It’s the kind of criss-cross universe comparable to that of their comics that made geeks salivate at the mouth. They even started off pretty well. “Iron Man” had an inspired bit of casting in Robert Downey Jr. and ended up making $318.4 million domestically. They even threw in a cameo of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury! Genius, I say.

Next came the more mediocre “The Incredible Hulk” which barely managed to top its Eric Bana-starring previous incarnation at the box office. But the films successfully began Marvel’s path to the upcoming “Avengers.” There were even rumors that “Hulk” star Edward Norton was so passionate about the character that he took on uncredited roles as both a producer and a screenwriter. He certainly wanted in on “Avengers.”

The company looked like it was different from the ignorant studios that seem to own Hollywood. They were giving fans what they wanted by hiring quality filmmakers and showing a dedication to the quality of their own projects–a live-action Pixar, if you will.

But the studio truly hadn’t been put to the test yet. Their next film was “Iron Man 2,” and it was a clunker if there ever was one. I mean, how do you mess up a film when you have Downey Jr., Jackson, Sam Rockwell and Mickey frickin’ Rourke!? Well, they managed to do it, alright. Audiences expecting the same smarts and energy as the first installment experienced shoddy storytelling, a plot that was not clearly fleshed out, and montages such as Tony Stark shooting lasers around a room and suddenly discovering a new atom… seriously?

What about the dark, alcoholic Tony Stark fans love from the comics? Why were actors like Rockwell and Rourke literally wasted, only performing in scenes necessary to move the plot forward but not to flesh out character? I mean, no one’s going to disagree that they are both excellent character actors.

The studio was clearly becoming a run-of-the-mill entity interested more in getting out quick, fast food-like product rather than giving people memorable films that entertain and refresh far beyond a 90-minute popcorn summer film. Rourke, known for his brutal honesty about everyone from himself to those he works with, outed the studio while he was out promoting the film “Immortals.” Rourke made the following statements about his experience working with the studio:

[W]hen I did Ivan Vanko in Iron Man, I fought… You know, I explained to Justin Theroux, to the writer, and to [Jon] Favreau, that I wanted to bring some other layers and colors [to the character], not just make this Russian a complete murderous revenging bad guy. And they allowed me to do that. Unfortunately, the [people] at Marvel just wanted a one-dimensional bad guy, so most of the performance ended up the floor.

[It’s] ****ing too bad, but it’s their loss. If they want to make mindless comic book movies, then I don’t want to be a part of that. I don’t want to have to care so much and work so hard, and then fight them for intelligent reasoning, and just because they’re calling the shots they… You know, I didn’t work for three months on the accent and all the adjustments and go to Russia just so I could end up on the floor. Because that can make somebody say at the end of the day, oh **** ‘em, I’m just going to mail it in. But I’m not that kind of guy. I’m never going to mail it in.

If they let you, play the bad guy with other dimensions other than one-dimensional. You have to fight for that though, to bring layers to the character. Otherwise, if you’re working for the wrong studio or let’s say a director that doesn’t have any balls, then they’re just gonna want it to be the evil bad guy. […] So, if you’re working with some good studio guys that got brains and you’re working with a director with a set of nuts that’ll let you incorporate that then it’s fun. Otherwise, you end up with what happened on “Iron Man.”

That sounds like enough explanation as to why “Iron Man 2″ felt like it was made by a 13-year-old boy. The films just got worse in quality with the release of “Thor” and “Captain America.” I mean, they picked the guy who directed “Jumanji” to direct “Captain America!” The same guy who was quoted time and time again wanting to downplay the patriotic side of Captain America. What? I thought these guys were trying to be more faithful to the characters they showed on screen. His name is Captain America! The film was awful. The special effects showing Chris Evans as a scrawny pre-Captain America were just sad and awkward. The action scenes were so cardboard that the film felt like it had no personality. And it all just felt like one big rush to the setup for “The Avengers” at the end. Clearly, Marvel Studios had become interested in simply making mindless comic book movies, which is the reason they took control of these projects in the first place.

