Iron Man - Excellent Film.

i'll see it eventually. but i don't look forward to some dude making power armor in a cave. :P
 
Best comic book superhero movie ever? Not a chance. Superman: The Movie still holds that crown.

Iron Man was decent. The plot was simplistic and predictable, but the CG special effects were not excessive, and most importantly some of the jokes worked. I actually laughed a few times. Downey Jr. was a good choice for the character.

It's definitely better than drek like Spiderman n, The Hulk, and the new Superman.
 
UniversalWolf said:
Best comic book superhero movie ever? Not a chance. Superman: The Movie still holds that crown.
Click to expand...

You are nostalgic. The only good thing about the original Superman film is Reeves. The story is a joke (LEX LUTHOR NEEDS LAND) and the look is horribly dated.
 
Ditto on Superman being nostalgic and only good because of Reeves-Fetus-Sucking-Self. I liked the first two Spiderman movies ,and actually enjoyed Spiderman 3 until the whole Venom thing jumped in. Spiderman 3 was not Raimi's fault though. The big wigs made him put Venom in.
Iron Man was a well made movie with enough action to make you want a sequel. They have been leaning towards the Ultimates storyline ( Spiderman having natural web shooting abilities and black Nick Fury). I myself don't know much about the Ultimates,but I do know that Iron Mans armor in the movie is from the regular 616 Marvel universe. I guess they are just picking and choosing what to throw in the mix.
I personally would rather see a New Avengers movie than a old Avengers movie, but that's only because I hate Wasp,Hawkeye,and Ant Man. With Tony Stark playing a cameo in the latest Hulk movie the Avengers are coming very soon. I see a Captain America, Thor, Iron Man 2, then Avengers. Maybe I'm wrong. Fuck Hawkeye and his faggot ass bow. Fuck Wasp and her insect sized tits. Fuck Ant Man and his giant penis. They blow. I wanna see Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Spiderman, and Wolverine in a Avengers movie. Won't happen, but I can dream.
 
The movie didn't have nearly enough shirtless spark-factory work and Tony Stark mullets.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfWPDzvWNds[/youtube]

Still good though.
 
You are nostalgic. The only good thing about the original Superman film is Reeves. The story is a joke (LEX LUTHOR NEEDS LAND) and the look is horribly dated.
Click to expand...

You actually think Iron Man is better than Superman: The Movie? Ahh...no.

1. Reeves isn't even the best thing about S:TM. Marlon Brando as Superman's father is better. Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor is better.

2. Lex Luthor's motivations are more insane than a joke, but be that as it may, they're no more silly than the motivations of the bad guy in Iron Man. And the villian in Iron Man is utterly predictable and obvious. If you didn't know he was the culprit the first time he appeared on screen, you were asleep. As for story, Superman's story (as the main character) is far better than Iron Man's. Superman constantly confronts a moral dilemma in deciding how his immense power should be used or withheld, while Iron Man just finds out about something bad going on and tries to stop it ("Hey, those Innocent People are being hurt by those Bad Guys!"). Really, Iron Man's character development is much more cliche and simplistic than Superman's. Superman is far more contemplative about plausible human conflicts like trying to please his parents and figuring out where he belongs in society.

3. The look being dated is utterly irrelevant. You can hardly expect a movie from the early 1980's to look the same as a contemporary movie, but that's no argument about it's quality. Casablanca and The Manchurian Candidate look horribly dated, being both filmed in black and white, but they're still outstanding movies. There are thousands of good movies that look dated, but the real question is whether or not you as the viewer can be convinced of and absorbed into the story's universe. Superman looks good enough to work, and that's all that matters.

Looking contemporary is no essential virtue, by the way. All modern movies I've ever seen with CG special effects have an artificial sameness and unreality to their appearance. They look great and unconvincing.

Not that I have anything against the way Iron Man looks, specifically. Like I said, they used the CG special effects sparingly enough to keep it from becoming a bloated crap-fest like The Hulk or any of the Spiderman movies; there's a little more to Iron Man than just the visuals. Keep in mind, though, that in twenty years Iron Man will look dated, too. Will it still hold up when the light show isn't cutting edge?

Funny thing is, I'm not trying to say S:TM is a great movie - just that it's clearly the best of a bad genre. And I'm not being nostalgic. It hasn't been that long since I saw it, but I remember thinking it held up well and was better than what I remembered from seeing it as a kid. S:TM was the first serious attempt at making a big-time movie from a comic book character, and the people who worked on it took it seriously as a project.

To finish on a tangent: there's one thing S:TM does far better than IM, and that's end with something memorable. It's a trend in movies that the endings are generally not as good these days as they were twenty or twenty-five years ago. What everyone remembers about S:TM is Superman reversing time in order to save Lois Lane. The ending to Iron Man I've already forgotten.
 
Watched it today. Mostly superb acting, alright script, ok action scenes. Can't say it's the best super hero movie but it's one of the better ones, mostly due to the actors.

Some influences were too obvious for my taste as well. The last fight reminded me of Robocop a lot.
 
Saw it yesterday. Laughed most of the way through. Good acting. Did not offend any fan. All around a good movie, which is saying something as I have not found one good adaption of a comic movie since Sin City.
 
UniversalWolf said:
You are nostalgic. The only good thing about the original Superman film is Reeves. The story is a joke (LEX LUTHOR NEEDS LAND) and the look is horribly dated.
Click to expand...

You actually think Iron Man is better than Superman: The Movie? Ahh...no.

1. Reeves isn't even the best thing about S:TM. Marlon Brando as Superman's father is better. Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor is better.
Click to expand...

Brando has all of 15 minutes of screen time. Yeah, it's fucking Brando, but come on. He's alright in that movie. Hackman is a horrible Lex Luthor, and overacts and eats through the scenery every chance he gets. I mean, it's a fun role, but it doesn't have the depth or nuance that Reeves had as Superman/Clark Kent. There's such a magnetism to Reeves performance that it's difficult to see anyone else in the role almost thirty years later.

2. Lex Luthor's motivations are more insane than a joke, but be that as it may, they're no more silly than the motivations of the bad guy in Iron Man.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Lex Luthor wanting to become the king of real estate is less ridiculous than a terrorist organization with the desire to control Asia and a jealous businessman who wants to control the world's largest business empire. Right. The difference is that it's played completely straight in Iron Man. Hackman comes off as a total loon who looks like he spent more time studying Cesar Romero's Joker than anything having to do with Lex Luthor.

As for story, Superman's story (as the main character) is far better than Iron Man's. Superman constantly confronts a moral dilemma in deciding how his immense power should be used or withheld, while Iron Man just finds out about something bad going on and tries to stop it ("Hey, those Innocent People are being hurt by those Bad Guys!"). Really, Iron Man's character development is much more cliche and simplistic than Superman's. Superman is far more contemplative about plausible human conflicts like trying to please his parents and figuring out where he belongs in society.
Click to expand...

Tony Stark is one of the most complex characters in the medium of comics and it translates well to the film. As much as I love Superman and his backstory and characteristics, the dude is a Boy Scout and that's just not very interesting. Stark is a grown adult who has made some horrible life choices and has to come to terms with the fact that he's responsible for genocide. On top of all of that, he's an alcoholic, a womanizer, and generally just not a very good person. He has to constantly try to overcome all of these faults and character defects to become the person he wants to be and has a lot of difficulty doing so - this makes him a million times more interesting than Superman could ever hope to be.

Superman can be written as a complex and intriguing character, much the way you describe him, but I don't feel that any film adaptation has successfully captured that.

3. The look being dated is utterly irrelevant. You can hardly expect a movie from the early 1980's to look the same as a contemporary movie, but that's no argument about it's quality. Casablanca and The Manchurian Candidate look horribly dated, being both filmed in black and white, but they're still outstanding movies. There are thousands of good movies that look dated, but the real question is whether or not you as the viewer can be convinced of and absorbed into the story's universe. Superman looks good enough to work, and that's all that matters.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There are plenty of films from the 70s and 80s that don't come off as dated at all for exactly the reason you cited - the story and performances are excellent. Superman just doesn't cut it for me.

Looking contemporary is no essential virtue, by the way. All modern movies I've ever seen with CG special effects have an artificial sameness and unreality to their appearance. They look great and unconvincing. Not that I have anything against the way Iron Man looks, specifically. Like I said, they used the CG special effects sparingly enough to keep it from becoming a bloated crap-fest like The Hulk or any of the Spiderman movies; there's a little more to Iron Man than just the visuals. Keep in mind, though, that in twenty years Iron Man will look dated, too. Will it still hold up when the light show isn't cutting edge?
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this, and I'm glad to hear more praise for Iron Man's CG work. I'm actually pretty excited to see how it holds up. I feel like they used just enough conventional effects along with the CG to make it stand the test of time. I really think that's the key unless you want to give your movie Spider-Man syndrome and have it look like crap two years after the release. Remember Jurassic Park? Still looks as good as the first time I saw it - thanks to conventional effects.

Funny thing is, I'm not trying to say S:TM is a great movie - just that it's clearly the best of a bad genre. And I'm not being nostalgic. It hasn't been that long since I saw it, but I remember thinking it held up well and was better than what I remembered from seeing it as a kid. S:TM was the first serious attempt at making a big-time movie from a comic book character, and the people who worked on it took it seriously as a project.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to say it's a bad movie, so at least we can agree that it's an alright movie. I'd like to understand why you consider superhero/comic movies it a "bad" genre - do you feel that there haven't been any truly "great" movies or do you just not give it any credibility? Superhero films have the potential to be great - but I'll agree that they aren't quite there yet. Maybe soon, as long as films like Batman Begins, Iron Man, and The Dark Knight continue to be made.

To finish on a tangent: there's one thing S:TM does far better than IM, and that's end with something memorable. It's a trend in movies that the endings are generally not as good these days as they were twenty or twenty-five years ago. What everyone remembers about S:TM is Superman reversing time in order to save Lois Lane. The ending to Iron Man I've already forgotten.
Click to expand...

I always thought Superman flying around the Earth turning back time was one of the stupidest and cheesiest endings in film history. The end of Iron Man, however, was awesome. How many times in a superhero film have we actually seen the hero unmask himself on national television because he's stoked about being a superhero and doesn't give a fuck? Incredible. It immediately sets Stark/Iron Man apart from every other hero and works in line with his character perfectly.
 
FUCKING LOVED IT!!!!

just got back from seeing it. holy shit...i fucking loved Downy Jr. as Stark and i fucking loved seeing "The Dude" as an evil villain. see? this is what happens when you actually get great fucking actors involved with a comic movie. Sam Jackson as Nick Fury? a little weird, but i'll take it...and i loved hearing "avengers" come out of his mouth.

West Coast Avengers was the second comic i ever started reading (after spidey) as a kid...my love for iron man runs as deep as my love for sabbath.

also, holy shit did the armor look fucking rad!!!
 
There's such a magnetism to Reeves performance that it's difficult to see anyone else in the role almost thirty years later.
Click to expand...

That's definitely true, but Brando's role, though small, is crucial. He has gravitas.


...a jealous businessman who wants to control the world's largest business empire.
Click to expand...

{sarcasm}Whoa! I've never seen that villain in a movie before! Talk about creativity.{/sarcasm}

And they play it straight and pretend it's not completely obvious from the first ten minutes. Pfft.

Lex Luthor is criminally insane, which is why his plan is insane - and destructive on a vast scale. He's a fitting opponent for a comic book superhero.


Stark is a grown adult who has made some horrible life choices and has to come to terms with the fact that he's responsible for genocide. On top of all of that, he's an alcoholic, a womanizer, and generally just not a very good person. He has to constantly try to overcome all of these faults and character defects to become the person he wants to be and has a lot of difficulty doing so
Click to expand...

From what I've heard what you say applies to the Tony Stark from the comic books - but that Tony Stark is not the Tony Stark in the movie. The Tony Stark in the movie is a confident playboy who also just happens to be a genius: total hack. I can think of a dozen movies off the top of my head with the same protagonist. I wish the Tony Stark in the movie had been a miserable alcoholic. That would've been promising, like Sherlock Holmes or House. Alternatively, a genius weapons designer who doesn't spend every spare moment carousing like a frat boy would be even more interesting (not to mention plausible); make T-Stark more like Bert Rutan. Still, Downey does a good job with what he's given, and he's funny, which is a huge plus.

Now go rent Less Than Zero.

The reason I don't have a problem with Superman being a boy scout is that boy scouts are rare as protagonists, especially in contemporary movies, and they're far more difficult to pull off because they don't have gimmicky inner demons. Superman is intriguing because he has almost limitless power. No one on earth can stop him from doing whatever he wants. That he chooses to place limitations on himself and work for Truth, Justice, and The American Way is significant, but he still has to figure out what that means exactly - a deep philosophical question.


I disagree. There are plenty of films from the 70s and 80s that don't come off as dated at all for exactly the reason you cited - the story and performances are excellent. Superman just doesn't cut it for me.
Click to expand...

I agree with you there are older movies that still look surprisingly good. I watched Lawrence of Arabia again a few months ago. That movie's from the damn 1950s but it couldn't be made better today.


I agree with most of this, and I'm glad to hear more praise for Iron Man's CG work. I'm actually pretty excited to see how it holds up. I feel like they used just enough conventional effects along with the CG to make it stand the test of time. I really think that's the key unless you want to give your movie Spider-Man syndrome and have it look like crap two years after the release.
Click to expand...

I'm glad we can agree strongly on this point, although I thought Spiderman looked like crap on the day of its release.

I also think Iron Man was strong in having patience with the story development and holding back from trying to cram non-stop action down the audience's throat. Also, no one did anything that completely defied the laws of physics. That's something that always bugs me.


I'd like to understand why you consider superhero/comic movies it a "bad" genre - do you feel that there haven't been any truly "great" movies or do you just not give it any credibility?
Click to expand...

I think there haven't been very many good ones, and there never has been a great one. It doesn't help that Hollywood cranks out at least two or three every summer like widgets off an assembly line. The people who make these movies don't take them seriously, which is part of the problem. In every other genre I can think of there are at least one or two outstanding examples - even pulpy genres like horror. Is there any superhero movie as good as The Shining? No.

Batman Begins was good in parts, but so-so in others. I thought it was better in the first half when it was about Bruce Wayne instead of Batman. It put all the other Batman movies to shame, though.

I think comic books translate far better to animated formats like the Batman and X-Men series from the mid 1990s.


I always thought Superman flying around the Earth turning back time was one of the stupidest and cheesiest endings in film history.
Click to expand...

Whatever you think of that ending, it was memorable enough to become a referenced part of the culture - something I guarantee will not happen with Iron Man.


P.S. You know, now that I think about it, the closest thing I can come up with to a great superhero movie would have to be The Incredibles, which is far from a traditional superhero movie.
 
UniversalWolf said:
From what I've heard what you say applies to the Tony Stark from the comic books - but that Tony Stark is not the Tony Stark in the movie. The Tony Stark in the movie is a confident playboy who also just happens to be a genius: total hack. I can think of a dozen movies off the top of my head with the same protagonist. I wish the Tony Stark in the movie had been a miserable alcoholic. That would've been promising, like Sherlock Holmes or House. Alternatively, a genius weapons designer who doesn't spend every spare moment carousing like a frat boy would be even more interesting (not to mention plausible); make T-Stark more like Bert Rutan. Still, Downey does a good job with what he's given, and he's funny, which is a huge plus.
Click to expand...

from teh wiki:

"Favreau believes the sequel will allow a latitude in tone,[4] and explore darker story elements such as alcoholism, which he intentionally set aside from the first film.[2] Downey noted "the next one is about what do you do with the rest of your life once you've completely changed. [...] I think the drinking and all that stuff would be a good way to confront his age, to confront his doubts, to confront the fact that maybe Pepper gets a boyfriend." Downey and Favreau met with Shane Black, who suggested they model Stark on Robert Oppenheimer, who became depressed with being "the destroyer of worlds" after working on the Manhattan Project."

now shut up, you turd.
 
because Superman is totally contemporary!
Click to expand...

My point exactly. Writers with the ability to pull off Superman aren't working on superhero movies anymore, and if they are they're being forced to follow a formula.


"Favreau believes the sequel will allow a latitude in tone,[4] and explore darker story elements such as alcoholism, which he intentionally set aside from the first film.[2] Downey noted "the next one is about what do you do with the rest of your life once you've completely changed. [...] I think the drinking and all that stuff would be a good way to confront his age, to confront his doubts, to confront the fact that maybe Pepper gets a boyfriend." Downey and Favreau met with Shane Black, who suggested they model Stark on Robert Oppenheimer, who became depressed with being "the destroyer of worlds" after working on the Manhattan Project."
Click to expand...


We'll see what happens. If anything, what you posted suggests that Favreau agrees with my criticism of Iron Man 1. It's too bad he didn't "intentionally" leave out all the stupid frat boy antics along with the alcoholism.

I will give Favreau the benefit of the doubt, though. It's possible that the success of Iron Man 1 will free him to make the sequel better.


now shut up, you turd.
Click to expand...

Did you come up with that yourself? You should be a comic book superhero movie screenwriter. Seriously, that can be Tony Stark's catch-phrase in Iron Man 2:

Stark: Now shut up, you turd!

BLAM!

It's right up there with, "Do you feel lucky, punk? Well do ya?"
 
Just returned home from the cinema - indeed, one of the best movies I've seen lately. I recommend it to everyone.
 
And integrate this for a primitive precursor to the M.I. trooper.

But wait, Ron! Act within the next two seconds, and we'll throw in a free, first-edition miniature arc reactor- enough to power your heart for fifty lifetimes or something really big for fifteen minutes. That's a multi-billion dollar value, yours for free! Shipping and handling not included, state taxes may apply, not responsible for any collateral damage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top