Director: Jon Favreau (Made, Elf, Zathura)
Screenplay: Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum, Matt Holloway
Producers: Kevin Feige, Avi Arad
Starring: Robert Downey Jr, Jeff Bridges, Gwynneth Paltrow, Terrence Howard
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 126 min
Another joint review from several of the authors here at RowThree. Last time we debated Doomsday, but this time it’s the screen adaptation for the comic book hero, Iron Man. This is sort of our own little version of RottenTomatoes and hope that it’s a more comprehensive way of looking at and cutting apart a movie.
Synopsis: (from IMDb) Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is the CEO of Stark Industries which produces advance weapon systems for the U.S. military. Tony’s father started the company after WWII, and after his death Tony inherited the company, worth billions. Tony lives the life as a hard drinking, rich playboy ladies man, but he is also a genius who has invented many high-tech items for the company. Tony flies to Afghanistan to demonstrate a new weapons test to the army. On his way back to his plane, his convoy is attacked by terrorists, and Tony is wounded by a Stark Industries missile. Tony is captured and held hostage in a cave with Raza (Faran Tahir), a doctor who saves his life. The terrorists force Tony and Raza to reproduce the new destructive Jericho missile Tony was demonstrating from parts of other weapons. Instead, Tony decides to build a suit of armor with Razas help. The suit gives Tony the strength and protection to be able to escape the terrorists. Back in America, Tony builds a better suit of armor which gives him superhuman strength with the ability to fly. With the help of his personal assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard), Tony vows to protect the world as Iron Man
read all of our reviews below…
Andrew:
I admit it, I have zero knowledge of comic books. I had no idea who or what Iron Man even was until about a year ago when information about the movie started getting hyped on the nets. It just looked like an updated version of Disney’s The Rocketeer to me. But with ILM on the case, Robert Downey Jr. (RDJ) and Jeff Bridges in key roles, how could this be bad? If the hype on the net is any indication, it isn’t. But critics and fanboys have been wrong before. Case in point: Iron Man.
The movie is certainly not horrible. It’s entertaining enough for a couple of hours. Superhero becomes what he is from a mortal man; born out of fear. Some cool shit happens. Then an older, former mentor goes traitor and our hero and the bad guy duel it out to the death – both using the same skills learned. Oh yeah, and there’s a damsel in distress. Ring any bells? I’ll give you a hint: Christian Bale and Liam Neeson were in that movie.
The difference here is ILM is involved, so it has to have huge, awesome effects right… it does. Unfortunately they’re the same effect from last year’s summer blockbuster, Transformers. In fact, the final 15 minutes of Iron Man is like a shortened version of the last 30 minutes of Autobots vs. Decepticons. So if that’s your thing, hey, more power to you. Enjoy it. I was almost bored.
RDJ is great in the role as Tony Stark. This comes as no surprise to me whatsoever. RDJ is fabulous in everything he’s in. In fact, I’m inclined to label him as my favorite actor of all time. So yeah, he’s funny and dramatic and awesome in this. But what else is new? It’s too bad he’s focusing his time on something this shallow. Same thing goes for Terrence Howard – this movie is SO beneath him it hurts. But I guess everyone needs a paycheck.
But again, I didn’t hate the movie; though it sounds like I did. Most of the effects are well-done and the action sequences (the very few that there are) are fairly cool (especially the ones earlier on in the film). But for me, this was another comic book mash-up of cliche proportions in which I couldn’t care less about any of the characters. It was a decent Sunday night at the cinema, but it’s not one I ever care to repeat.
Dave:
As has been the tradition in my family for the past several years, the arrival of summer (Hollywood summer, that is) signifies a temporary end to my solo trips to the local multiplex. This year was no exception. So, in an attempt to give my wife a brief respite from her motherly duties, I loaded my two sons into the car and took them to see Iron Man.
Now, the danger of my seeing a movie with them is that I sometimes get caught up in their enthusiasm. Like most boys their age, both are suckers for thrills and action of all varieties, and they really get into a movie once it’s grabbed their attention. Sometimes, I’m immune to it (I couldn’t join in on the fun they were having with the first Fantastic Four film), but there are other instances when I find myself seeing a movie through their eyes, and I begin to lose sight of its flaws (as a worst-case scenario, I enter Eragon as exhibit A into the record). Usually, upon reflection, my fervor wanes, and all I’m left with is the memory of a deceptively entertaining suckfest. So, when both boys triumphantly proclaimed Iron Man to be their new favorite film of all time, I had to step back for a minute. Was it really as good as the experience felt, or is it yet another instance of the rose-colored glasses dropping in front of my eyes, followed almost immediately by the wool being pulled over them?
Nope. Not this time. Iron Man kicks ass in almost every conceivable way.
First and foremost, there’s Robert Downey Jr. If awards were handed out for casting choices, you could close the books on the competition right now. There is no actor better suited for a part than what I saw on display in this film. I knew Downey Jr. could handle the wiseass side of Tony Stark’s personality, no questions asked. He’s done so plenty of times before, in plenty of roles. What I wasn’t prepared for was how he brought so much more to the character. In Downey Jr., Tony Stark was witty (admittedly a normal feature of the above-mentioned wiseass trait, yet also witty on a level that went above and beyond this one), intelligent (you actually buy the fact he’s capable of creating this suit in a cave, with nothing but scraps to build upon), romantic (there are real sparks between him and Gwyneth Paltrow, yet another great casting choice) and ultimately disturbed (while it’s not dwelled upon too heavily, there’s little doubt that his Tony Stark begins the film as a closet alcoholic). For all the action, all the thrills, and all the special effects that go hand-in-hand with this type of fare, the success of each and every super-hero film hinges on the performance of the title character, and while it’s way too early to proclaim Iron Man to be the best of the bunch, I say with all confidence that Robert Downey Jr. turns in the best super-hero performance ever. Tony Stark is Iron Man, and Robert Downey Jr. is both of them…to perfection.
Of course, I have plenty to say about the remaining aspects of Iron Man; the ass-kicking special effects (especially thrilling when Iron Man takes to the skies), the other performances (aside form Downey Jr. and Paltrow, I was impressed with Jeff Bridges’ work as Obadiah Stane), and the action (I enjoyed both Middle Eastern firefights, yet wasn’t as impressed with the inevitable “final showdown” of the film), but I have to leave some space for my fellow Row Three writers to have their say.