The studio also dumbly fired Norton when it came time to cast The Hulk in “The Avengers,” and it replaced him with Mark Ruffalo. Here was their explanation:

We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back to portray the title role of Bruce Banner in the Avengers. Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members. The Avengers demands players who thrive working as part of an ensemble, as evidenced by Robert, Chris H, Chris E, Sam, Scarlett, and all of our talented casts. We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks.

I’m not the smartest guy in the world, but I can read between the lines. Basically, they needed someone who was more of a puppet than Norton and whose voice would not interrupt theirs. So much for being a novel idea.

Has Marvel Studios really been a success? Not really. “Iron Man” and “Iron Man 2″ managed to pull in heavy sums, but “The Incredible Hulk” couldn’t even match its production budget with its domestic haul. Neither “Thor” nor “Captain America: The First Avenger” could even touch the $200 million mark. The hauls they brought in were almost guaranteed just based on curiosity with the movie going public. I, for one, am not looking forward to “The Avengers.” Why should I? Marvel Studios has become just like the studios they were a reaction to. They make mindless entertainment that barely scratches out a profit and they allow no creativity, which we know leads to the lasting success films need.

We’ve already had Ruffalo out there comparing the Avengers to Occupy Wall Street, and behind the camera we have Joss Whedon, whose film credits include directing a whopping total of one picture. Marvel Studios is now just a part of the crop of studios turning out everything from crap to liberal crap and then not understanding the financial results. Waste your hard earned money on something more worth it.

Cheadle, best known for his work in films like “Hotel Rwanda,” “Iron Man 2″ and “Crash,” told Jet Magazine he wished Obama had been more “gangsta,” and less a “consensus seeker.”

Now, he’s trying to clarify those comments.

“I realize that when speaking to reporters who are looking for the juiciest comments to print, a word like gangster in connection with a black president uttered by a black celebrity can almost be too much to resist,” the Oscar-nominated actor wrote. “I say this not in defense but to offer some perspective. I believe I used the word gangster and I meant it. But I wasn’t talking about pants sagging and forties and ‘hoes’ or any of that other nonsense and I find it hard to believe that that is what some people thought I was saying. I was talking about wish fulfillment; my own and my desire to witness something more than I had.”

Cheadle then fell back on apology-speak, mixed with some revisionist history – didn’t The One have a Democratic Congress for his first two years in office? – to explain what he hopes to see from Obama now.

“Many of my friends and family are scratching it out somewhere decidedly south of the ever widening gap between the haves and have nots, looking at losing their homes, colleges they can’t afford and healthcare they can’t avail themselves of. They’re the ones I’m thinking of when I say gangster,” he wrote, noting the constraints of having to work with an uncooperative Congress. “President Obama inherited a broken country mired in two wars, a financial crisis, a mortgage mess and more than we all probably even know about and has in my opinion brought us back from the brink. But I still see my friends in no better shape and the gap widening.”

Cheadle finally succumbs to the kind of heated rhetoric that was allegedly banned from public discourse in the wake of the awful Tucson shooting earlier this year.

“I still have a fevered dream of the POTUS smacking up John Boehner in a public forum in middle America and making him defend support of tax cuts for the super rich,” he said. “I want to see somebody go to jail over the financial crisis and not just black, brown and poor whites over humbles and minor drug beefs. I want the president to bail out homeowners who fell for the okey doke from predatory lenders and are two seconds from living on the streets or are already there… I want him to stand in front of the haters and go all Bill Duke on them and say, ‘You know you done fucked up now, don’t you?’ I kinda want a gangster president. I was about to write that in the future I would chose my words more carefully but I’m sure I won’t.”

We’re pretty sure he won’t, either.

