We just came from the screening for Iron Man 2 and before writing a little bit about it we decided to collate what others are saying too. The results? Its a mixed review. From unwatchable to awesome. The early reviews of Iron Man 2 are out and the trades are calling it a muddled barely watchable mess.

Surprisingly, bloggers are full of praise for the sequel. Anyway, check out our review roundup followed by our opinion too. WARNING. SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!

The Mirror appears to be the first critic to dismantle Iron Man 2 with a crowbar, though it was not the last.

Iron Man 2 is a travesty – a mind-numbingly dull, chaotic and often unwatchable muddle. It might even be the ultimate masterclass in how not to make a movie.

The Hollywood Reporter says Iron Man has been downgraded to the Tin Man:

Well, that didn't take long. Everything fun and terrific about "Iron Man," a mere two years ago, has vanished with its sequel....For a film riding a wave of unbridled achievement from its predecessor, "Iron Man 2" begins with a curious sense of panic. Characters all talk at once. Hesitant story lines launch in all directions. The soundtrack and music clang away, but onscreen little happens until a big set-piece at a Grand Prix race nearly 20 minutes into the movie.

Variety enjoyed the film with some reservations:

"Iron Man 2" isn't as much fun as its predecessor, but by the time the smoke clears, it'll do... While the first go-round for this lesser-known Marvel hero benefited from its freshness and visual flair, the beats here are more familiar, the pacing more uneven. Given the demand, though, that will hardly matter, and this armored adventure promises to be a money-making machine that clicks on all cylinders.

HitFix says that Iron Man 2 doesn't need to explain itself and calls the sequel Favreau's Victory Lap:

"Iron Man 2" is, in every possible way, issue two of a comic book. It doesn't have to spend time setting up the origin of the character, and it doesn't feel the need to resolve every single story thread introduced in this one film. There's a sense that everyone's settling into this series and thinking big..... It's a fascinating gamble, and I talked to people after the film who were just annoyed by the whole thing, but I think it's like watching part of a big, crazy mini-series. I don't feel cheated at all by these clues [references to Thor and Cap]. "Iron Man 2″ works as a complete film without any of these "Avengers"-oriented moments, but they add to the overall texture of the piece in some really rewarding ways.

Coming Soon too defended Iron Man 2 from cynics:

While "Iron Man 2" successfully conveys the tone and the momentum from the first movie, the sequel factor is unfortunately going to make it far too easy for the critical to turn cynical on that basis alone....The character development in the movie is top-notch, similar to "Spider-Man 2" in the way it doesn't merely fall back on what worked in the first movie, instead instilling real personal conflicts into the mix. In this case, it's the fact that Stark has essentially been poisoning himself with the technology he needs to survive, which has him acting more erratically than normal, his relationships with his closest confidantes, Pepper Potts and James Rhodes, also changing dramatically because of it.

Empire Magazine gave it 3 out of 5 stars:

Rourke and Rockwell make satisfying, complementary villains, while Downey Jr. delivers again. Shame this sequel feels inessential, over-busy and a little, well, mechanical. Nothing they can't put right for Iron Man 3.

Ain't It Cool News does Kanye West style review:

I FUCKING LOVE THE ACTION of the film. I love that this is full on Marvel Science Fiction. The entire last act just fucking rocks balls!

So while everyone is either at the extreme end of the other, we can be honest that we weren't blown off our chair with the show. But that being said, character development has already been achieved, and a sense of more story has to be put into place.

The action sequences were a lot more compared to Iron Man 1. The story takes off from where it ended in the first one and its about how Tony Stark has to deal with suffering from megalomania and a blood-toxicity condition. The film definitely tries to center how Tony Stark battles with his own problems, while he nonchalantly cares about the matters around him.

Tony Stark is now more of the rock star he would have been if had he not developed the suit in the first place. He finds himself being the target of several different fractions from government, to private sector (Justin Hammer, his competitor) and Ivan Vanko, a man who's father had a hand in developing the arc reactor. The very technology that is both powering the Iron Man suit and keeping Tony alive.

It definitely is one of the most anticipated sequels and movies of the year, and it definitely has a lot to live up to. The first movie left many to wonder how the sequel could live up to the first. This time around, the movie is a little darker with Tony having demons to deal with and a less than wittier dialogue to partake in. Which, I feel was appreciated given the somber like mood of the character(s) in the movie. It was a little more serious with little room to make it slapstick. That bit I appreciated.

The film starts out with Ivan Vanko, played by Mickey Rourke, with his sickly father on his death bed, watching as how Tony Stark takes to stage and be adorned by many who are watching him. He develops a vendetta against the crimes of Tony's father, Howard, and goes on to inherit a good chunk of his father's knowledge, weaponizing the arc reactor.

One thing that is not a miss here, is character development. Which is clearly well played and well followed through, as new characters in the film aren't introduced immediately to what they are supposedly leading themselves to. Robert Downey Jr still plays his part really well, although a little less on the narcissism would have been better replaced with witty punchlines between Pepper. Clearly, that was a miss as there was lack of it.

Don Cheadle didn't seem to have a hard time filling in Terrence Howard's shoes, but perhaps it was because he was mostly absent and not a very integral character till somewhere around the middle. He did however played the quasi bad ass sidekick pretty OK, but not great. 

Sam Rockwell, played a weak, try hard villain always one mile away from Tony's shadow. Which in turn was a rather good mix, making him the new sort of evil and / or whatever it is that drives that sort of man to get rid of a certain chip off the shoulder.

As for Scarlett Johansson, her character was a more silent strong plus mysterious type and there weren't as many scenes to show how pivotal her role would have been in the show. Till now, I didn't get why Nick Fury placed her there in watch of Tony. He already has Pepper, no?

Perhaps the best part of the film, was how it cleverly planted hints of the Avengers coming into play. Joss Whedon has a lot to do to make this work we feel. And perhaps a little bit of this and that would make the entire big picture a little clearer to see.

The overall film is terrific, and while its not best of the both Iron Man films, it certainly isn't an anti-climax either. And it clearly is one of the better Marvel films with a coherent sequel to it. Kudos to Favreau for that.

Catch Iron Man 2 in cinemas out on April 29th.