Re: Iron Man 2 - Grading & Discussion Thread (spoilers guaranteed)
I disagree with one or two things but that was a pretty good review.
I disagree with one or two things but that was a pretty good review.
Iron Man 2: Grading, Review, Discussion **SPOILERS**
- Thread starter SalvorHardin
- Start date
Re: Iron Man 2 - Grading & Discussion Thread (spoilers guaranteed)
Saw it today, very enjoyable film; I have no complaints. Spiffy action setpieces, expansive and talented cast, puzzles to solve, snappy dialogue, good dose of humour, plenty of fun little easter eggs. I see some people in the thread felt there wasn't enough Iron Man (the suit), but I didn't mind--or notice; I was sufficiently interested in the characters and their interactions. Couldn't help but notice that Sam Jackson and Gary Shandling are expanding in the lower face area.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Saw it today, very enjoyable film; I have no complaints. Spiffy action setpieces, expansive and talented cast, puzzles to solve, snappy dialogue, good dose of humour, plenty of fun little easter eggs. I see some people in the thread felt there wasn't enough Iron Man (the suit), but I didn't mind--or notice; I was sufficiently interested in the characters and their interactions. Couldn't help but notice that Sam Jackson and Gary Shandling are expanding in the lower face area.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Re: Iron Man 2 - Grading & Discussion Thread (spoilers guaranteed)
It occurs to me no one has commented on Bill O'Reilly as himself. He is complaining that Pepper is not really qualified to be CEO. Even though she's plainly more qualified than Tony Stark (in addition to her, Stark and Stark Industries being completely fictional,) it struck as the most sensible thing I've ever heard the man say.
Making Bill O"Reilly sound normal! Where's the love for such a magnificent artistic achievement?
It occurs to me no one has commented on Bill O'Reilly as himself. He is complaining that Pepper is not really qualified to be CEO. Even though she's plainly more qualified than Tony Stark (in addition to her, Stark and Stark Industries being completely fictional,) it struck as the most sensible thing I've ever heard the man say.
Making Bill O"Reilly sound normal! Where's the love for such a magnificent artistic achievement?
Re: Iron Man 2 - Grading & Discussion Thread (spoilers guaranteed)
I think I commented on it. I found The O'Reilly Factor cameo to be pretty funny. It's exactly something he would say.
I think I commented on it. I found The O'Reilly Factor cameo to be pretty funny. It's exactly something he would say.
Re: Iron Man 2 - Grading & Discussion Thread (spoilers guaranteed)
I've been kind of putting off commenting on the film, mainly because I have a suspicion what people will think of my opinion. Also, as I've seen many people have a lot of problems with it, I don't really feel like souring my feelings on the film by getting into arguments about it. But I'm kind of used to being on the fringe of opinion about these things...
I thought the film was brilliant. Really well done. I like the fact there's very little "Iron Man action" in it. Iron Man has never really been about Iron Man, it's been about Tony Stark. Like he says in the film, Iron Man is an extension of himself. Peter Parker is Spider-Man. Bruce Wayne is Batman. But it's the other way around in this story. Iron Man is Tony Stark. Tony Stark is the larger personality. Favreau, Thoreaux and Downey Jr. all get it. It's a shame others don't.
The film in every way is about Tony Stark; his life, his problems, his psyche, his desires, his flaws. The villains are extensions of his psyche. Hammer is the douche he would be if he didn't have the brains. Ivan is the crazy bastard with the massive sense of entitlement he'd be if his father wasn't who he was. All of Stark's flaws and psychological quirks and brilliance and familial history have all combined to make him uniquely who he is, and uniquely in the position to be able to do what he does. That's what the film is about. The fight with Rhodes isn't supposed to be about him overcoming his alcoholism like I've seen some say. The arc reactor poisoning him isn't supposed to replace the alcoholism in terms of his physical weakness. Alcoholism is still a part of Tony's make up and the end of this film, I think, and I hope it's explored more.
I thought Rourke was brilliant, in every way. As was Rockwell. As was Paltrow, who I'm continuing to be surprised with, as I've never liked her much before. RDJ...well, not much else needs to be said.
