The first Iron Man was different from your average comic book movie because it lacked the unnecessary drama, instead replacing it with many more laughs, a much more likable main character, and plenty of comic book flair usually missing from the other comic movies. With the success of Iron Man, Marvel Studios decided to go forth with their long-waited and epic idea to bring a few of their best heroes together into one massive flick that will make anybody that is a fan of comic books squeal with glee and delight. The Avengers is sure to become the biggest addition of comic book film-making since the original Spider-Man broke barriers and records many years ago. The Avengers will be incredible.

Which leads to the biggest issue of Iron Man 2: the film is just a tad notch above set-up flick. Just like what Dead Man's Chest in the Pirates franchise did, Iron Man 2 became a 2-hour movie with a slew of conflicts in which were not all resolved because there is another installment coming. Suffering from the Spider-Man 3 effect, Iron Man 2 is chock full of story lines interweaving together, and not all of them are interesting, and not all of them even reach a resolution. We see more Tony Stark than Iron Man. The cameos steal the spotlight. Some of the villains were whether annoying or as much of a threat as a newborn puppy. Many pieces were built around the set, but not all of them fit.

Tony Stark 2—er, I mean, Iron Man 2 is about our hero (Robert Downey Jr.) taking on the government, rivals, and even his own health—which is depleting rapidly because of hit artificial "heart." With his health slowly dying away, he starts drinking, acting even more eccentric, and even stepped down from his CEO duties. In the meantime, the Iron Man technology is being imitated around the world, with an intelligent Russian (Mickey Rourke) trying to kill Stark with his own version of a powersuit. Justin Theroux provides the screenplay, and stuffs it up with cameos, references to the future, problems, villains, and a few plot lines from old-school Iron Man comic book issues. A lot goes on.

Let's at least marvel at the powerhouse cast. Robert Downey Jr. does an excellent job as Tony Stark/Iron Man yet again, providing a great blend of narcissism with subtle fear of death. Gwyneth Paltrow doesn't get much screen time yet again but does a great job with the material she has. Other performances throughout the movie were very good, including Garry Shandling, Mickey Rourke, Samuel L. Jackson, Sam Rockwell, Don Cheadle, and to an extent Scarlett Johansson (whose fighting skills nearly stole the entire show). Great performances, but nearly all the supporting actors I mentioned didn't have much time to truly craft a whimsical, memorable performance to the likes of Heath Ledger as the Joker, Rosemary Harris as Aunt May, or William Dafoe as Green Goblin.

The acting isn't the only thing chock full of small samples and no main course; there was little action, little tension, little chemistry between the two leads, and little suspense. What progresses the movie and prevented it from being a total disaster was Robert Downey Jr. entertaining the masses with his portrayal of Stark. Granted this is a movie about Tony Stark, but the film is called Iron Man, and one would hope for more of him in the suit. As a matter of fact, Iron Man engages in action in only three scenes, with one of them being extremely short. Just like in the original, the final epic battle was extremely short, extremely underwhelming, and very anti-climactic. Whiplash could have been an intimidating force to the likes of the Joker (in both versions, shut up), Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2, and Syndrome in The Incredibles (not a Marvel villain but a comic book-like villain nonetheless).

Like a cruelly beautiful woman, the film is a big tease. There are a lot of characters, but they aren't in the film enough. The special effects were very good, but were not used a lot for the action scenes. Plenty of hints and references towards other Marvel comic books, but none of them lasted more than a minute (even though the last one was indeed------wow). Another problem is that the freshness and originality of Iron Man disappeared, which made this a tougher follow-up than one would assume. Is the film disappointing? Yea, loosely. Is it entertaining? Most definitely, but the potential carried is what makes this a somewhat-frustrating movie. It made most of us beg like an unsatisfied bum for 2011 and 2012 to arrive so we can see more (and longer) comic book crossovers.

Bottom Line: Iron Man 2 is most definitely entertaining and loads of fun—sometimes. Other times, we are watching a storyline we don't really care about, watching appearances we know should last longer, or watching potential get ruined because it's being carried over to the next installment of the Marvel movie-making franchise. While this is more script issues than directing issues (Jon Favreau did a decent job, but his character wasn't necessary at all), someone during the production should have stood up and shouted "What's with all the loose Walt Disney references??"

Wait, wait, wait, I meant "Isn't this a repeat of what happened to Spider-Man 3??" Iron Man 2 = Spider-Man 3, except more fun, much less embarrassing, and a better-looking future. The film isn't a boring disaster, but you are constantly left with a desire for more--long before the movie is even over. Now why can't this Avengers movie come faster?