Reviews: Man of Steel

                Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel gets so much right that it makes it that much more frustrating when it fumbles the most basic elements. It’s a frenetic, thrilling exercise in style and outsized-action, but I can’t help feeling that somewhere along the way they missed the point.  

                On the dying planet, Krypton, chief scientist Jor-El (Russell Crowe) sends his infant son, Kal-El (played as an adult by Henry Cavill) to Earth, after downloading the ‘Cortex’ into his DNA and shortly before he (Jor-El) is killed by General Zod (Michael Shannon), the military commander of Krypton who intends to conquer another world to preserve their race. After Krypton explodes, Kal-El’s little ship lands in Kansas, where he’s raised by farmers Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Developing god-like powers from Earth’s sunlight, young Clark Kent (as he’s now named) travels the Earth searching for a purpose. Meanwhile, General Zod and his followers have survived Krypton and are searching for Jor-El’s son to continue their plans…

                First, I suppose, we should talk about what the film gets right. It’s marvelously cast: Henry Cavill makes a fine Superman/Clark Kent. He doesn’t redefine the role, like Christopher Reeves did, but he’s certainly a good fit. Even better is Amy Adams as Lois Lane, who is easily the best big-screen version of the character to date (even though her Lois is much less feisty and sarcastic than most depictions). Russell Crowe brings his effortless dignity and sympathy to the role of Jor-El (which here is greatly expanded, more on that below), and Lawrence Fishbourne, despite his reduced screen-time, is an absolutely perfect Perry White. Diane Lane and Kevin Costner are good choices for the Kents, and Christopher Meloni more or less steals the show as the distrustful Colonel Hardy.

                The only cast member I’m not sure of is Michael Shannon as General Zod. His performance varies wildly from hammy over-the-top scenery chewing to cold, calculating menace. How much of that is Shannon’s doing and how much Snyder’s is open for dispute, but I’d say he’s probably the weakest of the main cast. He’s at his worst in the early scenes and improves as the movie goes on.

                On the other hand, taking the character simply as a character, Zod makes an imposing villain, and I applaud the filmmakers for saving Lex Luthor for a possible sequel.

                The action is excellent; just the kind of huge, outsized combat we have always wanted from a Superman movie. Previous films have either been too hampered by technology or by a curiously reluctant script to give Superman his due, but here the filmmakers cut loose and show us just how powerful he and the other Kryptonians really are. Characters fly through the air, smash through skyscrapers, hurl locomotives, and blast each other with eye-beams.

                Some revisions to the classic storyline make sense, especially their decision to drop the much-mocked inability of Lois to recognize Clark because he puts on a pair of glasses. Here they meet before Clark joins the Daily Planet and he doesn’t really try to hide his identity from her. This leads to a nice moment where they talk about why Clark hides his identity and Lois decides to drop her investigation into him and leave him be. I also like the idea of Clark drifting from place to place like David Banner in The Incredible Hulk, though the film doesn’t make of this what it might have (contrast Clark’s rather impersonal interactions with Bruce’s familiar, friendly relationship with his foreman and fellow workers in Letterier’s Hulk). In particular, an interaction with a bullying trucker plays out all wrong and makes Clark out to be much pettier than he ought to be.

                What happens is this (I’m going to describe it in detail because it’s a good sample of how this version goes wrong); Clark’s working as a bus-boy at a diner when he sees a drunk trucker harrassing a waitress. He stands up for her, asking the man to leave, and the trucker gets in his face and dares Clark to make him. Clark responds by turning in his apron and walking away, even after the guy hits him and throws a beer bottle at his head on the way out. Later, the trucker comes out to find his truck smashed and impaled on the logs he was hauling.

