Random Image
Latest Interviews
John Waters
by Becky Fritter
Mike Carey
by Garrett Faber
Michael Ian Black &
Michael Showalter
by Manuel Garcia
Shawna Kenney
by Will Tupper
IRONMAN- The Movie
Am i really the first person to make an IRONMAN movie thread? that shocks me a bit. Don't worry, all of this happens in the first part of the movie and gives away nothing.
Anywho. I thought it was really good. you dont have to read the comic to understand how it all works and according to my comic book people they kept right along with the comic so they didnt have cry and bitch over stupid things changed in the movie.
The one thing that i found hard to swallow was how shocked Tony Stark was to see the terrorists had his weapons. I mean, sure your company only supplies the US Military, but they could have gotten them in so may different ways, why are you so oblivious? He was literally shocked and confused by it and kept asking where they got them from.
i also would have appreciated a bit more acknowledged time passing. Of course it would take a while to build the first version of the Ironman suit in a cave, but i really wasnt aware he was kidnapped for 2 months till someone said like WAY later in the movie.
Other than that i give it two thumbs up. Though i give all the stupid people who clapped at the end a swift kick in the pants for being completely stupid. Its a movie, there is no reason to clap. the projectionist doesnt need your appreciation.
you know how some days you read, and somedays you make a mad dash about the office in search of a new typewriter? today was a typewriter.
It looks really good and I'm excited to see it but the thing that really makes these movies is the villians and IronMan doesn't really have any iconic villians to draw on. also, I don't like in the trailer how he has the wrist rocket shoot out. He's got freakin' repulsor rays in his palms! He should have used them instead!
muss es sein? es muss sein!
Yes. Nick Cage will also be in it. apparently they're going to have NC going around recruting the Avengers (i assume in set up for an Avengers movie).
My comic book kids are geeking all over it. they also kept saying things like "Forshadowing!" during the movie so i miss the forshadowing...but thats neither here nor there.
He uses the pulsare rays through most of it acutally. i think the rockets are only in the begining first suit.
you know how some days you read, and somedays you make a mad dash about the office in search of a new typewriter? today was a typewriter.
.JPG "Golfcat's picture")
It looks really good and I'm excited to see it but the thing that really makes these movies is the villians and IronMan doesn't really have any iconic villians to draw on. also, I don't like in the trailer how he has the wrist rocket shoot out. He's got freakin' repulsor rays in his palms! He should have used them instead!
watch it. there's a pretty good villain in it. i don't want to spoil it for you but the person they cast is really good too. he also uses his palm blaster and i think the wrist rocket was only used once.
oh, i'm definitely going to watch it. This is one I believe in actually going to the theater to see instead of just bittorrenting it.
One thing that always got me about this thing, it seems like ever since they started making it last year there was some rumblings about robert downey jr playing tony stark. I guess fanboys not thinking he could do it. I always thought Jesus! He was born to play that part! oh well, i think they've all been silenced by now so that's good.
muss es sein? es muss sein!
spoiler spoiler spoiler blah blah..
the rockets are for long range targeting. he was in the cave for three months. nick cage was a trip to come see. a lot less "seasoned" in appearance than i expected. i mean, nick cage and his howling commandos was a rough war comic and nick was buffed with tight skin and a scary war cry. this guy looked like he just graduated MIT. but it cool to come across him nonetheless. (doesnt stark, ultimately, build the repulsor lifts and the power generator for shield's airborne headquarters later on anyway?)
great movie. didnt surprise me at all that he was completely shocked to find terrorist factions had his weapons: privileged kid, no idea that he was supplying the machinery that destroyed countless families. (saving one little boy's father does not make up for that and he knows it..)
the only problem i had with this movie is that it took no time for obadiah to learn how to manage the iron monger suit, that he powered it up and jumped right in and new how to do everything. i mean, damn, it took stark some eight months with the ironman suit just to quit falling. plus, he didnt have repulsors on the hands with the original suit plans. in fact, the original plans showed nothing more than a single crude suit run by a magnificent battery. the suit obadi was in was nothing like that spec and there's no way that within a week he coulda made that suit with that many enhancements and the entire platform drawn from a technology even that "didnt exist" to his mech techs. that part was more than far fetched, it was stupid and threw me out of the world the director had carefully constructed. but up to that point, aside from gwyneth paltrow mangling to death a few lines (she is a good actress, all that, be she is just NOT a comedic actor), i loved the movie. my woman, i drug here there kind of kicking a screaming. she loved it. gave it two thumbs up as we left.
