Iron Man The Official Iron Man Rate & Review Thread

[The Shape]

I don't see the issue people have with 'Hellboy'....granted it doesn't have a casual appeal feel to it, but I liked it....the sequel looks to be deeper in the vibe of the books.

I don't have a problem with it. In fact, I think it's pretty good. But to say it's better than Batman from '89 is pretty silly.

 

[BlackLantern]

My only complaint with Batman (89) was the fact that it seemed like no one knew who Bruce Wayne was....Knox, who is a reporter in Gotham City, seemed totally clueless as to who Wayne was....

 

[DoomRulz]

This post just shows your ignorance.

Ghost Rider did a pretty good job with the background, what are you on about?

 

[BlackLantern]

Ghost Rider did a pretty good job with the background, what are you on about?

regardless of your feelings about nicolas cage, they did spend a good half hour on what lead to the deal with Mephisto....

 

[DoomRulz]

regardless of your feelings about nicolas cage, they did spend a good half hour on what lead to the deal with Mephisto....

Bingo, what he said.

 

[The Shape]

Ghost Rider did a pretty good job with the background, what are you on about?

And because Ghost Rider had plenty of background, that makes it superior to Batman? Doesn't make sense.

The reason his post was so ignorant is because he's completely wrong about the Batman movie. There was plenty of background to the characters, it was just done in a different and more subtle way. It wasn't like "Derrr...here's Batman's origin for 30 minutes where we learn everything about him...now he's Batman for the rest of the movie!!!" We learned about the story of Bruce Wayne through the other characters (Vicki looking him up in the newspaper archives) and flashbacks.

Also, weak action, crappy soundtrack, silly dialogue? Has he seen some of the films he has listed there???

 

[CanaryFan]

I watched the Movie again today. You won't believe it, but those suckers cut two scenes from the escape sequence in the Mark 1.

1. When Stark shoots the missile, it only shows the impact and immediately cuts to Stark standing next to Yin Seng (sp?).

2. When he says "My turn." he shoots his flamethrowers like always, but it cuts right to him pushing the button to fly away. The entire sequence with him putting terrorists on fire and destroying the weapons in the camp has been cut.

I was really pissed off.

I loved the original cut but the first thing I thought when I saw him toasting terrorists alive is little kids shouldn't be watching this. I but they got some complaints and decided to edit it for the younger audiences.

 

[p.marlowe]

It's really cool how we have three conversations going about Iron Man and the various Batman films and comic book movies in general.

I would only like to add that my problem with Batman 89 is that when I see the Joker, I'm not seeing the Joker. I'm seeing Jack Nicholson. I never once fell in and believed it was the Joker I was looking at. I always knew I was seeing Jack Nicholson in make up.

 

[Mutagen]

And because Ghost Rider had plenty of background, that makes it superior to Batman? Doesn't make sense.

The reason his post was so ignorant is because he's completely wrong about the Batman movie. There was plenty of background to the characters, it was just done in a different and more subtle way. It wasn't like "Derrr...here's Batman's origin for 30 minutes where we learn everything about him...now he's Batman for the rest of the movie!!!" We learned about the story of Bruce Wayne through the other characters (Vicki looking him up in the newspaper archives) and flashbacks.

Also, weak action, crappy soundtrack, silly dialogue? Has he seen some of the films he has listed there???

I agree

 

[The Shape]

It's really cool how we have three conversations going about Iron Man and the various Batman films and comic book movies in general.

I would only like to add that my problem with Batman 89 is that when I see the Joker, I'm not seeing the Joker. I'm seeing Jack Nicholson. I never once fell in and believed it was the Joker I was looking at. I always knew I was seeing Jack Nicholson in make up.

Yeah, that's a common feeling and I respect that. I often feel that way as well when watching the film. I still think he gave a great perforance though, for what it was. He pretty much stole the show.

 

[BlackLantern]

I loved the original cut but the first thing I thought when I saw him toasting terrorists alive is little kids shouldn't be watching this. I but they got some complaints and decided to edit it for the younger audiences.

like George Carlin says "**** the children"....common sense tells you that if you are seeing a movie about a guy in a suit of armor fighting evil, people will get hurt....

 

[Nathan]

I loved the original cut but the first thing I thought when I saw him toasting terrorists alive is little kids shouldn't be watching this. I but they got some complaints and decided to edit it for the younger audiences.

They even cut the debris falling from the ceiling. How lame is that? It's not like the original cut showed his head getting cracked open by a big rock.

 

[Mutagen]

Not to go off topic here, but didn't anyone worry about Stark's face in the Mark 1 armor? The whole time I thought; man he really should have some plastic or something for the eyes and mouth. A single stray bullet - and he's done. No more Stark. Maybe he didn't have enough time, but it seems like a genius wouldn't overlook that.

 

[Nathan]

Not to go off topic here, but didn't anyone worry about Stark's face in the Mark 1 armor? The whole time I thought; man he really should have some plastic or something for the eyes and mouth. A single stray bullet - and he's done. No more Stark. Maybe he didn't have enough time, but it seems like a genius wouldn't overlook that.

To be honest, that bothered me too. Those eye-slots were huge. It's still a miracle that a bullet didn't find its way through and killed him.

 

[p.marlowe]

Yeah, that's a common feeling and I respect that. I often feel that way as well when watching the film. I still think he gave a great perforance though, for what it was. He pretty much stole the show.

