Movies We Like: ‘Iron Man’ (2008)
by John P. HanlonIn light of the recently released “Iron Man” sequel, I recently re-watched the first “Iron Man” movie starring Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges and Gwyneth Paltrow. Although many superhero movies are goofy and clichéd, “Iron Man” stands out as a solid example of what a smart superhero film looks like.
If you have not seen it, “Iron Man” tells the story of Tony Stark, a man largely known because his company is a massively successful weapons manufacturer. Stark is a talented builder, a charismatic leader and an egotistical playboy, and he is brought to life by the talented Robert Downey Jr. He is an icon to many (including members of the military who use his weapons) but loathed by others who detest his success at building and selling weapons.
In the beginning of the film, Stark is taken hostage by a group of terrorists in Afghanistan and is forced to build a weapon for them. Instead he decides to build a metal suit built with weapons inside of it in order to break out of the cave where he’s imprisoned. He makes his escape and when he returns to the United States, he starts to build a better, stronger “Iron Man” suit. The movie chronicles him building the protective suit and using it to fight against thea man who has betrayed him.
One of the strongest aspects of the film is Tony Stark himself. Stark is not a typical superhero for the big screen. He is a rich, egocentric businessman who helps manufacture weaponry used by the military. He is a playboy — smooth and eccentric and willing to take risks. If the character was less fully realized, it would definitely be easy to dislike Stark but in “Iron Man,” it is difficult to.
As with some other strong superhero movies (such as “Batman Begins”), “Iron Man” focuses on how Tony Stark became “Iron Man.” The training and suit testing scenes are well-done and highly entertaining. From the scenes when Stark starts building a suit to escape imprisonment to the scenes where Stark is trying to get his suit to lift off without causing his home to burn down, this movie seeks to capture how Tony Stark, the weapons builder, became “Iron Man,” the superhero embodiment of a man who understands the power and necessity of modern weaponry.
In terms of a political angle, the movie definitely understands how weapons and modern technology can serve people. At times, Tony Stark does seem to become more of a pacifist but he realizes that weapons can be used for good if they are handled correctly and placed in the hands of individuals who are responsible. Ultimately, the movie celebrates rather than criticizes a man who uses machines and weaponry to fight bad guys with few qualms about it.
Lastly, the ending of the movie is definitely also one of its best parts. For those who have not seen it (and I would recommend you do), I won’t ruin the ending. However, I will note that most superhero movies follow a certain pattern about the identity of the superhero. The people who made this film recognized the typical superhero identity road to take and completely ignored it choosing to go their own way.
Although “Iron Man” is not as great as some other superhero movies (“The Dark Knight” and “Superman II” come to mind as superior films), it is very good and lays a solid foundation for the story of Tony Stark. Unfortunately, although “Iron Man 2″ was a solid film, it was not as good as the original.
Let’s hope that future ”Iron Man” films live up to the full potential of the original.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
117 Comments
I think if they cast anyone else as Tony Stark it would've flopped. As good as the story and direction were in the original Ironman, RDJ breathes nuclear energy into the character. He made the movie. I've heard that the sequel isn't as good as the original, but I'm going to see it anyway, it looks like a fun ride.
You had me up to Superman 2. For my money Spiderman 2 is in a class all by itself.
I didn't like the Tony Stark character at first, but he grew on me. His hubris is a vehicle to a lot of the plot action (i.e. it gets him into a lot of trouble that he has to suffer to get out of) and he realizes he has a problem with it. Isn't that much like real life? I changed my mind about him and decided that this is exactly why this is a better super hero movie than some. The character is a basically good guy whose character is seriously flawed and because of this he has to slowly and painfully struggle with the power he has in Iron Man. He has to mature through suffering. It strikes a chord. I think I liked the second movie just as well as …maybe even better than… the first.
