Downey Jr - great to have you back! Loved KKBB, by the way ;D

I'm stumped/ mystified and I'm geekier than the average bear.

But as I said elsewhere, what the fuck do I know,

I've got my plant radar set to Supersensitive because of the foilage in the Speed Racer TB's and I'm just waiting for the bastards to show here.

Great review, though.

But....

There's TDK, and then everything else. That new trailer just kicked my ass 83 different ways.

Nice review though.

Beastie, you go see it first, and make up your own mind as a responsible parent. Don't be one of those idiots that likes the trailer but ignores the PG13, scars the kid (which you'll only find out in successive weeks as he starts to have nightmares) and then goes "Oh, I guess the rating was there for a reason"...

The first X-Men score took me by surprise with how awful it was. I do like 'incidental' type themeless scores, not everything has to be Leitmotif, like 7 for example was fantastic. I really liked X-Men 1, but the music sucked the fucking life out of it.

I gave an example of what he has seen and enjoys, but if someone says that this is much darker than Spiderman 1 & 2, he won't be going. Also, asking someone elses opinion is not the only research I'm doing before taking him.

I would have taken my boy to Superman Returns (hold off the ironic hypocrite jokes for a second), as it seemed like he'd love it, being a Superman fan and all. But even though yes, it was mostly "Superman lifts things", that one scene where they lay into him with the boots while he's helpless would have upset (not just straight-out scared) him with how surprisingly dark and MEAN it was. It was out of step with most of the movie, but it was there, and would've given him nightmares for ages. As it was, only one of us had nightmares. ;)

Your kid is not my kid, fair enough, and I never straight out ridiculed you. Maybe he's your "typical American moviegoer" and is more disturbed by sexuality than violence (note the joke there mate), but you do seem to be looking for excuses for something you've got all planned anyway. You obviously don't want to hear a no despite Mori talking about it being "not, however, a kids' movie" and "one of the reasons I would not bring younger viewers to see the film" and "the film starts to play very, very rough, and I think they skirt the fine line between the PG-13 and the R expertly". Do you need to be beaten over the head a bit more? He answered your question, even if you don't feel special enough for having a personal reply. How am I holier-than-thou for reading the bloody review? I'm not one of those Christian crusaders.

Usually I'm on the other side railing against those who patronise kids' intelligence and I'm currently playing with a scene in a movie I'm on that many would have a kneejerk reaction to. So don't give my comments a cursory glance and decide I'm lecturing you, please. All the best, dude.

I am not a typical American in what I allow my children to see. They don't watch Saturday morning violence and I don't have much of a problem with sexuallity on screen if no one is objectified.

See, I'll allow my son to see Spiderman (nothing with scary villains) and not Power Rangers. The majority of Spiderman shows him thinking about his actions, whereas Power Rangers run into any fight available.

BTW my son is four. I do believe (like most parents do) that he is mature. He doesn't scare easy, and makes sure that people are careful, outside, so as not to kill bugs. Still thinking about taking him, but leaning towards "no", now.

But crap, Downey looks good as Stark. He has the arrogant snark nailed flat. Stark is a damned good character, and if Downey can keep up what I saw in the teasers, he has a place in nerd cinema secured. And for the sequels, well, we all know he drinks ;).

I loved Iron Man comics as a kid and I really think you hit the nail on the "shell head". Stark is a unique hero born of very differnt circumstances,even differnt from Bruce Wayne. I never saw him and Tony in the same light.

I am a little worried that the music doesn't quite bring the movie up to a "hyperbole" level. I tried the trailer with the initial M2 flight out with a track from the ROCKETEER and it worked much better. This movie obviously needed a "lifting", "soaring" score and it sounds like we get cookie cutter music. That's too bad.

Thanks again Drew for the even handed review. I can't wait to geek out on this.

This week rocks.

This is totally different from Harry's cimbdowns (which he does with negative as well as positive reviews).

But watching Big Robots hit Each Other-that was fun, c'mon. "Bought a Used car-turned out to be an Alien Robot. " Pause. "Who knew-?"

Myself, I couldn't give a fuck and am not overly chuffed with spending $40 to see something I'm not bothered about. Especially as we finally get DOOMSDAY as well.

So pinch of salt?

Spamster, you don't read Mori's reviews OR other posts, do you? Jesus! Having seen it, I'm still of EXACTLY the same opinion as before.

Everyone forgets that you don't actually SEE much violence in Reservoir Dogs because it's so intellectually violent. Girls were walking out left right and centre in the session I went to all those years back (and their pissed-off boyfriends had to follow them, ha ha), and that was WAY before we got to the ear bit (which we didn't see). Then there's Seven, and so-on. And people are affected by more than just literal violence. Just sayin, the warnings are there for a reason (the whole MPAA's perversion of the idea and censorship of content thing is not what I'm talking about here)...

