Iron Man The Official Iron Man Rate & Review Thread

Rate it

  • 10, Wonderful, Amazing, Rad-Tastic!

  • 9, Really Awesome

  • 8, an Action packed fun movie

  • 7, A good film

  • 6, I liked it

  • 5, Okay

  • 4, Dissapointment

  • 3, Bad

  • 2, Sucked major Iron Balls

  • 1, Hated it! Worst film I've ever seen!

  • 10, Wonderful, Amazing, Rad-Tastic!

  • 9, Really Awesome

  • 8, an Action packed fun movie

  • 7, A good film

  • 6, I liked it

  • 5, Okay

  • 4, Dissapointment

  • 3, Bad

  • 2, Sucked major Iron Balls

  • 1, Hated it! Worst film I've ever seen!


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
yeah, Iron Man was indeed the best Marvel movie. I'm hoping that The Incredible Hulk would be just as good as Iron Man.

Hmm...as good? I don't think so. This movie was well-received partly because Tony's this larger-than-life pimp who we all wish we could be. Bruce, right from frame one, is saddled with a romance destined to be rocky and fear from the people around him. That sense of awe isn't there until he becomes lean, mean, and green. It's a bit more hard to make an excellent film out of that. Still, I have faith that it'll be a good film as a whole.
 
Well American History X was a great film but I wasn't in awe of Edward Norton's character. I think Hulk will be a great film on it's own merits. After Iron Man I have a lot of faith in Marvel Studios and their decisions.
 
Well American History X was a great film but I wasn't in awe of Edward Norton's character. I think Hulk will be a great film on it's own merits. After Iron Man I have a lot of faith in Marvel Studios and their decisions.

Iron Faith!
 
For me Iron Man is the best comic to film adaptation. Everything felt right and the action was splendid. All the actors were perfect for the role, the cameos were brilliant: Shield,
Nick Fury
and the Ten Rings. All of it was a geeks dream.

While, in terms of characterisation and depth, it lacked a little of each it is still the most faithful conversion to date.

In the end the Spider-Man films are the best movies about a superhero and Iron Man is the best superhero/comic to film movie to date.
 
Yeah, Iron Man is definitely one of my favorite Marvel movies. I don't know where to rank it but I definitely have it up there with the first Blade movies in terms of just being quality, fun movies.

This is speaking of Marvel of course. Hellboy is still my favorite comic book movie. :yay:
 
Well American History X was a great film but I wasn't in awe of Edward Norton's character. I think Hulk will be a great film on it's own merits. After Iron Man I have a lot of faith in Marvel Studios and their decisions.
I still think his best performance was Primal Fear.

I don't know about The Incredible Hulk though. I just doesn't look good to me. Hope I'm wrong, for Marvel's sake.
 
8/10 - The story was good, the acting was great and the cheese was very minimal. Loved the stuff between Stark and Pepper, they felt so natural together. I liked how they threw in some good politico-social subtext and gave Iron Man a very good reason to exist.

Rhodey and Stane ended up a little one-dimensional, but I can forgive that because they spent time on what was important. The final battle had some cringe-worthy lines and the movie failed to really pack that emotional gut-punch that, say, X2 provided.

Iron Man succeeds because it doesn't follow the formulaic superhero movie pattern. From
Stark revealing his ID to the public to the political commentary to Stark and Pepper NOT ending up together to the SHIELD stuff
, Iron Man is full of pleasant surprises that set it apart from the superhero crowd. I'd put it on par with X2, which puts it miles above anything else Marvel has produced.
 
Sam Jackson as Nick Fury is good, but I would've preferred Gary Sinise.
 
Hmm...as good? I don't think so. This movie was well-received partly because Tony's this larger-than-life pimp who we all wish we could be. Bruce, right from frame one, is saddled with a romance destined to be rocky and fear from the people around him. That sense of awe isn't there until he becomes lean, mean, and green. It's a bit more hard to make an excellent film out of that. Still, I have faith that it'll be a good film as a whole.

of course, i'm being optimistic about TIH. After seeing the latest trailer, it has increase my anticipation that it will be good. and Iron Man has proven that Marvel Studios had made great stride in good film making.
 
When you say she's not mentioned in the sequel, I assume you mean other than the line where Bruce says "Vicki couldn't reconcile, etc". She was mentioned.

My mistake. I haven't watched either of the two original Batman films in 15 years for obvious reasons so I don't remember all the minor details.

She didn't show up there for the same reason that Batman's love interests generally don't last long. The nature of his alter ego.

I think this is just an excuse for an uninteresting and unnecessary character to not show up again in a sequel. There's no spoken or unspoken rule that declares a former love interest of Bruce Wayne in one film can't show up in the sequel.

