SMALL SPOILER ALERT
Let's get the pros out of the way before taking a look at the cons shall we? Jon Favreau has an impeccable cast and gives just about every single one of them plenty of screen time to display the characteristics and traits that they each bring to the table. There couldn't be a better choice for Tony Stark than Robert Downey Jr., constantly riffing on others around him, a bit of a womanizer, excellent comedic timing, and great when the drama calls for it, he simply is Stark. A man who walks a fine line that balances playboy lifestyle, responsible businessman, peace bringing superhero, and an individual who is struggling to come to terms with the legacies left behind by his equally brilliant father. Don Cheadle takes up the role of Lt. Col. James Rhodes after Terrence Howard was unceremoniously removed from the cast after the original. I've always liked Terrence Howard and don't really know why he was booted from the project but Cheadle is a great replacement and does seem to fit the part a little better. Mickey Rourke commands just about every scene that he's in as the vengeful Ivan Vanko, a known method actor you'd have to look pretty hard to somehow find evidence that he isn't a russian ex-con who's spent a lot of years doing some hard time. Sam Rockwell is a welcome new element in the mix of Tony Stark's world and plays the part of a scheming rival really, really well. He's sleazy, slick, smart, well spoken, and an entrepreneur looking to fill a void. He's fun to watch on screen from top to bottom, I think he's an underrated actor who has done some really great work. Samuel Jackson and Clark Gregg return as agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and, thankfully, each of them get a little more screen time than the original. Jackson is hysterical as a man trying to get a narcissistic superhero under control. Gwyneth Paltrow returns as the able-bodied assistant Pepper Potts, lovely as ever and her rapport with Downey Jr. is as strong here as the original. Lastly on scene is Scarlett Johansson in a role that, while fun, isn't quite given the screen time it feels like it should have been. Not at all like the tacked on Venom in Spider-Man 3 who was an add that Sam Raimi didn't want to put in the movie, she fits just fine, and is worked into the plot but just feels under utilized which is a shame. Hopefully we see more of her in the IM3.
The plot is strong for the most part, and picks up fairly quickly after the events of the first movie. Stark is dealing with issues on a lot of angles from confronting the American Military industrial machine, to ghosts of his father's past business practices, the fallout of revealing to the world that he is Iron Man, and dealing with the realities of the fact that, at the end of the day, he's just one man in a suit, his abilities and health are all impacted or supported accordingly. I think one thing that both the original and now the sequel do well is make one think about the realities of weaponry in our world today. War as a business continues to be a running theme and, even though Stark is out of the business, it shows that there will always be others looking to take up the mantle and continue to evolve it. That's a scary prospect, and not necessarily a fictitious one. One of the best elements of the first movie was the humor, Tony Stark constantly cracking jokes at inappropriate times and things like that, and thankfully Favreau and his screenwriters have expanded on that in nearly every area of the film. There's a lot of laughs to be had and almost none of them feel forced. A particular sequence in the middle of the film might get a bit hokey, but it's easily looked over for all the other successful humor. The action sequences are fast paced and intense. It's obvious that Favreau is getting more and more comfortable with big sequences that involve a lot of elements and characters. While being chaotic and busy, I still feel the sequences were easy to follow from an audience standpoint. While the good guys and bad guys look somewhat similar in the movie, it's easy to tell who's who and what's going on at all times (unlike some other movies of late...ahem....Transformers 2....)
After saying all this you're wondering where I find fault with the movie and why I wouldn't say it's quite as good as the original. Here's why. I don't feel that the villains found here are quite as villainous as Jeff Bridges' Obadiah Stane in the original. They're bad guys, no doubt, but I don't feel that either of them get to really explore how bad they might actually be. Maybe we'll see them in a future film? I'm sure at least one of them will be around for a few more sequels. I also felt the story was a little unfocused, or maybe too big in scope? There was a lot going on with a lot of individuals working towards different goals and, consequently, it felt that some ideas were a little half-baked. It's a shame because all of the threads are pretty compelling, so to see some of them get shorted is kind of sad. Without getting into spoilers I think those are my major qualms.
One final note is that I absolutely loved the casting of Garry Shandling as a smarmy US Senator. I've never been a fan of his, but this bit of casting was inspired brilliance. He was fantastic in the few scenes that he was in.
Be sure you sit through the credits for the final scene at the end. It's a brief one, but important as Marvel continues to build towards The Avenger's movie.