Tony Stark is Marvel's take on the 'good guy conservative'. He was designed by Stan Lee to be the opposite of the 1960's hippie movement (whereas the Marvel mutant contingent embraces it). He's not well liked by many of his more liberal fellow superheroes, especially now Captain America (remember the slam against the tea parties in Cap's book just recently).
Be on the lookout next year, though, for the DC equivalent of Tony Stark/Iron Man – Green Lantern Hal Jordan. A cocky test pilot, conservative, and once again gets along poorly with other more liberal superheroes (especially his opposite number politically in Green Arrow Oliver Queen).
Speaking of Superman II, I'd love if Big Hollywood did more retrospectives of older films. I enjoy the "Movies We Love" articles (though there aren't as many as there should be) and Leo Grin's Saturday pieces…
…but on the old Libertas blog, Mr. Nolte did a five-part series on the Death Wish films. We need more pieces like that. I would love a 4-part series on the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, from the classic Donner film to the POS fourth film.
Superman 2 a superior film ??? You've got to be kidding. Dark Knight I can see, don't agree but accept there's an argument to be made… but the Reeves Superman movies were about as campy and crappy as superhero movies get.
…but he realizes that weapons can be used for good if they are handled correctly and placed in the hands of individuals who are responsible.
Wow, so guns aren't evil? Assault Weapons aren't made to shoot up schools?
These concepts are inconceivable to most people in Hollywood and the political left.
Surely, the world would be all puppies and rainbows if we just got rid of all those evil weapons…right?
Can someone fix the FUNDRIASER typo in the marquee?
Looks sloppy.
Exactly!! It's those darned inanimate objects that make people evil!! Haven't you heard about all those guns getting up and walking themselves to schools to shoot the place up??
Iron Man is a perfect movie and Iron Man 2 continues down the right path. I hope they make many more and don't let studio politics destroy it like Spiderman 3.
Furthermore, one of the central concepts of the character is the relationship of the man and his technology — the one (in this case literally) cannot be without the other. In this day and age when neo-Luddites seem willing to skip the Dark Ages and consign us directly to a new Stone Age, that's a message worth driving home.
If the world was all puppies and rainbows, I am sure the Progressive/Socialist would be saying that all the Puppies have to be regulated by the government so no one gets rabies and rainbows are contributing to global warming. LMAO!!!
The first Superman film is still enjoyable, still thrilling, and for my money still ranks with the gold we've had in the past ten years of superhero films.
I think the ultimate Hollywood bait and switch is being set up here. Just think about it.. eventually Hollywood will get to the Marvel Civil War story line. They will have built their 'good guy' Captain America character up as representing America and its values and it won't take much to turn Ironman into the evil capitalist / villain. If they haven't thought of it i am sure they will.
Iron Man 2 is not as good as Iron Man, plain and simple.
You have to understand the context of that however.
Iron Man is a 9 out of 10.
Iron Man 2 is a 7 out of 10.
It is not a great movie, but it is a good movie, and should not be missed just because it is a sequel to a great movie.
'Iron Man' was given a second look last night here as well…
Nice Blu Ray transfer- although it also showed the film's cinematic weakness- and the opinion, good friends, is that the film is OK- maybe a little better than we first thought. But not a whole bunch. First, what's good about it:
Downey is inspired casting. By putting a real actor in the role you had to ramp up the cast. Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth
Paltrow, Terrence Howard- all fine. The narrative is strong- but, like the first Chris Nolan 'Batman' a LOT of time is spent on exposition. Interesting and well done- but overlong. The CGI stuff is done with a bit more taste and reticence (a GOOD thing) by Favreau, whose direction is far better in the small stuff than it is when the film gets big. Better than the third reels of all the 'Spidermans'.
Even if that is the ultimate plan and even if they eventually make it there, Iron Man and Iron Man 2 are capable of standing on their own and the eventual sucker punches don't besmirch the fact that they are both patriotic about America and staunch in their support of individual liberties.
