Slashdot Mirror
Iron Man Released
Slashdot reader stoolpigeon wrote about the start of summer blockbuster season, and the latest comic book to make it to the big screen. He says "Iron Man is an entertaining movie, as they go. I never was really into comic books — so I have no knowledge or concerns as it relates to following the original story line. I can't address that. The film has good action and some very humorous moments. The serious side of the film is not its strong suit. It's not horrible, but it really doesn't make too much sense. It was interesting to see how they tried to set up an anti-war message without being critical of the US military. It's really a comic book put to film. Not high art or anything, but a whole lot of fun. The film keeps up a fast pace throughout and never bogs down. Some of the product placements were so blatant that they kind of jarred me out of being into the film. The special effects were phenomenal. It was awesome in that regard. Like any movie, it is not everyone's cup of tea If you do go see it in the theater, and you are a big comic books fan, do not leave until after all the credits have run. And I mean all of them." I gotta get a sitter. Man I'm old.
I gotta get a sitter. Man I'm old.
Youngster.
You're old when your youngest is driving and does not need a sitter.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
movie reviews on slashdot
No, it means you're in junior high school.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I usually trust Rotten Tomatoes, they haven't let me down so far, and Iron man is "Fresh". Of course, there may be false negatives, but I haven't encountered any false positives in the last few years.
Thanks for spoiling the surprise, dickass.
Spoiler? Wha???
Put down the corporate-shill-crack-pipe, my friend. I would have felt mightily pissed to sit through 20 minutes of "3rd reserve gaffer to the animal trainer's assistant coffee-wench", only to watch a goddamned advertisement.
Yes, advertisement. Wake up, people - "trailers" do not count as "content" to eagerly look forward to, they count as the same BS we pay $200-$400 for fancy digital VCR-like boxes that let us skip them.
So, a hearty thank you to the GP post, for saving me from wasting an extra 20 minutes only to leave the theater infuriated.
What??? Captain America is dead??!?! Thanks for the SPOILER ALERT!!
At least the rest of the media world had the decency to not ruin it for us like you just did...
Yeah, how dare the founder of this site post things that interest him? I'm as incensed as you are that not every article posted here in the past decade has amused me sufficiently, for free.
how to invest, a novice's guide
Unless there's someone at your local theater holding a gun to your head, your faux-outrage at being theoretically forced to do something that you never would have done in the first place is quite amusing.
Who said anything about "forced"?
Some movies really do put interesting "featurettes" after the credits... Pixar has done that a number of times, and I do not resent sitting through the credits for more actual content.
However, the FP article made it sound like Iron Man would have something similar, and the post to which I responded acted annoyed that the GP outed the "surprise" as nothing more than the equivalent of a Rick-Roll.
So yes, it would have greatly annoyed me to voluntarily (I neither said nor implied anything about "forced") sit through the credits expecting to see more actual content, only to watch an ad.
Well, you just keep raging against the machine, li'l mister too cool to get excited about an upcoming movie.
Hey, if you like calling yourself a "consumer", good for you. My time has value beyond the number of ad impressions The Sponsors can trick me into watching per minute. I have nothing against you getting excited to watch an ad, I simply have no desire whatsoever to do so myself.
Review
I personally loved the flick. It starts out with some action, gives a backstory, struggles with who he is/was when he finds he is vulnerable and cares, struggles with his business and technology, and they include a touch of romance, several bits of comedy, a nice soundtrack, and a few fights to round out a great movie.
Favre did good.
But hey, I like movies, I used to subscribe to comic books (Iron Man was my first), and I've been enough of an Iron Man fan that even though I stopped subscribing many years ago, I got the PDF product of Iron Man through 2006. I don't generally like Robert Downey Jr, and his characters have varied significantly in his career, but I enjoyed having him as Stark. But I also like the portrayal of inventors and technology and the flow of this movie with it's pacing.
There are of course several "movie inconsistencies", only a couple hints at how much time has passed, some logic problems (in my mind), and people who need the movie to be just like the comics will be ornery about the juxtapositions. I personally disliked Stark's disregard for secrecy - it seems out of comic-book character, even though it is in line for the movie's Stark's character. But it is a very cool movie and I also was surprised when I found it was about 2 hours long.
And yes, there is a scene if you stay past the credits, though not really a surprise. Except for the actor.
Feedback
Anti-war movie? Wow, Stark's ability to care about what his company's weapons are used for seems out of reach for some slashdotters. It comes straight from the books 10 and 20 years ago. This is nothing new, though you may be upset that someone takes a political stance when you wanted to see more things blowed up.
Mediocre movie? Many people consider it to be better than any previously made superhero movie, though other comic book movies may be better (I still like Hellboy). Too broad a generalization to refute directly, I'll say that this movie has actual pacing in the story arc, the comedy is appropriate to the situations (though I can see how some would consider parts manufactured, it is so much more natural than most anything from Batman or other Marvel movies), there is more to the movie than characters moving between action sequences (do people dislike the inventing/refining process?)
McGuffins: It is an imperfect movie, but I think it has half the times of poor logic within the writing that the nearest comic adaptation has, but about the same number of mcguffins (unexplained tech, mis-matched time sequences, etc.)
Gweneth Paltrow: She works well as Pepper Potts (she is a good actress!), actually really well as an assistant with a heart. Though "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" flashed before my eyes in one of the later sequences. And from the ads I'd originally guessed she would be Bethany Cabe, though maybe they're saving Angelina Jolie for that.
Mish-mash: The movie is quite a mish-mash of the Iron Man lore, some things better, some worse in my opinion. But it stayed true to who Iron Man is and made a great movie to boot!
What?! No torrent tracker file? What do you mean it was released? How can it be a "release" without a torrent? Don't you know anything? (*wink, wink, say no MORE*)
(Thanks for the review. This looks like one that might be worth a trip to the cineplex.)
--
Toro
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Nope, Superman's dead too.
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
Alas, I use OSX, so I guess I'll just get a lot of attention from gay men.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.