Not Bad, but not good either, it's just missing something.

Rating: 5/10 (10 May 2010)

This was extremely mediocre in the biggest way a film can be. The story. It's barely there at all. Everything about the film was top notch, the acting the special effects, the set pieces etc. However it just goes to show that unless you have a good story & a good script, there is something missing. You never get invested in the story even for a second. That was what made the first film what it was, a really fun & engaging storyline. This had absolutely none of that whatsoever. It wasn't that it was bad, it just wasn't good. The word of mouth on this will spread (badly) & I would be shocked if this makes as much as the first film which relied on the excellent word of mouth to make it such a successful & very well reviewed film. It seemed like they really should have made the script the most important part of the film. Mickey Rourke did the best he was given, but he just wasn't an interesting/scary bad guy at all. Especially comparing to Jeff Bridges of the first film. I wish people would stop comparing this so much to the first film & stop rating it so high based on that film. If you hadn't seen the first, it doesn't hold up well as a standalone film. In fact if this was the first "Iron Man" It would be doubtful we would have seen a second film. On a good note Robert Downey Jr. is good to an extent, but they should have let his own personality shine through even more as he is the reason people love the character. Unless you're a die hard "Iron Man" fan you will find little to want to watch this more than once.