But in Civil War, didn't Stark side with the government while Captain America sided with the people? It doesn't seem possible that they could make Iron Man side with the government after Iron Man 2, it just doesn't seem like it would work. However, I guess that very well be why it turns into such a big sucker punch.
[...] this link: Movies We Like: ‘Iron Man’ (2008) This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
This is nuts. None of the Superman, Batman or Spider-Man flicks compare to Iron Man. It has humor, which makes it infinitely more entertaining than Batman and Superman. In fact, I hate the reboots of Batman & Superman franchises. I can tolerate Spidey because of its humor.
Dark Knight would have been interesting to me had they filmed it totally from Joker's perspective. Heath Ledger's Joker was infinitely better than any other character in the newly rebooted franchise.
And, yes. Infinitely is my word of the day.
Actually Hal Jordan and Oliver Queen are best friends. They did a years long series on it. The whole point being that some things, the more heroic things, should supercede politics as a whole.
These days a 7 out of 10, IS a great movie…LOL
I think the hubris is in a way what makes him work as a hero. In some ways it takes that kind of arrogance to realistically think you are best suited to make that kind of moral judgement. In that sense if he didn't have it I'm not sure I would buy the charecter transformation.
The current talk i've heard is that iron man 3 is really avengers the movie. But i dont know how true that is.
If they thought of it I think it was rejected. Or they would have started captain america in a more recent timeline instead of making it a period movie. As it stands to get all the way to civil war thered just be too many movies to produce. The audience would get tired of the whole long beforehand.
Heh. I was going to include a snarky comment about how that compares to the current slew of drek Hollywood is excreting on us, but I figured it could go unsaid.
But yes, that should be considered as well. It may not be truly great, but compared to 99 other films that you can pass on without a second thought, it is more than worth watching.
(contd.)
But it's weaknesses? Well, the cinematography is wildly uneven. Sometimes the film looks great- sometimes not so. The action scenes are a little more coherent than either Raimi's- or Chris Nolan's, but still drag on a little long. The CGI is also used with a slightly more deft hand here as well, our eyes wern't glazed over by the third reel- which is the case in the Batman and Spiderman films. Too much overly kinetic, and confusing action sequences. As Howard Hawks famously said, action should be quick, to the point, realistic (as possible)
and then over…
Favreau is laughably bad in his extended cameo as Stark's security chief. Bridges, a fine actor, relished playing an evil capitalist. Maybe a bit too much- but a small quibble. The film's politics? Not conservative, but not knee jerk liberal, either. It has a left of center POV. But the military, who's cooperation was complete, was portrayed well and it did have a high oohrah! factor. A little USAF intensive, perhaps- but still cool.
superman was an absolute horrible reboot but batman really? Christian Bale is the first batman they've ever had who could not only act but actually looked like he could play an action role. Not to mention how much of a drastic improvement it was from the previous series of movies.
(contd.)
The verdict? A good, not great film. A little more even than "The Dark Knight', which was hurt by the hyperkinetic third reel (how many SWAT guys can Batman beat up? Hundreds? Please…) but without the operatic high points (Ledger was incredible, without a doubt).
It does, however have us looking forward to the sequel- which isn't always the case. Will weigh in on THAT next week…
As for Captain America, I hope they don't screw it up by metrosexualizing and/or liberalizing him.
I like that it will be WWII based as well.
Agreed.
I liked Keaton as Batman. Bale is good too. Maybe it is the stories. They're just not very imaginative and the actor's performances do nothing for me. What can I say?
The Dark Knight's a good movie, but it fails as a "superhero" movie because it completely botches the motivations of most of the characters. Bruce Wayne's suddenly ready to sell out his mission for one girl and let someone else take over the work? I think the polar opposite is the reason that Bruce has a laundry list of past loves over the years. Two-Face becomes a villain because the Joker says, "Now that you're a freak, go make chaos"? Harvey Dent always had a dueling nature.
