231 replies to this topic

[WC]

And, Harmsway, don't expect perfection if you do indeed decide to check it out.

I wouldn't. I don't think BATMAN BEGINS (my favorite superhero film) is anywhere near perfection. But I just want to make sure I'd get good returns on the money I'd have to invest in seeing the film.

Well you can't be sure of that with Indy 4, TDK or QoS either. Any of them could still prove to be a dud, as is the case with any film. Sure, they're all sequels but some sequels really do suck. Spider-Man 2 was critically acclaimed whereas Spider-Man 3 was critically panned. It happens.

[Matt_13]

WARNING: SMALL SPOILERS IN MY REVIEW

Spoiler

Just got back from seeing this (on the largest cinema screen I have ever encountered mind you) and I have to say IRON MAN was a pretty damn good movie. Robert Downey Jr. is truly what made this film work with his flawless performance as Tony Stark, and while the end does feel a little rushed and there is one mild plot hole at the beginning (that being, if the bad guys were being dealt weapons under the table, why was it necessary to kidnap Stark to build something they could already get?) this film still comes highly recommended to all of those who like me aren't big on the whole comic book hero thing, because simply put IRON MAN is a fun ride for anyone and everyone.

[Cruiserweight]

I'm really glad to hear that Iron Man is getting rave reviews & is being considered much more then a comic book movie.

[Harmsway]

And, Harmsway, don't expect perfection if you do indeed decide to check it out.

I wouldn't. I don't think BATMAN BEGINS (my favorite superhero film) is anywhere near perfection. But I just want to make sure I'd get good returns on the money I'd have to invest in seeing the film.

Well you can't be sure of that with Indy 4, TDK or QoS either. Any of them could still prove to be a dud, as is the case with any film.

Of course. But I do try to make as educated a decision as one can possibly hope to make in advance, informed by my own reaction to concept, trailers, spoilers, and reviews. With INDY IV and THE DARK KNIGHT, the former three items are enough to convince me that I should expect pretty great things (jury's still out on QUANTUM OF SOLACE).

But with IRON MAN, I wasn't impressed with the concept, trailers, or spoilers, so I'd largely written the film off. But all this good word of mouth/reviews has gotten me mighty curious.

[6Joker9]

As a writer of novels myself, and someone who appreciates good storytelling and characterisation over mindless, juvenille action, I personally found Iron Man to be far more enjoyable and engaging than these other comic book flicks I've mentioned before.

Really? I don't know. While I found IRON-MAN as a fun experience, I certainly can't praise it much further than good entertainment, and I'm surprised how some of the praise actually regards it as more intelligent than a fun summer flick.

The characters were underwritten with almost no depth to the supporting cast, the villains were rather clich

Edited by 6Joker9, 04 May 2008 - 11:52 AM.

[HildebrandRarity]

And, Harmsway, don't expect perfection if you do indeed decide to check it out.

I wouldn't. I don't think BATMAN BEGINS (my favorite superhero film) is anywhere near perfection. But I just want to make sure I'd get good returns on the money I'd have to invest in seeing the film.

Well you can't be sure of that with Indy 4, TDK or QoS either. Any of them could still prove to be a dud, as is the case with any film.

Of course. But I do try to make as educated a decision as one can possibly hope to make in advance, informed by my own reaction to concept, trailers, spoilers, and reviews.

Concept, trailers and spoilers are not the executed final product...or whether or not said final product will 'move' you in some way or provide you with a good degree of 'satisfaction' that you spent your money well.

For all you know, your high degree of investment on Indy could set you up for a fall and that, by normal measures, it could turn out to be a movie that's not as "good" as Iron Man. I saw the Big Screen trailer for Indy yesterday and it still reeks of Granpa Jones and The Desperate Attempt At A Final Fling (TDAAAFF).

As a writer of novels myself, and someone who appreciates good storytelling and characterisation over mindless, juvenille action, I personally found Iron Man to be far more enjoyable and engaging than these other comic book flicks I've mentioned before.

Really? I don't know. While I found IRON-MAN as a fun experience, I certainly can't praise it much further than good entertainment, and I'm surprised how some of the praise actually regards it as more intelligent than a fun summer flick.

