All the objects blowing up, I imagine--the special effects. Iron Man 2 is heavy on action and light on characterization. No, that's not right--plenty of character is projected, but for what purpose, I'm not sure. Usually some normality is expected in a superhero movie--to provide a foil for the superhuman exploits of the main characters. In this movie, too much over-the-top characterization lessened the impact of the story.
Why does Tony Stark decide to dress up in his suit and get drunk?
Why is Pepper a hot and cold shower of emotion?
Why is Hammer such a complete ignoramus yet also, apparently, a brilliant weapons developer?
Why does Ivan Vanko decide that mayhem is the answer to his woes?
Why is Natalie/Natasha so mysteriously eccentric? (Even Tony Stark asks this.)
Who and why, for crying out loud, is Nick Fury?
Lt. Colonel Rhodes seems to be the only character who acts in a somewhat predictable manner. He tries to be loyal to Stark and to his country. His reactions seem to come from an identifiable source: concerned, protective, and reluctantly intervening actions regarding a friend who is out of control.
Perhaps the best compliment to the cast of acting greats is that the actions of the characters--if not believable--are at least interesting and watchable. I believe the characters are who they are. I just find it difficult to believe they all ended up on the screen together. My "willing suspension of disbelief" got bent.
Watch the movie--yes, I did. It was a hoot--and I think it's better than G.I. Joe. How's that for setting the standard high?
Copyright 2012 by Thomas L. Kepler, all rights reserved