When I caught up with "Iron Man," a broken hip had delayed me and the movie had already been playing for three weeks. What I heard during that time was that a lot of people loved it, that they were surprised to love it so much, and that Robert Downey Jr.'s performance was special. Apart from that, all I knew was that the movie was about a big iron man. I didn't even know that a human occupied it, and halfway thought that the Downey character's brain had been transplanted into a robot, or a fate equally weird.
Yes, I knew I was looking at sets and special effects--but I'm referring to the reality of the illusion, if that make any sense. With many superhero movies, all you get is the surface of the illusion. With "Iron Man," you get a glimpse into the depths. You get the feeling, for example, of a functioning corporation. Consider the characters of Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), Stark's loyal aide, and Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges), Stark's business partner. They don't feel drummed up for the occasion. They seem to have worked together for awhile.
Much of that feeling is created by the chemistry involving Downey, Paltrow and Bridges. They have relationships that seem fully-formed and resilient enough to last through the whole movie, even if plot mechanics were not about to take them to another level. Between the two men, there are echoes of the relationship between Howard Hughes and Noah Dietrich in Scorsese's "The Aviator" (2004). Obadiah Stane doesn't come onscreen waving flags and winking at the camera to announce he is the villain; he seems adequately explained simply as the voice of reason at Stark's press conference. (Why did "Stark," during that scene, make me think of "staring mad?"). Between Stark and Pepper, there's that classic screen tension between "friends" who know they can potentially become lovers.
Downey's performance is intriguing, and unexpected. He doesn't behave like most superheroes: he lacks the psychic weight and gravitas. Tony Stark is created from the persona Downey has fashioned through many movies: irreverent, quirky, self-deprecating, wise-cracking. The fact that Downey is allowed to think and talk the way he does while wearing all that hardware represents a bold decision by the director, Jon Favreau. If he hadn't desired that, he probably wouldn't have hired Downey. So comfortable is Downey with Tony Stark's dialogue, so familiar does it sound coming from him, that the screenplay seems almost to have been dictated by Downey's persona.
There are some things that some actors can safely say onscreen, and other things they can't. The Robert Downey Jr. persona would find it difficult to get away with weighty, profound statements (in an "entertainment," anyway--a more serious film like "Zodiac" is another matter). Some superheroes speak in a kind of heightened, semi-formal prose, as if dictating to Bartlett's Familiar Quotations. Not Tony Stark. He could talk that way and be Juno's uncle. "Iron Man" doesn't seem to know how seriously most superhero movies take themselves. If there is wit in the dialog, the superhero is often supposed to be unaware of it. If there is broad humor, it usually belongs to the villain. What happens in "Iron Man," however, is that sometimes we wonder how seriously even Stark takes it. He's flippant in the face of disaster, casual on the brink of ruin.
It's prudent, I think, that Favreau positions the rest of the characters in a more serious vein. The supporting cast wisely does not try to one-up him. Gwyneth Paltrow plays Pepper Potts as a woman who is seriously concerned that this goofball will kill himself. Jeff Bridges makes Obadiah Stane one of the great superhero villains by seeming plausibly concerned about the stock price. Terrence Howard, as Col. Rhodes, is at every moment a conventional straight arrow. What a horror show it would have been if they were all tuned to Tony Stark's sardonic wave length. We'd be back in the world of "Swingers" (1996) which was written by Favreau.
Another of the film's novelties is that the enemy is not a conspiracy or spy organization. It is instead the reality in our own world today: Armaments are escalating beyond the ability to control them. In most movies in this genre, the goal would be to create bigger and better weapons. How unique that Tony Stark wants to disarm. It makes him a superhero who can think, reason and draw moral conclusions, instead of one who recites platitudes.
The movie is largely founded on its special effects. When somebody isn’t talking, something is banging, clanging or laying rubber. The armored robotic suits utilized by Tony and Obadiah would upstage lesser actors than Downey and Bridges; it's surprising how much those two giant iron men seem to reflect the personalities of the men inside them. Everything they do is preposterous, of course, but they seem to be doing it, not the suits. Some of their moments have real grandeur--as when Tony tests his suit to see how high it will fly, and it finally falls back toward earth in a sequence that reminded me of a similar challenge in "The Right Stuff." The art direction is inspired by the original Marvel artists. The movie doesn't reproduce the drawings of Jack Kirby and others, but it reproduces their feeling, a vision of out-scale enormity, seamless sleekness, secret laboratories made not of nuts and bolts but of...vistas.
