Reviews on movie Iron Man 2 (93)

I immediately got acquainted with the second film of the trilogy about Iron Man, in which the semantic accents have shifted somewhat, and although I think this film is good, it looks less serious than its predecessor, which carries out the presentation of the hero and gives the viewer the understanding that the protagonist is aware of the seriousness of the responsibility that lies on him. I also went to the cinema for this film and got an indescribable impression of watching it in the cinema. There will soon be a generation that has never been to a movie theater. But this is still the near-term prospect. A new acquaintance with the tape allows you to share impressions from what you saw and some thoughts about this film.
A narrative criterion or narrative. It’s been six months since the world learned that billionaire inventor Tony Stark is the owner of Iron Man’s unique cyber armor. The public is demanding that Stark hand over the armor technology to the U.S. government, but Tony is reluctant to divulge its secrets because he fears it will fall into the wrong hands. Meanwhile, Ivan Vanko – the son of a Russian scientist who once worked for Stark’s firm, but then fired and deprived of everything, intends to avenge Tony for the troubles of his family. Why build their high-tech weapons? It is worth saying that in the second film, attempts to introduce Tony Stark into the Avengers initiative continue, and if we consider the composition of the script, then it is built on the same patterns as the first tape. Several new characters were introduced, such as Black Widow and Nick Fury. A little more screen time was received by the driver of Stark Happy, played by director John Favreau. Some of his jokes work well and make you smile. But here we see the following metamorphosis of the protagonist and here he caught a star. Having privatized the world, he forgot that there will always be contenders for the technological legacy of the Starks. Ivan Vanko is the son of another scientist working with Howard, and then once again recalls the phrase - "Why do you think that all inventions are yours and only..." But in the negative scenario, you should record the superficial disclosure of the villain Vanko, since the same Obadiah Stein against his background looks more motivated villain. And he sings along with Justin Hammer - Tony Stark's competitor, who dreams of presenting more advanced weapons at the Expo, thereby reflecting the arms race. The dialogues on his behalf are accurate, but despite the increased level of HCV of the main character in the film, ideas and thoughts that claim to be moral still creep in. One of them is the legacy of Tony Stark and his successors. It can be deployed more globally, whether future generations will not be ashamed of what we are doing or whether it will sink so deeply into the depths that our affairs will seem innocent prank. In any case, it is necessary to sow reasonable, good, eternal, regardless of the degree of odiousness.

Visual criterion or technical support of the tape. It is worth saying that there are only two really spectacular moments here - the demonstration of Ivan Vanko's strength at the Grand Prix in Monaco and Natalie's changing clothes in the car at Happy. Everything else in the genre can be safely equated with a conversational drama, especially in this regard, a good scene where at a government meeting the powerful exchange wits with Tony Stark. But the cameraman skillfully works with the camera, snatching the most profitable angles in each scene, especially with regard to the final battle with the villain, where the entire ammunition presented at the Expo is launched. Also in terms of production stands out fight with Rhody under the king's bat. Flight scenes as before are set perfectly and asked for on the desktop. In combination with music, the picture takes a fresh breath and each sound works for the atmosphere. Also note the work of the sound engineer on the distribution of melodies and effects in the overall mix. Speech is not drowned out, artifacts of sound are not heard.

Acting work deserves a positive mention. Robert Downey Jr. here felt a taste of greatness and reflected this in his game, with many shots with his participation dispersed into memes. In this film, he played a slightly more superficial character, but the actor sits in it perfectly, and the voice of Vladimir Zaitsev became the perfect finishing touch in the perception of the image by the Russian-speaking audience. Sam Rockwell played Justin Hammer - a man with the ambitions of heir Tony Stark throughout the tape finds a chance to win the initiative and present his weapons to Uncle Sam. Alexander Gavrilin gave his voice to the actor, worked well, but Loki gave his organics to open up better. Justin Hammer is a bit simple in comparison. Mickey Rourke briefly returned to the saddle and got into this film as the main villain. From what was offered in the script, he squeezed the maximum. Vladimir Eremin organically got into the image, with the help of the director catching the voice of the actor. Good job

If not better than the previous film, then at least on a level. There was a place not only for partying, but also for correct thoughts about the heritage, transferring the scientific potential of mankind to the best hands. And what do we do with it, but the action and dancing under the lantern are still a little more memorable. I will advise you to get acquainted, since the morality in this tape is still there, her ears are peeping against the background of other nostalgia and hands-offs. On a weekend evening, the tape will brighten up your loneliness. All health, peace and good cinema.

I continue to write about the MCU films. In turn, the third film of the universe and the second film about Tony Stark aka Iron Man. I liked the film in general, it is not without minuses, but again the film about Tony looks much better and more interesting against the background of the Hulk. But let's be clear.

Tony Stark's second film in a row shows a good character growth. And Tony Stark's second film takes the same path to growth, but it helps, so why not? This road is characterized by the fact that no one understands Tony’s views, which causes him to face enormous public pressure. And if in the first film it was connected with the cessation of weapons production Stark Industries. Now, Tony is going through a very difficult stage of humility with his imminent death from blood poisoning. Having tried all the ways, he understands that he can not cope and begins to behave gently inappropriate to his status, which causes anger and misunderstanding in society and people close to him. S.H.I.E.L.D. helps him deal with this by pointing out how to find a cure. Tony has a really good arch, and Robert Downey Jr. is just unmatched in the role. The truth in this film is that their chemistry with Pepper doesn’t feel so much anymore, perhaps because Pepper was one of those who couldn’t understand him. The same can be said for Rhodes, for Don Cheadle, of course, this role is much more suited than his predecessor. Of the pluses, of course, I note the good effects and just chicly selected music, which is perfect for the image of this Iron Man.
Now let’s go on the minuses, the second film of the HC franchise also does not please the antagonists. Sam Rockwell is certainly a good actor, but his Justin Hammer looks like an outright laughing stock against Tony's background. I did not like Ivan Vanko at all. The stereotypical Russian character, who eats vodka in unprecedented quantities and managed to assemble a multimillion reactor in a commune in Siberia, looks like complete nonsense. His motivation leaves much to be desired, all this time he was sitting at home and drinking, and then Dad died, and now he collects nuclear reactors and boozes, Sur, to be honest. In general, there is a feeling that everything that is bad in this film is associated with antagonists, they spoil the feeling of the film.
The conclusion is that HH2 is a good continuation of the first film, but still no better. The first LC generally set a powerful bar for the entire MCU. But if you try to pass over the eyes of frankly bad villains, then the film is good, Downey Jr. pulls it to the right level.
8 out of 10

A funny situation: despite the fact that Mickey Rourke carefully got used to his image and was imbued with Russian culture, Ivan Vanko turned out to be almost the most stereotyped Russian character in the history of American cinema.
There are other flaws in Iron Man 2, but to begin with, you just need to list those Vanko clichés that make you laugh, but not the one the director was hoping for. So, fold your fingers: a surname close to the name Ivan, a sullen character, excellent abilities in physics, excellent programming skills, and to some extent a craving for alcohol. All right, full set? There's a shortage of bears, yes. No better than Natasha Romanoff, whose name does not need comment. And where in the film with Russian locations without a cold winter? Russia without snow is almost like the Chinese without kung fu.
As you can guess, the sequel to a failed film develops its weakest aspects, because what else will bring profit at the box office? Tony Stark remains Tony Stark: bragging, greedy, self-confident and a little (so far) dishonest. If in the first part the character still felt not quite confident due to the fact that he was just beginning to fight the global threat, then here Tony’s vanity is whipped over the edge. Brilliant parties, expensive alcohol, expensive strippers, ostentatious expensive clothes ... and where is the slightest hint of condemnation? Once again I remember Batman: The Beginning, who, with all his shoals, correctly placed emphasis on the good and the bad. And Iron Man 2 doesn’t even try to set it up. He shows a picture for a picture.

