Okay But....

• email this story
• read comments (49)
• post a comment
• 
  
  

Iron Man (Paramount, 5.2) boasts a perfect Robert Downey performance and delivers some moderately satisfying summer-movie highs in a right-down-the- middle sort of way, but it's been over-praised. It does a lot more clomping around than dancing or shuffling, and we've all had enough clomp to last a lifetime. This movie doesn't deserve a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 94% from the regulars and an 88% from the elites. It's more a B-plus type of thing. Which is not a put-down.

Iron Man is fine as far as it goes, but too often I felt underwhelmed. I was never twitching in agony, but the advance word had suggested it might lift me out of my chair. Forget it. I sat there with my legs crossed going "uh-huh, yeah, not bad, down with it, okay, pretty good, decent," etc. All I'm saying is that the praisers need to take it easy. Iron Man is not some instant orgasm device. It's okay entertainment, but it isn't the least bit wonderful or groundbreaking or head-turning so...you know, calm down.

The two big gripes are (a) it slavishly follows the superhero-movie origin-story template, and I'm wondering why so many critics are so unbothered by this S.O.S. being trotted out again; and (b) why isn't anyone saying anything about the jingoistic get-the-dumb-terrorists plot that John McCain or Dick Cheney will be totally delighted by if and when they see it? That's supposed to be what....cool? We all need to climb into the Bush tank for a couple hours in order to enjoy this thing?

For my money Iron Man is a little too similar to....I was going to say Chris Nolan's Batman Begins, but we've all sat through the same formulaic superhero crap too many times.

Once again the affluent superhero-to-be has pronounced character flaws. Once more he's oblivious to the fact that a good girl/good guy who's been his/her friend all along is an ideal romantic match. Once again the superhero-to-be comes to an awakening, finding his alter ego and new purpose in life, by suffering a terrible trauma. Once again it takes a while for the superhero to perfect his superhero technology. Once more an older, vaguely sinister business colleague is revealed to be a villain at the end of Act Two. The superhero's modest and self-effacing best friend stand by the superhero through thick and thin, occasionally dispensing sage advice and always coming through at some crucial moment. The superhero is nearly done in at one point -- close to death -- but he will rally like a champ, getting all of his strength back and then some in order to have a major face-off with the big villain at the end of Act Three. Thrillingly, lots of expensive stuff will get smashed or burned or blown to bits

It's. The. Same. Old. Shit. Except it's Downey as the superhero, and that means a cool-edge factor that you don't usually get with films of this sort. I could go on and on about this but we'd all rather hang with Downey inside one of these big clanky superhero flicks than...I don't know, a more straightforward actor. But it's not all Downey. It's also a bald and bearded Jeff Bridges playing a baddie, and I was bored stiff. I've seen and processed everything this guy has ever done and he just doesn't have any fresh tricks left in his knapsack. Gwynneth Paltrow is more likable in this than in anything she's been in since Shakespeare in Love. Terrence Howard is as auto-piloty here as he's been in everything he's made since Hustle and Flow.

Cheers to Jon Favreau for having developed his chops to the point where he can throw one of these films together and give it (by way of casting Downey or whatever) a little English and extra-ness. And for losing all that weight. But there's no song begin sung inside this film. It's just another big fucking lego movie with a cool guy in the lead role.

I love this David Denby description in his New Yorker review; "Downey, muttering to himself, ignores everyone else in the movie for as long as he can. Fixing his eyes, at last, on another character, he seems faintly annoyed that his privacy has been violated. Yet he delivers -- to the camera, and to us. He can make offhandedness mesmerizing, even soulful; he passes through the key moments in this cloddish story as if he were ad-libbing his inner life."

Bottom line: decent movie, great lead performance, and a realization on your way out to the parking lot that sounds like "wait a minute...I'm not sure if that was as good as I thought it was while I was watching it..why are my friends telling me this was so great?....what, are they desperate to like something?"

comment #1

D.Z. says ...

"it does the same things that several origin-story superhero movies, and I'm wondering why so many critics are so unbothered by this S.O.S. being trotted out again;"

The actor in this one is closer to their collective ages, so they feel less threatened.

