|
Post by jainitai on May 2, 2008 7:18:26 GMT -5
Anyone see this yet? Or plan on seeing it? I actually have no interest in the Iron Man comic book or "franchise", but the movie looks suprisingly entertaining. I'll probably have to go and see it alone though, since my wife has no interest in seeing it at all...and I have no friends.
|
|
|
Post by smile4chaos on May 3, 2008 0:22:19 GMT -5
I might, depends on the girl and the kids.
|
|
|
Post by underw0rld on May 3, 2008 0:29:01 GMT -5
I liked it
|
|
|
Post by darkartlover on May 3, 2008 11:59:22 GMT -5
i thought this was really good. could have been longer ( because i liked it) but thought it was really good adaption from comic book to movie. will prob take my great nephew to see it next week just so i can see it again....DAL
PS....stay after the credits...something really cool for us geeks ;D
|
|
|
Post by paperdragon on May 3, 2008 23:55:34 GMT -5
Great movie, I missed the bit after the credits, somebody cue me in
|
|
|
Post by underw0rld on May 4, 2008 17:18:23 GMT -5
Great movie, I missed the bit after the credits, somebody cue me in Samuel Jackson as Nick Furry
|
|
|
Post by godless on May 6, 2008 3:05:28 GMT -5
Great movie, I missed the bit after the credits, somebody cue me in Samuel Jackson as Nick Furry Please tell me you are joking.
|
|
gots0
Singing Slasher
Rebel Pimp
I am the way
Posts: 1,162
|
Post by gots0 on May 6, 2008 12:41:09 GMT -5
I saw it and thought it was good. Stayed for the Nick Furry, Avengers comment.
|
|
|
Post by paperdragon on May 6, 2008 14:41:50 GMT -5
Samuel Jackson as Nick Furry Please tell me you are joking. I know what you mean, why do they switch stuff up on a long time marvel character. Like making the Kingpin black as well, does it hurt the story not really, its just odd they feel the need to do it. I expect any time now hollywood will take a superhero and make him gay. Like giving the Mighty Thor a lisp. somebody wave the smelling salts under Joe's nose
|
|
|
Post by jainitai on May 6, 2008 21:35:34 GMT -5
Finally saw this earlier today. I was thinking all of the good/positive reviews in the media might just be a lot of hype, but I was surprised at just how good this movie actually was. The pacing was perfect, the characters were believable (except maybe for a few moments where "Pepper Potts" (Gwyneth Paltrow) seemed to be dis-interested in her role) and there were some great, heartfelt moments that made Stark's change in perspective/attitude believable. Downey Jr. was perfect as Tony Stark. At times he seemed to be over-playing the role a bit, but I can see how it was meant to emphasize the idea that he's a high-roller, playboy, care-free type.
My only gripe would be with the end (which I have to agree with the review by some critic from Variety magazine) that the final battle seemed to reminiscent of a scene from "Transformers". But I liked that they both showed their faces at the end of the battle; it made them seem human and not like you were just watching to CGI robots punching each other.
But yeah, I really keep coming back to how well-paced and thought out the plot was. The story just kept moving right along, but never felt rushed. It didn't feel like they were trying to cram a lot of action or dialoge into a tight space (Spiderman 3 comes to mind). It also never really slowed, unless it was necessary (like the dialoge between Stark and Bridge's character (whatever his name was)).
Also, I really appreciated how they made the whole idea of this robotic suit believable, like the whole sequence of Stark creating and building it. Sure it's still completely impossible (how long would it take him to fly to the Middle East anyway?), but they made it seem possible by showing his experiments (think the whole first flying scene) and his tinkering with the suit.
Oh right, the only other thing that was a bit cheesey was the whole electromagnetic device in Stark's chest. Is that in the comic book?? Or did they just make that up for the movie? I could see them adding it into the screenplay in order to create more drama and to set up Stark's weakness (ala Kryptonite to Superman).
Anyway, it was a great movie. It actually made me want to pick up the comic book, which before I never had any interest in Iron Man at all. Heck, I'd even pay to go and see this again.
Oh yeah, and at the end with the whole Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, that just seemed like an uncessary ploy to get the whole X or Y-generation excited about the sequel (or an Avengers movie). Sam Jackson as Nick Fury does seem odd, but not when you think about it in terms of his fanbase and marketability. I must say though, I shudder at the thought of an Avengers movie. There just seem to be too many of those characters that wouldn't translate well to film.
Bottom line for the Iron Man movie: 5 out of 5 on the Jai-o-meter.
|
|
|
Post by thx11ig38 on May 6, 2008 22:44:50 GMT -5
Please tell me you are joking. I know what you mean, why do they switch stuff up on a long time marvel character. Like making the Kingpin black as well, does it hurt the story not really, its just odd they feel the need to do it. In 'The Ultimates' and 'The Ultimates 2', two of the best series Marvel has put out in the past five years, Nick Fury pretty much is Samuel Jackson. It works there. No reason it can't work in the movie.
|
|
|
Post by smile4chaos on May 7, 2008 1:00:58 GMT -5
It was good. I liked it. Anything I can say Jai said better. It was fun, and better than a lot of comic films lately. Marvel has a lot riding on this and the next hulk, so I'm glad it was good, and hope they continue to do the characters justice.
|
|
gots0
Singing Slasher
Rebel Pimp
I am the way
Posts: 1,162
|
Post by gots0 on May 7, 2008 13:05:38 GMT -5
I know what you mean, why do they switch stuff up on a long time marvel character. Like making the Kingpin black as well, does it hurt the story not really, its just odd they feel the need to do it. In 'The Ultimates' and 'The Ultimates 2', two of the best series Marvel has put out in the past five years, Nick Fury pretty much is Samuel Jackson. It works there. No reason it can't work in the movie. agree
|
|
|
Post by darkartlover on May 7, 2008 17:00:20 GMT -5
i think Jackson is a great choice as Fury.....beats the hell out of David Hassalhoff. i think Marvel's just trying to open up comics to a wider ethic base and if a few charaters have to change colors to do that it's fine with me.
DAL
|
|
|
Post by godless on May 9, 2008 16:46:20 GMT -5
I don't have a problem, generally speaking, with characters being changed from one race to another(i.e. white to black). I thought Michael Clark Duncan would have been a fine Kingpin...physically(if he could only work on his diction) if they had botehred to make a GOOD Daredevil movie. The only time I get uneasy about it is when such a change would have to entail a radical change in the character. For example, a back Kryptonian Superman would not necessarily change Superman at all(beyond the cosmetic) but making Peter Parker an escimo or even a white guy from Alabama would be disturbing(If I cared about that character in teh first place...which I do not).
Samuel Jackson is not terrible because he is black. I just do not see him pulling off Nick Fury who is a grizzled veteran of WWII(or maybe it is Viet Nam now with all the updating going on). A gruff, cigar chomping, snarling drill sergeant with the insight and instinct to run a covert organization like S.H.I.E.L.D.
But there are worse choices for Fury than Jackson and the character is not all that important anyway.
|
|