Nolan hit far more than he missed in his series thus far, but his misses have been big. If Favreau's missed anything so far, he's at least fouled them off. With Iron Man 2, he did a commendable job bringing together so many plot elements he was given to establish future movies to tell his own story. People should focus on how well the sequel does that rather than lament that it's not on par with the original.
fair enough. Personally I think they glossed over Batmans training (being a larger component with his charecter than of any other superhero) waaay quicker than they should have. For my money they could have made a quality film on that period of his life alone and not even bothered to put him in a costume until the end sequence.
As far as the second film goes. Incredible – but I can see how someone from a conservative sight might not like it since at times the hero's morality seemed a little relative (more of a liberal thing I admit) – and yes I could call that off putting even though I am left-center – mainly due to the fact that Batman is suppose to be the LAST person to ever compramise ethically.
I would have to agree that it is not as good as the original. But it has its moments. Gary Shandling makes a perfect weasel senator.
But I could see that they set themselves up for #3.
Caps comic history brings him from WWII up to the present day in short order. With all this leading up to the Avengers movie it will all be sorted out for the movie watchers unfamiliar with the comic books.
Actually as a conservative I found the story in Dark Knight to be more conservative than liberal. Having the will to fight the real enemy as opposed to perceived ones. It's a microcosm of the war on terror. Do we give in to terrorists or do we fight?
Batman's morality was never relative. He did things that needed to be done while never breaking his one rule.
I have to disagree with your political take on TDK, but I do agree about your assessment regarding the first movie. More insight into his training would have been welcome but we would've had a 4 hour movie.
I saw Iron Man for the first time on Saturday (picked it up on Blu-Ray). I didn't fall in love with it. The dialogue was entertaining but the ultimate villian was underwhelming.
MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT
Iron Man smacking around terrorists was awesome, and I thought the scarred guy and Iron Man were going to have a big fight at the end, but instead the terrorists were all killed and Iron Man wound up going toe to toe with his evil business partner *yawn*.
END SPOILER
*Shrugs* I felt the same way about the original Spiderman and X-men movies, but loved the first sequels, so I am still planning on catching Iron Man 2 in theaters.
It's worked before. Odysseus was "wily" – smarter than the average Greek, cocky, a big talker, rather impressed with himself. These characteristics helped make him a great hero, but they also caused most of his problems. Same with Tony Stark – except he doesn't have any epic-hero standards of decorum to follow. In the second movie, his narcissistic playboy personality is used against him by his enemies.
I like him because he's not the now-cliche'd "dark," dysfunctional, agonizing superhero. He has a few daddy issues, is all. That doesn't stop him from saving the world AND having a good time as well.
Ditto. S2 was campy, the effects weren't that great, and I thought the Krypton criminals were just silly. Different strokes, I guess.
S1 was better. More serious, some great cinematography (the scenes in Kansas/Canada), and the effects weren't overdone. And they never topped that flying scene with Lois & Superman.
Well if they made his alchoholism as pronounced as it was in the comics That may be different in terms of dysfunction.
Still, Civil war involves waaaay too many charecters and plot points. Its just not realistic to think its possible to do it in a film.
My top picks:
Spiderman 2
Batman Begins
Dark Knight
Superman 1
Iron Man 1
Blade 1
Spiderman 1
Punisher (2005)
Sorry dude, IM1 is up there but it's not #1 to everyone.
You should probably watch the Richard Donner cut. It's much less campy and much more serious, which I think, makes it a better movie.
I agree, but remember, they did say the same thing about Watchmen.
"I like him because he's not the now-cliche'd "dark," dysfunctional, agonizing superhero."
Well said. Stark actually enjoys being the hero whereas Bruce Wayne is the reluctant hero. Maybe Dark Knight shouldn't be classified as a superhero movie. If you strip off the costumes and the gadgets, it's really a great thriller about good vs. evil.
I thoroughly enjoyed TDK, best movie of that genre I've ever seen. But it's a great change of pace to see RDJ's Tony Stark as the playboy that's having fun being Ironman….
