This month saw the synthesised superhero Iron Man join the ever-increasing canon of Marvel characters adapted for the screen. Played Robert Downey Jr, and directed by Jon Favreau (who appears onscreen as some sort of unacknowledged personal assistant),

Iron Man refreshes Marvel's old metal-clad, commie-bashing trailblazer, who unknown but to a select few (which includes almost everyone. Iron Man has to be the least secret secret identity in the history of comic-books) is billionaire industrialist and genius arms manufacturer Tony Stark.

The best that can be said about this film is that it's not awful, raising it above the likes of Daredevil,The Fantastic Four and The Punisher, among others. It's a largely competent, if silly, two hours of Hollywood entertainment, and as the first blockbuster event-movie of the summer, it inspires hope that this season's offerings will be a significant improvement over last year's dreadful showing.

However, just as it avoids sinking to the lowest levels for this kind of film, it fails to hit the heights it aspires to. It lacks the intelligence and social consciousness that marked Batman Beyond and the X-Men series, as well as the sense of humanity that made the Spider-Man films essential for fans and newcomers alike.

Seemingly aware of this, Favreau has tried to inject Iron Man with another attribute: morality. The story, admirably faithful to the comic's origins, tells us of the playboy Stark who fails to recognise the consequences of his actions. Be they the friends left stranded at an award ceremony held in his honour while he parties with floozies at a Las Vegas casino, or the innocents killed by the weapons he produces. As he explains to a hostile reporter (shortly before bedding her), his products are essential in maintaining a global balance of power, which ultimately serves to save lives. He has a change of heart, however, when he is captured by terrorists in Afghanistan while displaying the latest Stark Industries weapon — the "Jericho" — to military officials. Here he sees the true effect his weapons are having on the world, as the terrorists are armed with his company's products. They demand he builds for them their own Jericho. Instead Tony builds an electric-powered suit of armour for himself under their noses and makes good his escape. Afterwards, vowing to protect the people put in harms way by his weaponry, he fashions a more sophisticated, stylish version of the suit and becomes Iron Man, flying around the world at super-sonic speed destroying the militias armed with Stark Industry weapons.

Unfortunately, his morality becomes the film's most critical malfunction. The Iron Man suit is armed with all manner of guns to rocket launchers, and Tony expresses no qualms about killing those who apparently deserve being killed. Effectively, it's a weapon itself, and we're expected to accept that its presence makes the world safer when the sale of Jericho missiles represents such a threat? Perhaps the answer to this lies in who controls the weapons. Where as Stark missiles were sold on a free market, the Iron Man suit is owed and operated by nobody but Tony. However, just as he was naive to believe his weapons would only be used by forces interested in stabilising world peace, it transpires that Tony can't protect the technology for the suit falling into the wrong hands. The issue of a central a source of control of power is also belied by a scene where Iron Man confronts a group attacking an unidentified Middle-Eastern village. After killing the foot-soldiers, he delivers their leader to the villagers and invites them to do what they like with him before flying away and leaving them at it. We jump from highly central military control to mob justice in a single breath.

The confused nature of the films morality is not helped by its generic look at international conflicts. We are told that Tony is kidnapped in Afghanistan, but the true aims of his kidnappers are never fully explained. We can't write them off as the Taliban, as they seem to be a loose alliance of terrorists from all over the world. Following this the film alludes to ethnic-cleansing of regions by the same group, but we are never told why. The Marvel comics have rarely strayed from addressing real-life events such as Northern Ireland or 9/11 (the Marvel superheroes are currently being drafted to the image of the UN). These are usually discussed in a highly superficial way, but it's admirable that they have the nerve to discuss them at all. For a film that seeks to address the affects of Western military involvement in the developing world, it would have been refreshing if they referred directly to the arming of real-life militias, such as the Taliban by Western governments rather than just gutlessly allude to it.

It should be said, however, that one real-life conflict does get a look in. We are given numerous references to World War Two, as we are repeatedly told how Tony's father worked on the Manhattan Project. Presumably the building of the atomic bomb is meant to serve as a metaphor for the construction of a hyper-powered suit of armour. Prior to his kidnapping, Tony tells us that the ideal weapon is not one you never have to use but one you only have to use once. The allusion to the atomic bomb is clear. The trouble with this is that Tony is never asked to consider if the bomb was a mistake. For all the people who mention his father's role in the project, nobody asks if he regretted this or stood by the project. An internal debate over the true nature of nuclear weapons, be they war at its most corrupt and evil or the single stabilising factor in conflicts between super-states, might have serve to address the flaws in the films muddied morality. As it stands, this is just a wasted opportunity.

For those interested in seeing this film, these flaws should not dissuade you. Fans of the comics can rejoice the film's faithfulness to its source material. They even manage to fit in Iron Man's original clunky, aesthetically displeasing armour. Praise can also be bestowed on Downey's performance as Tony Stark. A few eyebrows were raised when the decision to give him the role was announced, as it was doubted the former wild-boy could handle a leading role on such a major production, and his physic could hardly be described as super-powered. However, I suspect fans were delighted with the casting, as his hell-raising antics were suitably in tune with the charismatic Stark. On screen, the choice seems inspired. Jeff Bridges also has a ball as the villain Ironmonger. However, Gwyneth Paltrow is simply annoying as the love interest Pepper Potts. And then there's that bloody reporter, who keeps turning up like a crazed stalker ex-girlfriend.

The special effects for the suit are a joy to watch, but the action sequences lack a required energy. Watching metallic men fight serves only to remind us how much more fun last year's Transformers was. Overall, Iron Man is far from essential, but enjoyable enough if you do give it a chance. I just wish they figured out the sermon before taking to the alter.