http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/05/02/movies/02iron.html?8dpc

Oh, I hadn't heard of this.

Is it based on that Japanese film?

Robert Downey Jr. IS Tetsuo!

:lol:

And I've always loved his theme song:

IRON MAN, IRON MAN
LIKE A OVERSIZED BIG TIN-CAN...

Homer J. Simpson

Y'know, I can't catch a matinee today, but dread dealing with the crowds for tomorrow or Sunday. And if I wait 'til next week, I'll helplessly absorb any and all plot details through sheer cyber-osmosis.

It's a dilemma, is what I'm saying. :P

I'll be taking my son and nephew tonight, taking advantage of some Hollywood cash money. maybe we'll get one of the free comic books that they're passing out.

IRON MAN looks very good. Lots of positive reviews, even from the fanboy circles.

QUICK NO SPOILER REVIEW

For those who have been watching the collective geek-gasms over IRON MAN, I suggest you curb your enthusiasm a bit before seeing this film. It's good, and there's a couple great moments, but it's not THAT good.

However: STAY TIL THE END OF THE CREDITS. I will say no more.

I thought IRON MAN was great. Perfect casting all around, and very close to the original origins tale, with some careful updating to make it relevant to today's crowd. Robert Downey Jr. IS perfect as Tony Stark, Jeff Bridges puts in a good villainous turn as Jebediah Stane, and Gwyneth Paltrow gives Pepper Potts enough grounding to prevent her from becoming another female throwaway role, and even has a few good one liners. It's good to see her back more regularly. And Terrence Howard does a good turn as Rhodes, who's bound to play a big part in the next movie.

It slows down here and there, but definitley picks up the pace later on, but sadly seems to stop just as things are really heating up. No doubt, it's setting things up for more movies, with little shots and lines clearly indicating who's going to be the bad guy when the sequel hits in 2010.

Production design is fabulous, with a few shots right out of the comics, but grounding everything very much in plausible reality. Jon Favreau keeps things light, with welcome humour breaking in just as things seem to get too grim during the early scenes. He also gives himself a nice cameo in a role that may get expanded down the road.
The film definitely earns a PG-13, though. Mostly for some grim violence during the scenes set in Afghanistan.

This really is one of the best Superhero films made. Everything that the SPIDER-MAN series should have become before being nearly derailed in the third film.
No, it's not perfect, and Favreau edits the first 15 minutes or so kinda weird, Not something I would've done, but it still works, and I get why he did it.

Seriously, this is good fun, and adults as well as young boys will like it, I think.

And that bit at the very end of the credits is great. I see what Marvel is doing, and if they pull it off..then wow.

SPOILERS AHOY!

I really don't like the superhero movie screen adaptations, but this film was a hoot. Not without its flaws (and there are many), but what the heck, Downey and Bridges are superb.

Can't agree with Paltrow as Pepper Potts - too stiff (as always). Am I the only one to wonder: how did she ever get an acting gig?

And Terence Howard - a bit too poor man's Forest Whittaker.

Nice cameo from Stan Lee as Hugh Heffner, which with the mostly teeny audience, resulted in only me laughing (yep, I bunked off work to catch a matinee showing. The rest of the audience appeared to have bunked off school).

Anyway, enough of my babbling/bitching. Get down to the nearest movie house for a whale of a tale and time. If you don't like it, I'll give you your money back myself[*]

Oh, and one more thing: DON'T LEAVE YOUR SEAT (LIKE THE REST OF THE 300 PEOPLE I SAW THE FILM WITH) UNTIL THE END OF THE CREDITS!!!!!!!!












[*] Only if you are over 90 and accompanied by both parents with valid ID.

No. You're not.

I like Paltrow, but she's more comfortable in smaller, indie-ish pictures. This is a paycheck/visibility gig for her, the kind of thing Nicole Kidman does to herself once or twice a year, to lesser effect.

I just came back from it. I liked it well enough. It's light, Downey is absolutely perfectly cast and basically carries the film, it gives the audience a couple of knowing winks and, aside from the extremely odd way the opening was edited, is very tightly put together. There's an immense amount of audience goodwill out there to this movie and to Downey as a performer, I suspect it's gonna be a big hit.

Paltrow is fine as the sidekick -- if there's a problem with Paltrow, it's not that she can't act, it's that she's not a lead. If there was ever a perfect character actress/second banana kind of performer it's Paltrow, who puts me in mind of the love interest's wisecracking friend or somesuch. She does do a very nice job here with a role that could've been awful. The rest?

