# Iron Man - DVD Review



## wbassett

Tony Stark
Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both? 






[img]http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l190/wbassett/HTS/MovieReviews/IronMan/IronMan.jpg[/img]

Actors: Jeff Bridges, Jr. Robert Downey, Clark Gregg, Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow 
Directors: Jon Favreau 
Format: AC-3, Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, Dubbed, DVD-Video, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC 
Language: English 
Subtitles: English, Spanish, French 
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1 
Number of discs: 2 
Rating: 
Studio: Paramount 
DVD Release Date: September 30, 2008 
Run Time: 125 minutes 


Christine Everheart
You've been called the Da Vinci of our time. What do you say to that?

Tony Stark
Absolutely ridiculous. I don't paint.

Christine Everheart
And what do you say to your other nickname, the Merchant of Death? 

Tony Stark
That's not bad.​

[img]http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l190/wbassett/HTS/MovieReviews/IronMan/iron_man_movie_tonystark_first_look.jpg[/img]

Look out Bruce Wayne, there's another billionare playboy super hero in the game.

I missed this one at the theater. In fact my work schedule has been so hectic I missed everything at the theater for the past ten months.


Where to start? Robert Downey Jr. seems like the right place.

When it was first announced that Robert Downey Jr. would play Iron Man many people were up in arms and said it was a monumental mistake. Let's ponder that for a moment though. Stark is a very flawed human being... he's the rich son of a weapons tycoon, a playboy and womanizer with a problem with alcohol abuse. Downey is a an enormously talented acter, but he is also a spoiled rich kid and a womanizer with a history of substance abuse. This is a role Downey seems to have inadvertently been improvising for his entire life. Downey didn't have to act... rather just recall his own experiences and play himself but at an even higher level.

The other difference between Wayne and Stark is Wayne was born into money and pays people to create his alter ego whereas Stark actually develops the tech himself. Wayne outsources while Stark keeps it close to home.

Also there is a big difference in physiques. Downey's Stark is definitely fit and actually looks like a rich playboy with a private gym and personal trainer... someone we all can relate too as a real person, not too ripped and muscle bound, but just a guy in good shape with a cynical sharp tongue sense of humor.




Virginia 'Pepper' Potts [walking in on Stark's robots trying to get him out of the Iron Man suit]
What is going on here? 

Tony Stark
Let's face it, this is not the worst thing you've caught me doing.​

[img]http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l190/wbassett/HTS/MovieReviews/IronMan/downey-iron-man0114.jpg[/img]
The movie that really started the super hero craze was the original Superman the Movie. Then came Batman with Michael Keaton... but since then DC has been eclipsed by Marvel. Batman Begins was fantastic, and I am waiting for Batman Dark Knight to come out on DVD, but the fact is the genre was dying until Spiderman came out. Iron Man trumps Spidey and with Spades. 

The acting is top notch and the story is beyond quality. Iron Man is everything that they forgot about in the Spiderman sequels. It out does The Fantastic Four movies, and the dreadful Hulks. This is top notch acting, non-stop action, and just plain fun. It's everything a super hero movie should be.

The other thing that sets this apart from other super hero movies, aside from the late Heath Ledger's spectacular performance as the Joker is this had a real bad guy- someone that we see in everyday corporate America... a greedy letch that will stop at nothing to ensure he stays on top. Whereas the Joker was just a psychotic, Jeff Bridges Obidiah Stane was the calculating greedy CEO we all know and have come to hate... the guy that doesn't care about the people rather just his own bank account. 



[img]http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l190/wbassett/HTS/MovieReviews/IronMan/ironman_l.jpg[/img]
Iron Man bested the Spiderman sequels on many levels, and even topped the first one, which is too often heralded as the ultimate super hero movie. It was very good, but this was better.

Now for the movie transfer.
I opted not to buy the Bluray version. Mainly because I watch movies upstairs on my 27" LCD HDTV just as much if not more than I do down stairs on my main system. Mainly because I work from home and often when I am working evenings or weekends, I am waiting for others to finish thier work so I can do mine. I don't just sit here waiting, I usually watch a movie. Since I don't have a Blue Ray player upstairs (but do have a second HD DVD player in my office) I tend to get the SDVD version so I can watch it anywhere in my house.

