Iron Man 2: Monsters of Metal


Too hot to 'bot?

Is Tony Stark—a.k.a. Iron Man—a libertarian hero? An ultra-rich, ultra-cool businessman with a penchant for sci-fi invention, he begins his newest adventure by insinuating, in rowdy a Congressional hearing, that being a U.S. Senator is rather like being a prostitute, and then declaring to the gathered legislators, "You want my property? You can't have it! But I did you a favor. I privatized world peace!" Sure, he invests in wind farms, but he can't bring himself to actually be bothered with them ("I don't care about the liberal agenda anymore," he tells his assistant). A post-human, post-political party boy, he stands for peace, prosperity, and strong liquor. 

If only he stood for a little more big-screen originality. Iron Man 2, while light, clever, and frequently fun, is basically a by-the-numbers blockbuster: My copy of Hollywood's Official Sequel Rulebook (eds. Silver and Bruckheimer, 2003) states that if in one film the hero fights a man in a big metal suit, successive films must pit the hero against multiple men in multiple metal suits. Director Jon Favreau (this one, not that one) cheats just a bit—they're drones, not dudes—but the guiding principle is still there: The same, but more! 

With arms wide open?

That means more action, more hardware, and more characters, super-powered and otherwise. With Sam Rockwell, Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, Don Cheadle, and Gwyneth Paltrow in supporting roles, there are enough familiar faces to populate, well, a comic book universe. All of them hold their own, with Rockwell's simpering Stark-wannabe making the biggest impression. Mickey Rourke, meanwhile, steps in as Ivan Vanko, a mad, tattooed menace who builds both the army of drones and a suit of his own. There's not much to his character besides a couple of grim chuckles, but he's scary enough, in his own way: Sporting golden teeth, dreadlocks, and an endless supply of tattered V-necks, he looks rather like a past-his-prime rock star trying out to be a roadie in the Creed reunion tour.

As with the first film, though, it's Robert Downey Jr.'s giddy portrayal of Stark, the flamboyantly flippant playboy narcissist, that steals the show. It's never quite clear where the line between the actor and the performer really lies; the layers of fiction and reality are hard to peel apart: the brash, brilliant, and self-destructive Stark appears to be Downey's alter-ego in much the way that Iron Man is Stark's. They're both public figures who seem barely concerned by the public, but who manage to thrill and amuse anyway. So pinning down Stark's politics is probably pointless; it's self-satisfaction—no more and no less—that both drives the character and makes him so enjoyable to watch: Strolling out of a Congressional hearing, he tells the media mob, "I appeared at the please of myself. You can always count on me to pleasure myself." But no, really, the pleasure is all ours. 

NEXT: Will Janet Napolitano Be Fired For Times Square Incompetence?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t know if being a part of the military-industrial complex qualifies as “libertarian”, but the movie was great.

    1. Is Tony Stark?a.k.a. Iron Man?a libertarian hero?

      Is this the irresistible lede whenever a movie of this kind is manufactured and then reviewed by libertarians?

    2. He stopped being part of that in the first movie. I don’t think he makes or sells weapons anymore. Actually I don’t know how Stark Industries still makes money. It is not explained.

    3. Question: technically, if Stark is a private operator, he wouldn’t be a part of the military industrial complex. not the part that libertarians should be concerned about anyway. and if Stark is privatizing what would otherwise be a large burden on U.S. defense costs — and doing it more efficiently — then wouldn’t he be reducing government welfare/warfare? (mmm’jus’ sayin’)

  2. I don’t care about the liberal agenda anymore…

    Maybe that line is why Rourke saw Paltrow shitting herself onscreen.

    1. Every time I see Paltrow now I will have the mental image of her pants sagging in the back, dripping, stained, and steamy. Thank you, Fist.

      Did you go to the game last night? Hell of an effort by Flower.

      1. I did not. While I had quite the winning streak watching from D23 at Mellon during the regular season, my record for wins in attendance this playoff season is not so good. I’ll be staying home (at least until, God-willing, the finals).

        MAF did a superb job, and would have had another shutout if he hadn’t pooped out that puck at the end (thanks in part to a very slow whistle).

        In summation: Go Pens.

        1. I watched the replay of that last goal, and it almost looked as if Orpik kicked it in. The whistle should have been blown anyways.

          Whatever, I’ll take any win against this stingy Montreal team.

          1. Apparently it wasn’t just Halak keeping the goal count down. Even empty the Pens had a tough time finding the back of the net in those final 90 seconds.