/ END S P O I L E R
yes. i recommend the movie.
-kabol
..
..
They caught me because of the blood on my fingers and between my teeth. I looked up from my meal on the tile of the kitchen floor and dropped her cold limb with a thud and minor splash and told them it wasn't me.
One thing that always got me about this thing, it seems like ever since they started making it last year there was some rumblings about robert downey jr playing tony stark...
i remember that. something about downey jr had to fight tooth and nail to keep this part and that he believed in doing it so much that he risked career suicide to keep it.
after seeing it, i know he was the perfect choice for the part.
..
They caught me because of the blood on my fingers and between my teeth. I looked up from my meal on the tile of the kitchen floor and dropped her cold limb with a thud and minor splash and told them it wasn't me.
i so meant nick FURY and his howling commandos..
had a few of those comics when i was a kid.. they came out before shield was constructed. (i bought them used for twenty five cents each at some seattle book shop, not knowing how much that character would grow.. i just thought it was some cool shit to read.)
..
They caught me because of the blood on my fingers and between my teeth. I looked up from my meal on the tile of the kitchen floor and dropped her cold limb with a thud and minor splash and told them it wasn't me.
I thought It was going to be totally gay but they really got my personality down almost to the last level.
Every kid in America is now going to wanna be me.
I got to get ready for the scared mothers hate may.
Oh and Monkey, Your daughters are totally sweet.
The corpse of an enemy gives out a sweet smell.
I liked it...
Robert Downey Jr and jeff bridges were both great... Terence Howard & Gwyneth Paltrow were both borderline retarded
The humor was suprising to be honest with you, Tony stark testing the propulsion boots and smashing into the wall in a very comical family guy kind of way.
the story was solid all though i do agree the timespan of the events definitly needed to be adressed more.
It looks really good and I'm excited to see it but the thing that really makes these movies is the villians and IronMan doesn't really have any iconic villians to draw on. also, I don't like in the trailer how he has the wrist rocket shoot out. He's got freakin' repulsor rays in his palms! He should have used them instead!
watch it. there's a pretty good villain in it. i don't want to spoil it for you but the person they cast is really good too. he also uses his palm blaster and i think the wrist rocket was only used once.
I'm surprised no ones mentioned Clark Gregg having a pretty big role in this?
muss es sein? es muss sein!
saw it last sunday. DOPE DOPE and three Thumbs DOPE. man, i am an eighties baby and think that eighties actors like Downey Jr. are great casting calls for some of these marvel movies. i'm anxious for captain america. Favreau is a great director...who knew?
Few white citizens are acquainted with blacks other than those projected by the media and the so—called educational system, which is nothing more than a system of rewards and punishments based upon one’s ability to pledge loyalty oaths to Anglo culture. The media and the “educational system” are the prime sources of racism in the United States. --Ishmael Reed
watch it. there's a pretty good villain in it. i don't want to spoil it for you but the person they cast is really good too. he also uses his palm blaster and i think the wrist rocket was only used once.
I'm surprised no ones mentioned Clark Gregg having a pretty big role in this?
that's right but i thought that gregg's character wasn't as established as it should be. he should have been a lot more, i don't know, trustworthy, but him being part of the government and wearing the suit and tie, i guess i'm used to seeing these type of characters as bad guys. that probably tells you a lot how i feel about suits.
Nick FURY!
Nick FUCKING FURY!!!!!
Nic Cage=dopey actor
NICK FURY=BADASS GOVERNMENT AGENT prtrayed not ONLY by Sam JAckson, but also...Hasselhoff!
I'm sorry. i was confusing him with LUKE cage... you know, because luke cage is black....and so is SLJ.... and Luke Cage a wicked awesome head band...
you know how some days you read, and somedays you make a mad dash about the office in search of a new typewriter? today was a typewriter.
Nick FURY!
Nick FUCKING FURY!!!!!