"why isn't anyone saying anything about the jingoistic get-the-dumb-terrorists plot that John McCain or Dick Cheney will be totally delighted by if and when they see it? "

I guess it's for the same reason they were nice to True Lies: Chuck Norris and Michael Michael Dudikoff aren't in it.

"Super-hero origin stories do the same damn thing over and over, and for my money Iron Man is a little too similar to....I was going to say Chris Nolan's Batman Begins, but we've all sat through the same formulaic superhero crap too many times."

I thought it comes off more like Robocop.

"It's also a bald and bearded Jeff Bridges playing a baddie, and I was bored stiff. I've seen and processed everything he's ever done and he just doesn't surprise me or anyone else any longer."

Jeff Bridges doesn't really come off threatening to me.

comment #2

Wrecktum says ...

Me no unnerstand. You liked the movie, gave it a B+, yet think the 94% Fresh Tomato rating is inappropriate. Really does not compute. If you liked the movie, and your taste is similar to other critics, a 94% rings spot on.

comment #3

actionman says ...

Nice review, Jeff. Very well done without including any spoilers.

However, you're dismissal of Jeff Bridges is a little strange. He's been one of my absolute favorite actors for a long time now; the fact that he was "The Dude" and then the President is reason enough for him to be one of the slyest actors out there. I don't think I've ever seen him in a film where I didn't enjoy his work.

I am very much looking forward to Iron Man but some of the things you pan the film for I was a little of afraid of being true. No matter, I want to watch a fun, sexy looking actioner and I bet it will do the trick.

Favreau has always been a director more interested in character, so I don't have crazy-high expectations for the action sequences. If it were Bay orchestrating the mayhem, that'd be one thing.

I'm expecting a really well acted (especially for the genre) and solid-down-the-middle superhero film to kick off the summer.

But I'd rather be seeing Indy or The Dark Knight or Hancock this weekend.

comment #4

MASON says ...

Anyone see the new Hulk trailer? I just can't get past all the CGI.

And rumor has it the WGA ruled that Ed "I wrote the script" Norton shouldn't even get a shared writing credit -- sole credit to Zak Penn.

comment #5

MiraJeffAICN says ...

We disagree a lot Jeff and I haven't seen Iron Man yet but this may be the best reading of the film I've read so far. Very interesting take. I'm sure it'll kick my ass sideways and I'll have a great time in the theater while watching it but you're right, it does sound VERY familiar. But I guess that's just comic book movies in general. You can't afford to be experimental when the studio is spending $150-200 million.

comment #6

swhitty says ...

I would agree with you, Jeff, that this is a pretty-good-but-not-great B+ or so -- I gave it three stars myself, which would translate as a B, I think.

Downey and Bridges are always great to watch, I thought Paltrow (and the suit) looked wonderful, but the ending felt rushed and half-thought through, and the topical references seemed shoehorned in.

But my rating and others' doesn't mean that critics are necessarily giving it a pass, or that the Rotten Tomatoes rating doesn't compute.

Maybe RT uses a different formula, but I always assumed a 94 percent RT rating meant that 94 percent of critics viewed the movie "favorably" -- not that they'd give it 94 out of 100.

That's a big difference (and what I've always hated about the thumbs-up/thumbs down, either/or scale of most film reviews.) In other words, the vast majority of writers thinking the movie "doesn't suck" doesn't necessarily mean it's wonderful.

comment #7

actionman says ...

Mason, right there with you on the new Hulk trailer.

The CGI looks awful; when you can't believe that the Hulk is occupying the same space with real actors then how is the movie supposed to hold up?

I just don't get it. After what ILM did with the robots in Transformers, how hard is it to make a CGI Hulk look real?

At least (judging solely from the trailers) the CGI looks seamless in Iron Man.

comment #8

Mgmax says ...

The Hulk trailer made me think how much better the Bourne movies would have been if when people were chasing him, Jason Bourne had turned into a giant purple CGI dude who could tear tanks in half with his knees.

comment #9

fielding says ...

The only thing that makes this flick interesting is the presence of Robert Downey jr. Really, did anyone actually expect Favreau to put together something truly imaginative or thrilling?

comment #10

Mgmax says ...