When watching the Dark Knight, you have to look at it different then other superhero movies.
With Iron Man, Superman, or Spiderman you are watching a superhero movie first and then a genre movie second. Those genres are typically action movies, but sometimes not (Blade being horror, Hellboy being more fantasy). But the point being superhero movies are normally superhero movies first and foremost.
Not so with The Dark Knight. TDK is a crime drama first and a superhero movie second. You could take away all the costumes and still have a great crime-drama about a maniac terrorizing Chicago. TDK has its orgins closer to movies such as Heat then Batman.
If the world was all puppies and rainbows, I'd still be the one picking up all the poop in the back yard.
There's going to be an actual Avengers movie (directed by Joss Whedon, which is unfortunate to me and awesome to many genre fans). Favreau recently said he basically has to wait for Thor, Captain America and the Avengers to know what an Iron Man 3 will look like, but the plan is for there to be another solo Iron Man movie.
'The Dark Knight' tried to ahve it both ways politically; the monitoring of all of Gotham's citizen was the excoriation of the Patriot Act, but Wayne's vigilantism was a metaphor for Bush and his single minded dedication to the destruction of Al Qaeda. So, the result? A net neutral…
He's been a liberal in the comics for years. I'd rather see them lean towards the Ultimate version, which is a conservative as seen through the eyes of a socialist Scotsman, but is more what you would expect from a WWII era soldier suddenly finding himself in modern times.
I'm looking forward to seeing Iron Man II. I hate that it's getting "just barely good enough" reviews, but I'm sure I'll enjoy it as much as the first one.
It pains me that Scarlett and Gwen are in it. She's as foaming-at-the-mouth leftist as you get. Rourke and Downey are most definitely right of center.
I totally agree. Scarlett and Gwen are throw away characters too. They could've been replaced easily just as Terrence Howard was as Rhodie ( a trade up IMHO too).
RDJ has been quoted as saying that you don't go to prison and come out a liberal. (brings a tear to my eye)
Rourke was recently quoted as saying that celebrities suck. Something most people can agree with. I'm glad his career is back on track too.
Didn't Ms. Paltrow once say that the British are smarter because of their accents??
Good point. But I think it back-fired. The monitoring of the citizens worked. It never violated anyone's rights, and in the end it was turned off when the desired result was achieved.
Thomas Jane kicked ass as the Punisher, he needs more of these roles.
Exactly!! TDK is definitely a thriller or crime drama first. It's also an exploration into the minds of everyone on either side of the line. It's a much deeper movie than some give it credit for.
First of all I was never a big Marvel Fan. I had first issues of Spiderman, Fantastic 4 but I gladly traded them off for Batman or a Jimmy Olsen. I absolutely LOVED IM2. I know that Stark has some very deep problems and it looks like they are following that. RDJ is perfect for the part. Rorke is wonderful as whiplash, the fact that he knows his tiny silly chihuahuas are better friends than most of the fakes in Hollywood makes me appreciate his as a person, and his movie relationship with his bird is a real jewell.
Starks father comes across as a mix of Uncle Walt and Howard Hughes give a better understanding to who and what Tony Stark is all about.
I loved the whole movie but I hate the fact that 99 % of the audience failed to stay till the very end… That half second reveal is a real kick.
Thor was actually the only Marvel character I liked as a child. (It's that geek/crip/weakling who is really all powerful that appealed to my 98 pound weakling persona)
I am ready for 2011 Thor and Mr America
Then 2012 Avengers and in an alternate universe, the wastelands of Barsoom – 72 years is way to long to wait!!
I wouldn't let a few less than spectacular reviews deter me either. RDJ is enough for me to go see it.
I'll give whedon the benefit of the doubt, though I am getting tired of him trying to pass waif thin 12 year old looking girls off as badasses.
