Iron Man: Superhero Powered by Super-Shame
The first hour of Jon Favreau's new film is right up there with the best movies of the genre. Too bad the second half sounds like a Ralph Nader lecture on America's responsibility for all the world's wars.
“Peace,” says Tony Stark, the weapons manufacturer hero of Iron Man, “means having a bigger stick than the other guy.” Could it be that we’re in for a superhero action movie that blasts away at the senses with cynically funny escapism and an unapologetic celebration of American swagger? “Ensuring freedom and protecting American interests” are Tony’s stated goals, especially if he can make a lot of money in the process, and what’s more American than that?
So it’s a letdown when the movie spends the second half being very apologetic indeed. You come to Iron Man to see a bullet-proof one-man flying tank, not hear a Ralph Nader lecture on how American industry is responsible for all the wars in the world. Does even Ralph Nader attend a superhero movie hoping to swallow a guilt trip along with his Jujubes?
The movie is minutes old when Tony, in Afghanistan to introduce a powerful new weapon called Jericho meant to clean every Osama lover out of his cave in one giant burst of violence, is captured by Taliban-like insurgents, given a heap of his own weapons that they’ve been using against Americans, and ordered to make them their very own Jericho. They throw in a bit of waterboarding to help persuade him.
But Tony (played by Robert Downey Jr.), an engineering genius who combines elements of Bill Gates, Howard Hughes, and Bruce Wayne, instead assembles, right there in his cave, some bulletproof flamethrowing attack armor. Time to get medieval on these guys, in one ka-booming action set piece that helps make the first hour brilliant, right up there with the best movies of the genre.
But as it turns out, this will be the last entirely guilt-free attack the Iron Man stages. When Tony returns to his spaceship-style bachelor pad in Malibu and his manufacturing plant nearby, he announces to his loyal assistant Pepper Potts (a charmingly deglamorized Gwyneth Paltrow, in freckles and red hair), his military liaison (an Air Force colonel played by Terrence Howard), his second-in-command at the company (a bald, beardy Jeff Bridges), and the world that he’s getting out of the weapons industry. He realizes his products can’t be kept out of evil hands.
Downey, who plays the role exactly as he has played his life, with witty candor and no sense of moderation, is a superb choice for the title role of a guy ruled by his compulsions and seemingly enjoying every lapse. Paltrow matches him step for step (how many other comic book movies can boast that each of its top four roles is played by an Oscar nominee or winner?). Tony and Pepper trade snarky one-liners that tease out a delightful underlying flirtation that seems hard-earned, if a little strange to both. These are two adults who understand each other, not dumbstruck teens.
Iron Man at its best is made of some heavy mettle. The scenes in which Tony hammers away at an anvil in his cave in Afghanistan stir some primordial Norseman juices. And as superhero material, Tony has a lot more to recommend him than Peter Parker. He’s a wisecracking old hand instead of a damp-eyed daydreamer, he’s an expert on both manufacturing bombshells and dating them, and he’s introduced with AC/DC’s “Back in Black” on the soundtrack. He’s a man, not a boy like that mewling, sticky-palmed milk-drinker Spider-Man.
The second half doesn’t exactly ruin the movie — it’s consistent fun, with terrific special effects and never a moment wasted by the writer-actor-director Jon Favreau, who also helmed Elf and with this film joins the ranks of the most sought-after blockbuster directors. But as Iron Man turns inward, using his rocket suit and automatic-firing arms not to crush America’s rather hard-to-miss (except by Hollywood) foreign enemies but to essentially go on a cleanup mission to right the wrongs he has committed in the past, the storyline starts to strain at its own contradictions. The climactic battle, for instance, is not only visually uninspired (two giant machines go at it in a near-reenactment of the vapid kiddie movie Transformers) but it reduces Iron Man. He is forced to meekly ask for help instead of finding a way to triumph, and even then things are resolved disappointingly, with the push of a button.
We don’t want a fantasy movie to be a cliché, but we don’t want it to stray too far from the familiar either, and anyway Iron Man merely substitutes one cliché for another: must we be tricked into sitting through another America-as-root-of-all-evil message? Must this superhero be powered by super-shame?
Iron Man
Directed by Jon Favreau
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges
3 stars/ 4
126 minutes/Rated PG-13
Kyle Smith is a film critic for the the New York Post. His website is at www.kylesmithonline.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
81 Comments
1. Tom W.:Let’s see…
A film whose message is fighting evil makes you just as bad as your enemy, and the U.S. causes all the world’s problems, starring a ravaged drug addict and Gwyneth Paltrow, one of the most brainlessly anti-American actresses around.
Yeah, I’ll pay $10 to see that.
Not.
May 2, 2008 - 12:43 pm 2. Dr. Robotnik:Can I spend $5. and promise to walk out after the first half?
May 2, 2008 - 1:54 pm 3. Kirk:I read the Iron Man comics in my youth. They were my favorite. Tony Stark was a fallible hero I understood : a drunk who lost it all, crawled out of the bottle and earned it back, patriotic and capitalistic. I thought Robert Downey Jr was an excellent choice to play Stark, they have similar career ups and downs. Really, so similar it’s spooky. But … alas Hollywood is more interested in scoring points at their own dinner parties than making a good product. It comes out in everything they do, sometimes in little ways, sometimes in large ones. This just changed from ‘must own’ to rent for me. /sigh Is nothing above political perversion?
May 2, 2008 - 2:25 pm 4. George:Another ‘I wait for it to hit cable’ movies. Admittedly, I’ll probably watch it 20 times, but for free….
