I went into Iron Man expecting a superhero movie, and found that's not what I got at all. That's neither a good thing or a bad thing, it just... is. Once I adjusted my expectations, I found there's a lot to admire in Iron Man and Marvel's unusual take on what is essentially a hero's journey.
It also brought home to me how much I prefer Iron Man to Batman. No, I know, some of you will be reeling at this revelation. It's ok, just take a few deep breaths. I have some rather mixed and complex feelings about Batman, and how much I enjoy him varies greatly depending on which version of him you're dealing with. As for Iron Man... well...
Marvel and DC have a lot of "like" characters, sometimes because they're pulling from the same tropes and stock characters, and sometimes because they're directly copying each other. The combination of the two means that an awful lot of Marvel characters have a DC counterpoint, and vice versa. On paper, Iron Man and Batman are very, very similar characters. The whole "genius billionaire playboy philanthropist" thing, both mercenaries who fight on the side of justice using their brains and their clever gadgets. They're handled very differently, though, and for me, this is what gives Iron Man the edge.
For one thing, it's much easier to believe Tony Stark as a genius because we see him working at it. We watch him figure things out, tool around with gadgets, create. Bruce Wayne just kind of already has everything imaginable in his batbelt, and for all we know he's just buying it all from Stark Industries. He's meant to be a brilliant detective, but he can't figure things out too far ahead of his audience, so for the most part he comes across as being overly prepared more than he does a genius. (Although I do want to know how he got a Tardis batbelt. You know that thing has to be bigger on the inside in order to always have just exactly the right gadget for every moment.)
I also, for the most part, find Tony Stark to be a more complex character with more personality than Bruce Wayne. Bruce is broody and... uh, broody. In order to keep him dark and mysterious, the audience is kept at a distance, never really allowed to see what makes him tick. By contrast, Tony is a character we might not always like or even sympathize with, but we understand him. There are layers to him, and while most of the other characters in his world may not get to see much beyond the sarcastic exterior, the audience is invited to see him when he's alone, to really get to know him in his many aspects. I tend to be very character driven, so I'll forgive a lot of story issues if I feel I'm connecting with the character, and "but he's awesome and can do everything!" just doesn't cut it for me.
I think a lot of this really boils down to the difference in the way Marvel and DC approach storytelling, and I'll be the first to admit that while I'm not a Marvel fangirl, I do tend to prefer their methods. Don't get me wrong, Marvel has told some incredibly stupid stories and I don't think they're any better at dealing with minority characters in any respect, but there seems to be more room for complexities in their world, and I appreciate that.