Okay, so big surprise. It's Daredevil, but with an actor who is actually fun to watch.

comment #11

storymark says ...

"After what ILM did with the robots in Transformers, how hard is it to make a CGI Hulk look real?"

Because shiny chuncks of metal always come off as more beleiveable in CG than anything that's supposed to be living and breathing flesh.

comment #12

alynch says ...

I'm having trouble understanding your logic Jeff. You're saying that it's an above average superhero film. Most of the other critics seem to agree with you, so I don't see any issue. I haven't read a single review yet that's calling the film a masterpiece or an instant classic.

comment #13

Mr. Blood Vessel says ...

The two big gripes are (a) it does the same things that several origin-story superhero movies, and I'm wondering why so many critics are so unbothered by this S.O.S. being trotted out again; and (b) why isn't anyone saying anything about the jingoistic get-the-dumb-terrorists plot that John McCain or Dick Cheney will be totally delighted by if and when they see it? That's supposed to be what....cool? We all need to climb into the Bush tank for a couple hours in order to enjoy this thing?

I thought along those lines the second I saw the trailer.

comment #14

Devin Faraci says ...

Jeff, for the record, a B+ is a Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which means that if you listed your review there, you would be counted towards the 94% Fresh rating. The Fresh rating doesn't mean it's rated 94/100 but that 94% of all critics felt the movie was Fresh (roughly C+ and above)

comment #15

Wrecktum says ...

That Hulk trailer really made me miss Eric Bana.

comment #16

Spicer says ...

Isn't the RT number just based on whether or not the critics gave the movie a favorable review? 75% (or whatever it is) just says that 75% of the critics they polled gave the movie a favorable review. Metacritic actually weighs their score based on how favorable the review is. Incidentally, Iron Man has a current score of 81 on Metacritic.

comment #17

Geoff says ...

I think THE DARK KNIGHT is going to kick everyone's ass.

comment #18

storymark says ...

"I think THE DARK KNIGHT is going to kick everyone's ass."

More or less a given, I'd say.

comment #19

Bob Loblaw says ...

"And rumor has it the WGA ruled that Ed "I wrote the script" Norton shouldn't even get a shared writing credit -- sole credit to Zak Penn."
Not a rumor. Note the end credits in the trailer.

comment #20

Mr. Muckle says ...

This is part of the trouble with critics and criticism in general. They have to build up their credibility by seeing everything, past and present, but then a substantial portion of their commentary revolves around the feeling, "We've seen this all before, over and over." Well, yeah!

Ordinary people have enough wit not to get seduced into the glamor of the biz, and therefore they take some pains NOT to see everything over and over again. There is no profit for an ordinary filmgoer in stockpiling all his cinematic impressions to have at his fingertips for instant comparison to the present viewing, thus attenuating his enjoyment almost to the point of nonexistence.

Herein lies the lesson: Make something your profession, the fun goes all to shit.

comment #21

Pablo Villaça says ...

Jeff, I don't think the political side of the film is as "Republican-y" as you might believe. Yes, Stark goes after the "terrorists" - but he's also responsible for giving them weapons. So, my reading is this is a very clever commentary regarding the US foreign policy and the fact your country have had to fight the same guys you also helped arming (Hussein, bin Laden, etc).

comment #22

DarkHorizons says ...

The Tomato-meter is useless because it generally counts mixed as positive, that's the trouble with absolutes.

Usually more telling, even more so than Metacritic, is RT's 'Average Rating' - anything with a 6.? is weak, 7.? are good (ie. well-received studio films), 8.? are excellent (generally films on critics Top Ten lists).

Take a look at those for other superhero movies in comparison of their RT average score:

Spider-Man 2: 8.2/10
Batman Begins: 7.7/10
Spider-Man: 7.6/10
X-Men 2: 7.4/10
Iron Man: 7.3/10
Superman Returns: 7.1/10
X-Men: 6.9/10
Hulk (2003): 6.2/10
Spider-Man 3: 6.2/10
X-Men 3: 5.9/10
Daredevil: 5.2/10
Ghost Rider: 4.3/10

comment #23

p.Vice says ...

Since when does "not bad" rate a B+?

comment #24

Aunt Sassy says ...

