I don't know about "a little disgusting" -- do you think most viewers will find it disgusting? Will they be more disgusted by Stark's come-ons than with the reporter's quick decision to sleep with him? I think that's my problem -- not that the filmmakers might show Tony Stark to be a cretin (I'm not sure how far they go down that road; just barely, in my estimation), but that they'd show a woman so willing to jump into the guy's bed. What does that say about the filmmakers' view of women? How 'bout Stark's private-jet strip club? More edifying portrayals of the female sex.

But clearly the film is as critical of the reporter as of Tony -- Pepper Potts calls her "trash" in so many words, and I think we're meant to agree. Yet just as clearly the movie doesn't think all women are trash -- look at Pepper herself.

As for the jet strip club, here I think the issue is more with Tony than with the women themselves. It's not like a Bond film in which any flight attendant would happily turn whore for Bond; the point is that Tony has hired exotic dancers as flight attendants.

Can anyone confirm this report?

Moviehole is declaring that early audiences in Australia are, indeed, getting a dose of Fury: apparently the final print of the film includes a post-credits Easter egg featuring Samuel L. Jackson showing up in Tony Stark's living room. If true, this is an impressive bit of film manipulation by Jon Favreau and Paramount — we don't think we've ever heard of audiences getting a different cut of a film than critics did. Clever!

I didn't stick around through the credits, so I don't know if the U.S. cut has this extra.

I think it's not quite that simple. The reporter is definitely an appeal to adolescent fantasy. And, unless I'm mistaken, post-"conversion" Tony Stark is just as much a womanizer as before. (He sure is in the video games...)

Well, FWIW, I didn't say it was "that simple," I just said "not wholly glamorized." There may be an element of "adolescent fantasy," but it's not "that simple" either, i.e., not simple adolescent fantasy a la James Bond. There's definitely a counter-glamorization element, and, I think, a significant one.

For the record, I think this film is a decent pilot episode, but I'm still waiting for the series. Also FWIW, at my blog I ponder whether this film might have something in common with Made of Honor, the so-called "counter-programming" chick flick that is ALSO opening this weekend.

Christian wrote:
: The film’s ending declaration leaves us wanting another chapter in the Iron Man saga, despite the drawbacks associated with this first attempt.

The pre-credits ending, or the post-credits ending?

: I didn't stick around through the credits, so I don't know if the U.S. cut has this extra.

Ah, you mean the pre-credits ending. Yeah, the post-credits ending features Nick Fury showing up at Tony Stark's apartment, making a quip about his "I am Iron Man" line, asking him if he thinks he's really the only superhero around, and saying he wants to talk to him about "the Avenger initiative".

Tammy Oler wrote:
: . . . we don't think we've ever heard of audiences getting a different cut of a film than critics did. Clever!

Have we forgotten Kate & Leopold so soon? (Oh, wait, we probably have.)

He doesn't do any hooking up after his conversion. He's still somewhat flirtatious...but he starts focusing on Pepper.

After seeing the movie, I am with SDG on this. An element may be there...but it's not hugely glamorized. As far as what does it all say about the filmmakers' attitudes towards women? Not as much as it says about Tony Stark. And honestly, I was surprised by how it avoided lingering on women to much...I was starting to expect something that skirted the covers of Maxim...but other than a brief bit with the reporter, even the strippers were almost chaste compared to what I was expecting from comments here.

Just for the record, here's my original comment, which has now been characterized as saying that the movie "hugely glamoriz[es]" the idea of women as sex objects in this movie:

I think that's my problem -- not that the filmmakers might show Tony Stark to be a cretin (I'm not sure how far they go down that road; just barely, in my estimation), but that they'd show a woman so willing to jump into the guy's bed. What does that say about the filmmakers' view of women? How 'bout Stark's private-jet strip club? More edifying portrayals of the female sex.