Can the British actor, who previously appeared in ‘The Social Network’ and ‘Never Let Me Go,’ spin a web, any size, that catches thieves, just like flies? And what about Henry Cavill, another relative unknown tapped to play the lead in ‘Man of Steel’ hitting theaters in 2013?

Sometimes looking into an actor’s past can reveal plenty about their future prospects. And, in the case of those cast in superhero franchises, there’s a lot riding on just how heroic they can appear on screen.

So let’s recall how other actors prepared for their super close-ups and what happened once they tugged on those unforgiving tights — or, in the case of George Clooney, poured themselves into an uncomfortable cod piece.

Exhibit 1: Michael Keaton in ‘Batman’ (1989)

The Evidence: He snarled up a storm in ‘Johnny Dangerously’ and scared Winona Ryder three fourths to death in ‘Beetlejuice.’ He also showed some serious dramatic chops in ‘Clean and Sober.’

The Worry: Bruce Wayne is … Mr. Mom? A receding hairline and slip of a frame hardly pass Superhero 101. Bat fanatics thought Jack Nicholson’s Joker was the silver lining to this otherwise troubling casting call.

The Verdict: Pow! Bam! Zoom! Keaton defied conventional wisdom to make ‘Batman’ a sensation even with those awful Prince tunes. Turns out he could do dark and foreboding when given the chance, and his pursed lips looked just right beneath that hard rubber cowl. Bonus points for ditching the franchise before Robin entered the equation.

Exhibit 2: Robert Downey, Jr. in ‘Iron Man’

The Evidence: Snared an Oscar nomination for ‘Chaplin’ but wasted much of his youth on drugs and dismissible film roles.

The Worry: Did you see ‘Back to School?’ Downey, Jr.‘s Derek Lutz couldn’t beat up a sorority girl, let alone a supervillain.

The Verdict: Handsome, edgy and super believable as a genius who saves himself by forging a suit out of metal scraps. A near perfect marriage of actor and material.

Exhibit 3: George Clooney in ‘Batman and Robin’

The Evidence: Clooney proved he could do complicated with his turn as Dr. Ross on television’s ‘ER.’ He later made the jump to the big screen, flashing Tarantino-esque cool in ‘From Dusk Til Dawn’ when his screen bro (Quentin Tarantino himself) became a vampire’s snack.

The Worry: You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have Clooney’s most regrettable role in ‘The Facts of Life.’ Let’s not forget his middling turn in ‘One Fine Day.’

The Verdict: Holy franchise ender! Clooney doesn’t deserve all the blame for the calamitous ‘Batman and Robin,’ but he hardly distinguished himself in his first super effort. It took nearly a decade for fans to forgive this bat-travesty and allow the mighty Christopher Nolan to bring Bruce Wayne back with ‘Batman Begins.’

Exhibit 4: Tobey Maguire in ‘Spider-Man’

The Evidence: ‘Wonder Boys’ showcased Maguire’s sensitive side. So did ‘Pleasantville.’ And ‘The Cider House Rules.’ Heck, he could do Peter Parker-style sensitivity in his sleep.

The Worry: Spider-Man isn’t the stockiest superhero, but a stiff wind would give Maguire trouble.

The Verdict: More movie magic. The soulful Maguire nailed his dweeby high school moments, and the all-purpose Spidey mask helped distract us from that cherubic face. It helps that he got paired with the height-challenged Kirsten Dunst, with whom he shared one of the best screen kisses of all time.

Exhibit 5: Halle Berry in ‘Catwoman’

The Evidence: She overcame a lousy wig to play Storm in ‘X-Men’ and flaunted her curves in ‘The Flintstones.’ Oh, and she had just won a Best Actress Oscar for ‘Monster’s Ball.’

The Worry: Some pretty questionable film choices including ‘B*A*P*S’ and ‘Swordfish,’ even if the latter gave us the chance to ogle her, ahem, Golden Globes.

The Verdict: Me-ouch! Berry sure looked purty, but every other element of this neo-S&M dud went awry. She could have sauntered through the film nekkid and we’d still throw tomatoes at the screen.

