"The Sokovia Accords: A Narrative Blunder"

"THE SOKOVIA ACCORDS: A NARRATIVE BLUNDER"

Three years ago, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), along with Marvel Films and the Disney Studios, introduced to the world the thirteenth entry of the movie franchise, "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR". Although the movie is officially regarded as a Captain America solo film, many moviegoers and critics tend to view it as an unofficial Avengers film. The film also introduced a new story arc to the franchise called the Sokovia Accords.

In reality, the Sokovia Accords is supposed to be a cinematic version of the Marvel Comics legislative law called the Mutant Registration Act and was the main focus behind the famous 2006-2007 seven-issue story arc known as "Civil War". In this story, the U.S. government passed a Superhero Registration Act, ostensibly designed to have super powered individuals act under official regulation, somewhat akin to law enforcement. Those superheroes opposed to the act, led by Captain America, found themselves in conflict with those like Iron Man and Ms. Marvel who supported the act. Spider-Man found himself caught in the middle and the X-Men took a neutral stance.

About a decade later, the MCU released "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" and introduced the world to the Sokovia Accords. For a while, I had wondered why Kevin Feige had allowed this story arc to be introduced in the middle of the franchise's on-going Infinity Stones arc. Then I had stumbled across an ARTICLE in which directors Anthony and Joe Russo had claimed the plot for the third Captain America movie was changed to compete against the DCEU's 2016 movie, "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE". In this film, the U.S. government and the United Nations created the Sokovia Accords to regulate the actions of the Avengers and other enhanced beings in the wake of a deadly incident in Lagos, Nigeria; after Captain America and his team prevented a group of HYDRA terrorists from stealing biological weapons. Some of the Avengers - including Iron Man, War Machine, Black Panther and the Black Widow - supported the Accords for their own personal reasons. And some of them - the Falcon, Scarlet Witch and Captain America - refused to sign it. This schism between the Avengers, along with a bombing incident at the document's ratification in Vienna, widened the schism between the former teammates. Especially when Captain America's former best friend, Bucky Barnes aka the Winter Soldier, became the number one suspect behind the bombing.

"CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" managed to successfully compete against "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE". The MCU proved to be more financially successful. And it managed to acquire critical acclaim from most film critics, unlike the DCEU movie, which had received a good deal of negative review. And yet . . . the movie had failed to succeed with me. I found this surprising back in 2016, considering that I was more of a MCU fan than one of the D.C. Comics franchise. At least before I saw "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE". Whereas I found myself harboring a low opinion of "CIVIL WAR", I became a fervent fan of the Zack Snyder film. And over the next three years, I have found it increasingly difficult to maintain my high opinion of the MCU. And a major factor of my burgeoning disappointment with the franchise proved to be the Sokovia Accords.

 

Ever since 2016, I have harbored many misgivings about the Sokovia Accords arc. My first misgiving proved to be its portrayal in "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR". I had assumed that the document would be the main factor to divide the Avengers. Instead, screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely included another subplot regarding the hunt for Bucky Barnes to divide the Avengers even further - especially Captain America and Iron Man - in the most contrived manner. One of the first advocates of the Sokovia Accords was King T'Chaka of Wakanda (father of the current Black Panther). Why? When the Avengers had prevented Brock Rumlow and other HYDRA operatives from stealing from that biological weapons lab in Nigeria, Scarlet Witch had used her telekinesis to divert the explosion from Rumlow's suicide bomb to another building that contained several Wakandan humanitarian workers. The problem with is scenario is that the 2018 movie, "BLACK PANTHER" made it clear that Wakanda was an isolationist country around the time of "CIVIL WAR" that did NOT involve itself in the affairs of other countries - including those on the African continent. Great. "BLACK PANTHER" managed to contradict certain plot points of "CIVIL WAR" and no one realized this. More importantly, King T'Chaka no longer had a reason to be an advocate of the Sokovia Accords. And the mistakes kept on going.



