User blog comment:Hawkeye2701/Review4U: Iron Man 2 (Film)/@comment-1895174-20140413062100/@comment-1458758-20140414134603

I did say that over all the movie wasn't a far enough departure from the first one. I won't deny there are retreads of things from the first and, when you put it like that with this Hammer, I can appreciate him a bit more, and I do generally appreciate Rockwell's ability as an actor, I just hate Justin Hammer, which I guess works in that respect.

As for Vanko being extraneous, I think that's where we hit a wall with Rockwell's Hammer. It's because he's an idiot who isn't as brilliant as Tony that he needed Vanko. Sure Vanko is background for a good part of it, but that's where he's doing his work, it's building to our finale much like the Incredible Hulk did by giving us Banner's side and Blonsky's side.

You say if Tony hadn't become a hero, he'd likely be just like Hammer, but I find the major difference is, if we put Hammer in a cave with Shrapnel in his chest, he honestly would've tried to build the Jericho and, pass or fail, been shot at the end of the day. It's because Tony has substance, he is a brilliant inventor and despite himself he does have morals that he is so much the better man than Justin. Hammer in this instance is just a lot of swagger, all flash and no bang and it's because of that that we needed Vanko. If Hammer was more competant, maybe keep him younger with this chip on his shoulder about Tony always outshining him, but if he actually built something worthwhile himself, we wouldn't of needed Vanko to give us an end game antagonist.