Master Index of Archived Threads


Iron Man (2008)

Beckons a new Iron Age

6 votes

Iron clad

5 votes

Ferrous

2 votes

Rusty

2 votes

Anemic

0 votes

The Second Spitter May 01 2008 08:26 AM

I just got back from watching Iron Man. I'll keep my comments brief as I'm pretty tired (and we had a few "soda pops" before and after the show.) They're also spoiler-free. The Good Stuff * Good script and the plot was unexpectedly intelligent (that is, as intelligent as a comic book film gets) * Spectacular action scenes and SFX. * The acting was of high-quality (as expected) and the casting was terrific. The Bad Stuff * It took a while for the movie to build "heat" and the pay-off was very quick. * The "one-liners" were good and most of them stuck, but they were overly used (sometimes at inappropriate moments.). Also, you get the impression that the script was written by Tony Stark. * The ending was iffy, but not bad. Overall Great treatment of potentially difficult material. Iron Man is not the most glamorous super-hero, and as such, it would have been easy for the script to be sucky. Since I was never an avid reader of the comic-book I may have missed some of the references (particularly in regards to S.H.I.E.L.D) but fans will not be disappointed. Maybe not as good as a Spider-Man 2 or Batman Begins but definitely in the league of the first Spider-Man movie.

Benjamin Grimm May 01 2008 08:32 AM

We're going tomorrow night. I can't wait. Iron Man was never my favorite either, but there are few movies that I've so eagerly anticipated. I've just been getting a good vibe about this movie. I think Downey was a great choice for Tony Stark. (I would have picked Clark Gable, but he's dead at the present time.) And Favreau seems to be a real fan who knows what makes the characters tick. (As opposed to those clowns who did the Fantastic Four movie.) Let's have a little sing-along: Tony Stark Makes you feel He's a cool exec With a heart of steel As Iron Man, all jets ablaze He fights and fights with repulsor rays Amazing armor He's Iron Man Ablazing armor He's I-ronnn Maaaaan!

The Second Spitter May 01 2008 09:09 AM

Like I said, you won't be disappointed. I can't say it left me wanting more, but it was very decent. Btw, I heard Robert Downey Jr (presumably as Tony Stark?) will be appearing in the Incredible Hulk film, which is interesting.

Benjamin Grimm May 01 2008 09:14 AM

Yes, Downey's appearance in Incredible Hulk is the first step in stitching together a big-screen Marvel Universe. Rumor has it that it's laying the groundwork for an eventual Avengers movie.

AG/DC May 01 2008 09:49 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on May 01 2008 10:12 AM

Which has a good chance to eventually suck. Two big problem with the sustainability of screen adapatations of a comic book universe are (1) the fillm-makers are not nearly so coy as the books about having their heroes kill off the villians, destroyiing a character that is an ongoing challenge in the books, and (2) they have no confindence in the secondary villians, and so make them team up in pairs (or threes, in the last Spider-Dude film) in subsequent films, which exacerbates (1). So we're sliding down a steepening slope of interesting challenges. By the time we get around to an Avengers film, they'll be pitted against the Sadistic Soccer Moms or something. Though that's part of the challenge. Personally I think the Spider-Man's Fiend Folio slides from silly to stupid pretty fast. But any film-maker that can make a jive-ass Marvel seventies villian team like the Circus of Crime come to life with any success on the big screen deserves applause. I think Favreau, as a fan, may be the best thing that happened to Marvel-based films since Michael Chabon. But that's like saying Bobby Murcer is the best thing to happen to the Yankees since Mickey Mantle.

Benjamin Grimm May 01 2008 10:06 AM

I don't have high hopes for an Avengers movie either. It would be monumentally difficult to mix Iron Man, Thor, and the Hulk (plus Ant Man, Captain America and the Wasp) on screen without it looking very silly. But that's another story. I don't mind villains being killed off in the movies. You have to keep Dr. Octopus alive in the comics because there are forty or fifty years worth of stories to tell. But at most there will be maybe five or six Spider-Man movies; they won't need to go back to Doc Ock again. (And if they reboot the Spidey series twenty years from now, then can once again reuse Doc Ock anyway.) I didn't like how they piled on the villains in Spider-Man 3. I don't know if it's a lack of confidence in Sandman or Venom. It may be partly that, but I think it's largely from a desire to get more characters to merchandise. And that's even worse, because it drives the storytelling in a way that's counterproductive. Favreau seems to have a plan. I think he'll take the Iron Man franchise in a good direction. My hunch is that Iron Man 3, if it gets that far, will be the best superhero movie to have a 3 in the title.

