"So you're a man who has everything,..., and nothing."

Rating: 7/10 (12 May 2008)

So here I am in my late fifties with enough of a connection to my comic book collecting past to be intrigued by modern day super hero films. Now I was never a Marvel Comics geek, my favorite characters were the mainstays of the DC Comics universe, like Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, et al. But if you were a fan, you couldn't help but know about the alternative universe that contained Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk, The X-Men and Iron Man, which brings us to the subject at hand. I thought that the movie did a credible job of spanning the forty year comic book history of Iron Man about as well as could be expected in a distilled down two hour movie. Particularly effective was the way we see how the origin costume in the picture pays tribute to the early Iron Man years, while the modern day red and gold armor conveys the advance of science and technology into the twenty first century. Comic book purists will most likely have serious issues with the picture, but I've been able to get over the whole faithfulness to continuity issue some time ago. What I'm looking for in a flick like "Iron Man" is an opportunity to be entertained for a couple of hours, and there's enough here to have some fun and be just that - entertained.
The one thing I AM looking for in the Marvel universe pictures is the ubiquitous cameo appearance of Stan Lee, creator of many of the comic book icons we recognize today. He's incorrectly credited in the cast listing as I write this, as he's listed appearing as himself. What you need to do is pay attention to that party scene in the casino when Tony Stark says hi to 'Hef'. That was just the coolest way to get Stan into the picture, and I give him a lot of credit for not taking himself too seriously as he truly is one of the gods of comic book history.
As for the picture, it's easy enough to bash it for it's adherence to current world events and the milieu of extremist terrorism. But is that any worse than reliving the events of the early 1960's and placing the character in the middle of the Bay of Pigs or the Cuban Missile Crisis? The present day Iron Man can be a product of his time and still be effective as a symbol of patriotism and honor, even while the rest of the country is immersed in presidential primaries and partisan politics.
You have to give credit to the selection of Robert Downey Jr. for the Iron Man role. Perhaps his own bouts with substance abuse uniquely prepared him for an outstanding performance as the conflicted title character. However the character I was intrigued with the most was Jeff Bridges' Obadiah Stane, I just couldn't get over his appearance as Tony Stark's operations chief. The role was played with just the right amount of reserve and just below the surface malice; I thought he did an excellent job. Gwyneth Paltrow had pretty much a thankless job as Stark's personal assistant and secret admirer and it didn't seem to me that her performance was all that stand out.
As an aside, the one thing I feel I do have to comment on is a personal gripe of mine relative to the IMDb ranking system. As I write this, "Iron Man" sits at number #130 of the all time best films as ranked by current users. It seems to me that the way fans line up behind a picture even before it's released, there ought to be a moratorium of say, two or three years before a new release could be eligible for Top 250 ranking. When you consider the truly great films of all time like "Casablanca" or "Citizen Kane", it's hard for me to reconcile a popcorn flick like this one to be considered in the same breath. I feel the same way (as to a voting moratorium) about stunning pictures like "No Country For Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood". If a picture has the legs to stand up as an all time great, it will be remembered a couple years after it's original release. Remember all the fanboy hype about "Serenity"? Does anyone even care about that picture today? See what I mean?