Exhibit 6: Ryan Reynolds in ‘Green Lantern’

The Evidence: He looks like a superhero sans shirt. He’s even been a superhero of sorts twice already — as Deadpool in ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’ and in ‘Blade: Trinity.’ Plus, he’s quick with a one-liner and wooed Scarlett Johansson off-screen. That’s a superpower 99.9 percent of men wish they had.

The Worry: Is Reynolds too pretty to be a rough and tumble superhero?

The Verdict: Thud! ‘Green Lantern’ proved the biggest disappointment of last summer’s super flock of movies. Reynolds looked lost amidst all those ones and zeroes zipping around the screen, and bland love interest Blake Lively couldn’t help.

Exhibit 7: Chris Evans in ‘Captain America: The First Avenger’

The Evidence: Holy coincidence! Evans also played a superhero long before tugging on Captain America’s tights. In fact, even those who found the two ‘Fantastic Four’ films a bore, and that’s most of us, cheered Evans’ glib turn as the Human Torch. If that resume chip wasn’t enough, Evans also played a man with supernatural powers in ‘Push,’ a clunker co-starring Dakota Fanning.

The Worry: With apologies to Johnny Storm, the Human Torch is no Captain America. Ol’ Cap is an icon, a red, white and blue example of American pride. Those are pretty big boots to fill.

The Verdict: Let’s Salute Capt. Evans! ‘Captain America: The First Avenger’ got the rah-rah spirit of the Allied powers just right, even if the film’s ending revealed the whole product was primarily a plug for ‘The Avengers.’

Exhibit 8: Christopher Reeve in ‘Superman’

The Evidence: Slim, at best. Reeve’s pre-’Superman’ work consisted of three TV appearances and a small role in the 1978 film ‘Gray Lady Down.’

The Worry: Who is Christopher Reeve, and why does he think he can share the screen with the likes of Gene Hackman? Or Valerie Perrine, for that matter?

The Verdict: Super, indeed. Reeve proved the ideal fit for The Man of Steel, capturing the character‘s innate goodness while proving you don‘t need CGI muscles to look like a hero. Director Richard Donner forged the template for future superhero films, combining the silly with the serious in just the right ratio. But that wouldn‘t matter if Reeve hadn‘t filled out the Superman costume in such convincing fashion.

In a word – “Oh, yeah.”

Yes, that’s two words. But you’ll forgive us while our inner geek runs wild.

The tease is exactly what comic book fans were waiting for, proof that this is a serious project combining many of the successful elements from past Marvel films.

Is it perfect? All you need to do is look at an uncomfortable Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner to answer that question. The Hulk character proved the thorniest her to bring to the big screen – it took two tries and neither proved as successful as his fellow superhero features. From what’s on display here that may still be an issue.

We’ll likely see more trailers in the months leading up to the film’s May 4, 2012 release. But this first glimpse should be enough to convince skeptics writer/director Joss Whedon could be the right choice for next year’s most anticipated summer movie.

The Marvel Comics epic won’t hit theaters until May, but we’ve already spent years watching end-credit snippets, fan-constructed posters and ‘Avengers’-related subplots meant to set up the saga.

Entertainment Weekly’s cover story on ‘The Avengers’ this week charts the start of the hype countdown beginning in 2008 with “Iron Man.” That film featured Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) hinting that the metallic hero was part of a much bigger plan. Since then, we’ve seen teases at the end of other superhero films (‘The Incredible Hulk’), suffered as the ‘Avengers’ storyline was jammed into the already packed ‘Iron Man 2′ and sampled ‘Avengers’ interviews tagged on to Blu-ray releases (like the recent ‘Thor’).

Just yesterday your humble film scribe received the above picture in my email box featuring Chris Hemsworth in full Thor regalia alongside Captain America (Chris Evans). You can even ‘like’ the movie on Facebook.

But will all this promotion pay off in the end?