WC does not say that it's "more intelligent than a fun summer flick". He says it was far more enjoyable and engaging than the other super-hero films he mentioned before in this thread.

Nobody who has seen Iron Man this weekend is saying it's Citizen Kane.

[Harmsway]

Concept, trailers and spoilers are not the executed final product...or whether or not said final product will 'move' you in some way or provide you with a good degree of 'satisfaction' that you spent your money well.

Sure. But it's still the best conceivable way to inform yourself about whether the product you're buying into is worth the time, effort, and money you're investing in it. Failproof? No. Certain? Hardly. But as shakey as it is, it's what you have to go for.

For all you know, your high degree of investment on Indy could set you up for a fall and that, by normal measures, it could turn out to be a movie that's not as "good" as Iron Man.

Perhaps so.

[Andrew]

One of the reasons that I enjoyed IRON MAN so much was because it was just good simple fun without being pretentious, unlike lets say the SPIDERMAN films. I think some people are making it out to be more than it is. It's just a good piece of entertainment that knows what it is: a comic book film.

In terms of comparing it to the Batman films, I'd say that it has more in line with BATMAN '89 than BATMAN BEGINS (which I don't even consider a comic book film because of the degree to which it takes itself seriously and succeeds at that).

I would keep these things in the back of your mind, Harmsway, because with the way some people are describing the film you may walk out disappointed.

That being said, I'm sure that once THE DARK KNIGHT is released people will be asking themselves "Iron...who?"

[Tarl_Cabot]

Iron Man grosses $100M in it's opening weekend on 2000 screens. Not bad for a 'fringe' superhero film! I can only imagine how well the summer's top of the food chain entries will do. Anyway, I'm glad that Iron Man 2 is now on the way as a result.

[Harmsway]

Iron Man grosses $100M in it's opening weekend on 2000 screens.

Very impressive haul, I must say. It's good it started raking in the cash before the May competition gets intense.

Anyway, I'm glad that Iron Man 2 is now on the way as a result.

Did you stay after the credits of IRON MAN? It seems more like an AVENGERS film is on its way as a result.

[Tarl_Cabot]

No I did watch the Bourne-esque portion of the credits but not the whole thing because I drank a 5 gallon diet coke and I had to go like a race horse.

I don't have any interst in an ensemble comic book movie such as the Avengers(or JLA). That seems too kiddie/nerdy for the big screen and how do you pay all these stars when they're established?

[HildebrandRarity]

Iron Man grosses $100M in it's opening weekend on 2000 screens.

Very impressive haul, I must say. It's good it started raking in the cash before the May competition gets intense.

Fancy that! 100m in one weekend...and without Our Harmsway's $8.00! My two trips were a drop in the ocean, I see.

As for "May competition"...well, we all know that studios bank on the first two weekends to see how things pan out. And Iron Man has no competition next weekend. In fact it looks like Iron Man WAS 'the competition'!

Iron Man II looks in 'da bag!

[And the very end of the end credits has Sam Jackson of SHIELD introducing himself to Tony Stark but I don't want them to spoil Iron Man II in the same way Sam's over-acting and self-awareness ed up Star Wars prequels. Stick with Robert Downey and Gweneth Paltrow!]

PS

It looks like Iron Man's a MONSTER hit with a per theatre average of a TOWERING $24,500+!

WOW! Iron Man really ROCKED 'da HOUSE, baby!

THAT per theatre average is HUGE! MASSIVE! HUMUNGOUS! They couldn't have hoped for that IN THEIR WILDEST DREAMS!

Hey, Harms, don't bother seeing it, old chum, 'cause it look's like they did just fine without ya! Save your 8 bucks for Grandpa Jones...he's gonna need it! LOL

When movie audiences look back on May 2008, they'll point to Iron Man and not Grandpa Jones as the movie that they should have watched on the big screen.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Speed Racer opens friday and will probably do even more. The kids will be out in full force so Iron Man can celebrate being # 1 for a week...but it should get some repeat business to put it over $200M easily.

Don't worry, Harms will spend that $8.00! He'll lose his geek cred if he passes on IM.

Granpa Jones will do silly B.O. with the multi-generational appeal. Paramount must be doing cartwheels after years of blah movies.

[Harmsway]

Fancy that! 100m in one weekend...and without Our Harmsway's $8.00!