                There is so, so much wrong here. First of all, how does destroying the man’s truck an hour later teach him any kind of lesson? Would the man even connect it with his treatment of the waitress? And it gets worse the more you think about it; the man didn’t own that truck or those logs, they were someone else’s property, which he was only employed to transport, and which Clark just destroyed in what appears to be a temper-tantrum. How is destroying something that belongs to an uninvolved third party any morally superior to beating up a lewd bully to defend a woman? Clark can’t be worried about losing his job: he quits. If he’s worried about keeping a low profile, I think a semi-truck impaled by logs is going to attract more attention than a run-of-the-mill bar-fight. Moreover, Clark ought to have the control to beat the guy enough to teach him a lesson without either seriously injuring him or revealing his powers. Any other version of Clark would know which was the right choice without hesitation (heck, the Christopher Reeves version did it even without his powers. He got beaten up for it, but still).

                And that’s the biggest problem here: the framework – set-up, casting, etc. – is great. It’s the details that are wrong. The filmmakers took on one of the most morally-centered and honestly-good superheroes in the world, but it’s pretty obvious they had no clear idea of what an honestly good person would look like. A truly good person, like Clark ought to be, would either have fought the jerk to protect his coworker, or just walked away entirely. One thing he wouldn’t do is take out his anger in an act of petty vandalism. Throughout the film Clark keeps making morally dubious choices; stealing clothes, for instance, or making no effort to move the cataclysmic battles out of populated areas. It doesn’t feel like the filmmakers were consciously trying to compromise him, but that they honestly didn’t stop to consider these factors.

                On that note the character of Jonathan Kent is particularly troublesome. Kevin Costner gives a good performance, and he has some of the most moving scenes in the film (especially when he reveals to Clark his true heritage) while also projecting exactly the kind of honest, simple masculinity that the character requires, but he also has some of the movie’s worst moments as well. I’m sorry, but I cannot accept any version of Jonathan Kent who would suggest that it might be better for Clark to let innocent people die than to reveal his true nature. Or any version of Clark who would follow such advice. Pa Kent’s exit is the film’s nadir and threatens to derail the whole thing.

                Contrast this with Captain America, which also featured an iconic moral hero its center. In that movie Steve Rogers did things like demanding respect for soldiers serving overseas or trying to keep civilians out of harm’s way, even if meant possibly failing in his mission. Clark never does anything like that here; the closest he comes is yelling to people to get inside as he battles the evil Kryptonians. Clark’s still a nice and polite guy, but he’s not the icon of goodness that he needs to be.

                Oddly enough, there is a character here who evinces just the kind of selfless heroics that Clark should; Col. Hardy. I must say, it’s wonderfully refreshing to see a mainstream Hollywood movie – and one in which the military is often at odds with the hero – that presents a prominent soldier character who evinces real heroism, honor, and even chivalry. In one scene, when the Kryptonians come to take Superman to meet with Zod, they unexpectedly demand to take Lois as well. Hardy unhesitatingly steps in front of her and says that’s not happening. When the Kryptonian envoy threatens to tell Zod that the humans aren’t cooperating, Hardy looks her in the eye and says “I don’t care what you tell him.”

                It’s only the first of several times that Hardy shows the kind of courage and moral fiber that Superman, alas, never really gets the chance to. On the one hand that’s to be expected: Hardy’s an ordinary man who can die, Superman is effectively invulnerable, so Hardy has more scope to demonstrate true courage and self-sacrifce. But it doesn’t really help Jor-El’s claim that Superman will be an ideal for humans to strive for when humanity already seems to be producing heroes of at least equal moral caliber. I’m not saying I wanted humanity to be presented more unfavorably, but that Superman needed to be better to create some contrast.  

                I do like that Clark embraces and seems proud of his American heritage. When a high-ranking general asks how he knows Superman won’t act against America’s interests, Clark answers “I’m from Kansas, General; I’m as American as it gets!”

                Though, in light of the rest of film, this assertion falls somewhat flat. Clark’s alienation and sense of not belonging are highlighted so much here that he loses most of his small-town, boy-next-door charm. I don’t mind Clark being bullied at school, or feeling restless and disconnected from normal humans, but those can’t be his only – or even his primary – attributes. Those are the feelings that come out when he’s alone or isolated, or when he has to done the suit and go into action. In normal, everyday life he ought to have more friends, be more outgoing, fit in better. Clark as a complete social-misfit is, to my mind, a terrible misstep. It loses the idea that Clark represents the best of both worlds: Kryptonian power coupled with a small-town American character. Here he keeps the power, but loses the character.

