CRS
Chandler, Arizona, United States

There's an old saying. If you don't want someone to join a crowd, you ask them, "If everyone were jumping off of a cliff, would you?" Well, I have. So my answer would be "Yes". True story.
Profile continued . . .

ARCHIVES!
Review of Iron Man

Saturday, March 28, 2009

this entry brought to you by lcd soundsystem, "someone great"





There were a few people that I have talked to that preferred Iron Man over The Dark Knight. Most preferred the Batman sequel, but nearly all agreed that Iron Man was a blast, and was easily one of the best movies of the year. It's not that I disagree with them-- I enjoyed Iron Man. But I don't think I liked it as much as other people.

Of course I thought Robert Downey Jr. was phenomenal. I was never a fan of Iron Man growing up, but I knew enough about the character that as soon as I heard that Robert Downey Jr. had been cast, it was like a eureka moment. Of course Robert Downey Jr! It was as if the man had been born-- check that, genetically engineered-- to play Tony Stark at this exact moment in his life. He breathes life into the character, adding the perfect amount of arrogance and panache, without ever becoming obnoxious. Once the character's motivations change from selfish asshole to protector of the people, Downey is still arrogant with still a perfect balance of assholeness despite being someone who now cares when previously he did not. Downey's Stark is like a rock star who trashes hotels at the beginning of the movie, and then a rock star who gives money to charity by the character's turning point, but still a rock star through and through. Yet there's still human moments that the script gives Downey, particularly when he's trying to replace a faulty piece of equipment that will cause him to die if he doesn't fix it, that allow Downey to give him enough down-to-earth-iness that he is relatable. Robert Downey Jr. makes this movie even more than he made Tropic Thunder.

It's not that you could call it a problem, but the movie's weakness is its directing. John Favreau did a great job of making the movie spring with life and freshness, and I'm sure the studio was happy with his ability to bring it in under budget and yet still look so good. Iron Man has plenty of humor and runs at a nice, healthy clip. Yet I couldn't help but feel as if Favreau was a hired gun. Really, I didn't see how he was a better director than anyone else in the world for this project. Iron Man is exactly like the prettiest mall in your town-- pretty enough to want to go to it over other malls in your town, but exactly like the best malls in every other town across the country. It lacks personality. The acting is universally good, and they all breathe life into the movie-- kudos to the under appreciated Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Shane, and, although his role is relatively brief, Shaun Toub as the doctor who helps Stark get his heart working at the beginning, who is a shining spot in every movie I see him in. But the directing, though vibrant, lacks style. It's as if Marvel Comics made him keep his personal stamp off the project as much as possible, in order to keep some sort of tonal similarities in a franchise they plan on building. Or perhaps Favreau himself lacks any sort of signature style.

I was also disappointed with the climax. The movie seems to be setting itself up for something very interesting. Tony Stark is held captive in a cave by terrorists, and with the help of a fellow hostage, builds battle armor and blows his way out and into safety. In the process the suit is destroyed, leaving behind its carcass suit, and, presumably, the designs for it. The terrorists get a hold of of the scraps, leading you to believe that they will create their own version of the suit, and Tony will have to battle it out with the terrorists, also suited up, perhaps with multiple versions. This concept would have been fascinating, that Stark himself gave the terrorists the ability to use this powerful weapon which, assumably, they would use against innocent villagers, and that he would have to fight them off. The allegory that we Americans giving terrorists the technology to hurt innocents and we then have to go and use the exact same technology to stop them would have been extremely interesting. Perhaps there could have even been a subplot where a third party doesn't see a difference between Iron Man and the terrorists, leading to even more conflict.

Instead, the movie skirts around the issue and gives us Hollywood. The terrorist do get a hold of the plans for the suit-- but are killed before they can use them. Tony Stark does supply the bad guys with weapons-- but it's done without his knowledge or consent. Tony does end up fighting a villain in a suped up Iron Man-- but it's not a terrorist; instead it's a double cross by a trusted friend. Double crosses are fine and dandy, and it gives the movie a twist that, admittedly, you can probably see coming. The problem I had was that it would've been ballsier to go the more direct route. Having Tony Stark actually have to deal with terrorists that are a real threat would've, somehow, been less cliche than the root they took, and much more consequential to today's geo politics. The Dark Knight didn't see any problem with really delving into real-world allegories, but Iron Man merely flirted with the idea. It's not that I have a problem with every superhero movie not having a deeper metaphor to offer, but when the opportunity is clearly there it's disappointing when the filmmakers choose not to.

This isn't to say that I disliked Iron Man-- I liked it a lot, in fact. But I liked it exactly as much as I did the first Spider-Man movie. That is to say, I enjoyed it as a popcorn flick, and thought it was leagues better than something of the Michael Bay variety. But really, what chance does your average Michael Bay vehicle have to say something unique? I wish Iron Man had gone the extra mile and given us something truly exemplary. Instead it gets by by being merely above average.
-----



with love from CRS @ 11:49 AM 

0 Comments:

Post a Comment