It's $10 where I am, actually.

It looks like Iron Man's a MONSTER hit with a per theatre average of a TOWERING $24,500+!

Indeed.

Hey, Harms, don't bother seeing it, old chum...look's like they did just fine without ya!

I knew they would all along.

Save your 8 bucks for Grandpa Jones...he's gonna need it! LOL

INDY IV's gonna be another epic smash, regardless of quality. The old timer doesn't need my $10, but I'll give it gladly.

[HildebrandRarity]

Save your 8 bucks for Grandpa Jones...he's gonna need it! LOL

INDY IV's gonna be another epic smash, regardless of quality.

So you're already conceeding the quality battle to Iron Man, eh?

I don't blame you. It's highly unlikely that Iron Man's critical acclaim will be in any way remotely matched by The Grandpa!

[Harmsway]

So you're already conceeding the quality battle to Iron Man, eh?

Not at all. I haven't even seen IRON MAN, so I can't begin to comment (I think I'll check it out this evening, so we'll see). Neither have I seen INDY, but I think INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is going to be a dynamite film. The story is terrific, and I think it's going to be all I could ask for in a capstone to the franchise.

It's highly unlikely that Iron Man's critical acclaim will be in any way remotely matched by The Grandpa!

Probably. But critical acclaim and quality don't always go hand-in-hand.

[Loomis]

So you're already conceeding the quality battle to Iron Man, eh?

Not at all. I haven't even seen IRON MAN, so I can't begin to comment (I think I'll check it out this evening, so we'll see). Neither have I seen INDY, but I think INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is going to be a dynamite film. The story is terrific, and I think it's going to be all I could ask for in a capstone to the franchise.

It's highly unlikely that Iron Man's critical acclaim will be in any way remotely matched by The Grandpa!

Probably. But critical acclaim and quality don't always go hand-in-hand.

I'm sure that the critics will cream themselves over Indy. It's probably the one franchise (well, apart from Bourne in recent years) that "serious" critics have always allowed themselves to like. I've seen a negative review of IRON MAN (Cosmo Landesman in The Sunday Times), so it's obviously not getting across-the-board raves. Dr Jones has nothing to fear from this Tony Stark chap either at the box office or in the cold, dark hearts of reviewers.

[Cruiserweight]

Robert Downey Jr. reprises his role as Tony Stark in a cameo apperance in the upcoming Hulk movie.




The Marvel Comics adaptation, starring Robert Downey Jr. as the guy in the metal suit, hauled in $100.7 million during its opening weekend and $104.2 million since debuting Thursday night, the second-best premiere ever for a nonsequel, according to studio estimates Sunday.

The film also scored overseas with $96.7 million in 57 countries where it began opening Wednesday, putting its worldwide total at $201 million.

ADVERTISEMENT


The movie, distributed by Paramount, is the first release by Marvel Studios, which has begun financing its own productions after such studio-backed hits as the "Spider-Man," "X-Men" and "Fantastic Four" flicks.

"We could not have hoped for a better way for Marvel Studios to blast off," said David Maisel, chairman of the unit, a division of Marvel Entertainment, which stands to pull in a greater share of box office receipts and merchandising money by financing movies itself.

Debuting in second place with $15.5 million was Sony's romantic comedy "Made of Honor," starring "Grey's Anatomy" heartthrob Patrick Dempsey as a man who tries to woo his best pal after she asks him to be "maid of honor" at her wedding.



Despite the huge "Iron Man" opening, Hollywood's overall business was down compared to the same weekend last year, when "Spider-Man 3" had a record debut of $151.1 million. The top 12 movies took in $154.1 million, off 15 percent from a year ago.

"Nonetheless, `Iron Man' did better than expected," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box office tracker Media By Numbers. "This is certainly the shot in the arm the marketplace has needed."

Movie attendance this year is running 6 percent behind that of 2007, so the arrival of "Iron Man" may jump start the box office as the busy summer season begins.


"Iron Man" was the 10th biggest opening of all time and the fourth biggest for a superhero movie. Among nonsequels, it came in behind only the first "Spider-Man," which premiered with $114.8 million.