  3. Yep, the movie was great. Sam Rockwell was funny as hell.

    Also, the movie had shout-outs to Thor, Captain America, and the Avengers, proving once and for all, that Stan Lee is about to become a billionaire.

  4. Is Tony Stark?a.k.a. Iron Man?a libertarian hero?

    Is he still a government contractor?

    1. Well, given that defense is one legit role for the government, does being a government contractor technically exclude him from the libertarian club?

        1. This is the reliable level of insight and complex thought we’ve all learned to expect from Suki, one of our favorites of John’s personalities that post here!

          1. MNG, how dare you make fun of someone’s delusion. Of all people, a liberal like yourself should realize that all people, even our most vulnerable citizens the imaginary, deserve respect.

            For your transgression I will copy and paste a recipe for something or other.

      1. @Jack

        In theory no, but considering how the contracting business is conducted, I would say, yes he gets no decoder ring.

        1. Sorry, military contracting business for contracting business.

        2. I feel like a libertarian is allowed to be a defense contractor so long as they don’t accept any no-bid contracts. Free market, right?

          1. Somebody has to make the bullets. I’d rather it be a private citizen than a Private.

            1. True, but what I was mainly referring to was the billions of dollars sunk into new planes and gadgets that aren’t much better than their predecessors.

  5. I absolutely loved it, and give it 4 stars. It was, rare for any movie these days, FUN. So many movies want to be taken SO seriously, they bore. Superman Returns a recent superhero example. This movie also achieved the difficult task of bettering the origianl, being more fun, but never cheesy. The female reporter returns from the original, but has a real role, and isn’t just a shout out from the first one. As is Agent Colsen, and Nick Fury, and even the driver, played by Favreau himself. They have something to DO. Many times, returning actors are simply there to remind folks of the better, earlier movie, but have no purpose other than that – see Dr. Silverman in Terminator 3.
    Rourke also blew me away, not because he hammed it up, because he almost did nothing – he was an asshole! He “joins” Sam Rockwell’s Justin Hammer…but not really. He looks at him with this blank, annoyed stare the whole time, like “What the fuck does this loser want?” I absolutely LOVED it. I remember in Spiderman 3, the nonsensical pairing up of Venom and Sandman, after an alleyway confrontation that made literally no sense, except because the script and plot NEEDED them to pair up for the big end fight. Whiplash and Hammer need each other’s resources, and quite frankly could care less about each other, Whiplash caring less about Hammer. This is actualy the best movie I’ve seen so far this summer, and is the first one in a long time I will watch twice in theaters.
    Stark not caring about what people think is why he’s so entertaining. He’s very politically uncorrect. Politically correct heroes bore to the death. Political correctness, the greatest scourge of American society, makes everyone afraid to offend, thus rendering most productive debates off limits. They hide what people really think, and create this artificial “tolerance” no one really believes in. Political correctness thrives on FEAR, thus breeding resentment boiling under the surface. Limousine liberals talk the talk, but would never walk the walk. And this is why most Americans, I believe, despise political correctness, but would never say anything for fear of the liberal “tolerance police” crashing down on them. Do people care what Michael Richards said, and still find him funny anyway? They’ll never tell you in public. Rush Limbaugh has 20 million listeners, more who would listen but can’t because they work. But many would never admit it. When Transformers 2 came out, the critics had cows because of the supposedly racist robots. But most of those critics were white guys offended FOR the black man. The blacks were luaghing their asses off at the showing I went to…. If you listen to supporters of gay marriage, everyone should agree with their beliefs except they homophobic fringe, and you’d think most of America holds their views. Hell, I support gay marriage, as a libertarian! But I have to live in reality – everytime it’s on a ballot, it loses, by vast numbers.

    1. Every gay-marriage ballot initiative stands to prove that most Americans are NOT pro-freedom, at least not when it comes to the freedoms of other people.

      Contrary to popular propaganda, only about 2-4 percent of the population could be rigidly be defined as “GLBT”, so popular votes regarding their rights is particularly instructive. Almost everybody who votes on an issue regarding gay civil liberties is not gay. When we have a majority of Americans voting FOR gay rights, that will be a very positive indicator for many other minority-rights issues… but sadly the trend is just the opposite.

      1. I don’t regard requiring a national permission slip for marriage as freedom for anybody. I’d vote to ban government recognition of straight marriage if someone would just put it on a ballot.

