Not quite accurate. I think many films, even with slight biases, are ruined for conservatives by REVIEWERS, be they liberal or conservative who want to see one side only.
SHIELD is a secret government agency and clearly served a positive role (though initially menacing) in the film, the warlord-terrorists were shown as the evil scum they were, though I heard no “Allahu Akbar.” There was a Nick Berg/Iraqi hostage-type scene that they put a twist on but at least they weren’t afraid to show something like that.
Stark changes his mind because he sees his weapons everywhere, including in the hands of the bad guys (mostly in their hands actually.) That’s due to Stane’s dealings it seems and not simply because any weapons manufacturer is inherently evil.
BTW, while I personally would not feel terrible about building weapons, it is not ‘liberal’ for someone to feel conflicted about it and Stark does nail the liberal reporter broad who questioned him about that issue. OK, he does change but it’s because he doesn’t want his technology serving the bad guys, not merely because the products are destructive.
Plus, he’s such a genius, he probably COULD do more with his talents than just create weaponry (and demonstrates as much with his response to the Vanity Fair reporter.)
I enjoyed the film, Downey is a good actor and brought his gift for snarkiness to Iron Man. I don’t know enough about Tony Stark, other than his drinking problem, to know how close it was to the comic book but I enjoyed it and I could DEFINITELY detect a good deal of the Favreau influence in the dialogue.
I’ll keep your points in mind. As I said, I was just going from a review that I read...
(and demonstrates as much with his response to the Vanity Fair reporter.)
In more ways than one, lol!
Judging from the posts in this thread so far... Tony Stark makes IEDs? I thought Iran did.