[WC]

One of the reasons that I enjoyed IRON MAN so much was because it was just good simple fun without being pretentious, unlike lets say the SPIDERMAN films. I think some people are making it out to be more than it is. It's just a good piece of entertainment that knows what it is: a comic book film.

In terms of comparing it to the Batman films, I'd say that it has more in line with BATMAN '89 than BATMAN BEGINS (which I don't even consider a comic book film because of the degree to which it takes itself seriously and succeeds at that).

I would keep these things in the back of your mind, Harmsway, because with the way some people are describing the film you may walk out disappointed.

That being said, I'm sure that once THE DARK KNIGHT is released people will be asking themselves "Iron...who?"

I don't see what Iron Man has in common at all with Batman 89. While Iron Man has humour in it, that doesn't suddenly mean that it doesn't take itself seriously, otherwise you could also say that Casino Royale is more similar to Batman 89 than BB.

Let's examine how Iron Man is most comparable to BB rather than Batman 89:

1) BB has a character who goes through a personal journey, starting off as only self-serving then later realising that he should be there to protect the people. Iron Man does the same thing.

2) Part of the appeal of BB is Bruce Wayne undergoing a learning curve, putting the Batsuit together and testing out different pieces of equipment. Everything comes together for a purpose. Same with Iron Man.

3) BB is set in a very realistic-looking Gotham City, not heavily stylised as in the Tim Burton films. Iron Man also is set in the real world (War torn Afghanistan, California) and apart from the presence of the Iron Man armour, does not give the appearance of a comic book movie whatsoever. Even that could simply be a military exo-skeleton suit which is completely within the bounds or reality.

4) BB does not have some hammy villain who overacts. Both the Scarecrow and Liam Neeson play their roles understated and like real human beings. The same with Jeff Bridges in Iron Man. Compare that with Batman 89 where you get Jack Nicholson hamming it up in a way not unlike Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin.

I could go on but I'm getting tired listing things now. As previously stated, Iron Man, like BB doesn't feel like a comic book movie. However, the fact that it has splashes of humour doesn't negate its seriousness. The humour is appropriate to the character and comic book. Iron Man isn't a brooding superhero whose parents were murdered and who was eternally traumatised, so naturally it won't be as dark a movie. Tony Stark is more of a playboy womaniser similar to Bond, so he'll be self-confident, somewhat arrogant and spouting quips in a Bondian manner that is totally in line with the character.

[HildebrandRarity]

I'm sure that the critics will cream themselves over Indy. It's probably the one franchise (well, apart from Bourne in recent years) that "serious" critics have always allowed themselves to like. I've seen a negative review of IRON MAN (Cosmo Landesman in The Sunday Times), so it's obviously not getting across-the-board raves. Dr Jones has nothing to fear from this Tony Stark chap either at the box office or in the cold, dark hearts of reviewers.

Talk is cheap.

If someone here on CBn does not buy a ticket to get their geeky bums off their computer chair into a theatre seat, than their opinion holds no currency.

Harmsway and Loomis have not even seen Iron Man where as some of us have actually spent our hard-earned money to go see it.

Opinions are worthless especially when someone has to go out of their way to cite one negative review out of umpteen. What has the world come to in this internet age? You see one bad review out of twenty or thirty and you decide, from the warm, worn-out seat of your little living/drawing room, that you're going to pan it. How stylish!

North Americans have spoken and the word is a MAMMOTH $24,500+ per theatre count. That number is worth a lot more than some geek's who has yet to see the movie.

No disrespect to any of our fine old friends here on CBn, but this crap is like bashing Craig and Casino Royale when you've yet to see the movie. You guys do remember that, don't you? You probably didn't like it then and now you're behaving exactly like the craig not bond crowd did in year prior to the release of CR. I could see that coming from the unintelligent segment of the BrosnanBond fans, but for it to come from some fine members here seems ludicrous.

[Loomis]

Calm down, old buddy.

Don't forget that you yourself were tearing into Tarantino the other day despite your admission that you hadn't seen much of his stuff, including his key film JACKIE BROWN.

