Betsy Speicher

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Rate this movie   6 votes

  1. 1. Artistic Merit

    • 10
      0
    • 9
      0
    • 8
      3
    • 7
      1
    • 6
      1
    • 5
      0
    • 4
      1
    • 3
      0
    • 2
      0
    • 1
      0
    • 0
      0
  2. 2. Sense of Life or Personal Value

    • 10
      1
    • 9
      0
    • 8
      3
    • 7
      1
    • 6
      0
    • 5
      0
    • 4
      1
    • 3
      0
    • 2
      0
    • 1
      0
    • 0
      0

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

13 posts in this topic

In comparison to almost all the other movies out at this time, this is a good one. But I did not think that it was as good as the first one which stems from some of the statements and actions of some of the main characters. Overall, I would see it again and most likely will purchase it when that time comes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a great time with this one. I agree with Ray that it was not as good a movie as the first, but at least it retained the celebration of a productive, creative thinker and doer and his right to the fruits of his labors and, even, what happens when the gov't appropriates that product and tries to "enhance" it, to tailor it to their purposes by using a reasonable facsimile of Orren Boyle, in the Hammer character (Sam Rockwell).

I found it uneven. Some of the dialogue was snappy and terrific, but some of the characters and their relationship to the story ill-defined and inconsistent, in particular Scarlet Johanssen's Black Widow. (I'll leave spoilers out.) Nevertheless, it was entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have not seen this movie I highly recommend it if for only one scene...the Congressional hearings portion. In brief, a Congressional hearing for the confiscation the Iron Man suit and therefore the technology behind it, is held. The Congress-Critter demands Tony Stark turn over the suit "for the good of everyone."

He declines saying that his work is HIS and no one else's to use as he sees fit.

Imagine that! We have to look to a comic book re-make to find a hero industrialist (though wrapped up in a rock-star, narcissistic package).

As another little tid bit I enjoyed was that Tony Stark's father

hid the key to "the secret" in an architectural design.

.

As previously pointed out the introduction of tertiary characters in blatant efforts to prep us all for series of spin off movies was a bit distracting, but looking past that isn't too difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just thought that *both* of the Iron Man movies were a lot of fun. I did not perceive them as having any great philosophical or cultural significance. I they were a sign that the culture is improving in any significant way, then I must have missed something. Sure, the hero is a businessman. But he is portrayed as having large elements of second handedness, and flaws such as a weakness for loose women and for alchohol. So it is not any *major* step forward as a sign of an improving the moral status, in the public´s eyes, of businessmen and capitalism. It is not such a big deal that some businessmen, perhaps, are now perceived as being the *comic book* type of (action) heroes. But still, it is something, just not anything major.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flaws such as a weakness for loose women and for alchohol

I wouldn't call them flaws. They are a choice. You choose to forego some future health in exchange for "fun"/relaxation now. I don't personally make those choices, but never really see it as a downside for those tycoons who do. They've earned it (unlike the more unproductive members of society traditionally associated with this kind of lifestyle, especially around 1968).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just thought that *both* of the Iron Man movies were a lot of fun. I did not perceive them as having any great philosophical or cultural significance. I they were a sign that the culture is improving in any significant way, then I must have missed something. Sure, the hero is a businessman. But he is portrayed as having large elements of second handedness, and flaws such as a weakness for loose women and for alchohol. So it is not any *major* step forward as a sign of an improving the moral status, in the public´s eyes, of businessmen and capitalism. It is not such a big deal that some businessmen, perhaps, are now perceived as being the *comic book* type of (action) heroes. But still, it is something, just not anything major.
SPOILERS

I think this is somewhat unfair to Stark's character. He is portrayed as a man justifiably proud of his accomplishments, but he's dying from painful radiation poisoning and his self-medicating with alcohol, while not helpful at a key juncture, is understandable and certainly not in the same category as some nihilist druggie shooting up, or a lush at a bar. And, yes, he's portrayed as a playboy, but it is also clear that there is one woman that he actually loves and the only thing that prevented him from proposing to her is her cutting him off, not understanding his seemingly unaccountable self-destructive behavior. And he doesn't tell her because he doesn't want her to suffer with him. It's certainly not a perfect portrayal of a great hero, but for an adaptation of a Marvel comic, a company famous for undercutting their "heroes," often making them almost completely dysfunctional neurotics in their personal lives, this is a very positive interpretation.

