Iron Man (Jon Favreau, 2008)

[domino harvey]

the Onion weighs in

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Entertainment Weekly's making of article.

[Jeff]

very good review from Variety

[flyonthewall2983]

I'm interested in it, just to see Jeff Bridges as a villain. I think the only other time he played a villainous character was in the remake of The Vanishing I have vague memories of. I also am interested in seeing how Robert will hold this big-budget summer action film himself, of course.

[Murdoch]

the Onion weighs in

Are there no original ideas in Hollywood!

[jbeall]

Salon.com review.

Tony Stark, the human alter-ego of the comic-book superhero Iron Man, isn't a tortured soul but a relatively happy guy: A rich playboy industrialist who's made his fortune off weaponry (Iron Man's creator, Stan Lee, modeled Stark on Howard Hughes), he doesn't have to don a custom-fit suit of armor to overcome past trauma and pain, or to prove his worth either to himself or to the world.

Maybe that's why the casting of Robert Downey Jr. in Jon Favreau's always entertaining and at times inventive "Iron Man" is so inspired.

And here's the NY Times review

And “Iron Man,” directed by Jon Favreau (“Elf,” “Zathura”), has the advantage of being an unusually good superhero picture. Or at least — since it certainly has its problems — a superhero movie that’s good in unusual ways.

[THX1378]

Saw it last night and it's a hell of a lot better than I thought it was going to be. It's a much more character driven film than I thought they were going to do. The humor and action is balanced right and not eye rolling like I thought it was going to be. And Downey is right on spot if you have read the comics. I'm glad that they took the chance with him doing this film because I could have never saw Tom Cruse playing Tony Stark. I'd even go as far to say that this is the best superhero casting up there with Christopher Reeve playing Superman and Christian Bale playing Batman. It's nice to see Downey do something that shows that he's a bankable star. Jeff Bridges as Obadiah is good fun also. Nice great start to the summer film season, I'd go as far to say thats it's one of the better films I've seen this year so far as big popcorn films go, and it was a great way to wash the bad taste left by Spider-Man 3 last summer out of my mouth.

And remember to stay past the end credts

[domino harvey]

How's Paltrow?

[THX1378]

Better than what I thought she would be. She is pretty perfect for the role she plays and plays off of Downey very well. I thought that she would be turned into the eyerolling romantic love interest and thank god they didn't do that. She does a great job with the short time she is on the screen, along with Terrence Howard, but there are hints about more great things to come from him in the next film. Jeff Bridges is great as the adversary to Downey. Hell, he blows Spacey's version of Lex from Superman Returns *about the only thing I liked in the film* out of the water. The only thing is that Favreau is a little shaky on the action in the film. Thats the only nitpick I have with it. One thing I did like was that they showed Stark always brimming with new ideas, always on the move. This, compared with how bad they treated Reed Richards in the 2 Fantastic Four films from going to a man always inventing things and keeping the wheels turning, to a man with lady problems.

[Mr Sausage]

What a fun movie. I love to see a hero who's gloriously flawed and vice-filled. The usual superhero is rarely ever hobbled with petty sins; he always tackles weighty moral issues and large behavioural dilemmas. Stark, refreshingly, is a knowingly callous and self-involved guy (who's really only happy when playing with machinery) who hits bottom, is forced to make a definitive moral decision over his future, succeeds, and continues on from there. Yet he doesn't really start to become a superhero until a good chunk of the way through the movie. He builds his first suit for the practical purpose of escape; he builds the second model essentially because it amuses him, because he's obsessed with building and the first suit sparked his interest in taking the project to its limits. It's only after he's had the situation he'd escaped from in the middle-east shoved back into his face, and has found that trusted people have been working against him, that he's finally pushed out of himself and commits his first selfless acts, even if only unwittingly. It's really anger, coupled with the knowledge of the essential selfishness at the core of his desire to build his second suit, and with his first taste of the real power in his creation, that starts turning him into Ironman. It's very unusual--indeed the whole movie is centred just a bit off from the usual--and Downey jr. is the key to its success: we need to be interested in the character, and Downey jr. draws and keeps attention with little effort.