I'm gonna' leave it at that. Awesome.
I've been kind of putting off commenting on the film, mainly because I have a suspicion what people will think of my opinion. Also, as I've seen many people have a lot of problems with it, I don't really feel like souring my feelings on the film by getting into arguments about it. But I'm kind of used to being on the fringe of opinion about these things...
I thought the film was brilliant. Really well done. I like the fact there's very little "Iron Man action" in it. Iron Man has never really been about Iron Man, it's been about Tony Stark. Like he says in the film, Iron Man is an extension of himself. Peter Parker is Spider-Man. Bruce Wayne is Batman. But it's the other way around in this story. Iron Man is Tony Stark. Tony Stark is the larger personality. Favreau, Thoreaux and Downey Jr. all get it. It's a shame others don't.
The film in every way is about Tony Stark; his life, his problems, his psyche, his desires, his flaws. The villains are extensions of his psyche. Hammer is the douche he would be if he didn't have the brains. Ivan is the crazy bastard with the massive sense of entitlement he'd be if his father wasn't who he was. All of Stark's flaws and psychological quirks and brilliance and familial history have all combined to make him uniquely who he is, and uniquely in the position to be able to do what he does. That's what the film is about. The fight with Rhodes isn't supposed to be about him overcoming his alcoholism like I've seen some say. The arc reactor poisoning him isn't supposed to replace the alcoholism in terms of his physical weakness. Alcoholism is still a part of Tony's make up and the end of this film, I think, and I hope it's explored more.
I thought Rourke was brilliant, in every way. As was Rockwell. As was Paltrow, who I'm continuing to be surprised with, as I've never liked her much before. RDJ...well, not much else needs to be said.
I'm gonna' leave it at that. Awesome.
Re: Iron Man 2 - Grading & Discussion Thread (spoilers guaranteed)
Sorry I missed that.
Sorry I missed that.
Re: Iron Man 2 - Grading & Discussion Thread (spoilers guaranteed)
There was a little detail that I caught during the movie. I thought someone said (maybe him?) that he wasn't supposed to be drinking alcohol because it would be accelerating his condition, and I think he was dry until he saw his percentage of toxification and realized it was futile to slow it and thought, "Screw it!", and began drinking at the party. I think he knew it would be the end of him either way, and that's probably why he was drinking so much. This is supported when he's confronted when drinking something, and he responds with, "No, it's chlorophyl.", what I understood to be something he was drinking to slow the effects.
There was a little detail that I caught during the movie. I thought someone said (maybe him?) that he wasn't supposed to be drinking alcohol because it would be accelerating his condition, and I think he was dry until he saw his percentage of toxification and realized it was futile to slow it and thought, "Screw it!", and began drinking at the party. I think he knew it would be the end of him either way, and that's probably why he was drinking so much. This is supported when he's confronted when drinking something, and he responds with, "No, it's chlorophyl.", what I understood to be something he was drinking to slow the effects.
Re: Iron Man 2 - Grading & Discussion Thread (spoilers guaranteed)
Batman and Robin
Batman 1989
and The Dark Knight, right?
Batman and Robin
Batman 1989
and The Dark Knight, right?
Re: Iron Man 2 - Grading & Discussion Thread (spoilers guaranteed)
Hyperbole. There's no such grade as an "F-."
And seriously was this movie as bad as or worse than the first Hulk movie, The Fantastic Four sequel, Batman and Robin, Batman Forever, The Fantastic Four movie from the 80s, Superman III, Superman IV, Supergirl...
Hyperbole. There's no such grade as an "F-."
And seriously was this movie as bad as or worse than the first Hulk movie, The Fantastic Four sequel, Batman and Robin, Batman Forever, The Fantastic Four movie from the 80s, Superman III, Superman IV, Supergirl...
Re: Iron Man 2 - Grading & Discussion Thread (spoilers guaranteed)
In some ways it was worse than those films. The reason is that this film is leading people to believe that these Iron Man movies are good films, when they are not really good films (whereas those other films don't even pretend that they are good) As a result, the standards of what a good film has been lowered in the minds of audience.