May 2, 2008 - 2:47 pm 5. John Moore:I’d be interested in Roger Simon’s comments on the economics of this. As I understand it, 60% of film revenue comes from overseas. Hey, that market largely hates America and loves this stuff – probably significantly as a result of Hollywood selling them negative images about America for decades.
In that case, these anti-American bastards in Hollywood are making money from trashing the country that has been so good to them.
May 2, 2008 - 5:51 pm 6. Bogdan of Australia:Absolutely! Even before reading this review I suspected (or rather I was quite sure) that IRONMAN would be another HOLLYCRAPIAN anti-american garbage, so after having read the review I will certainly NOT waste even a buck to see it. Jonks have aleady passed since I could see anything that would present Chi-Coms, Russo-Coms, and others like Mugabe, Castro, NORKS, Ahmadinejad in their true light. Everyone is good and only the Yanks are bad! What a cretinism! One could ask: why Hollycrap has NEVER made a movie about Soviet Gulags? What about making a huge documentary based on, let’s say, “Black Book Of Communism”? What about sending James Bond to help Darfurians, instead of fighting some fictional BLONDE SCANDINAVIAN financier of terrorism? It is a long time ago that Hollycrap began turning from the factory of dreams into FACTORY OF GARBAGE, LIES, and above all into the factory of TREASON!!
May 2, 2008 - 7:08 pm 7. Promethea:I was planning to see the movie this weekend, but now I’ll pass on it. I don’t want to waste any time or money on movies that don’t know that freedom is worth fighting for.
May 2, 2008 - 7:43 pm 8. Don Surber » Blog Archive » Just ask me:[...] Answer: The box office opened well. Review are eh. Guess it got a little preachy. [...]
May 2, 2008 - 8:41 pm 9. Ciscokid:Bummer about Iron Man going Liberal. Who would’ve thought. Not me. Best talk (Q&A at the end) about Liberal Hollywood can be watched on youtube. Evan Sayet – how modern Liberals think. There’s your “normal” liberal (oxymoron) and your capital L Liberal like in Hollywood. Guess who’s running (L) the blacklist now.
May 3, 2008 - 5:05 am 10. ty:Hey want to get these libs who brainwash our kids with their leftist world view? watch it for free here http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=5992363414721454173&hl=en
May 3, 2008 - 7:06 am 11. ty:oops heres the full movie link
May 3, 2008 - 7:09 am 12. rvastar:http://movie6.net/movie-/?p=596
Get a grip, people. Mr. Smith is sounding like your typical Leftist…finding conspiracies in everything.
I saw the movie yesterday and it’s fantastic! It isn’t anti-American, and it never once portrays the US military in a bad light. O
f course, important issues are overly simplified (weapons manufacturing, “us vs. them”, etc.), but remember: this is 1) a Hollywood movie and 2) it’s based on a comic book! Both guarantee that you’re going to be getting a somewhat naive, “war is bad” tone. But in Iron Man, it’s never laid on too thick…well, maybe except for the villain of the story…but that’s why he’s the villain!
Example: there’s a scene early in the movie where Tony Stark (Downey, Jr.) has built the first Iron Man suit and has just escaped from his holding cell with the help of another captive whom he’s befriended. I won’t give anything away, but there’s a scene where Stark says to his friend “C’mon, let’s go see your family”…it’s incredibly poignant, and the two actors absolutely NAIL the subtly that’s required. And this all happens in the first 30 minutes…it’s a real testament to the writing, directing, and acting that that Iron Man is able to create that kind of character development – where you actually CARE about the characters – that early in the movie.
And the scene where the final Iron Man version 3.0 is first put into action…you’ll want to jump out of your seat and cheer!
Final thoughts: Iron Man has it all – humor, drama, action, romance, everything. I plan on seeing it again as soon as possible.
May 3, 2008 - 8:08 am 13. rvastar:PS: Robert Downey Jr. has officially resurrected his career…as a matter of fact, he’s just become a bigger star than he ever was before his near career suicide.
He’s going to be a leading man in the Cruise-Pitt-Smith vein…and he’s a much better actor than any of them.
And, of course, this quote from a recent NYT interview only raises his esteem in my eyes.
“I have a really interesting political point of view, and it’s not always something I say too loud at dinner tables here, but you can’t go from a $2,000-a-night suite at La Mirage to a penitentiary and really understand it and come out a liberal. You can’t. I wouldn’t wish that experience on anyone else, but it was very, very, very educational for me and has informed my proclivities and politics every since.”
May 3, 2008 - 8:18 am 14. Javelin:Maybe I am old fashioned, but can’t they do better than A list movies based on cartoons, video games or tired old sixties sitcoms? And aren’t people here expecting too much from such childish fare?
May 3, 2008 - 12:57 pm 15. Mitch:I saw it yesterday and I was actually surprised that it wasn’t anti-American. The second half did have the typical Hollywood pacifist/aggressive message wherein the hero preaches peace while kicking ass.
They were very careful not to name or give the nationality of the non-American bad guys.
By the way, get ready for a bunch of comic book movies this summer.
May 3, 2008 - 4:34 pm 16. mk:This review is spot on. For a slightly different twist from a Christian perspective, see mine here:
http://christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2008/ironman2008-150.jpg
May 3, 2008 - 5:49 pm 17. ATM:I had mixed feelings about this movie while watching it. Its an enjoyable movie for the most part. I would say it never is anti-US military or even anti-US government, but it is anti-arms manufacturing and business. The villains in the movie are a US corporate executive (standard Hollywood fare) but also a bunch of foreign terrorists from the ’stans with a distinctly brownish hue to their skin. The preachiness regarding US arms manufacturers is unwarranted, as US arms manufacturers are highly regulated and unable to even attempt the things the the rogue executive was able to do.