But this time, even the picture didn’t turn out well. The point is not only in the deplorable appearance of Mickey Rourke, but also in the fact that the most interesting and important events occur at night, so the viewer is forced to watch the film out of reach of sunlight to see in the screen at least something other than his reflection. The whole technical side of the story is doubtful. The whips of the evil Vanko, the improvised reactor and the robotic army not only look unconvincing, so the film also shrugs off detailed explanations about the functioning. Tony himself also raises a number of questions: with his sudden complication, one should think about health, not about new achievements. But this is Tony, whose name has become a household name. Most likely, the uninterestingness of the character was understood even by Robert Downey Jr., since during filming he constantly ate, and as a result, this habit was transmitted to Tony himself. In general, the acting of the second Iron Man is no better than the first part, and in some ways even inferior to him. Gwyneth Peltrow, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson and everyone else are not just playing, but rather pretending to be some people who are supposed to do and say something according to the script. Relatively good Nick Fury, who is performed by Samuel Jackson, is given too little attention.
Otherwise, Iron Man 2 suffers from the same flaws as all other MCU films. This is excessive pathos, straightforwardness of characters, unconvincing global threat, and most importantly, predictability. Nowhere is it so painful as in superheroics. It remains only to note that in addition to Russia itself, the film distorts the Russian language. If you look at the inscriptions on television screens and in newspapers, you can read such that the mind goes behind the mind.
2 out of 10

The sequel continues the story arc of the original film, which is that Tony's costumes are a powerful weapon that can easily help establish dominance in the world, and it also adds new arches related to heritage and the responsibility that lies with Tony.

Despite the fact that the film turned out to be in many ways weaker than the original, it is still a very worthy and exciting movie, and it can surprise.
There are a lot of really chic scenes, like racing in Monaco, Tony’s inspiration for his father, brawls of best friends, and the final fight.
Mickey Rourke as Ivan Vanko is charismatic, brutal, and dangerous, but his plan raises some questions. A lot of questions.

Robert Downey Jr. as always incredible, he is still the same eccentric billionaire who, although at times and behaves like an idiot, but at heart he is sensitive and fragile, a man with a heart of gold.
Gwyneth Peltrow in this film revealed a new side, she now has a new position, which means a huge responsibility, and she copes perfectly, at some point against her background, Tony looks like a lost puppy, probably, this effect and wanted to achieve the creators.

Don Cheadle in the role of Rhody copes with hurrah, and his first appearance in the film deserves a stormy applause, because so fleetingly beat the recast still need to try.
Scarlett Johansson and her unforgettable debut as Black Widow is something brainstorming, she is insidious, cunning, and unimaginably cool, in future films her character will undergo significant changes, and it is certainly nice to see where it all began.
Perhaps many have already forgotten, but Sam Rockwell was also once part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and he was great, Justin Hammer has his charm and charisma, and perhaps this is not his last appearance in the MCU.
Iron Man 2 is a decent sequel, which, although not a masterpiece, is still one of the favorite films of many fans.

Well, I'm continuing to revisit Phase One in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And that's so cool. At the time of watching for the first time, I was already in love with Tony, but was not yet particularly familiar with Rhodes, and Pepper was not unequivocally treated, and all the enemies seemed incomprehensible and “nothing.” It's different now. During this time, I studied someone from comics, someone from films, and the main characters loved almost everyone, so re-watching is something different in feeling.
So in the first Iron Man, I was more into becoming, the first half of the movie. In the second part, the opposite attracted the second, when the main dynamics began. And in general, this part became for me in the first place (strange that in the first view it somehow passed by, and the whole part, as far as I remember, I was looking at Vanko) about love and friendship. Actually, love is the relationship between Tony and Pepper, and I'm increasingly sympathetic to this couple. And friendship is the revelation of the relationship between Rowdy and Stark. And I’m very happy that the actor was replaced in this part, as everything was played with completely different colors. And the joke at the beginning of the film regarding the change of appearance of the actor is generally fire, well played this moment, albeit taking only a few seconds.
The main disappointment of the viewing (that the first and second) was Natasha. She was good, cool and beat her appearance very cool, so the disappointment is only about my personal order of viewing and awareness. I really missed the moment when I realized that Natalie Rushman was Natasha Romanoff when she came to that cafe. If the first time I did not pay attention, of course, immediately knowing that it was Black Widow, but now I realized that on that first viewing I would like my surprise, but it did not exist and could not be. Once again to praise Natasha and her role in the film, everything was cool and harmonious, and also very fun. Well, I'm going to hook up with Nick Fury, because the scenes with him were all good. Especially now that I've seen him become a Captain Marvel.
I’ll stop at Mickey Rourke, who got so used to the role of Ivan Vanko that I thought he was just told ‘Now be Ivan Vanko’, as if there were no simple acting here. In the comics I came across scenes with Whiplash, even if they did not reveal it, but for now I can say that I like the movie Whiplash even more, largely thanks to Rourke's play. It opened by the way only closer to the second half of the film, I can not remember the special admiration at the beginning.
Well, it is worth mentioning Hammer, who did not leave unambiguous feelings. Yes, he's cool, rusty and probably quite right (to himself) tried to act against Stark. But it's kind of template. I can’t really talk about Sam Rockwell, because I know him very remotely, I can’t even remember where he came from, so I’ll just appreciate that the role was played well. This book might have been better. But I can’t say that I didn’t have enough... In general, ambiguous feelings, but definitely not negative. By the way, I hope the bird is okay. I needed a whole post-credits scene to show the fate of the parrot.

I can say for sure that the plot is already more interesting than in the first film, where first of all it was important to become Iron Man, and only then who and why he fights. It’s not Iron Man’s line, but Tony, his work/company, and his family/friends. In fact, the costume played a secondary role in this film. I read the comic (Hachette's Iron Man, if you're wondering), where the costume found its "mind" and became separate from Tony. In the film, the opposite is true: a costume is just a costume, nothing more. That’s how I’m going around and around the next praise of Tony Stark and Robert Downey Jr., so I’ll tell you – it will!
Downey is amazing in this role, and all the emotions are written on his face, and, most importantly, he is still as interested in the role as in the first film, it is strongly felt. Tony is portrayed in the film from Tony Stark’s side, not Iron Man’s, so it was interesting to see his development, decisions and suffering. Yes, I will say again and again that one of the best and well-recorded heroes in the MCU.
Perhaps I need to draw some conclusions, but I can hardly say anything, except that it was cool, interesting and sensual. I want to immediately move on to the third part, since in the second there is no certain completeness, but the continuation will return only in the second phase, so you can be patient and move on to other, no less cool, characters.

Rarely do I return to the sequels of the first films of any franchises, so I decided to re-acquaint myself with the Marvell Cinematic Universe and its heroes to watch a worthy end to an entire era in the comic book genre, and if Disishki are at the embryonic level and abandoned the idea of a crossover, focusing on solo. Then UMC reached its climax, passed the climax stage and a dramatic denouement is coming, as a result of which some characters will have to say goodbye. The finale of the Infinity War franchise will be something comparable in scale to the end of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The opening sounds like a great finale. But today we are gathered on a different occasion. The second film in the trilogy about Iron Man chronologically still goes to the Avengers, and therefore still well perceived as an independent work. I will share my impressions of the film and thoughts on this.

