"Iron Man 2"- An entertaining but uneven follow-up.

Rating: 7/10 (12 April 2017)

One of the more divisive and maligned entries in Marvel's ever- growing Cinematic Universe, 2010's "Iron Man 2" was a strange beast indeed. Filled with eye-popping visuals and phenomenal performances, yet suffering various issues with pace and focus, the film has gone on to become one of those rare examples of a "Marvel blunder"- one of the only entries in the entire series that isn't universally hailed for its high quality. And yet, I can't help but feel it was too harshly judged and receives far too little credit for its major accomplishments. In the grand scheme of things, sure it might be in the bottom tier for the phenomenal franchise... but it's certainly also an entertaining and oft-thrilling installment that's worth giving a second shot to if you haven't seen it in a while.
Things are changing for Tony Stark, once again played to perfection by Robert Downey Jr. The public adores him and his superhero alter-ego "Iron Man", he's virtually untouchable by any government agency, and he's just kick-started a year long convention (Stark Expo) that is set to bring together the greatest minds in science and development. Yet not all is well... he's recently discovered that he is being slowly poisoned by the arc-reactor that keeps him alive (the thing that is saving him is also killing him in an ironic twist), he's contending with vile corporate rival Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), and a new villain has emerged with ties to his own past- Ivan Vanko, also known as "Whiplash", portrayed by the delightful Mickey Rourke. Stark must rely on his cunning to juggle these intertwining developments in order to save not only the world once again... but to also save himself.
The film is often cited as being a disappointment for placing too much focus on setting-up and "sequel baiting" the various upcoming releases that were set to follow, leading to an overstuffed story-line that sometimes confused rather than enthralled. And to an extend, I can see the problem and admit its presence. Certain scenes do feel out of place and a little too much focus is given to secondary characters like Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), often at the expense of screen time for more primary characters. Motivation becomes a bit iffy at times, and some of the major sub-plots at play often go for long stretches without being addressed.
And yet... I don't see it as that big of a problem. Sure, it can be annoying during a few key scenes, but to me, there's just too much to like here to dismiss the entire experience. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, as they say. And its admitted problems with structure and focus cannot stop top-notch performances, wonderful visual direction and some clever writing from shining through.
Everyone is at the top of their game here. Downey had by this time cemented himself as the perfect player fir the role of Stark, and he is magnificent. He was born to play this role. Rockwell and Rourke make for a great evil duo, both playing their parts uniquely... Rockwell as a hammy and troubled businessman that feels like what Tony would have become if he never "grew up", and Rouke as a hulking, seething mountain of a man with a major chip on his shoulder... but also a savage sense of humor. Gwyneth Paltrow and Johansson round out the major players as the women supporting Stark- Pepper Potts and the aforementioned Romanoff. They both do great work here- especially Johansson who is revealed to of course be an undercover SHIELD agent (that's not spoiling anything, it's in the trailer) that would go on to become a greater presence in future films. Don Cheadle takes on the part of James Rhodes from original actor Terrance Howard, and I think he improves on the part in every way. Howard introduced good-ole Rhodey... Cheadle defined him. And even minor roles by the likes of Jackson and director Jon Favreau get a lot of good business in the film.
Visually, the film is stunning thanks to director Favreau's keen eye for thrilling and exciting imagery. I particularly admire how he is not just content in filming everything in bland, shaky closeup. He's a director that likes to give you long, wide shots where you can appreciate the beauty of the carnage and the furious action, and only relies on shaky-cam to emphasize emotion and desperation in a few calculate, key moments. He also has a knack for expertly combining practical and digital effects, leading to a near-perfect blend that really pulls you into the film. It is a shame that after this movie, he took a step back into a producing role for the series- his work as a director was inspired.
Finally, despite some hiccups in the pacing and structure, I actually quite liked the script by Justin Theroux, who had previously worked with Downey on "Tropic Thunder." There's some really great quiet moments and a lot of genuinely entertaining beats of humor that I appreciated. One stand-out sequence involving a drunken brawl between Stark and Rhodes, both in Iron Man armors was one of the highlights. And I also really gotta commend Theroux's ability to constantly build and ratchet up tension... the entire film seems like its building to the finale in a very appropriate and organic way, and when it finally pays off in a flurry of explosions and effects, it feels earned.
In the end, "Iron Man 2" might not have quite been the film we wanted. But it was still a great time at the movies. It has some fundamental flaws that will certainly turn a portion of audiences off, but I think if you can soldier past those issues, there's too much here to like to not have a great time. It's not perfect, but it's still perfect fun. I give it a solid 7 out of 10.