Mori, have you ever seen "The Boys"? If you thought David Wenham was just that nice guy from Lord of the Rings, you're in for a shock. Forget even "Wolf Creek" - I don't remember there being anything but IMPLIED violence in it, but Jesus Christ. Part of it is that Australians all know that it's the horrendous leadup to the infamous real-life Anita Cobby murder where a gang of guys pack-raped a nurse in a field and kept raping every orifice - eyesockets (yes I know plenty of TB, everything, even after cutting her neck to the almost-severed spine. Yes, it's still really horrible if you don't know that, but it works even 'better' if you do, and was definitely made with that in mind, and is a 'based on' movie without actually showing what it is based-on. Might be interesting to you from a technique point-of-view. Just the tension of real-life domestic violence that runs through it... Whew.

There were ratings. There were warnings. It was in all the media where I live and on all the posters at the cinema. There was a special warning at the Box-office where you bought your ticket. Even on the door to the cinema/screening room itself there was a final warning about the level of violence. All these recommendations and precautions, and still, this lady went in.

We were standing outside waiting for the rain to let up afterward, and she was shaking (not from the cold) and looked like a zombie. It was hard for me to have sympathy for her though, because all I could think was "you were WARNED it might be too strong. A MILLION times, but somehow you still discounted all that? Even as a woman (might have been a mother as she was married)? You were WARNED!" Obviously the example here is awfully over-the-top and of course I'm not saying IM is that harrowing, but maybe that's what was in the back of my head when you asked Mori again after what he'd already said.

So just a bit of an explanation, in retrospect.

* - Self-fulfilling prophesy.

Seems I was wrong about the after credits 'extra'. Rather fuckin' nice.

But, thats it... "I'VE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHERFUCKING COMMIES IN THIS MOTHERFUCKING CINEMA!"

How many Chinamen does it take to put a movie in focus.... Answer.... 1.6 billion. One to tell them all what to do, and the rest to do as they are told, not ask questions, and still fuck it up anyway.

Fucking good film though. I had issues with it.... but when all comic book films are compared to Elektra, Blade 3, and all that crap, it was a breath of fresh air.

So why did they capture Stark AFTER he had just destroyed a jericho missile as a demonstration. If they had hijacked him on his way TO the demonstration, then they could have just stolen the missile, rather than needing him to build another. Like I said, plot holes that only annoying little bastards would pick up on....

Overall opinion, fucking great though.

Sherm, that was the Sam Jackson bit was it? It's gone now. I actually thought it diluted the great ending with the hard cut to the credits. Maybe because I'm more on the works-as-a-film side, 'cause the comic guys (I used to do comics, but you know what I mean) have no problem with geeky stuff that doesn't really work as long as it gives them the nerdy payoff. Anyways...

Yeh!

I'm not as gushy about the movie as Moriarty, because there are some pretty clear problems with the movie. I think the beginning cut was wholly unnecessary. It's purpose was transparent and insulting. Instead of defraying the action for 10-15 minutes into the movie, someone (or some committee!) decided audiences wouldn't watch it so they came up with a lameass timeshift (flashback) scenario. It bothered me in particular because the "flashback" was funny and interesting, and certainly would have held anyone's attention (you've already seen EVERYTHING in the first 15 minutes if you've seen the series of trailers so if you're in the theater in the first place, that material interests you, does it not?). There was also a pretty noticeable leap from the point where Jeff Bridges goes from close family friend to evil maniacal, cackling villain. I imagine there's a healthy dose of excised material on the deleted scenes section of the dvd for that. finally, I would like to have seen more of tony being a playboy. leslie bibb played one character who gets the tony treatment, but even she reappears and is more than just some girl tony played. it had this feel as if "leslie's too costly an actress to throw away. let's give her a larger role." but of course it's an obvious attempt to keep the movie pg-13. I don't blame anyone for that decision, but just the same, more (quick) tony-as-playboy scenes would have made for a better film rather than going for the common denominator.

that's it. those are my problems with the movie. it's a good movie, and it's a REALLY GOOD comics 2 film movie. I pretty much agree with everything else M says about it. I was happy with the obvious "heavy metal" soundtrack. I thought it was loud and ostentatious and perfect for the Iron Man that I know (mostly through 90s cartoons and a couple novels). And I would like to shake Favreau's hand to contradulate him on a well balanced movie that doesn't take a piss all over the integrity of its source material just because it isn't citizen kane (and I'm looking at you, michael raped-my-childhood-bay).

He'll watch the pole-dancing bit and then be nagging me to take him when I go to strip clubs. Not good.

...it looks great... espacially on a DLP screen...

Also: you can't have professor X without Patrick Stewart, and you can't have Nick Fury without Sam the Man. Thank you for joining up sir, it wouldn't be the same without you.

I heard this critique on RT earlier, and it's pretty lame. Stark was one man working in his workshop, while Stane had all the resources and employees of Stark Industries at his command. OF COURSE HE BUILT THE IRON MONGER FAST!

And before any of you crazy nuts starts yapping about how Stane was able to handle piloting the Iron Monger without having used it before, let me point out that the Mark I armor had never been used before when Stark donned it in Afghanistan, either, and he did pretty well. Considering the Iron Monger was essentially a walking tank that Stane rode in, I'm sure Stane had the skills to drive it.

Arad also did Bratz. And now a Robosapien movie.