A few weeks ago, this blogger screened IRON MAN 2 and deemed it a “worthy sequel”. Said blogger considered it good enough to view more than once. However, since then I have not found the desire to see it again on the big screen, and have been wondering what it is about the film that has been bugging me since Day One.
The film is a neat little package, and wraps up everything with a nice happy ending. Maybe too happy. The storyline wraps with no residual effects; no cliffhanger, no main-character deaths, no game-changing events. The lives of the characters are not really altered forever in any way, and therein lays the rub.
What does every filmmaker want to do when they make their sequel? They want to make the audience WANT to see another. The tried-and-true method to do this is to craft a storyline that will forever alter the universe they are working with. The finale is the most important part. It should have that punch-in-the-gut that will make you stagger out of the theatre, wondering how in the hell they are going to resolve things in Part 3.
This method has been worked to near-perfection in the past. THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, DEAD MAN’S CHEST, and THE DARK KNIGHT to name a few. Think about it. Would EMPIRE have had the humungous effect if not for the Han-kidnapping, and the is-he-really-Luke’s-father storyline? Would a third Batman film be as intriguing if KNIGHT did not end with Bats as a fugitive? Even BATMAN BEGINS got this right by teasing the existence of The Joker in the wrap. For the hell of it: Would STAR TREK II be as great if not for the death of Spock? What did all these films do right? They made you WANT to see another.
IRON MAN 2 fails to do this, and it’s really annoying. Annoying because the happy ending with no ripple effects makes the overall story nearly worthless. With the storyline diminished, the sole purpose of the film seems to be nothing more than a bridge/promotional vehicle for the upcoming AVENGER flicks.
That’s really a tragedy. I for one would have loved to see this Tony Stark character in a third film if he had to deal with the death of Pepper Potts. Or what if Stark became a drunken vigilante; wiping out crime without the approval of his country? The possibilities seemed to be in place for the filmmakers to take advantage of.
Without any outstanding storylines, I’d have to say WTF is the BFD with a third installment? And that makes me think of the second installment as kind of pointless. Entertaining, but weak.
What say you?
Alan, I agree it was a worthy sequel, but it crammed TOO MUCH in. This wasn't Iron Man, this was an Avengers prequel as well. The time they spent with Fury should have been spent on Vanko.
ReplyDeleteThink about it: Vanko is what Stark could have been, and possibly the two would have been 'brothers' in another life. This was given lip service and Vanko became nothing more than a thug out for revenge.
Scarjo? Aside from her rear end, why was she in the movie?
This should have been Stark vs the Establishment and his Demons (including Vanko). Instead, we got Sam Jackson in a goofy black leather jacket and none of the fun of the first movie.
Still a better than average superhero flick, but not AS good as the first.
I must say, I agree to an extent. I think this movie better prepares you overall to an Avengers movie, than I 3rd IRON MAN film. All the elements were there (Fury, Shield, Black Widow, etc). Still a very well thought, put together film none-the-less considering the amount they had to put in.
ReplyDeleteEMPIRE, CHEST, and KNIGHT are perfect examples of what you said Alan...I gotta add one more...SPIDER-MAN 2. Spider-Man 2 made me want to go see the third....but the 3rd turned out to be a complete and utter turd (Emo Spidey dancing in the streets...who the hell wants to see that??!!).