A lot of big budget f/x epics seem to abandon their stories with half an hour to go, and just throw effects at the audience. This one has a plot so ingenious it continues to function no matter how loud the impacts, how enormous the explosions. It’s an inspiration to provide Tony with that heart-saving device; he’s vulnerable not simply because Obadiah might destroy him, but because he might simply run out of juice.
That leaves us, however, with a fundamental question at the bottom of the story: Why must the ultimate weapon be humanoid in appearance? Why must it have two arms and two legs, and why does it matter if its face is scowling? In the real-world competitions between fighting machines, all the elements of design are based entirely on questions of how well they allow the machines to attack, defend, recover, stay upright, and overturn their enemies. It is irrelevant whether they have conventional eyes, or whether those eyes narrow. Nor does it matter whether they have noses, because their oxygen supply is obviously not obtained by breathing.
The solution to such dilemmas is that the armored suits look the way they do for entirely cinematic reasons. The bad iron man should look like a mean machine. The good iron man should utilize the racing colors of Tony Stark's favorite sports cars. It wouldn't be nearly as much fun to see a fight scene between two refrigerators crossed with the leftovers from a boiler room.
At the end of the day it 's Robert Downey Jr. who powers the lift-off separating this from most other superhero movies. You hire an actor for his strengths, and Downey would not be strong as a one-dimensional mighty-man. He is strong because he is smart, quick and funny, and because we sense his public persona masks deep private wounds. By building on that, Favreau found his movie, and it's a good one.
This blog entry has recycled onto the site as a review, with a 4-star rating. -RE
I absolutely agree with your dissection of Iron Man, and I enjoyed it for many of the same reasons that you did. In fact, I found it to be my favorite of the "superhero" movies, based mainly on the casting of Robert Downey Jr.
Everybody likes to say that Spiderman is the best, or the original Superman movie, or even one of the X-Men films, but Iron Man surprised me in many ways, and kept my interest til the end, based almost entirely on the performances.
I'm 37 years old now, and perhaps I needed a superhero movie with a little more substance than most, and after 8 years of watching a warmongering nitwit in the White House, I was ready for a movie about the disarming of weaponry. It left me feeling a little hopeful. Silly, huh?
David Roche
Athens, Ohio
I've seen quite a few reviews for Iron Man, some extremely positive, others strongly negative, yet everyone seems to concur that Robert Downey Jr.'s performance as Tony Stark/Iron Man was one of the film's high points. I absolutely agree. Downey Jr. is one of today's most exciting actors, and I hope his turn in this film lands him more roles worthy of his talent (and maybe it will...just yesterday, I read where Hugh hefner, so impressed with Iron Man, has requested that Downey jr. play him in an upcoming biopic).
Nice summary of the movie's unconventional approach. Allow me to contribute a bit of geekery: the name of Stane's suit in the comic book was "Iron Monger" (which Stane tips in an earlier line about what the company does).
First of all, I would like to say that I have been reading your movie reviews religiously for several years now; I first discovered your website while I was browsing the Internet at a previous job--I quickly found that reading over thirty years of well-educated, well-written reviews is a great way to pass the time. I hope to continue reading your thoughts--in a literal way, of course--for many years to come. Anyway, on to Iron Man:
Being a male ninteen-year-old male and an avid reader of comic books ( and an avid watcher of comic book movies), it should go without saying that I saw this movie opening night. I was one of the many who loved the movie much more than they thought they could or would, and, like you, I believe that Robert Downey Jr. is owed a round of applause for his performance; of course, all of the actors in this film deserve one, but I believe Downey earned that special little echo of clapping that persists after the bows have ceased. I would like to thank you for penning--or pixelating?--your thoughts on this film; I would also like to thank you for creating this blog, as it gives me yet one more movie-related resource to digest; so again, I thank you for putting your thoughts out there for people like me to enjoy!
-Sean
once again, i agree with you. this film is destined to be an instant classic.. robert downey jr. really deserves a standing ovation on this one. can't think of any other actors playing tony stark after his very cool performance.