The transfer and upconversion is very good. Anyone would be pleased with the quality.

5.1 surround is also exceptional. My wife was out for the night which allowed me to crank the system up some. The surround channels are very active and the bass gets a good workout. During the desert scenes the bullets are flying from everywhere! 

The Special Features are also fun to watch. 
Overall I give this :5stars: for a super hero flick

I couldn't find many stock pictures other than what everyone has already seen so I'll do some screen shots from my 106" screen and post them soon... which this movie definitely deserves the big screen treatment, and for me that's saying a lot. I only fire up the projector and big screen for big epic movies and don't use it for regular TV or run of the mill movies... and this was definitely a big screen movie! If you have a great sound system but only a 55" to 60" HDTV you're definitely missing out on the 'big picture'!

[img]http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l190/wbassett/HTS/MovieReviews/IronMan/IronMan2.jpg[/img]









Jim Rhodes [whispering] 
Just stick to the cards, sir. 

Tony Stark [holds up his notes and pauses, then puts them down]
The truth is... I am Iron Man.​


----------



## Sonnie

*Re: Iron Man*

Excellent review! 

This movie has really done well and I have it lying on my table to watch this weekend. I was not looking forward to it when it first came out, but am getting more excited about it now that it's here.


----------



## thxgoon

*Re: Iron Man*

Great review! I would also give this movie 5 stars for acting and plot. I'd also add the exceptional use of special effects. As with the latest Batman movies the effects served the plot, not the other way around, and were fantastic.

I would give the sound 5+ stars and put it up with the last Die Hard for constant surround action, and LFE that never stopped! A great movie for monster subs, monster screens and tons of fun.


----------



## wbassett

*Re: Iron Man*

I totally agree that the FX supported the movie and didn't over power it. Lucas used to say that FX should only suppliment the story... somewhere along the way he totally forgot about that, same as Cameron did in T2. Before anyone goes nuts on me about T2, honestly evaluate that flick. When you take out all the special effects you have 30 minutes of movie and plot. That's not what FX should be used for.

Iron Man had the right mix of special effects, action, drama, and humor. Add in top notch actors and that is a recipie that Hollywood really needs to follow more often.

I haven't seen the new Batman flick yet, but I fully expect it to be a winner in it's own regards, but also I feel it is a totally different style than Iron Man. This was a fun romp without the angst and heavieness that the orginal Batman had. As good as it was, what made it great was more the fact it was back on track and not the cartoonish versions that the franchise had digressed into.

As far as the last Die Hard flick, I'd say a work out of the surround channels can be a lot like doing FX just for the sake of having FX. If it supports the story and action then sure, go with it, but if it's just there to try and wow people then they missed the boat. The last Die Hard had a good surround but bad story. Iron Man was solid and fun all the way around.

I'll have some big screen images up by this weekend. This is definitely one to grab a bag of popcorn... get some ju ju bees and sit back and enjoy the ride!


----------



## Sonnie

*Re: Iron Man*

I watched this last night and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was nothing like what I thought it was going to be. It did seem to have a few plot holes... I suppose they had to keep it within the proper time frame for it to be marketable.

I am not a big Robert Downey Jr fan, but he did a good job in this movie, although I was not crazy about his business character being such a renowned idol and somewhat of a god.

I will give it :4stars:


----------



## tonyvdb

*Re: Iron Man*

My wife and I watched it as well (on Blu) and it played fine by the way with no issues at all. 
I never like the fact that it seems more and more movies that come out always seem to have way to much sexual undertones and its totally unnecessary. Other than that the special effects and audio was fantastic.


----------



## salvasol

*Re: Iron Man*



tonyvdb said:


> ... seem to have way to much sexual undertones and its totally unnecessary...