Vicki was far more than a damsel in distress. She actively sought to uncover details about The Batman, and ended up figuring out who he was.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I didn't find Vicki to be any more interesting than Wilhelmina Scott from The Temple of Doom. At least that character had some morals, but, I didn't feel the same way about Vicki Vale. I thought her personality was shallow. At the beginning of the film she says she came to Gotham temporarily to focus on the Batman story. Instead of focusing on the story she dates and sleeps with an eccentric billionare on their first date and continues to have a relationship with Bruce. This isn't the behavior I'd expect from a journalist determined to get the story of a lifetime.

The real parody of all this is we barely got to see any of Vicki's journalist skills towards discovering the mystery of Batman. After meeting Bruce she and her partner turn all of their attention on learning about Bruce Wayne and his past all the while being completely clueless that he is Batman. Batman in that film was coincidental. Without the Joker stalking her, Batman does not end up coming in contact with her, and Vicki probably doesn't figure out that Bruce Wayne is Batman.

Not via being told, but by figuring it out on her own.

I'm glad you mentioned this point. Considering how much time Vicki Vale spent with Bruce Wayne and being saved by Batman I found this revelation to be very predictable. It didn't make Vicki interesting or look like a sharp tough photojournalist. Furthermore, as I said ealier Vicki learned I don't recall Vicki doing any research on Batman. Everything she learned about him was the result of coincidences.

And their interactions were far, far, FAR more interesting than Bruce and Rachel's tepid "love".

What interactions were more interesting? At least Bruce and Rachel had feelings based on a long term childhood relationship. In what way were Bruce and Vick Vale's relationship not based on lust? Vicki and Bruce knew each other for a few hours before they had sex. I don't remember them having a single emotional scene that was believable.

I always viewed the Bruce/Vicki Vale relationship as a distraction for both characters. It was a distraction to Bruce because he had just become Batman and didn't have time to be in a serious relationship. It was a distraction for Vicki because she was supposed to be determined on breaking the Batman story. Ironically, her flakiness played a role in her figuring out who Batman's identity was later on.

The Supermobile was The Eradicator. The idea is that Superman, after he died, just like in the comic books, where he hung out in an armored Kryptonian Battlesuit for a while, came back without powers, and needed transportation/weapons. So...this is something that was drawn right from the comics in a sense.

I knew about the eradicator and in some sense this idea is from the comics but only vaguely. Burton still took an idea from the comics and almost completely, deviated it away from the original source material. I'm not sure how what Burton was planning would have properly resembled this idea from the comics.



This isn't Superman, this is Superman's rumored "healing suit". It was just an idea, and never came to fruition.

Yes and unfortunately, this and many other bad ideas are what Burton and his production crew wasted time on until he was fired by the WB.



Superman was to start off in traditional red and blue togs. The all black "alien" suit was his regeneration/return suit. Just like in the comics, where he wore a black and silver one.

Well, I never liked the alien suit idea because it was clearly a ripoff of Spiderman. I hate it when directors make unnecessary deviations to classics storyline for deviations sake.

What I really want to know is why Burton was totally against the classic look of the character?



All these rumors seem to confuse what's going on, and mostly seem to be referencing the same suits.

That is partially true.



There were far larger problems with SUPERMAN RETURNS than his outfits, and most of them stem from Jon Peters, not Burton or his designs.

Even though Peters gets recognition during the opening credits of that film I'm almost certain 95 to 100% of his ideas weren't used for Returns. I remember him admitting he made mistakes with basically all of his ideas for the Superman Lives script.







Here are John Peter's ideas:



1. Krypton was going to explode in the sequel. Abrams idea involved Superman getting to KNOW his planet, and trying to save it, and then it would have exploded, making it a lot more tragic an element of his mythos.

So...Naboo is the only place that can experience Civil War? I guess I'd question why you have a problem with walking war machines. Strikes me as a pretty cool concept.

You totally missunderstood me. I never said these were bad ideas. They worked perfectly fine in Star Wars Episode 1. My gripe is this doesn't sound like good ideas for a Superman movie because it completely deviates from the original source material and it was a star wars rip off.

Uh..."The One" prophecies like this were around long before the Matrix movies.

I don't recall there being any sci-fi movies in the 70s, 80s, or early to mid 90s with a "One prophecy" as unique as the Matrix. I saw this as another one of Peter's many ripped off ideas.



It's not quite that simple. Not even remotely that simple.

That's pretty subjective.



In the first draft, yes. In later drafts, this was changed.

Changed to what?


It's actually not as bad as it sounds like it would be.

