At The Movies: Iron-Man

There's just something about the opening night of a superhero movie I can't resist (not that I've ever tried to resist one), and Iron-Man was certainly no exception.

When I saw the Iron-Man trailer last September, I knew things looked good for the inaugural film of Marvel Studios, a conviction that grew as positive press for the movie continued to pour in.

Which brings us to opening night.  Like I said, it's hard to resist the kick-off of a superhero movie, but all the great buzz combined with my fondness for the Iron-Man character made my butt in a seat on opening night a foregone conclusion.

So, now that I've actually seen it...what's the verdict?  I'll break it down into various categories:

1. Setting: I appreciated how the ongoing Jihadist threat was woven into Iron-Man's origin (replacing the original Viet-Nam angle).  Although the "Ten Rings" terrorists are a vague reference to the Mandarin (an old ring-wielding Iron-Man villain), they're clearly the same sort of nomadic fanatics making life miserable here in the Real World.  Depressingly familiar images of flea-bitten warlords, wide-eyed followers, and videotaped hostages all pack a ready-made emotional punch and give Iron-Man an urgency and relevance other superhero films just don't share.

2. Story: Without going into spoiler-heavy detail, I loved the tight, no-nonsense storytelling. With just the right amount of information, complex personalities and relationships are communicated with a minimum of fuss. For example, instead of resorting to tedious exposition, the conflict between Tony Stark and bad guy Obadiah Stane is cleverly introduced through a series of magazine cover photos. This same economical approach infuses the entire movie, which allows Iron-Man to clip along at just the right pace.  Slower "emotional beats" elegantly balance out (and amplify) the action scenes, so nothing feels indulgent or meandering (I'm looking at YOU, Superman Returns).  At its core, it's the story of hubris transformed by tragedy into redemption through self-invention...a theme the movie never loses sight of despite the potential distractions of head spinning action scenes and generous amounts of clever humor.

3. Acting: Although the movie had solid performances all around, Robert Downey Jr. completely knocked it out of the park. In fact, his nuanced, intelligent and genuinely moving portrayal of Tony Stark was so good, I can't imagine anyone else in the role...that's how much he owned it. Unfortunately, the dominance of Downey's acting cast a bit of a shadow over the supporting performances of Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts) and Terrence Howard (Jim Rhodes).  They certainly weren't bad by any means, but their interaction with Downey seemed to amplify their weaknesses. Someone who managed to stand toe-to-toe with Downey was Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane, whose disarming charm made his two-faced treachery all the more shocking. 

4.  Special Effects: Part of the challenge of any science fiction movie is to give mythical technology the illusion of believability...and Iron-Man pulls it off.  From Tony Stark's awkward flying tests to the magnificent "suiting up" scene (with that awesome robot "pit crew"), the off-the-charts impossibility of super-powered armor was easy to ignore with such convincingly "real" costuming and effects. Most impressive was the near-seamless integration of computer animation with live action...making me realize they've come a long way since the first Spider-Man movie's rubbery and not terribly convincing CGI sequences. Sure, the "robotic" appearance of Iron-Man gets more of a pass from our brain's "authenticity gauge" than a non-armored figure would (I'm looking at YOU, Hulk), but still...what they accomplished in Iron-Man was about as believable as anything I've seen so far.

5.  The Directing: Special kudos to director Jon Favreau, who infused what could have been a soulless, high-tech thrill ride with humanity and grit. His inspired casting (remember, Downey was seen as a pretty risky choice in some quarters), insistence on a smart script, and the performances he coaxed from actors and sci-fi wizards alike deserve a sustained (albeit symbolic) standing ovation.

That's the long story.  The short story?  I'm rating this a full five out of five Iron-Man helmets!  Yes, it's that good.  As soon as you pick up your Free Comic Book Day comics, proceed immediately to the nearest movie theatre to see Iron-Man! 

Comments

[Robby Reed]

Your review actually made me cringe! Let's have a big argument. Fun! Here's where I did not agree with you...

"an urgency and relevance other superhero films just don't share."

Thank God they don't. "Urgency and relevance" are the very LAST things I want in a superhero movie. I prefer fantasy. The opening half of Iron Man was like watching CNN report on terrorists. Upsetting. And the two torture scenes made it even more so.

"tight, no-nonsense storytelling."

If you say so. But I was bored silly. The origin took forever. There were no surprises in the story. I knew how it would all come out loooooong before it ended.

"Robert Downey Jr. completely knocked it out of the park."

