Middle East | DAVID DUNN

Reinventing the modern-day Superman.

Be honest with me, readers: who was expecting Iron Man to be good? I know I certainly wasn’t. I looked at the film’s poster and consecutively thought three things. 1) Iron Man… isn’t that the robot guy that helps Spider-Man every once in a while? 2) Wait, Robert Downey Jr. is starring? He’s still acting? 2) Directed by Jon Favreau… the actor? Wasn’t he in Daredevil? And he also directed Elf and Zathura… is this a kids movie?

Luckily, I was proven wrong on every single front and then some. Iron Man is an astonishing, spectacular movie, a superhero epic that understands and personifies every aspect of the character alongside the visual effects. It understands his origin story, his motivation, his relationship with other characters. Himself as he experiences guilt, regret, and ultimately redemption for his past sins. This is a movie that can not only stand toe-to-toe with some of the greatest action films of the past decade: in many ways, it exceeds the genre itself to create something much more unique and compelling.

Billionaire and CEO of Stark Industries Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has it all. Girls. Money. Martinis. All because he is a brilliant scientist and weapons manufacturer that constantly outsources to the U.S. military and anyone willing to pay his high-dollar price. But when Tony is captured by a terrorist organization known as “The Ten Rings” while on a business trip in Afghanistan, he realizes what his weapons are truly being used for: disaster, destruction, and death. Now, the Ten Rings want him to make his most destructive weapon yet for their nefarious purposes. Struck hard by this horrible turn of events, Tony creates a suit of armor capable of flight, strength, and laser-firing technology, and vows to fight the Ten Rings and anyone else who dares to use his weapons for destruction again.

He is no longer just Tony Stark. He has become Iron Man.

For that matter, so has Robert Downey Jr.

I need to talk about Downey Jr. before talking about anything else. Downey Jr. is the direct influence behind this film’s success: the definitive superhero performance that hasn’t been this fulfilled since Christopher Reeve put on the cape as Superman. Downey Jr. doesn’t just play Iron Man: he also plays Tony Stark, and that’s very important to understand. If he was just playing Iron Man, all he would need to do is say a few lines in between action sequences and let the visual effects do the rest of the acting for him. That doesn’t happen in this movie. Downey Jr. and director Jon Favreau smartly observe that the true appeal of the film does not come from its action and violence, but from its character, who is complex and characteristic enough to maintain interest all by himself without needing extra help from the visual effects.

Take the film’s anti-war message as a testament to its emotional weight. In the beginning, Stark is an egotistical, sarcastic, smirking, and wickedly intelligent businessman who could be considered the Donald Trump of modern warfare. He thinks he’s building all of these weapons to protect people, and then his world is flipped completely on his head as he sees all of the damage being done in Middle Eastern countries through his design. There was one great action sequence in the movie where Tony, suited up as Iron Man, fights members of the Ten Rings army in Afghanistan. These soldier’s are tearing through innocent civilian’s homes, shooting blind fire into crowds, and taking families hostage. One child is about to witness his papa’s murder before Tony flies in at the last second to save him. On the surface, this is an exciting and unique action scene, and a rare instance where the world of the superhero crosses over into our world of reality. Can you name another movie where a superhero is fighting terrorists in the Middle East? I wonder. Since the movie carries a very clear anti-war angle to it, could this scene possibly be considered commentary on our involvement in the war in Afghanistan?

Maybe I’m reading too much into it. Maybe I’m not. But the point is that the movie doesn’t see Iron Man as a superhero. It sees him as a person, ridden with guilt and trying to do good deeds to serve as penance for his ignorance. This deepness rivals the complexion of the recently released The Dark Knight, another superhero movie that looks at its hero through a real-world perspective instead of the fantastical, wild panels of a comic book.

And Downey Jr.’s delivery is spot-on. His quick-witted remarks and condescending quips make him every bit an entertaining character as it does an introspective one. Downey Jr. personifies and embodies the role so well that it seems like he’s no longer acting, but simply being. Downey Jr. is a complete natural as both Tony Stark and Iron Man in the film. Even if this weren’t a superhero movie, I think I would still be interested in the movie due to his emotional gravitas and his comedic sense of timing. He’s that great in the role, to the point where we have just as much fun watching Tony Stark as we do Iron Man.

And the action. Oh my word, the action. Normally I don’t like writing about action sequences, because writing about action is boring. You like to experience the action: not hear someone else talk about it. But here, I feel compelled to talk about it. Because again, we understand the character. We know where he’s coming from, and we relate to him. Because of this, a lot of the film’s action sequences carry a lot more weight to them, because we understand these people and why they’re fighting. So whenever we see Tony building a robust Iron Man armor to escape from an army camp, or see him suit up and experience excitement as he’s flying for the first time, or when we sense his determination as tensions rises both in the states and in the middle east, we know where Tony is at and why he is there. This is not mindless action, but action with a purpose: the best kind you can have in any movie.

I knock off one point, and one point alone for the film’s one weakness: Tony’s last line in the movie. No, I won’t spoil what he says, but I will say if I was a high-flying, armor-weilding superhero like Tony, I would not say what he said in a million, million, million years. The movie is flawless otherwise. I don’t know what I was expecting out of a B-grade superhero, but I ended up getting an A-grade product. Iron Man is to today as Superman was to 1980: it has defined the superhero genre of film, showing us what it can do and demonstrating what it can be. More films should aspire to be as impactful as Iron Man is.

