Iron Man 2 is a good film. It has two dymanic, beautiful leads at the top of their game. Is has a mean looking, potentially threatening bad guy. It has smart, shiny, clever technology and mercifully, at 124 mins, isn't too long. These are all good qualities and add up to a solid piece of cinematic entertainment.

It is a sequel, and a piece of a greater story, so does it stand alongside it's predecessor. Not particularly well, sadly. It lacks the freshness and revelatory qualities of the original and doesn't provide anything new. This time Iron Man is confronted with more Iron Men. So I guess it's just, literally, more of the same. The relationship between Stark and buddy Rhodes is rehashes rather than built upon, likewise with loyal confidante and friend Pepper Potts, where there is a clearly a spark, but adds no more than a kiss toward the end - an easy cop-out.

Where it's greatest failure lies, is that there isn't really any excitement. The bad guy, Mickey Rourke, confronts Stark/Iron Man during a sensational, thrilling action set-piece in Monaco (with a very cool weapon, by the way), but then virtually disappears for the entire second act, while the less effective (though highly entertaining) "other" bad guy, Hammer takes over. There is no tension building and no real threat to Iron Man (other than a serious butt-kicking). The hero never really seems in any real danger - even when he faces death fron his own life-saving chest thing, he simply invents a new one and the problem is solved.

So, how does it rate overall. A good film, entertaining, clever... better than your average hero movie, but not up with the best. By the time