SPOILERS



I'm not deeply familiar with the Iron Man series -- I assume Jebediah Stone comes from there, but I found it disconcerting, to say the least, to have a guy who looks like he's ready to lobby for the AARP as the bad guy. But see below.

I stayed through the closing credits and thought the final teaser dorky beyond belief. Please. Although the earlier running joke about that mysterious organization was quite nicely handled.

There's not much more to say about the movie itself -- one of those critic proof movies that must make movie reviewers blanch in horror. How can you fill up a page on this? Well, you probably go onto related riffs. Such as:

One of the incidental pleasure of IRON MAN is that, because his origin is less familiar to the general public than, say, Batman's, it feels a lot fresher and can get updated more cleanly than most. The Iron Man story/idea is actually incredibly evocative, I think, and incredibly well suited to today's world. I can imagine all sorts of really interesting ways to bounce off the Iron Man character -- in fact, I'll go so far as to say he's one of the more relevant superheroes, in a socio-cultural way, out there today. Whether anyone ever picks up the ball on that, of course, is another story.

But one thing I'll point up now -- anyone can be Iron Man, way more than anyone can be Batman, say. I mean, Batman requires gagillions and superhuman will and disclipline, and most of us have trouble stopping at two oreos. Iron Man? You just need the suit. Apparently you don't even have to know how to run it -- our villain picked it up quick enough. Idiot proof, these new robot suits (or whatever you call them).

That's one of the evocative things about Iron Man -- although I don't know if it's well thought through. In a very real way Tony Stark IS everyman. You too could be Iron Man, if you could get your hands on one of the suits.

doug

Ironic that you should pick Batman as your example, Doug, as it has always been the argument in comic-book circle as to why Batma was different from Superman - anyone could become Batman with enough training, money and know-how, while Superman would be impossible for the everyman.

I would argue that the movie makes clear Stark is a genius when it comes to electronics and mechanics, as there are several scenes showing him working on material with his own two hands as well as through the use of computer mock-ups etc. It also was stated that Stane used his own background knowledge to do what he did, and combined with the short scenes showing Stark trying out things for the suit, I didn't get the feeling that the suit was idiot-proof. However, I certainly can see where you are coming from there, even if I don't agree with it.

Saw this opening night in Louisville on Derby Eve. Because of the constant rain, I think the crowd was more mixed than normal for such a film - many older folks mixed in with the young, with many of different ages in suits for parties or for Oak Day. The crowd was very much into the movie, with applause and laughs given at the right places.



Spoilers






I would say that half of the audience stayed during the ending credits for the final tease, which brought a round of applause from those left in the theater (and a handful of people even giving it a standing ovation). I thought it was a clever way to tip-off the possibility of an Avengers movie without dragging down the action within the movie itself (and - more spoiler alert - word is that there may be a similar moment at the end of the Hulk film due out soon). As a longtime comic-book fan, I can't help to love the idea of team-ups and to see Jackson pop up out of the blue to do the bit was just icing on the cake for me. Great moment in the movie for the fans, although I had to explain to my wife why it was such a fanboy moment for those in attendance.

I enjoyed that the people involved decided to leave so much of the origin as-is from the comic. Oh, of course, some things were changed (since using the Red Chinese as the villians certainly would not have worked), but over-all the elements were there, including Stane as a corporate villian that wants the suit for his own reasons. I also enjoyed the fact that we were dealing with characters that were not the typical 19-year-old misfits (to the point that Superman had to be turned essentailly into such a character for SUPERMAN RETURNS). These are people clearly on a career path that they wanted for themselves, only to see that perhaps they haven't done what they really should have with their lives.

Probably the best movie I've seen all year so far, to be honest. Tempted to see it again when it is played open-captioned so that I can follow the dialogue better (especially with Downey mumbling in asides like Popeye for a good 60% of the movie).

This also describes her mother, Blythe Danner.

I'm still waiting for the perfect NICK FURY, AGENT OF S.H.I.E.L.D. movie, which would obviously star either Fred Ward or Lance Henriksen.

I thought Gwyneth Paltrow was quite good in Emma.

(::bows:: That's all I have to contribute to this discussion.)

IRON MAN is a pretty good movie, isn't it? I have some quibbles, but they're basically minor, such as the terrible score (but name the last summer blockbuster that had a great score...) and my lack of interest in watching two giant CGI monsters fight each other (judging from the trailer, this also happens in THE INCREDIBLE HULK, which I have little interest in). Normally, I'm not big on origin stories ('cause who cares, really, where the armor comes from), but it's handled very well here. It's timely and gives Stark a strong motive to change his lifestyle, even if it is basically a ripoff of Spider-Man's motivation (and is not part of the original comic book).

