Posted on 05/02/2008 10:40:44 PM PDT by Yossarian
OK Freepers, Iron Man is now out, and is getting great reviews in the press.
BUT-
Iron Man has always been a political beast. And the reviews mention things like "social commentary" and infer that "Tony Stark changes his opinion on being an arms dealer". Those things tend to be red flags for a FReeper FRiendly Movie.
SO-
Can anyone who's actually seen Iron Man give a good spoiler-free review, including any political hack work done in the flick?
It is a movie about a guy who flies around in an iron suit and kills bad guys. It has great special effects. That’s all you need know or that matters. Trying to read any sort of coherant political commentary into it is pointless. It is a fun movie. I highly enjoyed it.
I liked it.
The romantic subplot was good.
Stay for the end of the credits.
It has some major plot holes caused by trying to update a 1970s military setting to a modern one, but civilians won’t see the gaping unsealable holes caused by the march of time and hey, when you are already imagining a simple tiny glowing coil as an immense power source - just go with it.
The flight scenes rock.
Thanks for the feedback. I just want a good non-political flick, and was worried - based on wording in the reviews - that Hollywood was injecting obnoxious bias into the flick.
I’ve read that Tony Stark changes his worldview after being waterboarded. As far as I know, no mention is made in the movie of hooking up car batteries to genitalia or shoving prisoners into plastic shredders...I guess if American doesn’t do it, it’s not worth showing.
Read “America” for “American” in that last post...
There is a certain amount, but that was in the original comics, if you are old enough to remember the early years (or if they are available as a graphic novel).
Well, the reviews on Yahoo were good enough to convince my lady friend so we are seeing it tomorrow(Saturday) so I will post a review.
There was a "Man in Black" type from a secret Government agency that turned out to be one of the good guys, and they didn't sugar-coat the depravity of the Muslim terrorists.
The special effects were terrific, and the sound effects were earth-shaking. This will be a good one for people who have Blu-Ray players, 1080p HDTV's, and chest-crushing audio equipment.
-ccm
Not quite accurate. I think many films, even with slight biases, are ruined for conservatives by REVIEWERS, be they liberal or conservative who want to see one side only.
SHIELD is a secret government agency and clearly served a positive role (though initially menacing) in the film, the warlord-terrorists were shown as the evil scum they were, though I heard no “Allahu Akbar.” There was a Nick Berg/Iraqi hostage-type scene that they put a twist on but at least they weren’t afraid to show something like that.
Stark changes his mind because he sees his weapons everywhere, including in the hands of the bad guys (mostly in their hands actually.) That’s due to Stane’s dealings it seems and not simply because any weapons manufacturer is inherently evil.
BTW, while I personally would not feel terrible about building weapons, it is not ‘liberal’ for someone to feel conflicted about it and Stark does nail the liberal reporter broad who questioned him about that issue. OK, he does change but it’s because he doesn’t want his technology serving the bad guys, not merely because the products are destructive.
Plus, he’s such a genius, he probably COULD do more with his talents than just create weaponry (and demonstrates as much with his response to the Vanity Fair reporter.)
I enjoyed the film, Downey is a good actor and brought his gift for snarkiness to Iron Man. I don’t know enough about Tony Stark, other than his drinking problem, to know how close it was to the comic book but I enjoyed it and I could DEFINITELY detect a good deal of the Favreau influence in the dialogue.
I’ll keep your points in mind. As I said, I was just going from a review that I read...
Here’s Ace’s take on it and I usually find him reliable. Generalized naughty language warnings apply to the whole site:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/261555.php
I always enjoyed comic books because “they could never depict that kind of stuff in a movie.”
Well now they can.
So It’s nice to see the pages come to life in that way.
I don’t think it was a particularly politically left leaning movie.
Stan Lee makes his obligatory cameo.
“Any FReeper Iron Man Review? (Vanity, but political)”
it was a fun flick, sold out all night at the theatre that I and my daughters went to, we were lucky enough to get three tickets and seats together, many groups had to sit apart from each other. The movie was well worth the price of admission and should give “I am Legend” a run for movie of the year honors. Robert Downey Jr. acted “above himself” if that makes sense, and I really hope that he can remain clean and sober because there has GOT to be a sequel!
