Tony Stark. Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist. When Tony Stark is assigned to give a weapons presentation to an Iraqi unit led by Lt. Col. James Rhodes, he's given a ride on enemy lines. That ride ends badly when Stark's Humvee that he's riding in is attacked by enemy combatants. He survives - barely - with a chest full of shrapnel and a car battery attached to his heart. In order to survive he comes up with a way to miniaturize the battery and figures out that the battery can power something else. Thus Iron Man is born. He uses the primitive device to escape from the cave in Iraq. Once back home, he then begins work on perfecting the Iron Man suit. But the man who was put in charge of Stark Industries has plans of his own to take over Tony's technology for other matters.

...

Iron Man is the father of The Avengers.

And I don't mean that Robert Downey Jr. is the biological father of all the Avengers. That'd imply that they're all related... and it'd imply incest.

Actually, two occasions of incest.

That's besides the point. To speak strictly, and taking into account that Kevin Fiege is the one and only true father of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Iron Man [2008] is the first entry in the Marvel Movies Cinematic Universe. Fairly enough, Iron Man will automatically receive bonus points for that.

Is the movie still good? Is it deserving of the praise [hint: many consider this to be the greatest of all Marvel movies]? Separating the fact this is the first in the franchise: how good is the movie? The kind of conundrums that keep you up late at night, and the reason I revisited this movie (and because I'm silly. The marathon generally comes before the new release).

Iron Man would not be the resounding success that it is, critically and financially, if for for Robert Downey Jr.'s performance. He deserves all the praise he attracted for this performance: taking a character that you should hate, and making him one of the bloody most likeable protagonists in comic book movie history. The script offers a sufficient amount of depth for the character of Mr. Tony Stark. Depth that would account to nothing if Robert Downey Jr. didn't invest himself into the character as he did.

Thank god they didn't cast Tom Cruise.

This movie ranks amongst the most difficult to re watch of the Marvel movies. For me at least. I don't know about you, but I'd rather re watch every single Marvel movie (except my two least favourite's, which I'll refrain from disclosing), over this one. That's not an insult to the quality of the film: Iron Man is still really good. But there are factors of the film that hurt the re watchability of the movie.

• Maybe it's the formulaic plot. IM is carried by a great beginning, great end, great performance, well-put together action sequences, but a majority of the movie is formulaic.
• Iron Man is one of the more realistic films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe: THE most realistic. We've grown accustomed to action-packed, "exciting" superhero movies, that a less fantastical one such as Iron Man can be, by comparison, mundane to re watch.

Now, to look at those two points separately:

The formulaic plot. Let's be honest: a portion of this film is Tony Stark trial-and-error'ing. Which is not necessarily boring to watch. Those scenes rest on the shoulders of Tony Stark - which make those scenes exciting, and often rewarding, to watch. For example: Tony Stark's Mark II Test Flight, a highlight of the film. Though this emphasis on Tony Stark building suits can be explained by Iron Man being an origin film, but it's probably down to the fact that no script existed for this movie, and they had to improvise a lot in the studio. Taking that into account, they did a commendable job.

The realistic tone and themes. Which is not a bad thing at all. As a matter of fact: it's GREAT. The movie is not a commentary on terrorism, but it is partially a movie about terrorism, which sets a tone different to most Marvel movies. This makes for a less easier viewing, as the movie is more dense in subject matter, but does NOT weight down the storytelling quality of the film. If I do say so myself, it improves it by a few notches.

Don't forget that a lot of what is common place in today's Marvel movies was first invented here. As mentioned multiple times, Robert Downey Jr.'s performance. But also Paul Bettany as Jarvis, who is now a great addition to the Marvel universe: as someone other then Jarvis. Clark Gregg / Phil Coulson; a fan favourite. And above all, Samuel L. Jackson's cameo, which is the reason we sit and wait past the credits of every blockbuster, waiting for the after credits. Jeff Bridges is no The Dude here, but he did an enjoyable job as Iron Monger.

BUT, allow me to break down Iron Monger's character for a moment. Business partner of Tony, & an old friend of Howard Stark. Iron Monger is motivated by his jealousy against Tony Stark, and following a failed attempt by the Ten Rings to murder him, an assassination which Obadiah had arranged, Stane manufactures an own super suit of his own, and attempts to finish off the job.

Which all makes sense...

... If you don't take into account that Obadiah had Iron Man at his mercy, where he could've killed him right there, right now. But instead, for some reason of which I don't understand, he feels the need to paralyse Tony, steal the arc-reactor right out of his chest to power up his super suit, and THEN murder Tony Stark.

Why? This bogs the movie down for me. And is an example of an overlooked flaw in this movie.

But if you can look past the illogical driving force behind the climax: the action itself is pretty well-put together, especially for a movie of it's scale. The action sequences carry weight - there are stakes all amidst the action sequences. It is thrilling. The choreography of the climax is really solid.

...

I'm a huge fan of the final moments of the film. Something about Tony Stark disclosing his identity to the world always carries heft no matter how much I watch the movie, and the AC/DC soundtrack (I think it's AC/DC) that kicks in as the credits roll are badass.

Another aspect which heightened my appreciation of IM is the way they approached the romance. There is no "final kiss" between Pepper and Tony. Nowadays, superhero films, feel the need to seed a romance where no seed exists. Hell, I won't disclose who, but Captain America: Civil War is example of a recent superhero movie guilty of this. I will mention it again, down the line if I get to reviewing the rest of the MCU, as a couple of the MCU films are victim of an unauthentic romance, or worst, a kiss that doesn't belong in the film, but for the meanwhile, I'll cite Captain America: Civil War as an example of a superhero film with a kiss where no romance exists, and for no foreseeable reason, and Man of Steel as an example of a rushed romance merely to set up Batman v. Superman.

But in an attempt at not straying away from the point father then I already have, I admire Iron Man for maturely handling the tension between Tony Stark and Pepper.

...

This blog is extensive enough. I've said enough. Iron Man is a movie that I believe to be a good film, if slightly overrated. It should not be forgotten that Iron Man [2008] was the first MCU movie, but any other one of the standalone movies could've been the first Marvel Cinematic Universe. The movie rests on Robert Downey Jr. who performed fantastically, but a movie needs more. Iron Man is at it's best exploring the concepts of: is he man or machine? And exploring the cost of Tony Stark's weapons of mass-destruction. These themes would not be as effective if the viewer did not invest in Tony Stark as much as Jon Favreau, the writers and most of all, Robert Downey Jr. didn't make us care. But they did.

I'm rating this a:

Maximum: B+

Minimum: B-

Thank you for reading <3 what do you think about Iron Man? Were you on board with the MCU at film .1, or did you begin watching later on?