Even if you weren’t born a superhero, you can design yourself with a design diploma, talent and engineering skills. The first film cultivated the idea that anyone, even a brilliant industrial scientist, could become a hero. The first film shot and a sequel was required not only because the film was a commercial success, but also because the narrative line required development. Expanding and deepening the world shown is not an easy task and at the same time quite dangerous. Having flooded the sequel with Marvel characters, Favreau could step on the rake that many filmmakers stumbled upon. A moderately serious Iron Man would turn into a clown with a bloated internal conflict, and his entourage would become a carnival gathering of harlequinos. Fortunately, Favreau remained true to himself: he used techniques that have long proven themselves in the genre of everyday comedies. As time has shown, this is the best thing that could happen. Through the efforts of the director and all the persons involved, the picture received an injection of magnificent dialogues, with enthusiasm of the episodes and relevant actors. Due to this, even the most absurd scientific theory expressed by the characters of the picture does not cause a short circuit in the brains of the audience, and fantastic toys of design bureaus seem very effective, as action scenes show.
Most genre conventions are covered by a layer of what some critics call “household”, since the naked eye can see the director’s interest as an observer of the human side of the superhero rather than his exploits. “Iron Man 2” came out much thinner and more elegant than the first part. Although in the center of the story, expectedly, remains obscenely rich Tony Stark, the rest of the characters are given enough screen time – in this respect, the film showed just Cameron’s adjustment.

The film has something to praise, but there are also details that catch the eye of any fan of the cinematic universe. Screenwriters do not push Stark to membership in the Avengers, his image of the hero has not undergone any serious changes. However, it’s worth noting, quote, “the sequel is as bad as a comic book as it is as good as a movie.” I have already said that the morality of the film is not new, that even before that the difficulties of the everyday hero in Hollywood were covered, but the director managed to win in persuasiveness. Tony Stark fights not in third world countries, but at home and tries, being on the verge of life and death, not to lose friends. At some point, he's really alone and the bottle seems like a logical way out. But even here, the writers try to motivate the hero and the viewer, so that he did not take a bad example from Tony’s drinking. We see Stark's moral armor break for a second, thereby showing us that inside the suit is also a personality, not an eternal winner and favorite of ladies like Marty Sue, he also has his inner demons.

Now we'll go through the criteria. The plot gets a solid four, for the audience cinema, focused on the masses, everything is acceptable, there are shoals, but who is now easy! Spectacularity receives five stars, since the last film it was clear that there should be no big problems in this regard, and Kevin Feige is still able to develop the universe in the right direction. The camera work is good, the camera catches the right angles, giving us the maximum possible view of the frame and the actions taking place in it. The film continues to set the tone and atmosphere of the development of the universe not only thanks to the visual, but also a stunning soundtrack, as always the playlist of music lovers will please Queen and AC\DC with their time-tested hits "Another one Bites the Dust" and "Highway to Hell". Shots, closing the door, gnashing of iron - all these sounds are harmoniously combined in a common mix with the rest of the music.

Acting is fun. Downey Jr. gained a new round of popularity, in this film he is also cool, he kept his pathos, his usual organics and did it well. Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Pots is good, less drama, a little more humor, which is pleasing. There was Nick Fury played by Samuel L. Jackson and he's good here, laughs well, episodic character, but memorable. Scarlett Johansson pleases the eye of the male part of the audience. The actors did their best. Five stars!

Verdict: It was a great sequel to the first film. John Favreau managed not only to keep the bar of quality at the same level, but even slightly raised. To be honest, I like the first movie better. I think I've been looking at it now, it's okay, it's great, but only the first one got a nerve out of all three. I'll give the film nine out of ten. Cinema can brighten up a good evening in front of the TV. But the best, of course, lies ahead. Good to you all and enjoy watching!

Rarely do I return to the sequels of the first films of any franchises, so I decided to re-acquaint myself with the Marvell Cinematic Universe and its heroes to watch a worthy end to an entire era in the comic book genre, and if Disishki are at the embryonic level and abandoned the idea of a crossover, focusing on solo. Then UMC reached its climax, passed the climax stage and a dramatic denouement is coming, as a result of which some characters will have to say goodbye. The finale of the Infinity War franchise will be something comparable in scale to the end of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The opening sounds like a great finale. But today we are gathered on a different occasion. The second film in the trilogy about Iron Man chronologically still goes to the Avengers, and therefore still well perceived as an independent work. I will share my impressions of the film and thoughts on this.

Even if you weren’t born a superhero, you can design yourself with a design diploma, talent and engineering skills. The first film cultivated the idea that anyone, even a brilliant industrial scientist, could become a hero. The first film shot and a sequel was required not only because the film was a commercial success, but also because the narrative line required development. Expanding and deepening the world shown is not an easy task and at the same time quite dangerous. Having flooded the sequel with Marvel characters, Favreau could step on the rake that many filmmakers stumbled upon. A moderately serious Iron Man would turn into a clown with a bloated internal conflict, and his entourage would become a carnival gathering of harlequinos. Fortunately, Favreau remained true to himself: he used techniques that have long proven themselves in the genre of everyday comedies. As time has shown, this is the best thing that could happen. Through the efforts of the director and all the persons involved, the picture received an injection of magnificent dialogues, with enthusiasm of the episodes and relevant actors. Due to this, even the most absurd scientific theory expressed by the characters of the picture does not cause a short circuit in the brains of the audience, and fantastic toys of design bureaus seem very effective, as action scenes show.
Most genre conventions are covered by a layer of what some critics call “household”, since the naked eye can see the director’s interest as an observer of the human side of the superhero rather than his exploits. “Iron Man 2” came out much thinner and more elegant than the first part. Although in the center of the story, expectedly, remains obscenely rich Tony Stark, the rest of the characters are given enough screen time – in this respect, the film showed just Cameron’s adjustment.

The film has something to praise, but there are also details that catch the eye of any fan of the cinematic universe. Screenwriters do not push Stark to membership in the Avengers, his image of the hero has not undergone any serious changes. However, it’s worth noting, quote, “the sequel is as bad as a comic book as it is as good as a movie.” I have already said that the morality of the film is not new, that even before that the difficulties of the everyday hero in Hollywood were covered, but the director managed to win in persuasiveness. Tony Stark fights not in third world countries, but at home and tries, being on the verge of life and death, not to lose friends. At some point, he's really alone and the bottle seems like a logical way out. But even here, the writers try to motivate the hero and the viewer, so that he did not take a bad example from Tony’s drinking. We see Stark's moral armor break for a second, thereby showing us that inside the suit is also a personality, not an eternal winner and favorite of ladies like Marty Sue, he also has his inner demons.

Now we'll go through the criteria. The plot gets a solid four, for the audience cinema, focused on the masses, everything is acceptable, there are shoals, but who is now easy! Spectacularity receives five stars, since the last film it was clear that there should be no big problems in this regard, and Kevin Feige is still able to develop the universe in the right direction. The camera work is good, the camera catches the right angles, giving us the maximum possible view of the frame and the actions taking place in it. The film continues to set the tone and atmosphere of the development of the universe not only thanks to the visual, but also a stunning soundtrack, as always the playlist of music lovers will please Queen and AC\DC with their time-tested hits "Another one Bites the Dust" and "Highway to Hell". Shots, closing the door, gnashing of iron - all these sounds are harmoniously combined in a common mix with the rest of the music.