                Compare this displaced, introverted outcast with, say, Christopher Reeves in the original films. Or the animated version, yelling for Ma Kent not to put the star on top of the Christmas tree because “that’s my job!” and lamenting that all the presents are wrapped in lead so he can’t peak. Or even Dean Cain from TV’s Lois and Clark gushing about the Smallville corn-festival. I understand that this is supposed to be a reinterpretation of the character with specific emphases, but, well, there’s good and bad reinterpretations, and this version is, to me, much less interesting and likeable than most. There’s too much alien and not enough human. In short, I think, in the midst of all the style and action and angst and all the rest, they missed the essentials of who their protagonist is.

                On the other hand, the Christological themes of the Superman story are presented here in a respectful and fairly intriguing manner. Pa Kent’s line about Clark having “another father” could, as other critics have pointed out, been said by St. Joseph himself. Early on, during his wandering days, Clark wears a beard that gives him a Christ-like appearance, and at one point he even goes to a priest for advice, his face framed by a depiction of Gethsemane (the priest himself is well-portrayed, especially his deliberate non-reaction to Clark’s confession that he’s the alien everyone’s talking about). Likewise, repeated speeches about Superman being the ‘ideal to strive for,’ being sent to ‘elevate’ humanity, and so forth can’t help but remind one of humanity’s true Savior.

                The expanded back-story of Krypton gives an intriguing critique of ‘designer babies’ and artificial reproduction. Jor-El rightly points out that such things infringe upon the rights and freedom of the children so produced, because it removes their ability to choose their path in life. Here Kal-El is presented as the first natural Kryptonian birth in centuries, something that Zod decries as ‘heresy!’ The pro-life angle, with natural conception and birth contrasted favorably with artificial conception and the evident love and care that Kal-El’s parents have for their infant son, is well-done and much appreciated.

                On Earth, I really liked Diane Lane’s Martha Kent and her relationship with Clark (furthering the Christological resonances, I couldn’t help thinking of Our Lord and His Blessed Mother). There’s a touching scene in which Clark tells her about meeting Jor-El, and she tries to be happy for him, though is clearly saddened by the new complication in their relationship. She also has a great scene where she faces down General Zod himself, which not only showcases her steely courage, but also gives Clark a rare and satisfying opportunity to really go berserk.

                I mentioned some of this before, but I do like that almost all the characters – Ma and Pa Kent, Jor-El, Lois, Perry, Hardy, and even Richard Schiff’s Dr. Hamilton – get opportunities for heroics. One of the complaints of the Superman story is that he’s simply too powerful and the other characters – especially Lois – just have to sit around and wait for him to save the day. On the other hand, here it’s almost the reverse, with Superman nearly getting lost in the sea of heroism and the only thing separating him from anyone else is his powers. There were times when I caught myself wishing for a movie featuring the adventures of Hardy, Hamilton, and Nameless-Cute-Female-Captain without bothering about Superman.

                Regarding Jor-El, his role has been broadly and rather clumsily expanded, either because they wanted to make use of Russell Crowe, or for some other reason. Here Jor-El not only gets action scenes in the opening on Krypton (riding a giant dragon-fly, sword-fighting Zod, etc), but even later, after his death. He even rescues Lois at one point! While I’m the last person to complain about Russell Crowe’s presence, I think this somewhat revisionist decision was a mistake. It further lessens Superman’s impact (what kind of ultimate hero needs his dad to come up with his master plan for him?) and, honestly, just feels kind of silly.

                I’m also not sure how I feel about the style of the film; the repeated artsy close-ups and flashbacks. Non-linear storytelling worked wonderfully in Batman Begins, but I’m not sure if it works here, at least coupled with Snyder’s directorial style. Christopher Nolan shot the flashbacks essentially the same as the rest of the movie. Snyder goes for a dreamy series of extreme close-ups, silent imagery, and haunting music. I’m not a big fan of this type of direction at the best of times, and in a superhero adventure – especially a Superman adventure – it feels jarringly out of place.