And I think I can predict INDY 4's response from the reviewers given that the series (and Spielberg in general) has a very impressive track record of critical acclaim. It will be most unexpected if CRYSTAL SKULL doesn't get generally very positive notices - same with THE DARK KNIGHT. Similarly, one did not need to be a genius to predict that RAMBO would garner largely negative reviews. And, like it or not, INDY 4 will get just as good a time from reviewers as IRON MAN, if not a better one (and, no, I don't want to bet on it ).

You claim: "It's highly unlikely that Iron Man's critical acclaim will be in any way remotely matched by The Grandpa!" What do you base this on? I mean, you are aware, are you not, that Indy Jones and Spielberg have always been held in extremely high regard by reviewers/film buffs/movie geeks/the media/people in general? Before Bourne and Craig's Bond, Indy was widely considered to be the gold standard in very well-made, stylish and witty blockbuster action fare.

So to suggest that IRON MAN will just run rings around CRYSTAL SKULL in terms of critical acclaim betrays an excitement for a film you've just seen that's blinding you to the fact that it isn't the be-all-and-end-all of critically acclaimed popular cinema.

[WC]

Calm down, old buddy.

Don't forget that you yourself were tearing into Tarantino the other day despite your admission that you hadn't seen much of his stuff, including his key film JACKIE BROWN.

And I think I can predict INDY 4's response from the reviewers given that the series (and Spielberg in general) has a very impressive track record of critical acclaim. It will be most unexpected if CRYSTAL SKULL doesn't get generally very positive notices - same with THE DARK KNIGHT. Similarly, one did not need to be a genius to predict that RAMBO would garner largely negative reviews. And, like it or not, INDY 4 will get just as good a time from reviewers as IRON MAN, if not a better one (and, no, I don't want to bet on it ).

You claim: "It's highly unlikely that Iron Man's critical acclaim will be in any way remotely matched by The Grandpa!" What do you base this on? I mean, you are aware, are you not, that Indy Jones and Spielberg have always been held in extremely high regard by reviewers/film buffs/movie geeks/the media/people in general? Before Bourne and Craig's Bond, Indy was widely considered to be the gold standard in very well-made, stylish and witty blockbuster action fare.

So to suggest that IRON MAN will just run rings around CRYSTAL SKULL in terms of critical acclaim betrays an excitement for a film you've just seen that's blinding you to the fact that it isn't the be-all-and-end-all of critically acclaimed popular cinema.

I'm not sure why this has to be an Iron Man vs Indy 4 debate. I'm eager to see Indy4 just as much. It's a different genre but one i'll enjoy nonetheless.

The main issue, at least as stated by Harmsway, is whether Iron Man is just simply another standard comic book movie with nothing to separate it from the stable of Marvel films to come out recently. I've been maintaining that it is better than those and most akin to Batman Begins, but of course, because it has Bondian elements, I've also said it's the Casino Royale of comic movies and that makes it that much more enjoyable than BB. I've never personally suggested IM is the best movie ever made, that it's flawless or that it would necessarily even beat out the Indy4 competition which has a built-in fanbase. But equally, it's unfair for people to say that Iron Man will simply be forgotten once Indy or TDK come out as Iron Man is hardly run-of-the-mill superhero fare. People still point to the critically acclaimed Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, Batman Begins, Superman or X2 years later, even when other movies have debuted in the theatres. I don't see why Iron Man will fade into obscurity as soon as it's no longer the latest film in the cinemas.

[Loomis]

Well, I'm not saying that IRON MAN will fade into obscurity as soon as it's no longer the latest film in the cinemas. Indeed, it would seem that it's going to be remembered for quite a while. The CASINO ROYALE of comic movies, eh? High praise indeed.

But I was just trying to challenge what I see as the ludicrous idea that IRON MAN will bury INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL in terms of both box office and critical acclaim. The idea that, because IRON MAN is a good film and a commercial success, it somehow means that Indy's dead in the water. If/when CRYSTAL SKULL has an excellent opening weekend, should we start writing off THE DARK KNIGHT?

For the record, neither IRON MAN nor INDIANA JONES is particularly my cup of tea, but I will be sure to check out both films.

[WC]

Well, I'm not saying that IRON MAN will fade into obscurity as soon as it's no longer the latest film in the cinemas. Indeed, it would seem that it's going to be remembered for quite a while. The CASINO ROYALE of comic movies, eh? High praise indeed.