May 3, 2008 - 6:14 pm 18. TRO:Oh please, the movie was great. You are being way too fricken critical re: the responsibility of wars deal, and I say that as a veteran, pro-war for peach kind of guy. It potrays the US military is a good light which is a fricken miracle these days.
I think you purposefully found fault where it does not exist just to have an interesting review.
The movie rocks. It is pro-American in every aspect. Sit back and enjoy.
May 3, 2008 - 6:15 pm 19. navytech:Great Movie with active audience reception. This is a Marvel comic, not DC, so some ambiguity and internal battle is going to be there. No doubt though, Iron Man is the *good guy*. And it’s not just his tech, it’s his brain and his heart and his humanity. This move should be a HUGE hit with the Military.
May 3, 2008 - 6:17 pm 20. buzz:this review isn’t even close. I saw it yesterday. Good movie. Not anti US. Not anti military. Agree that the final battle was a slight letdown, but the actors nailed the parts, the military character was treated with respect, the US military was treated with respect. Not sure what movie this guy saw.
May 3, 2008 - 6:25 pm 21. vero:The movie was awesome not much “Peace” in this movie except for the peace given by dealy force. The bad guys was stomped on not by words the Liberals would like us to use like kumbaya or my personal favorite “Give Peace a chance”, but by the will of man who used deadly force, because in the end, that is all the scum was going to understand.
I did not find it anti-American, I found it just the opposite – Wife and I will be seeing it again.
May 3, 2008 - 6:30 pm 22. Roy:This is worse agit prop than the old reviews in the Daily Worker, heck even the Nation, at it’s mid thirties worst wasn’t as doctrinaire as this review.
In fact this is worse than that, this is like saying “Flying Leathernecks” and “They Were Expendable” are defeatist. I bet you hate Dirty Harry movies because they are soft on crime and humanize criminals, do you think that the “Manchurian Candidate” is unnacceptacble because it criticizes HUAC?
The enemy, was righteously blown away without any compunction, the US military were concientious heroic and valued innocent life as a matter of course,
(WARNING SPOILERS)
heck SHIELD was the epitome of righteous super competent bad ass and it was part of the Department of Homeland Security, even I am not that rah rah. So you are whining that the real villain was an American, but really in the movies universe only an American could be a proper rival, and he was a very clear traitor who funded a jihadi organiztion to take over the world and attack the US government. It has Nick Fury already leading SHIELD for pete’s sake.
(END SPOILERS)
and you are complaining the movie isn’t pro american enough, so there is a little concern about weapons going to bad guys, I bet you also hate Casablanca because our loyal ally Louis is corrupt, or how could Rick Blaine, an American, have a loaded roulette wheel, heck it just ain’t clean cut enough for you.
May 3, 2008 - 6:39 pm 23. Hube:Sorry, but this film was NOT anti-American. Smith must not be very aware of Tony Stark’s character. Favreau remained incredibly loyal to the Iron Man mythos, and he had to show Stark’s “transformation” in a couple hours instead of the tens of issues of comics (years) in which it actually happened.
BTW, did you notice that it WAS Obadiah Stane — Jeff Bridges, Stark’s 2nd in command — who was actually responsible for sending Stark Industries’ weaponry to the terrorists? Right under Stark’s nose? And, did Smith miss it when Iron Man jetted back to Afghanistan and wasted all those terrorists without so much a second thought? Stark may have decided to stop making weapons, but he sure as hell ain’t no milksop pacifist.
May 3, 2008 - 6:41 pm 24. MikeT:Unfortunately, there is in fact a lot of truth to the movie’s talk about dealing to both sides. Our own government gives aid to Israel while arming Fatah, a Palestinian faction that routinely carries out terrorist attacks against Israel. It armed the very Islamists in Afghanistan who later went on to become a thorn in our side. It supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, then turned on him.
Our defense industry may not be known for playing both sides, but our government sure as hell does.
May 3, 2008 - 6:43 pm 25. Artbyruth:This review is way off…the movie is great fun!!! Go see it soon. It won’t be the same on the small screen. The story is rather good. I was afraid it might be Liberal since Paltrow was cast in it -with all her “I’m against America jingoism” attitude- but this movie is rather jingoistic so I was surprised she was in it.
Robert Downey Jr. was FANTASTIC and a pleasure to watch. The audience was mostly 20-30 something males and they were laughing out loud and clapping throughout the whole movie.
My hubby and our son loved it too. He is going to go see it again next weekend with all his friends. I was glad they didn’t show a sex scene and that they cut the pole dancing scene before it got raunchy, so 13 yr. olds won’t be sexually scarred for life.
I am glad that Marvel movies are being made now in the 21st century rather than in the 1990’s because the CGI is so much better now.
I guess after the end credits Samuel L. Jackson appears and alludes to the sequel being about the Avenger Project…..sounds good to me!!
May 3, 2008 - 6:46 pm 26. Larry Anderson:Ok, I am about as conservative as they get, and I took the kids to the film last night. I have to say I think it was VERY good. FAR from being a liberal “America is evil” rant, it is about one man taking responsability for his actions, and doing what HAS to be done, even if he has to do it all by himself.
Stark (post life changing injury) is the perfect capitalist.. Still an inventive genius industrialist, but one who CARES about the people around him and in his employ.