  6. Iron Man 2 was absolutely amazing. Blew the first one away. Wow! Scarlett Johannsen was da bomb!


    1. The bot knows. I am looking forward to seeing her as a hot non-blonde martial arts chick. Hubba!

    2. Scarlett Johannsen was da bomb!

      Stop looking at our women, you dirty bot. She will never love you, as you cannot feel love, being a spambot and all.

      1. It figures anonymity bot liked Iron Man 2, what with all the gleaming, sleek metal.

  7. The first Iron Man was a flat, bland, boring piece of shit, so I expect nothing but more of the same from the second one. Not that I’ll go see it in any case.

    Jon Favreau should have stuck to acting, which he was ok at. Because while not being a terrible director, he reminds me of Chris Columbus’ direction: flat, square, and totally uninspired. I just couldn’t find a single place in Iron Man where I went “hey, that’s a great shot”. Not one. Even boners like Antoine Fuqua can do better than that.

    1. Favreau isn’t about “great shots.” He’s about pacing and human interaction. Chris Columbus is about nothing at all. You can’t compare the two.

      1. He has zero style. “Pacing and human interaction” basically means that he renders the storyboards like he reads them: flat and square.

        You have to be insane to pretend he’s a good director. Like I said, he’s not terrible; he’s just not good.

      2. I thought Chris Columbus was about exploiting native peoples and conning European royalty into paying for his schemes….

    2. I just couldn’t find a single place in Iron Man where I went “hey, that’s a great shot”.

      I thought that the logo for Stark Enterprises was a fairly amusing pastiche of the Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman logos, appropriately.

      1. A “great shot” can have numerous components, but to be pedantic, the design of a logo would be part of the art direction. Most recent blockbusters have perfectly fine art direction; it’s in the directing and (especially) the writing where they usually fail.

  8. What’s funny is Iron Man is the exact opposite of libertarian in the comic books. In the Civil War storyline, Iron Man led the charge to force all super-humans to register their identity with the government, and the resistance was led by Captain America.

    1. This. This right here. Read this over and over and over again. And over and over and over again.

      This right here is the reason I am not seeing any of the Marvel movies. Because Civil War turned me so off that I attribute it directly with the fact that after over *30 years* of buying, reading, and collecting comics, I have stopped, cold turkey.

      Obviously, I know that my tuppence, as it were, means nothing to Marvel, but I refuse to vote with my dollars as supporting their creative and editorial charges.

      So, yes, say all you want that the movie version of Iron Man is some kind of Randian paragaon. But please be standing out of range of my projective vomiting.

      1. That’s mostly Mark Millar’s fault, though, right? I actually like a lot of his work (it’s solid cheap fun), but between Red Son, The Authority, and Civil War, he’s practically turned all-too-clever superhero statism into a part of his brand.

        1. Millar also wrote Kick-Ass, which has been lauded by a few pundits as a libertarian movie (the comic doesn’t come off that way though).

    2. Civil War was a trainwreck that never happened. Indeed, Mark Millar is a trainwreck who does not exist.

    3. The anti-registration side is not without its own problems from a libertarian standpoint:

      Although it is never spelled out explicitly in Civil War, the pro-registration side has a point. What are superheroes anyway, except unauthorized, unaccountable law-enforcement agents? Superheroes don’t obtain search warrants. They don’t read suspects their Miranda rights. If they screw up, they don’t face disciplinary action. And it’s almost impossible for a wronged party to sue them for misconduct. Just try serving a court summons to the Hulk. In short, all of the real-world problems associated with police misconduct are potentially worse when it comes to superheroes. They exist outside the rule of law.

      1. Ooh, excelent link/points, Franklin.

      2. It’s a horseshit argument, and always was.

        Because, you see, superheroes don’t — or, rather, because some smartass will invariably come through with a counter-example of one time they did, I shall amend this to say ‘rarely’ — follow through with the case in the court of law. They stop crimes and apprehend suspects, sure, but, you know, for all that Spider Man (for instance) rarely seems to wonder about legality, all he and Batman (for instance) do is leave the thugs tied up outside the crime scene. No confession, just their hearsay little note that “this is your man”, and all that happens there is the cops have an opportunity to stumble on the perps at the crime scene and use their ‘availability’ for questioning. Spider Man, and Batman, and many of the other heroes like this, don’t *do* anything that requires Miranda, because they aren’t eliciting confessions that get used in a court of law — at best, they are temporarily detaining suspects, most of which are caught in the act or fleeing from the scene of the crime. They are not themselves testifying in court, and I cannot see how any court of law wouldn’t treat the fact that Batman (a known vigilante, and *CALLED SUCH*) left this particular suspect hog-tied outside the jewelry store as one nice, fascinating piece of circumstantial evidence: “Did he confess? No? Was there physical evidence? No? Were his fingerprints all over the jewelry case? No? Case dismissed. Defendant free to go.” In fact, I’ve yet to see a single post-arrest courtroom scene in which a suspect apprehended by a superhero was adjudicated guilty based solely on Batman’s word, and I will wager that nobody else has, either.