A major blooper regarding the Sokovia Accords had manifested in the 2018 movie, "ANT-MAN & THE WASP". In this film, Scott Lang aka Ant-Man found himself near the end of his house arrest, which manifested from his involvement with Captain America in "CIVIL WAR" and his violation of the Sokovia Accords. While incarcerated in the Raft (U.S. underwater prison for enhanced beings), Scott had mentioned Dr. Hank Pym, the first Ant-Man and creator of the Ant-Man suit. After being rescued from the Raft by Captain America; both Ant-Man and Clint Burton aka Hawkeye made a deal with the Federal courts and settled for two years of house arrest for violating the Accords. Both Hank Pym and his daughter Hope van Dyne became Federal fugitives because Hank had failed to register the Ant-Man suit. This proved to be problematic in so many ways. One, the Accords had not been ratified by the United Nations around the time of Scott's arrest, due to the bombing in Vienna. Two, Hank had first created the Ant-Man suit back in the 1980s and had been unaware of Scott’s use of the suit during the Avengers' battle at the airport in Berlin. After being freed by Steve, Scott had shrunken the suit and mailed it to his daughter Cassie, while declaring that it had been destroyed. If the suit was officially considered destroyed, why was Scott arrested anyway without the crucial evidence any prosecutor would need to convict him? Why were Hank and Hope declared as fugitives for failing to register a suit that officially no longer existed? Why did they become fugitives in the first place? Scott had used the Ant-Man suit without Hank's permission, something that he could or may have easily pointed out. The latter had created the suit some thirty years ago. And the Federal authorities remained unaware of Hank's creation of the Wasp suit and Hope's use of it. And she had played no role in the creation of the Ant-Man suit. Also, the writers did not need the Sokovia Accords as a reason for Scott to face conviction and house arrest. He had violated his parole when he left the United States to help Captain America, the Falcon, the Winter Soldier and others to deal with the potential threat of other HYDRA-created "Winter Soldiers".



Ever since I first saw "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR", I found myself wondering about Thaddeus Ross' role in this story arc. By the time of the 2016 movie, he was no longer a general in the U.S. Army. He had become the new Secretary of State. It was Ross who had delivered the news of the Sokovia Accords to the Avengers. In his argument, he had pointed out the collateral damage caused - in his eyes and the eyes of others - by the Avengers. I found this idea ridiculous . . . to a certain extent. Asgardian Loki and a Chitauri army were mainly responsible for the damage inflicted upon downtown Manhattan in 2012's "THE AVENGERS". Malekith and the Dark Elves were responsible for the damage inflicted upon Greenwich, England in 2013's "THOR: THE DARK ELVES". The Royal Air Force had contributed to the damage . . . along with Thor. Obadiah Stane and his armored suit was responsible for the damage inflicted in downtown Los Angeles in 2008's "IRON MAN". As for the events in "THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON" . . . only two Avengers were responsible, Tony Stark (Iron Man) and Dr. Bruce Banner (the Hulk). They were the ones who had created the artificial intelligence (A.I.) known Ultron. The other Avengers were forced to help them clean up their mess. I noticed that no one had bothered to point this out. I also noticed that Ross had failed to bring up the Harlem battle between the Hulk and Abomination (Emil Blonsky) in 2008's "THE INCREDIBLE HULK". It seemed only natural that he would avoid the topic, considering that he played a major role in the creation of both the Hulk and Abomination. Also, the U.S. Army had managed to inflict a good deal of damage upon Harlem, while battling Abomination. I found it odd that neither Tony Stark and Natasha Romanoff, who both knew about Ross' role in the event, had said a word. Then again, I found it odd that Ross had become President Matthew Ellis's new Secretary of State in the first place. Why on earth did President Ellis select Ross to be his Secretary of State? Why did he think that a narrow-minded, uber-aggressive personality like Ross’ would be the right man for that particular position? Why did the MCU writers?



There is another aspect of the MCU's portrayal of the Sokovia Accords that I found mind boggling is that it was barely mentioned in the franchise's films between "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" and "THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR". I could understand that the document was not mentioned in films like "GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, VOL. 2" and "THOR: RAGNAROK". Both were set on worlds other than Earth. Well, Manhattan appeared briefly in the third film, but not long enough for the topic of the Accords to be brought up. However, I found it odd that Sokovia Accords were never mentioned in films like "DOCTOR STRANGE", "SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING" and "BLACK PANTHER", especially since these films were set on Earth. Considering that King T'Chaka's role in the creation of the Sokovia Accords had inadvertently led to his death, I found it odd that the document was never brought up in the 2018 movie. Did Wakanda drop its advocacy of the document, considering that the new King T'Challa gave refuge to Bucky Barnes? If not, why?



