Iron Man 2

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)

With Iron Man 2, director Jon Favreau excellently exploits the potential of the stellar cast, where even supporting roles look tailor-made for their actors – the one-eyed Samuel L. Jackson in a leather coat, a corrupt white-collar Sam Rockwell, Scarlett Johansson getting in Blade-like fights. All of them, of course headed by Robert Downey Jr., seem to be enjoying themselves immensely (perhaps only the psychopathic Russian inventor played by Mickey Rourke could have used some more character development). But the story itself has absolutely nothing to engage the audience – there is practically no drama or tension and there are barely two action scenes, which take up about ten minutes of the two-hour running time (!). Actually, it is kind of a miracle how a comic-book adaptation with such a boring script can end up as a pleasant conversation movie. (27/04/2010)

This doesn’t work, man. A by-the-numbers comic book movie with zero interesting scenes. I wasn’t particularly thrilled by the first Iron Man, either, but I had no trouble watching it as a mind breather. What I liked the most were the dialogues and the interactions among the characters, something that unfortunately I can’t say about the second one, and thus the lower rating. And the worst is that when there finally was some action, it only took a moment for me to long for it to finish quickly. Bland, without any spark or ideas. (04/09/2010)

This is a film where you can see the high budget in every shot, with a polished visual, and lots of digital effects, so it's nice to watch as things explode, fly around, and shocking technological inventions and cute robots appear. Many stars parade on the screen, mostly unused and only used as decorations, and when they do appear, they don't have much to do because the story itself is a broken mess. It's the type of film for the whole family, which my 8-year-old son could consume without any problems because the world and events it shows are either directly childish or desperately immature. When you want to cater to the market to maximize profits and attract as many viewers as possible, you inevitably have to lower the content demands. Because I've been eight years old a few times already, I lost interest in the plot quickly, and the fate of the heroes was as meaningless to me as a grain of sand in the Sahara. Overall impression: 40%. (22/10/2010)

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)