The first Iron Man film was a lot like vanella. We eat vanilla for desert, we look forward to it as desert, but most people don't consider vanella to be a special desert. There's nothing wrong with it, but hey, it is what it is. There is nothing particularly wrong, and one thing that is very right, with Iron Man (the first film) and that very right thing is RDJ. However, the film merely exists, goes through the motions, and while it doesn't make any major mis-steps, it generally plays it safe. Just like vanella. The second film should be what T'Baio said, an intimate look at Stark and his flaws; the film didn't need to have a lot of him in the suit to be a good movie. However, the film fails to address his facing mortality with any real success by giving him a duex ex machina solution to it, nor does it address his alcoholism in any real way. I realize that this is a comic book film, but this aspect was poorly handled. To get an idea of how it might be handled without being condescending, one only has to look at RDJ's performance as Paul Avery in Zodiac. The fact is, that not only does Iron Man 2 contain many of the flaws associaed with all sequels yet almost gets a pass because it is not so obviously and clumsily as silly as the Schumacker Batman films or the 3rd Spidey film, but it also manageds to get Stark wrong. Sure, Downey is good still in the role, but he no longer seems to be playing the character - or any character for that manner. It is more like we have RDJ playing an eccesntric version (at the request of the studio suits) of RDJ playing an eccentric scientist... because, in my opinion, the character no longer felt real, and instead, it seems to be more of a charicature of what he was in the first film, and that character barely (but did) qualified as a character.
In some ways it was worse than those films. The reason is that this film is leading people to believe that these Iron Man movies are good films, when they are not really good films (whereas those other films don't even pretend that they are good) As a result, the standards of what a good film has been lowered in the minds of audience.
The first Iron Man film was a lot like vanella. We eat vanilla for desert, we look forward to it as desert, but most people don't consider vanella to be a special desert. There's nothing wrong with it, but hey, it is what it is. There is nothing particularly wrong, and one thing that is very right, with Iron Man (the first film) and that very right thing is RDJ. However, the film merely exists, goes through the motions, and while it doesn't make any major mis-steps, it generally plays it safe. Just like vanella. The second film should be what T'Baio said, an intimate look at Stark and his flaws; the film didn't need to have a lot of him in the suit to be a good movie. However, the film fails to address his facing mortality with any real success by giving him a duex ex machina solution to it, nor does it address his alcoholism in any real way. I realize that this is a comic book film, but this aspect was poorly handled. To get an idea of how it might be handled without being condescending, one only has to look at RDJ's performance as Paul Avery in Zodiac. The fact is, that not only does Iron Man 2 contain many of the flaws associaed with all sequels yet almost gets a pass because it is not so obviously and clumsily as silly as the Schumacker Batman films or the 3rd Spidey film, but it also manageds to get Stark wrong. Sure, Downey is good still in the role, but he no longer seems to be playing the character - or any character for that manner. It is more like we have RDJ playing an eccesntric version (at the request of the studio suits) of RDJ playing an eccentric scientist... because, in my opinion, the character no longer felt real, and instead, it seems to be more of a charicature of what he was in the first film, and that character barely (but did) qualified as a character.
Re: Iron Man 2 - Grading & Discussion Thread (spoilers guaranteed)
That's kinda' the point. Tony Stark isn't real. Tony Stark is a caricature. Before his ordeal in the Middle East, Tony Stark is a billionaire. He's incredibly handsome and can have any woman he wants. Owns one of the biggest companies in the world. Is one of the world's most brilliant scientists. Dude, could do almost anything. Then, he was humbled...almost. In one of the most harrowing experiences anyone can go through...he still escaped it, by his own hand thanks to his own brilliance. Dude pwnd the world. The one lesson he did learn was to look a bit outside himself and see the reality of what his company has done to the world, and humbles himself a bit to change for the better. That was the arc *ahem* of the first film. But he didn't change his personality, just honed his morals.
Now guy has the Iron Man armor. Can fly, super strong, defeat anyone, pretty much brings about world peace. What do you think that would do to someone with a narcissistic personality disorder like him? Of course he doesn't seem real! Of course he's an exaggerated caricature of who he was in the last film. He faced an oppressor and basically came out a GOD.