(and demonstrates as much with his response to the Vanity Fair reporter.)
In more ways than one, lol!
Yes, I was a comic book guy long ago. I’ve got quite a few Silver Age books, including some Iron Man...
More like Rock’em Sock’em Robots. Robo Cop II, and the Transformers piled into one. A quick dig on water torture too. It’s another action movie with lots of special effects.
“I have a really interesting political point of view, and it’s not always something I say too loud at dinner tables here, but you can’t go from a $2,000-a-night suite at La Mirage to a penitentiary and really understand it and come out a liberal. You can’t. I wouldn’t wish that experience on anyone else, but it was very, very, very educational for me and has informed my proclivities and politics every since.”...Robert Downey Jr
Here is a review from Christian Film and Telivision
MOVIEGUIDE REVIEW: IRON MAN
Quality: * * * *
Acceptability: -1
IRON MAN stars Robert Downey, Jr., in the heroic story of billionaire defense contractor Tony Stark. After a new missile demonstration in Afghanistan, Tony is kidnapped by terrorists (using arms developed by Tony’s company) and forced to build the weapon he just demonstrated. Instead, he builds a suit of armor to escape. Back home, he tries to change the direction of the company because terrorists have access to his high tech weapons. His noble efforts are blocked by corporate partner Obadiah, who has his own agenda. Undaunted, Tony builds a new version of the armor suit to stop the terrorists.
IRON MAN is an enjoyable ride with terrific special effects. A battle of good versus evil, it contains minimal foul language and one implied sex scene. However, as a role model, Tony is a womanizer and rarely is far from an alcoholic drink. As he finds his calling to protect refugees from terrorists, those aspects to his character are dropped, suggesting a positive change. The military scenes are too intense for children, though most actual violence is either off screen or between men battling in suits of high tech armor.
For the complete review of IRON MAN, and other current movies, visit http://www.movieguide.org.
INTENDED AUDIENCE: Older children and adults
RATING: PG-13
RELEASE: May 2, 2008
TIME: 126 minutes
STARRING: Robert Downey, Jr., Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, and Gwyneth Paltrow
DISTRIBUTOR: Paramount Pictures/Viacom
When you need help figuring out what a movie is saying, look to the most trusted source of Christian movie analysis, MOVIEGUIDE®.
The Media Creates the Culture that Influences Children and Teenagers — Please Send Us Your Most Generous Donation Now! Thank you!
Share this email with your friends and family!
Christian Film & Television Commission®
2510-G Las Posas Road #502
Camarillo, CA 93010
Phone: 805-383-2000
Fax: 805-383-4089
www.movieguide.org
The Christian Film & Television Commission®/Good News Communications, Inc has a 501 (c) 3 tax-exempt status. Donations are tax deductible.
A reviewer mentioned Tony’s change of view but also said there was no lingering on it. He emphasized that this was NOT a movie with a politcal message or agenda.
He just blows things up real good!
Iron-ically, Robert Downey Jr. seems to be changing his personal worldview too away from liberalism...
Judging from the posts in this thread so far... Tony Stark makes IEDs? I thought Iran did.
In a CNN news report for his shady dealing with the Clinton campaign??? ( I can dream that they'd be "equal" in showing corruption )
If this starts “at the beginning” why do they introduce the alcoholism plotline which was introduced something like 15 years into the series run?
There was no "dig" on water torture. The arabs beat the snot out of him (his face was bloodied, etc), lead him to a mock Nick Berg-style execution, and didn't just politely water board him, but repeatedly shoved his head into a tub of water and held him down for some time.
Loaded up the teens and 12 year olds to go see the movie yesterday, here was the group consensus:
1) It is as good as Spider-Man 1 and X-Men 1 as far as Marvel comic book movies.
2) Armor was well done, comedy was very subtle but funny.
3) Robert Downey pulled Stark off, very good acting on his part.
4) Political aspect was balanced and Stark being converted from careless playboy to concerned citizen was well done.