However, I must offer one piece of advice in closing, which I present in all-caps to drive the point home. DO NOT LEAVE THE THEATER UNTIL THE ENDING CREDITS HAVE ROLLED. You will miss one hell of a cool surprise. Without going too deeply into it, let’s just say that if the final line uttered in Iron Man leaves you itching to see a sequel, there’s a roughly one-minute sequence following the credits that will have you screaming for it!
John:
So is Iron Man a bad movie… nope, is it a great movie… nope, is it a good movie… yes is it but it does not really offer anything new and at this point I need something new when I’m watching a superhero movie. If Iron Man was the first superhero movie I had seen I’d probably be ranting and raving about how great it is. Downey is near perfect as Tony Stark. Jeff Bridges is terrific as Obadiah Stane, Gwynneth Paltrow is good but really is not give too much to do and Terrence Howard is in much the same position as Gwynneth is.
Unfortunately, I do not have a whole lot to say about the movie. The action is good, the acting is good, the plot is good enough and the special effects are seamless. Overall though it really just felt like I’ve seen it before. If you are going to see it I say catch it in theatre just for the spectacle of it all but if you are starting to get a bit tired of superhero movies then I say skip it for now and throw it in on DVD when you want a good serviceable superhero movie.
Jonathan:
Let’s just say it: Iron Man is one of the finest superhero movies ever put together. It would be easy to go on and on about how Robert Downey Jr. took the movie to a whole other level, how he truly is nothing short of brilliant as Tony Stark, how I don’t even think an Oscar nomination is out of the question (alright, alright, it’s unlikely – it’s going to be Heath Ledger who gets the summer blockbuster Oscar bid, there’s my prediction, take note) – but if you’ve seen it, you’ll understand all of this. It’s possible I’m getting ahead of myself and caught up in all of the excitement surrounding the release, but after a day of reflection, I’m confident in my feelings.
Expectedly, this is all about the character. Tony Stark. A billionaire genius – arrogant, a womanizer, charming, witty, and lonely. His dialogue is quick, unbelievably wry, and fresh. Yet, it is the subtleties I loved about the character the most: the hinting at his alcoholism, the revelations of his loneliness through his conversations with his robots, his conflicting emotions and morals throughout the entire movie. I could probably write a fifty page dissertation on the awesomeness that was RDJ as Tony Stark. But as great as he is, the supporting cast all hold their own especially Jeff Bridges, who should keep the shaved head and funky beard look. And when did Gweneth Paltrow get so adorable?
Not so dissimilar to Batman Begins, while this movie is surely fantasy, director Jon Favreau keeps the movie as grounded in reality as possible. Favreau really put his heart and soul into the movie and it shows. It’s just pure fun, yet it never loses its brains and never strays into the territory of ridiculousness, like so many summer blockbusters. And while it is chock full of impressive special effects and has its fair share of action and explosions, they are there to serve a purpose and never feel over-the-top or needless.
As an origin story and one funded by studios intent on making money, there are obvious limitations on what can be done with the movie, but I rarely felt it was following such a formula, probably large in part due to just how much fun it was to watch and how well-written it was as an adaptation of the source. The story also touches on some very relevant issues, but thankfully never delves into the depths of being preachy, which it so easily could have.
Iron Man is fun. It’s funny. It’s thrilling. My last words: Robert Downey Jr. is officially the coolest man in Hollywood.
Kurt:
John Favreau took the paint-by-numbers approach to making Iron Man insofar that to colour too far out of the lines might take advantage of the two things the film have going for it. A) That the hero is older, jaded and egotistically suave Robert Downey Jr. and B) That there is a chance to make some commentary on the Military Industrial Complex which has come into even sharper in our Blackwater and Halliburton age. Alas, outside of the opening minutes (which are played broad and were over-emphasized in the marketing materials) the film has neither. The Middle-Eastern goons are silly and void of anything resembling Nuance. They are puppets to get the plot in motion – a plot that ends the same way that an alarming number of these films end – two CGI created cyborgs pummeling each other. Attempts to ground the film in a Batman Begins type ‘realism’ are ludicrous (making me wonder why comic book properties even attempt this) underscoring the problem with these types of pop-myths, whether it be comic books or a Deity-less Troy, midichlorians or blood infections explaining the nature of vampirism, why make a fantasy film and take out the fantastic?
But above all there is such a “been-there-done-that” feel about the film that all that is left is the pyrotechnics and the feeling the top bar can be achieved simply by narrative clarity, a delightful central performance and handsome production design (admittedly many of the big summer tentpoles lack this). There is wish-fulfillment on the go here, with Stark parading first around with fast cars and buxum blonds, and later in three different versions of the neat-o powersuit. But the film lacks any sense of wonder, or on the flip-side, anything vaguely resembling humanity. Humanizing the potentially divine (the flawed hero) is what comic books do best (at least that is what the opening and closing minutes of The Ice Storm taught me), and Ironman offers little of this, the enterprise being far more concerned with nods to the fanboys. Being faithful to the source material does not necessarily make a good adaptation.
On a personal note, one of the biggest distastes I had the with film were that many of the visual elements/scenes in the film: the tongue-in-cheek satire of corporations, the privatization of might, the egos of billionaire business tycoons and men-in-robot-suits was all done with a lot more verve in Paul Verhoeven’s Robocop. Wasn’t Iron Monger just a glorified ED209? The autotargetting hostage situation, the pull the man through the drywall, the awkward suit-movements all reminded me of a movie that was simply better at doing what it did at hero-making.
Iron Man feels like a calculated amalgamation of many of the Marvel A-list titles that had its edge watered down for the PG-13 set. Sure it may be a lot more coherent than Michael Bay’s Transformers, but it is equally lacking in its ambition beyond selling Burger King and Audi products and allowing folks to turn their brain off for a few hours. That may be enough for the season, but I am in a glass-half-empty frame of mind regarding both the narrative dead-end of the Superhero comicbook film and the kick-off-the-summer season.
Marina:
Perhaps it was the over saturation of marketing but expectations going into Iron Man were pretty high. Not only does it mark the start of summer movie season, it also stars one of my favourite actors working today: Robert Downey Jr..