Much like Metacritic, Jeff uses a series varied, weighted criteria to render judgment on any given film. Let's take a look, shall we?

1. Did I, Jeffrey Wells, get invited to a press screening? (It's free, right?)

2. Was I, Jeffrey Wells, made to wait in line with online critics, bloggers and other low thread- count types? (Those people are scum.)

3. Is the filmmaker aware of the positive endorsements I, Jeffrey Wells, have received from such luminaries as Guillermo Del Toro, Phillip Noyce and Kevin Smith? (Don't you know who I am?)

4. Is the filmmaker aware of my barely-concealed disdain for the science-fiction, fantasy, horror or comic-book genres and the people who like them? (I hate geeks.)

5. Is the filmmaker aware that I, Jeffrey Wells, wield the power to destroy the careers of those who don't create science-fiction, fantasy, horror or comic-book films that I deem acceptable? (Peter Jackson? He's finished in this town.)

6. Is the filmmaker aware that I, Jeffrey Wells, will destroy the reputation of, make wretched the destiny of and devour the immortal soul of any that associate with those that I have previously cast into the outer darkness? (Guillermo Del Toro? You're next on my shitlist.)

7. Is the filmmaker aware that I, Jeffrey Wells, have a pathological aversion to the obese? (I have body issues.)

8. Is the filmmaker aware that I, Jeffrey Wells, will factor in individual weight loss as a positive towards the overall judgement of a given film if said filmmaker does not land on the list of previously-described "untouchables"? (Jon Favreau loses weight = good; Peter Jackson loses weight = still the Antichrist.)

9. Is the filmmaker aware that I, Jeffrey Wells, have very specific guidelines regarding acceptable examples of full-frontal, male nuditiy? (Thick shaft, mushroom head, shaved balls on a toned, taught, age-appropriate actor. Oh wait, those are my guidelines.)

10. And finally, is the filmmaker aware of how I, Jeffrey Wells, will retroactively reevaluate the fruit of his/her creative loins depending on how it advances or recedes in critical acclaim and box office treasure in the weeks and months following my initial musings? (See Superman Returns).

P.S. Fuck you, DZ. (God, it feels great to be back!)

comment #25

storymark says ...

Aunt Sassy,

That was beautiful.

comment #26

ms5309 says ...

Your review is tremendous. Thoughtful, articulate, insightful. Please, please, PLEASE just proofread it a little better. The mistakes undo all the genius.

comment #27

LADODGERS23 says ...

I saw Iron Man as well and I have to say Wells is right on the money with his review..

I knew nothing about Iron Man before watching the movie. I came out wanting more. Downey Jr is excellent and I usually hate Gwyneth Paltrow and in Iron Man she made me forget that I can't stand watching her. She was perfect for the role.

D.Z until you see the movie SHUT UP! Sick of reading your crap and thinking you know it all without even watching it. Until you see it keep quiet!!!!

comment #28

mtgilchrist says ...

Mr. Muckle - I assume you weren't taking a shot at critics in your post, but it's a little bit of a misnomer to suggest there's no fun in writing reviews about movies whose every part you've seen before (negative reviews are incredibly fun to write). In any case, I don't think it's a fun-killer just to acknowledge that there are elements of a film that audiences have seen before, although I do think it's a shortcoming for a critic to use that as the exclusive qualifier for their opinion; after all, just about every story out there has been told in some form or another, so to say "this sucks because i saw it in ___" is just lazy. Generally speaking, movies succeed because of one of two reasons - they either find a way to transcend whatever formula they're following or they do the formula exceptionally well. I would argue that Iron Man (which i have seen) does the latter, and its real problem is that it seems like the first in a series of adaptations that are driven by the need to satisfy a general audience and are therefore as generically entertaining as possible rather than being driven by a person with a more defined visual style or conceptual ambition. Favreau can absolutely make a good movie, but it's not necessarily going to be an auteurish interpretation of the source material, which, judging by the way Marvel has reduced Hulk for their upcoming reboot, is exactly what they want. Personally I prefer the Ang Lee comic book movies of the world, because fail or succeed, they have a specific vision for the universe, but I guess that isn't what constitutes success in the commercial sense.

comment #29

mtgilchrist says ...