Correction: The original version of this article incorrectly referred to Afghanistan as Iraq.

“LONE SURVIVOR” Review (✫✫)

Well, thanks for the spoiler.

Let me start with the obvious. If you ever make a movie that is based off of a true story, you should never, ever, EVER give away a spoiler of your movie with hearing the title alone. I don’t care if the name is pulled from the memoir of the same name. If the memoir is a perfect piece of literature reminiscent of Mark Twain and Charles Dickens, its only flaw is that stupid title. Why? The entire marketing campaign focuses around these four friends as U.S. Navy SEALs, desperate to escape from a harsh battle situation in the middle east alive. What was the movie title again? Lone Survivor, you say? Well, at least I know how it ends!

Lone Survivor is based off of the badly-titled memoir of the same name by Marcus Lutrell, portrayed here by Mark Wahlberg. Lutrell is a Navy SEAL who braves into the field of battle for the love of his country (what else?). Three of his friends also enlist alongside Lutrell, and as time passes, they soon become more like his brothers. There’s Murphy (Taylor Kitsch), a commanding officer who is engaged to his fiance stateside, there’s Danny (Emile Hirsch), a comm tech specialist who can’t beat Murphy at a single race, and there’s Axe (Ben Foster), a trained sniper whose only concern is protecting his fellow man.

The four of these men are assigned to a dangerous mission in Iraq to track and assassinate Ahmad Shah (Yusef Azami), a terrorist who resides in the Hindu-Kush region of Iraq. Lutrell, along with Murphy, Danny and Axe are assigned as a four-man squad to track Ahmad, find him, kill him, and vacate the area as soon as possible.

Their mission is a success, right? Look at the title again, then answer my question.

The biggest problem with Lone Survivor is that its as predictable as the sunrise. I already mentioned how the title gave away the movie’s biggest spoiler possible. How else does it goof up? Well, how about how it carries out their deaths? The minute I see that someone’s hand gets shot clean through his palm and watch him react violently to his transgressors, the first thought that popped in my mind was “He’s the first one to go.” I wasn’t wrong.

From there, it just descends into a predictable farce of blood, guts and easily foreseeable deaths. One soldier makes the ultimate sacrifice of going out to a cliff ledge to clearly signal for help. Bang bang bang. The help comes in a giant-sized vehicle. Oh, is that a rocket launcher? Boom. Another guy gets pinned against a tree. Can someone say “headshot”?

The more they dragged out the death scenes, the more frustrated I became. I know what’s coming up, so why should I care when you made it so blatantly obvious that’s someone’s big moment has come? There is absolutely no suspense, no element of surprise to make us care for these character’s sacrifices. You might as well have a caption come up that says “Hey! I’m next in line!”

It’s even worse when you look at the cast that we have here. Look at the names involved with this movie: Mark Wahlberg. Taylor Kitsch. Ben Foster. Emile Hirsch. Eric Bana. All great actors who have been in a wide assortment of projects, ranging from Into The Wild, Black Hawk Down, 3:10 To Yuma, Munich, The Fighter, and The Departed. In each of those movies, we’ve gotten a sense of these actor’s performance capabilities and how deeply they can immerse themselves into each role. How deep are they immersed into their roles here? About as far as the barrel of a gun, that’s what.

Honestly, I might have been more impressed with Mark Wahlberg’s performance if it consisted of anything more than constant screaming and slurred F-words. Another problem I have here: who the heck is Marcus Lutrell? He has no personality. He has no character. He’s a ragdoll thrown through the movie’s special effects and explosions while everyone else around him gets shot and killed. In the movie, we get a sense of who all of the supporting characters are, what makes them unique, and why we should care for them. You might ask why those personal details matter, but their human nature is exactly why we care in the first place. How else were survival movies such as Cast Away and 127 Hours so successful? In his book, we are given a first-person perspective of Lutrell, who he is, his childhood, his training, and what it was like to be in his heated battle situation in Iraq. Here, we get a generic montage that could have been shown in a Navy Seal PSA and 50 minutes worth of loud gunfire and rolling down rocks.

Look, I have no idea what its like to be in the army. I never will. I imagine the real-life situation between Lutrell and the Taliban must have been horrifying, and that the events that transpired deeply disturbed and impacted Lutrell’s personal life. I have an immense amount of gratitude and respect for him and his brother’s sacrifices, as anyone should when they are told of his tragic story.

If anything, that’s part of the reason why I’m so infuriated by this action farce of a movie. Look at other notable war movies that have been already been released. Saving Private Ryan. Apocalypse Now. Black Hawk Down. Blood Diamond. Born On The Fourth Of July. Compare these movies side by side and tell me what does Lone Survivor have that those movies don’t already have? What does it accomplish that can’t already been seen? Answer: nothing. All of those movies compel us to care about those characters not as soldiers, but as people, all with their own emotions and complexions that stem much further than that of a gun barrel or a army knife. The nobility behind such movies is gone within Lone Survivor, as it is more interested in showing large explosions and gruesome kills than it is illustrating the uncertainties of the situation and the reality that these men faced when they realized that they weren’t going home.

If the genre of war movies is an American flag planted firmly over the battlefield, Lone Survivor is the dust and ash that blows aside easily in the wind.

DAVID DUNN

Film Critic. Analyst. Devotee.

Tag Archives: Middle East

“IRON MAN” Review (✫✫✫✫)

“LONE SURVIVOR” Review (✫✫)