It's not rated "R." I didn't mean to make it sound like a sleazefest. It boggles my mind that, in this day and age, a woman is written as smart and able, but since she's attractive she has to succomb to a crude come-on and violate the ethics of her profession. The scene of them wrestling each others clothes off in bed generates laughs in the audience. That's entertainment, you see. Don't think about it, just laugh along. Laugh also at the private strip show (the audience I saw it with all laughed).

That's what bothers me. This sort of thing bothers mw when played as serious, but doubly so when it's supposed to induce laughter.

But she doesn't "have to." Pepper Potts is smart, able and attractive, and quite concerned about professional ethics in spite of a level of serious attachment to her boss.


I'm not sure why a long face would be morally preferable to a mirthful one in this context. Give me the bedroom buffoonery of Iron Man over the bedroom ultraseriousness of, say, Top Gun any day.

The three 7- or 8-year-old boys who sat down next to me in the theater tonight laughed too. And when the stripper pole appeared, they went, "Cooool" (although I'm not sure they knew what they were seeing).

I gotta say, the film doesn't pay *nearly* enough attention to how his "conversion" changes his attitude toward women for that to register. I think kids are going to see a flashy hero who's a supreme techno-geek, and it's going to register that he can get any girl he wants. I doubt those 7-year-olds are going home saying, "Yeah, but his attitude toward women changed...." They *will* remember the naked woman in his bedsheets that he abandoned so he could work in his cool lab.

This is one of those action movies that's deeply confused about what it wants to *say.* And as a result, I think the effect of what youngsters see is going to have a stronger effect on them than the storytelling (or lack of it).

Having said all that, this movie did have more memorable moments than most superhero movies. For adults who can reject the filmmakers' lapses in judgment, I give this a solid B. What it does well, it does so very well.

And frankly, I'm just so happy to see Gwyneth Paltrow again (surprised to see that her role is so prominent), that I got my money's worth right there.

Steven: I guess I'm not being clear enough. The attractive woman I was referring to -- the one who violates the ethics of her profession -- is the journalist early in the film.

As with Jeffrey, I also liked Paltrow in this movie. I commented briefly that the movie "sparks to life" when she's on screen, although that's a bad metaphor. This isn't a "lifeless" movie. I just think it's better for having Paltrow in it -- both the actress and the character. That aspect of the story, while not entirely unpredictable, adds some stability to Stark's story and his relationships.

Certainly it's not an appropriate film for young boys (or girls).

FWIW, my contention has never been so much "Yeah, but his attitude toward women changed...." My contention has been that there is a critique of Tony's attitude in the film.

I'd like to think that even a kid, if he were bright enough, might realize that Tony was hiding in his cool lab, and that this makes him a jerk.


I guess I'm not being clear enough. I knew you were talking about the journalist. I was offering Pepper as a point of contrast rebutting the supposition that "a woman is written as smart and able, but since she's attractive she has to succomb to a crude come-on and violate the ethics of her profession." I'm saying: No, she doesn't have to. She just does. Pepper's example shows the viability of actually having principles and ethics.

If there is a message in the film about attitudes toward women, perhaps it is partly this: If you're easy, a guy will use you and dump you. He isn't going to have long-term interest in you. It's the good girl, the principled girl, that's worth caring about in the long term.

Paltrow's one of those rare actresses who just exudes warmth and character that even the most underscripted character can't stifle. I remember seeing her for the first time in Hook, and then even more memorably in a film called Flesh and Bone, and I thought she was one of the most arresting actresses I'd ever seen. She like Kate Winslet deserves better roles, more movies.

I got that as well...to be honest, it's just not reading to me the same way it is to you, and to be honest, your reasons are not convincing me that I am incorrect and should change my reading. In fact, I feel the fact that we see Tony quite embarrassed the next time he sees her says something about a change in his character. Sure, part of his embarrassment is not remembering her name, but it also read to me that he recognized that this was part of a bigger issue, speaking that he used her.

I realize my reasons that it read differently for me may not be changing your perceptions either.