I loved the movie and nice to read to know you liked the movie in the same context I admire.. So will you change your rating of this movie to **** stars.....
Ebert: My ratimg is 4 stars
Roger you asked, Why did "Stark," during that scene, make me think of "staring mad?" The answer is that you made a creative kind of error that frequently occurs in speaking. You combined "Stark" with "raving mad" and came out with "staring mad." The same kinds of mental processes also produce malapropisms like saying "darn bore" instead of "barn door." The U of I at Urbana-Champaign is the world center for this kind of research, you might be pleased to know. I haven't seen the movie, but if "staring mad" is also a good description of the character, that makes the "error" all the more interesting.
I am not a fan of what Marvel has become, but I am a fan of what they used to be, especially in the sixties. Leave it to Marvel to create a Fab Four-like nuclear family in Fantastic Four, for example, only to have them fight God (Galactus) as their ultimate enemy. The subtle but progressive antiestablishment stance of the company slowly gave way to lazy and pandering metaphors, and heroes with big pecks and big guns. Like many similar examples in real life, Marvel’s precocious, naughty kid grew up to be a Wall Street liberal. It’s not that the two qualities are incongruous, it’s just that flying the liberal standard while simultaneously releasing ten comics of the same title in one week and calling each and every one of them a “special” or a “limited” edition is slightly cynical.
Having said that, I enjoyed Iron Man immensely. It created its world with gusto. Technically, I thought it a triumph of modern-day blockbuster cinema, though all that would have fizzled into nothingness were it not for the pitch-perfect and nuanced performances from the cast, especially Robert Downey, Jr. It’s definitely in the pantheon of the great comic book movies for me: the first two Superman flicks, Batman Begins, and the second Spider-Man. I think it is the first ever comic book film that felt like it was set in a universe with superheroes (even before I saw that post-credits scene, reverted back to when I was five, and had a geekgasm). And, of course, such a world would be relatively lighthearted. Were one to live in a world where people broke the barrier between human and God (by which, I mean, as did Carl Sagan, the physical laws that govern the universe) in ever-increasing frequencies, everything else in life would be end up being a footnote.
Great observations as always, but I'm curious why you posted this as a blog instead of publishing it as an official review, which is how it reads. In any case, the best scene for me in Iron Man was one of the smallest, when Pepper Potts has to help Tony Stark replace that thingamujig in his chest. "How small are your hands, Ms. Potts?" That scene feels so natural and the actors are so unblinkingly realistic, I felt like I was intruding on a private moment. How very unsuperhero-like.
Completely agree with your thoughts on the movie, Roger. Jon Favreau has reportedly said that he approached this film as if Altman had directed a superhero movie. I don't quite believe that as I look at the final product, but he has made an entertaining blockbuster with more wit on the dialogue than most and with superb casting for the main characters (particularly Downey Jr.).
I'll take your thoughts on why the robots must be humanoid one step further: It needs to be humanoid so that people identify with the fact that these are people fighting and not just machines. I noticed that as they fought, they did everything possible to focus on the faces of the machines or ditch the faceplates completely to reveal Downey Jr and Stane's faces, getting the audience more emotionally involved as they remember that it is the characters that are fighting and as they see the pain they are in from each blow.
It hearkens back to the lesson learned from the first "Spider-Man" film, where Spider-Man and Parker seemed like two different people. The next two then provided many moments where Spider-Man took off his mask so we remembered it was Peter under there.
Again, thanks for the blog. It is a privilege to still be able to read what you have to say.
Josh Pothen
Yorktown, VA
As a woman, I want to mention one thing I loved about this film that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere. Pepper Potts is actually important to the survival of Tony Stark and the success of defeating Stane in this story. What a wonderful surprise given the rarity of these ideas in most superhero movies.
I like Mary Jane from the Spiderman movies but she isn't allowed to do anything but scream. I like Lois Lane but while her snooping often reveals some sinister plot, she doesn't often get to save the hero. Same goes for Rachel in the newest Batman franchise. Pepper was rescued by Tony/Iron Man only after she had saved his life via her gift. And while Tony came up with the plan to stop Stane, she was given the task of physically putting it into action. She was more than just a pretty face, more than just window dressing, and I can't express how much that pleases me.
You answered the question: "Why must the ultimate weapon be humanoid in appearance?" by explaining the purely cinematic reasons behind the decision.