                All this makes me wonder whether Zack Snyder, whose films are often more stylish than substantive, was really the right director for a Superman movie. His direction feels too self-indulgent, too consciously artistic for the material, which I think demands a lighter, or at least a different touch. Someone like Jon Favreau, Joe Johnston, Brad Bird, or even Nolan himself would probably have been a better fit.

                Then there’s the fact that the scope of the villain’s threat is so large that I really have to question where a sequel could possibly go. What could Lex Luthor do that would be a larger threat than what Zod does here? How could anything the next movie provides be anything but a let-down without just blowing up the planet? I’m not saying it isn’t possible, but certainly the filmmakers have left themselves a very difficult task if they plan to turn this into a series (which they obviously do).

                Finally, at the very end of the movie, Superman does something that fans of the character will find extremely problematic. The act is arguably both moral and necessary, given the circumstances, but it doesn’t feel apiece with who Superman is and ought to be. Besides, even if (like me) you don’t find what he does morally suspect, you can’t help thinking that Superman really should have been clever and resourceful enough to resolve the situation by some other means.

                I don’t want to sound too negative. Even with all its flaws, Man of Steel is a worthwhile experience, filled with well-executed set-pieces and clever conceits. The sensory overload that Clark – and later Zod – experiences when his powers first begin to manifest is a good example of the thoughtfulness the film put into his powers. I also like the fact that when he first tries flying, he ends up plowing through a mountain. The interrogation room scene, where Superman obligingly goes along with such obviously inadequate measures as hand-cuffs and a one-way mirror, is smartly written, as is the first meeting between Clark and Lois, where he (of course) saves her life, though he has to perform a little cringe-inducing first-aid to do so (Lois seems to have a truly staggering ratio of ‘danger-to-actual-injury’ in most other versions, doesn’t she?). Lois herself is one of the highlights of the movie; driven, courageous, a little foolhardy, but ultimately honest and self-sacrificing. It’s easy to see why Clark is so taken with her (and, traditionalist that I am, I was cheered by the fact that they made Lois a strong, independent woman while still requiring her to be rescued quite a lot).

                But the great Superman movie remains to be made. The first attempts had a perfect Clark Kent/Superman in Christopher Reeves, but were too light and cheesy and hampered by miscasting among the supporting players. This one has a good cast and spectacular action, but is too dark and grim and misses who Clark Kent is and ought to be. Somewhere in between lays the essential Superman adventure. For now, Man of Steel is an entertaining enough attempt, but I’ll take it as a signpost directing future filmmakers to something better.

Final Rating: 3/5. Entertaining and occasionally spectacular, with much-appreciated themes, but fumbles the character and his story at their core.

Reviews: Iron Man

                The incredible achievement of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: an interconnected series of films that each tell a distinct story, but which reference and play off each other to form a single coherent universe, began in 2008 with the release of Iron Man: a quirky, unusual superhero movie that at times felt more like a classic screwball comedy, while other times delivering some of the very finest superhero action scenes to date. It takes one of the less famous denizens of the Marvel universe and turns him into a uniquely delightful figure: a quick-witted, fallible, all-too-human figure who nevertheless reveals himself when the time comes to be as heroic and courageous as any of his fellows.

                The story begins with Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr. in a career-defining role): a Howard-Hughes-esque  genius-celebrity-billionaire who is simultaneously hailed as one of the most brilliant minds of his day, designing the smartest, most powerful weapons in the world for the U.S. Military, and equally famous for his drinking, gambling, and womanizing antics. One early scene has him approached by a skeptical reporter, whom he seduces with a few quick pick up lines. When she wakes up the next morning, she finds herself alone in Tony’s cavernous mansion…except for Stark’s assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), who notes that her duties include “taking out the trash.” Later Potts finds Tony hiding in his basement workshop, tinkering with his hot-rod.

                “How’d she take it?” he asks offhandedly.

                “Like a champ,” she sighs with a look of clear disapproval.

