The film Text copyright (c) Filmverdict 2006-present. Any film titles and artwork used are copyright of their respective owners.
If Spider-Man is Marvel Comics' equivalent of Superman, then Iron Man is surely their Batman. The parallels are clear: a billionaire playboy makes himself into a superhero via the use of technology, and neither of the characters actually have innate super powers. But Iron Man isn't as dark and brooding a character as Batman by any stretch of the imagination, and sure enough, Iron Man the film is no Batman Begins. There's a lightheartedness on show throughout the film which makes it a bright and breezy affair, but while that's one of its prime selling points, it's also its primary flaw. Iron Man is a lightweight, frothy adventure that doesn't do much wrong but it doesn't take enough risks to leave much of an impact. We've all seen so many superhero origin stories by now that each new one really has to do something original to stand out from the crowd, and although Tony Stark's transformation into the red-and-gold title star is a little different from the others (involving the current political hot potato, the War On Terror), fundamentally it's the same old thing. Everyone comes to see a superhero film for the superhero, and here it takes about half the film for him to show up. There's no particular reason that a film should abbreviate the set-up - the aforementioned Batman Begins and M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable, to name two, both involve hugely compelling origin tales - but in Iron Man it does become a little bit of a drag.
Thank the movie gods, then, for Robert Downey Jr (well, also thank Jon Favreau and anyone involved in Downey's casting). Downey is a hugely watchable lead, finally - and deservedly - getting his big break in a blockbuster leading role, after stealing so many films in smaller parts. In his hands, Tony Stark's dialogue is brilliantly entertaining, whereas a lesser actor could easily have missed the comic timing needed to pull of some of the one-liners (which could have been clunky - "Fun-vee"?). It's because of him that we're able to stick with the film through its early stages, despite a surprisingly uninteresting detour to Afghanistan. The film just feel's like it's going through the motions, ticking off the necessary exposition requirements, yet Downey seems to be loving every second of the limelight. When not incarcerated in an Afghanistan cave, Downey displays great chemistry with all of the other cast members, who all fit their roles excellently. In particular, the almost-romantic-but-not-quite relationship between Stark and his secretary, Pepper Potts, is very likeable and well-played. No doubt the subplot will be developed much further in the sequel.
Sadly, a lot of Iron Man just feels like a tease for round 2. The action, when it occurs, is good, although the effects aren't always completely convincing (the rate of improvement in CGI seems to have slowed of late, strangely - there's nothing here as far as I could tell that would've looked out of place five years ago). Unfortunately, unlike Iron Man himself, the film never really takes off; almost as soon as the action really kicks in, the movie is over. As such it does not feel like a complete self-contained film in the way that Batman Begins - sorry to keep bringing that up, but it is the target to which new superhero films should aim - or Spider-Man do. Neither does director Jon Favreau - used to smaller scale fare until now - have the same individual flair for calling the shots as a Christopher Nolan or Sam Raimi. Nevertheless, Favreau directs competently and unfussily, and Iron Man gets a lot of the essentials right. It is a film that plays it safe in all but one department, and the department where it took a risk - casting - is the only one in which it really excels.
The summary
An enjoyable, lightweight adventure that slightly lacks a sense of pay-off. Leading man Robert Downey Jr., however, makes the whole film worthwhile.
Agree? Disagree? Say so in the Guestbook!