As far as the audience I saw it with...there were chuckles during the plane sequence, but nothing indicating people thought it was "cool". Most of it had to do with Jim Rhodes declaring he was not going to drink, and then he's clearly caved to Tony's charms. I felt the scene was more about establishing that Tony was not very mature, but very capable of "seducing" people to his side-regardless of their gender.

It's interesting that the audience did not really start laughing until Tony returned stateside. My Dad said he enjoyed it, but it it took awhile for the humor to kick in. Of course, we felt much of the humor was derived from Tony's awkwardness with his own change of heart, learning to be different and then constantly getting hurt testing the armor. It definitely made me want to see Iron Man 2. As long as they retain the Downey/Paltrow/Howard team, I feel confident they can improve over the flaws of the first film.

I'm not going to black everything out. The film is out so beware of SPOILERS.

I might be the biggest Iron Man geek on the boards -- he was my favorite Marvel Super hero by far, and I still have hundreds of comics stuffed away in a box somewhere -- so I thought I should check in.

Saw it, really enjoyed most of it, and can pretty much agree with Jeffrey's B+.

Loved how the villain issue was approached in the film. For it to be born out of terrorism that Stark's own company was selling to was genius, and for the final battle to be more about corporate greed than good vs. evil made the fight more realistic. Stane at one point yelled something like, "I've sat under you for twenty years..." I don't remember the exact quote but it really drove home: these are not two mindless machines beating each other up. You didn't lose sight of the company and what was really at stake in the fight.

I don't know however, when and where Stane learned how to use his suit. That kinda came from out of nowhere. We watch Stark learn and build his suit for at least 10-15 minutes of the film, if not more depending on how you count. And then Stane rips the pacemaker out of Tony's chest plate, thus enabling the larger gray suit to be operational, and he jumps in it -- for the very first time -- and -- wreaks havoc?? Am I missing something there? Cuz if I'm not, that's a huge leap.

And I didn't understand why Stane's suit was effected at the end and not Tony's. Different kind of metal?

As far as the references to the depiction of women here, it is a fact about life that rich guys get more girls, and that power turns many women on. So I see no problem with the way that is depicted, and it can even be a lesson for the seven year old boys. "This is the way the world works, kids. Either get a good wife and be satisfied, or make a lot of money. Cuz if you can't do either, you're gonna end up on Springer."

Nezpop wrote:
: . . . Tony's awkwardness with his own change of heart . . .

In more ways than one! ("Change of heart" -- an intentional pun?)

I personally thought the film was a lot of fun. On the issue of Tony's womanizing, I would like to point out that in final scene, Pepper quietly but firmly rejects Tony's advance, reminding him that he left her hanging earlier in the movie. I really liked that part. A full romance between the two would have been gratuitous and a bit demeaning to Potts.

Hey! Something wrong with MY B+?

Your B+ is Catholic and Jeffrey's B+ is Protestant.

Jeffrey's B+ is ecumenical.

So was Stef's joke! (And my smilie.)

Hey, I admit my partisan affiliations. Yes: I, personally am -- I freely acknowledge it -- a Marvel zombie. Make Mine Marvel! But I'd like to think my reviews are more or less equally applicable to DC fans.

Kinda me too. Iron Man. The X-Men. Daredevil. They all shatter any DC hero, especially Superman.

But when Miller's The Dark Knight came on the scene in -- oh, I don't know, sometime around '84 would be my guess -- my view of DC changed, and I knew they really had something that could take on any hero at Marvel.

I guess people older than me already knew this, but I was only 14 and tainted by those awful Batman reruns on TV.

Yes, Dark Knight Returns is awesome (although Miller's gawd-awful quasi-sequel DK2, especially the rotten-to-the-core climax, is beneath the worst censure I as a critic could muster).

Also awesome is Miller's prequel Batman: Year One with my comic-art hero David Mazzuchelli, who also collaborated with Miller on the even awesomer but uneven Daredevil: Born Again.

And say what you like about Superman, John Byrne's stint on the Man of Steel was super indeed (though not the equal of his run on Fantastic Four).