        So, to posit the first counter-question on this: How is this any different from, say, the burglar robbing my house and his foot pushing through a rotten floorboard, effectively rendering him ‘stuck’ at the crime scene? Did I need to Mirandize him? Will he have grounds to challenge the DNA evidence against him?

        As for superheroes ‘screwing up’ and not facing disciplinary action, I’m not even going to try to be snarky and ask for you to point out all the cops who *do* face disciplinary action when they screw up, though I could, and thereby base my counter-argument on your holding superheroes to a *higher* standard than law enforcement. No, instead, here I must turn to my fellow geeks and ask for research support, because while I have just woken up and cannot strictly cite references, I’m pretty sure that there *have* plot threads in comic books where superheroes find themselves sued for the incidental damage they cause, and in most cases that my faulty memory can recall, the cases are laughed out of court by a judge or jury after the due process of getting them there.

        That said, I’ll add a third point: the entire argument in this quoted piece, Franklin, divides into two parts — the stuff that superheroes don’t do, but should to be more responsible and professional, and the stuff that society should do to demand that responsibility and professionalism. I think any of the second type of argument is far weaker because that problem is not with the superheroes but with the public — just like we say that our American public is at fault for not demanding more accountability in general. So even if I’m wrong in the above argument about lawsuits, and I am totally fabricating false memories like a 7 year old on the witness stand (though I do not think I am) is it Spider Man’s fault he’s not sued by John Q. Public? Or is it Mr. Public’s fault for not finding an attorney willing to take the case?.

        We are certainly free to argue the standard to which superheroes *should* be held, but I think it’s a hard argument to make that the actions of superheroes in general are anti-libertarian or pro-libertarian either way, *except when the author specifically has a message either way to send*.

        1. Just wanted to say this is a great post.

        2. I disagree. In comics, superheroes perform their own investigations and stop and apprehend criminals, which are things society normally prefers to occur with judicial supervision. Certainly, the fact that they don’t testify in court is a mitigating circumstance, but it doesn’t change the fact that they detain alleged criminals — and unless those criminals are proven guilty, they themselves are committing crimes.

          To put it another way, if I see a guy robbing a store, and I apprehend him, I sure as heck better make certain that I stick around and explain myself or the police will be after me. The guy I tied up and left behind will simply say that he was assaulted and falsely imprisoned, and the police will have no evidence to the contrary.

          We don’t see this aspect of things much in comics, but the truth is that superheroes are usually given unofficial latitude by the authorities to act as law enforcement. They aren’t second-guessed the way ordinary citizens would be, or they couldn’t operate. Given this fact, I think the libertarian solution would be to compel them to register with the government in order to continue receiving such latitude.

  9. Robert Downey Jr. is hot. He’s the exception to my “all movie stars, no matter how well they appear to speak in public, are actually morons.”

    Robert Downey Jr. is actually as smart as he sounds. I know this, because he’s hot.

    1. Ha ha ha, but Downey really does strike me as fairly sharp.

  10. I found the first one much more tolerable than it had any right to be, but by the Law of Sequels, I’m not expecting anything worthwhile at all from this one.

    1. Let me again mention Scarlett Johannsen wrapping her thighs around dudes’ necks.

      Yeah, I’ll be in my bunk, too.

  11. Following the X-Men and Spider-Man path, the first one is great, the second one is incredible, and the third one sucks.

    1. Why on earth did people like Spiderman? It was some ADD kids garbage.

    2. I think you’re being a little, shall we say, uh, generous with the use of “great” and “incredible” there, Brian.

      1. Forgive me, I’m a comic book geek at heart as well as a comic book self-publisher.

        1. Then you and I have a lot in common, Brian…except I haven’t self-published yet. I definitely plan on it.

      2. I prefer that to the Episiarch path, where everything apparently sucks except foreign films.

        1. He’s gotta point Tulpa. It seems to me that American films’ quality has really gone down the toilet. The stuff that gets nominated for best foreign film seems to be so much more compelling and better written than most, if not almost all, American shlock. It’s the Michael Bay-sation of American cinema.