How? By doing what? I found him obnoxious throughout.

"Special kudos to director Jon Favreau, who infused what could have been a soulless, high-tech thrill ride with humanity and grit."

He also infused it with torture, blood, violence, and for me, boredom. I enjoyed about 20 minutes of this movie. Oh well, to each his own! Obviously it is a huge hit, and I am happy about that. Oh and P.S. The new HULK movie looks so bad I'm not even going to see it.

[Guido]

Wow Robby... To each his own I guess, but I can't help wondering if we saw the same movie. I really enjoyed it, and would definitely consider it one of the best superhero adaptations I've seen. Definitely not perfect (Everybody was overshadowed by Downey Jr. for sure, and the climax was not that original) but I thought it was really funny and charming, and appreciated the fact that it addressed contemporary military issues without getting preachy.

[Robby Reed]

Do you realize that Iron Man burned more than a dozen people alive? Does that not bother you? His big transition from evil weapons maker to hero apparently just meant slaughtering different people in new ways. I agree that the last 20 minutes or so was OK, but as I said the beginning was awful for me.

[Hube]

Man, I wonder if Robby saw the same flick I did.

The opening half of Iron Man was like watching CNN report on terrorists. Upsetting. And the two torture scenes made it even more so.

But comics are like that these days. Have been for about a decade. This film was rated PG-13 and IMO was actually tamer than that. The torture scenes (the dunking in the water was it) were quite mild.

There were no surprises in the story. I knew how it would all come out loooooong before it ended.

Um, ain't that how ALL comics flicks are -- at least their first outing? You mean you didn't know how Spidey 1 was gonna go? Daredevil? FF?

I found him obnoxious throughout.

That's how Stark comes across, actually, to many people.

He also infused it with torture, blood, violence, and for me, boredom.

Sorry, but you obviously want the bubblegum FF-style movies. No thanks. Again, the torture scenes, such that they were, were tame. And the "blood" scenes were tame, too.

Do you realize that Iron Man burned more than a dozen people alive? Does that not bother you? His big transition from evil weapons maker to hero apparently just meant slaughtering different people in new ways.

Yes, I do realize it. Do you realize that these were cold-blooded terrorists?? That they'd behead you in a blink of an eye? They're animals, not people, actually. Besides, he hadn't made his "transition" yet anyway, at least not when he was busting out of his prison. Later, when he flew back to Afghanistan in the modern IM armor, he again offed terrorists who were killing women and children. Devoting your company to more humanitarian purposes poses no contradiction to wiping out cold-blooded terrorists.

If you know Iron Man, he's one of the Avengers NOT adverse to killing. (Just ask the Kree Supreme Intelligence.)

[Hube]

BTW, my "Iron Man" review is here, if Mark doesn't mind me so plugging! ;-)

[Mark Engblom]

"Do you realize that Iron Man burned more than a dozen people alive? Does that not bother you?"

Let's set the scene, Robby. He wasn't flame-throwing a Sunday School picnic....he was escaping from a band of terrorists. In that situation, it was "kill or be killed", and Stark wisely chose the former. Unless he rigged that crude suit of armor with nets, sleeping gas, and other non-lethal forms of weaponry, I'm not sure what you expected of Stark in that situation.

Considering the comic book Iron-Man was a more political animal than other superheroes of the early 60's, I think it makes perfect sense that this 21st century adaptation of the character keeps him within that volatile framework. I've always felt the character works better as an international super-espionage/covert ops type of character than a more conventional superhero, so I think the movie was pitch-perfect. Sorry to hear you disagree so strongly.

[Mark Engblom]

"BTW, my "Iron Man" review is here, if Mark doesn't mind me so plugging!"

Not at all, Hube! In fact, I was looking forward to reading it, considering your love of the character.

Oh, and sorry to repeat your point on Tony frying the terrorists. We must have been posting at the same time.

[Hube]

Thanks, Mark!

Glad to see we share the same view on Stark's disposition! :-)

[Karly]

I completely agree with your review. Of course, I don't have the same background with the character; not being an actual comic book reader (distant appreciator, more like), but it had a realism and honesty that captured the heart and visuals and performances that caught the rest. Definitely one of the best superhero movies in recent memory. Also, I like how Marvel Studios is trying their hand at tying the universe together. I expect in the new Incredible Hulk there will be a similar after credit sequence.

