In Theaters May 03 2008 @ 11:01 am
REVIEW: Iron Man
Directed By: Jon Favreau
Written By: Mark Fergus & Hank Ostby and Art Markum & Matt Holloway
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges, Terrence Howard
Running Time: 126 minutes
Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and brief suggestive content
It wasn't subtlety that helped Captain America sell 1 million copies of its first issue.
Comic book super heroes have historically been a political and sociological representation of America’s frame of mind. Superman grew out of depression era grievances, fighting corrupt politicians and championing social causes; the X-Men, birthed in the sixties, were metaphors for diversity and racial justice; and the first issue of Captain America, who was a blatant patriotic creation, featured the star spangled hero slugging Adolf Hitler in the jaw.
Which brings us to Iron Man circa 2008. His alterego, Tony Stark, is an arrogant, absurdly rich weapons designer who thinks he is God’s gift to the military machine. Visiting Afghanistan for a demonstration of his latest Make-Stuff-Go-Big-Boom war toy, he is ambushed by Afghan rebels wielding his own weaponry and drug off as a hostage. Escaping, he sees the error of his warring ways and swears off weaponry forever, opting instead to build himself a technologically advanced iron suit in order to right his past wrongs. He then goes back and lays waste to rebels who imprisoned him, under the auspices of liberating abused villagers.
Let me go over that again. An arrogant American recklessly feeds global conflict, is attacked by terrorists using his own weapons, and then seeks retribution in the name of freeing an oppressed people. And this all takes place in the Middle East. I smell a metaphor.
Blowing Up Stuff...convincing fanboys to part with their money for decades.
Politically heavy-handed as it may be (as it has always been – Iron Man got his start fighting the commies in Vietnam), Iron Man is sheer candy-coated cinematic bliss. See that picture to the left? That’s a dude in a glowing suit of iron. Blowing up a tank. With a missile he just fired out of his arm! Do I even need to write anything else? If that doesn’t stoke the fires of your inner-child, if you don’t find that the epitome of cool, if the prospect of watching a guy in an armored suit outrun fighter jets can only summon a tepid “Meh” in response, then you were clearly not the target of Paramount’s $50 Million marketing campaign. I suggest Made of Honor playing next door. If you’re lucky, the explosions and sonic booms won’t distract you from ogling Patrick Dempsey’s perfectly styled stubble.
Robert Downey Jr., living up his fat paycheck.
And if, for some for some reason, that defies the laws of the universe, aforementioned missile-launching armored suits are not enough to part you from that $10 burning a hole in your wallet, then see Iron Man for the most genius casting decision of the year: Robert Downey Jr. As every critic worth his salt has already mentioned, he is scarily perfect as the self-possessed playboy billionaire, witty and arrogant and charming and narcissistic, the quintessential “likeable a**hole,” as director Jon Favreau (Elf, Zathura) has referred to him. The supporting players—Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, and Gwyneth Paltrow—are all top notch, most notably Paltrow, who effortlessly creates a nostalgic 1940s chemistry with Downey, but the fuel in Iron Man’s testosterone injected engine is Downey. The success of the franchise (and franchise it is, with sequels 2 and 3 already peeking their shiny heads over the horizon) will owe itself largely to his note-perfect performance. Here’s hoping this does for his career what Wolverine did for Hugh Jackman’s.
In terms of comparison, Iron Man is most similar in structure to the original Spider-Man: likeable protagonists with guilt over past mistakes, love interests that tease us with the potential for future romance, throwaway villains that serve as a practice run for the hero, and gut-bustingly slapstick training montages where the superhero tries on his new powers for size. With its growing pains out of the way, the second installment is almost guaranteed to top this one, much like Spider-Man 2 trumped its predecessor in nearly every respect.
The Hollywood season of summer is here, with Iron Man’s sugary ILM eye candy and eardrum shattering Dolby trumpeting its arrival. Grab the popcorn and kick back. Your ears weren’t really that important anyway.
on May 03 2008 @ 3:26 pm 1. Thadd Harrington said …
I think you’re glossing over an important point. At least, as I understood it, it wasn’t so much that he felt bad about creating weapons as he regretted letting them fall into the wrong hands. That’s what I thought, anyway.
And I cannot believe that you didn’t even mention Stan Lee’s cameo, which I thought was the best one he’s ever had.
on May 04 2008 @ 2:10 am 2. Sean said …
LOVED. THIS. MOVIE. Mind you Evan I am slightly shocked to have seen you give it 5 stars. You don’t seem the type to hand those out like $20 bills… scratch that- you don’t seem the type to hand out $20 bills.
Robert Downey Jr is Iron Man. I loved every minute of this movie and I would see it again and again.
I slightly disagree with the Spider Man correlation simply because outside of Spidey 2 I hated Raimis take on it. Or to put it another way, IMHO I think it stunk. Box office numbers don’t line up with my thinking but hey, that’s my opinion. Tobey McGuire is not Peter Parker to me, not the Peter from the comics that I grew up reading. Also what was the big idea with CGI in spider man? It sucked. As G.O.B. Bluth would say “come ON!”
Since I’m going off on CGI (Iron Man had me fooled most of the time which is what I need in order to appreciate CGI)after seeing the Hulk trailer in the theater the Hulk looks pretty fake which is really disappointing to me. I’ve been expecting a lot from that movie.
The Dark Knight makes me all giddy and gabby like a teenage girl. I CANT WAIT TO SEE IT.