Well I don't think it's overly high praise. I don't think CR is the be all and end all of Bond movies anyway, so comparing it to that isn't lavishing more acclaim than is actually merited. It's more comparing like with like. CR was considered to be the Batman Begins of Bond movies. Iron Man is most like Batman Begins, and certainly more intelligent and adult than the other superhero films that have come out. But given that it does have many Bond-like elements (Favreau even said he's envisioned it as a cross between Bond/Tom Clancy/ Robocop) it makes sense to call it the CR of comic movies. I can't exactly call it the Batman Begins of comic movies because BB is a comic movie to start off with, yet this is a James Bond movie forum so I'm speaking in a language which everyone will understand and appreciate. If those Bondian elements weren't present in IM, I wouldn't be using CR as an analogy.

[Andrew]

One of the reasons that I enjoyed IRON MAN so much was because it was just good simple fun without being pretentious, unlike lets say the SPIDERMAN films. I think some people are making it out to be more than it is. It's just a good piece of entertainment that knows what it is: a comic book film.

In terms of comparing it to the Batman films, I'd say that it has more in line with BATMAN '89 than BATMAN BEGINS (which I don't even consider a comic book film because of the degree to which it takes itself seriously and succeeds at that).

I would keep these things in the back of your mind, Harmsway, because with the way some people are describing the film you may walk out disappointed.

That being said, I'm sure that once THE DARK KNIGHT is released people will be asking themselves "Iron...who?"

I don't see what Iron Man has in common at all with Batman 89. While Iron Man has humour in it, that doesn't suddenly mean that it doesn't take itself seriously, otherwise you could also say that Casino Royale is more similar to Batman 89 than BB.

Let's examine how Iron Man is most comparable to BB rather than Batman 89:

1) BB has a character who goes through a personal journey, starting off as only self-serving then later realising that he should be there to protect the people. Iron Man does the same thing.

2) Part of the appeal of BB is Bruce Wayne undergoing a learning curve, putting the Batsuit together and testing out different pieces of equipment. Everything comes together for a purpose. Same with Iron Man.

3) BB is set in a very realistic-looking Gotham City, not heavily stylised as in the Tim Burton films. Iron Man also is set in the real world (War torn Afghanistan, California) and apart from the presence of the Iron Man armour, does not give the appearance of a comic book movie whatsoever. Even that could simply be a military exo-skeleton suit which is completely within the bounds or reality.

4) BB does not have some hammy villain who overacts. Both the Scarecrow and Liam Neeson play their roles understated and like real human beings. The same with Jeff Bridges in Iron Man. Compare that with Batman 89 where you get Jack Nicholson hamming it up in a way not unlike Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin.

I could go on but I'm getting tired listing things now. As previously stated, Iron Man, like BB doesn't feel like a comic book movie. However, the fact that it has splashes of humour doesn't negate its seriousness. The humour is appropriate to the character and comic book. Iron Man isn't a brooding superhero whose parents were murdered and who was eternally traumatised, so naturally it won't be as dark a movie. Tony Stark is more of a playboy womaniser similar to Bond, so he'll be self-confident, somewhat arrogant and spouting quips in a Bondian manner that is totally in line with the character.

No need to get worked up, I wasn't trying to attack IRON MAN. As I said, I enjoyed the film very much. I just don't think it was anything that deep.

I really don't think it has anything in common with any of the Batman films but since some were drawing comparisons I felt that it had more in line with BATMAN '89 simply due to the tone, which I though was that it was a comic book film that knew it's boundaries and didn't take itself quite seriously, like all of Favreau's films. True, it wasn't made in a style like Burton's Batman but despite looking like the real world there was still a fantastical element present. When I look at BEGINS I see a film that has a very adult component, I just didn't see that in IRON MAN.

Anyway, I really don't see any true comparisons between BATMAN BEGINS, IRON MAN, and CASINO ROYALE other than the fact that they are all about the beginnings of heroes so of course they would all have the first two points in common. All three are completely different films.

That being said, I do think that Bridges was hamming it up in the film. It wasn't to the extent of Jack in '89 but I thought it was still there.

Eithey way, this argument is somewhat useless because we both enjoyed the film. It's just a matter of what we saw in it, I suppose.

[HildebrandRarity]

Calm down, old buddy.

