Iron ManReview by Russ Breimeier |
posted 5/01/2008
2 of 3

He's also good at playing the rich brat. He begins with irresponsible, bad-boy swagger, only to become more serious and heroic after his life is shaken to the core—you truly believe that Stark has returned from Afghanistan a new man. (And since future films will inevitably deal with Stark's infamous battle with alcoholism, Downey makes an interesting choice, having overcome addictions of his own.)
Downey's not the only inspired casting. Bridges is both business-friendly and coldly corporate in a part that might have seemed more appropriate for someone like Ian McKellen or Patrick Stewart. It's also nice to see Gwyneth Paltrow return to the screen in a relatively small role as Stark's personal assistant and potential romantic interest, Pepper Potts—sort of a younger Moneypenny to Stark's Bond. If anyone feels a little out of place, it's Terrence Howard as Stark's friend and military liaison Jim Rhodes. He seems too wet-behind-the-ears in an underutilized part, though anyone familiar with the character knows how important Rhodey will become in future Iron Man films.
One of the coolest looking superheroes ever. Period.
The strongest co-star to Downey's performance is ILM's special effects, which include both CGI and practical versions of the power armor. Iron Man is like a combination of Robocop and Disney's Rocketeer, with thunderous mechanized footsteps, an arsenal of hidden weapons, and a thrilling chase sequence involving a pair of jet fighters. Stark's lab is also neatly tricked out with a cool holographic interface for his technological designs, as well as some robotic arms that assist him in his work with just enough personality in their movements to recall R2D2 (or this General Motors ad). This film is nearly as funny as it is exciting.
Unfortunately, the movie's storytelling is imperfect. A flashback sequence at the beginning seems unnecessary, and since it takes a while to design the final Iron Man suit, we never get quite enough action scenes beyond what we've seen in the commercials. Also, the film's big finale feels more like a requisite mano y mano showdown that never lives up to everything preceding it. And origin stories are a lot like pilot episodes on TV—they're often the weakest entry in the series (with the probable exception of Batman Begins and its mythic scope).
Spider-Man's tale of teen angst and insecurity carries a lot of heart and romance. The X-Men are young outsiders looking for acceptance. None of us are billionaire geniuses and CEOs, and I suppose Iron Man seems colder and less relatable on the surface, but that's partly the point. Underneath the emotionless exterior is a man with a beating heart. Strip away the layers of toys and gadgetry, and there's a hero who learns the hard way to do the right thing.
Iron Man works very well as a film and makes an overall strong entry in the superhero genre—one that'll likely play well with kids, but even better with adults. He's a grown-up's superhero, saving the world not from mutated super-villains or space aliens, but global terrorists and corporate greed. In this way, Iron Man plays closer to Batman Begins than Spider-Man or X-Men—a reformed egotist who bears the scars from his self-absorbed mistakes, changing his life by seeking to do the right thing in the world around him.
Oh, and that power armor's pretty cool too.
Talk About It
Discussion starters
- Tony Stark starts off justifying the need for weapons to keep the peace in the world. Is there truth to what he's saying? Would America have been better off if it had never developed the atomic bomb? Are weapons ever justified, and if so, to what extent?
-
Iron Man never politicizes its story, but it does open up a moral discussion about America's present role as world superpower. When is the United States justified to take action in world affairs, and when must the country remain neutral? Does it all come down to saving lives, or is it more complicated?
- One character describes Stark as a man who has everything and yet nothing. What does he mean? How is Stark's legacy relevant to Matthew 16:25-27?