the movie that "Transformers" should have been: stimulating, witty, character-populated, and above all, fun

Rating: 7/10 (26 September 2009)

After the disastrously disappointing summer special effects extravaganza "Transformers" (2007), "Iron Man" was just the kind of movie to boost up my anticipations again for the big-budget action blockbusters. This was the sort of movie that "Transformers" should have been: action-packed, witty, intelligent, character-populated, plot-backed, and above all, fun. Whereas "Transformers" had me yawning thirty minutes in with its awful dialogue, two-dimensional characters, and lack of awe-inspiring moments from otherwise visionary special effects, "Iron Man" had me interested right from the start, mostly due to the stellar performance by Robert Downey, Jr. and although I felt the climax was a little less climactic than it should have been, the movie pulled itself through clear to the end.
Robert Downey, Jr. stars at Tony Stark, a multibillionaire weapons manufacturer entrepreneur, who while demonstrating a new weapons system for the U.S. Army in the Middle-East, is captured by bloodthirsty insurgents, who critically wound him and then force him into building the same weapons for them. Dodging their supervision, Downey Jr. designs and constructs with miraculous success a mechanical combat suit that allows him to escape. Upon returning home, he immediately begins construction on a newer, better suit, which he then uses as his tool for fighting crime.
It's at this point that "Iron Man" basically becomes your standard superhero movie, but it does it with such vigor and zest that one cannot help but be enthralled by it. But I think that a lot of people love the movie for the completely wrong reason. Yes, you get your money's worth with the special effects. They are terrific, just as good as the visuals in "Transformers." But what makes "Iron Man" so fun is because it has what "Transformers" did not have and severely needed: characterization. Part of the reason why Robert Downey, Jr. is so great in this movie is because he has real character material to work with. The Tony Stark character is charming because he is likable and three-dimensional, not just the standard mathematical genius who thinks he can do something good. But it doesn't just stop with him. The always interesting actress Gwyneth Paltrow gives a superb performance as his costar, but she doesn't become overworked into becoming the typical damsel in distress which we usually get in superhero movies. There is real chemistry between Downey Jr. and Paltrow, they have profound dialogue to work with, and their relationship does not evolve into a sappy overly romantic jinx.
But in regards to the special effects, the genius is not because they are great, but because they are used imaginatively. Whereas the robots in "Transformers" only transformed, talked, and occasionally did some clashing with another robot, "Iron Man" uses its visuals to stimulate excitement, awe, and laughs that actually work out. But the movie does not just throw special effects after you one at a time. The movie is not about the fact that Iron Man can fly or shoot weapons and it does not lead solely up to these moments. It's just proof that special effects should be a *service to the filmâ€”part of what works, not the only thing that works.
If I have any complaints, they are minor. The movie ran just a tad too for my liking and again, I felt the climax could have been more energetic and riveting like the previous three-quarters of the movie, but that's hardly a detractor from this otherwise stimulating and entertaining blockbuster.