Even most of the MCU television shows had failed to mention the Sokovia Accords. In fact, I can only mention one that did - "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." - and one that vaguely referenced the document - "JESSICA JONES". Most or all of the characters in Season Four of "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.", including then former Director Philip J. Coulson, seemed to support the document. And I found this disappointing. Coulson and his team were willing to protect Inhumans and other enhanced people from xenophobic bigots like the organization called the Watchdogs. Season Four began with Inhuman Daisy Johnson aka Quake being on the run for her vigilante activities after leaving S.H.I.E.L.D. Seven episodes later, then S.H.I.E.L.D. Director Jeffrey Mace had cleared her name of past crimes . . . after she had agreed to sign the Sokovia Accords and re-join the agency. Everyone seemed fine with that, including Coulson. I found that disturbing. Season Two of the Marvel Netflix series, "JESSICA JONES", the Raft was mentioned as a possible destination for the title character's mother, another enhanced being who was proving to be dangerous to New York City's citizens and her adoptive sister, a talk-show host-turned dangerous vigilante. And yet . . . not one character managed to express disapproval of the Accords or that damn Raft. The Marvel Netflix franchise had featured three attorneys as major characters - Matt Murdock aka Daredevil, Franklin "Foggy" Nelson and Jeri Hogarth. and not one of them had discussed the legal ramifications of the Accords.



Ironically, only one person had ended up questioning the Sokovia Accords after "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR". That person was Colonel James "Rhodey" Rhodes, USAF aka War Machine. What I find disturbing about the Marvel Cinematic Universe is that only one person has expressed disapproval of the Sokovia Accords since "CIVIL WAR". And that was James “Rhodey” Rhodes aka War Machine in "THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR". Yes, he had supported the Sokovia Accords in "CIVIL WAR". I did not find that surprising, since he was an Air Force officer. But nearly two years later, he had rejected the Accords when he had refused to obey Ross' order to arrest Captain America, the Falcon, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Vision and the Hulk following their return to the Avengers headquarters in "THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR". It took six films after "CIVIL WAR" for a MCU protagonist to either express disapproval of the Sokovia Accords or refuse to adhere to it. Yet, at the same time, Rhodey never really went into details over his eventual rejection of the document.



Why? Why did it take the MCU so long to find characters others than Captain America or the Falcon to express disapproval of the Accords? Why was the MCU so reluctant explore the legal ramifications of this document, especially since the franchise had went out of its way to introduce it in the first place? As several articles, including THIS ONE, have made clear - the Sokovia Accords is a violation of a citizen's right. It is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Period. Any attorney, civil rights activist or civil rights organization could have easily pointed this out in any of the other Phase Three movies or MCU television shows. McFeely, Markus and other screenwriters could have easily pointed the unconstitutional aspect of the Sokovia Accords in "CIVIL WAR", "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.", "JESSICA JONES", "INFINITY WAR" or any other MCU production set on Earth. Either McFeely, Markus and these other writers were idiots or for some reason, Kevin Feige had lost interest in exploring the consequences of the Accords. Perhaps Feige simply wanted to use the Accords as a plot device to battle "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE" at the box office.



There is another aspect of the Sokovia Accords that many do not seem aware of or willing to discuss. The Sokovia Accords should not have been presented as a law in the MCU. Why? Because an accord is an agreement, not a law. Those enhanced beings who did not sign the Accord should NOT have been held accountable for using their powers, unless the latter were used for the usual crimes – robbery, burglary, kidnapping, murder, etc. Now, many would dismiss this criticism, claiming that "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" was a movie set in the world of comic books. Well, so were other similar documents. The Marvel Comics series, "Civil War" had the Mutant Registration Act. The document that affected enhanced beings and costumed vigilantes in Alan Moore's comic novel, "Watchmen" and Zack Snyder's 2009 movie adaptation of it was called the Keene Act. And "act" is a law. Mark Millar, Alan Moore and Zack Snyder had managed to get it right. Why had Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely failed to do so? The problem with this is that if an enhanced being does not sign this accord, agreement or treaty; then their actions should not be dictated by it. The Sokovia Accords is an agreement, not a decree or a law.