          1. The stuff that gets nominated for best foreign film seems to be so much more compelling and better written than most, if not almost all, American shlock.

            Another illuminating comment, that borders on treason, from the famed neo-loyalist and self-knighted Sir Groovus Maximus.

            WAKE UP PEOPLE!

            1. Famed? Debatable. Treasonous? Never. I shall feast upon your kidneys, liver and pancreas in a cap l Haggis. You shall rue the day, cap l. Rue, I tell you! (shakes fist)

          2. They’re also better than most, if not all, foreign schlock.

            Anyone who thinks Hollywood is especially cruddy at movie making needs to take a large, random sample of some Bollywood flicks. You’ll run to Michael Bay’s house and kiss his feet faster than you can say Shahrukh Khan.

            1. Foreign schlock is pretty entertaining Tulpa, and can be an astute observation of American culture from a differing cultural POV. Isn’t imitation the sincerest form of flattery?

              You’ll run to Michael Bay’s house and kiss his feet

              That’s just hitting below the belt, Marquis de Tulpa.

  12. I find that if you purge yourself of the notion that Tony Stark = “hero”, you end up with a couple of great and entertaining flicks.

    He’s a jackass who frequently does really cool stuff and occasionally brings himself to do the right thing for humanity. That makes him more of a human being and much more interesting as a character than, say for example, Superman.

    1. Antihero or Byronic hero, perhaps?

    2. A flawed hero’s heroism makes him or her worth watching, and the flaws make them interesting. The Nolan iteration of Batman comes to mind.

      Iron Man is not a hero — he’s just flawed. Every day I’m surrounded by amazingly talented, self-centered people who generally do the right thing — no point shelling out $9 to watch one.

      1. A flawed hero’s heroism makes him or her worth watching,

        I disagree here, Tulpa. The hero’s antagonists make the hero worth watching. The more devious, diabolical, and deadly the villain is simply makes the hero’s actions either valid or just in the eyes of the observer. The hero’s ethos is, I think the more malleable in contrast to the villain: the villain is usually very singular in purpose. In the villain’s mind, every reprehensible act is easily justified and rarely deviates from whatever code of morality (or lack thereof) inherent in the villain. The hero, more often than not, is less deontological and more utilitarian in the application of his or her ethos regarding foiling the plot of the villain. Super heroes are much more susceptible to exploiting their powers and abilities for personal gain than villains via corruption or manipulation, i.e. rescuing the damsel in distress at any cost, justifying any unintended consequences as necessary for the “greater good”. That is the villain’s reason for existence in the first place: to push the limits of what the hero will or will not do to achieve a just or valid result in the eyes of the observer since the villain is not constrained by illusions of nobility.

        Without the villain, the hero would have no measure to contrast his or her abilities and depriving them of a canvas to display the application of ethos, and it would follow there is no reason for their existence without the villain. Indeed, without the villain, the hero is nothing more than a few steps away from being a villain him or herself.

        1. As Dark Helmet said, evil will always triumph because good is dumb. So you have a point.

          However, I think both ingredients are necessary. You need both a crafty villain and a heroic figure.

  13. Pretty desperate for libertarian heroes aren’t we, isn’t there another collective that is hankering for role models to look up to, GAY. Oh wait, that’s the answer.

    1. Go suck Max’s cock.

    2. Cereal, cold

      Pour 2-3 cups of dry cereal into a medium sized bowl

      Add 2-3 cups of cold milk

      Take spoon, sharpen to a point, and jam it up your herpeed ass.

      1. I never knew you were such a gourmet, sage. I’m assuming that you would recommend Frankenberry, right?

        1. Oh, that’s what I would have. For this clown troll it’s Cream of Turd all the way.

          1. It was a trick question, you clod. The correct answer was Fruity Pebbles. I’m very disappointed in you.

            1. Are you shittin’ me? That stuff, along with Captain Crunch, could replace the shrapnel in hand grenades. In fact, they shoud totally do that to save money and space. If a soldier needs to eat, just bust one of those open. Of course if he does the inside of his mouth will look like a scene from Saw IV. But you can’t have everything.

              1. You are a philistine; the only acceptable cereal is Smurf Berry Crunch. Besides, I have it on good authority that you are a huge consumer of Grape-Nuts. Because you just can’t get enough nuts in your mouth.