Seriously folks.. Maybe we are SO used to the liberal pap from Hollywood, that we look too hard to find something to complain about. The film is a good ride, and WELL above the usual crap Hollywood puts out. I am already looking forward to the next one.
That said, as much as I enjoyed the film, I thought it needed a bit more of a second act. I guess it just left me wanting to see MORE of I.M. in action.
May 3, 2008 - 7:00 pm 27. Robert:Artbyruth sez “I was glad they didn’t show a sex scene and that they cut the pole dancing scene before it got raunchy, so 13 yr. olds won’t be sexually scarred for life.”
So, violence is fine for 13 yr olds but sex isn’t? Sigh…..
ATM sez “US arms manufacturers are highly regulated and unable to even attempt the things the the rogue executive was able to do.”
True. Mostly they just sell it to the chinese and have them pass it on to the terrorists. Provides a nice buffer.
Movie was fine though, and not down on the US.
May 3, 2008 - 8:00 pm 28. Pat:Well this is disappointing to read. I like Robert Downey Jr enough to ignore the fact that Paltrow is in this flick, and I planned to see it…now? I can wait for Netflix.
I’m not even that gung-ho for war…I’m just tired of the finger wagging at my country by the very people getting rich by her opportunities and sleeping safely every night thanks to the moron in the White House and is evil cadre.
May 3, 2008 - 8:37 pm 29. Dave S.:Did we watch the same movie? I don’t think we did. I didn’t see any “blame America first” business. I DID see a man taking responsibility for himself and the actions of those for whom he was responsible. I don’t recall our country encouraging arms manufacturers to sell to both us and our enemies (well, except when we were selling nuke secrets to China). I think you’re reading way too much into this.
May 3, 2008 - 9:21 pm 30. Rollory:This article is complete crap.
Iron Man doesn’t say a damn thing about America’s responsibility one way or another. Stark never goes back on his comments in the first half; indeed, his traitorous assistant points out that he’s ended up creating a weapon far more powerful than any that came before. The weapons were being deliberately placed into hands that they weren’t intended for – they were intended to protect America, they were being used against it and its friends. There isn’t a thing said about whether they should not have been made in the first place; the problem is where they ended up, and why, and who was responsible for that. And since fundamentally it’s a character story, it’s about Stark putting some serious thought into how to make sure that weapons stay with people who can be trusted with them, and how he pursues that goal. He didn’t want to shut down the weapons business because it’s inherently bad; he wanted it shut down because he wasn’t satisfied with the controls on where the output was going. Same as with any quality control system: if you suddenly discover a major problem and you’re not sure where in the production line it might be, you turn it all off and go through everything step by step. Otherwise you’re knowingly allowing the problem to continue.
None of this says anything about the US and whether and how it should defend itself.
Kyle Smith, you self-deluding idiot, shut up plzkthx.
May 3, 2008 - 9:30 pm 31. Kirk:I’m glad I came back and read the new comments. I suppose it’s easy to believe the bad news you already expect. …AND we might be able to avoid the worst crowds now; win/win. /checking theaters
May 3, 2008 - 9:43 pm 32. Bogdan of Australia:Ha, ha, ha! Then I’m going to see it, after all…
May 3, 2008 - 9:48 pm 33. Lou Minatti:It was a cool movie. It wasn’t anti-American. It was definitely anti war profiteer. Kyle, you need to get a grip.
May 3, 2008 - 9:55 pm 34. Kit:I disagree. The U.S. military was depicted as being practically saintly and Tony’s moral compass was an Air Force colonel. Tony only voiced criticism of the U.S. “military-industrial” structure while he was squatting on the floor eating a cheeseburger, decompressing from being tortured. I think it made the case quite cleanly – kick your enemy’s ass or he’ll kick yours.
May 3, 2008 - 10:26 pm 35. PS:I saw it, and loved it. The bad guy was selling cool US weapons to very bad guys. And when Downey/Iron Man found out and went back to an Afhani village he kicked serious butt against the bad guys – (spoiler>>) and when he dragged the VERY bad guy out into the middle of the now-freed Afghans and said basically “here he is – do what you want” and flew off – very nice in a Jack-Bauerish way.
The script itself is terrific – Downey provides a constant stream of funny, snide, sarcastic and witty comments, and is perfectly cast. Paltrow is gal enough to match him, Jeff Bridges is a terrific bad guy, and the US military is shown as honorable.
The super-showdown at the end isn’t as spectacular as one might expect, but it was personal – these two guys had history.
See it.
May 3, 2008 - 10:36 pm 36. strcpy:I am also one who disagrees with this review.
There was *never* a moment where the US was shown as a bad guy – in fact Stark’s whole problem was that he felt responsible for the terrorist killing them using his weapons.
The terrorist were bad guys and the non-terrorist bad guys were, well, bad guys. The good guys were good and they were the US military and Tony Stark. It wasn’t the US govt supplying the weapons, it was the second in command of the company. There was VERY little moral ambiguity there.
The message I took was thus: terrorist are bad evil people. The US military is a bunch of good people, Finally war is bad but sometimes you have to kill the terrorist and when you do so – kill them. That seems about right to me.
I recall the scene after Stark’s transformation where the terrorists are attacking a village using his weapons and had killed many of them. He flies in, kills off most of the terrorist and drags the one leading them out of a building. He throws him on the ground (unarmed) and tells the villagers “He’s all yours” and then flies off – the villagers are slowly surrounding the guy. That most definitely was not “liberal anti-war moral ambiguity” in any way shape and form – those villagers were shown as the “good guys”. No tribunal, no talking, no showing them as “freedom fighters” – the terrorists got what they deserved.
