Walking into Iron Man, I actually had high hopes for the movie. I saw the trailers beforehand and the fighting looked awesome, Tony Stark looked awesome, and the jokes were awesome; just pure awesomeness all-around. Was the movie awesome? Not really. Was it bad? Not really. Do you recommend seeing it? Yeah, I guess so.
The Good
Good Fighting: For what little fighting there was in Iron Man, it was surprisingly good. Iron Man kicks ass and takes names just like he does in the comic books. It wasn’t pansy fighting either with the goal to incapacitate the enemy rather than kill them. No. Iron Man doesn’t fuck around. He’s packed with rockets, missiles, repulsor beams, and machine guns. Basically anyone who got in his way died, and quite frankly, that’s how I like my superheroes.
Great Acting and Perfect Casting: I don’t think Iron Man would have been as good as it was if Robert Downey, Jr. hadn’t of played Tony Stark. There’s no mistaking it; this guy is Tony Stark. He drinks, he macks it with the ladies, and he knows when to give and take a joke. Downey, Jr. just got Stark down like no other actor possibly could have. Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges, and Terrence Howard played their roles respectively also, but it’s Downey, Jr. who’s steals the show here.
Satisfying Ending: As I was watching through Iron Man, I really didn’t know how it would end. Would Iron Man save the day and marry Pepper Potts? Would he die at the end from the fight you knew he would have with Obadiah Stane? To me, it was either one of those endings (because they’re so predictable and common [with a little tweaking] with superhero movies). Thankfully, it was neither, and the ending to Iron Man is both satisfying and sets itself up for a possible sequel without throwing us a crappy cliff-hanger ending.
The Bad
Second-Rate Special Effects: Movies these days are loaded with special effects, so like with next-generation video games, you could tell with Iron Man that the graphics used here weren’t as good as they could have been. After watching an astoundingly realistic movie like Transformers, Iron Man’s effects were some-what noticeable. I’m not saying they were horrible, but they were…noticeable.
Very Few Fights: For what should have been an action packed movie, Iron Man didn’t include very many fight scenes. From what I can remember, there were only three: where he breaks out of captivity, where he goes back to kill a bunch of people, and the fight at the end with the Iron Monger. That’s it. Three 15-minute fights in a 2-hour long movie. Totally lame.
Really Sucky End Battle: Throughout most of the movie, it becomes obvious that Tony will have to fight Obadiah Stane at the end. With such other good action parts throughout the movie; shouldn’t have this one been awesome? Yes, but unfortunately, it was seriously a load of crap. It just includes a lot of bad dialog, cheesy special effects, and a few unexplained mysteries. Some action movie goers might not mind the fight too much, but true fans of Iron Man are going to feel disappointed.
Genre Confusion: Being a reviewer of both movies and video games, it was particularly hard for me to decide which genre Iron Man fitted best into. The movie labeled itself as an action flick, but to me, Iron Man contained a whole lot more comedy than it did action. Even the few action scenes throughout the movie were humorous at times. From blowing up a tank with a tiny rocket to the fight with the Iron Monger at the end, the movie is just loaded with comedy and is hard to take seriously.
All in all, Iron Man is a decent movie and is definitely worth checking out. Whether you’re a fan of either action or comedies, Iron Man does a decent job at pleasing fans of both.
You’re right on the mark on all counts. I thought it was a great comedy movie, but in the action department it was lacking. Compare this to Batman Begins that comes from a director who’s NEVER done action before, it’s hard to swallow that Iron Man wouldn’t be getting into more fights than Batman…
And he never gets to grab a missile and throw it back at something! I really liked the flight sequences though. It’s not a deep movie by any means, so I’ll just treat it as a typical summer blockbuster. But then, even Spiderman 3 had more than this.
By: Moeez Siddiqui on May 6, 2008
at 7:43 am
The major downside to the first Iron Man movie I felt was going to be the origin section. It was always a little hard to swallow, even in the comic book. However the movie did a decent job. It was necessary because Yinsen was influential on Tony Stark’s character. I thought the first armor was a little hard to believe too. Especially when it was being shot in the helmet by anti-tank rounds from a turret gun. That was forgivable still.
Overall, I think the movie does a lot more good. The characters are all more developed than other comic book movies like Spider-Man. I also appreciate the relationship between Pepper Pots and Stark. I was afraid they would try to hard to bring them together and that just wouldn’t be Iron Man.
I think the comedy makes this movie better than Batman Begins in some regards. Although Batman Begins is better for its great story, Iron Man still does its part. Also, it doesn’t have Rachel in it, a big plus. Although it does blur the genres, it fits. I wouldn’t expect Batman to crack a joke, or even smile for that matter, but Tony Stark is not Bruce Wayne and Iron Man isn’t Batman. Overall its just a happier movie and I don’t think that should be considered a bad thing.
Most of your points are fair, but I feel that the good in Iron Man outweighs the negatives. It is better than Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2, but it doesn’t take the crown of best comic book movie from Batman Begins. I’d say it at least deserves 4 stars. Thats just another opinion though.
By: Zeph Greenwell on May 6, 2008
at 11:21 am
@Zeph Greenwell
I agree that Iron Man’s positives out-weigh its negatives, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say Iron Man’s better than the first Spider-Man. Let’s just hope Iron Man 2 doesn’t suck as hard as Spider-Man 2 did.
Also to clear something up, my scoring system is based off of my feelings towards the movie, not the quality in which it was produced. Me giving it three stars meant that I was decisively neutral towards the movie; not actually falling in love with it but not hating it either.
By: ajmarra on May 6, 2008
at 11:31 am