It's amusing to reread this thread and all of the worrying over the CGI, since the movie actually relies very little on it. There is minimal focus on action: when the action scenes do come up they are all natural developments, and magically enough, they are restrained: very little is embellished. Nothing is portentious, either. I can't imagine how tempting it was to take a film about a borderline creep involved in arming middle-eastern militant groups and make it a frightening and brutal exercise in redemption. The movie should be commended for the success with which it balanced its tone. It never burdened its serious moments with too much gravity, nor did it become jokey and frivolous, in the manner of the F4 movies. It invested itself totally in the character of its lead, who sustains himself through his humour and his sense of fun. It's that humour that keeps the character from being someone tortured like Batman/Bruce Wayne. That humour has the same kind of healing, palliative effect on the movie which could otherwise have been, if it wanted to be, just as dark and brooding as Batman.

It's lively and fun; it's a successful movie, all the more so because of how awful are so many recent superhero movies. Going to it in a serious mood is probably the wrong approach. You need just the right amount of unconcern to enjoy it. You need a bit of Stark's lightness.

[THX1378]

It's very unusual--indeed the whole movie is centred just a bit off from the usual--and Downey jr. is the key to its success: we need to be interested in the character, and Downey jr. draws and keeps attention with little effort.

That's what I really love about Iron Man, both the movie and the comics. Here is a man in this 40's that's a borderline alcoholic, womanising creep that you don't want to like at first at all. All he's worried about is money, alcohol, woman, and things that go boom. Then over time, when he starts to understand and work towards redemption, even if it isn't always the right thing, you start to like him and understand him more. I like the fact that he's flawed more so than someone like Spider-Man that deals with a troubled teenager. I like guys like Stark in comics and films that can grow past their flaws, and try to overcome them. Downey is part of the attraction also. The man never fails to keep the attention in any film just on him. *I have a feeling that he's going to steel the show away from everyone in Tropic Thunder*. Everything that the man has done he has a way to make things interesting and keep the eyes all on him with no effort.

[Barmy]

Here we go again--people are applying character analysis to a popcorn movie that has no use besides going to opening night and whooping from time to time. Yeah it's one of the better comic book movies, because almost all of them are shite, with the exceptions of XMen 2 and the Batman episode with Jim Carrey. But I can't imagine any sentient person wanting to see it twice, which is the hallmark of a successful "picture".

Paltrow has never been less not unannoying. Terrence Howard is a useless trite nonentity--I actually did not know who played that character until the credits ran. Who is this tool? There is WAY too much about the endless process of IM's creation. And little action of interest, other than the first scene with the final IM version. Obviously without Downey it would be useless, but that says something, doesn't it? IM2 no doubt will be better, because we won't have to sit through all that science and math.

Better than The Witnesses, in any event.

[rs98762001]

Yeah it's one of the better comic book movies, because almost all of them are shite, with the exceptions of XMen 2 and the Batman episode with Jim Carrey.

I agree with your sentiment, but those two you mentioned were among the shite-iest of them all.

[domino harvey]

Yeah it's one of the better comic book movies, because almost all of them are shite, with the exceptions of XMen 2 and the Batman episode with Jim Carrey.

I agree with your sentiment, but those two you mentioned were among the shite-iest of them all.

Barmy's our own Armond White

[sidehacker]

So Spielberg directed a Batman episode?

[domino harvey]

So Spielberg directed a Batman episode?

I'm sure White's written plenty of slash-fiction to that effect

[Antoine Doinel]

Ghostface Killah's cameo is cut from the film

[Antoine Doinel]

Iron Man 2: April 30, 2010

[filmnoir1]

It was to be expected that this film would open large as many americans are seeking through fantasy what cannot be acheieved realistically: that is a truly heroic American action involving the US military and its handling of crisis in the muslim world today.
The film was good but not great. Downey Jr. was perfectly cast as Tony Stark but everyone else around him was mediocre at best. Terence Howard is reduced to playing the African American buddy who functions as the conscience and support system for a white hero. This is made explicit when we see him watch as Iron Man flies off to fight Jeff Bridges.
Also what was the purpose of seeing Stark's private jet turned into a mini version of a strip club? This is 2008 and it is high time that we start representing women as more than cheap sex objects for men to drool over. This scene is unnecessary and gratitous because it has already been established that Stark is hedonistic. Another major complaint that i have is that this film still sells the notion that America and American businesses can do whatever they please, whenever they please with no consequences.
Finally, I think it must be asked how Marvel a once leftist thinking company and comics provider has succumb to a neo-conservative outlook on the world. Even if this film is trying to critique the effects of the military industrial complex, in the end it still sells the notion that the US military and warfare are natural and just. These examples of American exceptionalism are responsible for so much of the world's anger at us at this moment in time. But then, hell it is the summer and nobody really cares to think during those 4 months after all do they?