Great banter and sexual tension, or at least as much as you can squeeze into a PG rated film, make RDJ and Gwyneth Paltrow’s performances stand out but Terrence Howard is surprisingly uncharismatic in the role as Stark’s straight laced friend. As for Jeff Bridges…not scary, not cynical, just completely indifferent.
The action sequences here are good but nothing particularly memorable and ultimately, that is the biggest flaw with the film: it’s simply not memorable. It has all of the workings of good entertainment: action sequences, a little comedy, a little romance, a whole lot of charisma from the leads but once the credits roll and the lights come up, it’s difficult to pinpoint one moment of excitement. Though unlike Transformers, Favreau’s film provides more substance than noise, he even manages to include some straightforward if fluffy commentary on the war, it lacks the wow factor. It’s painfully evident walking away that this is only the first part of a bigger story and really, that is another of Iron Man‘s drawbacks – it’s an origin story and that’s exactly what it feels like, a set up for bigger and better things to come.
Iron Man is solid entertainment but it fails to deliver on the hype. I hope Favreau and crew can amp the wattage enough to make the next entry a whole lot more memorable otherwise, we’re likely to have another Fantastic Four franchise on our hands.
Consensus: Looks like a “love it” or “hate it” film at first glance. But actually it was all across the board. It seems those of us planted in the third row either fell asleep, looked up with indifference, cheered their way through the whole thing or were angrily throwing gummi bears at the screen. So not surprisingly, a pretty average score is the ultimate conclusion.
What did YOU think of Iron Man?
Average score:
Watch the trailer:
Relevant Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile for Iron Man
A great little explanation from RDJ on why he did Iron Man from a long GQ article on him:
“Downey knows that when I ask “So what was it about Iron Man that interested you?” what I really mean is, “You became an actor for this? Plastic butt cheeks?”
“When Tobey Maguire and I were doing Wonder Boys, we went to see The Matrix, and that was a big deal,” he says. “I’ve known Keanu for ages. I watched the whole thing happen for him. Then I saw Tobey with his whole Spider-Man thing. And then I saw, in a different way, what Johnny did with the whole Pirates thing. You get to firmly embed yourself in the unconscious of the planet in a way that’s so clearly not important that you don’t have to take it all that seriously. I just thought it would be really fun not just to get to do this—or maybe a couple of these—but also to get to be endorsed by Burger King and Hasbro and Slurpee cups.”
If anyone in Hollywood deserves the recognition, fame, and opportunities that the success of something like Iron Man will bring, it’s RDJ.
Good find Jonathan. I may have to read that entire piece.
He got his wish then. The Product placement in Iron Man is insane in the same way I Robot and Transformers are. If he made Ironman for the sole reason because he can and he is above it, I’m not sure if I should applaud or damn him for it. Yes, very Robert Downey Jr…
Think of the drugs the BK money will buy. Oh the delicious flame broiled irony.
“I’m about as badass as a domesticated lynx can be. If we really gotta throw down, I’ll tear your eye sockets out and I’ll drag you up in the tree and we’ll do the whole fucking feline thing. But all things being equal, give me a bowl of milk and let me lick my fur and let me wax prolific on what it means to be a member of the cat family. Because it’s a big deal, and you don’t get to be me, and I do, so fuck you”
I think I have found my life mate.
Wait…is that from the GQ article?
As for the product placement – seriously? I only noticed the cars and BK.
Oh shit…and Apple.
I can only shake my head at what Kurt says suggesting ripping off Robocop, considering Iron Monger existed in the comics long before Verhoeven’s film… I’ve read enough arguments from ignorance attacking what will probably end up one of the top, if not the top, quality blockbuster, seemingly attacking the blockbuster for attacking blockbuster’s sake.
Its a rare case of truly not believing someone’s proposed opinion, a very cynical case of disappointment with a reviewer’s take, like someone isn’t being honest with me. I’m honestly very let down.
And all this from someone who really doesn’t care about Iron Man. It’s kind of about principle. I may actually need a week long RowThree vacation.
That’s just it Goon; Iron Man was a comic first. Robocop was a movie first. So when IM was made, it ripped off a lot of scenes (almost directly) from RC. I’m not going to defend the position too much. I thought it was a fairly boring re-hash of Batman Begins meets Transformers.
I’m glad people liked it and I guess I can see why – it looks nice and RDJ rules (as always). But I don’t see the 95% on Rotten Tomatoes or the 4.5/5 star reviews I’m seeing everywhere as very honest. I mean seriously… 4.5/5 stars? So this is better (or as good as) the likes of I’m Not There, No Country, Juno (gag), Zodiac, etc. etc?
“So when IM was made, it ripped off a lot of scenes (almost directly) from RC.”
I’m sorry, but thats just absurd. You might as well say next that the Fantastic Four movie, p.o.s. that it is, ripped off the Incredibles.
I’m just flabbergasted that I can’t trust a review I read on RT.
Yeah, Kurt’s review isn’t really fair but Im gonna give him a pass on it. I remember him saying earlier that he wished the film would focus on Tony Stark and not Iron Man. A comment that is both crazy and understandable.
Basically, he’s saying that super heroes aren’t his genre, which is a valid position.
Personally I get a kick out of super hero films, I don’t think Iron is one of the best but I think it’s a fun time at the movies. I also don’t think the trend in the genre is towards realism. I think it’s towards showing us the inner workings of things that have always been opaque or mystified.
Also, I think this film did a good job of showing us stuff we haven’t seen before. That actually put it over the line for me entertainment wise.
The movie definitely does not deserve to be compared to Transformers.
ps. “Oh Shit and Apple” is a good catch phrase.
>> I mean seriously… 4.5/5 stars? So this is better (or as good as) the likes of I’m Not There, No Country, Juno (gag), Zodiac, etc. etc?
4 stars sound about right to me. Never saw Juno or No Country becuase they look uninteresting to me, and I hated Zodiac. Well “hated” is too strong, Bored is a better word for it. Talk about a meandering pointless plot! Glad it was a rental. After so much hype about that movie I was very dissapointed with it.