Superhero films print money, even sub-part models like ‘Green Lantern.’ And the mere thought of seeing a gaggle of super-powered beings in one film is leaving this recovering comic book geek woozy with anticipation. But is all this hype actually hurting the film itself? Can any film live up to all this potential?

It’s all up to Joss Whedon, the writer/director of ‘The Avengers,’ to make things right for comic book fans – and the bean counters at Marvel Studios.

More MARVEL madness looms next summer, with a reboot of “Spider-Man,” possibly another “Wolverine” (if the sequel’s Japanese production can get back on track after this year’s tsunami temporarily derailed it), and of course, MARVEL’s piece de resistance, “The Avengers.”

The Avengers represents the apex of MARVEL’s long term strategy for its movie properties: Each character will have their own series, as well as make guest appearances in other character’s movies. And all will join forces in the Avengers’ own series, bringing Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, Hulk, Black Widow, and others together as a team, just like in the comics.

One of the great joys of reading MARVEL comics has always been the shared universe these characters inhabit; seeing them team up or face off in each other’s books made for a thrilling reading experience. That MARVEL is trying to replicate this phenomenon in the movies is daring, to say the least, and maybe unprecedented.

Though not without risk. Comic titles come out once a month; movies every two or three years, making it much harder to sustain interest in long-term plot lines without boring the audience and sacrificing valuable screen-time that could otherwise service the story at hand. Some MARVEL movies have already suffered as a result – one of the criticisms leveled at “Iron Man 2″ was that it felt more like a two-hour trailer for “The Avengers” (then two years away) than a stand-alone Iron Man adventure.

There are signs that MARVEL has learned the lessons of that film, however: “Thor” had the mix just about right, with references to Iron Man, Hulk and the larger MARVEL universe scattered throughout the film, easily recognizable to fans, but unobtrusive enough to be safely ignored by someone who has missed those other films. The “Thor” after-credits scene nicely set up Captain America,without detracting from the thunder god’s solo adventure. Indeed, most casual move-goers left the theater as the credits rolled, leaving the Easter Egg for the fans who knew it was coming.

Personally, I love what MARVEL is doing, and hope they can make it work. The universe Stan Lee and his titanically-talented artist cohorts created in the 1960’s is a vast, multi-layered, and fun place to visit, on the page and on screen. Hopefully, MARVEL studios will re-acquire the rights to all its properties (currently Sony owns “Spider-Man” and FOX owns “X-Men”) so they, too, can be folded into this incredibly ambitious cinematic experiment.

Excelsior!

—–

In this one, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) hails from the realm of Asgard, and is apparently more of an alien than a god or deity. Cast out of Asgard by his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) as punishment for narcissism and disobedience, Thor’s stripped of his powers and banished to our little marble, landing in small town New Mexico. There, he’s confronted by a world that greets his stories of fantastic kingdoms and powers with scorn, and where his mighty hammer, containing the thundery awesomeness of his powers, remains inaccessibly stuck in a block of stone. Thor then must not only clash with a civilization that doesn’t respect his ancestry, but also with the machinations of villains back home and some surprisingly well-intentioned government agents.

Notably, this is the first Marvel film of the “Avengers” series whose hero is unburdened by the darkness and sorrow of a Tony Stark or Bruce Banner. Thor’s a proud, aggressive warrior, so merry that he manages to be pleasant even as he carelessly invades another planet to slaughter its monstrous inhabitants. Hemsworth, with his magazine cover physique and flowing blonde locks photographed to maximum effect, demonstrates an enormous likeability key to the film’s success. Coupled with his strikingly muscular presence, he doubtlessly has potential to be a common blockbuster presence for some time to come, provided he plays his cards right. He imbues the film’s best moments, in which Thor grapples with his ego and comes to put the welfare of others above his own hubris, with a dramatic heft that makes him an easy character to root for.