Actor's play is great. Downey Jr. gained a new round of popularity, in this film he is also cool, he kept his pathos, his usual organics and did it well. Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Pots is good, less drama, a little more humor, which is pleasing. There was Nick Fury played by Samuel L. Jackson and he's good here, laughs well, episodic character, but memorable. Scarlett Johansson pleases the eye of the male part of the audience. The actors did their best. Five stars!

Verdict: It was a great sequel to the first film. John Favreau managed not only to keep the bar of quality at the same level, but even slightly raised. To be honest, I like the first movie better. I think I've been looking at it now, it's okay, it's great, but only the first one got a nerve out of all three. I'll give the film nine out of ten. Cinema can brighten up a good evening in front of the TV. But the best, of course, lies ahead. Good evening and enjoy watching \/b>!

People often ask me how do I go to the bathroom in this suit?

Iron Man 2

Given that this movie is already a designated masterpiece among fans of the cinematic universe, all I can say will have no impact on the perception of the picture. Honestly, it's not a bad thing, but it's still a weak story. Hypertrophied and contrived villain, sweet feelings, the origin of a partner, a hero fighting against his fate, trying to strengthen his legacy, fighting the inevitable invasion of death, while learning to get along with others – all this is here. The movie managed to pull me back into the eternal train crash that is Tony Stark's life. Damn, I thought, how did that happen? It's all Sam Jackson's fault. In the two years since Tony revealed his secret identity, he has somehow managed to achieve world peace. Since Justin Theroux's script doesn't think it's worth our attention, let's focus on Tony's heart. It turns out that walking with a reactor in your chest eventually causes blood poisoning. Who knew? Certainly not the legendary super genius Tony Stark, whose attempts to find a cure so far have yielded nothing but headaches and vaguely humorous sensations as he tries to hide the truth from his love interest, Pepper. With a ticking clock and an ominous black substance seeping into the skin tissue, Tony begins to act even more erratically and demonstratively.
He puts on an exhibition in New York, promotes Pepper to the position of CEO, and does his best to keep the dirty hands of the military away from his suit. After all, it doesn’t look like a weapon of mass destruction. What do they want? I am the last person to believe in governments (any of them), but I have a belief in one thing: the unchanging power of government to monopolize power, especially power that destroys individuality. Never mind. This story decides to focus on Tony as he does everything that some say they would do if they knew they were going to die. And you know what? If we ignore the fact that two years have supposedly passed, then this story may be enough to carry the whole film to the hump.
Unfortunately, the film needs those two years. How else could Ivan Vanko, our villain, build his own reactor in a dirty Moscow apartment? Vanko, by the way, is aka Whiplash, the son of a disgraced Russian scientist, deceived by Howard back in those days. Meanwhile, Stark's ongoing depression leads to the real 'highlight': drunken birthday antics that motivate Rowdy to put on one of Tony's spare suits. I particularly like the fact that they're destroying so many Stark things, including the kitchen sink. After this fight, the film cannot beat itself. It's an old story: a Hollywood blockbuster corners himself and decides everything with the help of a fight scene at the end and Nick Fury. I'm in a better mood than I should be, but retcons and stupid dialogue are still retcons and stupid dialogue, even when it comes from Sam Jackson's mouth.
Instead of dealing with an impending drama regarding Tony's fate that could be called mature and meaningful, ' Iron Man 2' tells the cast ' a long-running' mystery, and then immediately solves it, before any real drama can unfold. I would denounce writers who simplify such a potentially interesting moment. However, there's a clear sense that each character has their own inner life, even if the story they're stuck in doesn't reflect that. I love that they appointed Pepper CEO to do something other than clean up Tony's reactor. I even love that Tony's new mentor is played by Scarlett Johansson, aka Black Widow. I like Don Cheadle as a Warrior. I like Sam Jackson because if it wasn't, I'd be dead. But I hate this scenario. Especially after he suffers a stroke and starts drooling all over the carpet. Inevitably, the quality of the script drops as the numbers in the title inevitably increase. Why do we need two villains after all? And even if we should have them, why can't they be serious threats that have any chance of being taken seriously? I used to say Tony is Charles Foster Kane from the comic book world. Is it any wonder that as soon as he gets drunk, he explodes glass bottles? It's the idea of his fun, you know?
But again, this is the kind of world we live in, where rich people own everything... even our superheroes. At least the cast and action scenes are decent enough. But I was too busy offending at the stupidity that didn’t allow me to enjoy the action. Only one thing saves me, I have 'Green Lantern' which came out a year later, practically ran over me and sat on my shoulder like a devilish brat telling me to keep my hopes to myself.

I'll start with the main thing.

The film is not cooler than the first part, but not much inferior to it.
The cornerstone again is the development of characters. It is in the heroes and lies the raisins of the films about Iron Man. This time it’s not as brilliant as the first one, but it’s just as interesting to watch.

Heroes catch, the music rocks, the picture looks cool.
Separately, I will note the main antagonist, in the person of the evil Russian Ivan. He could have become one of the KMC’s toughest villains. A chic image (taking away stereotypes), worthwhile motivation and good play, accompanied by the actor’s mad charisma. And all this merges in vain... Although I still consider him one of the most memorable villains.
And of course Natasha. The Russians in this movie are really cool. It was after this film that everyone should have had questions about the advisability of her being in the Avengers team. It's like a mini solo.

In a nutshell, the film took all the best from the first part, but to bring to a new level, unfortunately, failed.
Everybody rock!
8 out of 10

For films based on comic books about a superhero, the appearance of a sequel is a natural and natural thing. Spider-Man 2 or Batman 4 looks like a new magazine with familiar and beloved characters. The principle of the series is a natural, organic way of existence and development of the image of a superhero. Therefore, when in 2008 on the screens appeared another comic character, doubt the subsequent release of the sequel was not worth it.
Creating the mythology and world of Iron Man, the filmmakers, of course, wanted to find special features for their character and for the story itself. To be honest, all superheroes are alike: possessing superpowers that distinguish them from other people, they fight for peace, entering into battle with a super-villain. “Iron Man” meets the general requirements, but also carries bright distinctive features. And it's not just about the sources and possibilities of his superpower.

In the second part, the contradictory image of the main character is aggravated by his depression and illness. Iron Man is fighting for peace and prosperity at a time when he himself is experiencing decline, devastation, the approach of death. The depressive hero is very relevant to our era of instability, economic crises and terrorism. “Here,” the viewer thinks, “a superhero, Tony Stark suffers from depression, gets drunk, argues, but when the trumpet calls, puts on a suit and flies to save the world!” So I must, having suffered for order, get out of the binge and go to my native factory to cast nuts for the tank: there is such a word "duty".
I must say that it is pleasant to watch a film, the entertainment of which is achieved not by the striking effect of 3D, but already outdated, but has become a classic method of computer graphics in a conventional format, acting, costumes and inventive mechanisms, female beauty.
7 out of 10

The second part of Iron Man was not long in coming. She promised to be better than her predecessor. That's what happened.

Plot

This is Tony's "I'm Iron Man." Stark is once again tackling pressing issues. Once again builds his business by inheritance and fights with villains standing in his way. In addition to this, Tony suffered from health problems.