I admire the unapologetic portrayal of a business tycoon as a hero, and by virtue of his brains, not some genetic aberration or planet-hop. Compare the philosophy here to Brad Bird's in "The Incredibles." I loved that show for the sense of fun, and overall benevolence, but Bird was explicit in a Nietzschian celebration of genetic superiority, in which only the arch-villain achieves his powers through his mind and creativity, a horrible inversion.

Not perfect, but good. That I didn't have to spend any part of my mind during the movie excusing philosophical affronts was refreshing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem with the movie isn't Stark's characterization, but the stupidity of the plot. Here you have Vanko the villain making his high tech... whatever it is... in what looks to be a blacksmith's shop. Then he shows up at the race track, somehow knowing Stark will be there even before Stark does. His outfit doesn't even have a helmet, so any cop could have taken him out with a head shot... need I go on?

This sort of thing seems to be typical of comic book and sci-fi movies these days. They seem to get a free pass from the fanboy crowd because they're full of explosions. The more "serious" ones like DISTRICT 9 and AVATAR get a free pass because they're PC -- Darrell Schweitzer ripped AVATAR to shreds in the New York Review of Science Fiction, and he's hardly alone. I'm sick and tired of this sort of mindlessness.

But it was nice to see Scarlet Johansson's brief turn as the Black Widow. Maybe she could be brought back as Emma Peel in a revival of THE AVENGERS.

--J.J.P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real problem with the movie isn't Stark's characterization, but the stupidity of the plot.

(...)

This sort of thing seems to be typical of comic book and sci-fi movies these days.

Completely agrees.

Still, I enjoyed the movie for the fun it could provide. Both Scarlet Johansen and Gwyneth Paltrow are absolutely delightful, smart, and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real problem with the movie isn't Stark's characterization, but the stupidity of the plot. Here you have Vanko the villain making his high tech... whatever it is... in what looks to be a blacksmith's shop. Then he shows up at the race track, somehow knowing Stark will be there even before Stark does. His outfit doesn't even have a helmet, so any cop could have taken him out with a head shot... need I go on?

This sort of thing seems to be typical of comic book and sci-fi movies these days. They seem to get a free pass from the fanboy crowd because they're full of explosions. The more "serious" ones like DISTRICT 9 and AVATAR get a free pass because they're PC -- Darrell Schweitzer ripped AVATAR to shreds in the New York Review of Science Fiction, and he's hardly alone. I'm sick and tired of this sort of mindlessness.

But it was nice to see Scarlet Johansson's brief turn as the Black Widow. Maybe she could be brought back as Emma Peel in a revival of THE AVENGERS.

--J.J.P.

You certainly needn't go on, but it's enjoyable when you do :D. You're absolutely right. I noted the lack of protection Vanko provided himself (not just head, but pretty much everywhere else: "Mickey Rourke does 'Gladiator'"?) and just filed it in the same bucket I put Scarlett Johanssen kicking every butt in her way down a hall full of them, although that probably belongs in a separate Post-Buffy Bucket. Good point about the conveniently manipulated, okay, psychic, racetrack confrontation.

All of that said, I still enjoyed it. And, yes, Paltrow and Johanssen added some class to the proceedings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another eye candy is the Audi R8 Spyder, which I think is a much more inspired design than the R8. It's like a TT on steroids. Vavavoooom...!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another eye candy is the Audi R8 Spyder, which I think is a much more inspired design than the R8. It's like a TT on steroids. Vavavoooom...!

It is definetly a wonderful machine and a pleasure to view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another eye candy is the Audi R8 Spyder, which I think is a much more inspired design than the R8. It's like a TT on steroids. Vavavoooom...!

It is definetly a wonderful machine and a pleasure to view.

But would you rather ride the Spyder or Scarlet Johansson? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites