Saturday, May 03, 2008

Iron Man Reviews

You got something to say about the new Iron Man movie -- put it here.

16 comments:

Madd_Hadder said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James said...

I just got back from it! It was pretty flipping excellent. Stay after the credits, but you know that already.

Streebo said...

The opening ten minutes of Iron Man are easily the most intense introduction to a superhero movie that has ever been made. The movie itself seems to do a good job following the action/adventure pattern laid out by Raimi with the Spiderman movies. I might be full of you-know-what on that one - but watching Iron Man made me feel like I was not just watching a movie - but I was watching a "Marvel" movie. It has a certain house style feel to it - yet that it not necessarily a bad thing. By House style, I mean there is a certain unilateral tone that seems to fall across most Marvel movies of late. Add liberal amounts of action and adventure, mix with a little humor, add the romantic subplot on the side and stir well. I went into Iron Man with perhaps the lowest of expectations and am happy to say they were well surpassed - and I mean that with all sincerity. Iron Man is a well made, well scripted and well directed film. I love how the Iron Man origin so easily adapted to our contemporary times. In many ways - the movie made me realize how ahead of their time that Stan and Jack were with this character. I am very eager to hear what everyone here thinks about the film. Before I rank the film, I would very much like to see how it stands up on repeated viewings. If the audience's technology fetish wears out early, a long stretch of the film could suddenly become very bland. My first impression is that Iron Man is a very good superhero movie - perhaps possibly worthy of inclusion in the Top Ten Great Superhero Films of All Time.

Timothy Callahan said...

It's the best superhero movie. Period.

Although that doesn't make it a great movie. But I think it kinda is anyway.

nicholas reed said...

I loved the hell out of this movie. It's fun, the emotion is there when it needs to be without being overwhelming, the acting (ESPECIALLY Downey Jr) and writing were spot-on, and, most importantly, I think this was the most well-paced superhero movie yet. The action and pathos were all well balanced, without the viewer feeling short shrifted.

Also, the coda made me cheer out loud. That happens very rarely anymore.

nicholas reed said...

Oh, and as to multiple vuewings, tonight was my second time seeing it, and it was just as entertaining and fun as the first time. Maybe moreso, as I got to really enjoy how subtly sinister The Dud- um, Jeff Bridges was.

Coligo said...

Robert Downey Jr as Stark. Favs as Happy. Good times.

Steven Taylor said...

I really enjoyed it and think that it clearly is one of the top five superhero flicks of all time.

Ping33 said...

I thought it was great.
I certainly liked it more than any of the Spider-man movies.
Great Casting FTW!!!

Todd C. Murry said...

I went in thinking that Papper was a crap character, and that that part was going to be the weak link of the movie. The weak link somehow turned out to be Rhodey, who seemed way to subdued. I didn't expect Terrence Howard to be the casting error. Still, a pretty darn good moviw with the typical superhero-first-movie 3rd act issues (origin chews up time necessary to capitalize on the "main" plot, so ending winds up being more spectacle, less resonant). Downey is now easily the best cast actor or actress in a superhero movie. No contest. I don't even know who number two would be.

The after the credits sequesnce was an exciting idea (for me at least) but was badly written, and badly acted by you know who (I'm trying to avoid spoilers). Did they throw it in and not have enought time to get it right?

Marc Caputo said...

A friend and I saw it last night, knowing of and somewhat about the bit after the credits. As people were filing out, we were telling them, "You might want to wait a bit", mostly to no avail. None but the faithful stayed - all were VERY impressed.

I don't think that Howard was a casting mistake. I think he played it very restrained and only as the movie was ramping up at the end, did he allow his character to get sucked into the excitement, with the "Next time" line.

End to end, this goes right to the top, along with Superman (1977) and X-Men 2. I had some SLIGHT problems - Stark spends all that time getting the armor to work just right, but Stane jumps right in? Also, unless we're talking about tents, a repulsor ray is not going to send a man through a concrete wall - just splatter him onto it. But, that's picking nits. This one's a keeper.

Shlomo said...

i thought it was really great. I think the concept worked better as a movie than it ever did as a comic. (though this movie could never have made with such CG aplomb 10 years ago)

The moment cathartic moment of the whole film was when he was able to shoot the terrorists even with their human shields (of course even within the movie logic who knows if it would work a second time without the element of surprise). I loved the the through line of the film, that was added from the original comic idea. Stark is focused specifically on getting rid of the weapons that have been sold to terrorists. correct me if I'm wrong, but I never got the sense that the comics character had such a focused agenda.

scott91777 said...

I didn't think it was THAT great, granted, it's the best Marvel movie after the Spider-man and X-Men Franchises... just ahead of FF with Ghost Riderand Daredevil/Elektra/Punisher wallowing at the bottom... Then again, maybe It's just because I'm not a huge Iron Man fan. The bit after the credits though? Totally worth my 8.50 just for that.

Stephen said...

Blast you all, now I actually need to go see the thing. :)

Really, sounds great...

Mikey said...

It was really great, wasn't it? I actually cheered Downey Jnr's last line, as well as the coda. Very neat - we're not in standard super-hero movie land after all - that last line and plot movement could never have been delivered in Spider-Man, as the source material, and the symbols that make up 'super-hero movie', have to be adhered to. Why does your super-hero have to have a secret identity?

I thought the pacing was actually very odd, when you think about it, but welcome in that regard. Probably for me the definitive Iron Man, only possible because, when you think of the comics, there hasn't really ever been a definitive (or even a particularly interesting) version of Iron Man before.

It reminded me of the first X-Men movie. That was a pilot to see if super-hero movies could be made, and as such an imperfect but strong enough film. Turns out they could and a few good movies followed. Iron Man felt like a pilot to see if, with Marvel having exhausted the big icons, movies of the second tier characters can be made. And they can, if they keep the quality shown here.

Stephen said...

Ok, I saw it: lots of fun, very well done. Up there with the first two Spidermans and X-Mens. The humor was key.

The comment above about it feeling like there was a "house style" is very much correct, I think.

And yes, the post-credits thing was fantastic.

So a good recommendation. Thanks, all!