Anyway, I’m sort of in agreement with Kurt about the climatic battle in IM. In another thread I mentioned my dissapointment with the new Hulk fighting a “symmetrical” opponent (the Abomination) and they did the same thing in IM. Battling just a bigger, tougher version of the hero is not very interesting unless there are significant differences between them (the various Terminator models etc.)
A classic foe like Mandarin, who has ten mystic rings of power with different abilities, would have provided a nice variety of challenges and obstacles for the techology-based Iron Man.
“I don’t see the 95% on Rotten Tomatoes or the 4.5/5 star reviews I’m seeing everywhere as very honest. I mean seriously… 4.5/5 stars? So this is better (or as good as) the likes of I’m Not There, No Country, Juno (gag), Zodiac, etc. etc?”
This is especially unfair. Once again, Tomatometer is based on percentage of people who liked or disliked it. Also unfair is judging it on such relative terms. By doing this you’re reinforcing every unfair critic who judges comedies and action films by harsher standards because Anchorman doesn’t look like Lawrence of Arabia. At this particular time I’m kind of sick of this, frankly, somewhat elitist attitude towards popular films. If these kind of reactions had been made following a successful weekend for say, “Bad Boys 2″, it might be easier to swallow, however considering that this is the first blockbuster of the summer and it has been successful, it honestly seriously, totally in fact feels like anti-Hollywood angst blowing its load on an unfair target.
It feels weird to be in the position of defending Hollywood, however an attack on this film of all the ones that are to come this summer, feels like a very poor leg to stand on, an ‘us vs them’ call to action rather than honest critiquing. I flatly don’t trust what I’m reading here and again, am disappointed.
Oh.. on the whole, IM was a blast to watch, with no real “cringe moments” for me. The audience I saw ti with loved it as well (the Arclight cinema dome in LA on Sunset blvd)
I mean, Andrew, remember this? I mean if we’re going to pull out relative scoring as an issue…
http://www.moviepatron.com/moviereviews/t/transformers.html
It seems you’re more on board against TF now, however again, simply reading this feels like a ‘wont get fooled again’ dishonest reaction. I hate constantly using that phrase, making some attack against your review integrity, but that is my honest appraisal and reaction to what I read here… is there such a thing a ‘review activism’, because a couple of these reviews feel like that to me.
i am NOT asking for a passing grade on Iron Man from anyone. i’m just left wondering and confused why I believe your TF review so much more than I believe your IM review…
Goon.. is this the first time you realized Kurt was a film snob? I could tell halfway through the first podcast I listened too, so I take his opinions with a grain of salt since I know he’s looking through that “filter”
(No offense to meant to Kurt by the way – the balance between Andrew and Kurt’s various interests and film aesthetics makes the podcast great to listen to)
Oh, Kurts always been a snob
– I’ve poked at him for everything from trashing Departed being nominated to not seeing Enchanged…
however Kurt is not the “I want to wring your freaking neck” snob that I get on say, Filmspotting. Kurt has a polite self deprecating sense of humor about himself, doesn’t treat his opinions as facts, and actually rants nowhere near as loudly and rudely from his soapbox as say… er… I do.
He’s also smarter than them. Way smarter. I respect Kurt a whole hell of a lot, and thats why I became kind of a MoviePatron/RowThree addict. I started listening to the show relating a lot more to Kurt than Andrew. I think thats more or less switched over the year though…
Campea’s tastes are more populist than R3′s, except he treats his opinions more like facts unless he’s cornered, and so in a way of speaking i actually consider him much more of a snob than anyone here.
…
Yes, I looked at my Transformers review tonight before you did, just to see if I was being hypocritical. While I think the 3.5/5 is a bit high, I stick by pretty much everything I wrote in that review.
Also, I’m not really attacking Iron Man itself. I’m just sort of indifferent to it. What I’m attacking is the HUGE amount of praise the film is getting. I just don’t see what the big deal about it is. I mean, we had flying/fighting robots last year and the year before and the year before (Stealth). The story is shallow and takes the safe route when it could be delving into some interesting things. It takes great actors like Terrence Howard and reduces him to almost nothing. Gwynneth Paltrow was horrible in this movie (although she looked damn good). And Jeff Bridges, well, I’m a big fan and I think he worked alright for this movie. But it wasn’t anything really special – especially when he climbs into ANOTHER Iron Man suit (ooo – so original!).
Yes, RDJ is awesome, but I completely expected that – so for that to be pretty much the only really great thing about the movie is too bad.
As for this elitist crap, that’s not very fair. I do admit to having become more snobbish over the last year and a half. I’ve realized that I like movies that are different. I want something new. Something for me to think about or chew on and/or hit a particular niche for my personality (zombies, vamps, apocalypse stuff). When it comes to comic book superhero movies, I just don’t get it. They’re all the same with a bunch of bloated CGI to mask the shallowness and boringness for the lack of story/character depth.
But I’m far from Elitist. I loved Enchanted (something new and interesting); I loved Doomsday (an homage/upgrade to some of my favorite genre pieces); I liked Cloverfield quite a bit. Heck, I even liked Jumper more than the average person (it was a new and unique idea – a man flying around in a space suit is not new or interesting or unique).
Goon has gotten to the point where he simply refuses to believe it when people have a different opinion? Seems the wrong route to go in an argument, but it does defuse the whole thing I guess.
“You might as well say next that the Fantastic Four movie, p.o.s. that it is, ripped off the Incredibles.”
It very well could be for Kurt. He is a big fan (I seem to recall) of the phrase ‘a film is not what it is about, but how it is about it’, meaning that the way they shot the Jeff Bridges robot is more important than the robot itself, and that could very well be 100% ripped off from Robocop. There was a couple of moments that made me think of Robocop in Iron Man as well – no matter how old the subject matter was. I mean just because WW2 happened before the time Dr. Strangelove takes place, it doesn’t mean that Steven Spielberg didn’t rip off the action scenes in Dr. Strangelove for the opening of Saving Private Ryan.
FYI, I saw Iron Man monday morning, and had to review it by thursday evening. My mind was made up well before I had any clue wether or not it would be a succesful movie.
As for Kurt being a snob, I hardly think so. A little pretentious when it comes to treating his colorful japanese anime-wankfests as masterpieces of cinema, but merely a slightly misguided, wellread and kindly mannered film person would be a more fitting description.