[Antoine Doinel]

It was to be expected that this film would open large as many americans are seeking through fantasy what cannot be acheieved realistically: that is a truly heroic American action involving the US military and its handling of crisis in the muslim world today.

American audiences are really clamoring for that?

I would buy the argument if anything in the trailer suggested that Iron Man was flag waving cinematic overload, but considering its mostly Robert Downey Jr. making quips, flying around and stuff exploding, I think audiences flocked to the film for the simple reason that "it looks really cool".

[the dancing kid]

Also what was the purpose of seeing Stark's private jet turned into a mini version of a strip club? This is 2008 and it is high time that we start representing women as more than cheap sex objects for men to drool over. This scene is unnecessary and gratitous because it has already been established that Stark is hedonistic.

It is gratuitous, but I think it demonstrates something beyond Stark's pleasure-seeking ways. He (and his money) are able to control the people around him and he uses that ability to hide from the world and live in a state of arrested adolescence. I think the fact that he eggs his friend into having a drink, then another, then another, etc. is also significant because it shows his ability to manipulate someone into acting against their better judgment and to wear down their will. He doesn't have a reason to do that other than to break his friend's will and to degrade him, just as he degrades the women and, arguably, himself.

I think the excess of the scene is supposed to communicate a flaw in Stark's character rather than celebrate his lifestyle, although I also concede most people won't see it that way. It was a poorly handled scene and the joke wasn't really worth making, but I think it does show something about his character beyond restating his hedonism.

Another major complaint that i have is that this film still sells the notion that America and American businesses can do whatever they please, whenever they please with no consequences.

I think the film demonstrates that powerful business folks can behave that way by virtue of their power, but I don't think there is any endorsement of that mode of conduct. Isn't Stark's moral dilemma brought about when he finds out his mentor has been double-dealing the arms-war? In terms of melodramatic conflict, the sense of virtue that Stark discovers emerges from his discovery of how the rest of the company sees the world and how that doesn't fit with his newly formed world view (however poorly-defined that is).

Finally, I think it must be asked how Marvel a once leftist thinking company and comics provider has succumb to a neo-conservative outlook on the world. Even if this film is trying to critique the effects of the military industrial complex, in the end it still sells the notion that the US military and warfare are natural and just. These examples of American exceptionalism are responsible for so much of the world's anger at us at this moment in time. But then, hell it is the summer and nobody really cares to think during those 4 months after all do they?

I don't think the film is arguing that the military industrial complex is natural or just. I think there is a recognition of the daunting power of weapons manufacture in American politics and business, but that isn't an endorsement in of itself. There's definitely a sense of "machine enthusiasm" through the scenes of testing out the equipment and the use of special effects, which is compliant with military interests in a broad sense, but I don't think the film is ever willingly making the argument that we should accept that as the natural state of things.

Neoconservatism doesn't have anything to do with this film though. There isn't any attempt at installing democracies abroad to be used as client states or regional proxies, just a loosely defined critique of the military industrial complex and the endless cycle of the arms race. The filmmakers basically leave America as a military agent out of the equation and just focus on the arms manufacturers, which is a flaw in its critique of the military industrial complex, but I still don't think it demonstrates some of the qualities you mentioned.

I agree with you that the film has a lot of flaws from the perspective of whatever political work it's trying to do. It's interesting that there's basically no sense of political responsibility represented throughout the film: the air force is basically just playing around with their toys or watching demos to buy new toys, but whatever conflict they're engaged in is never articulated. I think the representation of the board of trustees of Stark Industries (which is to say, not representation at all) sums up the filmmakers' inability to confront the political context that they're dealing with. In that sense I agree with you that things like the military industrial complex and American exceptionalism are taken for granted.

[Alphonso]

Satire doesn't work on mainstream America, it's like a bomb with a short fuse. "I can own a air plane with a strip joint in it?" You have to wonder how much good it does when the smug critics come around and start up with their bullshit.

[Jeff]

It was to be expected that this film would open large as many americans are seeking through fantasy what cannot be acheieved realistically: that is a truly heroic American action involving the US military and its handling of crisis in the muslim world today.