Heroes who used to glow in HC are pleased with their appearance and we are still worried about them. The main star Tony Stark played by Robert Downey Jr. steals all his screen time.
Also here appears Natasha Romanov is Black Widow, played by Scarlet Johansson. She doesn’t have much time here, but she’s still good.
The villain is a mediocre, albeit genius mechanic for his time. And Mickey Rourke plays him.

Competitor Hammer didn't stand out much. The only thing I learned about him is that he dreams of becoming Stark and imitates him.
Action is on top here. It was interesting to watch fights, explosions, etc.
The graphics are not bad for those years, Stark’s technology looks impressive. I'm waiting for them to finally step forward.

In conclusion, I want to say that the second part is a great entertainment movie. This part doesn't spoil the franchise.

The film is easy to describe with adjectives: epic, interesting, funny is about it; original, addictive, unpredictable is not about it. This is the most unusual film from the first phase of Marvel, as it is difficult to talk about. In terms of the plot - this is the complete opposite of the first part, because the sequel had a very confusing and multi-branched structure.
In short, the plot here is built on the fact that Stark want revenge. It’s a lazy move, but it’s not the main conflict in the film. Ivan Vanka ... I mean, sorry, Zloy Russkiy Ivan is just a pain in the ass, distracting from important things. Most of the plot is based on the survival of Tony himself (though, as in the first film).
A little bit about style and other things. There is humor in the picture, albeit in small quantities. Some of the new characters are not really interesting. They have no such charisma (not even the Black Widow). Except for one. Zlogo Russkogo Ivana! Yeah, suddenly? I've heard stories that people don't like this guy. But why? He has his own personality - mysterious, intimidating... personal! (literally, he is very original in his own style). Yeah, it's leaked. He's a total villain, but, man, even his weapon looks extraordinary. He's both bad and good. That’s not what we’re looking for in the film.

So what's up with Stark? The platinum in the reactor kills him (oh, what a task), so he must find a harmless replacement for this metal - the most expensive in the world, by the way! Add to this all a new superhero (or rather, two), the old teachings of the late father Stark, and hooliganism by Zloy Russkiy Ivan – ready! It’s called “Iron Man 2.” This movie is much easier than I thought. At the same time ... much more complicated.

The first film was boring, and uninteresting, but with a good action; this one is unusual, fascinating, even though the action here sucks. Still, I like the sequel better. Starting with the second half, he gets even cooler, and in the end, so, well, a little deflated, with whom it does not happen. But anyway, the post-credits scene played a bigger role for the MCU than the entire film. And after such a scene, I just have to sit down on the same day and watch the Torah!
The film is good

8 out of 10

P.S. "Tvoy soft - gowno!" #quotes of the great people

When Marvel executives decided to take their own comic book films into their own hands, few believed in their idea. Competitors believed that the newly formed studio will release a couple of films that will not be successful, and then all the superheroes remaining at Marvel’s disposal will smoothly migrate to the Hollywood giants.

However, Kevin Feige was in no hurry to please the skeptics and, in company with colleagues, did a tangible job, giving us “Iron Man”, one of the best films of 2008 and simultaneously a great start for the entire subsequent series of films from Marvel.
Unsurprisingly, after the successes of the original, director John Favreau returned to his functions in a sequel that was doomed to success, but you can still make some claims about logic, moderation and relevance. The story unfolds after Tony Stark introduced himself to the world as a steel defender of rights and freedoms. However, the American authorities are not going to put up with the fact that the costume of Iron Man was in the hands of a freedom-loving businessman.
And Mr. Stark's troubles don't end there. Appeared out of nowhere Ivan Vanko, a Russian nuclear physicist with a long trail of crimes, considered the favorite of millions the cause of all the misfortunes of his long-suffering family. So Vanko decided to repeat the achievement of Stark with a suit and decided to teach the opponent a lesson.
Unlike the first part, Iron Man 2 takes a very long time to tune in to its wave, looking for its way and not in a hurry to move the action forward. Because of this, the first half of the film looks long and not very necessary. In addition, Favreau did not escape the “cranberry” when he showed the Russian scientist Vanko performed by the colorful Mickey Rourke. It is very difficult to imagine a nuclear man with such a face and habits. You don't have to discount comic books. I was not impressed by Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell). It was too caricatured and ridiculous.

But most of the shortcomings of the film completely redeems his game Robert Downey Jr. The audience has not yet had time to get tired of him, as from Johnny Depp in the image of Jack Sparrow, and he looks fresh in the frame and with a light. Paired with him, the irreplaceable Gwyneth Peltrow looks great, perhaps the ideal companion for the broken Stark, who it is time to settle down.

Of course, Iron Man 2 isn’t Marvel’s best movie, but it’s entertaining and gives us some really cool special effects scenes. And about Robert Downey, Jr., you will not forget.

7 out of 10

After the success of the first Iron Man and the well-received Robert Downey Jr. in this role, the sequel became only a matter of time. It came out quite quickly - only 2 years after the original. And this is not surprising, because in 2011 there are “Thor” and “First Avenger”, and for “Avengers” in 2012, the viewer still needs to prepare. Add to this that in 2009 there were no films from the Marvel Cinematic Universe at all, and the comparative failure of The Incredible Hulk. All these factors made it clear that the second part of the billionaire inventor’s story should be filmed as soon as possible. Apparently, this was the main reason why the sequel was below the level of the original.
However, do not think that the film turned out bad. It's far from that. It has everything you can love the Marvel Cinematic Universe: good humor, which became even funnier than in the first part, good action scenes, charismatic and inimitable Robert Downey Jr., as well as a good production. There are new characters: Nick Fury, who played not the last role in the plot, charming and mysterious Natasha Romanova, there is information about Howard Stark. The role of Happy Hogan expanded, James Rhodes became a full-fledged hero, and Phil Nolson became a more specific figure. With the acting the same order: Gwyneth Paltrow has become more lively and understandable, Mickey Rourke also pleases the eye, Sam Rockwell looks great, and Samuel L. Jackson - the charisma itself.

What could be wrong with all of the above? And the answer is simple - plot and development of events. Some people will say that this is a secondary factor for this film, and I would agree with it. But it is in Iron Man 2 that these aspects are limping on both legs. If somehow you can close your eyes to the little things, where the authors write the name of the Russian store, like “Aymy”, the assembly of the analogue of the Tony Stark thermonuclear reactor in the doorway and the inability to take away Tony Stark’s obvious weapons by the U.S. government, then other plot blunders and assumptions already too interfere with the perception of this film.
Take at least the main villain. It looks, of course, spectacular, but we do not know much about it. The story of Ivan Vanko is told in a nutshell, and the story of his father is almost ignored. Of course, you can build a big picture based only on the words of Nick Fury, but the viewer did not really show what happened between Anton Vanko and Howard Stark. And if Nick Fury’s words are true, then the villain’s motivation is banal and strained. In addition, we were not shown how the average Russian man has so much knowledge in science, programming, weapons and combat skills. And that's just one side of the joints.

Assumptions and conventions became many times more: how did Vanko know where Tony Stark was going, why he began acting only after the death of his father, why Tony Stark's father came up with such a difficult way to unravel a new element for his son, Vanko's inexplicable terrorist behavior near the end of the film. There are also enough stupidities: idiot guests of Tony Stark, amused by the fact that the drunk owner of the house delivers bottles in the air with repulsory rays, and not seeing any danger, simpletons of the military who do not test new weapons purchases for efficiency at all, a moment with the costume of the Iron Man Rowdy. The list goes on for a long time.