Ok, ok, I'm calm, i'm calm...

Don't forget that you yourself were tearing into Tarantino the other day despite your admission that you hadn't seen much of his stuff, including his key film JACKIE BROWN.

Yes. You're quite right, Loomis my friend. I have not seen J.B.

I'm truly quite sorry that I ruffled your feathers, rattled your cage, etc. by dumping on your dear old bum buddy and pal Quentin.

I actually don't hate all of the other movies he's directed over the past 14 years since Pulp Fiction (of which there are a grand total of, er, two...? ) I even LIKE Kill Bill inspite of the vulgarity and pretentiousness of it all.

[Harmsway]

Well, after much encouragement, I saw IRON MAN.

It was a fun way to pass a few hours, largely thanks to Robert Downey Jr. He was definitely the right choice for Tony Stark, and he carries the movie on his shoulders. Without him, IRON MAN would pretty much fall apart. He's the only really exceptional element of the venture, and the one that keeps the interest as the film goes on.

Essentially, IRON MAN is your typical popcorn fare, capably executed and with a good charismatic performance holding it together. IRON MAN is one of the best superhero films of the decade, sure, and the best of the MARVEL films. (Admittedly, that's not really saying much.)

What I think IRON MAN lacks is ambition. Maybe they'll take the character to some really interesting places in future installments, but here, we just have a by-the-numbers screenplay with Favreau's merely competent direction.

I give it .

And, as I brace myself for accusation that I made my mind up before I ever stepped foot in the theatre, am I alone in thinking the cobbled-together suit is much cooler than the very polished finished product?

[HildebrandRarity]

Well, after much encouragement, I saw IRON MAN...

And, as I brace myself for accusation that I made my mind up before I ever stepped foot in the theatre, am I alone in thinking the cobbled-together suit is much cooler than the very polished finished product?

Ha! We goaded you into forking out your $10!

LOL!!!

LOLOLOL!!!

I knew it! I knew that we'd wank your chain hard enough to make you go see a movie that, up until even yesterday morning, you had absolutely NO INTENTION of seeing at the theatre!

Ahhh, my dear Harmsway, you are such a softie fan boy. If you were living within even a half hour drive of me, i'd give you a $10 bill just because you're you.

Don't change anytime soon.

PS

I was going to say that you'd already made up your mind about how many stars you were going to give the movie before going to see it, but, well, you know the drill, eh?

[Number 6]

And, as I brace myself for accusation that I made my mind up before I ever stepped foot in the theatre, am I alone in thinking the cobbled-together suit is much cooler than the very polished finished product?

Actually no, you're not the only one. I kind of liked that one too.

[WC]

Well, after much encouragement, I saw IRON MAN.

It was a fun way to pass a few hours, largely thanks to Robert Downey Jr. He was definitely the right choice for Tony Stark, and he carries the movie on his shoulders. Without him, IRON MAN would pretty much fall apart. He's the only really exceptional element of the venture, and the one that keeps the interest as the film goes on.

Essentially, IRON MAN is your typical popcorn fare, capably executed and with a good charismatic performance holding it together. IRON MAN is one of the best superhero films of the decade, sure, and the best of the MARVEL films. (Admittedly, that's not really saying much.)

What I think IRON MAN lacks is ambition. Maybe they'll take the character to some really interesting places in future installments, but here, we just have a by-the-numbers screenplay with Favreau's merely competent direction.

I give it .

And, as I brace myself for accusation that I made my mind up before I ever stepped foot in the theatre, am I alone in thinking the cobbled-together suit is much cooler than the very polished finished product?

Well I'm glad you finally went to see it and was able to make up your own mind rather than relying on reviews or other reports.

I think they've already planted the seeds of Tony Stark's alcohol problem in this movie (it wouldn't be right to have it right off the bat in a new franchise). In the sequel, I'm hoping they will let rip with the "Demon in a Bottle" storyline and have Stark lose his fortune, give up being Iron Man (which would lead into Terrence Howard's expanded role as the 2nd Iron Man and subsequently War Machine) and finally hit rock bottom before realising that he has got something to live for. That would be the most ambitious comic book movie and the most dramatic acting turn for a film of this genre.

And yes, the first suit does have a charm of its own.