I think you got it wrong.
Military hardware is designed to maximize the performance to cost ratio. It is fiendishly elegant in many cases, but never beautiful, which reflects its morally ambiguous role. On the other hand, Stark's suit reflects artistry and genius, but even more is a statement- the military has gone out of control, and it will take individuals- human indivuduals- to bring it to heel. Also note that Stane's suit is corrupt and degenerate- elegant in a way, but lacking artistry.
This film would have failed if it was titled "The Perfect Weapon" and was about a flying AI tank that destroyed armaments worldwide. The core of the film is the human choice to take moral responsibility, and that choice is reflected in the human shape of the weapon system in question. The human suit is not a cinematic choice, but a design that is psychologically necessary to the plot.
I haven't enjoyed the Spiderman films as much as the rest of the world has. After the first Batman, I haven't been impressed with that franchise either. Ironman is different though. Good story, and great acting, like you pointed out. I can only hope the same director is in charge the second go 'round.
I continue to enjoy your writings. So glad I found your blog.
Just curious if you are planning on a piece on the great Sydney Pollack, a fine man, a fine filmmaker, a true mensch!
I agree, Robert Downey Jr. and Jeff Bridges make this film great entertainment. On another side, I thought some of the political and cultural subtext of the film was interesting. Namely, Iron Man seemed to play out like US wish fullfillment in regards to our current wars--a military subcontractor that can, for all intents and purposes, fly to where he wants (Afghanistan), eliminate the enemy (some kind of militant radical sect?) through superior technology, and rescue the native people (Afghan refugees), compelled by moral reasons. Perhaps this subtext unknowingly resonates with US audiences? Maybe this is required viewing for Blackwater employees.
Mr. Ebert (or Mr. Ebert's admin guy)
I've posted 3 replies to this topic (this is the third). I mucked up the first one with the wrong name of a previous commentor. You might decide not to publish any of these, but I hope that you only publish the second one.
"What was that middle part again?" - Kevine Kline. "A Fish Called Wanda"
Yep, loved Downey in Iron Man. I thought the last line of the movie, before the credits, was the best line ever written for a superhero movie. Totally unconventional and unexpected, yet totally in keeping with the character!
You haven't given us a place to comment on your "Sex in the City" review, so I wanted to thank you here for having the guts to go negative on it. Sex in the City is just a celebration of shallowness, consumerism and self-pity disguising itself as female empowerment. It re-enforces womens' worst habits and it's contributed to a widening cultural rift between the genders.
Being a comic book fan (albeit not a big Marvel reader or a fan of Iron Man) as well as a reader of all the reviews, I really thought I'd be floored by Downey's performance. And yet I wasn't. It was very good, better than I think this rather bland film deserved. But compared with Chris Reeve and Tobey Maguire and perhaps Christian Bale, it just didn't really engage me. I liked him but never really cared one way or the other about Tony Stark. I wonder why everyone else sees a great performance and I just see a good one.
Then again, as I note, I found the film bland. The plot was rather thin, the final battle unexciting, and the FX hit and miss. (The scene in Afghanistan where Iron Man makes his debut in battle was especially video game-like). Again, I wonder how I could see the same film all my comic book loving geekfriends saw and not love it. But it just didn't do much for me.
Please dedicate a journal slot to Speed Racer next! Your probable endorsement of this unfairly shunned visual delight could do wonders in helping to turn around the public perception that it was a bad movie which flopped deservingly.
Downey's performance is intriguing, and unexpected. He doesn't behave like most superheroes: he lacks the psychic weight and gravitas. Tony Stark is created from the persona Downey has fashioned through many movies: irreverent, quirky, self-deprecating, wise-cracking.
One reason this movie is such a success is that Downey and Favreau made a movie that is as close to the comic book source as anything. Psychic weight and gravitas is certainly present in comic books, but in such an entirely different degree and tone that is done via Hollywood.
Anyway, really a very keenly observant blog entry here. Great stuff.
A few weeks before "Iron Man" came out, I saw "A Scanner Darkly" again and was reminded how much energy -- nervous or otherwise -- Downey can bring to a role. He's just great.