Absolutely. He gets my support no matter what he does. Same with Rourke. I love those guys. The one comparison that has me the most concerned is the one to the most recent Spiderman, with the abundance of villains. I prefer having one and concentrating on them. But hopefully the Iron Man guys can make it work.
Not quite as good as the 1st of course, but still good. I think you know why it's getting "just barely good enough reviews" ( a couple jabs toward liberals). The critics 2 biggest complaints are over development of characters (bullshit) and overly complicated plot (more bullshit). B+ in my opinion, but don't take my word for it. Go see it!
Truth be told its this point you raise right here that made me think it was morally relative. The fact that it didn't infringe on someones rights was a mere circumstance of the fact that Batman happened to be behind it – not because it was an ethical action in of itself.
Further to the point, I'm still out on how to interpret batmans agreement to cover up the truth behind two face. In any event, any comic movie that can get past the camp long enough to cause as many discussions about ethics as this movie did, to me, is a good piece of cinema.
Captain america when written properly is closest to a truman democrat (as I would call myself if such a thing still existed) which is nowhere near what we mean today when we say liberal. Alot of people I believe confuse this because of the civil war storyline but at the end of the day, the reservations to that were about not wanting to legistlate morality and keeping the government out of private lives – Both areas where the concepts of truman democrat and conservatives happen to overlap.
Well I'm solidly against chris evans getting the role, but I've been wrong before – I also wasn't looking foward to heath ledgers joker until i started seeing some of his work on the part.
Personally I was hoping theyd go with mark valley or the guy who plays "awesome" on chuck.
I liked Tony/Iron Man. I couldn't stand Don Cheadle/Rhoades. After forcibily taking one of Tony's suits, the government still couldn't get it to be as effective as Tony's armour. In the scene with the droids, I loved how the government and sub-contractor were taking credit for much of Tony's work.
Take, take, take people's property.
I agree, If you have 3 villains, you don't really have any. The Dark Knight was able to pull this off because the villains were either disposed of early (Scarecrow), or they were on different story arcs. Dent went after the mob people first, and only at the very end of the movie did he intersect with Batman.
I have complete faith in Favreau and co.
Iron Man 2 isn't as good as the first, but I'll likely wind up buying it just so I can watch Stark humiliate the Senate Arms Committee over and over and over.
It suffers from the the usual comic problem of too much material to cover in too little time. That being said, I still found it to be well worth the price of admission … it's just not the first one like BronxZionist said.
You make some excellent points. I'll rethink my stance on the monitoring of Gotham.
The way I interpret Batman's cover-up of Dent is that he truly wants, and maybe even needs, Gotham to survive the assault from it's villains. He needs to believe that the good will prevail. He martyred himself to help realize that end. He knew he was strong enough to withstand being hunted and hated. And he needed to keep Dent's life work heroic.
Hell I could babble about this all day….LOL which proves another of your points….
I find Paltrow believable enough in the role to forgive her her craziness this once (http://goop.com/). Let's face it, after viewing her website, she's clearly too crazy to be taken seriously in her real role as a human being.
As for Johanssen (sp?), she either needed much more of a role or much less of one. I can repect what they're trying to set up for the Avenger movie though. They're trying to introduce people to the major players via their own movies or parts in movies. It's a different strategy that might pay off big when the movie itself appears. So, in that aspect, I can easily see both Widow and Fury making more cameo/bit roles in the upcoming Thor and Captain America movies. Maybe they'll do a better job with Widow as those movies role out. It's just a shame Iron Man 2 had to suffer for it.
Tony Stark is a much different hero than the ones we've seen in film so far. Stark does do what he does out of a sense of moral imperative, but being a hero for the thrills and attention it gains him is clearly just as important to him. He likes being the center of attention and he's used to getting exaclty what he wants all the time which translates into making a tougher fighter. When you're used to getting what you want when you want it, it gets that much tougher for others to deny you. For most of us, we'd become spoiled brats, but when Stark is Iron Man that ego is his most dangerous weapon.