Mr. Muckle - I assume you weren't taking a shot at critics in your post, but it's a little bit of a misnomer to suggest there's no fun in writing reviews about movies whose every part you've seen before (negative reviews are incredibly fun to write). In any case, I don't think it's a fun-killer just to acknowledge that there are elements of a film that audiences have seen before, although I do think it's a shortcoming for a critic to use that as the exclusive qualifier for their opinion; after all, just about every story out there has been told in some form or another, so to say "this sucks because i saw it in ___" is just lazy. Generally speaking, movies succeed because of one of two reasons - they either find a way to transcend whatever formula they're following or they do the formula exceptionally well. I would argue that Iron Man (which i have seen) does the latter, and its real problem is that it seems like the first in a series of adaptations that are driven by the need to satisfy a general audience and are therefore as generically entertaining as possible rather than being driven by a person with a more defined visual style or conceptual ambition. Favreau can absolutely make a good movie, but it's not necessarily going to be an auteurish interpretation of the source material, which, judging by the way Marvel has reduced Hulk for their upcoming reboot, is exactly what they want. Personally I prefer the Ang Lee comic book movies of the world, because fail or succeed, they have a specific vision for the universe, but I guess that isn't what constitutes success in the commercial sense.

comment #30

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Priceless, Aunt Sassy. Wait til Gruver sees that! I smell a ban... and a bet. Any takers?

comment #31

Craptastic says ...

Aunt Sassy, that was fucking hysterical.

If I can add something though...you forgot a line about Mexicans and their movie-going habits.

Welcome back!

comment #32

moorish says ...

Aunt Sassy, I think I love you.

comment #33

giantman says ...

I've seen Iron Man, saw it the night before last, and I totally and completely disagree with most of what Jeff has said. Yes, I can see where someone could take that view and hang with it, someone who is dead inside or who needs to justify his critical position, but I don't get it. The movie isn't perfect by any stretch, but I believe it is the best of the bunch so far. And that is a great way to kick off the Summer season.

As for same-ol-same-ol, isn't EVERY story just a retelling of the same 4 or 5 plotlines originally developed by the Greeks? I mean, isn't that a little lame? I've seen the story arch from There Will Be Blood a million times, but no one complains about that. Rightly so, because it isn't the plot, it's the story. And Iron Man delivers a good, solid story around an interesting premise, delivered by exceptional actors.

The one thing that IM has, that I found unique among comic book movies, is credibility. This isn't some spider bite hookey, or radiation, or other weird origin, this is a man who built himself (Like Edison, or Ford) into a hero using his genius, technology and a little humor.

I loved it and I think America is going to show up in droves this weekend.

comment #34

Mr. Muckle says ...

mtgilchrist: I'll have to admit I was taking just a teensy weensy shot at critics. I must be tempered in that because I'm commenting on a critic's blog, after all. I don't really find anything to disagree with in what you say. You point out that the fun of writing criticism is a different kind of fun from the watching of movies. The fun of mucking about on blogs is different from watching movies, too. The more of one the less of the other, generally.

I know critics cough up a lot of justifications for their work, the most central of which is, truthfully, that some of them get paid to do it. For me, it's tough to shake the idea that they are barnacles on a boat. A disreputable lot, tolerated by filmmakers, perhaps, because there's nothing they can do about it or otherwise because they are an independent arm of the marketing division.

I always feel, (assuming film reaches its rare potential) if they're so interested in art, why don't they make some.

comment #35

actionman says ...

Something tells me that Aunt Sassy won't be heard from again around here.

comment #36

whirlofagirl says ...

Aunt Sassy, we're not worthy.

comment #37

alan says ...

I just fell in love with a girl named Aunt Sassy.

comment #38

D.Z. says ...

Aunt Sassy: "P.S. Fuck you, DZ. (God, it feels great to be back!)"

I can't. I don't go for bi-polar people.

Dodger: "D.Z until you see the movie SHUT UP! Sick of reading your crap and thinking you know it all without even watching it. Until you see it keep quiet!!!!"

How many people keep bashing the new Hulk without having seen it?

comment #39

LADODGERS23 says ...

D.Z. People are bashing the Hulk because of the crap that has been reported.