Can you tell me a little more about it??? ... I have a 12yr old boy (daughter is 15), and I always try to go with the rating on the movies (this is PG13 I think) ... Do you think it will be okay or is there to much sex content??? :huh: ...I'm planning on buying this weekend :bigsmile:


----------



## thxgoon

*Re: Iron Man*

I think it would be fine for them. There is some making out but that's it for graphic sexuality.


----------



## salvasol

*Re: Iron Man*



thxgoon said:


> I think it would be fine for them. There is some making out but that's it for graphic sexuality.


:T


----------



## wbassett

*Re: Iron Man*

It is PG13 rated but there are some suggestive scenes but no nudity, mainly heavy making out for a few seconds and then Tony and Christine Everheart fall off the bed on the far side and you can no longer see them. Then it cuts to the next day.

It is more suggestive than the comic book and cartoon, but is how Stan Lee defined this character... he's a rich egomaniac womanizer that is also prone to substance abuse. Probably what could be worse than some of the suggestive scenes and dialog is that Stark has a drink in his hand almost every other scene the first half of the movie. I can see where to some impressionable kid they can equate that with 'being cool', so I would use that as a good time to discuss the topic and how it is the total opposite of cool. I've heard in future movies they may delve more into this aspect of Stark's character, and no, they do not plan on making it 'cool' but rather from what I read they intend to show it as a major flaw of his and a demon he has to overcome.

Sonnie mentioned:


Sonnie said:


> I am not a big Robert Downey Jr fan, but he did a good job in this movie, although I was not crazy about his business character being such a renowned idol and somewhat of a god.


I guess the Jerico demonstration scene could come across that way but I took him as more of a techno-geek rock star persona. (Think Bill Gates with a Mick Jagger personality) He has billions of dollars and all his life has gotten his own way and frankly did anything he wanted any time he wanted to. In that respect I think he was definitely arrogant and extremely cocky and full of himself, but he also had an epiphany and as he said it "Opened his eyes".

Once Stark saw how his weapons were actually being used and more importantly misused by the very people he 'thought' they were being used against, he realized what he had done. That was the defining moment of when he became a super hero, the suit was just how he carried out his new found mission in life.

I actually saw him as a very flawed person. Everyone around him saw it too but with Tony's wealth and power nobody dared to speak up. 

As far as plot holes, I feel it had fewer than other movies of this genre. It was so fast paced that like a Bond movie, we are swept along so quickly that they are easy to overlook. 

We definitely will see at least one more Iron Man movie, but I don't know if they plan on continuing the individual stories or if they will just spin things off into the Avenger movies which are also planned. Those in my opinion are tricky ground and they have to be very careful. Anytime they start adding multiple villians or several super heros the plot always takes a back seat to the FX and glam of all the 'heros'. It will be interesting to see how they pull it off.


----------



## wbassett

*Tony Stark vs Bruce Wayne*

I think it is interesting how much in common these two have yet they are still totally different characters. It's undeniable that Stan Lee borrowed some of the traits and character profile from Batman, but he took it in a different direction. I thought it would be fun to do a comparison between these two power houses since right now they are unarguably the two top super heroes in Hollywood.

Bruce Wayne- Billionaire tycoon who inherited his company from his father.
Tony Stark- Billionaire tycoon who inherited his company from his father.

Both have company divisions that develop and sell military weapons.

Both have a playboy persona- Bruce's though is more of an act, mentally he is Batman and has to pretend he's Bruce Wayne in order to fit in. This is part of the brilliance of the character and finally the Christopher Nolan versions showed this conflict. Bruce for all practical intents is insane. Stark on the other hand really is a spoiled rich playboy that is itching for people to know he's Iron Man. Even after his epiphany he still craves attention whereas Bruce would rather be left alone.

Bruce Wayne has a multi-million dollar mansion with all the decor and trappings of 'old money'
Tony Stark has a multi-million dollar ultra modern house with all the latest tech and toys.

Bruce Wayne was trained in martial arts and studied law enforcement and detective work (DC Comics stands for Detective Comics)
Tony Stark has his own gym and personal trainer and if he has a black belt in any of the arts he most likely 'bought' it.