In fact, you will note that the *bad guy* is looking to both make a profit by selling weapons to the enemy and making sure that they have a “balance of power” wherein Tony Stark firmly believes the the US should have that power. His whole problem was the supplying of the terrorists and his weapons killing US soldiers. Plus, though it was never explicitly stated one should note that he asked his military friend to work with him and ended up being part of a US para-military group (SHIELD).
The closest it came to the typical liberal crap was wondering what his father felt over helping to create the atomic bomb. They never really answered one way or another and left it alone.
Be careful that you don’t expect an anti-war message so strongly that only see what you expect too. I too rolled my eyes by the whole “we will quit making weapons” but that was quickly squashed. The movie was, on balance, pro-us and pro-fighting terrorists (though it was based in Afghanistan – no mention of Iraq that I noticed).
May 3, 2008 - 11:13 pm 37. Johnc:You guys got this all wrong. Stark was mad that his weapons were being turned against civilians and US troops. He reacted by making a better weapon and killing the bad guys–handing one guy over to the civilians for them to torture/kill as they wished. These are not the actions of a peace nick. If you listen carefully to what he actually says, he never says he’s going to stop producing weapons, just that he’s suspending production until he can fix the problems of them killing the wrong people. Basically he was trying purge his company of the corruption that later becomes part of the plot.
May 4, 2008 - 2:38 am 38. ern:The end fight had to put Iron Man in jeopardy (just as all superheros must almost die at some point) as well as bind Pepper to his cause. This was why she had to save his life. Blowing up the reactor was contrived and the weakest point of the movie, but I didn’t read anything more into it. I went in bracing for a liberal message and I was quite relieved to not find one. If anything this movie should be commended for holding the US military in high regard. The US soldiers come off looking both human and professional. There are plenty of movies where this isn’t the case. As conservatives we need to pick our battles better.
I disagree, but agree with Johnc above. Actually, I think the movie (and the character of Tony Stark) is an excellent example of the American Conservative. He’s not coming back as a peacenik, as some reviews have said. While he’s trying to figure out how to keep his weapons from getting into the wrong hands, he’s going to diversify his company. But he never disavows his weapons. And as Johnc notes, he creates a better weapon. He doesn’t trust anyone else to do the work, so he does it himself.
In my mind, the best scene was when Stark is watching the news report of the town in Afghanistan being taken over by terrorists. He gets pissed off. Not just because his weapons are being used, but because of a profound sense of injustice. And then he goes and f’s up the badguys. And I can imagine that many American conservatives (and pro-war libertarians) could identify with that desire. And when Stark takes out the terrorists in the town the whole audience in my theater cheered. Badguys dead. I didn’t see anything in the movie that blamed the US for war.
Yes, the ending was a little weak, but I’ve yet to see any superhero movie endings where there wasn’t something contrived to bring it all to an end. This movie shows the military trying to do it’s job the best it can, it shows that kicking badguy ass is sometimes not only necessary but noble, and it celebrates the ingenuity and bravery of a single man who (despite his obvious flaws) really does believe in justice. I thought it was by far the most conservative superhero movie Hollywood has created in a very long time.
May 4, 2008 - 4:32 am 39. Michael:I didn’t see it as anti-American at all. Obadiah Stane’s greed was the main source of evil in the film, not the military industrial complex. He clearly showed that when he dispatched the terrorist leader and his followers just to make sure Tony could never find out the truth of what happened. Having been a regular reader of Iron Man in the ’80s and a semiregular reader since, the tone of the film was much more positive than a whole lot of the comics and it didn’t detract at all from my enjoyment.
May 4, 2008 - 4:34 am 40. Greyhawk:I went to the movie (on Friday night) expecting to see a bit of anti-American moralizing – per a dew reviews I’d read previously. I was hoping it would be minimal. I was surprised (as the author of this review might be if he ever actually sees it) to find it was non-existent.
Enthusiastic thumbs up from me, the wife, two daughters (17 and 20) one boyfriend (20) and one son (22). Go see Iron Man.
May 4, 2008 - 5:13 am 41. Barry:I don’t think you saw the same Iron Man I did.
Stark is angered when he discovers weapons from Stark Industries have fallen into enemy hands, courtesy Obadiah Stane.
This a good movie; no moonbat politics seen.
May 4, 2008 - 7:09 am 42. Adam:First off, I’ll note that there’s essentially no Hollywood here, Iron Man was Marvel’s first in-house project.
Scond, I’ll note that the issues raised by Stark in the movie have been a standard part of the character since the late 50’s. Stark’s been ambivalent about building weapons since the inception of the modern version of the character, for the same reasons, their unfortunate propensity to end up in the wrong hands.
Third I’ll note that what Stark was having issues with was that somebody (Not the US Government) was busy selling his weapons to the bad guys who were using them to kill US Soldiers. He tried to shut down his weapons division very specifically UNTIL he could guarantee that this wouldn’t happen again. Stane of course was the bad guy, who was trying to guarantee a market by ensuring the terrorists (Who were actually working for long-time Iron Man baddy Mandarin, not an Al Qaeda clone, 10 rings refers to Mandarin’s rings) wouldn’t be getting their hands on more weapons.
The US Government and US Military were consistently portrayed as the good guys. Tony was ambivalent, Stane and the 10 Rings thugs were the bad guys. SHIELD also were good guys. No lefty politics there.
May 4, 2008 - 7:27 am 43. IJW:Just to pile on, I agree with the folks that disagree with the reviewer.
