Iron Man 2

I took advantage of a free pass and went to see Iron Man 2. I had put off seeing it after hearing bad reviews and talking to a few friends who didn’t have encouraging things say about it. I was not pleased with the first Iron Man movie, although everyone else seemed to like it.  The origin was too long and drawn out and we only got to see Iron Man at full strength for about five minutes when he went to the middle east to destroy the stolen Stark Industries weapons. Is it possible to compromise when writing superhero origin stories? To take into account some of the audience actually reads comics and knows how Iron Man came to be--and don't want to be led down that long and boring path again? Again I draw reference to The Incredible Hulk, which had the best origin ever in a movie--told during the opening credits.

The final battle in Iron Man 1 was incredibly disappointing as Iron Man fought at partial-strength, using the out-dated arc-reactor to power his armor. Iron Man viewers were cheated in so many ways at not seeing an all-out, full-strength fight between Iron Man and “Iron Monger”.

All that to say, Iron Man 2 wasn’t much better than the first movie except for the last 20 minutes. They might as well have told the entire origin all over again in this second film, that's how bored I was. There were even moments when I thought about walking out.  Looking back on both movies, I think they should have been titled “Tony Stark”, because Iron Man only makes brief appearances in both.  This might not in and of itself be a problem; except that Tony Stark is a drunken, egotistical, narcissistic bore who doesn't deserve the amount of screen time he's given. Sorry Robert Downey, Jr. it’s not your fault. You did an excellent job playing a shallow and annoying character. Personally I’d rather see more of Iron Man and less of Tony Stark. 

There were several things that stuck out in this film that made me sit up and take notice. One was Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), who normally in the comics would be called the “Black Widow”.  I don’t know what it is about Hollywood and their aversion to using superhero code names. Even in the credits, Scarlett Johansson is listed as “Natalie Rushman / Natasha Romanoff”. Even when she reveals herself in full costume, she’s still not called the Black Widow. Aside from that the woman can fight!  And seeing the Black Wi…err...Natasha Romanoff in action against a cadre of guards was just plain awesome and jaw-dropping! She had cool gadgets too. But the main weapon she uses in the comic books-- the “Widow’s Bite” was ignored. This is especially disturbing because she was wearing the distinctively shaped bracelets which fire the "Widow's Bite" energy blasts, as well as "Widow's line" grappling hooks, and tear gas pellets. So why wear the bracelets if they’re not going to be used? 

Even more un-true to the character is that Natasha, who is from Russia, never spoke with a Russian accent even when she was no longer under cover.

I’m only going to touch on the villain is this movie Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke).  In the comics he would be called “Whiplash”, yet another character that goes without a code name. I’m told at the end of the movie, when wearing the suit of armor, he’s supposed to be the “Crimson Dynamo” but I would have never made that connection from watching the movie.  And I won’t even go into how wrong this is from a comic book standpoint. Whiplash and the Crimson Dynamo are two separate villians in the Marvel Universe. The other thing that made me take notice was the extremely brief cameo appearance of “Bambi Arbogast” and only true Iron Man fans would know who she is. So you give us Bambi but butcher everything else?

Finally, the character of James Rhodes, who was re-cast, and played by Don Cheadle. (The name "War Machine" was the only code name mentioned in the film, but it was mentioned--now really, was that so hard?). I strongly objected to the casting of Terrance Howard as “Rhodey” in the first film. He just didn’t have the toughness to play a military role. Now as much as I respect Don as an actor, I don’t think he was right for the role either.

My choice for the part of Rhodey would be a versatile actor named Russell Hornsby who most recently starred in the TV series Lincoln Heights.

The thing that was odd to me about Rhodey is how easily he was able to control the Iron Man armor as soon as he put it on. When Stark flew in the armor in the first film, there was a bit of a learning curve. Not so for Rhodey. I can only hope he wore the armor in the time between Iron Man 1 and 2 and is familiar with how it operates--although the film gives us no indication of that.

The last 20 minutes of the film provided more action than I could have possibly imagined or dared to ask for. It was absolutely fantastic! This is what I was looking for at the end of the first movie. Iron Man at full-strength--and in this second move--even more powerful than ever! I was on the edge of my seat. And there is even a new weapon in his arsenal that is beyond cool. But does 20 minutes of all-out action make up for a movie filled with inconsistencies and character innaccurices; that had me propping my eyes open with toothpicks early on just to stay awake?  Out of 5 fingers I’d have to give it 2.