                1. That cereal is the biggest false advertiser of them all. You open the box – no grapes, no nuts.

                  1. And yeah, Grape Nuts. Becase there’s nothing like passing a pine cone through your sphinctor.

                    1. You would know, you pervert. Besides, I know what you eat: Special K.

                    2. Not the most filling, but the peaches and nectarines variant is tasty.

      2. Cereal, cold

        You send that post from a Federation starship didn’t you.

        1. That joke was so bad I think it gave me cancer.

          1. I promise the next one will be cancer-aids level. The effects of today’s Voyager marathon on the TV will only get worse.

            1. I am awed by how much of a masochist you are. I take my hat off to you, sir.

              1. I may have wished death by “rape=gang” on Harry Kim, CHA-KO-TAY, and the rest of the crew more than once.

                At least there has been no Lawxana Troi so far, though I wouldn’t put it past the producers to bring her back as a holocharacter, or something equally annoying and asinine.

                1. – not =

                  1. If only they would bring Wesley back as some sort of admiral; then the cycle of evil would be complete. I would probably shoot my TV, Elvis style.

                    1. Ha! Excellent work.

                      He’d probably still have that device that gives him orders in Cpt Picard’s voice. One shudders to think what it says when lights are out.

                    2. Ha, I punked you! I would never shoot my TV, you fool! It’s a 50″ plasma.

                      And you know that Picard would never have abused Wesley; Geordi is the obvious pedophile. He has a Pedobear look about him.

                    3. Lore had the simultaneously goofy and sinister smile of a pedo, or was that just Spiner’s bad acting?

                      Geordi was definitely gay and a holo-creep, but I think his grooming was intended for taking advantage of a naive but essentially adult Wesley. See the following evidence:


                      I could really go for a new direct-to-DVD quality shitty TNG movie about now.

                    4. Lore is my favorite character, you shithead. And Wesley was probably molestered by The Traveler.

                    5. Oh the traveler was definitely a kiddie-fiddler. The question is, did Wesley get in on the act when he disappeared with him from that native indian planet? They should send Jake Sisko and Dr Pulaski to investigate.

                    6. I hate Beverly “cameltoe” Crusher, but Pulaski was even worse. There is, in truth, no beauty there.

                    7. For some reason she reminded me of the birth at the end of Demon Seed.

                      I know you so would when it comes to the ginger camel toe (and Labyrinth choreographer) though …

                      How many of her albums do you own?

                    8. I completely didn’t realize that Jim Henson directed Labyrinth. Well, you learn something new every day.

                    9. I’ll take that question avoidance to indicate that “all of them, autographed” is the probable answer. 😉

                    10. YOU didn’t know that Epi-dural? You, boy genius and the real inspiration for the character of Wesley? May David Bovie and Catherine Denueve feast upon your rapidly dessicating corpse as Susan Sarandon pleasures herself with your Dark Crystal shard of a man-shaft.

                      You thoroughly sicken me, you isipid contemptable excuse for a Dario Argento prop.

                    11. How dare you sully Dario’s name!

                      My friend knows Dario personally (he did a documentary on him), and Dario is a fucking insane wop from hell. And Daria Niccolodi, when they were fighting one time, kicked Dario in the ribs and broke one. Also, my friend banged Dario’s daughter. Not Asia, the one from the beginning of Phenomenon.

                      Best part is that he has pictures from when he made the doc, and there’s a picture of Asia…with a huge, Dario-level honker of a nose. She totally had plastic surgery.

                    12. I would never sully the director of Suspira. Just joking, serial one.

                      An actress, getting a rhinoplasty? Surely you jest.

                    13. You probably liked Mother of Tears, didn’t you. You disgust me. At least Opera was watchable.

                    14. The only two things redeemable about Mother of Tears was Moran Atias and Udo Kier.

                      The score wasn’t bad either.

                      “Udo, man. It’s fucking UDO!”

                    15. There is nothing redeemable about Mother of Tears. Dario is finished. I’ll just go watch Bird With the Crystal Plumage and cry myself to sleep, like I do every night. With beer.

    3. Pretty desperate for libertarian heroes aren’t we

      Actually yes, it would be a nice change of pace. Every movie hero is usually a perfect fit for the red/blue idea of heroism.

