the advent of “The Dark Knight” so I was skeptical with “Spider Man II” being the only good super-hero movie I seen beforehand. Needless to say, back then I was under the impression that super hero movies did nothing but suck, and on rare occasions were utterly awesome. That, coupled with the flash and glam of “Iron Man’s” aesthetic really didn’t entertain my anticipatory-movie senses. I couldn’t have been more wrong. What I found beneath its glamorous exterior was a real human story about a sly, charming, weapons corporation CEO that has came to the haunting realization of how immoral his trade really is. So then, the question that we’re all begging for the answer to now is “does Iron Man II measure up to the emotional weight of its predecessor? Or does it take the safe-root with big explosions and hot women?” Okay, so maybe I was the only one asking that specific of a question, but you get the point.
“Iron Man II’s” story takes off not too far from where we left off in the previous “Iron Man,” in the first scenes we watch as a U.S. Senator harangues Tony Stark into trading over the Iron Man weapon in the name of “national security.” Needless to say, Tony is as reluctantly and charming as ever in refusing the senator’s offer. However, the senator is the least of Stark’s worries. It appears that the device that had made him into a superhero and kept him alive since the beginning of the first film is starting to infect his blood. Tony, being the impulsive fellow that he is, starts to act up and creates quite a bit of public outcry. Oh yeah, did I mention a vengeful Russian physicists (played by Mickey Rourke) is trying to kill him while at the same time a fellow arms CEO (Sam Rockwell) is attempting to ruin his business by making a better Iron Man suite. Yeah, there’s a lot going on in this sequel, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. You see, where “Iron Man II” fails isn’t in creating an emotionally rich story with multiple three dimensional characters, where does stumble however, is in its presentation of aforementioned story; allow me to explain.
You remember how in the first “Iron Man” you could see as the relationship between Tony and Pepper slowly grew more and more intimate with little, funny sequences like when she has to replace his arch reactor? Well, “Iron Man II” has one too many sequences like that, and gets pretty boring after we expect them to be together already. However, the biggest flaw of “Iron Man II” is its central villain. The sort of mad, vengeful antagonist Rourke creates out of Whiplash is incredible, however that most likely has less to do with Rourke as much as it has to do with the character Whiplash. See, Whiplash is the perfect villain: he questions the use of the hero. Take Heather Ledger’s Joker from “The Dark Knight,” the primary reason he worked as such a great nemesis for Batman was because he found Batman’s weakness and exploited it. He took the very people Batman was trying to save, and began killing them in order to force Batman to reveal his identity. Whiplash questions the morality of the Stark family and their legacy, calling them “thieves and butchers.” Alas, Rourke is not given nearly enough screen-time to flesh out the character to his best potential, making the appearance of the character more disappointing than exciting. Now, mistakes such as this one can be forgiven if there is hope for the reappearance of the character. However, the film seems to want to get rid of him in order to make room “The Avenger’s” storyline. Now, I am in no opposition to catering to the fans of franchises; that is unless the product placement interferes with the quality of the film; which in this case it does.
Now, when you put its other flaws aside “Iron Ma II” still has cool, story driven action right? Well, yes and no. The part when we watch as Whiplash slices and dices Tony’s race car in order to kill him was probably the highlight of the films action sequences; and that’s mostly due to the incredibly badass briefcase suit. Now, if “Iron Man II” were a lesser film, I would have forgiven for its drawn-out third act of pure action but I know it knew better than to do that to us. Looking at “District 9” one could make the same argument about its third act, but you see, its action pertained DIRECTLY to the story, whereas “Iron Man II’s” felt a bit contrived. The climax of the film is an action finale where Tony and Rhodey face off against a bunch of robots (a sequence which is by the way addled with one liner’s) created by Whiplash. Sounds like it pertains directly to story, right? Well no, you see Whiplash created the robots for Hammer corp. (Stark Industries business nemesis) so that they may be unveiled at an important technology convention. Tony finds out the robots were created by Whiplash and goes to …. save the people at the convention from the robots? Why would Whiplash want to harm the people at the convention? Didn’t he accuse the Stark family of being “thieves and butchers?” In addition to this, his robots harming innocent civilians would only help Stark industries. It just didn't make any sense to me.
“Iron Man II” is less than flawless; however it still manages to be a delightful cinematic treat. While at times the action is contrived, it still possesses a strong enough story to keep the audience engaged, not to mention the infamous charm of Robert Downey Jr. If only it had a bit more disciplined direction and a less sprawling storyline it really could have been the breath of fresh air its predecessor was. Let’s just hope all this “Avenger’s” product placement pays off. 4/5