And that's where Iron Man 2, in my opinion, brilliantly starts.
That's kinda' the point. Tony Stark isn't real. Tony Stark is a caricature. Before his ordeal in the Middle East, Tony Stark is a billionaire. He's incredibly handsome and can have any woman he wants. Owns one of the biggest companies in the world. Is one of the world's most brilliant scientists. Dude, could do almost anything. Then, he was humbled...almost. In one of the most harrowing experiences anyone can go through...he still escaped it, by his own hand thanks to his own brilliance. Dude pwnd the world. The one lesson he did learn was to look a bit outside himself and see the reality of what his company has done to the world, and humbles himself a bit to change for the better. That was the arc *ahem* of the first film. But he didn't change his personality, just honed his morals.
Now guy has the Iron Man armor. Can fly, super strong, defeat anyone, pretty much brings about world peace. What do you think that would do to someone with a narcissistic personality disorder like him? Of course he doesn't seem real! Of course he's an exaggerated caricature of who he was in the last film. He faced an oppressor and basically came out a GOD.
And that's where Iron Man 2, in my opinion, brilliantly starts.
Re: Iron Man 2 - Grading & Discussion Thread (spoilers guaranteed)
Right. Exactly. He came out revered, and everyone expected him to continue being a hero, but were disappointed as the newscasts showed. Between his accelerated toxicity, him having to save the world and run the company, and knowing there was a possibility of dying, he faced too much. No wonder he was distracted. Those things would definitely tax a hero.
Right. Exactly. He came out revered, and everyone expected him to continue being a hero, but were disappointed as the newscasts showed. Between his accelerated toxicity, him having to save the world and run the company, and knowing there was a possibility of dying, he faced too much. No wonder he was distracted. Those things would definitely tax a hero.
Re: Iron Man 2 - Grading & Discussion Thread (spoilers guaranteed)
Yes, but I didn't think "Hey, he does look like Larry King" fast enough to find it hilarious.
On why Iron Man II is a good film, it's not because of the in depth characterization, or the character "arc." It has serviceable characterization. And there is a character arc, although the palladium poisoning is mixed up with the alcoholism. Frankly, the party scene emphasized that enough it seems like a quibble to me. But, Iron Man II is a good film because of what it does incontestably well, which is dialogue. There aren't many regular movies that do it this well, much less superhero movies.
Yes, but I didn't think "Hey, he does look like Larry King" fast enough to find it hilarious.
On why Iron Man II is a good film, it's not because of the in depth characterization, or the character "arc." It has serviceable characterization. And there is a character arc, although the palladium poisoning is mixed up with the alcoholism. Frankly, the party scene emphasized that enough it seems like a quibble to me. But, Iron Man II is a good film because of what it does incontestably well, which is dialogue. There aren't many regular movies that do it this well, much less superhero movies.
Re: Iron Man 2 - Grading & Discussion Thread (spoilers guaranteed)
Not many people are going to be spending $15 per ticket over and over to see such a bland story. When the stories are fleshed out in multiple comic story arcs, its fine to show that side. It's never good to market an 'action movie' full of action yet when audiences sit down they get a completely opposite film. General audiences want the Iron-Man0suit doing scientific magics on their screens, not have Tony mope around about his mortality.
Re: Iron Man 2 - Grading & Discussion Thread (spoilers guaranteed)
I thought there was a fair amount of both in this movie.
And anyone who spends $15 on a movie ticket needs to move somewhere cheaper.
I thought there was a fair amount of both in this movie.
And anyone who spends $15 on a movie ticket needs to move somewhere cheaper.
Re: Iron Man 2 - Grading & Discussion Thread (spoilers guaranteed)
I didn't think so, and thought it was as boring as Superman Returns.
Yeah, I'd move everything I have just to watch movies in a cheap theater.
Re: Iron Man 2 - Grading & Discussion Thread (spoilers guaranteed)
Smart man.
I have no interest in Superman, so I can't really compare. I just know I was never bored during Iron Man 2.
Yeah, I'd move everything I have just to watch movies in a cheap theater.
Smart man.