Yes, I agree. And Jim Carrey and Arnold ... tried to copy him. Mixed results.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

I just got around to seeing Iron Man today and I pretty much loved it. The movie had it all...especially in the humor department. Definitely in my Top 3 of the genre. The only thing that bumped it down a notch was the musical score. It wasn't all that memorable and one of the main themes sounded like it was recycled from The Day After Tomorrow. I almost thought the same composer did both scores and re-hashed it (ala James Horner) but was shocked that it wasn't the same guy.

 

[Theweepeople]

And because Ghost Rider had plenty of background, that makes it superior to Batman? Doesn't make sense.

The reason his post was so ignorant is because he's completely wrong about the Batman movie. There was plenty of background to the characters, it was just done in a different and more subtle way. It wasn't like "Derrr...here's Batman's origin for 30 minutes where we learn everything about him...now he's Batman for the rest of the movie!!!" We learned about the story of Bruce Wayne through the other characters (Vicki looking him up in the newspaper archives) and flashbacks.

Also, weak action, crappy soundtrack, silly dialogue? Has he seen some of the films he has listed there???

Well, apparently you're ignorant for missunderstanding me. I said those crappy comic book films were better at developing origins for their characters than Batman 89 which barely gave us any insight into how Bruce Wayne grew up. All we knew is that he was rich and his parents were killed by the joker. The movie spent a total of 2-5 minutes on Bruce Wayne's background.

 

[Theweepeople]

regardless of your feelings about nicolas cage, they did spend a good half hour on what lead to the deal with Mephisto....

My point exactly. I'm not saying that Batman 89 was worse than any of those films that I mentioned. However, I thought one of Batman's weakest points was character development for Bruce Wayne. I'm not the only one who noticed this. There have been jokes about this film needing it's named changed to "The Joker" for years because Batman was overshadowed in this film. Was there a single cool scene in this film that didn't involve the joker?

Furthermore, I didn't think it was normal for a villian in a comic book film to have a more interesting origin storyline than it's hero.

 

[kakashi]

^^ the major fault with batman 89...and Btaman returns... i think is that the villains interested Burton...but not Batman himself. thats why he was shotchanged.The joker got more of an elaborate origin story in that movie than Batman. The joker as a character was also more developed than Batman in that movie in my opinion.

 

[LexCorp]

I just got back from a night out. Everyone has seen ironman even non wans. Cool.

 

[Mario_Galaxy]

I watched the Movie again today. You won't believe it, but those suckers cut two scenes from the escape sequence in the Mark 1.

1. When Stark shoots the missile, it only shows the impact and immediately cuts to Stark standing next to Yin Seng (sp?).

2. When he says "My turn." he shoots his flamethrowers like always, but it cuts right to him pushing the button to fly away. The entire sequence with him putting terrorists on fire and destroying the weapons in the camp has been cut.

I was really pissed off.

They did that in SM1. I remember when I first saw it Goblin got up at the end and talked more about Pete being a son to him, and then him saying ''S**t'' when the glider came at him. I hate when they do that crap.

 

[LexCorp]

making cuts to the film blows

 

[Mutagen]

I watched the Movie again today. You won't believe it, but those suckers cut two scenes from the escape sequence in the Mark 1.

1. When Stark shoots the missile, it only shows the impact and immediately cuts to Stark standing next to Yin Seng (sp?).

2. When he says "My turn." he shoots his flamethrowers like always, but it cuts right to him pushing the button to fly away. The entire sequence with him putting terrorists on fire and destroying the weapons in the camp has been cut.

I was really pissed off.

Aw man! That would be horrible if it's true.

 

[Theweepeople]

^^ the major fault with batman 89...and Btaman returns... i think is that the villains interested Burton...but not Batman himself. thats why he was shotchanged.The joker got more of an elaborate origin story in that movie than Batman. The joker as a character was also more developed than Batman in that movie in my opinion.

Sometimes when I consider all of this I feel like adding Burton to my comic book director, producer, and writer hack list. The only thing that prevents me from doing this is there were virtually no comic book movies made during that time period. The only films I can compare Burton's Batman films to are Joe Schumacher's Batman movies(rubbish). Burton's movies were better simply by default. If Burton's Batman films were released in this time period I guarantee they would flop.

If people prefer Batman 89 over Batman Begins I have no problem with it. Most of these people probably weren't into the comics so they didn't notice the flaws in the characterization of Bruce Wayne.

 

[kakashi]

^^ those Burton batman movies were good movies...good Burton movies. but they weren't good batman movies.

That said, if i have to choose whic i preffer, the Nolan version...or the Burton ones...i have to say i'll choose the Burton ones.

If i may explain, tha batman character to me, fits better in the burton version. In that Gothic setting.Though burton gone way overboard with that setting in batman returns.

The batman character...to me, seems kinda out of place in Nolan's 'reality'setting.To me, it's like making a dracula movie but set in Florida.

As for Schumacher(sp), i read somewhere that he was forced by the studio to amped up the campy elements of the movie.and if i'm not mistaken, there was an interview with him few years back where he stated, that if he were to make another batman movie, he would go the opposite way. but of course, the fanboys wouldn't give him a a second chance.

The thing is, i'm curious how schumacher would have done a Batman movie a second time around. he stated that he would have liked to make a 'year one'adaptation.and if you've seen his other movies such as 8 mm,phone booth etc...you'll see that the man is more than capable of making a dark and gritty movies.Moreover, i think he's more capable than Nolan in making exciting action scenes...which is one of the major problem with batman begins...lameass action scenes.

Just my two cents.