Wednesday night Martian Mariner and I went to see the movie Ironman. I confess a weakness for comic-book movies, probably the result of my passion for comic books as a boy. I would walk the ditches looking for pop bottles to redeem at 2 cents each; when I had 6 I could buy a comic, then 12 cents.

(In keeping with my conservative cred, we went to a theatre that shows first-run movies for $3.50 per ticket for all shows.)

He and I found the movie entertaining and well-done. The leads deserve applause for their performances. The special-effects worked, and did not overshadow the characters. Even the spoken Arabic was accurate and sounded like native-speakers, reports MM.

The basic plot: Robert Downey, Jr. (Stark) is an engineering genius who designs weapons; a playboy patriot who sees himself giving America the tools she needs to defeat her enemies. While in Afghanistan to demonstrate a new tactical missile, his convoy is ambushed and the attackers take him to a cave where he is held. During the ambush he noticed that the bad guys are using weapons manufactured by his company. He will be released, they promise, once he builds them the same missile. Helped by another prisoner, who tells him that Stark weapons have destroyed his village, he instead constructs a beweaponed suit in which he kills bad guys, destroys stockpiles of his company's weapons in the camp, and escapes. Once back home he holds a press conference in which he announces that his company will henceforth work for peaceful purposes, much to the annoyance of his business partner.

But, Stark has unfinished business, foiling the bad guys in Afghanistan who are using his company's weapons. He builds a new and improved suit, flies back, liberates a village, kills a number of bad guys, and destroys the weapons. Eventually he learns that his business partner has been selling weapons to both sides, leading to a showdown between the two of them, both in beweaponed suits. The good guy wins. (Thoughts below)

Thoughts:

I suppose to avoid controversy, the bad guys in Afghanistan, who speak Arabic, mostly, and fight American troops, are part of a mysterious group led by a man who seeks to build an empire in Asia. His hero and role-model seems to be Genghis Khan (MM observed that neo-Khans are the favored villains of Hollywood). Political correctness makes folks do strange things--like writing a screenplay during wartime in which our declared enemies are morphed into fantasy villains so as to give no offense. Can you say cognitive dissonence?

On the plus side, the American military is portrayed with respect; and a government agency in charge of domestic defense are a bunch of good guys.

Of course, as per Hollywood stereotype, the real villain is a greedy capitalist. Of course this is an old stereotype: think Mr. Potter in It's a Wonderful Life. And too often the stereotypes point to truth.

A big check on the plus side: Tony Stark (Downey) grows and deepens as a man during the film, from playboy genius to hero-with-a-cause genius. He begins to see the worth of his long-suffering personal assistant (Gwyneth Paltrow) compared to his usual bimbos. He becomes heroic, ready to sacrifice himself for good.

Some reviewers have written that Stark turns against weapons manufacturing totally, but, that does not really square with his building a superweapon so as to defend the innocent and undo the damage his evil partner has done. Perhaps he just wants weapons used for good only.

Final thoughts: during the 1950s crackdown on comic books that led to the Comics Code, the Catholic Church accused comics of promoting fascism. The stories, it was said, glorified power and violence in an ambience of magic and the occult. Is this true of Ironman, the movie? I don't think so. But, the critics of comic books may have had a point. In the world of the comic-book superhero, evil has its way over people, until challenged by the STRONG MAN, who defeats the bad guys and frees ordinary mortals. Perhaps there is a message that ordinary folks, even when banding together, will not be successful. Safety only can be provided by the empowered leader, not the empowered masses. Is this an advertisement for Fascism rather than Democracy?