                Tony, in short, is an irresponsible dick. Pepper knows this and does her best to rein him in, while Tony’s best friend and military contact, Col. James “Rhodey” Rhodes (Terrance Howard) openly confronts him about it. “You don’t respect yourself, so I know you don’t respect me,” he says. On the other hand, Tony’s business partner, Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges), seems to like Tony just the way he is.

                It’s become somewhat surprising in a mainstream Hollywood film to see a character so clearly disapproved for playboy-esque behavior. The film makes it clear that Tony is a self-centered jerk and makes no apologies or justification for it: our hero is simply not a very good person.

                All that changes, however, during a weapons demonstration in Afghanistan, during which Tony is ambushed, maimed, and kidnapped by the ruthless “Ten Rings” terrorist group (the film thus nicely plays off of real-world politics without becoming too on the nose). Now dependent on an electromagnet installed in his chest to survive, Tony discovers that the weapons he designed to protect American troops are being used against them. Not only that, but the Ten Rings intend for him to build them his latest missile, rendering them even more powerful. Disillusioned by his life’s work, Tony notes that even if he does what they want, he’ll probably be dead in a week anyway. “Well,” says fellow prisoner, Yinsen (Saun Toub), “This is an important week for you.”

                With Yinsen’s help, Tony hatches a daring plan to escape: first he replaces the car-battery powering his electromagnet with a miniaturized ‘arc-reactor:’ an advanced power source that could “power his heart for fifty lifetimes…or something big for fifteen minutes.” Then, under the guise of building the missile, he constructs an armored power-suit and fights his way to freedom.

                Once back in the U.S., Tony takes Yinsen’s last piece of advice (“Don’t waste it”) to heart and sets about perfecting his suit’s design. Meanwhile, he shuts down his company’s weapons department until he can find out how his inventions ended up in terrorist hands…a move that alarms Obadiah and causes Pepper and Rhodey to wonder if he might be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Meanwhile, the Ten Rings group has been recovering his discarded original design…

                The film’s primary strength is its rapid-fire dialogue, which at times makes it seem almost like a Howard Hawk’s movie. Apparently, the actors were not given an actual script for most scenes: instead they were told the points they needed to cover, the basic blocking, and allowed to pretty much ad lib the whole thing. It’s a technique that could have backfired spectacularly, but thanks to the skill and humor of the principle performers it pays off in spades. The dialogue is quick, clever, and sparkling with that fresh quality that comes from genuinely talented and good-humored actors just having fun with their rolls. Downey Jr. and Paltrow have particularly good chemistry, and their scenes together are some of the best in the film, with Paltrow playing the straight-woman to Downey’s rapid fire snarker. When she points out in an early scene that he’s three hours late for his flight, he responds with “I figured the plane wouldn’t leave without me. I mean, doesn’t it kind of defeat the purpose of owning a plane that you still have to catch it?” Indeed, the dialogue and character interaction is so much fun that you sometimes actually forget you’re watching an action movie, and it’s a little startling to see these same characters suddenly turn into serious action stars when the movie calls for it. Startling, not jarring: the film handles these transitions well and in spite of everything you can actually believe that this is the same Tony Stark putting on the Iron Man suit and doing battle in the hills of Afghanistan.

                The plot is, perhaps, not quite seamless (the fact that Iron Man can apparently make a round-trip from Malibu to Afghanistan in a single go is stretching things), but for the most part it holds together very well. It isn’t overly complicated, but there are a number of twists that are, if not always very surprising, at least well set-up and believable. For instance, the chain of events that leads to the creation of the villainous Iron Monger is solid and entirely credible based on what we know of the characters in question. There are a number of very well-staged suspense scenes, particularly one in which Pepper has to covertly download encrypted information while the villain is in the room talking to her. These scenes are a nice balance between the comedy and flat-out action, while also demonstrating the filmmakers’ creativity and sense of pacing.