I can't imagine anyone going in with the perception you describe. I've never read any comic books that didn't feature Archie and Jughead, but I had no idea that the film had anything to do with "the US military and its handling of crisis in the Muslim world today" until I saw it. I also found the military to be portrayed as well-meaning -- but ultimately destructive -- oafs who, along with Stark's company, were responsible for the death of many innocents.

The film was good but not great. Downey Jr. was perfectly cast as Tony Stark but everyone else around him was mediocre at best.

I loved Paltrow and found Bridges to be suitably over the top.

Terence Howard is reduced to playing the African American buddy who functions as the conscience and support system for a white hero. This is made explicit when we see him watch as Iron Man flies off to fight Jeff Bridges.

Howard did have a thankless role -- one that ultimately seemed unnecessary. It was my understanding that the role was cut significantly in post in order to focus on the title character and shorten the running time. His character did seem underwritten, but I didn't find any racial pandering inherent in the idea of "the white hero and his black best friend." Weren't the characters of Stark and Rhodes created decades ago in the comics? I suppose they could have made Stark black and Rhodes white, but that would have smacked of political correctness for its own sake. Would it have been better if Rhodes character was cast with a white actor?

Also what was the purpose of seeing Stark's private jet turned into a mini version of a strip club? This is 2008 and it is high time that we start representing women as more than cheap sex objects for men to drool over.

Paltrow's character was the most intelligent, responsible, and level-headed person in the movie. She may have been Stark's assistant, but was also assertive and independent.

This scene is unnecessary and gratitous because it has already been established that Stark is hedonistic.

Fair enough. I saw it as simply another opportunity to show Stark's flaws and self-absorption, but maybe it wasn't needed.

Another major complaint that i have is that this film still sells the notion that America and American businesses can do whatever they please, whenever they please with no consequences.

As morally reprehensible as you and I may find it, America and American businesses largely can and do do whatever they please with little consequence to them, so I can't really blame the film for showing that.

The film absolutely demonized the role of Stark's weapons company for its role in contributing to the proliferation of the American war machine and the callous attitude such companies and governments have towards collateral damage. Furthermore, Stark's epiphany was that he should be applying his substantial resources towards creating alternative energy sources instead of weapons of destruction.

Finally, I think it must be asked how Marvel a once leftist thinking company and comics provider has succumb to a neo-conservative outlook on the world. Even if this film is trying to critique the effects of the military industrial complex, in the end it still sells the notion that the US military and warfare are natural and just. These examples of American exceptionalism are responsible for so much of the world's anger at us at this moment in time. But then, hell it is the summer and nobody really cares to think during those 4 months after all do they?

I would venture to guess that you and I more or less share the same progressive politics. I found the film to largely be an endorsement of my politics though, whereas you seemed to find it a rebuke of them. I found that it adequately did critique the effects of the military industrial complex and I didn't really register any endorsement of "American exceptionalism," though its entirely possible that I've learned to tune such tiresome messages out.

[filmnoir1]

I must beg to differ from many who are trying to reclaim this film as a sort of parody or satire of the current crisis because it has been announced that the US is currently preparing to launch a covert war with Iran. This consistent belief that the US and US businesses can do whatever they want, whenever they want as depicted in film is equally as dangerous as the reality that American corporate capitalism is controlling the world: thus leading to the crisis in oil globally and the mounting catastrophe over global food prices. As I stated once before on this board, I am of the mind that the only way for the US's reputation to be saved is for us, the people, to realize that our "fantasies" projected in films/tv/art sell the notion that the US is a war mongering nation that is out to impose its will on the world at large. Case in point the reprehensible film 300.

In regards to the notion that the military industrial complex is not affiliated with the neo-conservative movement, I would refer you to President Eisenhower's own comments at the end of his presidency, which were used to shape the very informative documentary Why We Fight. Another point is that Eisenhower's own daughter has spoken out and said that were he alive today, he would not be linked with the Republican party. It is time that America recognize that the Republican's agenda as expressed through the Project for a New American century is the model of an Imperial power that serves the interests of wealthy whites while diminishing the hopes and dreams of anyone else on the planet.

Iron Man is great summer filler but in this the most crucial times in American history it is important to ask the question, why this film and why at this moment in history.

[tavernier]

Paltrow has never been less not unannoying.

Best-ever description of Ms. Paltry's mediocrity.