“I’m glad people liked it and I guess I can see why – it looks nice and RDJ rules (as always). But I don’t see the 95% on Rotten Tomatoes or the 4.5/5 star reviews I’m seeing everywhere as very honest. I mean seriously… 4.5/5 stars? So this is better (or as good as) the likes of I’m Not There, No Country, Juno (gag), Zodiac, etc. etc?”
Maybe I’m just generous with my star ratings. I gave No Country and Zodiac 5/5, so for me, no, Iron Man was not better than these movies. Have yet to see I’m Not There. As for Juno, well…you got me on that one!
Zodiac 5/5?
wow.. we saw 2 different movies…
I’ll wear the ‘slightly misguided’ tag with pride. And yes, the Robocop things were not in mythology or narrative. But in visual motifs and some individual scenes. One or two would be forgivable…both movies center around hero-building involving a man-in-suit and a large corporation, similarities are bound to be there, but after the 7th or 8th notice…yie.
Is it a snob to actively want something “more” each time I go to the flickers? If so, guilty as charged.
And yes, The Fantastic Four (film) is mighty crappy compared to The Incredibles, which of course owes a lot to the Fantastic Four Comics.
“Goon has gotten to the point where he simply refuses to believe it when people have a different opinion? ”
Do you take every word anyone says at face value? I know for a fact you didn’t trust every word out of Campea’s mouth as his honest opinion. That is my judgment of what I’ve read here based on what I know about the people on this site. Whether its wrong or right, it is what it is.
No Andrew, I don’t think of you as an elitist, I was calling the prevailing opinion that is out there in general putting comedies and action at harsher review standards elitist. Regardless, in order to preserve my R3 opinion, I’m skipping the current podcast, pretending Iron Man doesn’t even exist, and just moving on to the next crop.
“both movies center around hero-building involving a man-in-suit and a large corporation, similarities are bound to be there, but after the 7th or 8th notice…yie.”
I suppose if we’re going to call something a rip off for cosmetic details that are inherent to Iron Man’s source material, it is now also ripping off Shaquille O’Neal’s “Steel” too?
(Plotline of “Steel”: John Henry Irons designs weapons for the military. When his project to create weapons that harmlessly neutralize soldiers is sabotaged, he leaves in disgust. When he sees gangs are using his weapons on the street, he uses his brains and his Uncle Joe’s junkyard know-how to fight back, becoming a real man of “steel.”)
Can we have a “Steel” screening and unfairly slight the new acclaimed Hollywood blockbusters as derivitave muddled affairs to show those suits we recognize it when things look like other things?
“Is it a snob to actively want something “more” each time I go to the flickers? If so, guilty as charged.”
I suppose it depends on your definition of “more”. I am satisfied with effort, enthusiasm, and will gladly turn off my brain to have a good time. If “more” means expecting biting satire out of “Enchanted”, yeah, that may be a little bit snobby
If Ironman is ripping off Steel, then Favreau and company really did their research!
I just feel that when writing about a movie, it is always interesting to put it in the context of other films, especially when similarities are noted in terms of structure, story telling and occasionally plot-points. The culture is constantly evolving/devolving, and when new films based on properties with extensive mythology borrow (seemingly without purpose – or do so ineffectively) old films – for example, War Inc. slavishly and inelegantly riffing on several Kubrick films – I believe it is worthwhile calling the film out for it.
And to cap that off, I’ve got a question for you. YOU HAVE AT SOME POINT ACTUALLY WATCHED STEEL?
“YOU HAVE AT SOME POINT ACTUALLY WATCHED STEEL?”
When VHS was on its death knell, one summer I bought a shitload of 2.99 used crappy vids looking for those secretly hilarious bombs. Steel was bad bad, Kazaam on the other hand is mostly hilariously watchably bad.
“I just feel that when writing about a movie, it is always interesting to put it in the context of other films, especially when similarities are noted in terms of structure, story telling and occasionally plot-points.”
…and yet if a director can do it to the tastes of a critic, like Tarantino does, apologetics are the order of the day.
Once again, doing this sort of stand pat call to action vs. a source materialled Iron Man, and not one of the many surely lesser blockbusters to come, just seems so extremely silly to me that I don’t know what else to say. I think at the end of the day, the “Iron Man” you want to see is probably not what the fans (including Favreau, who I found out asolutely is one) wanted, and if that made this much money and opened the blockbuster season, it would probably still get picked to pieces anyways.
Have you seen Favreau’s other films? I hear “Zathura” is fun but wonder if since it may not offer “more” that it’d just be called a Jumanji rip off, or if you’d find a way to liken “Elf” to say, “the Cowboy Way”.
I own Zathura, I’ve not watched it though. I fully intended to sit down with ELF this christmas and the kids and wife did, but i was off doing other things.
I do like the way Favreau repurposed Reservoir Dogs (repurposing a repurposed film) in Swingers (even if it was done a bit clumsily). Swingers was a really enjoyable film, but I can’t say that I’m overly compelled by Favreau as a director…
and I say again fanboys interest when it comes to representations of their comics into films appeals to the lowest common denominator, the film need only reproduce it, and they establish this ceiling and when a film like Iron Man hits this ceiling the hyperbole runs wild and catches the ire of other people.
The snob has a different ceiling altogether, he does not require that a film conform to something (and be self-contained) but that it expand and challenge conventions and challenge him/herself in the process. When his/her hyperbole runs wild it catches the ire of the fanboys, because THEY HAVE DIFFERENT MEASURES OF VALUE.
Goon will forever argue with me or Kurt or Henrik so long as this conflation of the two expectations are made. Fanboys would do better to squabble amongst themselves in a 1-5 rating system, and the snobs can articulate the subtle, personal distinctions of their 6 or 0 rating, because it either affects you or it doesn’t. Occassionaly the snob can slum it and enjoy a film for film’s sake, and then work within the 1-5 framework of the fanboys, but only if the formula imposed is not too insulting to their intelligence.
I cannot speak of a fanboy being personally affected in the way of a 6, but I guess it is possible.
and for the record, I am not an apologist for Tarantino, I feel far too often his films strive to appeal to the fanboys, the fetishists. his films may sit at the higher end of the 1-5 scale but within context that ain’t saying much.