Downey is extremely good, Bridges and Paltrow are fine, I liked Favreau's bit, and Howard is okay, I guess, even though I never figured out what Rhodey's job is (does he fly Stark's personal jet, act as his press secretary, or hang around Edwards AFB waiting for pilots to shoot down bogeys?). Loved the Stan Lee cameo (I always do) and the credits shout-out to Lee, Jack Kirby, Don Heck and Larry Lieber. Apparently, the animated IRON MAN theme is in there someplace, probably during the Stark intro collage.

Ain't he the Army's 'weapons liason' to Stark industries? And ain't Stark's incoming call to Rhodes' cell phone the animated theme (I just kinda assumed it had to be)?

Yes - it's the music played at the awards ceremony at the point Stark was expected to appear at the podium, and of course it was given a new awards show-style arrangement.

I liked IRON MAN quite a bit. It's certainly the most consistent superhero movie I've ever seen, and the only one where the humor felt natural, unforced and balanced with the requisite action movie elements. Heck, I'm going to go see it again first chance I get.

Ah, so what was the ring tone? It was presented very centrally.

I could have been; I didn't recognize it as such right off. I'll have to double-check when I see it again. If Marvel can work the Hulk's deliriously stupid cartoon theme into THE INCREDIBLE HULK, I'll be impressed.

Coming from someone who would prefer a kick in the sack to sitting through another comic-book adaptation...

I was sold on IRON MAN from the initial, brilliantly-edited teaser. The casting of RDJ, the great lines -- "That's how Dad did it. That's how America does it. And it's worked out pretty well so far..." -- had even my comic-book-ignorant friends and co-workers buzzing about IRON MAN.

While the finished film failed to deliver on the energy and edginess of the trailer (what films do?), I was very happy with it, despite the robot vs robot climax.

At the same time, before the movie even ended, it became clear to me that my enjoyment of the IRON MAN was completely dependent on RDJ's performance -- which I consider to be Oscar worthy. There's not much else going on. Bridges and Paltrow were fine, and I had no problem with Howard's character. He seemed to be a military-appointed babysitter for Stark.

I didn't actually *recognize* the brief jingle. For all I know of the Iron Man theme, the ringtone could have been "I Will Survive", KISS KISS BANG BANG-style. But they definitely presented it as a sly 'moment' of some kind.

In case anyone is wondering what people here mean by the Iron Man cartoon theme:

He's the cool exec with the heart of steel...

I had sent this out as a joke to friends a couple days earlier, so the music was fresh in our minds. They confirmed to me that the ringtone was the cartoon theme, but my mind was too blown by the action of the moment to notice. But I was pretty damn sure the score incorporated the cartoon theme for Downey's early romp in the sack with Leslie Bibb. Anyone else catch that?

I haven't had this much fun at the movies in a dog's age. This is the classic sort of "summer movie" I was raised on, exactly what I was pining away for the same time last year. If anyone is hesitating, by all means check this one out. I don't think you need to be a comic book geek to enjoy yourself. Iron Man is definitely the kind of movie you want to experience the first time with an enthused cheering crowd. And funny! It was a pleasure to really laugh along with some very witty dialog and genuinely clever slapstick. A Hollywood entertainment that truly entertains... what a great concept!

Man, Downey is so good in Iron Man, he even makes faceless servo robots better actors on camera. He's a delight, a sardonic 21st century smart-ass version of Cary Grant. And then he turns into a killer robot. Bliss.

Special props to Richard for his excellent performance as Jeff Bridges. Good goin', R.H.! I especially liked the improv with the pizza box. You drink booze like a snake eating a mouse. And the scenes with that sonic gizmo? Brrr... You're freakin' me out, man.

Paltrow is quite charming and funny in this. And damn, does she look good! That dress! Red is a hair color that really suits her. Howard was cool, but hopefully will be given more to do next time. I also liked making the wise-ass Alfred The Butler archetype into a Paul Bettany-voiced A.I. computer.

Uhmmm... Ratatouille?

I have a few minor quibbles, like the outrageous contrivance of the bad guys leaving Stark with lots of nasty weapons-building materials...and then being so surprised that he uses it all to strike back at them. And the big final brawl was a little too Michael Bay in its assembly for my tastes.

But ultimately, I really don't give a damn about these points. This fun machine was so filled with wonder and spectacle... I spent the whole time slack-jawed like a two year old seeing his first magic trick. And I'm gonna do it all over again at least once before this month is out.