It was a good idea in the original, and it was interesting to see what was happening. Here, too, it seems to be, but all the experiences of Stark look inconclusive because of one small convention, which can easily cross out the entire plot of the film. And this idea constantly flashes in my head at any actions of the main character. By the way, the creators used it only in the third part.

Add to this the fact that because of the plot blunders, the film becomes slightly boring, and watching the same Ivan Vanko becomes more interesting than the main character. The former level of intrigue is observed only towards the end due to the action scenes. Even funny is the fact that in the sequel again there is some “blind” organization, which under the nose do something that will later destroy it: in the original it is Tony Stark and the organization “Ten Rings”, and in the sequel – Ivan Vanko and the company of Justin Hammer.
With all of this in mind, the obvious conclusion is that the film was just needed. It wasn’t originally planned and was made to build on Iron Man’s success, lead to The Avengers, introduce Black Widow and other characters, and fuel intrigue. In principle, he accomplished the task. However, like most sequels, it did not work at the level of the original, and even better, it failed. Not bad, but not too good supergay movie.
6 out of 10

As I said before, in many of my reviews of superhero movies, I don’t really like the genre. To be more precise, I am loyal to him. I can watch such films with great pleasure, but I will not enjoy them and watch them a hundred times. However, I am reviewing the good old Batman.
I liked the first Iron Man movie, but I didn’t see anything special about it, calling it a typical superhero movie—not bad, but not great either.

As for the second part, I had a slightly different interest in viewing. One of my favorite actors is Mickey Rourke. And not in a supporting role, but in the role of the main villain. That’s why I saw this picture in the first place.

However, I can say that I didn’t just like Rourke’s character. In my opinion, the second part looks more holistic in terms of the plot and leaves after viewing a wider range of development, both characters and the story as a whole.
If you compare it with the first part, then, as I thought, this part is more dynamic, interesting and immerses in its story much deeper.
As for Rourke, I can say that I saw exactly what I expected. No, of course, this role is not a masterpiece and is not nominated for an Oscar. But the villain Rourke played, it seems, could only be played by him. At least based on appearance. So perfectly and organically he merged with his image, adding to it, even a part of himself - an indispensable toothpick in the corner of the mouth, that to imagine in his place any other actor, it is impossible for me. And this time, unlike the negative character of the first part, this character is revealed to us more broadly. However, I did not like the fact that in the film there is another portion of “cranberries” – the main villain from Russia, so again out the window winter and he drinks vodka from a bottle.

All in all, I can say that this is a very pleasant and unobtrusive superhero movie, which, in my opinion, is much better than the first part.

I loved the first Iron Man movie. It’s not perfect, but I think it’s the best movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In fact, the sequel to “Iron Man” was just as amazing.
Tony Stark continues to save the world in an iron suit. The acting of Robert Downey Jr. can not but please. It still fascinates more and more. The film continues to introduce us to future Avengers. So we meet agent Natasha Romanoff, the Black Widow played by Scarlett Johansson. In this picture, Natasha does not much affect the plot, but you can see how beautifully she fights. We also learn about Nick Fury, who was in the post-credits scene in the first film. In general, the character of Samuel L. Jackson makes me sympathetic. The main villains pleased me. Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) and Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) are, in my opinion, great villains with clearly defined motivations. The one who really pissed me off was Pepper Pots (Gwyneth Paltrow). In the last film I liked it, and here somehow annoying.
There is no problem with John Favreau’s painting. The action is dynamic, you will not have to be bored when watching, especially if cool music plays against the background. There are certainly moments where there’s no logic, but that’s the norm for Marvel movies (as well as action movies in general).
Iron Man 2 is recommended for viewing. This is a great sequel to the cool original.

9 out of 10

Seven years ago, the second part of the film Iron Man was released. There was no limit to the joy of the audience, and when everyone found out that Whiplash is the villain, and Tony Stark will be helped by Natasha Romanoff known as Black Widow and Nick Fury, our expectations increased even more. I have seen the second part and what can I say about it.
To be honest, I didn’t really like the movie. Yes, of course, there were epic moments like the final battle in the park against the robots of Whistle and himself, but this is not what I was so fanatical about in the first part.
Plot. Everyone knows that all superhero movies have the same stories.

Characters-Play actors. Here for the actors and their performance can be really praised. The cast is just at the highest level! Robert Downey Jr., Mickey Rourke, Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Ciddle (replaced James Rhodes), Sam Rockwell, Scarlett Johansson and Samuel L. Jackson. What else does it take to be happy? But unfortunately, the play of Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow is very, very lame.
Humor. Again, Tony Stark emits it, but here I didn't laugh at all his jokes and pranks. In the first part, the humor was a little better.
Special effects. The budget has increased by $ 60 million and the special effects here are even better than in the first part!
As a result, Iron Man 2 was far worse than its predecessor. However, another plus in the film is its action scene. It was just a big deal!

5.5 out of 10

The third film of the line MARVEL.

The film takes place immediately after the original film, when Tony admitted that he was actually Iron Man. Everyone knows him, loves him, but the government wants to take all his achievements. In subsequent events, a villain appears who can own technology like Stark. Now the main character will have to fight him, but not without the help of his friend James Rhodes, who also tried on the costume. Plus, the head of the organization S.H.I.T. Nick Fury, singled out Tony agent - Natasha Romanoff, aka Black Widow, to spy on the main character. Meanwhile, Pepper is trying to cope with the new position of CEO StarkIndustries.
Robert Downey Jr., the second time showed himself in the image of Tony Stark and made a good impression, as in the first part of the film. Instead of Terrence Howard's best friend, Don Cheadle, he turned out to be a worthy replacement. Gwyneth Paltrow played the role of not just an assistant, but the director of the company. It was very interesting to see the transformation of the actress. Sam Rockwell played the role of a cynical and too arrogant person who traded armed equipment, and also occupied the niche that once belonged to the Stark. He decides to do everything to surpass the achievements of Tony and make his costumes, for which he hires the opponent of the main character Ivan Vanko. The villain this time played Mickey Rourke, as always he was cool, only here we see him in the image of a talented person who is perfectly versed in technology. And of course, the new figure in the Marvel universe is Scarlett Johansson. She plays a spy of Russian origin, and her first appearance in the cinematic universe evokes very pleasant feelings.

The only drawback that in the first and second part of the opponents in the same costumes as the main character. Only the new villain has whips, but this does not change the essence. I would like to see completely different opponents in terms of capabilities and forces, then the battles will look interesting.

Iron Man 2 is quite a controversial sequel for a number of reasons. First of all, the plot. The story here is not particularly interesting, as it is completely secondary to the first film - the villain tries to create the same costume as Tony Stark. Yes, the film is rich in subplots, but the main line, if you throw away all the tinsel, remains just that. And Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow) has gone from being a pretty cute helper girl to a useless and annoying character. But even all this could be eaten and asked for supplements, if not for the terrible antagonists – Ivan Vanko and Justin Hammer.
The first, played by Mickey Rourke, is a bad Russian, but also an evil genius scientist who is going to take revenge on the legendary Tony Stark for his father. I don’t know how canonical this character is about comics, but it’s hard to find a more clichéd villain with the same clichéd motivation. With Hammer (Sam Rockwell), the situation is even worse. He is a local clown here, who, despite his rather high position, constantly twists and grimaces, being one big walking laughing stock.
But let's go over the pluses. First of all, this is, of course, an action game, which in ZhCh2 is even more spectacular than in the first part. Excellent special effects and excellent production just do not let go of the screen. Next, the stunning, magnificent Scarlett Johansson in the image of the Black Widow. I won't say anything more about her, she's just gorgeous. Tony Stark as a character also evokes some interest, showing different sides of his personality. Well, as a bonus - a cool soundtrack.