      Think of just about every movie with cops, you are given an image of absolute good versus absolute evil. Drug dealers are evil, not just for selling drugs but are portrayed in all facets as bad people, not simply a person providing a commodity. And the cop must use extra-constitutional methods to serve justice. These clean black/white dichotomies presented in modern movies is, what I believe, led to the public acceptance of a militarized police force with expanded powers. The hero in these movies always gets his man, and earns the grudging respect of his colleagues, and the public.

      Other movies present business and capitalism as inherently flawed and evil. The corporation is not only lacking in empathy, through its pursuit of profit, but is actually evil and revels in its oppression of people. Which in the real world would be a quick way to lose money for a company. The hero of these movies usually takes on these huge evil corporations, on behalf of the little people, and wins.

      So yes, I personally would like to see more movies that have libertarian protagonists and present our philosophy in a positive manner. I am a libertarian so, go figure.

      1. Not just movies cap l. I blame Dick Wolf and Steven Bochco.

        At least L.A. Law killed off Diana Muldaur’s character in a manner befitting her.

        1. Yeah, David Ayer doesn’t stick to those tired old tropes. I don’t think James Ellroy does, either. But you’re right…a libertarian protagonist would be weird/nice, I s’pose.

      2. Movies, and books for that matter, are the perfect medium for statist exposition. You sit there while an author or director shows you what he wants you to see, and leads you to draw the conclusions that he wants you to draw. This is especially so in fantasy/scifi works, but even in so-called “slice of life” movies the unintended consequences of statism can be pretended not to exist. The writers of Star Trek can put hours worth of flowery prose on the lips of their characters about how wonderful the moneyless society where everyone works for their self-improvement and the benefit of others is, while the fundamental practical problems of how such a society could function are simply ignored. Yet many viewers come away thinking that if money were not so important to us we would be better off, and supporting real-world policies and ideologies purporting to achieve the Star Trek vision, despite the fact that in the real world there is no “off-screen” where messy details can be hidden.

        The playing-out of libertarian philosophy in the real world is far too messy for a coherent movie or even a book. There is no place in a marginally realistic libertarian story for a single hero in a fight against the forces of evil, or any other simple but compelling plot line. Video games are a far better medium if one wants to promote a libertarian outlook.

        From what I can tell, any anti-government movie gets branded libertarian around these parts (thinking V For Vendetta and Firefly/Serenity) even though they lend themselves to an “if only the RIGHT people were in charge” interpretation just as easily. V was an anarchist, not a libertarian, and there’s no indication the Independents were at all concerned about individual liberty.

        1. The playing-out of libertarian philosophy in the real world is far too messy for a coherent movie or even a book. There is no place in a marginally realistic libertarian story for a single hero in a fight against the forces of evil, or any other simple but compelling plot line.

          I would disagree with this part of your comment. A script could easily, and in a simple manner, in which the villain was the state instead of a criminal or a corporation. Even presenting the nuances of humans can be profoundly libertarian, think “The Wire”.

          In novel form, anything Kafka shows the bland species of evil that is spawned from powerful bureaucracies.

          My comment is dependent on complete understanding of your position. If I have misrepresented your viewpoint, then maybe clarification on your part is necessary.

          1. The villain in both VFV and Serenity is the state, and both can (and are) easily interpreted along statist lines: the wrong people were in charge.

            Neither shows that there are inherent problems with every kind of government, and I don’t really see how such a showing could be made in a watchable movie. You have to personify the evil of the state at some point, and once you do, you implicitly absolve all states that don’t fit that personification.

  14. In real life, if those kinds of weapons were created, they’d be taken over by Janet Napolitano under orders from that guy in the White House people are still drooling over.

  15. Oh, and I haven’t seen Iron Man 2 yet, so The Incredibles is still the most libertarianish movie I’ve seen to date.

    Hey, I like that style of animation. Don’t laugh.

  16. If only they would bring Wesley back as some sort of admiral; then the cycle of evil would be complete.

    What is the Federation equivalent of Speaker of the House of Representatives?
    That’s where I see him.


    2. Here’s what I would like to see: Star Trek II remade from the point of view of Khan. Except, Khan and his kin (instead of being frozen off the Eugenics Wars) had been forcibly kicked from planet to planet because they were afraid that he would dominate; he got caught in some acts of self-defense and spun into a story of hideous cruelty by the federation.

      He’s being persued by Kirk, who does not see through the sham. They get a chance to meet face to face and polemic gets thrown about, Kirk for a split second reconsiders, but then caves to authority – finally going back to his ship to resume their battle to the death.