However, for me no super ever has or ever will hold a candle to the one and only Friendly Neighborhood You-Know-Who.

But hey, I'm cool with Shell-Head. (I probably prefer Cap though.)

All in all, I think my comic-book reviews are pretty ecumenenical, no matter what anyone else thinks.

Batman: Year One is a better book than Dark Knoght Returns, IMHO, due in HUGE part to David Mazzuchelli. And I came to grown-up comics (from G.I. Joe and Transformers) through John Byrne's Superman.

I collected Iron Man during the Mark Bright silver-and-red armor days (I liked that armor!) and for me, Tony Stark was always a kind of a nothing character. It was the armor that mattered.

I just got back from the movie, and I thought they added substance to Tony Stark's character - whether it was the writing, Downey's performance, or both together. It was a really good, really solid movie. I loved the action, and the armor was awesome, but I enjoyed watching Downey make the armor, and watching him stumble around the process of developing a soul. I thought Bridges was believably evil, and the hints of things to come in the "10 Rings" terrorist group was evocative. I seem to remember that regaining control of his technology was a big part of the "Armor Wars" storyline that was going on when I was collecting them. I wonder, though, what an Iron Man 2 could be about. Favreau says that the Mandarin will be Iron Man 3 - what could they do with #2?

Evan Day wrote:
: I personally thought the film was a lot of fun. On the issue of Tony's womanizing, I would like to point out that in final scene, Pepper quietly but firmly rejects Tony's advance, reminding him that he left her hanging earlier in the movie. I really liked that part. A full romance between the two would have been gratuitous and a bit demeaning to Potts.

My wife loved that too (and she also got a kick out of the way Pepper began to look "sexier" after that scene at the party, with the dance etc. -- wearing her hair looser, etc.). It's one of the things I have in mind when I say that there are elements of "romantic comedy" in this film.

It could be interesting, too, to compare this film to Spider-Man and Batman Begins and Superman: The Movie and other first-entry-in-the-franchise movies to see how and why, exactly, the potential romance remains unconsummated ... at least until the sequels.

Oh, and since no one here has mentioned it yet: If estimates hold, Iron Man will be the 10th film to make over $100 million in its opening weekend ... and of the other nine films, all but one are sequels (the one non-sequel being 2002's Spider-Man).

FWIW, I thought Stark's quip about he's "doing a piece for Vanity Fair" was the cleverest of his jokes... so quick and smart that I think a lot of folks around me missed the implication entirely.

I was also startled by just how many people left the theater during the credits. I thought sure that word would have spread to the Iron Man enthusiasts, but there were only four or five of us left in the big auditorium waiting for that bonus bit at the end.

Yes...one of my real disappointments when I found the Singer was going the "Sequel to Superman 2" route instead of rebooting the franchise is I loved the idea of the Lutor rivalry with Superman. Byrne rebooted Luthor to be the richest man in Metropolis...and his hatred of Superman was based in his inability to buy Superman's services. Wonderful stuff. Of course, i also was annoyed that Luthor was yet again the villain. Man, All Star Superman # 5 had this awesome story with superman interviewing Luthor in Prison...it would have made a great sub-story for a movie.

I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but: Fifteen or sixteen years ago, I was drawing a lot of comic-book art and hoping to break into Marvel or DC, and I had a portfolio review with Mazzuchelli, whom I totally idolized. Mazzuchelli looked over my pages and said just about the most gratifying thing he possibly could have: "Your stuff looks like my early work."

(Later I asked him a question about using reference images. "I never use reference," he said. "You don't?" I asked, surprised. "Then why is Bruce Wayne here in the exact same pose as Batman here?" and I flipped through the pages of Year One first to Bruce in issue #1 kicking the dead tree on the Wayne estate grounds and then to Batman in issue #3 kicking the pillar toward the end of the Branden police raid. "Because I traced one to do the other," he said, looking a little annoyed, and I was sorry I'd asked.)

I see Mazz is now teaching at my alma mater, SVA. I would have loved to study under him. Of course then I would have missed Will Eisner.

