This is my 1st movie review here so I hope I'm doing it right :P
Firs, I'm going to outline my views on Comic Book Movies from my point of view.
To me Iron Man (2008) was, and still is, the epitome of Comic Book movies. Whereas Nolan's Batman series brought out the darker side of the character (one which didn't seem to feature in the previous Batman films), I do not consider it to be the best comic book movie out there; Simply because it doesn't feel that Comic-Booky to me. If Bruce Wayne wore a detective outfit and had the gadgets he has, the movies will still remain quite the same as they are now, but will be put under something like the Crime/Thriller/Drama genre.
Iron Man (2008), on the other hand, seemed to perfectly balance humour, action, plot, character development and - most importantly - entertainment.
I rarely buy comics so I'm not a Lore-Genius but I used to love watching the Marvel cartoons as a kid so I'm not affected with minor changes minor (maybe sometimes majour) to the history of these characters. Yet Iron Man always struck me as the Super Hero with a difference, a flawed man like you and I. The difference between us and him is the size of our pocket.
When I watched Iron Man (2008) for the 1st time I felt that the studio had managed to perfect the comic book movie genre (after fiascoes like Hulk [2003] and Spider Man 3 [2007]). The story was fresh, the actors were perfect and I felt the product as a whole was Confident yet Cautious enough not to over-boast it's Jewel of a movie.
Though, the higher they rise the harder they fall.
By far I do not consider Iron Man 2 (2010) to be a bad movie. It still is one of the best Comic Book Movies, but I think this time round the sequel was not as good as it's predecessor, for these reasons:
Overconfidence
Tony Stark was an eccentric (in his own way) genius, full of himself and funny. What I loved in the 1st movie was his transition from an egoistic man to a considerate one.
In the sequel, Tony seems to have gone back to square one. He's dedicating most of his time to the Expo, and rather than being funny, I found him to be a bit of an annoying character at times. Even though he - once again - changes his character towards the second half of the film, I didn't seem to feel the same for his actions as in the 1st one. He found a new source of energy but the struggles he faces seemed to be based solely on his safety, rather than that of humanity.
Story
Even though they seemed to follow the same formula from the 1st movie, this time round I felt the story was slightly too vague as it had too much going on
1) Weapon Dealer Conflicts
The decisions made by Stark in the 1st movie gave me the impression that he decided to stop manufacturing weapons and use the suit for peace-keeping purposes. Now Stark and Hammer clash due to their job similarities.
2) Legacy
Apart from having Justin Hammer opposing every move made by Tony, Ivan crops up and decided to take down Tony himself. Even though I liked the idea of Hammer hiring Ivan to re-build his 'iron-man-ripoffs' I think that Legacy alone would have been enough for a 2hr movie. What might have been interesting would be having Ivan + Hammer against Iron Man BUT without having the two combine forces in the 1st place. However, this might have lead to a weird baddy, baddy, hero thing that happened in Spider Man 3 (2010).
3) Too much going on
As I stated in the two points above, there was just too much going on in the film. Iron Man (2008) had a simple and effective story line. Obadiah wanted to get rid of Stark and hired the 10 Rings to do the job. In the end the movie tied up nice and neat. This time round there's Hammer, Ivan, Nick Fury barging in, Rhodey turning against Tony, Pepper being promoted and having trouble managing to run Stark Industries, and Tony getting sick.
I think that on paper, all these ideas are good but they should have been spread out into two movies rather than crammed into one.
4) Continuity
I loved the fact that they hinted at the Avengers (even though it was a little too much at times). I caught a glimpse of the Hulk-News scene which was a nice touch but having Captain America's shield was as bad as those WristWatch and MobilePhone 'ads' we get in the recent James Bond movies. I felt that they could have done without all those little hints as - to me - it distracted me from the story.
Question : Did Cap's shield change from the 1st movie? Not that I mind the new look but I dont think Tony had time to come up with a new shield in a period of 6 months :P
Continuity... Well... Don Cheadle. I will not go into why they changed him from Howard but I think it was a very bad move from marvel to change a character which (to me) was a very good casting choice. If it ain't broke, don't fix it... and if it seems like its going to break then make sure it doesn't shatter into pieces. Terrance might have asked for too much (money wise) for this sequel but I like his portrayal of Rhodey much more than Don's interpretation. In Iron Man (2008) Rhodey was a balanced character; a lieutenant who was strict enough during work but loosened up enough when with his best buddy Tony. They felt like they had known each other for years. However, I found that Don's portrayal was way too distant and cold. The few jokes he made didn't even make me laugh. His voice and passion towards the character didn't impress me and, whereas the re-casting for Bruce Wayne's love interest didn't make that much of a difference, I think the change in character in Iron Man 2 (2010) broke that what was built in the 1st movie.
5)Lost Opportunities
The Suitcase armour... why the hell didn't we see him build it or come up with the idea?
(finally, i think that having spontaneous acting gives the movie a natural feel but it contrasted too much with Don's rigidness, sometimes Whiplash gave me the impression of being too superficial - especially his 'NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!-cry' when [his dad?] dies in the beginning of the movie. And what was all the fuss about his bird, after the intermission it seemed like he forgot all about it not being the original one and couldn't care less... plot hole or did i miss something?)
Overall I liked the movie and it was the 1st time I dint talk during a film. It was entertaining enough but, deep down, I felt like I was watching the 'fillers' to the best parts of the movie which were all shown in the trailer and the 5min worth of clips they showed.
I think that this movie might have been the 'cash magnet' for Avengers. The sequel for a brilliant movie will undoubtedly make good cash. Do they need cash to start off avengers and used Iron Man 2 to do so? I hope so, as it would justify some of the screw-ups and i do hope Thor will blow my mind away more than the 1st Iron Man did :P
I know I wont be lurking around this site in a years time (not to spoil anything from Thor and Captain America). And if anyone from the studio will ever read this, I think it would have been a better move to keep the awesome bits for the final movie and not spill them out in trailers and previews ;p
Should they make a 3? If it's on the same level as Iron Man (2008) then hell-yes! If no, then I'll be more than glad to wait a year more (till they reach that level) or see Tony Stark in the Avengers and (if it's successful) it's sequels.
And here's hoping I managed to write a decent review :P Thoughts?