The majority of the reviews for Iron Man have been good. So again why talk about something that you have no knowledge about....

comment #40

iamjoe says ...

I can't wait to see Downey Man tonight, and for taht reason alone. Look back at his last 8years of work..Wonder Boys...Zodiac...Good Night & Good Luck....Kiss Kiss Bang Bang...even his five minutes in Lucky You. He rules whenever he is on screen.
The best thing about this films success is that we are going to see a lot more of him in better movies now.

comment #41

Mgmax says ...

You forgot The Shaggy Dog.

comment #42

D.Z. says ...

LADODGERS: "D.Z. People are bashing the Hulk because of the crap that has been reported. The majority of the reviews for Iron Man have been good."

That still amounts to the same thing: judging a film without seeing it.

comment #43

iamjoe says ...

I did forget The Shaggy Dog...and even freakin' Ally McBeal., his post prison actors penance. And never, ever forget Back To School.
Downey Man still rules....

comment #44

typical4136 says ...

One aspect of a good summer blockbuster is always the score. During my screening of Iron Man, I found myself asking “Did they lose the music to this film?” Many of the action scenes could have been intensified by a score or at least some background rock music. John threw it in occasionally, but I think it could have used a lot more. One thing, if not the only thing, that Michael Bay knows how to do is input a decent score into a decent picture. I think Favro didn't write that note down in Action Director class. Other than that, I thought the pic was much better than most of the other Comic Book Based pictures we've seen in the past.

comment #45

iamwhoiam says ...

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. Sigh. I just came back from Iron Man, and it's the best summer movie i've seen since the first Pirates Of The Caribbean (with RDJ even more impressive than Johnny Depp). The movie deserves all its praises.

comment #46

Mumbleboy says ...

I know this blog is old and no one is reading it anymore, but I just saw Iron Man and finally feel justified in giving an opinion on the film. My opinion would be best described as a solid B movie with an A+ performance from Downey.

Both the tone and effects were as they should be, but I still couldn't help feeling that it looked under budgeted. There were many scenes that looked like a sound stage or a location and not that I was watching something that was happening. IronMan doesn't fall into the upper echelon of comic book films (Spiderman, Superman) but it is heads and shoulders above the C level ones (Ghost Rider, Daredevil). I can only hope that the box office success of this first film allows Faverau to get a bigger budget and stretch this film world out a bit.

comment #47

dgaughan says ...

Don't have the time to check all the comments here, so I'm not sure if this has been addressed:

An 88% is a B plus. And on some grading scales, 92% is as well.

So, another weak ass point from JW.

comment #48

JHRussell says ...

Saw it Saturday night in a crowded theater, and in a word, it is fantastic, one of the best "summer" movies ever.

I don't understand the fanboy carping on this site - this is a thoroughly entertaining thrill ride of a movie, and RD, Jr., is sublime in the role.

So many of you comment on movies with serious pre-judgment issues, with biases - some noted, but usually not - that prevent you from just enjoying a good movie for what it is. Like the people claiming audience members were derisively shouting "bring on The Dark Knight" at their Iron Man screening - are you and your fellow fanboys so worried that Iron Man might be "better" than your beloved Batman that you go into the theater with this mindset?

Jeff, between Obamania and your strange, sick fanboy turn of late, this site is degenerating into the blog of choice for middle aged white males (divorced or never married, too, and certainly without a significant other) who have never grown up, exactly like the characters of Adam Sandler et al that you blasted in another thread...

comment #49

smrtpants says ...

neither here nor there...

>>>

...while rdj is no doubt a talented actor, but gwyneth isn't exactly a (pitt-)time-tested love interest, the casting strikes me as odd (in a way that i am not yet appreciating).

>>>

...and what's with gwyneth's hair colour...couldn't afford an actual key hair stylist so they went with the spiderman 3 assistant who just happened to have leftover supplies that weren't caught / flagged, as inventory by the acctg dept....?

>>>

...here's to a so-expensive sound track that it can carry an otherwise 'sure thing' if need be...

>>>

notice to reader: this is a recycled post*

* [from hollywoodbitchslap] which is not to be confused with a plagiarized one...

Post a Comment