Well, it sounded pretty bad to all the superman fans who signed an internet petition for the WB to cancel this project as a result of these ideas. Stan Lee admitted he was one of the petitioners.


Luthor being Kryptonian was a bit hard to swallow, but his characterization was spot on. Later drafts had Luthor as...you guessed it, a corrupt businessman with only vague Kryptonian ties (his technology).

Agreed. However, this still does not negate all the horrible ideas writers conjured up for Luthor's role in the ill-fated Superman Lives project.



Definitely similar. But consider this. There were many rumors that WB utilized certain parts of the Matrix sequels to feel out people's reactions to a Superman like character, and to test the special effects.


It's only "straight out of The Matrix because SUPERMAN stalled as a project and the scenes were basically put INTO THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS.

Okay.


Ty-Zor and his cronies brought the Kryptonite with them. It's a mineral from Krypton, and its radiation is deadly to Kryptonians, period. Just like in the comics
.

Kryptonite is a radioactive substance that resulted from Krypton exploding. Since Krypton doesn't explode in Peters script where does the kryptonite come from?



So? Let me tell you, JJ Abrams wrote the best Jimmy Olsen I've ever read. He was smart, capable, and he actually functioned as more than comic relief.

I thought the reason people were complaining was because they thought the change in Jimmy Olsen's sexual orientation was another unnecessary change from the source material. Besides Singer's Olsen in Returns was just fine for me.

And yet he played an incredibly reserved character in BATMAN.

I really didn't know what to make of Keaton's performance when I first saw Batman. I'll admit that he was a little mysterious but, I was unable to make an emotional connection with the character. Unfortunately, I found Bruce Wayne to be even less interesting in the sequel when he was overshadowed by two villians.
 
Theweepeople and The Guard : Please STOP! take it to a Batman related thread or PM each other!!!!!:cmad:

This is a Iron Man thread FYI!
 
Theweepeople and The Guard : Please STOP! take it to a Batman related thread or PM each other!!!!!:cmad:

This is a Iron Man thread FYI!

Okay. I'm sorry. I won't talk about Superman or Batman anymore. That last post was my final one on that topic.
 
I liked the suit that they used for the movie....went down well with me.
 
And so...thanks to fu manchu's childish outburst...the thread died.
 
:huh:I'm not stopping people from posting their review and rate of IRON MAN, just talk of Batman and Superman in this thread.

in other words, I'm stopping you from posting here!
 
Iron Man succeeds because it doesn't follow the formulaic superhero movie pattern. From
Stark revealing his ID to the public to the political commentary to Stark and Pepper NOT ending up together to the SHIELD stuff

Wow, it definitely DOES follow the superhero formula:

Something bad happens to the protagonist. He makes it out alive, but it changes his life. He creates a persona, in this case, his iron suit. The hero goes on a few trial runs, with a few mishaps along the way, but he eventually gets the hang of it. The big bad guy gains the upper hand, and it looks like our hero might fail. However, the hero eventually regains the other hands and saves the day.

Through all of this, there's a "will they?/won't they?" relationship with a damsel in distress that doesn't necessarily have to end with them being together. Um, Spider-man? Batman Begins? Actually, those two films follow the superhero formula, also. Think about it.

Another thing that bothered me was the need for:
Stark to fight part of the last battle with his face revealed. I got so sick of that happening in each Spider-man movie, I was hoping it wouldn't happen in Iron Man.
 
I'm not stopping people from posting their review and rate of IRON MAN, just talk of Batman and Superman in this thread.

in other words, I'm stopping you from posting here!

Clearly your thread was already dying. You know how I can tell? Because the comments are no longer interesting. They boil down to "I liked it", and "I also liked it". The last day had three posts, two of which were about you whining about us not posting other stuff here.

So I rest my case.
 
Clearly your thread was already dying. You know how I can tell? Because the comments are no longer interesting. They boil down to "I liked it", and "I also liked it". The last day had three posts, two of which were about you whining about us not posting other stuff here.

So I rest my case.

:huh: WTF, its not my thread.

:huh: Also, what else did you expect to read in a "rate and review" thread?????? if you wanted deep discussion about the Iron Man movie (or batman and superman), there are other threads for that.
 
Well American History X was a great film but I wasn't in awe of Edward Norton's character. I think Hulk will be a great film on it's own merits. After Iron Man I have a lot of faith in Marvel Studios and their decisions.

Hasn't every film handled by MArvel directly been a smash-hit? The others all sucked, i.e. Ghost Rider, SM 3, DD, Elektra, Man-Thing...
 
Iron Man is the first and only movie so far to be handled by Marvel directly so technically, yes. :oldrazz:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"