If an enhanced or non-enhanced vigilante, who did not sign the accord, practices vigilantism, then that individual should be asked to cease such activity or face imprisonment for practicing vigilantism. To me, a vigilante is like a person pursuing a criminal or going into a foreign country to find a criminal without contacting the police or government agency. Nothing more, nothing less. Which is why I find it odd that in "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME", Spider-man aka Peter Parker was never pursued by the police for his vigilante activities. Had he signed the Sokovia Accords and agree to cooperate with law enforcement? Do the Accords still exist by this latest MCU entry? If not, why is Spider-man practicing vigilantism without law enforcement breathing down his back?

In the end, I get the feeling that Kevin Feige and the MCU seem undecided on what to do with the Sokovia Accords arc. Worse, the franchise seems incapable of utilizing this story arc with any real competency. How can it if its writers do not know the difference between an accord and a law? But the more I think about the Sokovia Accords, the more I cannot help but feel that its creation was one of the biggest mistakes made by the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

"IRON MAN 3" (2013) Review

"IRON MAN 3" (2013) Review

One would think after the release of last year's "THE AVENGERS", Marvel Studios would call it quits on its saga about the team of superheroes who foiled an alien invasion in said movie. But the "THE AVENGERS" opened the possibility of a new threat to Earth, paving the way for a new slew of stories for the costumed Avengers. 

The beginning of this new group of films resulted in the release of "IRON MAN 3", the third movie about the sole adventures of billionaire Tony Stark aka Iron Man. The alien invasion from "THE AVENGERS" had left its mark on Tony. He has become even more popular than ever with the public. The U.S. government (including S.H.I.E.L.D.) seemed to be leaving him alone for the moment. And his relationship with Pepper Potts seemed to be going strong. However, Tony also seemed to be in the process of ironing out the kinks for his new method of accessing his Iron Man armor - a method that turned out to be a technological copy of Thor's habit of summoning the Mjölnir hammer. His chauffeur Happy Hogan has been promoted to Head of Security for Stark Industries. But Happy's caustic "Super Friends" indicated the latter's resentment toward Tony's newly forged connections to the other Avengers. Worst of all, Tony has been experiencing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from the Avengers' battle against the invading Chitauri aliens. 

But these problems are nothing in compare to the re-emergence of an old acquaintance whom Tony first met at a New Year's Eve party in 1999. Thirteen years earlier, a drunken Tony and his date Dr. Maya Hansen encountered the disabled scientist Aldrich Killian, who offered them positions in his new company, Advanced Idea Mechanics. However, Tony rejects the offer, humiliating Killian in the process. Sometime after this encounter, Killian met Dr. Hansen and used her Extremis virus - an experimental regenerative treatment intended to allow recovery from crippling injuries - to heal his own disabilities. However, Extremis also gives the individual superhuman strength and allows him or her to generate heat. As it turns out, Killian is working for the latest threat to strike into the heart of American intelligence, a terrorist known as Mandarin. The latter has been responsible for a string of bombings that have left the intelligence agencies bewildered by any lack of forensic evidence. But Happy's encounter with Killian's major henchman, a former Army officer named Eric Savrin, in front of the Hollywood Chinese Theater leads him badly injured. And a very angry Tony issues a televised threat to capture the Mandarin. Former paramour Dr. Hansen appears at Stark's Malibu home to warn him about Killian and the Mandarin, but the latter orders Savrin to lead an attack on the house. Tony, Pepper and Dr. Hansen all survive. But the house is destroyed and Tony is forced to disappear to somewhere in Tennessee and discover a way to defeat the Mandarin.

I was surprised to learn that Jon Favreau did not return as director for this third IRON MAN movie. Although "IRON MAN 2" proved to be a box office hit, many critics and moviegoers claimed that it was not as good as the first movie, "IRON MAN". It was not an opinion that I shared, but . . . it was an opinion that led Marvel Studios to ask Favreau to step down as director of "IRON MAN 3". Star Robert Downey Jr. suggested that the studio hire Shane Black to direct this third film. Downey Jr. and Black had first worked with each other in the 2005 comedy, "KISS KISS BANG BANG". Did changing directors help the IRON MAN franchise? I do not think so. I am not saying that "IRON MAN 3" was a bad movie. I thought it was far from bad. But a change in directors did not improve the franchise. It was a change that I believe was unnecessary in the first place. However . . . I still enjoyed this third film very much.