Just wanted to make note of the cinematography by Matthew Libatique in Iron Man. He has been impressive since his debut in Darron Arronofsky's Pi. He has continued to shoot Arronofsky's films (Requiem for a Dream and The Fountain) all of which are undeniably gorgeous despite what one thinks of the content. He has also made good looking films for Joel Schumacher and Spike Lee as well as Mathieu Kassovitz and Ernest Dickerson. Iron Man was way more beautiful then it had to be and Libatique deserves to be mentioned. I hope he continues to be utilized by smart directors that understand how importantant it is to have intelligent, creative collaborators. Take care of that hip Roger.
I expected "Iron Man" to suffer the problem to all "first" superhero movies; the origin story has to be told before we finally get to see the superhero suit make an appearance. I was pleased to find that I didn't mind the setup this time; I rather enjoyed it because of the strength of Downey's performance.
I do wish they had not done the "flashback" sequence at the beginning - I found that to be somewhat cheesy and unnecessary. I respect the director's artistic choices, but I think that letting the film play out in sequence would have served the first act better.
I've never been much of a comic book reader, but every time a new superhero movie comes out, I look up the character on the Web to read the backstory. While the character and situation was updated for the new times, the story stayed pretty close to the description I read on Wikipedia. And the "monk's reward" sequence is not only setting up a sequel, but also another franchise.
Marvel has released some stinkers, but for the most part their characters have made the journey to the big screen better than their DC counterparts. This looks to be one of their better franchises, and a lot of that is due to the casting of Downey. It will be interesting to see what they do with the character in the next film, which supposedly focuses (SPOILER ALERT) on Stark's alcoholism.
Downey is not only one of the most intriguing actors working today, but I think he's also a great romantic lead. He single-handedly saved the fourth season of Ally McBeal with the palpable sexual chemistry he had with Calista Flockhart. He's is, if anything, underrated.
Mr. Ebert, my daughter told me about this blog entry today, and I feel like it's such a treat to get to come home and read it. We are both big fans of your reviews. She's 18 and I'm 40. I think I mention our ages because your demographic appeal has a wide span - from hip to hip replacement?
We make it a point to see most every movie that you rate 3.5 stars, or better. Very seldom do we disagree with your insights. We definitely enjoyed what you wrote here about Iron Man. You're right on target on all points.
Be well, and thanks for always being a part of our movie watching experience!
I love Downey's way with lines. Very few actors can deliver a line, and then go 180 and perform an aside in the same beat, like when Pepper tells him, "It's my birthday" and Downey says, quickly, "I knew that...really?". Gold. We love him so much because we actually see him thinking as quickly as we do a lot of the time while most performances indulge in moments or are reactions to things we've already figured out. In Downey's case, he's leading us.
Yes yes. Robert Downey Jr. Yes. But Roger, did you notice the archaic, almost racist representation of people from Middle East? Something to expect from a film made in the 90's, but not now, that we have the reality around us, to see the things ourselves. And that the film is one giant right-wing commercial for the military-industrial complex?
I'm going to try again, because there was some important stuff that was lost when my original post took the road to nowhere. That most important thing was to say that I've happily been reading Mr. Ebert for a few years now and here I finally get the chance to say: Mr. Ebert, Thank you. Thank you very much.
To Iron Man.
I've seen the movie twice now, the second time I went it was because my wife, no fan of comic movies, wanted to go watch Robert Downey Jr. Afterward we talked mostly about Robert Downey Jr. It seems by most accounts the natural thing to do.
(At some point after writing "Robert Downey Jr." over and over, the moniker becomes cumbersome, used in so many sentences, typed over again, dehumanized, representative almost of a brand name instead of a person. Heretical as it might be, from now on I'll just say Bob D.)
Timed with the release of the movie, A&E aired an old Bob D. episode of "Biography". I'd seen the movie by then already and was talking about the A&E show with a co-worker. I had questions. After everything he's done, the world still roots for Bob D. Why? The damage he's caused for himself and others - yet everyone still loves him and wants him to succeed. Not just anyone could get away with this. Surely he must have the kevorka.
I've never met Bob D., I will never meet Bob D., whatever he does personally or professionally has about zero-impact as far as I'm concerned.
Yet somehow, count me among all those that are rooting for him.
After reading his comments above, I think that Dave Becker may be disappointed to realize (if he doesn't already know), that Bob's next picture is Tropic Thunder, a movie directed by Ben Stiller in the (in)glorious tradition of the Farrelly brothers.