Bruce Wayne is motivated and driven by the death of his parents.
Tony Stark is motivated by the realization of all the death and destruction he has caused.

Bruce Wayne isn't totally tech savvy and has to outsource his gear or get unused military surplus his company developed.
Tony Stark keeps everything in house and is a technical genius who builds all his own gear.

Bruce Wayne has a wicked cool car, the Batmobile converted Tumbler.
Tony Stark- Who needs a car when you can fly Mach 2?

Both have a private collection of ultra cool sports cars though.

Batman is bullet resistant to anything but a dead on straight shot.
Iron Man is bullet proof.

Batman can get around like Spidey with his grappling hook gear.
Iron Man can fly like Superman!

Stan Lee also infuses his characters with more wit and sarcasm, which is why I always loved Spidey, but Iron Man and Stark are pretty sarcastic too. Batman is pretty much just intense and dark.

Don't get me wrong, I love the new Batman movies and how Nolan breathed new life into a dead franchise. There was a question about whether Iron Man is suitable for a younger child, and I would say it's no worse than what they already see on network TV, but still there are some suggestive scenes, the issue of alcohol, and yes violence. As I mentioned though this could be an excellent reason to discuss those issues. I probably would watch the movie first though just to make sure it is okay for your child to see.

Batman Begins and Batman Dark Knight however are not movies I would allow my kids to see if they were still young. These movies are not only dark and violent, but scary too. Even though the new Batman movies are also rated PG13, in my opinion they are border line and much more violent and dark.

So who wins in this shoot out versus comparison? The box office clearly shows that the Bat is worth Billions, but bad guys wouldn't want to be facing either of them in person I'm sure!

Keep in mind, this was all in fun and good spirits and like I said, I am also a huge Batman fan so I certainly was not picking one over the other... but you have to admit they do have a lot more in common than probably any other two super heroes.


----------



## Wayde

*Re: Tony Stark vs Bruce Wayne*

There are significant differences between the characters. 

Lee created Stark specifically to be unlikable in the early 1960s when it probably wasn’t so fashionable to be a wealthy, cocktail swigging industrialist with an arrogant swagger. But that’s what lee was going for.

At the time I’m sure Batman had evolved quite a bit but he was originally an FBI agent. 

Stark, like Wayne is a troubled individual but modern day portrayals of Batman have Wayne escaping through his own neurotic behavior, this probably started with Frank Miller’s Legends of the Dark Knight in the 80s that took Batman away from the campiness of the TV series and made him darker. Tim Burton would lightly explore the darker side of a Batman but his 89 Batman would only be superficially dark. Burton explored the dark knight through gloomy city scapes and a timeless epoch that seems to be a mish-mash of every decade of Batman comics.

Stark on the other hand is a weak human being with neurotic behavior of his own. Tony Stark is an alcoholic and as a member of the Avengers super hero group, which Iron Man was best known for, he’s proven a bit of a dark horse.

Both Iron Man and Batman had secret identities. The movie version blows Stark’s secret identity away. In fact, the queue cards Stark was handed that instructed him to say Iron man was a sort of Body-guard to Stark was the long-standing story for years through the comics. 

A storyline that started around 1979 and went through the 80s had Stark actually went to rehab for his alcoholism. During that time his partner, portrayed by Terrance Howard as Col. Rhodes, actually donned Iron Man armor. For a long time in the comics Iron Man was black, there was even a comic where part of Rhodes body had been exposed, I believe after a battle that destroyed some of his armor. It quelled suspicions that Stark was really Iron Man because it was showed Iron Man was really a black man. 

What ended up happening in later years when Stark returned Rhodes had his own custom armor created that was designed more for pure combat than Iron Man. This super-hero became known as War Machine and the armor was pure black. In an interesting scene, Howard’s Rhodes looks at a suit of unpainted armor in Stark’s lab and says something like… not yet… or … someday…Perhaps it foreshadows something to come. 

Certainly a movie franchise consisting of the original Avengers IS being foreshadowed in Iron Man. 

