IRON MAN- blech.

I knew that I would eventually see this movie, which is more than I can say for some comic book movies. I have been a superhero comic fan for just about my whole life, but I have been disappointed so many times in the theatre by superhero movies that I no longer automatically see them. But I heard good things about Iron Man, so I knew I would eventually see it. Besides, Iron Man has always been one of my favorite heroes. I was going to see this movie without listening to anything from anybody, and form my own damn opinion. In fact, I haven't even read the rest of this thread yet.

I really enjoyed Iron Man. Robert Downey Jr was at the top of his game, and this was the first movie that ever caused me to like Gwenyth Paltrow. They both delivered good performances, and a surprising personal chemistry. In particular, Downey sold me on every aspect of Tony Stark... the multi-tasking business man, the obsessive inventor, and especially the smooth playboy.

Jeff Bridges also did an excellent job as Obadiah Stane, transcending the original character with a surprising liveliness as a bold executive with even more ego than greed. I didn't see even a trace of the Dude in Stane, but recognized more than a couple of former employers in his every move. In fact, I think that Bridges outdid every version of Lex Luthor that we've seen on the big screen or small, in terms of credibility. The dialogue was unbelievably witty for a superhero film, and there were more laughout loud moments in the theatre than most recent comedies can claim. However, Terrence Howard seemed too old, too heavy, and way too uptight to pass as James Rhodes.

The film did a good job of melding Iron Man's origin and early days from Tales of Suspense with his triumphant return leading up to Iron Man #200. Groundwork was laid for several more directions in a sequel or two, with nods to SHIELD, Mandarin (the Ten Rings), War Machine and the classic Demon in a Bottle storyline. There were maybe ten or fifteen minutes that could have been tightened up in the middle, but it was inevitable that we would see several scenes of Stark working on the armor upgrades, because Hollywood still assumes a certain amount of handholding is necessary for audiences. (Given the widespread confusion experienced even by comic fans reading Final Crisis #1, it appears that lots of people do need that handholding.)

There were some nice themes developed in this movie. The fanaticism of the guerillas in Afghanistan was balanced out by the corporate greed of American defense contractors like Stane, or even a callous Stark before his rude awakening. The numerous shots of Stark's fancy home and his enjoyment of sports cars made it seem like the most natural thing in the world for a wealthy inventor to wear the equivalent of the ultimate sports car with built-in tech and weapons. At the same time, Stark's growing sense of responsibility for his inventions was developed in convincing manner.

I went into this movie resigned to hearing some blaring classic rock like Black Sabbath's Iron Man, so I was astounded and very happy to hear part of that Suicidal Tendencies song "Institutionalized." It was more indication that this movie was a work of a highly motivated fan like Jon Favreau. Really, this is exactly how to do a superhero movie right... get a big budget, get some stars who can actually act, give them good dialogue and a story to tell, and make damn sure that your director really understands the comics and wants to put them on the screen.

Mr Skeletor wrote:

Jupiter and Barnes, consider yourselves both on warnings.

If I wanted to read ubergeek anal nitpicking I'd go to AICN.

Stop fagging up my boards. It was a movie, not a Michael Moore Doco.

Well said. The entire point of watching a superhero movie is not to sit there with a fucking clipboard and list the plot holes. It's about suspending disbelief and allowing yourself to have fun.

Something that occured to me when I was thinking about the Happening and Iron Man, is that both films rested solely on the charisma of their leading men. This lead me to the conclusion that relying solely on the charisma of your lead actor is not that different from relying solely on CGI effects and explosions. It is a somewhat newer technique, but essentially there is little difference. Obviously, a charismatic lead can save a movie more effectively than all the CGI in the world, but it is still not stunning performances, not great writing, not even a fantastic premise that is making the film, it is a guy you really like being cool, smart, funny or nice and overall likeable on screen, and charisma-ing you out of ten bucks. Both Walburg in the Happening and Downey in Iron Man were not giving us stellar performances, they were being themselves, which just so happen to be extremely likeable.

It's obviously not a bad thing to have a charismatic lead, but one should realize that a movie that has to rely on one component like that is not that different from a movie that relies on CGI. The thing is, I don't think audiences are going to get tired of an extremely likeable leading man carrying a film the way they got bored of over the top CGI; Really I am not complaining about it either, but it is worthwhile to note what you are falling for, even if you allow yourself to fall for it.