Theatrical Review of Iron Man

---

Tools:
Send to a friend »

---

I am not a fan boy. Let´s get that out of the way first and foremost. I haven´t read every issue of the "Iron Man" comic book (or any other, for that matter) nor do I know the various quirks to the character. The extent of my exposure to the superhero are the recent direct-to-video "Ultimate Avenger" films, as well as "The Invincible Iron Man." In other words, my attitude isn´t based on any perceived notions about Tony Stark´s alter ego. All that being said, the latest Marvel comic book hero to make the jump to the big screen turns out to have something no other hero does: a global social conscience, separating him from Spider-Man, Batman and even the big boy of them all, Superman.

Following a successful demonstration of a new weapon for the military, industrialist Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) is kidnapped by an unnamed group of bad guys who force him to recreate the missile system, dubbed Jericho. Instead, he sets to work creating a suit of armor in which to escape. When he does, Stark finds the company his father created has been co-opted and the weapons in the hands of the very people who captured him. Armed with a new suit, and purpose, Iron Man is born.

Tobey Maguire may be the quintessential Peter Parker while Patrick Stewart was a shoe-in for the role of Professor X. Jennifer Garner looked like Elektra and Hugh Jackman became a star based on Wolverine. But none of those casting choices holds a candle to Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark. From the first moment we see him, in an armored Humvee crossing the Afghan desert, he exemplifies the hard drinking, womanizing playboy the script demands him to be. There is a snark to him, an easy repartee with the entire cast. Even as the most sexist Marvel movie character, he ingratiates himself to the audience, making us fully aware of the words coming out of his mouth as well as the undeniable charm exuding from every pore of his being.

It is Downey, Jr. who grounds "Iron Man" in reality as opposed to comic book fantasy. There are no special powers, no green monsters breaking out of their human hosts thanks to Gamma Rays or mystical villains. A man and his ingenuity, not to mention a conscience. Let´s talk about that ingenuity for a moment. We are treated to several scenes of Stark at work in his home lab, using sophisticated 3-D computer models to build each suit. He does this without any help from the outside world, relying on himself and in the process telling us even more about the character. Regardless of whatever else Stark might be, he is a genius.

As I already alluded to, "Iron Man" is one of the very few Marvel comic characters looking at a global perspective as opposed to a personal or city level. The X-Men are interested in helping one particular group-mutants; the Hulk doesn´t really fight for anyone but himself. Even Spider-Man protects NewYork City and only NYC. So when Tony Stark decides to take on the baddies in Afghanistan because his weapons are being used to hurt innocent civilians, it is a radical departure from the formula. His conscience tells him the events are wrong, even if the "revelation" comes off as anything but unexpected. (It can be argued he only fights for the little man due to his experiences and being betrayed at home. However, I prefer to think it is a combination of factors leading to the creation of Iron Man.)

He is the most selfless of superheroes, putting himself in harms way, much like Batman, without any true superpowers. When his suit is crusted with ice from flying entirely too high into the atmosphere, the man Stark is faced with plummeting down to the surface, a fall he would never survive. There is a death wish of sorts he pushes to nearly the breaking point. It fits with the character we come to know. He´s never been told he can´t do something and, if someone did have the gall to tell him "no," he´d go through with his plan anyway. There is no stopping this mortal man when he has a head full of steam.

Directed by Jon Favreau, there is no technical "pop" in the look of the film; it is quite pedestrian, from the directing to production design and cinematography. Though I wonder if this is really a bad thing or not. With the over-CGI of "Spider-Man 3" and wire reliance of "The Matrix" films, a simple, straight forward and "working man" style would appear to be the best. That´s how Favreau works, trading in fancy camera moves and shots screaming "look me at" for the simple, grounded design. Even in the battle scenes, of which there are precious few, no single shot stands out. Rather, the sum total of what happens on the screen is better than the parts.

I guess we need to talk about the actual plot now, right? Fairly standard comic book stuff here, from the origin story to a half baked villain plot. If we are to compare this film-the first in a presumed franchise-to the initial volume of a comic series-the formula works in the same way. However, with Jeff Bridges as the inevitable bad guy (Obadiah Stane, the mastermind behind all the "bad´ we see), his story is given short thrift when compared to the origins. And, regrettably, it doesn´t hold the pizazz of any other conflict in the Marvel movie universe. Good guy versus bad guy, one on the side of the little man, the other concerned only with profit.

With so little of the story devoted to Stane (relatively speaking), it is hard to get emotionally invested in the conflict. Their beef with each other is of a corporate nature. How do you dramatize a fight between Microsoft and Apple? Quite simply, you don´t. Yet this is where the script takes us. Why? Presumably not to waste one of the A-list "Iron Man" villains on the inaugural film and to show Stark isn´t the only smart guy in the figurative room. Too often, the super villains are buffoons, outwitted, outlasted and outplayed, to steal a tagline.

I haven´t even mentioned the supporting characters like Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) or Jim Rhodes (Terrance Howard). Their roles seem to be spout dialogue and wait for the inevitable film where they will become a bigger part of the story. Potts, a personal assistant in the beginning, turns in Stark´s girlfriend at the end, a harbinger of further development for her. And Howard…he also bides his time until (presumably) turning into War Machine at a later date. Neither is spectacular in their parts, content to have some fun in a big budget summer film. But both ramp down their acting, leaving the scene chewing to Bridges. And the humanity to Downey, Jr.

But is "Iron Man" materially any better or worse than other premiere installments of comic book films? Not really. The film delivers on its promise of a blockbuster with fancy visuals, enough in-jokes directed at longtime comic book audiences and a crowd pleasing good time. Stark´s transformation from man of war to man of peace comes a bit too quickly; Potts flying right into the love interest role is tired, not to mention wholly expected; and the Iron Monger plotline feels half complete. Alas, those are the usual concerns with starting a brand new franchise from the ground up.

So, the first summer blockbuster is here, seen by countless people around the world and sure to rack up an impressive box office tally. Does it succeed as a film? It does, to the tune of a 7 out of 10. As with most Marvel films, stick around for a post-credits scene foretelling the future of the character and perhaps another franchise.

---

---