One of the best things I could say about ""IRON MAN 3" is that it presented Tony with a very formidable opponent. The Mandarin proved to be not only scary, but very intelligent. The attack on Tony's Malibu home was mind boggling. But the manner in which the Mandarin managed to track Tony down to a small Tennessee town and steal the War Machine (re-named Iron Patriot) armor by tricking American intelligence and the military regarding his location, and luring James Rhodes (aka War Machine) into a trap struck me as pretty flawless. And in using the Hansen/Killian Extremis virus on disabled military veterans, the Mandarin managed to create a formidable private army. There were other aspects of Black and Drew Pearce's screenplay that I found very appealing. Although I had no problems with the Pepper Potts character in the previous two movies, I enjoyed the fact that Black and Pearce really put her through the wringer in this one - dealing with Tony's panic attacks, surviving the Malibu house attack, and becoming a prisoner. Pepper's ordeals finally paid off when she played a major role in defeating the Mandarin. Although Rhodey had a small presence in the movie's first half, his presence increased tenfold in the second half. And like Pepper, he played a major role in the Mandarin's defeat that I personally found very satisfying.

The movie also featured some top-notch action sequences. For me, the second best of them all was the Mandarin's attack on Tony's Malibu house. But there were other sequences that I found impressive; including Happy's encounter with Eric Savrin and another benefactor of the Extremis virus in Hollywood, Tony's encounter with Savrin and Extremis muscle Ellen Brandt in Tennessee, and the final battle on an oil rig. Mind you, the latter was not perfect, but Pepper and Rhodey's actions in this sequence made it memorable for me. If the Malibu house attack was my second favorite action sequence, my favorite turned out to be Iron Man's encounter with Savrin aboard Air Force One and his rescue of the President's personnel following the plane's destruction. The use of free fall in Iron Man's rescue of the Presidential passengers really blew my mind. 

There were some complaints that Robert Downey Jr. seemed to be going through the motions in his portrayal of Tony Stark in this film. I cannot say that I agree with this opinion. Downey Jr.'s portrayal of Tony seemed more sober or stressed out, due to the character's inability to deal with the aftermath of the events in "THE AVENGERS". Perhaps this is not a Tony Stark that fans and critics wanted to see. But I congratulate both Downey Jr., Black and Pearce for allowing audiences to see how Tony dealt with the aftermath of encountering invading aliens. I had been impressed by Gwyneth Paltrow's portrayal of a stressed out Pepper Potts in "IRON MAN 2". Considering what she had endured in this movie, Paltrow pulled out the stops as she conveyed Pepper's array of emotions from wariness to fear and finally to anger. Frankly, I feel this movie featured her best performance as Pepper. I noticed that Don Cheadle seemed a lot more relaxed in the role of Lieutenant-Colonel James Rhodes aka War Machine (re-named Iron Patriot). As I had earlier stated, his presence in the movie's first half seemed rather minimal. But once the movie shifted toward Tony and the American government going after the Mandarin in Miami, his role became more prominent. Not only did Cheadle displayed his talent for comedy, but his James Rhodes proved to be just as much of a bad ass without his War Machine armor, as he was with it. Denied the director's chair for this movie, the screenwriters gave Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan was allowed a bigger role in the story, when the injuries he suffered at Eric Savrin's hands snapped Tony out of his lethargy to deal with the Mandarin. And Favreau gave a performance that I found both funny and poignant.

In one article I had read, Guy Pearce described his role in "IRON MAN 3" as merely a cameo. Frankly, I think he may have exaggerated a bit. Like Don Cheadle, Pearce's presence in the movie's first half seemed minimal. In fact, his presence as Aldrich Killian did not seem to fully develop until the movie's last forty-five minutes or so. And his character slightly reminded me of the Dr. Curt Conners (the Lizard) character from last year's "THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN". But I must admit that Pearce did a great job of conveying the character's development from a pathetic and desperate man eager to use science to heal his disabilities to a charming former acquaintance of Pepper's and finally a truly scary and difficult-to-beat villain. I have never seen James Badge Dale portray a villain. But I have heard that he once portrayed a serial killer on two carryover episodes from "CSI: MIAMI" and "CSI: NEW YORK". I need to see those episodes, but I found Badge Dale's portrayal of henchman Eric Sevrin rather frightening and intimidating. Rebecca Hall portrayed Dr. Maya Hensen, the true creator of the Extremis virus, who found herself regretting her decision to work with Dr. Killian. Hall gave a sharp and witty performance, but I think her presence seemed pretty much wasted. William Sadler gave a solid performance as the President of the United States. Considering his talent, I do wish the script had allowed him to do more. I can say the same about Miguel Ferrer's ambiguous portrayal of the Vice-President. I finally come to Ben Kingsley's portrayal of the Mandarin. Many fans were upset over the changes that Black and Pearce made to the Mandarin character. I was not. I found their portrayal of the super villain amazing and mind boggling. And one has to thank Kingsley for giving what I feel was the most entertaining performance in the movie. In fact, I feel that the scene in which Tony meets the Mandarin for the first time is one of my favorite "hero-meets-villain" scenes of all time from any Marvel film. It is a scene I will always cherish.