I do like the way Favreau repurposed Reservoir Dogs (repurposing a repurposed film) in Swingers (even if it was done a bit clumsily).
It was supposed to be clumsy, it was a sight gag. He did a far more subtle reference later when he recreated the Scorsese extended shot entrance into the club from Good Fellas.
I’m still waiting for Kurt to explain how he can pitch a fit about I Am Legend not remaining faithful and respectful to its source material (which he hasn’t even read) yet harp on Iron Man for doing that very thing.
“…putting comedies and action at harsher review standards…”
I don’t put any films at a harsher standard. Yes, you have to look at a film for what it’s trying to accomplish, but I don’t hold one by a higher standard than others (I don’t think I do anyway). A movie is either good or it’s not. I like Batman and Batman Begins. They try something new. But for superhero movies, once is enough. As soon as the same things are done a second time, they’re just boring. Spiderman 3 is a great example – what a piece of shit. The final act in Iron Man is just boring. The best parts were RDJ bantering with his machines and subordinates. When that’s the best thing about your superhero movie, that’s trouble in my book.
They try something new. But for superhero movies, once is enough.
Yet you are salivating at a 4th trip with Indiana Jones.
I mean, if derivative is what you are judging on….
“…and they establish this ceiling and when a film like Iron Man hits this ceiling the hyperbole runs wild and catches the ire of other people.”
thats so incredibly insulting. Hyperbole? I’m seeing so much here of people reviewing a RottenTomatoes score, reviewing a genre, reviewing fans, and not near enough reviewing of the actual film. So save me your hyperbole crap. What I see a shitload of is resentment that the highest RT scored film of the year is a comic book film, as if someone has just shat in their drink. Get off it.
I listed hyperbole coming from both fanboys and snobs, but naturally you overlooked that. I have already reviewed the film, I gave a point by point breakdown of how it keeps conservatively to a formula because someone had challenged me to the same sort of oversight, suggesting I was talking in broad generalizations about the film. Of course not even the point by point is good enough for the fanboy. The accusation was that I didn’t know the source material and that would somehow justify it. Hence my critique of a kind of fanboy mentality, and later, a snob mentality.
But as you were Goon.
Matt,
There’s a difference between formulaic and a nostalgia factor from a proven franchise that is pretty much unanimously hailed as terrific. If there were ten other movies over the last few years riffing on the Indiana Jones theme, then I would rip those movie apart too for not doing anything new and just ripping off Indy.
Interesting debates .. My 2 cents: For me, Iron Man totally rocked (4/5 if I had to score it, I’m saving 4.5 and 5 for a film that’ll probably never happen).
The question I guess is “Why, did I think it rocked?”
Firstly, I had little to do with the hype, I mean Yes I saw it as soon as it came out, but that’s more a habit rather than hype getting the better of me.
Secondly, though I’ve never read Iron Man, I’ve read enough of the Marvel world to know it’s going to be ‘fun & exploding fluff’ rather than ‘deep and mysterious’ like DC, or other non-comic films. So, partly I think it’s the expectation factor.
Then there is also the sort of thing Dave mentioned: “deceptively entertaining suckfest”, though he’s actually all for the film like myself, I’m picking up this point because I think it is interesting. To me, even if a film is flawed, if it’s doused in deception that allows me to feel entertained, then they’ve done their job & I have no issue with it.
In that respect, in never occurred to me that it ‘is’ almost Batman Begins again. I can see that now, but hey I guess so were the comics … & it entertained, so I don’t care. But for those of you who noticed it while there, I guess it means more ‘entertainment’ was needed, or it wasn’t aimed at you ..
I think I’ll leave with what we’re all universally in agreement with : that RDJ is awesome then, so that’s pretty much it.
I’m still waiting for Kurt to explain how he can pitch a fit about I Am Legend not remaining faithful and respectful to its source material (which he hasn’t even read) yet harp on Iron Man for doing that very thing.
The Source material for Ironman spans 40 years, the source material for I Am Legend is a novella. This is about an apples to watermelon comparison if there ever was one. I Am Legend is a flip-side story about the evolution of the species. Ironman (if it is even possible to package 40 years worth of stories into a single sentence, which it isn’t) is about a guy who attempts to atone for filling the world up with weapons (although the movie seems to be not against weapons building, but rather how they are distributed, something that IRONMAN The Movie never bothers to get to when the climax comes.
When I’m talking faith, I’m talking essence, tone and whatnot. The I Am Legend with Will Smith basically ignored everything, didn’t it? And my beef with Ironman was the lacklustre execution of the thing, having little to do with the story details and geek-trivia – something that is all-pervading in the world of 24/7 web conversation on the minutiae of blockbusters that spends millions of words discussing the paint job a transforming 18-wheeled robot.
ANDREW -”They try something new. But for superhero movies, once is enough.”
MATT -”Yet you are salivating at a 4th trip with Indiana Jones. I mean, if derivative is what you are judging on….”
Zing! Swish!
No Kurt, I would say the difference between I Am Legend and Iron Man, is with Legend you care about the source material, you have a history with it, and you liked it better then the film. Had it sustained some of the source material better you may have praised the film higher because of your vested interest in the source material. It ceased to be a stand-alone experience for you and inevitably becomes a dialogue with another medium. With I Am Legend you are part of the festishist crowd, but with Iron Man you are outside the fetish and can see it for what it is as a stand-alone film.
Some may complain that I do not seem to let films ‘stand alone’ but always import some formula atop of it, with which I would pre-emptively disagree. I try to give any film I pay to see the benefit of the doubt and experience it as it directs me to, the film showing certain aspects of story to the exclusion of others, emphasizing certain plot points etc. The film tells me how to think about it on one level and then ultimately there is the clash or compliment with my own thoughts. If the formula is forefront in the stories thought, I cannot ignore it. If it makes me sleepy I cannot ignore that either.
Random, unorgainzed thoughts:
This is one of those “debates” that will never go anywhere. I can’t see anyone changing their mind on this. I knew Kurt wouldn’t like it, but I admit I’m a little surprised Andrew didn’t enjoy this more (and the comparisons to Transformers – a terribly written and completely shallow and characterless movie that I would have trouble giving 2/5 – is just plain silly besides the fact that they both have CGI action).
