Iron Man (2008)

dir. Jon Favreau
writ. Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum, Matt Holloway
char. Stan Lee, Don Heck, Larry Lieber, Ron Kirby
feat. Robert Downey Jr., Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow

There isn't much new in Iron Man. We've seen these elements before, a bit from Minority Report, some Terminator, even some Ghostbusters there at the end. So why does it all work? It's because we're comfortable with these pieces and if the filmmakers don't fuck it up too badly, we will play along. The technical mumbo jumbo is kept light and fun and the action is, well, decent. Tony Stark begins as the guy we all want to be, the billionaire playboy jet-setting around the globe, then becomes the guy we ought to want to be, the superhero with powerful toys and noble intentions.

There is an origin story where many bad guys are killed. Then there is the development of the suit, complete with a sassy computer as comic relief. Then there is the romantic subplot with the lovely assistant, eking along in the background throughout the picture. There is the big first mission where bad men who are abusing innocent civilians (to no clear purpose) are avenged by the good man in big metal suit. And of course, we have a supervillain who will try to outdo our hero. While it's best not to question why our supervillain becomes so supervillainous, at least he makes for a big bad opponent for our hero. Well, sorta.

I think anyone who liked this film (myself included) should ask if you really ever care to see it again. If like me, the answer is no, then how did this happen? Is it really as simple as a few easy pleasures and the relief in them not screwing it up so badly that it hurt to watch? Are we just suckers for the genre, ready to go along with a paint-by-numbers story so long as the pieces fit, getting our fix in the process. Or are we just content to be appeased for now and then wait for the sequel to really pass judgment?