I do have a few complaints about "IRON MAN 3". I had already pointed out my slight disappointment at the limited manner in which the Maya Hensen character was utilized. Also, Tony's trip to Tennessee seemed a bit offbeat to em. I did not need to watch his developing friendship with the kid Harley, which struck me as trite. And I also wish that the script had been a little clear on how the Mandarin and Killian tracked Tony down to Tennessee. Although I found some satisfaction in the oil rig sequence - especially in regard to Pepper and Rhodey's action - I must admit that overall, it struck me as somewhat convoluted. It did not help that the entire sequence was shot at night. Between the night setting, Jeffrey Ford and Peter S. Elliot's shaky editing and the numerous Iron Man droids, I almost found the sequence disappointing. Well, let me put it another way . . . I have seen better.

Marvel Studios and Paramount Pictures are promoting this film as the best IRON MAN film ever. I cannot say that I agree. I feel it has a more complex story than the somewhat simplistic tale for "IRON MAN". But it has a set of flaws that makes it difficult for me to declare it as "the best". I guess "IRON MAN 2" is still my favorite. But I do believe that "IRON MAN 3"proved to be a very entertaining and exciting film. In the end, Shane Black did a top-notch job with the help of a decent script and excellent performances from a cast led by Robert Downey Jr.

"IRON MAN 3" (2013) Photo Gallery

Below is a gallery featuring photos from "IRON MAN 3", the third entry to Marvel's IRON MAN movie franchise. Directed by Shane West, the movie stars Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, James Badge Dale, Rebecca Hall and Ben Kingsley: 



"IRON MAN 3" (2013) Photo Gallery

"IRON MAN 2" (2010) Review

Below is my review of "IRON MAN 2", the sequel to 2008's "IRON MAN":


”IRON MAN 2” (2010) Review

I must say that I am grateful to the filmmakers of ”IRON MAN 2”, sequel to the 2008 blockbuster, ”IRON MAN”. I am grateful that they only waited two years to make this movie, instead of three years or more. But even if they had made the movie more than two years after the original film, I believe the movie proved to be worth any wait.

Some IRON MAN fans and film critics have expressed the opinion that ”IRON MAN 2” was inferior to the original 2008 movie. I certainly feel differently. I believe that this movie was superior to ”IRON MAN”. Mind you, this new film had a few flaws. One, I was baffled by Tony Stark’s reluctance to join S.H.I.E.L.D. I had assumed after the appearance of the organization’s leader, Nick Fury, in the original film’s Easter egg sequence that he was eager to join. Even Tony’s appearance in 2008’s ”THE INCREDIBLE HULK” seemed to hint this. So what happened? Is it possible that screenwriter Justin Theroux failed to see the last ”HULK” film? One would think so. As much as I was impressed by Matthew Libatique’s cinematography, I must admit that I did not find it as impressive as his photography in the 2008 film. But I discuss this subject in greater detail, later.