Stark is much differen then the standard big screen comic hero in terms of motivation and personality (think about Spiderman, Batman, Superman, etc.), but in the world of comics, his motivations and ego are not exactly uncommon among other heros and villians alike.
I don't think they intend for that at the moment. Iron Man 2 even leaves an out for Iron Man to not be a major part of the Avengers movie.
that was exactly the point- and Morgan Freeman's character was THE moral arbiter on this- it turned out that his admonitions weren't necessary…
We already blew it then. What do you think Black Widow is portrayed as?
They've already mixed in too much of the Marvel Ultimates lines to make the movies Civil War viable.
They've already made some inroads into using Ultimates material. I think if they stick to using that, we can hopefully avoid the travesty that was the Civil War storyline.
Exactly so. Batman is not a superhero. Batman is ultimately just a man. He's much more of a super cop/investigator than he is a strict crimefighter. In order to do Batman correctly, you have to make him the ultimate investigative bad ass which necessarily demands a more crime drama feel. Other superheros are much more reactive in their approaches. Batman tries to be much more proactive and his skills make him perfect to do that.
more pronounced in IM2
Nah, they could have done better but she had some curves.
Now that I think about it, It wouldn't be too unrealistic to make the avengers team divide having half of them go "off the reservation" about government control and have them fight each other until they have to reunite to fight a bigger threat. Sorta civil war in microcosm.
You think so AH? I know the scene you are referring to, but after all this build up spanning several different movies and in light of the original Avengers line up, you really think they would pull Iron Man out? That's a tough one for me to buy.
dude, you don't get curvier than Scarlett Johanssen outside of comic books and anime
You seem to be forgetting the huge story line from the 70's that had them at odds with one another and traveling across the country, where Ollie was trying to reconnect Hal with 'the common man'. Yeah, they were/are best friends, their differing viewpoints caused no end of friction between them…
the action sequences are shot this way on purpose, in my opinion. it's from a COMIC BOOK. they shot the film to appear as close to a comic as possible.
i am not a cinephile, but am a comic book junkie and btw a big fan of the IM books.
loved number 1 and 2.
I didn't say they'd leave him out. I'm saying that he may appear more as a bit role or supporting role. Think of it another way: as big as RDJ plays Tony Stark/Iron Man, how hard would it be to put together a cast for Avengers that could hold up without being blown away?
Interesting side note, but has anyone else heard the buzz that they may be looking to tag Nathan Fillion as Hawkeye?
Aaron,
I don't know if I'm just stupidly replying to a casting possibility that was there all along, but I thought the same thing about casting Awesome as Cap (I don't even know the actor's name).
Physically it's perfect, but the guy seems a real decent actor and the humility and humor make Awesome a likeable guy instead of a guy you're glad to see Chuck pull a one-up on.
Don't get me wrong, she looked perfect comic book heroine (wasp waist, big bust, etc.), but do you guys really think that a woman who could kick ass like that would actually be that whipcord slender?
Oh im not forgetting it. I'm referencing it. I'm just saying its not like you have to politcally agree with someone to get along with them. Even when they were at odds politically they were still friends. That storyline let the creators explore both sides of the political spectrum and show that often, heroics and morality are often of a higher order, i.e. more important, than politics.
At the time in the 70's, and even more so now, I think its important to remind people that while related, political ideology does not equal moral ideology.
still. Scarlet Jo versus Summer Glau? Whedon tends to take turning dainty girls into badasses to a distracting extreme.
This would make a lot of sense. Just because if they don't consign him to a bit appearance it would just be waaaaaaaaay too easy for RDJ to overwhelm the film. I mean do you really see Chris Evans holding his own in any scene they do?