You studied under Eisner? (faints)

I wanted to be a comicbook artist, as well, and I still dream of being paid for my artwork some day. But I realized that I don't have the patience for the detailed background work that's needed. I loved telling the story, but I didn't love a lot of the hard work that's necessary to make it happen. I think I work very hard now, and I think I more highly value the importance of hard work. But now I lack the time to get back into the game.

Plus, I'm doing what I know I should be doing. But every once in a while, I still get the itch.

You just tough it out so you can get recognized and "respected" enough to leave that to the inker.

And seriously. SDG? Eisner. That would have been cool.

I studied under Eisner for three years at SVA. It's funny -- although I knew who he was, I didn't really "get" it until one day in my senior year at a friend's birthday party, when (IIRC) my friend wanted to show someone one of my pieces and I regretfully said that I hadn't gotten my portfolio back yet from Will Eisner. The other guy looked startled and said, "Why does Will Eisner have your portfolio?" Until then, I hadn't met anyone outside my circle of cartooning friends at college who even knew who Eisner was. I hadn't meant to name-drop. (Of course I can no longer claim that here... )

Eisner blurbed two of my college comic books. One of them is terrible and I would never make it generally available. However, the other is acceptable, and I will see about scanning it and putting it online.

Name-dropping again: The acceptable one was also blurbed by Peter Kreeft.

I loved doing the hard work of filling out a page with detail, but I was never fast enough or accurate enough to make it pay. In the very end I was finally good enough to really go pro, but I was also getting burned out on it and decided to try going for an MA in religious studies instead.

Mark your calendars: Iron Man 2 is due out April 30, 2010. Which begins a slew of Marvel movies in 2010 and 2011, including Thor, Captain America, and The Avengers.

My wife and I saw Iron Man over the weekend, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'd say it's easily up there with Batman Begins and X-Men 2 as my fave superhero movie so far. Robert Downey, Jr. was, as everyone has already said, brilliant in the role. Honestly, the movie's views of women didn't bother me as much as some, simply because it's so obvious -- to me, at least -- that Stark is a complete and total cad. So much so that he seems more like a buffoon than anything else.

And I did believe his eventual transformation in that regard, and I think I liked it more that it wasn't complete and total. Like Bruce Wayne, I felt like he was testing the waters as to how to reconcile the two parts of his life. How can he be a superhero, without giving it away by suddenly becoming a goodie-goodie in the public eye. On the other hand, he's had a major change of heart, and so there's bound to be difficulties with once again living as a carefree playboy. So for me, a lot of the movie was Stark trying to explore the balance between those two, and sometimes he erred on the side of the latter rather than the former.

The action sequences were thrilling. Even the ones that I had seen countless times in teasers and trailers -- such as the chase with the jets -- felt brand new to me on the big screen.

However, it was the movie's humor that really put it over the top for me. I think my favorite scenes involve Stark's interactions with JARVIS and his robots during the suit construction/development process. Combine that with the sheer techno-geek factor of all of Stark's toys and technology, and I found those scenes fascinating.

That being said, there were a few parts of the film that bugged me a little bit. For example, I was a little bothered by just how easy it was for Stark to get new suits. One of the things I liked about Batman Begins was how it showed, if only briefly, all of the hoops and corporate trickery that Bruce and Alfred jumped through as they were piecing together the Batsuit. However, in Stark's case, he simply tells JARVIS what he wants, and that's basically all he does. Six hours later, or whatever, he's got a new suit. Does that mean Stark has a factory or metal foundry in the next room over from his workshop? Or maybe this was addressed, and I just missed it.

Like I said, it was a minor thing (as were all just bits that bugged me). However, once Iron Man jumped into action, or Stark started throwing out some quips, I forgot all about it.

Good questions, Opus.

Is no one else bothered that a major character relationship is established during the first 30 minutes, only to end with the death of one of the characters? Is this person ever mentioned again in the film? Is this person relevant to later chapters of the Iron Man saga?