”IRON MAN 2” may not have been perfect; but as I had stated earlier, I believe that it is superior to the first film. Do not get me wrong. I loved ”IRON MAN”. I still do. But in an article I had written some time ago about the Summer 2008 movies, its plot struck me as simple and a little unoriginal. I cannot say the same about its sequel. Thanks to Theroux and director Jon Farveau, ”IRON MAN 2” focused upon the consequences of Tony Stark becoming and admitting to being Iron Man in the last film. During the six months since the end of the last film, Iron Man’s actions as a superhero has allowed him to maintain world peace. His actions have also attracted the attention of a U.S. Senate committee, led by Senator Stern, who demanded that Tony release the Iron Man technology for military application. Stark refused, claiming his competitors are years away from successfully recreating the technology. But more trouble seemed to plague Tony. The palladium core inside the miniaturized arc reactor that he had created to power his Iron Man armor and prevent the shrapnel from a disastrous Afghanistan trip in the last film from reaching his heart . . . was slowly poisoning his blood system. Foreknowledge of a possible early death led Tony to acts of excessive and dangerous behavior – including re-instituting the Stark Expo first initiated by his father back in the 1970s, appointing his personal assistant Pepper Potts as the new CEO of Stark Industries, in and participating in the Monaco Grand Prix, at the Circuit de Monaco.

It is in Monaco where Tony has his first encounter with Ivan Vanko, a Bratva member and Russian physicist who happened to be the son of another physicist and former Stark Industries employee, Anton Vanko, who was fired by Howard Stark and deported back to the Soviet Union. Anton Vanko had also worked on the original plans of the arc reactor with Stark Sr., but the plans remained in the hands of Stark Enterprises. Vanko Sr.’s death at the beginning of the movie sent Ivan into a spiral of grief, leading him to create his own suit containing an arc reactor. Vanko used his new suit to attack Tony at Monaco. The attack attracted the attention of another weapons industrialist named Justin Hammer, an arch-rival of Tony’s. Hammer arranged Vanko’s escape from jail and recruited the Russian physicist to design drones similar to the Iron Man armor for the Stark Expo.

Tony also has to deal with the return of S.H.I.E.L.D. in his life. Unbeknownst to him, the organization’s leader, Nick Fury had assigned one of his agents to infiltrate Stark Enterprises to assess Tony as a possible agent. His spy turned out to be Tony and Pepper’s new assistant, Natalie Rushman aka Natasha Romanoff. Although Fury has become reluctant to recruit Tony for membership in S.H.I.E.L.D., he managed to provide vital materials to the industrialist to allow him to develop a safe element for his arc reactor implant that also provides superior power.

One would begin to wonder if the screenwriters had dumped one too many plotlines in the movie’s script. Some critics have complained that the movie possessed one too many villains. I would disagree. ”IRON MAN 2” simply had a complex plot that did not – in my opinion – struck me as difficult to follow. In fact, I believe that the plot’s complexity allowed the movie to be superior to the 2008 film. As for the number of villains, there were two – Ivan Vanko and Justin Hammer. ”IRON MAN” also had two villains.

Robert Downey Jr. reprised his role as Tony Stark aka Iron Man. I am trying to think of something to say about his performance. But what is there to say? He was magnificent as always by skillfully portraying every aspect of Tony’s personality – both the good and the bad. Yes, Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark was a charming, caring, brilliant and strong-willed man. But he was also narcissist, egotistical, and somewhat self-centered. This is a man who used his Iron Man technology to bring about world peace, instead of using it for personal gain and who had enough trust in his personal assistant to name her as the new CEO of his company. Yet, this same man resorts to alcohol to escape from his demons and is thoughtless enough to give his new CEO strawberries as a gift – completely forgetting that she is allergic to the fruit. Downey Jr.’s performance as Stark seemed to be among the best comic book hero portrayals I have ever seen on the silver screen.

In one of the last scenes in ”IRON MAN”, Tony said the following to his personal assistant, Virginia “Pepper” Potts:

”You know, if I were Iron Man, I'd have this girlfriend who knew my true identity. She'd be a wreck, 'cause she'd always be worrying that I was going to die, yet so proud of the man I'd become. She'd be wildly conflicted, which would only make her more crazy about me.”

In ”IRON MAN 2” Pepper certainly discovered how stressful her life could be as the object of affection (or desire) of a celebrated costumed hero. Gwyneth Paltrow returned to the role of Pepper Potts, Tony Stark’s personal assistant-turned-new CEO of Stark Industries. And I have to say that the actress did a skillful job of conveying the stress and anxiety that threatened to overwhelm her character. One of my favorite scenes featured a moment when Pepper’s emotions finally overwhelmed her, as she tendered her resignation in an angry tirade.

