Well, this was the sequel and it doesn’t come close to the substance of the original. The plot was weak and there was nothing of any serious substance here to comment on, in complete contrast to the first one which prompted me to write this glowing review. Of course the explosions and special effects are wonderful but that almost goes without saying these days. The Senate scene was great of course, but there wasn’t enough of that. It’s the usual problem with sequels. The producers try to figure out why the first one was a great hit and then do more of that kind of thing. But what makes a movie a fantastic money maker may be different from what makes it a high-quality film. The best parts of the sequel could be stuffed into about 10 minutes. Extra: not everyone agrees and this is being debated on the forum.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/12664/iron-man-2/
Iron Man 2
Previous post: The value of liberty = 15 calories
Next post: Office vs docs
{ 12 comments }
http://www.examiner.com/x-21303-Philadelphia-County-Libertarian-Examiner~y2010m5d8-Iron-Man-2-depicts-struggle-between-libertarian-super-hero-and-intrusive-government
I have yet to see the sequel.
My impression of the first movie, if I recall correctly, was something akin to this: “Oh, great. So, Stark’s a part of the military-industrial complex. But he never learns that being a part of the military-industrial complex is actually intrinsically bad. It’s perfectly fine to make weapons that a criminal band (the state) will use to murder innocent people and to accept money from said criminal band, as long as these same weapons don’t fall into the hands of those who will kill innocent Americans; if innocent Americans die, that’s somehow different from innocent Afghans dying. So, murder is okay and the military-industrial complex is potentially okay. Then there’s the implication that profit is somehow bad, that profit is what corrupts the otherwise good and noble military-industrial complex; if only we could do away with the profit motive, then we wouldn’t have to care about the loss of life since the brown people in Afghanistan aren’t as important as Americans.”
That had been more-of-less my impression of the movie.
But, maybe I “misread” the subtext. Perhaps I should watch it again to see if my impression has changed.
I read your article, “Iron Man and the Merchants of Death,” and enjoyed it. Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful commentary.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
Jeff,
Isn’t Tony Stark a merchant of death? Not only that, isn’t his company just like all the other Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Blackwaters of this world…feeding at trough of our TAX DOLLARS. He’s far from being a Ford, Gates, or a Jim Rogers…making their money the old fashion way…by making products that people want.
If I recall, he repents from making weapons in the first one after he is captured. His business partner doesn’t agree. That was the main plot line wasn’t it?
What does Jim Rogers make besides a lot of blather.
Well, his investors might provide you a better answer to that, they’ll tell you if he provides anything for them. Remember INVESTMENT is the driving force for employment. So he may not create a tangible product, but he/and his investment advice is as integral in a market economy as…as anything else if not more so.
Certainly not as good as the original, but I thought the movie was well done. I especially appreciated the shift away from liberal propaganda in films. In the opening sequence when Stark is standing before the Senate he tells them “you can’t take my property.”
And Alex, I never got that impression with the first film nor do I get that with the second film. I believe you’re trying to prescribe something more deep and complex than there really is with these movies. It’s just a superhero movie.
Yes, that was a great part. You could tease various libertarian themes out of it, but it wasn’t nearly as overt as the first.
“The plot was weak and there was nothing of any serious substance here to comment on, in complete contrast to the first one…”
Are you purposefully looking over the theme of Stark’s self-destructive behavior just because it does not sing the praises of libertarianism? The movie had plenty of serious substance, but much of that serious substance did not have to do with politics, but involved Tony Stark the man and his personal ordeals.
I guess his personal ordeals didn’t really move me.
Is this an omen for “Avatar 2″?
I was very sad that Pepper Potts went from the perfect assistant to an annoying CEO and whiney love interest. Terrible. I urge my daugthers to emulate Pepper Potts and the gal who played the assistant to Meryl Streep’s character in The Devil Wears Prada.
Comments on this entry are closed.