Well, I've read some reviews and I do like Robert Downey Jr. who appears to be the biggest plus about this film as far as critics go, so I did become slightly intrigued about the whole thing. However, some of these same reviews then start to say it's the best superhero film since SPIDERMAN 2 or BATMAN BEGINS and I completely come back down to earth. Is that really the supposed compass point for a good superhero film? I had high expectations for BATMAN BEGINS as it was hyped as some serious re-vamped character-driven approach to the material and it sounded unique and interesting, but all I saw was tedium and boredom when I finally netflixed it. I hated BATMAN 3 and 4, but BB was practically just as bad in a different way, even if its aspirations were way higher than the previous films. SPIDERMAN 2 was a dreadful CGI mess that I had to turn off halfway through and toss off back to netflix before my brain exploded. So is IRONMAN really that good for people who seem to really dislike this new era of superhero film? I grew up reading all of these Marvel comics when I was a kid in the 70's and I know these characters, but I can't think of any superhero film I have warmed up to at all since maybe BATMAN RETURNS, and then only because of the darkness Tim Burton injected into it.

I'm really not trying to threadcrap here. Obviously, if someone thinks most superhero films suck, they shouldn't even comment here. However, when people say you don't have to be a comic-book geek to get a kick out of IRON MAN, I remain seriously skeptical, especially when even the good reviews still mention how bad the final CGI battle is. In any event, I may try to netflix this one just because Downey is getting so much praise and people are jumping for joygasm. I suspect the netflix disc will go back faster than Batman Begins and Spiderman 2 did. Can Iron Man beat that speed?

Well, it takes itself less seriously than either SPIDERMAN 2 or BATMAN BEGINS, so if that's a drawing card for you, there you are. It's also very performance-based: I generally agree with those who say IRON MAN is good, but not worthy of hosannas, but if you like RDJ it's hard for me to see how you wouldn't like the movie -- as he's pretty much the movie.

I wouldn't go with BATMAN BEGINS and SPIDERMAN 2 as the reference points; closer I think is something like the two FANTASTIC FOUR movies, although this is a lot better than those. Still, the idea of having a light fun time that raised it's head there is pushed more assertively here.

doug, who personally likes his superhero movies dark and pompous and full of angst and melodrama.

Fans Worry Beloved Trailer Will Be Ruined By Jump To Feature Film :lol:

Composer Ramin Djawadi is an alumnus of Hans Zimmer's Remote Control Productions...basically a music factory where musical tracks are composed and compiled outside of any specific film's context, then later picked from their catalog (as in "Generic Action Theme #257") and plopped into a movie. And it shows.

I remember the days when a great score could elevate a mediocre film into something sublime (take just about anything Goldsmith composed in the '70s)...but they're long past, and we're in an era now where a great movie is lucky simply not to be dragged down by its music.

Doh! :P

It's the best superhero movie since GHOST RIDER! But it's better than that, so it's my favorite superhero live-action media since the BATMAN TV show. Like GHOST RIDER, IRON MAN just accepts what's hyper-silly about the basic concept, and runs with it, accepting that the main byproduct of the story's goofiness is fun and awesomeness. It hits the delicate balance between wacked-out adolescent wowee action, adult drama, and impossible fantasy. For me it was the first film to feel like a Marvel movie, even more than FANTASTIC FOUR, with advanced tech, and science supergeniuses having slightly deformed the real world operations of government agencies, armed combat, and industry. If Marvel Studios starts adding their pantheon of gods and vast index of space aliens, they'll finally be playing this game right.

It's a terrific movie. All by itself. Unlike GHOST RIDER, it's intentionally hilarious all the way through, uncommonly smart, and the cast all brings their A game. I forced my girlfriend to go, against reminders of RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER, and she had a such a blast she actually wanted to talk about Marvel continuity afterward. We both thought IRON MAN was sophisticated summer pop cinema with just enough mid-level geekery for comics fans, and easily the best film of 2008 thus far. If that helps. See it big, see it loud. Invincible!

Put me in the ranks of the disappointed. Great casting, of course, and nice buildup in the first two thirds, but then it peters out in the final third. No payoff of any note, just a dull, conventional robot battle with an extremely conventional comic book villain. No emotional involvement. Nothing at stake for us. TRANSFORMERS did it better.