Friends of movie heroes die sometimes. It's not unusual. But usually there's a lesson learned from the deceased friend, something that the hero takes with him. In Iron Man, this person's presence serves no purpose beyond the first act of the story.

That continues to nag at me, among the many other things about this film that I, and maybe three other people in North America, found problematic.

I disagree with your idea that Yinsen's death doesn't leave Stark with a lesson. In fact it is through him that Tony's more private-life transformation begins.

There's the corporate level transformation in which Stark realizes that his weapons are being used in an even more horrible way than they were intended, and that he feels called to do something about it. However there is also a private transformation taking place in which Stark is realizing that family values really might have value. This might be why we don't see him womanizing for the rest of the movie, which they got right here, but I am almost certain the sequels will destroy this.

The Yinsen character is what launches Stark's more private transformation.

I'm with Stef. I think Yinsen's death haunts Stark throughout the film, just not in obvious ways. For example, we learn that Yinsen is from the same town that Stark sees in the photos given to him by the reporter, in which he first learns that his company has been selling weapons to the bad guys. I think the fact that it was Yinsen's hometown probably spurred him onto greater action, or made it more critical that he needed to get in the game, so to speak, than had it been any other town.

What Stef said.

The character in question is closely analogous to Abbe Faria in The Count of Monte Cristo. During our hero's imprisonment, he is befriended by an older, learned, philosophical fellow-prisoner, who gives him perspective on his life, cross-examines his priorities, and, of course, helps him to escape -- only to die before the escape can be completed. In large part through the aid of this mentor-figure, our hero arises from defeat transformed and empowered, determined to make this second chance count, and overcomes his enemies.

I don't disagree with you guys on some level. Yes, the character makes an explicit statement about how the absence of family in Tony's life means that although he has much materially, he has very little in actuality. I got that. But I don't know that the movie ties Tony's transformation to his earlier encounter. He hasn't started a family by the end of the movie, and the awakening as to the power of his weaponry in the wrong hands isn't something that had to be pointed out by Yinsen.

EDIT: Maybe I wanted to see the connection spelled out more clearly? I don't like being spoonfed, but I did think that this connection was dropped after Tony returns to the States. Is any verbal reference made to the character? I'm thinking he might have been mentioned in passing, when Tony recounts the making of the suit. But we don't see Tony reflecting, we don't get any flashbacks to the character in question. Again, I don't know that those things are necessary, but the absence of any mention of the character felt to me like a flaw in the film. Stark's moved on to battle other bad guys, having learned nothing from his earlier friendship except how to escape.

In Tony's speech to Pepper Potts, when she refuses to help him because she's afraid he'll get killed, he talks about his mission in terms that echo Yinsen's lessons to him. Yinsen's advice was not just about how his weapons were being used, but how he was spending his life - wasting it on things that didn't matter. There's a definite change in Stark's approach to life in this film, and it all tracks back to Yinsen.

opus wrote:
: That being said, there were a few parts of the film that bugged me a little bit. For example, I was a little bothered by just how easy it was for Stark to get new suits.

Heh. Did it bother you more in this film (where Tony Stark is an ultra-wealthy kind of guy, and his parents were wealthy too, etc.), or in the Spider-Man films (where Peter Parker and Aunt May can't hold a job or pay the rent but somehow he can afford these really, really snazzy costumes -- a contrast that is especially heightened in the first film when we see him go to wrestling match wearing an outfit that looks really, and realistically, cheap)?

CrimsonLine wrote:
: In Tony's speech to Pepper Potts, when she refuses to help him because she's afraid he'll get killed, he talks about his mission in terms that echo Yinsen's lessons to him.

Yes. There is a bit of a Saving Private Ryan-esque "Earn this" kind of thing going on here, too, right?

For some reason, it did bother me a bit more in Iron Man than in Spider-Man, though to be honest, I'm not exactly sure why. Perhaps it's because the film spends so much time and effort showing Stark developing and testing the suit, and it seems odd -- or maybe just lazy -- to leave that one (significant) portion of the process unexplained.