*Don’t touch that remote*

Be sure to keep watching after the credits roll in the Iron Man film to see a character called Nick Fury.

Interesting thing about Fury. Marvel comics has lately been steeped in this re-inventing of many of its popular titles in this thing called the Ultimate Universe. The super-group simply called Ultimates (a lame name IMHO) is modern interpretation of the Avengers. It’s darker and more adult than the old Avengers and quite interesting.

Legend has it that the artist for the original Ultimates series actually sought out the permission of Samuel L. Jackson to use his likeness to be Nick Fury. Fury in the original Marvel comics was white but new interpretations wanted a Jackson-looking figure with Fury’s trademark eye-patch. Permission was granted and the new Nick Fury is one of the coolest comic characters in a long time.

Not to spoil anything but I’ll give you a hint – there’s a cameo by Samuel L. Jackson about an Avengers initiative.

The *original Avengers *consisted of:

Hulk
Iron Man
Capt. America
Thor

We already have a Hulk movie with a similar Jackson interlude about an Avengers initiative started by the secret org called SHEILD, also represented in the Iron Man movie. 

btw keep an eye out in Stark's workshop, apparently Captain America's shield can be seen somewhere, although I haven't seen this myself, yet.

The Hulk movie actually alluded to plot devices that are likely to appear in Capt. America. I have no inside information nor do I go out and research this stuff. But, the Hulk movie (due out on BD soon) involved a super-serum. The character (Blonsky) played by Tim Roth took the serum and for the first part of the movie became … effectively… a rendition of Captain America. Later it became apparent that he wouldn’t really become Cap himself but I’m sure the same serum will be employed in an upcoming Cap movie that will be interconnected with the Hulk and Iron Man films.

The one thing I did hear on the Internet is that a Thor movie is coming. I am almost certain that it too will have that Samuel L. Jackson part referencing the Avengers initiative.

Boy – that’s a huge and long build-up for a film franchise in the future isn’t it? If they start making Avengers movies with all the characters and actors intact I may just poop myself.


----------



## nova

*Re: Iron Man*

Not to pick nits, but I do not believe Bob Kane and Bill Finger's Batman was ever an FBI agent. He has always been a vigilante. The FBI stuff came about in the 40's and were due to serial regulations of the time. Not sure exactly what they were, maybe Richard H. knows and will chime in.

Could be due to the original Batman's violence.... originally he carried a holstered gun, and had used guns to kill criminals with no remorse, even the Batplane had machine guns. This may have been a bit much for the serials of the day :dontknow:


----------



## Wayde

*Re: Iron Man*

You could be right, I haven't followed the B-man nearly as much as the Avengers during the course my misspent youth.


----------



## Toolatecrew

*Re: Iron Man*

I saw this in the theatre and concur with most thoughts about the movie above. I really enjoyed it. Probably even more than Batman which I loved. Batman is so dark and tormented the villans so derranged that sometimes it becomes slightly depressing. Batman's big hook is that heis a crature of darkness. You aren't supposed to SEE what he's doing..he's a nija!

Everything Iron Man does is very visible. I mean he's a frakn 7 foot flying Arour suit that blows up stuff. Its much more uplifting when you see him lift off than Batman jumping out from a shadow. In a way Iron Man actually stikes me as more realistic. Yes Bruce Wayne has bruises etc from the fights. But then the next scene he's jumping around like he's fine. Batman is constantly involved with battles with automatic toting thugs but rearley gets shot.

Iron Man is able to do what he does because he's in the suit. The power source may be far feteched but if you could design a suit like that the guy inside it would be invunreable, able to fly etc. More than I can say for Batman's constant good luck so to speak.

Iron Man wants me want to cheer. He wants you to say now that was cool. Batman (and in particuklar the Joker) wants you do say man that's messed up. I like both but Batman is more of a thinker's movie with action thrown in. Iron Man is an action movie with thinking thrown in. 

I would love to own this and watch it on BR on my 92 inch screen when my new Sub arrives. But until they stop sticking it to us with 30$ plus prices I'll have to wait.