      Of course Khan has to lose.

      1. So you basically want the story to be about some other character, not Khan.

        1. I think it could be done as 50% khan 50% kirk.

        2. no, the genetic engineering part stays. See, the point is, he’s being discriminated for because people are afraid of who he is, even though it’s not like he chose to be born who he was.

          1. Did he choose to rule 1/4 of the world from 1992-94 with an iron fist? Or is that just because of who he was.

            1. You could redo it as he was elected to rule the world, got drawn into a war, and did some bad things, but overall was good, but was taken down by someone way worse who did some rewriting of history.

              or you could get rid of all that.

  17. It’ll be worth seeing just for the Capitol Hill exchange, but my current favorite for free-ish market future libertopia is the opening of Banlieue 13: Ultimatum.

    It’s not quite as full of parkour scenes as the first one but the cuts to the 5 different culture-specific neighborhoods are fun to watch, with changes to the score to match.

  18. when ever it been released i think it was now time for the movie to brake free with the chances of braking some of the records. the movie entitled with more battles this time and i did agree with the directors when the leavers the audience to decide or expect what was next.


  19. I have read on internet that it will come out Iron man 3 next year.

  20. I hate the fucking drug war, but I have say, if I had been busted for drugs umpteen times and was designated a felon I would be eating out of garbage cans and instead of being the toast of Hollywood, making bazzillions of dollars and fucking playmates and starlets.

  21. Saw Iron Man 2 on Friday. Enjoyed the expreience overall, but there were a few missteps IMHO.

    Rockwell’s Justin Hammer is just too oily to be believable. The man’s the head of a large defense contractor, not “Honest” John’s Used Cars. His character was funny but not believable.

    The final action set piece takes place at night in and above the Stark Expo at Flushing Meadows, NY. I mean, what’s the point of having a slam bang flying action scene where you can barely see the action. Mostly you see the glow from the rocket boots or the occassional explosion when a drone crashes into something and little else. Luckily, the end of the sequence takes place in a part of the Expo that is reasonably well lit, so the action is actually visible to the viewer.

    Roarke’s accent is too thick at times. A couple of times captions would have been welcomed as Mickey spoke.

    Much of the dialogue is crisp, funny and believable, But some of it is kind of lame, relying on bad puns too often.

    Reasonoids will get a chuckle out of the scene where Stark hangs poster of Iron Man done in the same art-deco style as one of Obama’s campaign posters. Priceless.

    The best action scene is early in the movie at the Grand Prix at Monaco. It sizzles in more ways than one. Vanko’s whips crakle with their awesome power and Stark has to scramble to save himself from Vanko as he doesn’t have his armor on. Of course, watching Stark step into his portable armor was way cool too.

    One last thing I found odd was that one of the scenes in the trailers wasn’t in the film. In a trailer I saw, Stark and Pepper are in a plane, he’s in the armor, sans helmet, with Pepper holding the helmet. He asks for a kiss and she kisses the helmet and tosses it out the plane. He jumps out after it saying “You complete me.” as he jumps. I don’t recall seeing that in the movie. Maybe I missed it, but I don’t think I did. Struck me as odd.

    My quibbles aside, the movie is fast paced, humorous, exciting and in some scenes quite touching, as Stark deals with his mortality and his legacy as both Stark and Iron Man. I give Iron Man 2 three out of four stars.

  22. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. I’d rate it slightly better than the first.

  23. Iron man 2 was GREAT! i saw it saturday in a really full theater and some of the effects and great action made me wish it was in 3D:) really great story and great action:) made me forget while watching that i thought berore seeing it that someone couldve since know who is iron man could just walk up to him and shoot him when not in his iron man suit.

  24. Iron man 2 was GREAT! i saw it saturday in a really full theater and some of the effects and great action made me wish it was in 3D:) really great story and great action:) made me forget while watching that i thought berore seeing it that someone couldve since know who is iron man could just walk up to him and shoot him when not in his iron man suit.

  25. Iron man 2 was GREAT! i saw it saturday in a really full theater and some of the effects and great action made me wish it was in 3D:) really great story and great action:) made me forget while watching that i thought berore seeing it that someone couldve since know who is iron man could just walk up to him and shoot him when not in his iron man suit.

  26. no longer it can be spelled as the Iron man one have the most of marginal success with only few of the days this movie does climb into top. how ever in the movie what i been promised was the interested on seen what is ahead is never dies until the last moment of the movie.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.