OTOH, Spider-Man doesn't really spend any time at all explaining Parker's costumes, other than that bit in the first film where he's sketching several designs. And so it doesn't even cross my mind to ask those questions. Out of sight, out of mind, you know?

But we see the super-rich, super technical genius constantly designing his suits and building them up from parts. That's actually more info than we get from Spider-Man. It was enough that the question never occurred to me in the near two hours.

I, for one, would be glad to see it.

Link to our thread on The Avengers.

Why does he have weapons in his suit?

Considering how the movie takes great pains to establish certain things once (suit icing, for example) before they become important to the story, why are the appearance of the shoulder-mounted sniper thingies and the rockets in his wrists totally out of the blue? Or are those pre-figured somehow and I just missed it?

I liked the fact that back at the U.S. military base one of the soldiers says, "They were using human shields, so we never got the green light!" That's acknowledging that Iron Man's vigilante justice wouldn't be the right thing in real life. I guess my problem is that he said he was getting out of weapons altogether. We never see him adding weapons to the suit...just the opposite: we see him suddenly realize that an aspect of the suit which was intended for flying, the stabilizers in his hands, could be used as a weapon. So doesn't it undermine his conversion for him to have those weapons?

The first suit he builds fires rockets, flames and can fly. Why is it a surprise that the second, improved version has similar, but more advanced weaponry?




Not really. His conversion is not that defending people with weapons is wrong.

David Smedberg wrote:
: I liked the fact that back at the U.S. military base one of the soldiers says, "They were using human shields, so we never got the green light!" That's acknowledging that Iron Man's vigilante justice wouldn't be the right thing in real life.

That's pushing it a bit, I think. What Iron Man does is articulate the old fantasy -- seen in RoboCop and elsewhere too -- that a human sense of justice combined with freakishly perfect marksmanship can solve our problems. The film never suggests that Iron Man's vigilantism wouldn't be RIGHT in the real world; rather, it simply acknowledges that it isn't POSSIBLE in the real world.

: I guess my problem is that he said he was getting out of weapons altogether. We never see him adding weapons to the suit...just the opposite: we see him suddenly realize that an aspect of the suit which was intended for flying, the stabilizers in his hands, could be used as a weapon. So doesn't it undermine his conversion for him to have those weapons?

That's an interesting question, and since I am completely unfamiliar with the comic-book character, I don't know how to answer it -- though sites like this one do indicate that "various offensive weaponry" is an established, canonical part of Tony Stark's body armour.

FWIW, I do know that Tim Burton's Batman caused a stir because the bat-plane was equipped with guns; I had similar reservations about the batmobile in Chris Nolan's Batman Begins, although there, Batman uses the projectiles only to put holes in walls etc. so that he can drive through them.

The thing that annoyed me most was how easily Obadiah Stone threw together a bigger, badder suit, and how quickly he became acrobatic in it. It was tough enough to imagine Stark building a suit in the opening act and being strong enough and agile enough to fight in it. Tougher still to see how quickly he advanced the suit and learned to move around in it. But the film's finale seemed like just a standard comic book showdown against a villain who becomes a fair match for our hero far too conveniently. Having said that, Bridges was surprisingly good in this role. He's such a great, underused actor.

No disagreement there, actually. I thought about saying "prudent" instead of "right"; the problem with his method isn't that he's stopping the baddies from being bad -- it's that it could easily have gotten out of hand and innocent people could have been killed. (Or he could have been killed himself! as Pepper notices -- "Are those bullet holes?!")


True. His conversion involves the realization that war profiteering is wrong. That's why he ultimately resolves that his "mission", his new purpose in life, is to destroy the weapons which have fallen into the wrong hands.

My problem is with the disconnect between his first resolve, to get out of weapons, and his ultimate resolve, to become a weapon against weapons. And FWIW, my objection isn't ideological, I'm just trying to work out what seems like a sloppy mistake.