Nic Cage=dopey actor
NICK FURY=BADASS GOVERNMENT AGENT prtrayed not ONLY by Sam JAckson, but also...Hasselhoff!
I'm sorry. i was confusing him with LUKE cage... you know, because luke cage is black....and so is SLJ.... and Luke Cage a wicked awesome head band...
muss es sein? es muss sein!
oh random little "huh, kinda interesting" thing Clark Gregg the director of choke was in iron man...he played the douchey shield agent.
Well shit, now that i see it typed out it really isnt that interesting at all.
muss es sein? es muss sein!
I enjoyed the film, and since i watched a bootleg i missed the cut scene after the credits, but reading about it here and elsewhere i am excited... favreau and downey jr/ said they talked about ironman 2 but would not give anythign away at all, except that the third movie will be avengers... favreau said that if you look at recent comic book trilogies like spiderman or x-men the second film is considered the best, and he believes that he is in a position with this studio and this franchise to not fall victim to that, and a big part of that will e making third movie the avengers.
i will have to echo that the villains did not do much for me. to some extent i was happy, because this did not become enmeshed in the snare most comic book films do in their first film, which is spend ridiculous amounts of time building backstory and character relations. Yes, there was not a lot of action in this film, but none fo the stuff preceding the action felt forced, nor like mere exposition. if they had tried anymore complex of a villian it may have fallen victim to that. and while the villian was good, and well acted, it was not iconic, it didnt stick out in anyway at all in my mind. i never read the comics, but i remember giving them a rough glance now and then and i dont remember any villian too overwhelmingly exciting in the comics, so i guess they really made the right call for this first movie. now that they have established tony stark and iron man and the technologies and capacities of the suit they can spend more time developing the character relations and whatnot necessary for the next villian. the question is, will they follow the batman/spiderman/x-men kind of/batman again route of having multiple villians in the sequels? will multiple villains be the segue into war machine?
i will be interested to see the directors cut on DVD. terrence howard said that most of his part was actually cut in the editing room, but he didnt mind because he was happy with the film and he seemed confident that he would be playing war machine in the near future. (he said that if you didnt see him as war machine in the next film than he did something very wrong).
i remember very little about the comic books, but i do remember that a few close personal friends of stark did have their own suits, differently named and all of that. i will certainly follow the franchise.
They caught me because of the blood on my fingers and between my teeth. I looked up from my meal on the tile of the kitchen floor and dropped her cold limb with a thud and minor splash and told them it wasn't me.
I enjoyed the film, and since i watched a bootleg i missed the cut scene after the credits, but reading about it here and elsewhere i am excited... favreau and downey jr/ said they talked about ironman 2 but would not give anythign away at all, except that the third movie will be avengers... favreau said that if you look at recent comic book trilogies like spiderman or x-men the second film is considered the best, and he believes that he is in a position with this studio and this franchise to not fall victim to that, and a big part of that will e making third movie the avengers.
i will have to echo that the villains did not do much for me. to some extent i was happy, because this did not become enmeshed in the snare most comic book films do in their first film, which is spend ridiculous amounts of time building backstory and character relations. Yes, there was not a lot of action in this film, but none fo the stuff preceding the action felt forced, nor like mere exposition. if they had tried anymore complex of a villian it may have fallen victim to that. and while the villian was good, and well acted, it was not iconic, it didnt stick out in anyway at all in my mind. i never read the comics, but i remember giving them a rough glance now and then and i dont remember any villian too overwhelmingly exciting in the comics, so i guess they really made the right call for this first movie. now that they have established tony stark and iron man and the technologies and capacities of the suit they can spend more time developing the character relations and whatnot necessary for the next villian. the question is, will they follow the batman/spiderman/x-men kind of/batman again route of having multiple villians in the sequels? will multiple villains be the segue into war machine?
i will be interested to see the directors cut on DVD. terrence howard said that most of his part was actually cut in the editing room, but he didnt mind because he was happy with the film and he seemed confident that he would be playing war machine in the near future. (he said that if you didnt see him as war machine in the next film than he did something very wrong).
muss es sein? es muss sein!
i thought it was understood that though the viewer wasnt beaten over the head with it (whoooo whoo), obadiah did in fact kill his father as well, or perhaps the board of directors did whatever.