5) Everyone was looking forward to Iron Man 2.
Stark was not taken out by an IED. His convoy was wiped out by missiles. The missiles happened to be made by his company, thus the irony of the situation, which led to his capture and near death.
Military was treated really well IMHO, as people doing their job. The terrorists were treated as bad guys, there was nothing sympathetic about them.
***MINOR SPOLIERS AHEAD***
The only point of contention was the idea of ‘war profiteering’ on the behalf of Stark’s company. But most of that was due to his partner.
His anti-weapon change of heart is understandable, and it is treated with shock by those who are closest to him (two sympathetic characters — Pepper Potts and Air Force liaison to Stark, Rhodes).
And in the end, when Stark discovers that Iron Man is a weapon after all, he has no compulsions in what is obviously killing terrorists. This is Hollywood/Marvel, a true anti-weapon change of heart would have involved Stark having some sort of attempt at creating weapons to pacify rather than kill.
I also thought it was humorous that after his anti-weapons spiel, his invention of his power source wasn’t marketed and shared with the people. Instead, he poured all of his efforts into creating a flight suit/weapon. LOL.
Personally, give me the original Iron Man who didn’t mind giving Titanium Man, the Mandarin and any number of assorted communists an ass kicking. I guess creating a Islamofascist superhero would be more humorous than deadly. LOL.
But this Iron Man will do too. ;-)
I haven't seen it (yet) but I saw a quote from the Director saying that they were not introducing alcoholism (yet) but saving that for a later movie. Stark parties. Stark drinks. But it's not a problem (yet).
If anyone has seen it and can tell me if I'm wrong, I'd appreciate it.
Before Stark’s conversion, he drinks. A lot. Almost every scene has him with a drink in his hand. The very first shot in the movie is his drink.
But you’re right, his partying in general is the problem in this movie. And alcohol is just an element of that.
Entertainment can be a good thing without all the political BS.
As far as the alcoholism, I don't know. Never read the comic books. Anyone??
Well I really enjoyed it. For a superhero movie, the acting, cast and pacing was superb. Lots of wonderful visual fx but not so much that it becomes overkill.
The two hours flew by and at the end I wanted more. Looking forward to a sequel.
We just got back from seeing Iron Man and like you the
time seemed to fly. Very good action movie.
Just don`t see how Iron Man and Pepper survived that
last battle.
Bet they`ll be a sequel quickly
BUMP!
Let me put it this way: I’m on my way to see it tonight with friends, after having seen it last night with my wife. It’s that good.
You heard wrong.
Bad politics aside, I have to see it. Good versus evil, heroes, gadgets, action, and a romantic sub-plot - I am so there!
I loved that part. Emblematic of the Left’s worship of power for its own sake. Stark was her enemy, but he was confident and manly and not afraid to be an a-hole to her, so she was putty in his hands.
We stuck around for the after-the-credits scene. Tony Stark walks into his house and Nick Fury, boss of SHIELD (played by Laurence Fishburne), who talks to him about getting involved in the Avengers Project
Tony is not an alcoholic (yet). He's a guy who likes to party, but he is not DEPENDENT upon alcohol. He's sober when he has work to do, which is the essential difference between an alcoholic and somebody who just drinks a bit
I have also been looking forward to possibly seeing the movie with my nearly 10 year old son.
The metal suits and and rockets with a good guy chasing after bad guys makes the violence quotient a-okay for me. I would not let my children watch the morally ambiguous and subversively dark and creepy “Pirates of the Caribbean”. No matter how much they bugged me or how many of the young friends had been allowed to watch it.
I guess the thing that I was most concerned about was the womanizing aspect.
Thanks to Stan Lee and Marvel, I actually recall having had an opportunity to see an awful lot of Pepper Potts when I was a kid. My recollection of having an Iron Man comic is that if my parents ever looked inside the cover that I would never see a comic book again.
What do you say about the “fleshy” sections of “Iron Man”. Am I going to end up doing a lot of ‘splainin’ to my kid if he sees it?? Should I definitely check out before hand?
As for politics ~ no matter. My kid already knows how much liberals suck.
LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.