I haven't but I would be a huge supporter of nathan fillion playing the coolest avenger.
perhaps…
But then again comic book panels tend to make sense. As (admittedly) cinephiles we have a tendency to look at the fil in an optimum context; is it achieving it's intended goal, is it doing it well, and could it be better? The answer on the Batman films is yes, sort of, and yes…
But they are still enjoyable…
I'll be honest that I don't have a huge knowledge base because I never watched Buffy or Angel, but I don't recall those girls being exactly shrinking violets.
Zoe was fairly substantial too. I think River Tam was done on purpose. She was designed to be the ultimate everything packed into an incongruous package a little like the seemingly normal golden retriever in Dean Koontz's book The Watchers was in actuality designed to be a human-smart deep cover spy for the government.
Political ideology does not equal moral ideology? Huh? I know you can be a nice person and be liberal. But I don't equate liberal morality anywhere near the same level as conservative morality. Liberal morality is like morality for kindergartners.
Spoilers – if you haven't seen the movies, and you plan to, you probably shouldn't be reading anything here.
I think that it's interesting to note that in both movies, one and two, the villains are profit motivated arms manufacturers.
The thing is… so is the hero.
And yes, Stark dials back on the weapons development somewhat, but he doesn't become a pacifist, exactly, and what motivates him in the first movie isn't a change of heart about selling weapons but horror at the realization that his weapons are being sold to murdering warlords. In the second movie he's lost that earlier trust and is insisting on keeping direct control of his creations.
But I'm getting off track… What I wanted to point out was a significant thing that Iron Man did right. We love it for the conservative message, maybe the "peace through superior fire power" message, but the whole thing through two movies is written in a way that doesn't demand any particular ideological take away. The biggest anti-capitalist ideologue can go to this movie and will not walk out of it in a snit. It's not even entirely clear that the deported Russian was deported for cause or for prejudice. The military are the good guys, but also not so much. The smarmy arms manufacturer is out for a profit without regard to human life or principles but the hero is essentially also very fond of wealth and privilege. Heck, we can even go all the way down the list to how the second movie makes fun of feminist outrage while simultaneously shows Stark being a chauvinist. The audience is left to draw their own conclusions.
The only person/group that is portrayed as unambiguously negative are Senators.
This is the right way to write.
The Dark Knight is another example of refraining from making conclusions for the audience.
If nothing else, it's disrespectful of the audience. And is it any wonder then, that it's a better movie when that isn't done?
and the difference is I wouldnt put either liberal or conservative with the word morality, as I don't really find a real correlation between who is moral and who is of a political leaning. It is just a difference of opinion, but that difference of opinion is what keeps myself, who is left center politically, coming to a site such as this. It's because I find several bigworld authors to be extremely honest in their attacks.
My big fear is that when you start to equate politics with morality you tend to give people free passes. Case in point, I feel a lot of the people who are on the left with me assumed obama is moral because he is liberal. Instead of asking "is this liberal moral" – and that won him the election.
I see this same "free pass" often going to Sarah Palin, but to be fair I do not known her political history well enough to judge if she is a moral conservative – I just know if she wasn't the same potential for abuse could conceivably be there.
I watched an older Captain America movie a bit ago and it was bizarrely liberal, environmentalist, anti-capitalist. Maybe we're more sensitive to those things now or maybe it has to do with prevailing attitudes on how it all falls on the ear. Maybe audiences were pro-capitalist enough not to interpret the whole thing as a slam on capitalism, and maybe environmentalism was a different creature then and so it meant something different to have an environmental threat to defeat.
Sort of like the movie Bambi: "Man is in the forest" may be entirely different when presented to a more rural audience and one more likely to have direct experience with animals and who understands just how brutal nature can be.
Spidey 2 rocked…maybe I'm just biased but I could never get into Superman, though I like Tom Welling's portrayal of him on Smallville.
Iron Man 2 is just as good as the first. The plot is equal and the action scenes are better. The message absolutes kicks a$$.
I had my doubts when I heard that Robert Downey Jr. was announced as Stark. I'm happy to say he dispelled all of them.
You must be logged in to post a comment.