They caught me because of the blood on my fingers and between my teeth. I looked up from my meal on the tile of the kitchen floor and dropped her cold limb with a thud and minor splash and told them it wasn't me.
oh random little "huh, kinda interesting" thing Clark Gregg the director of choke was in iron man...he played the douchey shield agent.
Well shit, now that i see it typed out it really isnt that interesting at all.
oh random little "huh, kinda interesting" thing Clark Gregg the director of choke was in iron man...he played the douchey shield agent.
Well shit, now that i see it typed out it really isnt that interesting at all.
Its very hard to keep focused on this thread when ironman keeps on posting pre teen i was a little kid in '99 gibberish
Was I the only one dissapointed in this movie? I mean, it was good, but it does not live up to the hype at all. Downey Jr. does an awesome job at playing Tony Stark, but I want to see more of Ironman than Stark. All the badassness is condensed to the commercials. They should screw the Hulk 2 movie, and just make the Hulkbuster armor and the Hulk go at it. Just open up the movie in medias res and have two hours of Ironman and The Hulk pounding the crap out of each other.
If I'm extinguising anything it's the uncreated - Night
Was I the only one dissapointed in this movie? I mean, it was good, but it does not live up to the hype at all. Downey Jr. does an awesome job at playing Tony Stark, but I want to see more of Ironman than Stark. All the badassness is condensed to the commercials. They should screw the Hulk 2 movie, and just make the Hulkbuster armor and the Hulk go at it. Just open up the movie in medias res and have two hours of Ironman and The Hulk pounding the crap out of each other.
I think that would be overkill. I thought they hit the balance just right. Look at Speed Racer. I haven't seen it, but I've seen some of the extended clips online. You can only show so much of shiny cars driving in circles and doing flips before I get bored. Same with if you had a guy in a faceless suit, unable to emote (so we'd have a ton of those annoying full-face-black-screen cutaways) vs a CG green guy. It would get boring fast without a story. Story first! Written correctly, it builds anticipation and then the suit becomes the payoff (like the Afghanistan revenge scene)...
I already got the plot down - I'm a geek. And it's not like the non-geeks are like, "hey, let's go see a drama about a fatherless billionaire get predictably stabbed in the back so another guy can steal the company." No, we want the spectacle. We want to see things which we are not able to do. We want to see action: shiny, fast, amazing, distracting action.
If I'm extinguising anything it's the uncreated - Night
Was I the only one dissapointed in this movie? I mean, it was good, but it does not live up to the hype at all. Downey Jr. does an awesome job at playing Tony Stark, but I want to see more of Ironman than Stark. All the badassness is condensed to the commercials. They should screw the Hulk 2 movie, and just make the Hulkbuster armor and the Hulk go at it. Just open up the movie in medias res and have two hours of Ironman and The Hulk pounding the crap out of each other.
I think that would be overkill. I thought they hit the balance just right. Look at Speed Racer. I haven't seen it, but I've seen some of the extended clips online. You can only show so much of shiny cars driving in circles and doing flips before I get bored. Same with if you had a guy in a faceless suit, unable to emote (so we'd have a ton of those annoying full-face-black-screen cutaways) vs a CG green guy. It would get boring fast without a story. Story first! Written correctly, it builds anticipation and then the suit becomes the payoff (like the Afghanistan revenge scene)...
Speed Racer got it right. Absolutely perfect. That's the adrenaline (sp?) fueled spectacle that movies are supposed to deliver.
If I'm extinguising anything it's the uncreated - Night
Was I the only one dissapointed in this movie? I mean, it was good, but it does not live up to the hype at all. Downey Jr. does an awesome job at playing Tony Stark, but I want to see more of Ironman than Stark. All the badassness is condensed to the commercials. They should screw the Hulk 2 movie, and just make the Hulkbuster armor and the Hulk go at it. Just open up the movie in medias res and have two hours of Ironman and The Hulk pounding the crap out of each other.
I think that would be overkill. I thought they hit the balance just right. Look at Speed Racer. I haven't seen it, but I've seen some of the extended clips online. You can only show so much of shiny cars driving in circles and doing flips before I get bored. Same with if you had a guy in a faceless suit, unable to emote (so we'd have a ton of those annoying full-face-black-screen cutaways) vs a CG green guy. It would get boring fast without a story. Story first! Written correctly, it builds anticipation and then the suit becomes the payoff (like the Afghanistan revenge scene)...
