Iron Man 2
The critics have savaged this movie, and all critics are idiots (except for me, of course). They immerse themselves in pretentious arthouse fare made by hands less capable, and then criticize movies that are different in intent and purpose. Iron Man is a comic book, and not necessarily a high-brow concept, so therefore why should the movie (or its sequel) be any different? As a comic book reader viewing a comic book movie, this film works even more than the first one did. The pair are among the best comic book movies ever made, worlds better than any other Marvel movie.
I tend to avoid a synopsis in my reviews because what most critics tend to do this to fill up space without really saying what they thought about the film. Since plot and synopsis information is readily available anywhere on the Internet, I will stick with my op/ed slant. This is a very well done film, slick and seamless, and manages to condense a ton of story from various points in the character's history into a 2 hour plus package. My only real gripe is that Whiplash is a sort of Crimson Dynamo hybrid, but hey, whatever. Iron Man's rogue gallery has never been as colorful as Spider-Man's, so I'll be lenient with my criticism. Aside from that, this is a perfect comic book movie, and maybe that is the problem that critics have with this movie. Maybe they don't understand comic books? My wife enjoyed this movie, and she is a civilian. Oh, and stay until after the credits, because...
...they show Thor's hammer!! Oh hellyeah. War Machine, The Black Widow, Nick Fury, more mentions of The Avengers and S.H.I.E.L.D., Captain America's shield... this qualifies for a nerdgasm, and as such earns a 9.75 out of 10 on the ShawScale (TM).