Recently, an issue of Time Magazine and Newsweek mentioned the Iron Man movie in their review of America's Hollywood media. Newsweek's article "The Return of Cultural Diplomacy", doesn't mean much to me. I know that Hollywood films are fake and don't really reflect everything about America. Iron Man is in the category of films "Not Lost in Translation", along with artworks by Spencer Tunick and Chuck Close. Dark Knight is part of films that the writer describes as part of "vulgar, violent, vitrolic examples of popular culture". Whatever rocks your boat, Martha Bayles. I don't see how that Iron Man is more serious than Dark Knight or Wanted. But I give her points for bringing them up.
From Time magazine's latest issue the two films are mentioned in an article by Richard Corliss. He gives them both the praise they deserve but the article itself is about how Hollywood regained its blockbuster strength. I, however, took notice of his view of Iron Man. He wrote, "In Iron Man, which was way smarter than it had to be, director Jon Favreau showed a subtle sense of where to lead the camera and the audience. If the main character is a genius billionaire who makes weapons in the modern world, how can it not be be a smart film? Look at what's happening with America's automakers, the Madoff scandal, and that scandal involving Custer Battle. Any adult would have thought those incidents were Hollywood fiction, but they happened. I'm beginning to think the writers of Syriana really knew what they were conveying.
BTW: I still give both Iron Man and Dark Knight an 8/10. But I like Iron Man more.