Speed Racer got it right. Absolutely perfect. That's the adrenaline (sp?) fueled spectacle that movies are supposed to deliver.
Little Plot, poorly developed characters and big shiny visuals?
Yes. People go to the movies for the spectacle, not for life lessons.
And the main character and his brother were very developed thank you very much.
I liked speed racer by the way so lets get that out of the way first.I think of films in the same sence that i think of politics.Saying "i like the pretty visuals and i dont care about Plot" is like saying i am voting for barack obama because he is black i dont care what he is all about i just like the fact that he is black.If enough people show an interest in something that is daring to be more intellegent or strange the powers that be take notice and back up the next intellegent/strange film that comes down the pipe line. And then in the long run we have incredible beautiful films and from newer daring directors like Jean Pier Junette, PT Anderson,Fernado Mierelles,Lars von Trier(im hesitant about putting him up here..i hate two of his films love one),Todd Solondz, Spike Jonez, and eh even wes anderson(i love the darjeeing limited).
Ok so i rant and get off track so here is a quick summary: Supporting mediocre films severely damages the chance of truely brilliant films getting out into the world and in turn actually slows down the evolution/progression of film.
except in as much as the people who make mediocre films may in fact be the very same people who can and will make interesting and beautiful and exciting films but they need encouragement and financing, both of which are gained by the support given to their mediocre work...
just being devils' advocate. i agree, there is a lot of junk out there that does not need my endorsement. but quality is so subjective. whats the point of a movie? sometimes it is to be an amazing yet distant piece of art, something so sublime it is almost incomprehensible. sometimes it is to waste two hours of my boring life. everything has a place, and everything in moderation. if everything i watched were ironman i would shoot myself in the face. if everything i watched was there would be blood i would probably do the same thing. i really really really appreciate good film. sometimes i need to appreciate mediocre film, too.
My main problem with Ironman (and movies in general) is false advertising. When a movie declares itself "action packed" in a commercial with flying machines and explosions, and then you go see it and it's two hours of Downy Jr. in his garage tinkering, you can't help but be dissappointed. The only thing "action packed" about Ironman was the commercials. Very misleading. Speed Racer delievers on its promises.
Maybe if Ironman was marketed differently, telling people that it's more about Tony Stark than Ironman, I wouldn't feel mislead.
I'm not saying pretty visuals are always more important than plot. But when a movie is advertised as one and then gives you the other, then someone dropped the ball. For example, No Country for Old Men was brilliant, all of Wes Anderson films are great. But if they were advertised as a kung fu flicks, I'd be pissed because it wouldn't be what it was supposed to be.
If I'm extinguising anything it's the uncreated - Night
My main problem with Ironman (and movies in general) is false advertising. When a movie declares itself "action packed" in a commercial with flying machines and explosions, and then you go see it and it's two hours of Downy Jr. in his garage tinkering, you can't help but be dissappointed. The only thing "action packed" about Ironman was the commercials. Very misleading. Speed Racer delievers on its promises.
Maybe if Ironman was marketed differently, telling people that it's more about Tony Stark than Ironman, I wouldn't feel mislead.
I'm not saying pretty visuals are always more important than plot. But when a movie is advertised as one and then gives you the other, then someone dropped the ball. For example, No Country for Old Men was brilliant, all of Wes Anderson films are great. But if they were advertised as a kung fu flicks, I'd be pissed because it wouldn't be what it was supposed to be.
i guess... Except the last decade has shown us, if nothing else, that the first movie introducing a new comic book character, especially one that is gearing up for the minimum of a triolgy, is never too action packed. It always, instead, tries to build a soild foundation on which to further develop, giving enough depth to the main character that he can be believable while there is still more to build off of in other films. There is always action, of course, but that is oftne secondary to the story. That is just how it si to be done, it is a formula that, for better or worse, is at least temporarily codified in the minds of mainstream movemakers and audiences alike. To expect anything else of Ironman would have been kind of silly. The previews for Spiderman or the X-Men, and I mean the first in the trilogies, before the depth of the characters' storylines became a selling point, as it always does since every hero needs to have a dark night of the soul, do not show Peter having dinner with his aunt or Wolverine driving around in a pickup truck. The trailers show action scenes. There is a lot more non-swinging around than swinging around in Spiderman, but fi the trailers were used as evidence 2/3 of the film would be noting but swinging from buildings. If you saw the action-packed trailer for Ironman and actually expected the ratio of narration:action to equal that of the trailer, you can hardly blame the film... they never even make that promise, you watched the trailer and made it for them...
