Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
May 11, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: For those of you who have seen it, what did you think of Iron Man 2?
Josh Spiegel: As I alluded earlier, I thought Iron Man 2 was a lot of fun. I would say that its biggest issue was the biggest issue the first Iron Man had: not enough time with the main supervillain. Here, that's caused by Tony Stark facing off against Justin Hammer and Ivan Vanko, but it's a problem I didn't have much trouble getting over. Downey is, as always, a blast to watch on screen, and his face-offs with Sam Rockwell and Mickey Rourke were great. I was also impressed with Scarlett Johannson (whose big action scene garnered applause in my audience), and Downey's chemistry with Gwyneth Paltrow remained strong. I know some people criticized the seeming emphasis on building up the Avengers storyline, but as a non-comic book reader, I wasn't really that thrown by it, nor did I feel like there was too much Avengers, not enough Iron Man/Tony Stark. So...yeah, big success for me, and I'm ready for Iron Man 3 (and Thor, and Captain America, and The Avengers).
Michael Lynderey: It was basically passable - a "B". It's not a bad movie, but it really pales in comparison to the first one, and the story isn't as fluid or engrossing. Rourke was good but underused, Paltrow and Downey still had some chemistry, but the Johansson character seemed especially puzzling - there didn't seem to be much of a point in having Black Widow in the film. From the POV of a summer movie watcher, I'd also say there wasn't enough action (something I frankly also thought was true of the first film).
Shalimar Sahota: The potential for a darker sequel was there ("The device that's keeping you alive is also killing you,"), and yet it goes the opposite direction and proves to be a fun installment that just about delivers what one now expects from an Iron Man film. Although it's not a successor, it still comes out looking good. I'm kinda with Michael, though, in that both the Iron Man films could have done with a bit more action (the final confrontation with Vanko is over before it's begun). Maybe action is something Favreau prefers to keep in short bursts.
Kim Hollis: I found it to be very enjoyable, much more so than I was even anticipating. Vanko was a terrific villain - no monologues, no warnings. He just shows up and is prepared to kill the man he perceives to be his enemy without any kind of explanation. That's how a bad guy should behave (unless he's completely unhinged like the Joker). Downey is always fantastic and I enjoyed his scenes with Paltrow, Cheadle and Favreau. My only (very, very small) complaint is that I felt the action was overly noisy and kind of blurry - very similar to Transformers/Transformers 2 in that way. I would have liked it to be a bit more crisp, though I realize that's challenging to achieve.
David Mumpower: I was braced for the worst; I had always worried that this production was too rushed. The early reviews, particularly the hatchet job from Hollywood Reporter, reinforced a lot of my concerns. Perhaps the lowered expectations helped for me, because I was quite impressed with Iron Man 2 overall. I like that there are two villains in the film and one of them is used entirely as incompetent comic relief. Because of that, the other one is liberated to be in attack mode throughout the film. I don’t feel that we see enough of this in movies. Too many times, the villain should win but doesn’t because he fails to go for the jugular. That makes the process too fake, too similar to professional wrestling.
Iron Man 2 has a realism in this regard that is magnified by the way that Stark and his foe, Ivan Vanko, are demonstrated to have similar personalities. Each of them gains a level of tunnel vision as they seek to implement and enhance their creations. It works for me on a fundamental level just as was the case in The Fugitive when the Tommy Lee Jones and Harrison Ford characters were shown narrowing down their search results for a one-armed man who may be a murderer. We see this in Iron Man 2 as both inventors try to create a new iteration of their model that will eliminate the competition. Something I loved about Iron Man that still stands with its successor is that Favreau reveals the creative process in a way I find relatable.
Pete Kilmer: I think it was a very strong followup to Iron Man. It expanded the world of Iron Man/Tony Stark very nicely to work with the upcoming Marvel movies. But even better was that the movie just plain worked. As David mentioned before, the villians really worked here quite nicely to take down the hero in different ways that didn't overshadow each other. I really liked how Vanko and Hammer were reflections of the men Tony might have been if life had gone a bit differently for him.
I also found that this movie had a little more emotional heart in this one than in the last film. Vanko had a real '"mad-on" for Tony for what Tony's father "did" to him and it was understandable. Pepper and Tony (those two need to make an old school fast talking 1940s film) had a great connection. A lot of this really worked for me; in fact, the part that really worked for me is the part a lot of critics say that nothing happened in. When Tony has to figure out what his Dad meant and find the new element was showing Tony at what he really is. An inventor. Sure he's the playboy billionaire, the brash hero, the rich man who stick his middle finger up to the government, but at his heart...he's an inventor. Loved it.
Matthew Huntley: Like the original, this is a very solid popcorn movie. It's light, exciting and action-packed, but it's also sort of standard as far as superhero movies go. It's not as intelligent or patient as its predecessor, but the action is tighter and more rhythmic. It also has a better Rhodey (courtesy of Don Cheadle), a more interesting villain (Mickey Rourke speaks with a Russian accent quite well) and there are some nice director touches along the way (shooting in a doughnut shop; two Iron Men fighting in Stark's house; the film strip of Tony Stark's father). As a whole, the Iron Man franchise has yet to transcend its genre like Spider-Man 2 or The Dark Knight did, and it lacks some heartfelt emotion, but it's entertaining and fun. Let's just hope Iron Man 3 raises the complexity levels of the characters and situations a bit.
Soon, Iron Man will be a fascist.
Kim Hollis: Marvel is building a brand by using the market penetration of Iron Man 2 as leverage in the upcoming releases of Captain America and Thor, as well as their biggest project, Avengers. How do you think they're doing thus far? What steps do you believe still need to be taken in the process?
