Good, not great

Rating: 7/10 (8 May 2010)

Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against plot-heavy movies. Heck, Crash is one of my favorite movies out there! But what makes Iron Man 2 hard to swallow is utter lack of skill, to be honest. It appears as though halfway through the film the writer realized that there were so many loose ends to tie up that he resorted to utterly unrealistic (even within the Marvel realm) plot devices. I mean, come on! In one scene, Lt. Rhodes steals an Iron Man suit and learns to use it in three seconds! Did the filmmakers forget that it took Tony a whole chunk of the first movie to learn how to use his?
Another thing that drags the movie down is the sheer waste of interesting characters. Mickey Rourke's portrayal of Ivan Vanko was potentially the most interesting character in the movie, yet his screen time is so disappointing, and his overall influence so minuscule. Honestly, the Whiplash character had great potential to be a memorable movie villain, but alas, he suffered the same dreaded fate as Darth Maul.
Aside from the waste of characters, the movie also suffers from the inclusion of useless characters. I understand that the filmmakers are trying to build up to the Avengers movie, but the inclusion of Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury and Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow seemed a complete waste of time! No offense, but save it for the after-the-credits clip. Had those characters been taken out, there would've been more time for valuable character development.
Surprisingly, the most interesting character is Sam Rockwell's Justin Hammer. As would be expected from Rockwell, the actor became the character, but it is a shame that such valuable character development should be used for such an expendable character.
Other commendable performances include, as expected, Robert Downey, Jr's Tony Stark. Either the role is tailor-made for him, or he's tailor-made for it. Regardless, when Tony Stark is on-screen, you believe that he's real, and he evokes empathy. Additionally, Don Cheadle's James Rhodes is flawless, and I only wish they'd cast him instead of Terrence Howard from the beginning. I must admit, I do enjoy his introduction at the Senate hearing scene. "I'm here, it's me, deal with it."
Now, bottom line, the movie isn't bad. Not by a long shot. It's fun, but that's just it. The pacing is questionable, but it slides by. Unlike its predecessor, however, it lacks that depth that made me fall in love with the franchise. It seems like a common case of "let's dumb this puppy down so audiences will like it!"
Regardless, it's just witty enough, and the dialog entertaining enough to where the movie isn't a dumb movie. It's just dumbed down.
Does the movie stand on its own? Not necessarily. While it doesn't rely too much on the first, new audiences will find themselves lost at certain parts. Is that a bad thing? Again, not necessarily. Does it suffer from sequelitis? Definitely.
My advice for anyone going to see the movie: expect to be entertained, but don't expect too much. And if you're thrown off by the clip after the credits, don't worry. It'll all make sense in due time.