The point is, most people wouldn't give a crap about IronMan without knowing and caring about Tony Stark. The character and backstory provide the motivation. Look at Batman Begins. Why is it infinitely better than Batman Forever or Batman & Robin? Because there is backstory, character, and more than just an endless sequence of people fighting and striking poses. If you want a successful superhero film, it needs to be more than an episode of Power Rangers. Spectacle MUST coexist with story to have a truly great film.
Pure spectacle? It can be fun sometimes (older Jackie Chan films). And, when used in excess, it can make a film into a horrible waste of time and money (Bad Boys II, Transformers, etc). It's all well and good to watch an epic robot battle for a few minutes, but if you want to keep me interested for two hours, you better have more story than an overactin John Turturro, robot golden showers, and giant war machines mincing around in someone's yard and hiding for no good reason when they could just as easily be on the street disguised as cars. The more people give a pass to movies like Transformers, the less they'll make plot-driven movies like Iron-Man, Spider-Man, Batman Begins, The Matrix, etc. They'll play it stupid and safe instead of challenging expectations. Iron-Man is pretty cookie cutter as far as film and plot go, but it did what it did well, and delivered the goods. I've heard good and bad things on Speed Racer. I'll probably rent it out and see...
Also, I'm no film snob. There are GREAT bad movies out there that rely on spectacle, but always serve plot first (however thinly):
Bubba Ho-Tep
Army of Darkness
Big Trouble in Little China
Berry Gordy's The Last Dragon
A bad movie can be a great movie if the directors and writers are self aware of cheese factor and manipulate it to their benefit. The movies above do that to a tee (well i dont know about the last dragon...i havent seen that all the way through since the early 90's)
My point exactly. I hate these big-budget movies that insist you think of them as cool, that show off expensive setpieces and sequences, and then just thread everythign together with the worst writing in the world. There's good bad and bad bad,
Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that Hulk, Daredevil, Elektra, X-Men...etc all made money off of their amazing storyline. My bad. And my mistake thinking that a movie advertised with commercials filled with missiles, jets, tanks and explosions would contain more than 7 minutes of action.
If you want to tell a story about Tony Stark, call it Tony Stark. Don't call it an "action" film and don't call it Ironman.
If I'm extinguising anything it's the uncreated - Night
i think hulk had too much story in the sense that you guys are talking about.
it was a long movie, but i liked the hulk. one of the few. but maybe like is a strong word for me to use there. i thought it was all right.
i was really disappointed with all of the xmen movies, too.
i thought ironman was awesome. much better than expected. enjoyable on all fronts. i think downey did a good job of carrying the movie and keeping us interested even though he was building a suit for quite some time. i guess i could have used some more action but i think action is only good for so long. i mean, hes in a big metallic suit, hes not going to amaze me with his martial arts skills. hes just going to shoot shit and fly around. thats only tolerable for a long time if its done really well.
i have strung wires from steeples to stars and tightroped across the sky
i think the Hulk, Daredevil and Electra are all considered bombs. X-Men is the only one of those to really succeed. Because it had an actual story!
Oddly enough, I loved Ang Lee's Hulk UNTIL the very end, when they threw in an overly elaborate SFX battle sequence of Hulk vs...Nick Nolte as a floating water vapor/elemental thingy. Didn't work at all. Similarly, this new Hulk movie might be ass because of a reliance on CG Hulk vs CG Abomination (the trailer already just looks like a PS3 game to me.
Look at Unbreakable. Not a single CGI shot in the film (at least, no obvious ones), and it's one of the better Superhero movies of our time.
Copyright 2008 - A Writers Cult, LLC
Joined: 2007-07-27
From: Punk Rock Candy Mountain