AG/DC May 01 2008 10:14 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't mind villains being killed off in the movies. You have to keep Dr. Octopus alive in the comics because there are forty or fifty years worth of stories to tell. Yeah, but what I'm talking about is their clear (and ambitious) attempt ot build a sustainable on-screen universe. My point is that the villianocide works against that interest.

The Second Spitter May 01 2008 10:21 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't mind villains being killed off in the movies. You have to keep Dr. Octopus alive in the comics because there are forty or fifty years worth of stories to tell.. The trend seems to be to keep villians alive, especially in the DC universe films. Benjamin Grimm wrote: Favreau seems to have a plan. I think he'll take the Iron Man franchise in a good direction. My hunch is that Iron Man 3, if it gets that far, will be the best superhero movie to have a 3 in the title. One of the criticisms of Iron Man that I forgot to make in my initial review was that the violence was really toned down. I'm skeptical whether the franchise will live to a 3rd film, if Favreau continues with this approach.

Benjamin Grimm May 02 2008 10:53 AM

Just dropped by the theater and picked up my tickets for tonight's showing. Look for me at the 7 p.m. show. I'll have rings on my fingers and bells on my toes.

Fman99 May 02 2008 11:18 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: My hunch is that Iron Man 3, if it gets that far, will be the best superhero movie to have a 3 in the title. Richard Pryor must be rolling around in his grave! (Not seriously; Superman III is an atrocity of a movie).

Benjamin Grimm May 04 2008 06:14 AM

Triple Dee wrote: One of the criticisms of Iron Man that I forgot to make in my initial review was that the violence was really toned down. I'm skeptical whether the franchise will live to a 3rd film, if Favreau continues with this approach. Having seen the movie, I now suspect that you're taking the piss here. Oh, and by the way, I thoroughly enjoyed Iron Man. Moves right to the top of the list of Marvel movies. (And when you go, don't leave before the credits end. There's one additional scene at the very very end.)

The Second Spitter May 05 2008 03:29 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Triple Dee wrote: One of the criticisms of Iron Man that I forgot to make in my initial review was that the violence was really toned down. I'm skeptical whether the franchise will live to a 3rd film, if Favreau continues with this approach. Having seen the movie, I now suspect that you're taking the piss here. I wasn't, but it does seem an odd comment in retrospect. Maybe because I've been following an extremely violent TV program over the last month. I wish somebody had told me about the scene after the credits although i saw it on u-tube afterwards.

Benjamin Grimm May 05 2008 02:21 PM

Iron Man 2 has already been announced by Marvel Studios. It opens on April 30, 2010. Thor will open just over a month later.

Valadius May 06 2008 11:50 AM

How awesome is the scene after the credits?

themetfairy May 09 2008 07:12 PM

This isn't generally my kind of film, but I thought that it was very well done. Robert Downey, Jr. is great in the lead role.

AG/DC May 09 2008 08:00 PM

Is "Stark Industries" still posting at the MOFo?

soupcan May 12 2008 08:32 AM

Saw it Sat. Night. Great superhero flick. Best so far. Enjoyed it very much. As to Vlad's question about the last-last scene: If you are not a superfan of Marvel comic books and don't really know the characters and their history except through the movies, then the scene is not awesome and won't mean much to you at all. It's 30 seconds of 2 guys talking. If you are a superfan - it's great and has a lot of meaning. I went with a friend and we waited and waited for the credits to end. After the scene I had a big grin on my face and he looked at me and said "why'd we have to wait for that?"

SteveJRogers May 12 2008 05:53 PM

AG/DC wrote: Is "Stark Industries" still posting at the MOFo? There is a Stark_International that posted once last summer that occasionally shows up in the "logged on" list. Could be the same guy.

Valadius May 16 2008 10:29 PM

Finally saw it. AWESOME movie.