[Robby Reed]

Oh, Iron Man burned TERRORISTS alive? Then never mind. THAT is perfectly OK. I thought he was burning grandmothers and kittens alive.

Ummmm.... does it occur to the many defenders of burning people alive here that burning ANYONE alive, without trial, is a bad thing? And not particularly a good example for kids? And that Shellhead did it TWICE, each time gleefully roasting dozens of people?

But I see I am wasting my time here because the torture was so "mild." Having a hot coal almost shoved down one's throat is just not all that bad, apparently. Especially if it's done to a terrorist. Of course, that was done to one of the heroes, but again, never mind.

They actually should have rated the movie "G," because comics today are violent and horrible too!

So, in summary, my opinion is all wrong, and violence is not violence, and murder is not murder. I guess this is why I don't see many movies.

[Brian]

Great review, Mark! I'm really looking forward to seeing this, and I'm very happy that both comics blogs and "mainstream" reviewers seem to be giving it positive reviews.

[Hube]

Ummmm.... does it occur to the many defenders of burning people alive here that burning ANYONE alive, without trial, is a bad thing?

Yeah, that's a good point. Stark, in his IM armor, should have included a satellite radio with which to contact some lawyers in New York. Hopefully, these lawyers would have managed to travel halfway around the globe to represent the terrorists who captured and tortured Stark (and Yinsen) before said terrorists managed to execute their captives.

What a hoot. What, has MoveOn.org dispatched minions to rip anyone with a favorable view of the film, or what?

Dude: Watch the Iron Man 'toons if you want bubble gum fare. Your opinion isn't "wrong," BTW; however, your views on "violence is violence" etc. don't make a lot of sense if the circumstances of that violence aren't taken into account.

[Mark Engblom]

"Also, I like how Marvel Studios is trying their hand at tying the universe together. I expect in the new Incredible Hulk there will be a similar after credit sequence."

Hey, Karly, thanks for stopping by. I wanted to ask you about Iron-Man's after credit sequence. My kids and I took off before the credits finished, so if you wouldn't mind, could you give me a quick recap of what happened? Thanks!

"Great review, Mark! I'm really looking forward to seeing this, and I'm very happy that both comics blogs and "mainstream" reviewers seem to be giving it positive reviews."

Hey, Brian...glad you liked the review. I hope you have as much fun watching it as I did. Yeah, this movie's got some excellent crossover appeal...which certainly bodes well for a sequel (I think it's pretty much a given at this point). Heck, even the local critic who normally dislikes superhero movies gave it three and a half out of four stars, so the movie's definitely got legs.

"mmmm.... does it occur to the many defenders of burning people alive here that burning ANYONE alive, without trial, is a bad thing?"

Robby-

Like Hube said, I think the circumstances of Stark's escape demanded that he take out the terrorists. Just out of curiosity, what would you have done in a similar situation? No, not in a homemade suit of armor facing a terrorist army, but rather in any life threatening situation where a weapon offers you the only way out? I think alot of noble idealists change tactics when reality is staring them in the face.

Another question: If you're so averse to hostile bad guys getting dispatched without a trial, why did you say here that the Shadow was your "favorite superhero of all time"? The Shadow's been known to off a few bad guys in his time (you chronicle it in that very article), so I'm confused: Does the killing of bad guys bother you or not?

[Robby Reed]

Hell no, kill all bad guys! Especially in real life! But in a piece of fiction that is supposed to be portraying a hero, I just don't think having that hero gleefully roast several dozen people alive is a good idea. Shellhead did not HAVE to burn those bad guys. There were other ways! What if Superman mowed down two dozen "bad guys" with his heat vision? Would you all find THAT perfectly fine too? If not, why not? It's the same thing. It's the hero acting as sadistically as the villain.

What would I have done in a similar situation? Well, I probably would have perfected the "flight" ability right away, then blown a hole in the roof and flown away -- with my trusty assistant still alive. I might have come back later for revenge, but it would just be killing them quickly, not burning them alive, which is a horrific and barbaric and disgusting death that I would not want to inflict or watch.

Finally, I guess John McCain is a member of moveon.org, since he opposes torture, and he probably would not look too kindly on mass incineration as a means of policy. He will obviously get no votes here!

[Lauren]

Iron man was a very entertaining movie and I especially liked how the origin was woven into the movie. Too often in superhero movies that pesky origin has to be thrown at the audience and then the actual movie can start.

I think Robert Downy Jr did a great job and he portrayed the irony of Stark's predicaments well. Stark's battle with himself on multiple levels is the essence of the character. Stark's genius is his gift and curse.
Iron Man is one of Marvel's core characters and he is by far the most human. His weaknesses are always in the forefront, hence the need for armor on many levels.

Emerging from the cave with his armor and burning all the weapons he had made and those that use them was a phoenix metaphor.
("A phoenix is a mythical bird with beautiful gold and red plumage. At the end of its life-cycle the phoenix builds itself a nest of cinnamon twigs that it then ignites; both nest and bird burn fiercely and are reduced to ashes, from which a new, young phoenix arises.")
Stark emerges from the desert with nothing but his new life. It is all a metaphor and like all fiction the metaphor needs to be presented to the audience in a contemporary fashion.
I'm sure no actual people were hurt in the making of this film.

That's my interpretation, not to be confused with an argument. I give Iron Man 5 out of 5 shellheads.

[Hube]

What if Superman mowed down two dozen "bad guys" with his heat vision?

Wouldn't matter to me in a similar situation, except that there are magnitudes difference between Superman and Shellhead. IOW, there is absolutely no reason for Supes to have to do that given his immense power level.

What would I have done in a similar situation? Well, I probably would have perfected the "flight" ability right away, then blown a hole in the roof and flown away -- with my trusty assistant still alive.

Um, he was in a huge CAVE for goodness sake. Who knows how thick the mountain was surrounding Stark and Yinsen! You make "roof" sound like balsa wood! He hardly could have blasted through, and even if he managed to jet away with Yinsen, look at how IM ended up with his landing. Scratch one Yinsen.

Finally, I guess John McCain is a member of moveon.org, since he opposes torture, and he probably would not look too kindly on mass incineration as a means of policy.

Right, he opposes torture. NOT the killing of terrorists on the battlefield.

Nice try, though!

BTW, can you answer Mark's question about the Shadow?

[Robby Reed]

People here do not seem to be aware that in fiction, everything is a choice. Saying "But it was a cave!" misses the point. It did not have to be set in a cave. Parsing John McCain's torture policies is not the point either. There was plenty of NON-battlefield abuse in this movie. Another choice the filmmakers made.

Bottom line -- regardless of the circumstances, torturing and burning people alive is horrific. Therefore, it is not something I want to see in a movie! Period. I just don't like seeing horrible stuff in movies. Obviously it's all a matter of taste, and that is MY taste.

Yes, I do love the Shadow. I don't recall him ever burning dozens of people alive, though. He actually killed very few bad guys, and when he did, it was not described in vile detail.

I guess all this shows that I am out of step with current trends. I prefer a rosy view of the world with heroes who act as examples of the best in all of us. There's enough misery and death in the real world. In movies, I like to escape all that.

If I had come into "Iron Man" 45 minutes late, I might have loved the movie. But the lengthy torture and terrorism beginning turned me off big time. I almost left several times, actually! And don't even get me started on the awful HULK trailer, which portrays old Greenskin as a scary raging brute who roars a lot.

The one I can't wait for is... INDY 4! Now THAT looks like my kind of movie.

[Z Ryan]

I saw the movie yesterday and thought it was terrific and very cool. I agree with your 5 out of 5 rating.

I disagree with Robby Reed on the killing terrorists part (and especially the "without a trial" comment). But Robby, you're still an ace as a comic book historian.

I like the fact that the movie didn't shy away from killing terrorists. It didn't revel in it, and unless you stopped to think about it, it probably wouldn't occur to you that he just KILLED some bad guys---it just was. I stopped watching the BBC Robin Hood series because it went to great and silly lengths to demonstrate that no bad guys were being killed with this lethal weaponry!! If the movie had made a point for him to escape in a bloodless way, it would have been an eye-roller. But then, I also liked that a 13 year old Johnny Quest could machine gun down Nazis.

[Brian Disco Snell]

Man, I leave town for a couple of days, and look what happens around here...everyone chill!

Robby Reed: I'll bet you 50 thousand quatloos that a)more bad guys die on screen b)in far more graphic ways in Indy 4 than in Iron Man. Melting nazis? Beating hearts ripped out of chests? Ring a bell? Since you never even *saw* the men burning in Iron Man, I'm not sure what "vile detail" you're referring to, but the first three Indy movies far, far topped anything Favreau put on the screen. And not a single fair trial was conducted...

[John Nowak]

I'm going to see it just to figure out how a movie that was "long and boring" in the last thread is "horrific and sadistic" in this one.