Iron Man 2 (2010)

It wasn't as good as the first movie. The introduction of two new superheroes seemed unnecessary, like a buildup to a deus ex machina. It also relied too much on the villain, Asian Ironman clone. Whereas the first movie explored Ironman's character development and learning new lessons, in this movie, he not only didn't evolve his character, he seemed to forget some of the lessons he learned in the previous movie. In the previous movie, he transformed from a uncaring party-boy into someone who left behind his bad ways behind to pursue peace. This movie had one good point, the fact that Ironman was slowly being poisoned by his own suit. This could have been expanded to symbolize how his pride was ruining him. He could have undergone a character transformation in this movie, to stop being so prideful, while simultaneously finding his cure. Unfortunately, the writers did not expand into deeper realms like they did for the previous movie.

Iron Man 2 wasn't bad it just wasn't as good as the first. They set everything up nicely as Whiplash being the main villain and I loved the raceway scene. But then he was taken away for the middle of the movie and Justin Hammer became the main focus despite Whiplash being much cooler. Black Widow was introduced but she was pretty much useless until the end when they need it. The raceway scene was very cool and then they started taking useless scenes and putting them together just to add time to the movie, but luckily tge ending was good. I like Don Cheadle as War Machine thiugh, so that's a plus.

So, after the publication of the first full-length Iron Man and its success with the audience (the box office speaks for itself), many with genuine interest waited for the sequel release - and Casey Cooper is no exception to this long list.As a result, I looked, I was glad with all my heart and made an inspired conclusion - the potential of "Iron Man" on the whole scale resulted in the second part in an excellent entertaining blockbuster and one of the best comic book adaptations that I saw.But let's start with the laws of sequels, or rather not from laws (after all, they are not always fulfilled in the production of film products), but from the expectations of the audience: from the second part we expect even more scope, more humor, more battles, more heroes than in the original - and "Iron Man" all these expectations justified.In addition, he gave an occasion to be stunned by characters with Russian roots - how nice it was to hear that China, Korea, Iran for another 10 years will not reach the technology of Tony Stark (and the competing American company "Hammer" - all 20), and Russian, well and let the villain on the film, Ivan Vanko in the handicraft conditions did not worse, and even made so much noise!Now back to the original - remember all that you liked the first "Iron Man" - so all this you will find in the sequel, only in places you need to multiply by 2 - and above all it concerns characters.Tony Stark did not change from the first picture and remained an amazing combination of playboy / genius / showman - so Robert Downey Jr. did not disappoint and gave out the same standing image, maybe even with some deeper into the inner world of the hero (again he does not everything is smooth with health, yes, even here my father was attached).Gwyneth Paltrow gave exactly the same image, exactly the same - no more, no less.For a couple of moments, that is, a couple of appearances on the screen pleased Nick Fury in the performance of Samuel L. Jackson, although there is no need to expect any action from him.Tony Stark's best friend changed face - in the original played Terrence Howard, and now Don Cheadle - but I somehow did not notice the difference (probably because the first part looked a long time and the character there was not the most important place), but he had to act much more - including in the suit of an iron man.Mickey Rourke portrayed a gifted mind, a hatred for the Stark family and a bunch of tattoos of the villain Ivan Vanko (in the comics - Whip), as it is required from comics, that is, beyond the PG-13 with any profanity or something did not come out, but the image was on the whole turned out worthwhile.Scarlett Johansson was beautiful and with dark hair, but her character presented a couple of surprises - first of all, I repeat: I did not expect such an image (or I interrupt memories from memories) - so as not to spoil, I will not describe all this, but in the course of the picture, all expectations around her character were covered with a copper basin, although what happened turned out to be different, but not bad at all - a couple of spectacular appearances in the course of the film, to finally shine in the finale.Sam Rockwell - did not even know that he was playing here - I can not really single out his character - Justin Hammer - the head of a competing company (primarily because Tony, as it should be, was simply eclipsed), but the actor did everything that was required of him.Final - this is generally a separate merit - the ending of the original and next to it was not compared with the large-scale, spectacular and numerous finale of the second part. Bravo for such a brilliant finishing touch! Although neither the beginning nor the middle was disappointed - another brilliant combination of Tony Stark's humor, an excursion into his rampant life, a fight scene in the beginning and the middle as a foretaste of a much more significant and multifaceted final fight.Result: the first "Iron Man" was remembered by the bright, but classic manner of adaptations of comic strips with the appropriate filling in the plot plan, which allowed him to become not a breakthrough, but the primacy of traditions and a worthy spectacle for entertainers in general and comics in particular - and the second part from the original in no way fell behind, and in many ways even surpassed him.

Sound: Well mixed, sound effects well done. Great use of pop tunes in sound track as orchestral and environmental music. 90/100 Technical: Excellent special effects and well shot. 100/100 Narrative: A little light on the action for this genre. It does not move as fast as it should and does not arc as much as it should. 70/100 Character/Acting: Acting mostly middle of the road. The characters are not as strong this time. The villains not menacing or treacherous. 60/100 Did I like it: Yes, a fun film and very enjoyable. 70/100 Artistic merit: A well crafted film but lacks the notoriety, upper crust performances, or narrative to be considered seriously here. There are better examples of super hero movies to fill that role (The Dark Knight). 60/100 Total score 75/100