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.
I always preferred when he became Yellowjacket though because he could grow up to 60 feet as well as shrink down to the size of an ant.


Hey we agree on something:woot: althougn I preferred him as yellowjacket because it was his coolest costume.

One of his best tricks actually was to get close to his opponant in small form and hit him with an uppercut as he returned to full size. One thing that actually bugged me about the character though is how when he shrunk he had the same strength as a full size person but when he grew his strength increased.
 
Hey we agree on something:woot: althougn I preferred him as yellowjacket because it was his coolest costume.

One of his best tricks actually was to get close to his opponant in small form and hit him with an uppercut as he returned to full size. One thing that actually bugged me about the character though is how when he shrunk he had the same strength as a full size person but when he grew his strength increased.

Yeah, that always bugged me too but I just accepted it because it was cool and would suck to see him helpless when he's tiny. And the costume is pretty rad.

Yellowjacket_I_001.jpg


Plus he had a Yellowjacket sting and Yellowjacket and Wasp just makes more sense as a team. :up:
 
Let me be the first to say, this isn't the Ant-Man thread. Maybe we should get back on topic before a mod gets his knickers in a twist.
 
I saw this yesterday I thought it was really good......RDJ was really good as tony and the iron man action scene were polished pretty well..8/10...really one of the best comic book movies since BB
 
Saw it again yesterday and definately enjoyed it more than the first time, particularly the ending which i didnt like first time at all, BUT, i still dont think this is the masterpiece some people are claiming it is, it is a very good movie, but is definately not the best SH movie, by a long shot IMO.
 
Let me be the first to say, this isn't the Ant-Man thread. Maybe we should get back on topic before a mod gets his knickers in a twist.

I agree. :yay:

Saw it again yesterday and definately enjoyed it more than the first time, particularly the ending which i didnt like first time at all, BUT, i still dont think this is the masterpiece some people are claiming it is, it is a very good movie, but is definately not the best SH movie, by a long shot IMO.

so you would consider Superman Returns, Hulk, and Transformers a masterpiece in comparison to Iron Man?? you're definately be in a minority on that one.
 
I just saw the new Indiana Jones. I actually ended up enjoying more than I thought I would, pretty entertaining, but frankly, IM is better. The character and story are more complex and compelling.
 
My expectations were pretty low for this film. I just didn't believe Iron Man could be the type of superhero that could translate well cinematically. However, due to positive word-of-mouth, I decided to go with family and see this film. Wow, what a fantastically pleasant surprise! Not only did I thoroughly enjoy Iron Man, but surprisingly everyone in my family loved it too (I was with some family members who normally don't get the superhero genre but they actually enjoyed the film).
 
I agree. :yay:



so you would consider Superman Returns, Hulk, and Transformers a masterpiece in comparison to Iron Man?? you're definately be in a minority on that one.

I wouldnt say any of them are masterpieces no, and IM is a better structed movie than TF, but i enjoyed TF more, and i find SR and Hulk to be better movies than IM. Sorry for having an opinion.
 
i find SR and Hulk to be better movies than IM. Sorry for having an opinion.

You enjoyed Superman Returns and Hulk more than Iron Man?! Wow! I was nearly bored to tears by both of those movies. I LOVED Iron Man. IMO, it knew how to be what those other movies didn't have a clue about, FUN.
 
Not been on the hype for a while, but here's my review of Iron Man anyway:

IRON MAN

Iron Man,the latest comic book movie from Marvel’s new production studio. Being based upon decades of comic books and having an entire mythology surrounding the character, there are certain aspect that the production must meet in order to please that fan group. However, have they tried too hard to please this target audience, and neglected the other, more important aspects of the film?

Robert Downey Jr is Tony Stark, a billionaire playboy who’s made a killing, both literally and metaphorically, in the weapons trade business. On a visit to Afghanistan to demonstrate his newest weapon, he is attacked and left as the sole survivor from him group, and forced to make a weapon for a terrorist group. Being kept alive only by a magnetic device, he decides to make something of his life, forging a mechanical suit to escape, then changing his take on life once returning home to America, and becoming the hero Iron Man.

The best word to describe this film, is formulaic. It follows the extremely basic pattern that action films and a lot of comic book films in general share. Which makes the journey rather predictable and less entertaining, as it’s the same story with a different fascia. The story itself is fine, but it’s basic portrayal and lack of flair in it’s execution does leave the audience a little under whelmed.

Performance wise, the great Jeff Bridges is massively underused and relegated to the stereotypical villain role. Robert Downey Jr does however ooze his usual level of charisma, but fails to be much more than his usual self, which is certainly entertaining, yet not spectacular. Gwyneth Paltrow and Terrance Howard in the supporting roles are also dipping heavily into the realms of cliché.