Robert Downey Jr. plays Russell Crowe in black face.
This sounds like SUCH a bad idea until you see the trailers. My wife and I watched them and screamed laughter. What you get (at least judging by the trailers) is Bob D. totally committing to character of "Acclaimed Australian Actor" who totally commits to the role of "black soldier". And then he underplays all of it in exactly the same way he underplays Tony Stark in Iron Man. I'd seen the trailer for Tropic Thunder on the Apple site and never thought it would be worth watching. It was only after I caught word that Tom Cruise was in the movie in a fat suit I thought I'd have second look, and even then, I didn't recognize Bob D. in the poster picture (who would?).
People root for Bob D. because they recognize an extraordinary talent. I would watch Robert Downey Jr. iron shirts.
I'm just glad Robert Downey Jr has gotten his head together. He has always been a talented quirky actor, and I was afraid he'd die before reaching his full potential. Plus he looks really really good without his shirt on...............
This film would have failed if it was titled "The Perfect Weapon" and was about a flying AI tank that destroyed armaments worldwide.
So who's got the rights to _Bolo_ then? ;)
And for the utility of a human-scale anthropomorphic armor, just look at the research going on now with artificial exoskeletons. There's an awful lot of "legacy" human-scale equipment out there, and a suit of armor would be preferable to large, oddly-shaped robots until we master bipedal motion in artificial legs, otherwise you get into the Dalek problem..
I notice that you mention Jack Kirby, yet you say you aren't sure of the premise of the Iron Man movie. I wonder if that's somewhat disingenuous because you seem to be a fan of the comic genre. Surely you must have seen an Iron Man or Avengers comic in your youth.
The Iron Man comic book series really came in to its own under the helm of writer David Michelinie and artist Bob Layton in the late 70's and early 80's. Michelinie defined Stark's persona better than any of his predecessors, and Layton drew "realistic" metallic armors better than anyone else. Without the incredible and ground-breaking run of these creators, Iron Man the movie would not exist in the same form today, if at all.
Regarding the shape and appearance of the suit, many weapons are "decorated". The A-10 Warthog, the famous flying tiger plane, even bombs are painted with a "human touch". I wondered if this was some expression of trying to humanize a killing machine? Perhaps the truth of delivering destruction on a large scale is a bit much to take and some irony is needed by a soldier to get through the day.
Roger,
So great -- as always -- to read your thoughts. You have always been my first stop after I see a flick so I can get your take on it.
Your thoughts on 'Iron Man' are spot on. Downey elevates the entire movie, and credit needs to be given to Favreau for changing up the normal rhythms of the superhero flick to something much deeper, yet infinitely lighter on its feet.
More importantly, we're all just happy to have you back.
Keep feeling well please.
-Jason
Winston - You do realise Afghanistan is NOT in the Middle East, right. And even though the film does have allusions to our reality, it goes out of its way to point out that the evil organisation is positively international in nature. One character points out that some of the footmen are talking in Hungarian (the proper name should be Magyar, but still).
And considering the character is actually pretty right wing in nature in the comics, Tony Stark's representation in the film is suitably moderate. That is a valid political position too, agree with it or not...
Roger,
I've been waiting for your Iron Man review. I had almost lost hope, but I'm glad I finally found it, and I agree with it whole-heartedly. I think it is one of the most entertaining movies that has come out in recent years. It had action, comedy, and drama. It is so rare for a filmmaker to put together an ensemble cast and crew that can perform to such a level, and also rare for a critic to deliver such praise despite high public opinion; sometimes it seems that more popular films are given harsher criticism to take the public opinion down a notch, while less popular films are over-praised to shame the public for not taking better notice.
I read your reviews regularly, and while I don't always agree with you, I think your personal perspective is well founded. Kind of like Simon Cowell, but without being so frequently nasty. If you were the cinema's version of Cowell, you no doubt would have lashed out at Showgirls for being cabaret and Poseidon as something you would see on a cruise ship...
PS...yes Richard Daley is my real name, but no I have never governed Chicago ;-)
As Roger asked;
Why must the ultimate weapon be humanoid in appearance?