----------



## dradius

*Re: Iron Man*

Good reviews everyone. I just watched Iron Man the other day and it is interesting to see everyone else's takes on it. 

I never got too serious about comic books, and watched this just to see a good action movie and shake my house, not because I like Iron Man in particular. With that said, I think it is a decent movie and give it a B+. Special effects and LFE were great. It was the first movie I watched with my new video card and HDMI going to my receiver, and it didn't disappoint. There was that short scene of him flying over to the desert and saving the guys about to be executed. But I kept thinking he was going to go back to the Middle East and really raise some racket. Instead, he just fought his old friend who was in a suit like his, just bigger. It was a good fight, but not what I was expecting for the big finale. Combine that with what he says at the press conference at the very end, and it just seemed to me like they are going to crank out another couple Iron Man movies, and just wanted to get the first one knocked out.

I also agree about the $30 prices for Blu-Rays. That is totally ridiculous. I thought $20 for DVDs was crazy, but they've outdone themselves with the HD stuff. And they wonder why so many people pirate stuff.


----------



## nova

*Re: Iron Man*



dradius said:


> I also agree about the $30 prices for Blu-Rays. That is totally ridiculous. I thought $20 for DVDs was crazy, but they've outdone themselves with the HD stuff. And they wonder why so many people pirate stuff.


I dunno,... I think we all just got spoiled. I remember when $89 was a pretty good price for a movie on VHS :bigsmile:


----------



## atledreier

*Re: Iron Man*

Also, maybe we could have spoiler tags or something in these posts? I haven't seen the film yet, and don't want to have any twists spoiled before the event.


----------



## Wayde

*Re: Iron Man*



nova said:


> I dunno,... I think we all just got spoiled. I remember when $89 was a pretty good price for a movie on VHS :bigsmile:


I remember those days in the early 80s when you rented a movie on VHS the thing was worth like $75 bucks. I remember being told not to leave your VHS rentals visible in your car because they're an easy target for theft. 

Nowadays you may have trouble giving away VHS tapes.


----------



## tonyvdb

*Re: Iron Man*



Wayde said:


> I remember those days in the early 80s when you rented a movie on VHS the thing was worth like $75 bucks. I remember being told not to leave your VHS rentals visible in your car because they're an easy target for theft.
> 
> Nowadays you may have trouble giving away VHS tapes.


When CDs first came out in the mid 80s they were anywhere between $30 and $40 now you can find them for a little as $5
I was just thinking about VHS and noticed that you cant even buy movies on them in most stores any more.


----------



## wbassett

*Re: Iron Man*



dradius said:


> _...snip_ Combine that with what he says at the press conference at the very end, and it just seemed to me like they are going to crank out another couple Iron Man movies, and just wanted to get the first one knocked out.


My gut tells me that they are going to play that off in the sequel as Stark making a joke. Probably something along the lines of " I am Iron Man... Right! Just like I'm known for my efforts in world peace!"

Stark is arrogant but I'm positive they'll play it off and already knew there would be a sequel and exactly how they would spin it.


----------



## zephyrwinter

*Re: Iron Man*

I watched it.
I like the scene that Iron Man rescue a father from Arab troops.
I think CG is pretty cool.
I like the prototype Iron Man, it's a kind of classic hand made working.


----------



## nova

*Re: Iron Man*



Wayde said:


> You could be right, I haven't followed the B-man nearly as much as the Avengers during the course my misspent youth.


I wonder,... how much the movie industries codes affected the comics:

1930 MPPDA creates A Code to Maintain Social and Community Values in the Production of Silent, Synchronized and Talking Motion Pictures, also called the Production Code or the Hays Code. It condemns movies that "lower the moral standards" of viewers and promises that "the sympathy of the audience shall never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil, or sin." 

I mean, really,... Batman was a vigilante who killed with a gun,... seems to violate this code and I'd assume was the major reason for Batman's image change.


----------



## wheatenterrier

*Re: Iron Man*

My two cents: This movie was great, great audio and great visually. It was very entertaining and Its one movie that I actually would want to watch again. I'll have to netflix it again soon.


----------