                The action scenes, meanwhile, are uniformly excellent, though perhaps a little shorter and less frequent than some might like. There’s Tony’s rough, violent escape from captivity in a hulking wrought-iron suit, then his exuberant test flight of his revised model (which ends on an hilariously unexpected note), a battle scene in Afghanistan, and finally the climactic fight with Iron Monger, which is just about everything you would want from a giant robot battle. Each scene is very different from the others, ensuring that they don’t become repetitive and boring, and each has its own little moments of delight that testify to the filmmaker’s joy in the material. For instance, during Tony’s escape there’s a moment where he temporarily gets his arm stuck in the cave wall. While he’s trying to extricate himself, one of the terrorists creeps up behind him and tries to shoot him point-blank in the head…only for the bullet to ricochet off Tony’s helmet and kill him. Likewise in his battle in Afghanistan later in the movie, Iron Man pulls off the classic ‘grab them from behind the wall’ maneuver from Slasher films; a richly satisfying moment, as here it is the hero terrifying the terrorists.

                As you can probably gather, the effects are quite good; the Iron Man suit feels honestly heavy and solid, avoiding the key flaw of many CGI creations that they feel weightless (see for instance the first Spider-Man movie). Most of the time you can’t obviously tell between the practical suit (designed by the late great Stan Winston in his final film project) and the CGI suit, except that the CGI suit tends to be flying. The exception is, unfortunately, the very first effect in the movie: the ‘Mark I’ suit Tony uses to escape from captivity. It looks great as a practical effect, but you can very clearly tell when it is and is not CGI. This doesn’t necessarily take you out of the scene, but it’s a little jarring and represents one of the film’s few obvious flaws. By the time the final battle rolls around, however, we’ve pretty much stopped even trying to spot the CGI and are just absorbed in the action.

                As noted, the performances are some of the film’s key strengths. The movie pretty much stands or falls on Downey Jr., and he rises to the occasion magnificently. His Tony Stark is the most delightful, unexpected, and flat-out fun turn by an actor since Johnny Depp’s first appearance as Jack Sparrow. He waltzes through the movie as though living out a childhood fantasy, all the while keeping up an almost constant stream of chatter on the proceedings. It’s a performance that could easily have derailed the film if it had been allowed to run too far, but Downey and director John Favreau (who also cameos as Tony’s driver, a nicely self-deprecating move) maintain the perfect balance by alternating with scenes of almost Eastwood-like taciturn. It works. We come away with the impression of Stark as a socially-maladjusted genius: he chatters and jokes a lot, but when he’s working or thinking he zaps into focus, shutting down all distractions to direct his energies laser-like upon the problem. The very fun of the character maintains the balance of the film: when Tony gets serious, so do we.

                More than just the fun of his performance, Downey Jr. adds a depth to the role that pretty much any other actor would not. For one thing, it’s refreshing to see a superhero who is actually pushing middle-age rather than a young kid. For another, Downey’s own well-known past: his fall from grace and subsequent rehabilitation, mirrors Stark’s character arc, making Stark’s redemption seem much more real than it would have with another actor.

                He has great support in Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts; a self-possessed, professional woman who knows exactly what Tony is and has made it her personal mission to keep him functioning. Her role is something between secretary and live-in nurse, but the two of them have forged a firm, close working relationship in which she puts up with his antics and he responds by allowing her to be the one woman on earth who is off limits to his philandering. It’s an odd mixture of respect, professionalism, and friendship that is painted in deft, sure strokes. Their relationship is one of the most enjoyable and well-done aspects of the film and helps to elevate it above being a simple comic-book movie. Paltrow does a great job of conveying both Pepper’s intelligence and professional demeanor, as well as her awareness of the unresolved issues between her and her boss which threaten to derail the delicate relationship they’ve forged. She handles herself perfectly both in the comedic scenes (particularly one in which she has to perform some impromptu maintenance on Tony’s electromagnet) and in the more suspenseful moments, as in the aforementioned hacking scene. I’m not exaggerating when I say that she is far and away the best love-interest in any comic-book movie to date…in part because, for now at least, she isn’t a love-interest, just a very close friend and ally.

                Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane likewise has a lot of fun. Personally, I like Bridges in pretty much anything, and here he has a rare opportunity to play the villain, a role he takes to with gusto. The most notable thing about his performance is the fact that, while we pretty much know going in that he’s a bad guy (would a hero be named “Obadiah Stane”? Or as Rifftrax put it, “did they consider calling him ‘Menacing T. Badperson?’”), Bridges’s natural likeability and his seemingly earnest affection for Tony, still makes it a shock when his villainous side comes to light. Bridges, in short, just seems too much fun, too jovial and friendly to be a bad guy. Unlike many traitorous characters, we fully believe that Tony would trust him, making his inevitable betrayal all the more affecting. It’s as if Han Solo suddenly shot Luke in the back. Once he becomes Iron Monger, meanwhile, he hams it up with delight, gushing “I love this suit!” as he tosses Iron Man around. In short, while it’s not really a surprise that Stane is a traitor, and Iron Monger doesn’t have a lot of screen time, Bridges’s acting in the role more than makes up for it.

                The fourth central character, Rhodey, unfortunately doesn’t make as much of an impression. Terrance Howard is friendly and soft-spoken, but doesn’t have as much to do and doesn’t take to the role as eagerly as the other leads. While Downey Jr, Paltrow, and Bridges devour their scenes like they’re trying to out-do each other, Howard feels more like he’s struggling to keep up with the others. He’s not bad, he’s just overshadowed by his co-stars. In a way that kind of works for the role, as Rhodey is supposed to be the straight-laced, by-the-book professional to Tony’s maverick loose-cannon, but it doesn’t leave much of an impression.

                Other roles a solidly played. Saun Toub as Yinsen projects a dignified virtue and wisdom as the man who saves Tony’s life and soul (if this movie were made back in forties, the role would have been played by H. B. Warner). Clark Gregg makes a surprisingly strong impression as the soft-spoken Agent Coulson, a representative of the Strategic Homeland Integration, Enforcement, Logistics Division (“That’s quite a mouthful.” “Yeah, we’re working on that”), who repeatedly tries to set up a meeting with Tony to discuss the “particular details” of his escape…and who turns out to be really worth Tony’s time. Faran Tahir as Raza, the leader of the Ten Rings, is almost the definition of quiet menace and cunning. Paul Bettany as Tony’s AI computer program, JARVIS, which runs both his house and his Iron Man suit, is hilariously snarky towards his creator (picture a cross between C-3PO and Jeeves and you’re in the right ballpark). Samuel L. Jackson, meanwhile, shows up for a brief cameo after the credits that is nevertheless one of the most memorable and exciting moments in the whole film. As a puppetry fan, I also enjoyed the ‘performance’ of a robotic arm in Tony’s workshop (which he refers to as “Dummy”) that apparently has a child-like personality of its own and which repeatedly douses him with a fire extinguisher during his tests of the Iron Man suit. For one thing, it shows great talent to make a sympathetic and lovable character out of a faceless mechanical arm. For another, how many other blockbuster superhero-action movies would even consider including something like that?

                Thematically, the film is more or less a redemption story, with lovable-asshole Tony Stark (as Favreau described him) reassessing his priorities in the face of a near-death experience. What is interesting, and a sign of the quality of the film’s writing, is that Tony doesn’t simply become a completely different person: he’s still recognizably himself even as he strives to do something more worthwhile with his life. He’s still a snarking, fast-talking joker, and he still shows signs of irresponsibility and social maladjustment (as in his clear awkwardness at his first press conference upon returning to America, during which he announces his intention to basically shut down his company for the time being). Basically, despite the fact that he’s trying, he still has a long way to go in his redemption, which is much more true-to-life than a complete change in personality would have been. In short, the film tells its redemption story with surprising nuance and talent, making it one of the more believable and effective such tales in a superhero movie.