Cinema Dave replies;
Despite the high tech military of today, "Iron Man" reminds one that all weapons need human inspiration. We like to think of nonthinking metal machines who perform their mission of mass destruction with no soul or conscience, but it is always a human that has to push the button. Downey's humane performance captured the spirit of an Iron Man.
As I wrote in my review;
"There are a plethora of funny one liners and Robert Downey Jr. delivers them with deadpan conviction. Given his public problems of the past, Tony Stark alias "Iron Man" may help this actor reach for humanistic goals beyond the Hollywood hype machine."
I hate playing devils advocate...
I saw Iron man on opening weekend. Its better than alot of comic book movies out there, and Downey's performance is great...however I was a little dissapointed in the last act of this movie.
Stane wasn't an extremely compelling villian, and the final battle lacked suspense, or emotional weight. And the resolution a Deus Ex Machina telegraphed earlier in the film...not impressive, and Pepper Pots confrontation with Stane in his office late in the film felt like it came straight out of a rejected scene from Perfect Stranger.
The movies political undertones also felt in conflict with the fact that it really just wants to be a fun summer action movie. The X-men films managed to find the right balance without lossing the audience and becoming HULK (I loved that movie, but I get went Batman Begins on that franchise)....but those were movies were the metaphor could do the trick.
Tony Strak is a hero set in the real world dealing with real issues. So to have this guy face off archaic representations of terrorists can feel distracting. Arms Dealers and the Military were a better fit (If you read comic books at all PLEASE pick up the ORSON SCOTT CARD Iron Man Graphic novel).
IRON MAN's wet my appitite ....what comic films I've really been waiting for are Dark Knight and Hellboy.
Roger, no one reviews movies like you. I always like to read what you have to say about a film, because a lot of times there are things I didn't notice and that completely make sense. You also come off as someone who genuinely loves movies, which sadly is something I cannot say about most critics.
Like someone else has already mentioned, I too would love to see a "Speed Racer" entry, but I know you're a busy guy.
Hey, I was wondering if you´d write about this film. Nice review as always.
About the movie: I´m not a reader of comics, so I knew nothing about Iron Man except some memories of watching a cartoon version when I was a kid (I´m 36, btw). I loved the film and, yes, mostly because of Robert Downey Jr. Do I smell Oscar in the air? Given the fact that they nominated Johnny Depp for an Academy Award for his performance in Pirates of the Caribbean, I think it´s possible that the same happens to Downey Jr.
I think the real test will be Iron Man 2. Will it be a good movie? Will it be just a caricature of the first? Let´s wait and see.
Joao Solimeo
Brazil
I thought it worth mentioning that there *is* a very reasonable explanation for why humanoid powered armor is desirable. When piloting a plane, or a tank, or even a car, a human has to learn a completely new way to interact with the world. New muscle memories, new reflexes, an entirely new skill set must be developed. Powered armor (theoretically) would function on negative feedback from the wearer's own movements. (This is exactly how your own muscles work actually) Every movement, from the tiniest wiggling of the finger to a haymaker punch would be transformed into movement by the armor with its power hugely amplified by servos. The second anyone puts it on, they could dance a jig in it. (assuming they could *without* the armor anyway.)
And is the human body so poorly adapted to the world we live in? All of our tools, all of our constructs are designed to be used by a humanoid shaped being. While it's not really practical for a three or four ton behemoth to drive a forklift, he probably could if he had too. Can a plane push a button? Or lift a crate? Or go through a doorway?
Powered armor is just plain cool. Some readers may notice I have been directly quoting Heinlein in "Starship Troopers". Well, probably the single most disappointing thing to me about the Veerhoven movie was the absence of my beloved powered armor. Iron Man finally (somewhat) realistically delivers this long neglected piece of Sci-Fi candy.
These kinds of movies are usually sold to me on nostalgia value but since I know nothing of this Iron Man that isn't going to wash. I do appreciate Robert Downey Jr but would prefer to see him in a film without an Iron man. The attraction to super-heroes seems more ideological to me than natural, as I believe we relate more strongly to characters that work within the same laws of nature that we do, rather than transcend them whether it be through technology or magic. Note the enthusiasm for Indy, who is merely flesh and blood with a hat. If the Iron man is into disarmament he should start with the Iron man suit, in a gesture like Prospero, or Chief Joseph.
Indiana, let it go!
The problem, I suppose, is where do you put your special effect