May 4, 2008 - 8:21 am 44. JR:That was a pretty stupid review. Note to self: anything else this guy says about ANYTHING is to be graded no better than C2 until verified.
May 4, 2008 - 9:13 am 45. Andrew:I agree with Adam. I don’t think this movie goes the Lord of War route and argue that America is the root of all evil. In Iron Man its made very clear that Stark Industries is selling to both sides and Stark only wants to shut down his weapons division because he believes its getting US forces killed. I don’t think it says weapons manufacturing is inherently bad, it’s only bad when it gets our guys killed. Lord of War is different, in that it suggests Lockheed, Smith and Wesson, COlt etc. are amoral and that American enterprise profits from the small wars across the undeveloped war.
May 4, 2008 - 9:30 am 46. MEC2:IronMan is without a doubt the best comic->screen translation yet. Better than Batman Begins, Superman/Superman Returns, and Spiderman. Downey OWNS this character, much as Johnny Depp owned Captain Jack Sparrow, the last time an actor completely enveloped a character.
I always am on the lookout for simplistic Hollywood leftist agitprop in films – say, for instance, Shooter. But this doesn’t really have it. They tread the line well, and never made the US the bad guys – hell, SHIELD is part of Homeland Security for crying out loud! The military are all good guys, heck, they even had a scene where Ironman saves the day and the US guys remark that they couldn’t get “clearance to go in” and help – again, the US always as the good actor.
The whole milindustry complex thing is always a convenient foil, but, that was kind of in the comics, so…
Highly recommend this amazingly energetic, rousing, fun, and dare I say patriotic flick… great ending too, I know it got a “hell yeah!” from me.
May 4, 2008 - 9:32 am 47. macbee:I read (and still own) Marvel comics from the 60’s and 70’s and have voted (R) in every presidential election since 1984. Saw “Iron Man” last night with wife and son and all three of us absolutely loved it. The NR reviewer criticism of the movie’s politics is far off the mark. Marvel now has control of the titles and if the reviewer thinks that Stan Lee (who makes a cameo in this movie as “Heff”) would allow anything very anti-American in a movie from Marvel Studios, they clearly know nothing about him. Have a look at the reviews compiled at Rotten Tomatoes: the very few negative review find fault in the movie’s positive portrayal of the military! My son is a musician and aspiring filmmaker and his comment was that brain-dead, hyper-political reviews like that make him “want to go out and beat up a hippie”.
Go See “Iron Man”!
May 4, 2008 - 9:34 am 48. uburoi:I’m in on the pile-on as well. It was a very fine film, not anti-American at all. See it for yourself, the bad guys in the US are selling US weapons to Jihadi scum (a hanging offense in my book), basically arms dealers who have lost their patriotic basis of judgement.
May 4, 2008 - 9:43 am 49. John:This review is retarded. And I’m way more hard-assed about this stuff than the reviewer. The movie is great. It is also a COMIC BOOK. The actors are excellent (including Paltrow, who I usually don’t like), the script is well paced, and the whole thing is remarkable for it’s lack of sanctimonious leftoid whining. Pajamas Media really missed the mark on this one, sadly behaving like the rest of the MSM by seeing what they wished was there. Dude, I thought you guys were about change…
May 4, 2008 - 11:04 am 50. william bob:During the 80’s, the North Koreans used to air newsreels of the South Korean police beating up demonstrators in Seoul. They stopped doing it because the audience was looking beyond the demonstration to note the cars and new buildings and well clothed, well fed demonstrators. Things in South Korea were visibly not as bad as their leaders said. I think Hollywood is reliably unsympathetic in its depiction of the CIA, the military, and large corporations. I am not sure, however, if that is what sticks in the mind of the audience. The heroes of these movies come from pleasant, nurturing communities and this background gives them the self-confidence to take on the most powerful and sacred institutions of their society. I am sure that there are many overseas who draw a lesson from these movies that neither Hollywood nor the leaders of their country would expect.
May 4, 2008 - 11:19 am 51. Kevin:Just walked out of the theater and totally agree with the above commenters — the movie is surprisingly NOT anti-American; the only object of criticism is, well, bad seeds at a weapons maker who’d choose to sell weapons under the table to terrorists.
Both the military and the civilian homeland defense folks are handled with complete respect and sensitivity. Seems to me the movie was about as devoid politics as could possibly be done.
And the Jim Cramer “Mad Money” bit was a hoot.
May 4, 2008 - 3:48 pm 52. GW Crawford:Javelin said: Maybe I am old fashioned, but can’t they do better than A list movies based on cartoons, video games or tired old sixties sitcoms? And aren’t people here expecting too much from such childish fare?
Well, sorry Mr. Obama. Some of us like exciting movies and not just movies about gay cowboys and pudding!
You and your ideological guru, Mr. Werthram, can go to hell!
Comics are just as legit entertaiment as any depressing and boring drama about family issues
May 4, 2008 - 5:02 pm 53. Alienminds » Iron Man:[...] I didn’t have to wait long. [...]
May 4, 2008 - 5:20 pm 54. Henway:I saw Iron Man last night, and was also going to disagree with the reviewer, but others have done so ably. I’m sensitive to the anti-capitalist/anti-technology/anti-American themes, but this movie didn’t trip my triggers that way. I thought it showed conflicting sides of tough situations, and the commenters here bolster my take. I didn’t think I could be that numb. Fun time!
May 4, 2008 - 6:02 pm 55. tyree:“Must this superhero be powered by super-shame?”