Josh Spiegel: The only thing I think Marvel needs to remember is that these movies make money because a lot of people who see them are like me: I've never picked up an issue of Iron Man, Thor, or Captain America. Now, I do read a lot about movies, so I know about who's in Thor and that Chris Evans is playing Captain America, but does everyone in the country know? I doubt it. The post-credits scene in Iron Man 2 was all right, but I had to explain to my wife what it meant, and I'm sure I didn't do the best job, because neither of us know that much about the series. As long as Marvel makes the effort to get these stories known (and frankly, a Thor teaser could've done the trick), they'll be fine.
Tom Houseman: Does anyone else want Marvel to crossover these characters with the other notable new release from this weekend? "The Avengers vs. Babies." I would totally watch that movie.
Michael Lynderey: Basically, outside of the inherent appeal to hardened fanboys, all of these upcoming movies are going to have to stand on their own. These little bits like the post-credits scene in Iron Man 2 aren't going to matter to 95% of the potential audience for Thor, Captain America, or anything else. Iron Man succeeded - and immediately inspired this long-term Marvel plan - because it worked as a superhero film, an action movie, and a character study, and so audiences and critics embraced it. That's the advice I'd give Marvel on all of these upcoming films (not that they need it): yes, please the fanboy base, but ultimately, each of these movies has to be a quality piece of entertainment, because the mass audience that looks for a good time at the movies every summer isn't there for post-credits scenes or blink-or-you'll-miss-it inside references. They're there to get the same kind of experience the first Iron Man gave them.
Jason Lee: I'm a skeptic. Iron Man has certainly made his way into the zeitgeist, but the Hulk? Thor? Captain America? I question the appeal of these properties. To me, they're undeniably second-tier superheroes. I know, I know, you could have made that point about Iron Man as well prior to the first movie, but I wonder about the likelihood that lightning will strike twice for them. I'm thinking that Marvel will continue to be a force to be reckoned with, though not nearly at the pace that everyone is thinking. Except in the video game world (where they're golden).
Reagen Sulewski: There's a lot of angry nerds out there ready to fight you because you called Captain America second-tier. I mean, they can't do much damage, but they're ready to fight. Cap is one of the more iconic heroes out there, and it's sort of amazing that they didn't get around to him right after Spider-Man, for the level of his popularity (he's a little outdated, which might be a bit of a problem, but they've made the right step with starting it as a prequel). Thor, I'll give you, as he's kind of inherently a silly character.
Jason Lee: Just to save me from the threat of nerd violence, when I said "second-tier," I was referring to their marketability. Captain America is boring in the way that Superman is boring -- totally clean cut, well-groomed and un-edgy. They're the type of safe superhero (no swearing, dark edges, ominous pasts) that you parents or Congressman would like you to admire and emulate. Especially in this media environment of "patriotism as proof of citizenship," Captain America is just too squeaky-clean for me.
As for Thor and the Hulk, I think it's obvious that their mainstream appeal and marketability is always going to be limited in comparison to some of the other more brand-name superheroes.
David Mumpower: I agree with Michael that all of the titles have to stand on their own, which is something Iron Man did while The Hulk did not. Twice. I also agree with Reagen that in terms of domestic appeal, Captain America is iconic, particularly to those who serve/have served in the military. He represents an ideal and I think that movie’s box office has the potential to be Iron Man-ish, at least domestically. Worldwide receipts for that one are not a foregone conclusion. Marvel will need to take a page out of G.I. Joe’s playbook there.
Thor, on the other hard, has its work cut out for it in terms of building the brand quickly, which is why I suspect the post-credits scene of Iron Man 2 focuses upon him rather than Captain America. I actually think that Thor is a fun character who is larger than life since he’s this ridiculous person who claims to be an immortal Norse god. People think he is crazy, he has muscles in places where most people don’t even have places and he loves to hammer down a stein of mead. I think there is a lot that can be done with him. People need to be willing to give Marvel the benefit of the doubt first, though.
Overall, I believe that they have succeeded in making Iron Man bankable. As long as Captain America and Thor match up in relative terms of quality, The Avengers strikes me as a movie that has a chance to do something spectacular at the box office. I’m thinking waaaaaay big. $200 million opening weekend big. They have to be mistake-free over the next two years to get there. Whether they can do that remains to be seen.
Pete Kilmer: I agree with most of what has been said here, the individual movies MUST stand on their own before they can be brought together. Otherwise it just won't work to see characters together that the mainstream audience doesn't care about. So far, Marvel Studios has done a terrific job in putting quality actors together with quality directors and producers. Thor's pedigree is pretty strong, with Anthony Hopkins, Kenneth Branagh, Rene Russo, and Natalie Portman, among others. Captain America is solid as well with Hugo Weaving as the Red Skull and Joe Johnston directing. They have smart people attached to smart and fun projects. If the individual films work, the Avengers with a hope-to-be-signed-soon director in Joss Whedon could really have something special here.
Matthew Huntley: On one level, the references to other superheroes make me giddy and excited because I know there's so much more to come. Still, on another, it sort of cheapens the movie and turns it into one big commercial. It's like Marvel is using their own product for, well, product placement. I guess it works because Iron Man, Captain America and Thor all exist in the same universe, but I think Marvel should cease with the blatant advertising and instead write real scenes into the script that actually discuss these other heroes out in the open (I know there are some, but they all seem to be wink winks instead of full-fledged scenes with real dialogue). Instead of waiting through the end credits of Iron Man 2 or The Incredible Hulk, how about these "bonus" scenes take place during the actual movie? For me, this would indicate the other heroes are being viewed as characters and not as advertisements.