Comments on: Marvel: Bad news and good news

by: simmo

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:19:55 +0000

Saw the premiere of Iron Man in Sydney last night, and it could well be the best comic book superhero action film yet. The whole thing really works, the origin is a seemless fit into the overall film (not leaving it in two parts as a lot of superhero origins do to the plot), Downey Jr is fantastic, and the CGI is really strong.
There’s a lot of humour in it, none of which feels forced, and the creation of the suits is done really imaginatively. It’s a very very good movie.

by: El no tan increíble Hulk « ¡Operación Mandril!

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:47:43 +0000

[…] Fuente: The Beat […]

by: jimrugg

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:58:59 +0000

I think Iron Man is interesting because there’s no definitive Iron Man comics run (unlike X-men, Spider-Man, Daredevil). Seems like the movie has a chance to do a memorable version of the character because it won’t be compared to some nostalgic version that exists in fans’ heads (also it has to be easier to film an attractive robot costume than a spandex one).

by: Cary Coatney

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:55:24 +0000

Ditto what Christopher said. Empire magazine said nice things about the CGI work in the Incredible Hulk movie that the actors will at least retain their alter ego faces (i.e., Roth and Norton’s when facing each other in battle.

Coat

by: Christopher Moonlight

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:33:41 +0000

I’m not sure what people see as so wrong about the Hulk’s CGI. It looks as believable (or unbelievable) as any other CGI I see in movies. I don’t think Spider-Man looked any better. It’s a popcorn flick. It looks good enough for me to just sit back and have fun. The first one was just dull. That the real sin of a summer movie.

by: Bartholomew Fair

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:19:17 +0000

Shouldn’t that be Stan and Don?

by: Nat Gertler

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:38:24 +0000

Iron Man is indeed “the new action hero” that “we’ve all been waiting for”! What will Stan and Jack do next??

by: Andrew Wickliffe

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:51:30 +0000

Does the Times have the tidbit about how all the hubbub is over a link to the Ang Lee? I can’t remember who had that item, but someone ran it a couple weeks ago–it’s supposedly all over how to handle the bridge from the first to the second movie, but no word on what Norton wants versus what the studio(s) want… Though, does Universal even have a say?