Shallow & dull (glad I didn't pay to watch it)

Rating: 1/10 (11 May 2008)

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw how many people rated this pile of crap higher than 3 stars. This has to be the poorest comic book adaptation I've seen since the '70s Captain America, and that one was actually faithful to the source material. After reading a few comments by those persuaded of this being nothing short than the second coming of Christ, I stumbled on a reviewer that praised the movie for its limited use of CGI. Limited? Sure and I assume last summer's Transformers was shot with full scale models animated via stop motion! Anyways let's skip to the review.
Acting: None of the characters ever felt real at any point in the film. All of the actors just seemed to go along with the lackluster plot for the sake of their paycheck. I don't blame them though for they didn't really have much to work on in the first place, which takes us to...
The Story: Now I am wondering: was anyone actually paid to "craft" it or did the producers resort to their dyslexic monkeys writing team once again? Because if realism was what they were aiming for then they pretty much missed the target here. And speaking of it, am I the only one who's sick and tired of this trend of putting super heroes into the "real world" and having them fight off Islamic terrorists? I mean, was it so hard to have Iron Man squaring it off against one of its arch-nemesis like the Mandarin?
The Action: Or should I say "lack there of"? Seriously whoever goes in the theater expecting to be entertained will be harshly disappointed, 'cause even though the CGI may be appealing and well executed there hardly are more than 5 action sequences in the whole movie (suit testing and final battle included)! The only thing that it's worth to mention is the robotic arm that Tony Stark keeps in his basement, for in its scarce screen time, that little articulated mechanical limb succeeds in conveying more personality and genuine emotions than the whole human cast does (or not) in about 2 hours! That cute little fella should be given an award for its performance.
Is there anything else to say? Yes, but I think it's been amply covered by the other realistic reviewers (i.e. those who rated this 4 stars and less). And yet I'm puzzled: has mediocrity really replaced the standards for excellence in the mind of the public? Doesn't anyone remember the quality of movies of yesteryear? No need to go back that much; let's take 1984's Ghostbusters as an example: funny movie, great SFX that still look good by today's standards and an engaging story which sucks you in as soon as you suspend disbelief. Please, tell me what was wrong with that! What did we do to deserve to be punished with such an awful mass of sub par, over-hyped, crappy and amateurish assembled images that Hollywood dares calling movies?!
To end this review, I can only say I'm glad I didn't pay for it and I feel for all those who were tricked into spending their cash on it. Long live BitTorrent!