I am almost satisfied.

Rating: 7/10 (10 May 2010)

For the record, I gave Iron Man 1 a solid 8.4, for all the calibers and brilliance it delivered. Now with Iron Man 2 I gave it 7.3. Here are my reasons.
1, The comedy still plays out pretty good with Downey's performance well utilized. Though some of the jokes were not as genuine as the original. Jon Favreau's approach of mixing sci-fi action with comedy still works, that's maybe the best news for fans and non-fans alike. Fortunately, they didn't follow Transformers 2's formula "bigger the better" or we will see some serious disasters. We still have these jaws-dropping dynamic action sequences which are well controlled and edited. The F1 track one was definitely one of the best crafted sci-fi fighting scenes, almost with a nostalgic feeling attached to it(light saber becomes light whip?)The climax is as big as one can imagine, but there comes the shortcomings. The first Iron Man was so charming to me mainly because as the movie processes, audiences were sucked into Tony's mind of tech geek and crazy stuffs. The scenes with Tony testing all the parts of his design were pricelessly detailed and looked genuine, like you can touch this technology and really invite it into your kitchen someday. But Iron Man 2 was too busy telling a more complex story, giving up all the opportunities exploring more facets of a crazy inventor. So on so forth.
2, Terrence Howard was a better Rhodes, delivering charms by himself or charmed the audiences by being the buddy/nanny for Tony. Don Cheadle feels so serious that he never gave this charming awkwardness as heartfelt as Howard. Beginning with him, I perceived several problems with the supporting characters. Having Scarlett Johnson kicking human asses is a smart move, but she doesn't feel entirely immersed with the Iron Man atmosphere (especially when she fought with security guards while Tony fights robots). The villains, however, are weak. Hammer is supposed to be a genuine idiot, with too much ego and too little brain to be in the pentagon. His ideas are never fit into the Iron Man technology, that's what the movie has successfully illustrated with the climax. With that in mind, one can expect any goofy acts from him. Sadly, he spent too much time on the screen and made him almost like pretending to be an idiot(not mainly due to Sam Rockwell's performance). On the opposite, audiences may find Mickey Rourke much more delicious to watch. He's a total bad-ass with an attitude. Beneath that, he's also a heartless technology maniac(typical villain from Russia). Except the 124 minutes of running time had mostly underused him, portraying him to be someone largely inferior to every aspects of Iron Man(overly obsessed with whip-type of weapons,keep making the same mistake,etc.) Somehow I was expecting him to be the key of saving Tony, but I was wrong because the makers can't wait to get Nick Fury back on screen, and made the story logically plausible but not structurally remarkable.
My friend, who also loves movies, remarked that he didn't want to see Iron Man 2 because it's "too predictable as they bring some bad-ass robot toe-to-toe with Tony Stark and Tony wins". I told him that's not the point of any popcorn movies or superhero movies, but I guess he's not totally wrong with this one. Nevertheless, Iron Man 2 still boasts with masterful polishing and will most probably be nominated best special effects by Oscar. Enjoy your party with Tony Stark!