AG/DC Sep 30 2008 10:09 PM

Why is John Favreau in the film and then inexplicably gone?

dgwphotography Oct 01 2008 11:15 AM

I know I'm in the minority when I say this, but I enjoyed this movie more than I enjoyed The Dark Knight. Downey was perfect as Tony Stark, and Favreau did a good job letting his cast just act. I didn't notice that about Favreau's character - he was only a fringe element, anyway.

AG/DC Oct 01 2008 11:20 AM

Sure, but he was there, you noted him, then he was gone. There's a lot of clumsiness of that sort in this (and in a lot of superhero movies). Why does an executive of an arms manufacturer deal weapons to terrorists without at least taking care to not include the manufacturer's trademarks all over the packaging. There's enough to like in the presentation and performances, but I disagree that the script was that great. Seemed pretty underwritten to me. Enough wisecracks for Downey to deliver but not much more. There were characters I'd've liked to have known better.

SteveJRogers Oct 28 2008 08:05 PM

AG/DC wrote: Why is John Favreau in the film and then inexplicably gone? Good question. The character, Happy Hogan, is a pretty decent player among Iron Man's supporting cast, or was until he was killed off recently.

Nymr83 Feb 23 2009 03:59 PM

it was ok. Not nearly as good as X-Men 2 or Spiderman 1 or 2. A notch better than Spidey 3 because spidey 3 was bogged down by too many villains instead of really telling their stories. Terrance Howard was great in his supporting role, and they definitely did a nice job setting him up as War Machine for the future movies.

Farmer Ted Mar 16 2009 09:03 AM

If we're comparing flix, I give the nod to Iron Man over Dark Knight. I'm a Spidey fan and this was up there with Spidey I.

Nymr83 Mar 16 2009 09:27 AM

To me it wasn't even close, Dark Knight is second only to X-Men2 in superhero movies.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 16 2009 11:01 AM

I think Iron Man has become my favorite. The others that stand out are the first two Spideys and X-Men 2. I did really like Dark Knight, but my own personal bias says that no DC movie can compare to a good Marvel movie.

metsmarathon Jun 15 2009 11:37 AM

i just saw iron man over the weekend. i think all of my problems with the movie are related to technical / technological issues that are mostly related to my experience as a weapons engineer. i think the biggest thing is how he was able to fly from malibu to afghanistan and back on presumably one tank of gas. that's pretty fucking impressive. i'll gloss over the bulletproofiness of his suit, which is too thin to protect against a direct hit, but should suffice for glancing blows against smaller cal weapons. but really, what self-respecting terrorist organization doesn't own a single RPG, against which iron man should have no defense whatsoever? that shit'll pop a hole through his shell like a hot skewer through butter! also, all that ordnance bouncing around in that cave, and no stray bullets make it to his very exposed eye sockets? ok, sure. whatever. somebody already mentioned why a weapons manufacturer would be selling clearly marked weapons to terrorists, but my question is, how stupid does a weapons manufacturer have to be to DIRECTLY sell illegal arms to terrorists? i mean, damn, at least prop up a clandestine arms dealer! and finally, stark's gotta do a little better job developing insensitive munitions. i mean, a little blast from a flame thrower glances on the outer casing of a missile and it goes friggin' high order, taking with it an entire stockpile of ammo? c'mon! he's gotta do better than that... but on the whole, i rather liked it. definitely one of the better superhero movies i've seen, by a whole lot. of course, i stopped my dvd before the end of the credits, and its already on its way back to netflix. what'd i miss?

Nymr83 Jun 15 2009 12:47 PM

what'd i miss? its on youtube [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o2lJ19qML0

Edgy MD Jun 15 2009 01:57 PM

I couldn't design a popgun, but I had most of the same concerns as mm. My problem with his semi-revolution oaround the earth wasn't with the fuel. (He presumably has some sort of reactor fueling him, though the engine should probably be allowed to cool or it'll fry him up.) My prob was the biofatigue he'd endure.