For as long as a Republican is in the White House, Hollywood will answer with a resounding “YES”.
After the Democrats win, America will become a swell place again, although the bad guys will still be Americans. Hollywood will never change that.
May 4, 2008 - 6:07 pm 56. Tony Stark moves left « Internet Scofflaw:[...] Stark moves left I had been excited to see Iron Man. Now I think I’ll wait for video. Interestingly, none of the trailers let on that this is a blame-America [...]
May 4, 2008 - 6:21 pm 57. Brian G.:The waterboarding didn’t work, just as liberals have been telling us all along for years. Yet, every leftists review of the movie I have seen has been sure to mention it and ascribe some moral equivalence to it.
I saw the movie Friday and thought it was terrific. I just ignored the preachy nonsense and enjoyed the action.
May 4, 2008 - 7:57 pm 58. Bugs:Have to join the dissenters here. Saw the movie but didn’t detect Hollywood’s usual conspiracy-theory premises. The source of the movie’s larger conflict is the inability of corporations or governments to foresee who will eventually get hold of advanced weaponry – surely a realistic issue in today’s world. Surprisingly, the military and the shadowy government agency are among this movie’s good guys. Evil is attributed to greedy, ambitious, cynical persons. If there’s a moral point, it’s that individuals are responsible for the consequences of their actions. I didn’t feel the movie was preaching at any time. It also didn’t seem to take itself too seriously. Overall, it was quite enjoyable. No need to leave halfway through.
May 4, 2008 - 8:15 pm 59. Susan:My family went to it last night and we loved it. It wasn’t anti-American at all. It was anti sell arms that are to protect our troops to the enemy under the table and anti sell-out your friends. My 13-year-old son was Horrified when it became clear who was responsible for the Stark Industries weapons being sold to the bad guys. I also think that Ms. Paltrow was very sweet and likable and she is certainly not my favorite.
May 4, 2008 - 8:49 pm 60. Craig:I also have to join the dissenters. Many of you are reading WAY too much into this. They weren’t trying to lecture anyone about America’s evils … they were just trying to establish a friggin’ plot. They needed the bad guy to be someone capable enough to have an Iron Man suit. Do you think a Religious Fanatic is going to be smart enough to figure out how to design and use one of those things? Of course not. The bad guy had to be American in order to be strong enough to pose a threat.
So if the bad guy has to be American, and he has to pose a threat, how do we make him EVIL? Oh, I know, we make him help the terrorists!
This movie made me proud. The soldiers were honorable. The (normally) liberal actors played their parts well. They didn’t preach, they acted. A couple actors I normally don’t like gave great performances. It had F-22’s (beautiful machines). And terrorists got punched into stone walls.
How someone that agrees with my politics could interpret a liberal conspiracy in this movie is beyond me. I hope we haven’t all started wearing tin foil hats as well!
May 4, 2008 - 8:51 pm 61. Kevin Kirkpatrick:I don’t think Kyle watched the same movie I watched! I saw Iron Man at a private screening last week. (My wife works for Royal Purple Oil..the company threw some money into the production) Iron Man fought a villian…not Unce Sam. The Military was displayed honorably in the movie. He went “over there” And cave dweller ass! He beat down the bad guys….he didn’t beat down the United States of America.
May 4, 2008 - 9:27 pm 62. Surabol:Never listen to a film critic or politicians….they pander to the hand that feeds them.
Someone wondered why it’s ok for young people to view violence but not sex.
It’s an interesting question. I believe there is a difference, although I wouldn’t recommend movies with either element to preteens. Hollywood is guilty of producing pointless gore porn films (like the ‘Saw’ series) but most Jr. High kids and even 6th graders should be able to perceive violence in the fantasy / action context. They’ve been exposed to power ranger type shows and PG-13 variety of violence for a while now.
But honestly, I can’t even imagine grownups taking kids to watch flims like “eyes wide open” (stanely Kubrick’s flim, I’m unsure about the title) or “Showgirls”. They depict ADULT situations featuring graphic sexual images. And the plot is understandly dirty and immoral in some parts. I don’t think they’re ready for it yet. Even just raunchy teen comedies aren’t suitable for younger kids. They sometimes pick up mannerisms and trends from stupid flims that glorify easy relationships and sexual fantasies. They’re unlikely to start shooting someone after a violent film, but IMO sexual content from films have a more pervasive, corrutping effect on young minds.
Unless they’re unbearble control freaks, most parents probably don’t mind their 14,15 year old watching glorified bloodbath like ‘300′. But if they’re sneaking peeks at adult website or porn magazines they need a serious conversation with their parents. They’re not ready for it yet, not to mention the consequences.
May 4, 2008 - 9:51 pm 63. Andrew Ian Dodge:Well the movie has upset movie snobs which is always good to see.
I would love to see a breakdown of this opening as compared to all the anti-American rubbish being released of late by Hollywood.
May 5, 2008 - 3:52 am 64. bandit:It was awesome – he went after the weapons that were sold to terrorists -ane then he smoked all of them – it was a little slow at the beginning but when he goes back to kill the terrorists it was awesome – then he leaves the terrorist to let the Afghan civilians rip him to pieces. I can’t understand what you’re thinking – did you not understand the movie?
May 5, 2008 - 5:58 am 65. JBB:Thanks guys, I almost didn’t go see this movie after this review. Now I think I’ll see it this weekend.
May 5, 2008 - 7:01 am 66. Steve:Wow. Never in my life thought I’d ever use the phrase “knee jerk conservative” but here it is. Fortunately the readers appear to be a bit more rational.