My 4.5/5 puts it on level with some of the best films ever made. Do I think it’s one of the best films ever made? Well, not really, no, not when compared to the likes of movies I’d generally give this type of score to, but for what it WAS? Yes, I think it’s one of the best summer action blockbusters out there (and I feel the same way about Batman Begins). This inability to interpret is one of the faults of using a rating system.
And yes, I grew up reading and watching superhero stuff… so I have my biases, just like Andrew and Kurt and Dave and all of us have our own biases that change how we view this movie.
@Johnathan
“My 4.5/5 puts it on level with some of the best films ever made. Do I think it’s one of the best films ever made? Well, not really, no, not when compared to the likes of movies I’d generally give this type of score to, but for what it WAS? Yes”
My point about there being a ceiling for this type of film exactly! I would give Kill Bill a 4/5 if I was going by this limited scope of ‘was I entertained’.
and I agree with the idea that we all have biases, but certain biases can be grouped because there is a larger social aspect to it, and the fanboy is a clear example of this, as is the ‘academic’ approach to cinema.
I know we have disagreed a lot along this endless thread Jonathan but I could not agree more.
except that it COULD go somewhere if people recognized this distinction.
I recognize the distinction rot. It all comes down to this with Iron Man (for me)…
It was fairly boring. I stared at the screen with a blank face for the better part of 2 hours. Listen to the Cinecast to hear our thoughts more accurately described.
If you had a blast with it, terrific. Everyone’s happy for you. I didn’t. Not sure that it needs more examination and exploration than that. I just felt I’d seen all this before and though RDJ was pretty good, the rest was generic and not interesting to me. Simple as that.
It has nothing to do with fanboys, pre-conceived notions, elitism, Campea, source material, etc. I simply was not thoroughly entertained. Again, simple as that. It had some nice moments, but nothing for me in the film screamed, “write something really positive about this!” Likewise, nothing really screams, “write something really negative about this,” either. It simply was what it was… which added nothing to my yearning for cinematic knowledge and maturation.
Oh yes and Jonathan… are you serious? You didn’t see any comparisons to Transformers? The last 20 minutes or so is comprised of two giant robots throwing each other around, banging into busses, firing missiles at one another and flying around. Not to mention the way they are able to slightly change shape is pretty reminiscent of how the transformers move.
“I’m seeing so much here of people reviewing a RottenTomatoes score, reviewing a genre, reviewing fans, and not near enough reviewing of the actual film.”
It’s a hard film to review. Nothing about it stands out one way or the other. Here’s a translation of the last paragraph of my review of Iron Man, which is concerned with the film.
Iron Man is an actionmovie of the modern school, and you can’t help but sit there and think about how much creative talent that has gone to waste to make a movie like this. Iron Man is a study in how meaningless film can be, how much hard work and effort that can be wasted in the pursuit of forgetfullness and indifference. You’re afraid to offend anyone, so you don’t say anything – and you decide to spend 186 million dollars on that. In the end I can only recommend that you stay at home and put on Black Sabbaths classic tune instead – it’s a far greater experience.
As for the honesty bit, the difference between somebody like Campea and anybody posting or commenting here, is that we have no financial interest in being liked/disliked/stir up controversy/be flagrant. I don’t see any motivation for not being honest, I just think it’s you that can’t imagine something you like that is ALSO backed by the all-powerful Tomatometer is actually pretty bad. It just comes down to wether or not you settle for effeciency and solidity.
@Andrew,
using a phrase you tend to use on the cinecast, count the times you ‘roll your eyes’ while watching Iron Man, its that that I see as one recognizing the formula of the film as off-putting, and what ultimately makes it unentertaining for those of us who are not indoctrinated by the source material, and see the pantomime of so many other films that came before it. The difference is I do not roll my eyes, I drop my lids.
There is a reason the smash boom bam and cool gadgetry are not eliciting more than a yawn from us… it has nothing to do with a lack of spectacle.
A little late to the ‘party’, but Walter Chaw finally posted his review over at film freak central. I don’t often link to reviews of others, but WC is certainly my favourite critic to read; suffice it to say I wouldn’t mind having his ability to write.
http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/ironman.htm
>> http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/ironman.htm
Christ what a bunch of pseudo intellectual leftist tripe. Seriously.. what the hell is worng with that guy? I never knew it was possible to so utterly shoehorn one’s own political agenda and personal predilictions into a review of simple summer superhero action movie. That review just screams to me “I am a bitter, unhappy liberal”
Bet that guy is a blast to be around at family get togethers like Thanksgiving – “How can we possibly celibrate this horrible catastrophe of the evil white man destroying the proud and peaceful natives!! Shame on you for eating turkey and being happy on this grievious day! America is evil!!!”
yawn…
FilmFreak has to be a joke site. It can’t be real.
I’m guessing “Walter Chaw” is actually a pseudonym for Chomsky or Hugo Chávez. The Daily Kos must be paying his server and ISP bills.
Worst. film critic. ever.
Bet that guy is a blast to be around at family get togethers like Thanksgiving – “How can we possibly celibrate this horrible catastrophe of the evil white man destroying the proud and peaceful natives!! Shame on you for eating turkey and being happy on this grievious day! America is evil!!!”
You mean like the fabulous Christina Ricci scene in THE ICE STORM (http://www.rowthree.com/2008/03/18/finite-focus-grace-the-ice-storm/). No, Chaw does tend to have a personal mission to make film criticism both personal and pointed. His mission is often to out casual racism quite overtly on display in mainstream multiplex cinema, and tends to be more passionate about cinema than your average print critic. He may be the thinking mans Outlaw Vern. His review of XXX2 (the Ice Cube Spy film, http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/xxxstateoftheunion.htm) is positively classic, as is his review of 28 Weeks Later… (http://filmfreakcentral.net/dvdreviews/28weekslater.htm) and the amusing take on The Da Vinci Code (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/davincicode.htm)
Actually I have to admit it takes far more effort than I can come up with to find subtext in a film like Iron Man. I’m not really a fan of shoehorn politics, though I of course tolerate it. To me it is far too easy to seek out ones preconceptions in images, and Lord knows people like Tarantino make a Where’s Waldo of their aesthetics. Every film has an agenda, has some kind of thought consecrated in its structure but those things that cannot be ostensively shown, are brought to it by our own preconceptions and should be recognized as such. Not to say our opinions are bad, they are essential, but distinct from the film itself.
