Tell us what your favorite movies of 2008 are.

I thought Smart People was a pretty good movie. It was a servicable date movie for me, in fact. Not as pretentious as it's title may suggest.

I really liked Paranoid Park. My friend took me to it (he really liked the book), and I was blown away by it. Surprisingly great.

Paranoid Park was 2008? Hm.

I haven't seen it yet, but someone's gotta be thinking Iron Man is pretty hot.

quote:

Originally posted by goathouse:
I haven't seen it yet, but someone's gotta be thinking "Iron Man" is pretty hot.

BURNING HOT!!!!!!!!!!!

It ain't gonna win any awards (unless there's one for being extremely kick-@ss! Or maybe for visual effects because they are very good.), but it was a fun ride and that's all I want when I go to the theater!

i thought iron man was dreadfully mediocre, even for a comic book film. robert downey jr was delightful as tony stark, but any scene without him in it was nothing special.

i haven't really seen any great 2008 releases yet, but that's okay, i've mostly still been catching up on 2007 films (i'm still waiting for control on dvd)

Hmm I thought Iron Man was one of the better films of the Marvel franchise (see the dreadful Daredevil, Punisher, Elektra and even Spider-man 3), but it had nothing on Batman begins or the first two Spider-Man films.

That said, it was fun, if not particuarly substantial and I think it was worth the admission price.

I agree that Iron Man was a good movie but I'll go even further in saying that it is THE best Marvel movie.
The reason being because it seemed to be the only one of those movies to realize it's a comic book story and therefore didn't attemt to throw poorly written and poorly acted drama at the viewer, something (I can't figure out why) every other Marvel movie has done (some much worse than others).

Actually I didn't even think of Batman Begins because it doesn't really feel like a comic based movie (although Katie Holmes does fit in to the poorly acted part of the statement). My statement still stands for all the other Marvel movies though(even you Spider-man).

quote:

Originally posted by golden flea:
i thought iron man was dreadfully mediocre, even for a comic book film.

A mediocre comic book movie would be the theatrical version of "Daredevil" with a score of 42. What about "Hulk" with a score of 54? (I still enjoyed it quite a bit though.) Or even worse, "Elektra" with a score of 34! (Actually, that one crosses the line and becomes GOD AWFUL.) "Iron Man" actually has a score of 78! With as hard as it is to get critics to enjoy a comic-based movie, I'd say that's quite a feat! That, especially, puts this movie FAR from mediocre.

I went to see it again last night, this time with a person who has NEVER picked up a comic in her life, and she had the same feelings you do (although she liked "300"). She knew (and didn't wanna know) nothing of the characters and was bored outta her mind while Tony was perfecting the suit. She didn't even really wake up until Iron Monger came out to fight Iron Man! So, I'm guessing you aren't a fan of the comic or these kinda (action) flicks?

The first movie in a series of comic-based flicks is usually mostly set-up (which this one pulled off rather well). The second is ALWAYS guaranteed to be better in these kinda movies because the origin and intros are out of the way and it's time to have some fun on a bun! What's to look forward to in the sequels? What about Rhodes putting on the War Machine armor (it looks like it may be a modified Mark II)?! Does that do anything for ya? What about The Avengers making an appearence in the third? (Anyone miss that little hint at the end of the credits? You wouldn't have if you were sitting in the theater with me LAST NIGHT! I made sure to yell out "There's sumpthin' after the credits!" )

quote:

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
"Iron Man" actually has a score of 78! With as hard as it is to get critics to enjoy a comic-based movie, I'd say that's quite a feat! That, especially, puts this movie FAR from mediocre.

Just because Iron Man has a meta-critic score of 78 does not make up for the lack of character development, horrible James Bondesque one liners and poor action sequences. I absolutely do not understand some critics' boners for this movie.

quote:

Originally posted by theelfpat:

quote:

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
"Iron Man" actually has a score of 78! With as hard as it is to get critics to enjoy a comic-based movie, I'd say that's quite a feat! That, especially, puts this movie FAR from mediocre.

Just because Iron Man has a meta-critic score of 78 does not make up for the lack of character development, horrible James Bondesque one liners and poor action sequences. I absolutely do not understand some critics' boners for this movie.

I'm gonna have to call you out on the lack of character development comment. I mean Stark goes from an incredibly cocky billionaire to a somewhat driven vigilante. While it may not be Oscar caliber character development, it is none the less character development, and Downey gives a performance easily above McGuire's in any of the Spiderman's and probably a bit below or on the same level as Baleson's in Batman Begins. I'm not a huge action fan, I can't say they make it into my top 10s very often or into many lists I make, but I can appreciate a well made one when I see it.

quote:

Originally posted by theelfpat:
Just because Iron Man has a meta-critic score of 78 does not make up for the lack of character development, horrible James Bondesque one liners and poor action sequences. I absolutely do not understand some critics' boners for this movie.

It sounds like you hate this movie for a little more than just what you're complaining about. It's a popcorn flick! Liberalkid already covered how well they handled Stark, and the others were way more developed than Captain Stacy and his daughter in "Spider-Man 3". (At the same time, this might be because I already know the charcters so well from being familiar with the comics. That happens sometimes.) I absolutely HATE James Bond, so I'm not understanding the reference, but I didn't notice a crap load of one-liners. It is an action movie, ya know. What, exactly, was wrong with the action sequences? He took on terrorists in their own encampment, was attacked by fighter jets & tanks and had a major fight with the villain in a busy street! Not to mention the fact that you got to see him perfect the suit! Really, your description seems to be that of the trailer, not the movie.

I agree with both MB and LiberalKid. For a comic book action flick that’s audience is likely going to be a mix of children and fan boys, I think they developed Tony Stark pretty well.

I have to admit, I’m getting a little annoyed with what I’ve noticed more and more these days; all over the internet people seem to be resorting to the cheap-shot “there was no characters development” without stating what exactly they didn’t understand about the character or what exactly they think didn’t add up. Every time I see it, it reminds me of Peter Griffin when he picked up the line “shallow and pedantic.”

quote:

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy

(At the same time, this might be because I already know the charcters so well from being familiar with the comics. That happens sometimes.)

As you know MB, I’m a Marvel nut, but my interest for Iron Man hardly ever branched out beyond an appreciation for the art work, so I had little preconceived notions of what Tony Stark’s character should be like, that being said, I had no confusion about what was going on in the film, hell even my girlfriend understood Tony Stark’s character and enjoyed it.

I said there was no character development because there isn't any.

Tony Stark is practically a stock character as the billionaire playboy. After seeing terrorists using his weapons, he vows to never make weapons again...only to make a more powerful weapon that, coincidentally, the terrorists have already begun to replicate.

His romance with Gwyneth Paltrow's character was mentioned maybe twice in the movie before the payoff at the end and Terrence Howard seemed equally useless.

It is just a summer blockbuster...but these years, there's a summer blockbuster released once a week for 3 months, and there really is no excuse for lazy writing when the budget is so high. Then again, it's going great at the BO, so I suppose they captured the audience they were going for.

That's really not a rebuttal explaining the lack of character development. It was even just seeing terrorists using his weapon, its the whole ordeal of being captured by terrorists and having someone sacrifice their life for him. Perhaps Stark's character is a stock character, a billionaire playboy, but Downey plays it quite well nonetheless.

As far as the romance being pointless, you're ignoring the fact that this is one in a trilogy of movies (at the least). You refer to the writing as lazy, but you've yet to give an example of this and in comparison to a lot of summer blockbusters the writing is good.

I'm not sure if you were expecting the Diving Bell and the Butterfly when you walked into the theater or if you just aren't fond of action flicks and summer blockbusters. But I review based on what it aspires to be and how will it succeeds its in genre. Iron Man aspires to be a Charismatic (and occasionally witty) action movie and it does a great job of this. While you can maybe compare this film to some of the best movies ever made and just show how it pails in comparison to them, there's really no point. Iron Man wasn't made to push the limits of film, it was made to entertain and it does a hell of a good job.

If I wanted to criticize anything, (I’d say the character who I thought really didn’t make much sense was the villain Obadiah Stane). I understand why Stane betrayed Tony after his return from an ordeal that had influenced him to opt that Stark Industries stop developing weapons, but when I found out that Stane had already plotted to kill him before this event, while Tony was the sole genius raking it in for the company, and all-for making weapons, it didn’t really seem like it was in Stane’s best interests to assassinate him, unless I missed something.

There was a few comments made towards the end of the film by Stane that insinuated he was jealous in some way, but it was pretty vague, so if I was going to pull anything up on the film in terms of character development, I’d say Stane’s motives as a villain would have been the one thing that Iron Man fell short on.

But hey, to be honest, too much focus on Stane probably would have drawn my attention away from the very charismatic performance of Downey, which I’d say (along with the awesome animation and just down right coolness of the Iron Man suit and technology) was the thing that kept the film exciting for me.

I just realized this was a massive spoiler! thus why I’ve edited this post in black

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Azuzu!,

Well, J.J. ("DY-NO-MITE!" ), what I took from it was Stane had COMPLETE CONTROL of the company before Stark stepped in, and he had grown very comfortable with his seat. Sure, Tony created the best weaponry, but I'm certain that Stane had brung up doing backdoor deals with Stark at some point in the past and he had turned it down. It was all about money, and Obadiah saw MORE money in selling weapons to anyone and everyone that wanted 'em, Tony didn't want to do this. Thus, Stark had to be eliminated! That's how I saw it anyway.

Prince Caspian was actually not bad. Certainly not a slight movie; it's packed with CGI and runs quite long, but with a little patience it satisfies.

I love how this is the ongoing reckoning of 08's best movie, but every movie we talk about we refer to as maybe above average.