The “message” as noted before by others is that Tony Stark is upset that his weapons are being sold to terrorists to be used -against- US soldiers.
It has nothing to do with being anti-military and everything to do with traitors who would sell weapons to the enemy, and Stark didn’t want to make any more weapons because he couldn’t guarantee that would be in the right hands.
I’m as tired as anyone of leftist propaganda in film, but this doesn’t have it, so take the goggles off and go see it again.
May 5, 2008 - 7:27 am 67. Anti-American Man?:[...] of the contemporary American right that Iron Man—Iron Man fer chrissakes—can be cast as a piece of anti-American leftie propaganda. For those unfamiliar with the plot—which nobody should be, because the movie is awesome and [...]
May 5, 2008 - 8:33 am 68. some dude:My friend didn’t believe me when I told them there were McCain-supporter-types out there who would read this movie as anti-American because Stark no longer wanted to produce super-sophistocated weapons of war.
Thanks for settling the bet.
May 5, 2008 - 10:00 am 69. Sheep:Excellent movie for its type. One that I’ll buy when its out on BlueRay.
I have no idea where the the reviewer got his opinion but some people will imagine things they want to see in anything.
May 5, 2008 - 11:38 am 70. Ben:I somewhat agree with this opinion on the movie, but it didn’t really ruin it for me. When he came back and said, “we’re out of the weapons business”, I cringed.
May 5, 2008 - 11:59 am 71. Christian:However, I thought the story was told very well, and he obviously didn’t want to have the weapons he had created destroying those they were meant to protect (I believe that’s an actual line out of the movie). It turns out that his company is committing some egregious acts by supplying weapons to “Taliban” type fighters in Afghanistan, and considering Jeff Bridges was attacking Tony from within the company, then it’s obvious Tony needed to get his company under control. In Tony’s defense, it would be traumatizing to have American soldiers blown up in front of you by weapons you had created.
I really didn’t see any anti-american propaganda, or anything like that. I thought it was a very well done comic book movie, that really highlighted the characters. Downey Jr. was the perfect Tony Stark. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, as did my wife.
I completely agree with everyone who has disagreed with the reviewer. It would be my though that he is just to sensitive and should give him reviewing a break because he sucks at it. Apart from that, saw the movie on Saturday and loved it. I’ve got to go see it again soon.
May 5, 2008 - 1:04 pm 72. Steel Man:I loved the movie but I also felt that those lacking the basic intelligence would interpret America is the bad guy. It wasn’t America that was bad per say but rather good old greedy corporate America that were the bad guys. Every bit as bad as the terrorists Stark Corp was supplying with weapons. Of course any one with half a brain knows that there is no way that any American weapons company is going to sell anything to any one without approval from the US government.
May 5, 2008 - 2:08 pm 73. J. Jonah Jameson:Um, to add to the pile-on, there was NO WATERBOARDING in the movie. No one seems to know that dunking someone’s head is not waterboarding. So, no anti-Americanism, no torture not working, it’s remarkable this film got made.
May 5, 2008 - 7:34 pm 74. grit:It was really pro-American and pro-war and just pro-everything that is so important in a movie. I wish a few more terrorists had been blown up and it could have been a little more graphic but otherwise phenomenal, truly phenomenal.
May 5, 2008 - 8:57 pm 75. patrick:Iron Man was practically flawless as a super hero flick; it drops pretty obvious hints that would indicate a sequel as well… i’m thinking the next one should be equally great
May 6, 2008 - 7:50 pm 76. Chris R.:The review was disappointing but the many positive comments have nearly convinced me to actually go see the movie. I haven’t been to a movie theater in years. I grew tired of the blockbuster disappointments, and all the anti-American messages coming from Hollywood. I’ve found that playing in my own movies is far better than going to a theater. Why would I watch a film blaming America for everything, when I could be wiping out terrorists and commies in a fully HD video game?
Thanks for the positive comments, everyone. I’m always up for a good butt-kicking movie, or as my wife calls my favorite movies – the “Americans Save the Day” genre.
May 7, 2008 - 6:28 am 77. Janepoland:Hello people,
I just found this blog and wanth to share it with you:
http://iron-man-info.blogspot.com
here you can find: Trailers, Wallpapers, Images of Iron man, and watch movie online for free.
Enjoy!
Cheers
Jane.
May 9, 2008 - 11:44 am 78. soulhunter:Ok I don’t care what you uptight butt holes think I loved this movie. Oh and guess what nobody cares if you see this movie or not it still earned well above the cost of the movie. Oh and guess what I work at a theater and this movie still sells out even after two weeks. So guess what you guys can eat it.
May 14, 2008 - 9:12 pm 79. Alternate Media Making Headway | The Anchoress:[...] analysis, book reviews, world politics, advice columns, internet stuff, showbiz/political stuff, film reviews, and even [...]
May 15, 2008 - 5:48 am 80. What is "IRON MAN's" Message About America? - Page 5 - Debate Politics Forums:[...] another America-as-root-of-all-evil message? Must this superhero be powered by super-shame? Pajamas Media Iron Man: Superhero Powered by Super-Shame What would either of you say to this portion of a review of the film from Pajamasmedia? [...]
May 17, 2008 - 2:19 pm 81. Aakash:mk: Your link, to your review at the great Christian Answers Network website, goes to an image. The link to your review’s web page is:
http://christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2008/ironman2008.html
I might be seeing the movie tonight… I haven’t read any review of it yet, though.
Thank you!!
Jul 28, 2008 - 6:07 pm