Also, Downey’s glib, super-confident star aura as Stark and never-say-die philosophy puts him in the position of never being vulnerable. Except for one scene, he’s never in any real danger. And that one scene doesn’t really count because we’ve already figured out how he’s going to save himself. So there's no suspense. The tragic element needed to give it that extra hook, the kind of thing Batman and Spiderman have, is missing. The best superhero stories have some essential sadness at their core. And it’s there in the Iron Man comic, in Stark’s vulnerability because of his bad heart. But I didn’t feel it here.

The similarly-themed ROBOCOP (1987) was much better. The emotional core was there. And the vulnerability. If, at this point, Hollywood can’t make a better superhero film than ROBOCOP, then what does that tell us?

And yes, the music was terrible. And since Marty asked what the last summer blockbuster with a decent score was, might I, in fact, nominate ROBOCOP?

Didn't much care for the movies but John Williams kicked in strong scores for the "first" STAR WARS films, unless they're considered variations on a theme. Elfman's BATMAN scores were terrific (and I like Goldenthal's, too). In general I think scores are slapped on at the last possible moment, giving them a slapdash, patchwork sound that makes the all-important CGI look all the more frenetic.

Ya lost me.

You were emotionally involved with Transformers?

:lol:

Who is this "us" you speak of?

Not the first time, nor, dare I say it, the last. :P



And, yeah, I found TRANSFORMERS much more emotionally involving throughout. I wanted the good robots to defeat the genuine threat to Earth posed by the bad robots. And they did it in a much more imaginative and invigorating way than IRON MAN. And I wanted to see that goofy kid finally hook up with the hottie from school when all was said and done. Whereas in IRON MAN, I really didn't care if Pepper Potts ever got any further with Stark than bringing him his coffee and dry cleaning. And Stark himself seemed to be able to get what he wanted just fine without my rooting for him. No underdog, less involvement.

Now that would be a funny post -

"Ya lost me, Camp - for the last time!!!"

:P

I doubt it helps your problems with IRON MAN, but beyond just the pleasures of the action, the funny, and seeing the character and world so well realized, I found a different character arc to latch onto in the movie. We're watching Tony Stark have a change of heart (!) about his personal responsibility in the military-industrial complex, and that's compelling and complicated enough for one movie, even if it doesn't rock him to the core of his being or make him vulnerable enough to be an underdog.

Realistically, it's also the first installment in a multi-film project, and setting the stage to undo Stark's glib confidence through his isolation, alcoholism, and various personal demons. He's a rich guy genius, and he's got rich guy genius problems, which are always going to be harder to relate to than Spider-Man or, uh, Archie.

Now that you mention it, Stark doesn't really seem to be all that different after his experience in captivity, he's just more of a workaholic. I needed more of a sense of his conscience undergoing upheaval than I got. I guess I really did want it to rock him to the core of his being for it to be effective enough for me. And I don't want to have to wait for a second film for that to happen.

And, yeah, Archie! THAT's the big-budget comic book blockbuster we've all been waiting for! Now who would play Veronica and who would play Betty? (Lindsay Lohan might've made a great Veronica a couple of years ago.) Quick, before the Disney Channel gets ahold of it!

I thought that Stark's cocky confidence barely masked a genuine and quite touching sense of vulnerability and it was the mixture of vulnerability and retro cool that made him easily the best comic book superhero I've yet seen. I certainly identified more him than I did with Shite the Chinless Midget in TRANSFORMERS, although that may not be a fair comparison, as somehow since HOLES (where I rather liked him) I've come to find Shite the most repulsive film presence since Paulie Shore and can't even look at him without wanting to beat him to death with a tire iron. I may have to see the new Indiana Jones film, for the sake of Karen Allen and Kate Blanchett, but because of Shite's presence I expect to be watching it through gritted teeth. But I digress.

I also thought that Downey's Stark had the charm and sense of humor that Toby Maguire's morose Peter Parker lacked, and he was much more fun than George Reeves, Adam West, Michael Keaton, Christopher Reeve or Christian Bale.

What really surprised me was how much I liked Paltrow as Pepper Potts, since I've found the actress whiny and unattractive in everything I've seen her in since FLESH AND BONE (where I actually sort of liked her, and I always liked her mom). As Pepper, I thought she did the best that anyone's done with what should have been a thankless Girl Friday role since the great Glenne Headly, whose Tess Trueheart I found to be the only watchable thing in DICK TRACY.

Oh, c'mon, Adam West has to get some kinda asterix in the fun department, right?!?

I enjoyed this quite a bit. Downey Jr. makes the movie in my opinion, if you take him out of the equation I don't see myself enjoying it as much. He's a great actor who needs more good roles.