The aforementioned lightness of the tone doesn’t mean that the story is without weight, and Branaugh aptly balances the misadventures of the earth-trapped Thor with the royal intrigue on the other side of the galaxy. Back home, Thor’s brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) makes moves to seize the Asgardian throne, and apt writing and acting make him seem more dramatically misguided than villainous, giving the final confrontation an extra dramatic kick that would likely be absent were he just a cackling evildoer. Branagh’s action scenes, though not as impressive as the tech-heavy sequences from Jon Favreau’s “Iron Man,” aptly render straightforward superhero combat, and with more flair than I had expected.

One of the film’s more interesting moments is also its most ideological, when Thor tells the government agents (or the SHIELD agents to us geeks) that he recognizes their benevolent intent and offers his hand in an alliance. It’s a brief but memorable moment from an industry that has spent much time demonizing the intelligence community, especially in light of their recent very public success.

Natalie Portman, apparently one of Hollywood’s busiest actresses, plays Jane, Thor’s love interest and possibly the world’s cutest astrophysicist. Portman doesn’t have much to do other than smile for the camera and fawn over this handsome extraterrestrial, which results in a romance that’s somewhat lacking in the intensity department. Their relationship seems better suited for a hard crush than the passionate love the dialogue later suggests, though it’s easy enough to forgive as the plot gains speed.

Comic films of the past decade, good and bad, all seem to be either serious or grim, and it’s almost startling to remember that to many, the medium represents colorful, lighthearted entertainment.  Just as the story, with its otherworldly royalty and small town journey of discovery, is both epic and personal, it’s sufficiently heavy and certainly fun.

Tony Stark, left; Jack Abramoff, right

In the second “Iron Man,” Tony Stark is the same cocky hero that we know from the first film. Towards the beginning of the film, Stark is asked by an elected official to give up his Iron Man suit. Not only does Stark refuse to give it up, he openly cracks jokes with the official and makes him look like a fool. Even when his life is threatened, Stark does not lose his self-assuredness. However, despite his overt cockiness, Stark remains a strong hero that people can relate to. He may be arrogant but he is still a hero who fights against the villains in this movie and he uses his suit for the good of man.

Ann Hornaday, from the Washington Post, does not see it that way, it seems. In a recent review of Iron Man 2, she refers to Stark as a “scoundrel,” focusing on his failings rather than his strong and noble qualities. In that review, she writes that “watching ‘Iron Man 2’ earlier this week, it became soberingly clear that the film protagonist whom Tony Stark most resembles isn’t fictional, but the star of a documentary that also opens Friday.” That documentary is not about a flawed but brilliant genius who strove for world peace. That documentary, entitled “Casino Jack and the United States of Money,” is about Jack Abramoff, the currently-imprisoned corrupt former lobbyist.

Later in the article, Hornaday adds to the comparison one of the villains of “Iron Man 2,” Justin Hammer, who works with a maniacal Russian to create an army of Iron Mans. Hornaday writes, “when you put ‘Iron Man 2’ and ‘Casino Jack’ side by side, you see that Stark, Hammer and Abramoff share the same brand of moral arrogance that creates mayhem out of single-minded, by-any-means-necessary expediency.”

Unlike Stark, though, Abramoff is not well-known for his nobility or his serving the world at large. Abramoff is well-known for his criminal record.  A January 4th 2006 article in the Washington Post about Abramoff noted that he “pleaded guilty… to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that requires him to provide evidence about members of Congress.” Abramoff is now in prison serving time. Even though he has been in jail for several years, he is still considered a symbol of corruption and greed. Few of those people who look disparagingly on Abramoff would compare him to a superhero trying to do good for this world.

Admittedly, I had issues with “Iron Man 2,” as Hornaday did. I thought the movie was weaker than the first film and that it included too many extraneous subplots. However, I continue to enjoy watching the main character fight against the bad guys and works to promote peace.

He may be cocky and he may be selfish but he is no Jack Abramoff, and Ann Hornaday should have realized that.

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.