So that’s it- great review Evan, I appreciate the 5 stars, I was thinking maybe 4.5 personally but 5 is definitely fair. You didn’t mention the cave segment which seemed to lag a little to develop a character who was basically a red shirt. That’s a matter of opinion I suppose because the person I was with did like it. I felt like it didn’t match the pace of the rest of the film. Anyway, good review. Thanks.
on May 04 2008 @ 7:26 am 3. Evan Derrick said …
Actually Sean, I gave it 4, not 5. Got stars in your eyes?
And even if you don’t like Raimi’s take on Spider-Man, you can’t disagree with the strong similarities between this movie and the first Spidey. They have a lot of the same plot beats and the same tones.
I actually hold out a lot of hope for the new Hulk. I think it’s going to be a good reboot for the series. And yes, the Dark Knight (apart from Indy IV) is my most anticipated film of the summer.
And Thadd, you may be right, although perhaps the distinction is subtle. Regardless, its still a political metaphor for America.
on May 05 2008 @ 12:31 am 4. Phillip Johnston said …
When Summer Blockbuster season rolls around, I let go of all pretension … but I thought Iron Man was a ginormous flop. I liked Robert Downey Jr. as Stark very much and the missile demonstration near the beginning was awesome, but everything else about the production made me sigh and almost yawn. The tired screenplay trying too hard to be witty, awkward character interaction, inevitable third act character reversal, anti-climactic action sequences, the preposterously sudden ending, etc.
Half-way through the movie, a friend of mine leaned over to me and whispered, “What is this movie?!” My sentiments exactly.
BUT, the awesome new Indy and Dark Knight trailers were worth the price of admission.
on May 05 2008 @ 6:58 am 5. Evan Derrick said …
Small children the world over are crying now, Phillip. I hope you’re happy with yourself.
on May 05 2008 @ 8:48 am 6. Phillip Johnston said …
Yeah, well, I’ll pass out Kleenex if they approach me about it.
on May 05 2008 @ 10:03 am 7. Daniel said …
I fall pretty much smack dab in between you two, Philip and Evan, with my initial reaction at the theater leaning more towards Philip. Since then I’ve warmed a little bit to it, but I still have to admit that I uttered “meh” at least once, Evan. Still enjoy your review more than many others.
on May 05 2008 @ 1:55 pm 8. christian said …
I’m hoping the second IRON MAN will expand all the things that don’t work or feel underfed in this one.
I wanted more dynamic framing, I mean, it’s a comic book, just look at how it’s done.
And the film brilliantly skirts between war and peace, left and right, etc. so that an individual’s take on the subject of war toyz is sated or at least acknowledged.
on May 05 2008 @ 2:10 pm 9. Evan Derrick said …
Thanks for popping over, Christian. I can see what you’re saying about the framing being less than dynamic. Favreau is an imaginative filmmaker, but he’s not necessarily a strong visual one.
Now that everyone is established and all the players are set up, the second Iron Man will most likely be a grand slam out of the park. Favreau obviously has what it takes, and from what I’ve read the second film will be delving into Stark’s alcoholism, which should inject the film with much needed pathos. Also, who doesn’t want to see Potts and Stark get together after Downey and Paltrow set it up so beautifully in this one?
on May 05 2008 @ 3:23 pm 10. Sean said …
HA! 4 out of 5 it is. I guess I do have stars in my eyes…
You’re right, the frame work is very similar. As Phillip noted, it wasn’t a break out film in terms of writing, but these script “templates” just work for these types of movies. That being said I would still hate to be the person who has to please you Phillip! hahaha
BTW Evan, after Coen month is over how about pulling out the superhero/comic book movies of the last few years and reviewing them, its comic book summer blockbuster year. I would love to see you beat up Superman Returns— again.
on May 05 2008 @ 3:58 pm 11. Phillip Johnston said …
That being said I would still hate to be the person who has to please you Phillip!
You’d hate to be Christopher Nolan?
on May 06 2008 @ 6:39 pm 12. Sean said …
@ Phillip: Touche’ my friend, touche’.
on May 08 2008 @ 10:47 am 13. Nick Plowman said …
Great right up, I loved the film, gave it four stars myself - I think it was a little better than the average popcorn flick, a little more substance underneath the metallic sheen. Maybe that was just me, but I felt it was more than it has been made out to be. Just a little more, nothing revolutionary – just a little more than simply a good time.
on May 08 2008 @ 10:48 am 14. Nick Plowman said …
Did I just type “right up?”
That is so lame, you know what I meant though.
I suck
on May 08 2008 @ 1:35 pm 15. Evan Derrick said …
Your grammar failures have been duly noted, Nick. There will be a report at the end of the year…
…just kidding.
on May 08 2008 @ 1:41 pm 16. Luke Harrington said …
Actually, if we get the right people to start saying that, if could be the next big thing.
on Jun 11 2008 @ 5:55 pm 17. Film-Book dot Com said …
Evan, I believe I said it before but you review films from a slightly different angle than I do which is why I read them. Enough ass kissing, onto my comment. I disagree with Plowman. After so many bad superhero movies, Iron Man stands out. I’ll take Iron Man over Spiderman 1 any day of the week. Better action, better CGI, hotter girls, you name it. I would’ve liked to have seen a hard R version of Iron Man but that is simply a dream. Iron Man rides on the acting chops of Downey and he never lets the film or the audience down, much like Depp did in POTC though not nearly as effective.
Oh and Sean, I beat Superman Returns enough for everyone:http://film-book.com/review-superman-returns/