The biggest draw of this film is the special effects, which are undoubtedly fantastic, only a few moments exist where we find ourselves displeased them. But generally throughout, this is most assuredly a spectacle in terms of effects, unfortunately this is the only field in which this movie excels.

John Farveu’s direction seems more steeped in the likes of MTV rather than cinema. Sticking to punchy, loud and garish uses of the camera, sound and edits, trying to attract the audience with fast and colourful motion, but lacking any real meaning or focus. The typically poorly thought out Hollywood blockbuster school of directing is dominant.

Whilst the writing isn’t as clichéd as many of the film’s counterparts, it still falls short of greatness, mildly entertaining phrases and general persona from Tony Stark are the screenplay’s highlights, but it’s low points of cringe-worthy ‘catchphrases’ are near unbearable at times. Too much time is spent referencing the comic book world from which is came from, without addressing the fundamentals of characterisation and movie-making in general.

In conclusion, Iron Man was a disappointment, far too over reliant on the flashy special effects, it fails to really make any worthwhile impact, or have much of a point to it. Whilst the flow of the story is just about brisk enough, you find yourself treated like a child who will be happy as long as you have the stereotype characters, a few good one liners and pretty effects. Generally a basic piece of filmmaking, mildly entertaining, but it should just please the large target audience who’s expectations of cinema are limited.
 
Not been on the hype for a while, but here's my review of Iron Man anyway:

IRON MAN

Iron Man,the latest comic book movie from Marvel’s new production studio. Being based upon decades of comic books and having an entire mythology surrounding the character, there are certain aspect that the production must meet in order to please that fan group. However, have they tried too hard to please this target audience, and neglected the other, more important aspects of the film?

Robert Downey Jr is Tony Stark, a billionaire playboy who’s made a killing, both literally and metaphorically, in the weapons trade business. On a visit to Afghanistan to demonstrate his newest weapon, he is attacked and left as the sole survivor from him group, and forced to make a weapon for a terrorist group. Being kept alive only by a magnetic device, he decides to make something of his life, forging a mechanical suit to escape, then changing his take on life once returning home to America, and becoming the hero Iron Man.

The best word to describe this film, is formulaic. It follows the extremely basic pattern that action films and a lot of comic book films in general share. Which makes the journey rather predictable and less entertaining, as it’s the same story with a different fascia. The story itself is fine, but it’s basic portrayal and lack of flair in it’s execution does leave the audience a little under whelmed.

Performance wise, the great Jeff Bridges is massively underused and relegated to the stereotypical villain role. Robert Downey Jr does however ooze his usual level of charisma, but fails to be much more than his usual self, which is certainly entertaining, yet not spectacular. Gwyneth Paltrow and Terrance Howard in the supporting roles are also dipping heavily into the realms of cliché.

The biggest draw of this film is the special effects, which are undoubtedly fantastic, only a few moments exist where we find ourselves displeased them. But generally throughout, this is most assuredly a spectacle in terms of effects, unfortunately this is the only field in which this movie excels.

John Farveu’s direction seems more steeped in the likes of MTV rather than cinema. Sticking to punchy, loud and garish uses of the camera, sound and edits, trying to attract the audience with fast and colourful motion, but lacking any real meaning or focus. The typically poorly thought out Hollywood blockbuster school of directing is dominant.

Whilst the writing isn’t as clichéd as many of the film’s counterparts, it still falls short of greatness, mildly entertaining phrases and general persona from Tony Stark are the screenplay’s highlights, but it’s low points of cringe-worthy ‘catchphrases’ are near unbearable at times. Too much time is spent referencing the comic book world from which is came from, without addressing the fundamentals of characterisation and movie-making in general.

In conclusion, Iron Man was a disappointment, far too over reliant on the flashy special effects, it fails to really make any worthwhile impact, or have much of a point to it. Whilst the flow of the story is just about brisk enough, you find yourself treated like a child who will be happy as long as you have the stereotype characters, a few good one liners and pretty effects. Generally a basic piece of filmmaking, mildly entertaining, but it should just please the large target audience who’s expectations of cinema are limited.

Disagree on pretty much everything. Yes, there is a lot of formula in this film, and there is a lot of formula in basically every summer blockbuster movie, the difference is simply in how effective the execution of the formula is, and this was quite effective for me and most moviegoers. To say it doesn´t make any impact is simply not acknowledging how much people were taken by its story, which is far from being as childish as you describe, as it deals with a lot of adult issues in a much more intelligent way than most mainstream cinema does. The characterization of Tony gives him the right amount of complexity without becoming a drag for a movie that´s still ultimately entertainment. To say it leaves the audience underwhelmed is not even an opinion, is a highly inaccurate observation.
 
