Iron Man 2

Where is the taciturnity and momentum of the first film? Where is Stark's strong personal charm? The second film amounts to watery, scattered, and terribly lifeless blabbering of the star-studded characters, whose dialogues and jokes often feel like they were written by a five-year-old (I admit that the problem may be the dubbing, but unfortunately, that is hardly going to change my impression until I see the version with subtitles). I forgave Favreau’s routinism in the first film because Downey's character had an edge. In the second film, most of the beautiful things are gone, and all that remains is chatter, outdated humor, and surprisingly Downey, who seems to be so convinced about his own irresistibility that he completely ignores the emptiness of his dialogues. There is something wrong with a comic book film that does not get me out of my seat in two hours with even one ballbusting moment. I cannot give the dubbed version more than one star... (27/04/2010)

Two days after watching it, the only memories left in my head were strawberries, great actors, and a lot of missed chances (for everyone - Scarlett's absolutely tragic fight in the corridor, like the rest of the action). Even the first film wasn't particularly perennial, but this is a pretty sad downgrade. (11/09/2010)

I wouldn't expect a warning about the power of (media) imagery from a film whose main protagonist spends half the time drinking and goofing around. Stark is just as amoral a character as the other arms magnate, Hammer, but he knows how to impress people and make fun of himself, a trait that characterises the whole film and distinguishes the Iron Man franchise from the dark comic-book adaptations along the lines of The Dark Knight, which don't make light of the superhero mythos. Favreau doesn’t follow the trend of psychologically more intense comic-book movies. Iron Man 2 is darker solely in what happens to Stark’s body, not in what he goes through. This focus on the surface can be seen as the reason for the popularity of Stark and those like him, who know how to perform in front of television cameras (through which we also see the protagonist several times). That focus on the surface is also the reason that Scarlett Johansson, whose curves are manna for the eyes, has a generally superfluous role in the film. Mickey Rourke, who doesn’t talk much but speaks to the point, is also delightful, as is Gwyneth Paltrow, whose verbal shootouts with Downey are reminiscent of classic screwball comedies with their double entendres and timing, and the roughly two action scenes added in just for fun (since they gave us money for them...) are a joy to watch. Throw out abundant one-liners, look good doing it and quickly fade from memory. Mission accomplished. 75% (06/05/2013)

Considering that in terms of Robert Downey Jr.'s current characters, I tolerate Iron Man more than his version of Sherlock Holmes, I can have more fun with this sequel than with A Game of Shadows. The second film is funnier and more straightforward because Iron Man is already defined, but on the other hand, the primary fun is hampered a bit by Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell, or dumb and dumber. Scarlett Johansson is also very weak, but the main aspects still work. Gwyneth Paltrow has managed to stop aging and I'm actually quite looking forward to the third film mainly because of her. I probably won't see anything as stupid as Stark Expo 1974 again, but why not? And yes, Stan Lee is still with us. (02/05/2013)

A demonic Mickey Rourke, a captivating Robert Downey Jr., and three monumental and magnificently shot action scenes. You can see the budget, the big picture looks good, and so do the details, everything is sleek in this über fucking cool blockbuster. But I think that one installment was more than enough, this sequel reeks of milking money for as long as possible. That said, it is evident that Robert enjoyed the role. (18/09/2010)