SteveJRogers Jun 15 2009 06:56 PM

metsmarathon wrote: i just saw iron man over the weekend. i think all of my problems with the movie are related to technical / technological issues that are mostly related to my experience as a weapons engineer. i think the biggest thing is how he was able to fly from malibu to afghanistan and back on presumably one tank of gas. that's pretty fucking impressive. i'll gloss over the bulletproofiness of his suit, which is too thin to protect against a direct hit, but should suffice for glancing blows against smaller cal weapons. but really, what self-respecting terrorist organization doesn't own a single RPG, against which iron man should have no defense whatsoever? that shit'll pop a hole through his shell like a hot skewer through butter! also, all that ordnance bouncing around in that cave, and no stray bullets make it to his very exposed eye sockets? ok, sure. whatever. somebody already mentioned why a weapons manufacturer would be selling clearly marked weapons to terrorists, but my question is, how stupid does a weapons manufacturer have to be to DIRECTLY sell illegal arms to terrorists? i mean, damn, at least prop up a clandestine arms dealer! and finally, stark's gotta do a little better job developing insensitive munitions. i mean, a little blast from a flame thrower glances on the outer casing of a missile and it goes friggin' high order, taking with it an entire stockpile of ammo? c'mon! he's gotta do better than that... but on the whole, i rather liked it. definitely one of the better superhero movies i've seen, by a whole lot. of course, i stopped my dvd before the end of the credits, and its already on its way back to netflix. what'd i miss? We are going into believability in a world where a guy has the attributes of a Spider? Granted Spidey isn't going to be any where near the Marvel Studio productions, sadly actually, but still, I'm not sure if getting carried away in "Oh this is complete bull shit" is the right way to go when talking about comic book films!

Edgy MD Jun 15 2009 07:37 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 08 2009 01:27 PM

Evey paradigm --- imaginary ones included --- has rules of how systems work and behave. The silliness of Stark Industries running the least clandestine illegal weapons trading system challenges credibility in almost any context, and therefore detracts from the film.

metsmarathon Jun 15 2009 08:36 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: metsmarathon wrote: i just saw iron man over the weekend. i think all of my problems with the movie are related to technical / technological issues that are mostly related to my experience as a weapons engineer. i think the biggest thing is how he was able to fly from malibu to afghanistan and back on presumably one tank of gas. that's pretty fucking impressive. i'll gloss over the bulletproofiness of his suit, which is too thin to protect against a direct hit, but should suffice for glancing blows against smaller cal weapons. but really, what self-respecting terrorist organization doesn't own a single RPG, against which iron man should have no defense whatsoever? that shit'll pop a hole through his shell like a hot skewer through butter! also, all that ordnance bouncing around in that cave, and no stray bullets make it to his very exposed eye sockets? ok, sure. whatever. somebody already mentioned why a weapons manufacturer would be selling clearly marked weapons to terrorists, but my question is, how stupid does a weapons manufacturer have to be to DIRECTLY sell illegal arms to terrorists? i mean, damn, at least prop up a clandestine arms dealer! and finally, stark's gotta do a little better job developing insensitive munitions. i mean, a little blast from a flame thrower glances on the outer casing of a missile and it goes friggin' high order, taking with it an entire stockpile of ammo? c'mon! he's gotta do better than that... but on the whole, i rather liked it. definitely one of the better superhero movies i've seen, by a whole lot. of course, i stopped my dvd before the end of the credits, and its already on its way back to netflix. what'd i miss? We are going into believability in a world where a guy has the attributes of a Spider? Granted Spidey isn't going to be any where near the Marvel Studio productions, sadly actually, but still, I'm not sure if getting carried away in "Oh this is complete bull shit" is the right way to go when talking about comic book films! gamma rays interacting with spiders who cause genetic mutations in humans, i can go along with. a guy fabricating a suit of armor, made out of scraps of metal salvaged from the casings of missiles (or just ordinary steel), which is impervious to 0.50 cal bullets and also sheilds his eyes from said bullets despite the friggin eye holes... well... i can't go that far. his later suit, i'll go along with. not this. terrorists without RPGs. i can't go along with this. its like a bond villain without a lasar beam! and large military missiles emblazoned with the manufacturer's mark while sold on the black market (or even while sold to the us military), that i can't go along with. the movie should keep me suspending my disbelief. when the first scene of the movie has me saying "oh, come on!" they're only going to take me so far.

RealityChuck Jul 08 2009 01:14 PM

So-so film. Downey was, as usual, fine, but Iron Man never struck me as a particularly interesting hero. Besides, I preferred the original version: