I was going to watch Red Belt this morning, but it turns out the movie is being shown at 10:10 P.M., not 10:10 A.M. So... I decided to watch Iron Man instead. Really, there isn't much to evaluate for a movie such as this, so this will be a very short review. Does it work as a comic book movie? Yes. Will it make audiences want to see more? Yes. Is it high art? No. It's not meant to be taken seriously--it's based on an American comic book from the 60s! Let's not try to draw comparisons between Tony Stark's story as a arms inventor who has a conversion experience and what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. 'Nuff said!
(For example, an international terrorist organization that has the money to buy the latest weapons from an American company? And decides to use them in part to relocate Afghans? What is their motivation for fighting the United States? It's not religion--the creators of the movie wanted to avoid that real-world parallel. I don't think GI Joe or Nick Fury & SHIELD should be made into movies--COBRA and HYDRA are just not realistic depictions of terrorist organizations and they may further mislead Americans as to what the GWOT requires and its prospects for success. But it's too late, at least with respect to G.I. Joe. Is Ross Douthat correct in thinking that we have too many comic book/superhero movies right now? And are our modern secular superhero stories a bad thing?)
I think Lucasfilm did the CG--the makers of both Hulk movies could learn a lesson or two.
As for the hidden scene shown after the credits... while I do enjoy Samuel Jackson in some of his movies, I don't like the fact that they picked the Ultimate Nick Fury instead of the "normal" Nick Fury--no more origin story or connection with Captain America. (Though it is understandable that the studio would want a big name actor for a future Avengers movie.)
A modified Iron Monger design would be much better than Robocop 2, or some of the landmates in Appleseed.