Believe it or not, Iron Man 2, not during but after I saw it, made me ponder. It made me wonder about the endlessly precarious concept of privatizing the military. Look at the dangers we've witnessed, ones that have come true that we've taken lying down, of privatizing our health care system, our news sources, energy, mortgage associations. Tony Stark, apparently the coolest, hottest, richest and most famous guy on earth, after acquiring most of what he has as a war profiteer---as fans know and as the first movie tells us---he now has an unbelievable weapon that he wears and uses for long-distance transportation and frankly for fun. The government wants it, but it's his suit and he insists on doing whatever he wants with it. I'm not so sure I blame the government.

Couldn't something that wreaks the kind of havoc that the Iron Man suit does be put to more productive and controlled use under the supervision of the people and their representatives? I look at Tony Stark and see---can't evade---a man in less discernible control of his ego than five Kanye Wests. Also, a man that rich is going to do anything, because he's confident he can---and he will---get away with anything. Yes, Stark is made out to be one swell guy, saving us from the danger of another guy in a weapon suit, even though that guy only really seems interested in hurting Mr. Yay Free Enterprise Stark, but he's Russian so we don't like him, so there's your reason for his being the bad guy. I feel we should spend less time rooting for Iron Man and being warier of his lack of discipline, natural monopoly and concentration of assets as he provokes more danger than he's worth. But hey, I'm not suggesting Stark apply for statehood; his ego already has anyway.

I honestly really do go into colossal Hollywood blockbusters wanting to like them. I want to enjoy myself and admire the movie I'm enjoying. The most admirable quality of Iron Man 2 is the most admirable quality of Iron Man 1, which is that in spite of whether or not characters are hackneyed or effects are overblown and tedious, the rapport between the performers is always engaging, natural and razor-sharp. Naturally, the movie was pre-sold by Downey's charm. The movie has an enormously effective non-sequitary sense of humor that delivers huge laughs by undercutting any zeal. These big CGI set pieces, after all, take a whole lot of logic for granted. This example seems unanimous among viewers: Tony Stark, seemingly on impulse and out of nowhere, chooses to drive his own car in the Monaco Grand Prix, and Ivan Vanko mounts dauntlessly in the middle of the strip, dressed like a deviant jouster and sporting electric whips that can slice a car in two. He nearly destroys Stark, which is so thrilling that we almost overlook questions such as how Vanko knew that Tony suddenly decided to drive his own car in a race he wasn't even attending personally to begin with, or why in the hell the crowd does not flee but stays to collectively react throughout this cataclysmic fight like they're at a football game.

The absolute highlight of the film is Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer, the classic Pushover Up To No Good. In a movie not only brimming with star ego but star ego that could cut diamond at a thirty-foot distance, Rockwell is pure refreshment. He is always a completely natural actor, as much himself as a character will allow him to be. In all, it seems as if the script is trying to make him all weasel, all antagonist, and Rockwell defies any two-dimensionality by making him, yes, a weasel, yes, an antagonist, but also a whole person. His way is by being laid-back and without affectation.

Nonetheless, the dialogue scenes are so effective and enjoyable that when an action sequence comes around, it only inspires me to think about how the guys can stand it within those suits. Yes, the suits are shatterproof, but their bodies aren't. How many staggering plummets, ferocious poundings and sly detonators can you withstand without shattering all of your bones? Wouldn't the weight of being encased in iron make the blows hit harder? Stars can be acceptable as to need the skeletal least character in the story. They're watched for their own sake, not for their representation of a scripted character. It's about the cast itself, not what it's doing here. We love Don Cheadle, but largely what he's given to actually do here is oddly find time to chat with Downey while soaring through a typhoon of assailing missiles. (How slow must a missile be if your crony has time to advise you to steer clear of it?) I don't know what it says about Scarlet Johansson's quality as an actress that she's upstaged by her own backside. But she's given good performances in great films, and I think the issue has more to do with Jon Favreau's preferred camera angles and my being a guy.

The vainglorious behavior comes naturally, but now it's advantageous as a put-on, a case of mistaken nonentity. The sequel to Iron Man does not offer a changed man. Within the hardware, impaired humanity becomes even more so, as inviting challenges of selfhood cross with a high-tech wet dream made everyman. I guess there are lot of young men who need icons like Iron Man. Narcissism and self-deception are survival mechanisms without which many of them might just jump off a bridge.