Bottom line: Iron Man 2 has a lot of downsides for me personally, but it looks pretty good as a whole product. It is really worse than the first part, but still somewhat moves the cinematic universe as a whole, moves the character himself, and the above-mentioned advantages also should not be discounted. The review will still be positive, but I can not put the rating higher.

6 out of 10

- Sir, I have to ask you to leave the donut.
I've been waiting for this movie, probably more than all the other comic books combined. The first part of Iron Man made a furor among the audience, and ended in the most interesting place. Of course, I could not miss this action.

It is useless to write your synopsis, because everything is already said in the official. But still, if you watch another trailer, the meaning of what is happening is more than revealed. And there is not much to write about the film. I’ll only mention the pros and cons (which are also present).
Let's start with the minuses. The main disadvantage I consider too famously twisted plot. If I say so, it's overthinking. They did several tasks at once, and they hardly coped with them well. In addition to the main storyline, it was still necessary to somehow prescribe a story with a best friend, strengthen the S.H.I.E.L.D. agency in the cinematic universe and a bunch of other little things. I won’t say that it turned out great, but the timing of the Marvel Cinematic Universe was tight (the next film was already on the way), so I had to sculpt a mess. But in principle, neither the movie universe nor the Tony Stark franchise itself suffered from this.
Second down. Too "cranberry" Russia turned out in John Favreau and Mickey Rourke. I wonder if the first one knows that the Soviet Union collapsed and no one walks in drape coats, and calls each other comrades? And Mickey Rourke, too. The eternal toothpick in the teeth and habits of the criminal authority of the early 90s. I don’t see anything wrong with that, but it’s very obvious.
Now for the pluses. Naturally, there are more of them, and they more than cover all the shortcomings. Of course, the actors from the first film returned to their roles, except Terrence Howard. We got a replacement. Don Child came to the role of Rhody, and came confidently and for a long time. He'll be surprised in this movie, but so far he's only a shadow of his best friend. Naturally, Robert Downey Jr., as always, perfectly played the eccentric millionaire, who decided to become a shield of the United States. And of course, the charming Gwyneth Paltrow has not gone anywhere. In the rest, all the actors elegantly fit into their roles and there are no claims to them.
The film was nominated for an Oscar for Best Visual Effects. And for a reason. Since the first part of the special effects have improved even more, and in many moments it is unclear where the shooting on the scenery, and where against the background of chromakey. It’s also good to know that many of the effects are done live. That is, if you want to blow up a car - they blow it up, not draw an explosion on a computer.
In principle, you can list the pluses for a long time, but they have already been written a hundred times before me, so I do not want to repeat myself. The film is an important part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as if a bridge to other characters and events, so fans must watch. Fans of science fiction will be satisfied.

8 out of 10

What can you say about the second Iron Man?
Good Robert Downey Jr. bathes in greasy rays of glory, with knowledge tastes expensive whiskey, and also cheerfully spews jokes and sharpnesses in the style of Garic Bulldog Kharlamov. At the same time, he stands guard over American democracy, successfully combining healthy patriotism with healthy pofigism.

Bad Mickey Rourke lives in a gloomy snow-covered Moscow basement next to a shop labeled "Products," eats cheap vodka, and indulges in sweet memories of the Siberian camps in which he spent most of his dissolute life. At the same time, he manages to create a powerful weapon with the help of something like a hammer and a chisel.
Scarlett Johansson radiates fluids of strict femininity and confused courage, flirts with the main character with a stone face, and also plays intricate spy games in the style of “shield” and “sword”. At the same time, she periodically reincarnates from a divine, airless and disembodied creature into Lara Croft, Trinity and Catwoman in one person.
ANY Gwyneth Paltrow by proxy leads a huge corporation, from time to time builds a surprise-flashy faces, and also secretly sucks on a man who has a fiery motor instead of a heart. At the same time, she recalls a phrase from the film “Kin-dza-dza”: “The violinist is not needed!”
So the good and the good Tony Stark vs. the bad and the evil Ivan Vanko - who will beat whom?
Good-natured naive Pepper Pots vs. bitchy-exciting Natasha Romanoff - who would prefer a metal man?
Passions are heating up...

Now for the film itself.

To me, he's teetering on the boundary between "Average" and "Good." Alyapovish-stupid-primitive scenario once again makes you recall the statement of the now half-forgotten satirist Zadornov about the Americans. Also, when watching, it seems that most of the blockbusters of recent times are made in the same scenery.
But two things save the film: the acting skills of Downey, Rourke and Johansson, as well as the directing self-irony of John Favreau.
“Iron Man 2” is a nice mixture of high-budget comics and a colorful parody of a big-budget comic.
So, "Good."

6.9 out of 10

What you did to my family forty years ago, I will do to you in forty minutes! (c)

After the first part of Iron Man, the superhero movie continued to gain momentum. In general, the most profitable genre in recent years can be considered just the genre of action movies about superheroes. 2010 was stunned by loud fanfare, sounded at once from two comic books - "The Dark Knight" from the mysterious Christopher Nolan and the sequel "Iron Man" from the same John Favreau, which gave the audience a magnificent first part.

I must say that I was pleased to realize that the sequel was able to preserve almost all the best traditions of the original, which is why it was a pleasant pastime. Stark’s journey of self-assertion continues. This time, the U.S. government wants to take Tony's suit away, citing the likelihood of dire consequences. In this situation, Tony’s position becomes clear, and you willy-nilly begin to sympathize with him in his position and in the way he represents it. Which is a significant intrigue in the film. And with the appearance of competitors to the inimitable Stark, it strengthens.
The comic part is not lost, but seems even added. Which is certainly pleasing. You pick up Tony's catchphrases even more, and the jokes from his mouth look much sharper. And the presence of the episodic role of John Favreau in some moments leads to laughter to the point of colic. The love line between Stark and Potts, well established in the first film, also developed very well here, which is clearly visible in the finale. The design of the tape is also very interesting. If the first film showed that any conspiracy can be stopped and that you need to be able to look for prospects in your business, the second perfectly played the situation, showing that the scientist and his invention, in which he invested his soul in the literal and figurative sense, indivisible.
The cast is still great. About Robert Downey Jr. to talk too much does not make sense. It is worth saying that basically the film came out on his impeccable play and powerful charisma, which are easily put on the same shelf with Johnny Depp, Harrison Ford, Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman. Gwyneth Paltrow was somewhat underplayed, but the presence of her character was pleased. Samuel L. Jackson in the role of Nick Fury. Don Cheadle revealed the image of Rowdy more interesting than Terence Howard did in the first part. Sam Rockwell played the young Hammer. But Scarlett Johansson became the main gem of the picture, in the future the image of Natasha Romanoff became one of the main aesthetic pleasures from Marvel films for me. Her figure, her plasticity, her costume, all of which made me wildly excited. Bravo, Scarlett!

The visual effects have become even more intense. Studio ILM, knowing a lot about creating special effects, tried to fame. The first time I got a positive charge from the picture, while watching I could not take my eyes off the screen. I still enjoy watching it now. What is only the performance of Hammer at the expo, the disassembly of the heroine Johansson with the guards and the battle with drones? Great, in a word.