                I also like the fact that Tony basically spends the movie fixing a mess that he himself is partially responsible for. It isn’t so much that an external villain happened to show up after he gained his powers; it’s that his new-found powers allow him to mitigate the damage from his own mistakes. In other words, the whole conflict of the film is basically a penitential action on the part of the hero, which makes this a much more interesting and engaging story than it would be otherwise. It’s nice to see a mainstream action film in which the whole plot is basically a call for its hero to step up and take responsibility for his own mistakes, especially since the general assumption these days seems to be that no one should be obliged to take any responsibility for anything (witness how even the President of the United States consistently blames everyone but himself for anything that goes wrong under his watch). Iron Man is a rebuke to that attitude: a call to take responsibility and be aware of how your actions affect those around you.

                In terms of flaws, I’ve already mentioned most of them: the CGI is occasionally obvious, Terrance Howard doesn’t make much of an impression, and Iron Monger only has about ten minutes of screen time at best. Other than that, there are a few moments that stretch disbelief, such as the aforementioned nonstop flight from California to Afghanistan, and the fact that one character survived a particular event at the end while another didn’t (though that could be answered with little undue effort on the part of the audience). Not all the film’s elements really seem necessary to the story: Iron Monger, for instance, feels like he’s only there so he and Iron Man can have a big fight at the end.

                But these are all minor flaws. Iron Man is a classic screwball comedy, of the kind that might have been made by Howard Hawks or Frank Capra, wrapped up in the gleaming chassis of a slick, exciting superhero action film, and animated by a surprisingly strong story of redemption and penance. It’s one of the very best superhero movies and a brilliant start to a unique series of films.

Rating: 4/5 Recommended to anyone who enjoys witty dialogue, superhero films, or both.

Memorable Quotes:

Christine Everhart: “You’ve been called the Da Vinci of our times, what do you say to that?”

Tony Stark: “Absolutely ridiculous: I don’t paint.”

Everhart: “What do you say to your other nickname, ‘The Merchant of Death’?”

Stark: “That’s not bad.”

(arriving late after sleeping with Everhart, a reporter for “Vanity Fair”)

Rhodey: “Three hours. You kept me waiting for three hours…”

Stark: (walking past him into the plane) “I got caught doing a piece for vanity fair. Waiting on you now!”

Stark (giving a weapons demonstration): “They say the best weapon is one you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree: I prefer the weapon you only have to fire once. That’s how Dad did it, that’s how America does it…and it’s worked out pretty well so far.”

Stark: “You have any family?”

Yinsen: “Yes. And I will see them when I leave here. How about you?”

(Tony shakes his head)

Yinsen: “Ah, so you are a man who has everything…and nothing.”

Stark: “Yeah. I can fly.”

JARVIS: “Sir, there are still terabits of data required before an actual flight is considered…”

Stark: “Jarvis, sometimes you’ve gotta run before you can walk.”

(On a 3-D render of his newest Iron Man suit)

Stark: “A little ostentatious, don’t you think?”

JARVIS: “What was I thinking? You’re usually so discreet.”

Stark: “Tell you what; throw a little hot-rod red in there.”

JARVIS: “Yes, that should help you keep a low-profile.”

Rhodey: “You owe me a jet.”

Iron Man: “Technically, he hit me, so…”

(trying to duplicate Stark’s arc reactor)

Engineer: “Honestly, it’s impossible.”

Obadiah Stane: “TONY STARK WAS ABLE TO BUILD THIS IN A CAVE! With a box of SCRAPS!”

Engineer: “Well, I’m sorry. I’m not Tony Stark.”

Girl at party: “Hey, Tony; remember me?”

Stark: “Sure don’t.”

(Pepper walks in on Tony trying to remove the Iron Man suit)
Pepper: "What's going on here?"
(beat)
Tony: "Let's face it, this is not the worst thing you've caught me doing."

(an air-born chase ascends to extreme altitude)

Iron Monger: “My suit is more advanced in every way!”

Iron Man: “How’d you solve the icing problem?”

Iron Monger: “Icing problem?”

Obadiah Stane (as Iron Monger): “I don’t usually go in for this sort of thing, but I must admit: I’m deeply enjoying the suit!”

Agent Coulson: “You’ll be hearing from us soon.”

Pepper: “From the Strategic Homeland…”

Coulson: “Just call us S.H.I.E.L.D.”

Stark: “The truth is…I am Iron Man.”