Review

Review Date: 4-May-08
Spoiler Rating: Low
Juju Judgment: Just OK

Iron Man (2008)

A single line tipped the scales for me on "Iron Man," a decently crafted superhero flick for which I can only muster so much affection. It comes rather late in the movie. Gwyneth Paltrow, playing the platonic girlfriend/mother figure/all-'round girl Friday of a brilliant billionaire, gushes like a grandma when a federal agent whips out a gizmo for blowing open a locked door. The line is meant to elicit chuckles and add sweetie-pie allure to Paltrow's persona, but it clunks like a pile of rusty crowbars. How can we accept such amazement from a woman who has spent almost every minute of her life for god knows how many years in close personal quarters with a technological genius? I fidget in my theater seat. I am annoyed.

"Iron Man" expects quite a bit of acquiescence from its audience, trying to sell several notions which challenge the evidence of the viewer's eyes. At its heart is the aforementioned billionaire, Tony Stark, who is embodied in all his contradictory nature by the movie's chief asset, Robert Downey Jr. Stark was a child prodigy who inherited his father's arms business at the age of 21 and has since lived the charmed life of a hedonist for whom everything from supermodels to scientific breakthroughs comes easily. As the movie opens he is captured by terrorists who want him to build a missile. (The first sign of lameness: this occurs in Afghanistan but we are repeatedly told that the terrorists are not all Arabs. This story is topical, folks … but not in any way that might suggest prejudice!) Turning his natural insouciance and heretofore empty patriotism into defiance, Stark builds instead a metal suit equipped with the hallmarks of his trade. He blasts his way to freedom with the help of a wise old mentor (a nice touch), leaving his former self and a bunch of dead Ara— I mean random bad guys behind.

Back in Malibu, Stark angers his long-time business partner (Jeff Bridges, always a welcome sight) by announcing his plans to get out of the weapons trade and focus on other, vaguer projects that promote peace and justice. Not to mock these goals — for indeed, any superhero without inhuman powers who relies on determination and technology must grapple more than most with the great Why? — but it is a wee bit incredible that Stark never considered before that his products could be obtained by anybody and therefore contribute to violence, oppression, and other nastiness around the globe. Which leads to the central dilemma of the picture, namely the new, gleaming, red-and-gold suit that Stark constructs with robotic sidekicks. It is not clear what purpose he envisions for this marvel (a joyous flying scene hints at recreation and geek ambition), yet he soon puts it to use against the very villains who inspired its prototype by capturing him. Now, here we have an arms dealer who has found a conscience and wants to atone for his part in death and ruination, while over here we have an audience eager to see said arms dealer launch jet packs, blow stuff up, and shoot bad guys into oblivion, and if they look like desert-spawned terrorists, the better. As the rival iron man who rises for the finale shows, a big new weapon only causes the invention of an even bigger one. So how exactly is Tony Stark a noble soul, and how can we cheer his transformation without being complete hypocrites?

If only summer movies did not try to mix political philosophy with explosive ass-kickage! (Yes, it is summer now by Hollywood pronouncement.) I hope the heavily presaged sequel to "Iron Man" leaves Stark's repentance behind, openly acknowledges an enemy, and lets him go to town with his armor of mass destruction. Tony Stark is not planning to hide behind his mask, so why should the filmmakers hide behind sentiments that are obviously false?

Copyright © 2008 The Jujube (M. I. Kim). All rights reserved.