The composer was John Debney. It must be admitted that his work in the picture is no worse than the work of Ramin Javadi in the first part. The music gave the film maximum energy and dynamics. The sound of the hits AC/DC became just the icing on the cake. Since then, the band AC/DC has held the top spot among all the artists I know. Well done Debney, the music was great, nothing to say.
"Iron Man 2" is one of the rather pleasant cases when the sequel is created in the best traditions of the original and does not lower its bar. Spectacular, ridiculous, interesting and extremely pleasant blockbuster, which you can watch more than once if you want. One of the best representatives of his genre. I would recommend watching.

9 out of 10

Have a good time!

The filmmakers added "a little blood" to the characters, and it got boring. Perhaps we wanted to show that superheroes are human and can be wrong, but throughout the second part there was a certain disgust with the behavior of the main characters. It was difficult to understand their actions, to see the logic. The writers seem to have “deteriorated the qualities” that I loved after the first part of the characters.

Irresponsible behavior of Tony Stark, some unjustified actions, big risks, although in the first part every move was thought out. In the first part, I wanted to follow with interest the new ideas of the hero, his retaliatory blows to the offenders. But everything is predictable.

Miss Potts has turned from a charming girl who experiences and awaits her hero in a callous, selfish woman. I kept waiting for the denouement of her behavior, but again the writers were not pleasantly surprised. Being a superhero girl is not easy, but remember the same Mary Jane, or the girl of Deathpool, any other girls of the Marvel heroes - each of them wants to regret, each is truly loyal and even ready to sacrifice herself. But Pepper – it seems that she does not deserve to be the girl of Iron Man, absolutely uninteresting and weak character.
The script was a lot of predictable moments, it was really boring. It's not even fiction, it's fantasy. Okay, we ordinary people don't know about technology, we easily believe in the fairy tale of the future - drones, ionized plasma. But we know how the armed forces and the army work, so we know why, after almost half an hour of slaughter and a great threat to people’s lives, not a single military helicopter, not a single soldier appears. Everything is too simple, as if designed for a narrow-minded viewer who came to the cinema to see the cool Robert Downey Jr.
By the way, in the film there is another (except for the ones mentioned on the site) error. About 45 minutes into the film, as Hammer eats his dessert, there's a cherry on one shot, in the next shot it disappears, then reappears.

Of course, I don’t know the history of the comic book, but from the outside one gets the feeling that Part 1 brought a really big money, and the creators of the film quickly began to shoot the second one, but it turned out very predictable. The picture is beautiful.

5 out of 10

The Marvel film company continues to gain momentum, filming more and more comics. In 2010, the film from the pen of the company “Iron Man 2” was released.
The film follows the adventures of charismatic billionaire Tony Stark. The main character continues to fight crime dressed in a high-tech suit. Tony has many envious and detractors. But the main danger is the Russian genius Ivan, who intends not to destroy Stark.
The plot of the film is standard for superhero films. But, as in the previous film, the whole old story pulls the main character. His sense of humor and optimistic view of the world make you enjoy watching the already beaten history. I’ve seen all this in the previous film. In general, the main disadvantage of this tape, in my opinion, is its secondary. At the end of the picture, as usual, we are waiting for a grand battle of people in super costumes. But despite all this jaded plot, the film looks cheerful and does not cause rejection.

Among the actors, it is difficult to single out anyone other than the main character and his main opponent. In general, the characters in this film are very poorly disclosed and the acting is not particularly impressive. But everything in order.

Robert Downey, Jr., played the role of a charismatic and selfish billionaire. His excellent sense of humor and good jokes compare many roughness of the picture.
Mickey Rourke, who played the role of the main antagonist, also coped well with his role and is not lost against the background of other characters. Of course, it is worth admitting that, despite all his efforts, he looks like anyone, but not a Russian. But in general, the villain turned out to be quite colorful.

In the film there are such famous actors as Scarlett Johansson and Samuel L. Jackson.
The first played the role of the charming operative “Black Widow”. Unfortunately, in this tape, it is no different from most fight women appear on the screen before and after. The character is completely undisclosed and I don’t understand why he was introduced into the story.

Samuel L. Jackson appears on the screen for very short periods of time and it is very difficult to evaluate his performance.
The rest of the cast plays at an average level and their characters do not stand out from the general background.
Like the previous film, the picture has a good visual and audio part.
To sum it up, Iron Man 2 is the middle sequel. It is inferior to the original and partially repeats its plot. This is a one-time picture.

7 out of 10

To be honest, I am not a fan of creativity Marvel. I’ve never been attracted to the narrative of their comics, I didn’t really like the heroes of this universe, and I just can’t stand movies (well, except for the classic trilogy of Spider-Man with Toby Maguire). In anticipation of the expected Deadpool, which I absolutely do not care about, I decided to revise the second Iron Man. I will try to put everything on the shelves in my review.

Plot. The script of Iron Man 2 is primitive, banal and very predictable, absolutely does not catch, surprise and in principle does not differ from any typical Hollywood action movie. In general, another story is how a billionaire decided to protect the rights of civilians and cover them with his body, of course metal, but for some reason in Batman, the fate of the main character is exactly the same, but for some reason it is a thousand times more interesting to watch this. I understand that these two heroes defy any comparison in principle. In general, bad, very bad everything with the plot.
Special effects. Here’s what, and juicy and bright picture Marvel has always boasted, with their million-dollar budget in almost every film all the dynamics that occur on the screen can be perceived as real events. It’s beautiful and exciting, especially in 3D. This is one of the highlights of the painting.

The cast . And then Marvel is back at the helm. Magnificent and charming Scarlett Johansson, charming and charismatic Robert Downey Jr., pleasant to the eye Samuel L. Jackson and harsh Mickey Rourke. Everyone has done well in their role.

Music The original soundtrack Iron Man 2 can not boast, but against the background sometimes plays a pleasant ears classic rock music, and especially the coolness give songs AC/ DC.

In principle, I can’t turn my tongue to call the film a failure, but I can’t take it seriously either. Yes, a beautiful picture, yes, an excellent cast, yes, sometimes funny jokes slip, but the film categorically lacks seriousness, lacks a “smart” script lacks the core, as the same delightful “Dark Knight” by Christopher Nolan.
Is it worth watching? I think if you categorically lack comedy films or you are a fan of films about superheroes in steel suits, then I assure you, you better take your feet in hand and gallop to watch Iron Man 2!
6 out of 10

"Sir, I have to ask you to leave the donut."

Again, public favorite and ladies. Alcoholic, Narcissist and Iron Man by Tony Stark You waited, you got it. It’s as beautiful as the first film. He's great. Beautiful shooting, excellent directorial work and the work of the operator. I really like the moment with the mirror before the race, he looks straight into the soul. Nice new suit, partner. Every minute of the movie, you love it more. Look at it and admire it.

The cast did not undergo much change. They were not enough of one beautiful girl in the film, so now there are two of them, well, who does not like Scarlett Johansson. Also, John Favreau has given himself a little more screen time, and he's good. And now we get closer to the character of black director Nick Fury, played by non-white Samuel L. Jackson. When you look at it in English, it seems that Nick wants to rob Stark or push him. Don Cheadle replaced Terrence Howard as Rowdy. I was upset at first. But I liked Cheadle better in this role. At least because Terrence's original voice is disgusting. But the villain, from Mickey Rourke, turned out not the best, somehow he does not finish. But the accent is funny (if you look in English).
The movie didn't lose face. Great humor. It looks like a breath. And the soundtrack is on top.

So watch, watch and look again in English.

10 out of 10