Disagree on pretty much everything. Yes, there is a lot of formula in this film, and there is a lot of formula in basically every summer blockbuster movie, the difference is simply in how effective the execution of the formula is, and this was quite effective for me and most moviegoers. To say it doesn´t make any impact is simply not acknowledging how much people were taken by its story, which is far from being as childish as you describe, as it deals with a lot of adult issues in a much more intelligent way than most mainstream cinema does. The characterization of Tony gives him the right amount of complexity without becoming a drag for a movie that´s still ultimately entertainment. To say it leaves the audience underwhelmed is not even an opinion, is a highly inaccurate observation.


Characterisation? He doesn't actually build, we expect him to be different when he gets back, but aside from his shift of focus, his persona is exactly the same, it fails to acknowledge cause and effect.

Adult issues? Like Gay adoption? Abortion? It doesn't touch the alcohol side of things, and handles the terrorist issue in the same way as a million other similar pieces of media.

Depends on the audience, for example, people who liked date movie, AVP, FF etc, all like this film, check out the responses in magazines and papers directed to this audience, the sun, the mirror, news of the world etc.

Then look at a review from the times, aimed at people who are exposed to a wider base of films, the term used for this group of people in terms of audience and producer studies etc, is the "Cinema literate". Which speaks for itself.

If all you can compare a plain piece of bread to is dog crap, it tastes pretty good, however, there's a whole plethora of other foods that are clearly above it.

For reference, the times review, which seems pretty spot on to me:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co...tainment/film/film_reviews/article3849998.ece
 
Characterisation? He doesn't actually build, we expect him to be different when he gets back, but aside from his shift of focus, his persona is exactly the same, it fails to acknowledge cause and effect.

Adult issues? Like Gay adoption? Abortion? It doesn't touch the alcohol side of things, and handles the terrorist issue in the same way as a million other similar pieces of media.

Depends on the audience, for example, people who liked date movie, AVP, FF etc, all like this film, check out the responses in magazines and papers directed to this audience, the sun, the mirror, news of the world etc.

Then look at a review from the times, aimed at people who are exposed to a wider base of films, the term used for this group of people in terms of audience and producer studies etc, is the "Cinema literate". Which speaks for itself.

If all you can compare a plain piece of bread to is dog crap, it tastes pretty good, however, there's a whole plethora of other foods that are clearly above it.

For reference, the times review, which seems pretty spot on to me:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co...tainment/film/film_reviews/article3849998.ece

Okay, the clearly gratuitous sarcasm and agression in the tone remove all doubt I had, it´s a troll post. The ignore list is the place for people like you.
 
For reference, the times review, which seems pretty spot on to me:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co...tainment/film/film_reviews/article3849998.ece

Sunday Times? Never heard of it. But I've heard of Time magazine and they give a positive review for IM:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1736742,00.html

Readers of movie reviews often think that critics hate the big Hollywood stuff and cherish only the little films about Romanian abortions or Iranian kids. But some of us, this one anyway, knows that there's an American style — best displayed in the big, smart, kid-friendly epic — that few other cinemas even aspire to, and none can touch. When it works, as it does here, it rekindles even a cynic's movie love. So cheers to Downey, Favreau and the Iron Man production company. They don't call it Marvel for nothing.
 
Never heard of the times? The most prestigious newspaper on the planet?

That explains my point.
 
Never heard of the times? The most prestigious newspaper on the planet?

That explains my point.

Maybe it's because I'm in the States, but the newspapers that get referenced alot are the NY Times and the Washington Post. Btw, I'm sure you've heard of the Time magazine, haven't you?
 
Maybe it's because I'm in the States, but the newspapers that get referenced alot are the NY Times and the Washington Post. Btw, I'm sure you've heard of the Time magazine, haven't you?


Yes I have funnily enough, I'm also aware of it's target audience.

Try something like Sight and Sound if you care about cinema.
 
Yes I have funnily enough, I'm also aware of it's target audience.

Try something like Sight and Sound if you care about cinema.

I don't watch hundreds of movies every year because I work full-time and have a family, and when I do watch a movie I usually pick one that is entertaining, and not an indie flick that takes a film critic to watch and dissect its meanings (although I do occasionally watch indies such as TWBB). And I don't know if I need to "care about cinema" in order to enjoy movies like IM.
 
look at a review from the times, aimed at people who are exposed to a wider base of films, the term used for this group of people in terms of audience and producer studies etc, is the "Cinema literate". Which speaks for itself.

Never heard of the times? The most prestigious newspaper on the planet?

Try something like Sight and Sound if you care about cinema.

God, I hate you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,265
Messages
22,075,541
Members
45,875
Latest member
shanandrews
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"