I just got back from a 9:15 sneak peek at the local independent theater. I'm going to be exhausted tomorrow at work, but it was worth it.
Marvel has a record of having hits and misses in making films. For every X-Men, there's an X-Men 2. For every Spider-Man, there's a Daredevil. For every Fantastic Four, there's a Fantastic Four 2. Maybe they should just stop making sequels ... In any case, Iron Man is a hit.
Robert Downey Jr. does an adequate job of playing the charming asshole everyone hoped for. They don't directly deal with alcohol abuse, but his womanizing is the source of many jokes. I appreciate two aspects of his character that the film endowed Stark with: first, a driven genius; second, a purpose. The comics made Stark seem like some generic alcoholic dude who designed this magnificent suit. The film gave more background on Stark's genius (perhaps inspired by the Ultimate version of the comics which presents a more impactful version of his character). In particular, the scenes of him working with his badass robotic assistants were touching in showing his isolation and focus. Additionally, Stark has a reason to actually do what he does. I'll address more the specific reasons, but at this point, let me just say that Stark's near death leaves him with a sense that he must at least undo the harm his company has done. In contrast, as The Physics of Superheroes correctly identifies, Silver Age heroes got powers and thought "hm ... I have these powers. And everyone ELSE with powers is being a superhero. I guess I should. To fight communists. Or something."
The rest of the cast does an adequate job. Terrence Howard is a better actor than his role, but the assumption is that he will return later to play War Machine in a spin-off. That might seem like planning too far ahead, especially since War Machine is an angry black man version of Iron Man with no real depth. Gwyneth Paltrow does a solid job as Pepper Pots in being sweet and charming and a sort of girl-next-door sort of romantic interest for Stark. The real let-down is Jeff Bridges as the slurring Obidiah Stane. Whoever thought of that name should be shot, as should the person who decided Stark should refer to him as Obi. Unless it's followed by "Wan" or some passing reference to a Star Wars mentor with a similar name, just don't. Bridges is perhaps believable as an asshole corporate executive. But as an asshole in a big metal ape suit? Not so much. I should also mention that the Arab (or Latino playing an Arab) to play the "Ten Rings" wannabe Taliban militia leader, is a let down. I don't recall his name, if he even had one, and I can only assume that the casting call for him was for an Arab stereotype. And in he walked. Assumably, as an Arab stereotype he would have come from outside Afghanistan since Arabs come from nations significantly to the west, but I digress.
The references to the comics are entertaining enough, although I didn't have the patience to sit through all the credits to see Samuel L. Jackson's cameo as Nick Fury. The long-ish name for which SHIELD stands was a recurring gag. Stark's comments to Potts about the problems of being a superhero girlfriend were amusing, and Stan Lee had one of his best cameos as ... himself, or at least a Hugh Heffner version of himself.
The film was well-updated to the modern era from the source material. Rather than being kidnapped by the Vietnamese communists, he was kidnapped by some unexplained terrorist/insurgent fellows belonging to the aforementioned Ten Rings organization. I can only assume that the sequel would/will deal with the Mandarin and his actual ten rings. I'm curious about how they'll be able to update such a Fu Manchu-ish character to the PC age. Regardless, the film seems to take an early anti-war stance. Stark starts so indifferent to the suffering his weapons cause, a contrast only heightened when he bonds with Yinsen, whose family was killed (assumably with Stark's weapons). I considered early in the film what would have happened if such a message came out, say, six years earlier. Shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, and during the early phases of the build-up to the Iraq War, such an opinion would likely have been boycotted by die-hard conservatives. Bill Maher, you'll recall, lost Politically Incorrect due to inopportune statements that wouldn't raise an eyebrow today.
I had my hopes for a strong anti-war message dashed when Stark rails against non-Americans using his horribly destructive weapons against civilians. Thinking back, it's unclear who used Stark's weapons on Yinsen's village. It seems the message is that American weapons are so freakin' sweet that only our soldiers should be able to use them. Because, you know, our soldiers don't make mistakes. By, say, accidentally killing Canadian soldiers. Or blowing up Chinese embassies. Just theoretically. Stane's great plan seems to have been to kill of Stark (I assume because he was annoying, because prior to his abduction he was the model of a company man) and sell weapons to dirt poor terrorist groups because the huge profits in selling weapons to whackjobs totally outweighs any possible risk in losing multi-billion dollar defense contracts. The plot didn't hold my at attention, as you can probably tell, in large part because it seemed so muddled. The moral outrage seemed misdirected, although again if it had taken a stronger anti-war message, it would receive a far more hostile response.
Nevertheless, the special affects held my attention throughout. They were well-integrated and tied in fundamentally with the plot. The suit (in all three versions) were sufficiently impressive, and are a main reason why I recommend this film.