As everyone knows, Marvel Entertainment had decided to replace Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle for the role of Tony’s best friend, Lieutenant-Colonel James “Rhodey” Rhodes U.S.A.F. I will not discuss the circumstances that led Cheadle to replace Howard. I will say that Cheadle gave a top notch performance as Rhodey. Do I consider him to be a better choice than Howard? No. I would say that the quality of both actors’ performances struck me as equal. Not that I find that surprising. Both Cheadle and Howard are excellent actors with a strong screen presence. I did notice that Cheadle’s sense of humor never had the opportunity to flourish, until the movie’s final scenes. And his screen chemistry with Downey Jr. did not seem as strong as the Downey Jr./Howard pairing. But he certainly did not disappoint.

I must confess that I have only seen Mickey Rourke in three other movies, besides ”IRON MAN 2”. Aside from his award winning performance in ”THE WRESTLER”, I was never that impressed by him. When I had learned that he would be cast as the main villain, Ivan Vanko, I had qualms about Jon Farveau and Marvel’s decision. In the end, I found myself very impressed by his performance. He managed to portray a menacing, yet emotional personality in a suitably low-key manner. However, I could barely understand some of his lines through the thick Russian accent. Sam Rockwell was as volatile as Rourke was low key. And surprisingly, his volatile performance perfectly suited his character, Tony Stark’s fellow defense contractor – Justin Hammer. What I especially enjoyed about Rockwell’s performance was his ability to inject a raging inferiority complex underneath the gregarious personality.

Scarlett Johanssen had the opportunity to strut her stuff as Natalie Rushman aka Natasha Romanoff aka the Black Widow, Pepper’s new assistant and S.H.I.E.L.D. agent. I must admit there were times I wondered if Johanssen’s character had a personality. It finally dawned on me that she simply possessed a no-nonsense persona that could kick ass. Director Jon Farveau returned as Tony’s bodyguard and chauffeur, Happy Hogan. Thankfully, he got to do a lot more in ”IRON MAN 2”, which included coming to Tony’s rescue with the Iron Man suit during Vanko’s attack during the Monaco Grand Prix, and assisting (somewhat) Natasha during the latter’s breach at Hammer Industries. Samuel L. Jackson’s role as head of S.H.I.E.L.D., Nick Fury, was increased in this second film. And all I can say is . . . thank goodness! I really enjoyed his strong screen presence and lively conversations with Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark. I got the feeling that the two actors really enjoyed working with one another (unless I happened to be wrong).

Clark Gregg returned in the role of S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Coulson. Not only was he his usual quiet and assuming self, but also deliciously snarky. John Sterling of ”MAD MEN” made an appearance as Tony’s father, the late Howard Stark, in old film clips viewed by Tony. Slattery’s Howard Stark struck me as lively and witty as Downey Jr.’s Tony. His performance made it easy for me to see the genesis of Tony’s own personality. And Gary Shandling tossed aside his usual comic persona to convincingly portray U.S. Senator Stern, a determined politician who wants the Iron Man armor in government hands. However, he was allowed a rather snarky and very subtle joke in the film's last scene.

As I had stated earlier, I was not that impressed by Matthew Libatique’s cinematography in ”IRON MAN 2”. Mind you, I did not find it terrible or a travesty to the art of motion pictures. But I cannot recall viewing any fantastic airborne sequences that were featured in ”IRON MAN”. Aside from Rhodey’s arrival at the Edwards Air Force Base in the War Machine armor, the movie did not feature any daytime aerial scenes, just slightly confusing night time sequences near the beginning and the end of the film. But, as I will point out later, there was one exception. However, I found most of the film’s action sequences very exciting – especially Vanko’s attack upon Tony in Monaco; the birthday brawl between Tony and Rhodey in the Iron Man and War Machine suits; Natasha’s fight against Hammer’s security guards; and the aerial chase sequence over the Stark Expo between Iron Man and the Vanko-controlled War Machine.

I could end the article with a recommendation to see ”IRON MAN 2”. But what would be the point? The movie has already earned over four times its budget, during the past month. However, in case you have not seen it, I recommend that you do. So far, it is the best movie of this summer. And quite frankly, I consider it better than the 2008 film.

"IRON MAN 2" (2010) Photo Gallery

Below is a gallery featuring photos from "IRON MAN 2", the sequel to Marvel comics' 2008 blockbuster hit. Directed by Jon Favreau, the movie stars Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell, Scarlett Johansson and Samuel L. Jackson:

"IRON MAN 2" (2010) Photo Gallery