Iron Man 2 (4½ Stars)

Everyone says this is better than the first film. I disagree. Sure, it's a good film, but it has some negative points. Let's just go through it and say what I don't like. I'll leave the positive criticisms to others. And before anyone accuses me of ripping the film apart, look! I gave it a 4½ star rating!

The technology is very over-the-top, bordering on caricature. It seems to have been filmed to make people who know nothing about today's technical limitations say "Wow!" Anyone who knows and works with high tech will only shake his head and say "That won't be possible for another 100 years or more".

The bad guy, Ivan Vanko, isn't corny enough. He's modelled on the Whiplash character in the Marvel comics, but he doesn't use the name. I would have been much happier if there had been additional dialog on the race track:

Tony Stark: "Who are you? What do you want?"
Ivan Vanko: "My name is Whiplash. I'm here to kill you".

The drones confuse the final fight scenes. They should have been dealt with quickly to allow a longer battle between Iron Man and Whiplash. I also disliked the way Jim Rhodes' suit was operated by remote control. Too many enemies at once.

"The Avengers Initiative"? Gimme a break! This is an awful rewriting of Avengers lore. The Avengers began as a chance alliance of random superheroes, provoked by one of Loki's schemes against his brother Thor. That's how Thor, Iron Man, Giant Man, the Wasp and the Hulk came together. Not as an organisation created by Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D. And remember that Captain America joined later, he wasn't the first Avenger, he was the sixth.

I'm waiting for an explanation in the upcoming Thor film, but what was that hammer doing in the desert in New Mexico? Everyone knows that Don Blake found the hammer in a cave in Norway. Why change things unnecessarily? I grudgingly accept setting the Marvel heroes in the present, although I would have preferred the films to take place in the 1960's. But changing vital plot lines and origins? No no no!