I’m pretty sure I got the wrong audience here, and that subtlety of meaning is not considered a virtue. Broadstrokes it is, Good. Evil. Awesome. Sucks.
>>I’m pretty sure I got the wrong audience here, and that subtlety of meaning is not considered a virtue. Broadstrokes it is, Good. Evil. Awesome. Sucks.
Yep. Keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate, and I’ll keep my chocolate out of your peanut butter. We are talking comic book movies, not political activism.
If I went to a movie like Iron Man, and the director jammed a bunch of anti-american leftist crap down my throat I’d be seriously pissed off, just like if someone went to see something like Rendition or Redacted hoping to see America portrayed as evil warmongers, and then suddenly a superhero jumps into the scene and saved the day.
Necron_99 your comments are an embarrasment to yourself and the nation you so adamently defend.
It’s safe to say Iron Man has no intentions of saying anything to anyone. That means that nobody will feel annoyed with it, or put off by it. It seems people are saying that this is a quality when talking about a movie with a high marketingbudget. Why they choose to believe something like this I admit to not being able to wrap my head around.
>>You mean like the fabulous Christina Ricci scene in THE ICE STORM (http://www.rowthree.com/2008/03/18/finite-focus-grace-the-ice-storm/). No, Chaw does tend to have a personal mission to make film criticism both personal and pointed.
LOL Bingo!!! That was a funny scene.. in a movie. But there are people like that in real life, and Chaw strikes me as one of them. Yes he writes well, but I simply cannot take anyone seriously when their review of Forgetting Sarah Marshall includes the following:
———
You could try to figure out how it is that Judd Apatow has parlayed his newfound hitmaker status into a cottage industry of filthy family-values flicks that fall lock-step behind one another while increasingly raising suspicions that what they’re really preaching is ultra-conservative (chastity, pro-life, anti-fag) all the way down the line.
———
WTF!!? Must pick my jaw up off the floor….
To a man with only a hammer, the universe presents only nails. Chaw sees “evil conservatives” and hatred and bigotry aroudn every corner and in every movie. Wait.. I though liberals ran Hollywood? How many directors and actors are republicans? 1 or 2 percent?
>> Necron_99 your comments are an embarrasment to yourself and the nation you so adamently defend.
Coming from you, I take that as the highest compliment, since you are so enlightened and progressive, what with you being European and all.
At least you won’t hear me use phrases equivalent of “anti-american leftist crap”. Is it crap because it’s leftist, or crap because it’s anti-american. What does anti-american and leftist have to do with eachother anyway? WHO CARES IT’S UNPATRIOTIC!
Actually, Ironman is comparable to Transformers in another way besides the CGI robots pummelling each other thru buildings – it’s very pro-military (remember Stark post-crisis-of-faith seems more interested in having the weapons in wrong hands, not against weapons in the first place – he loves the toys. All of this is reminiscent of Michael Bay’s fetishism of military aesthetics.
Matt Stone and Trey Parker took hilarious pot-shots at Bay and his ‘on-screen-politics’ in TEAM AMERICA (America – Fuck! Yea!), I wonder if Ironman’s similar attitude of superior Americans gunning down card-board-cut-out, faceless, middle-eastern villains before simply forgetting about them to move on to its own narcissism (the real enemy is us!) will get a volley or two thrown at it in South Park
Not going to get sucked into a pointless debate with you about politics Henrik. If you honestly don’t understand the relationship between the far-left and anti-americanism, google those keywords. I already made the mistake of debating with you once over the liklihood that distant aliens would know about H20. God it’s embarrasing to even type that.
You don’t respect my comments and views and I dont respect yours. Let’s leave it at that.
What’s wrong with being pro-military? You write about it like it’s a bad thing?
Are you suprised that a freaking COMIC BOOK MOVIE doesn’t have the time or inclintaion to depict arab “freedom fighters” as three dimensional, fully explored character studies of humanity. And didn’t Iron Man come back to SAVE the villagers from being killed by the bad guys? Didn’t the arab scientist SAVE iron man and help him build his suit? What are films not supposed to have bad guys? is that off-limits? Exactly how full developed is the SHIELD character for that matter?
Iron Man is a weapons tycoon… exactly how is he not supposed to use his superior weaponry? In the original comic books he was fighting in VietNam, but I’m sure people would be pissed off if they used Asians as the “bad guys” There’s just no way to win. I guess Nazis are the only people left we are now allowed to sterotype as mindless evil killers.
While Iron Man wasn’t as blatant about it as Transformers, Kurt is right. I guess that’s the major separating the two, Transformers is blatant about all the bullshit it contains, while Iron Man does a better job of smoothing it out to pull everybody along for the ride.
And I’m sorry for trying to call you out Necron_99. Obviously america = far right. I guess rowthree.com wouldn’t be a true website unless it had its resident morons with strange monikers. No offense.
It’s not that Iron Man used folks from the Middle East as the villians, it is how embarrassingly ignorant the film goes about using them. It is pretty insulting to the viewer of the film to pay the barest of lip-service then pointedly move away from any sort of potential edge.
>> I guess rowthree.com wouldn’t be a true website unless it had its resident morons…
Pot, meet kettle
Obviously Europe = far left.
And what’s wrong with using a screen name from a movie I loved as a kid? This IS a movie site, no?
“Obviously america = far right.” For the uninitiated, this was meant as sarcasm, also known as the lowest form of wit. Guess I can’t even pull that off.
There is no Europe vs. America paradigm. I called you out on calling liberalism anti-american, which is ridiculous.
“Disagreement gives strength. Any nation in agreement is weak, and potentially deadly” – Poul Henningsen
>> Obviously america = far right.” For the uninitiated, this was meant as sarcasm, also known as the lowest form of wit. Guess I can’t even pull that off.
There is no Europe vs. America paradigm. I called you out on calling liberalism anti-american, which is ridiculous.
Want to respond… must resist the temptation to get sucked in… Must look for a tall glass of water instead.. hopefully aquaphobic aliens aren’t around..
“Yep. Keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate, and I’ll keep my chocolate out of your peanut butter. We are talking comic book movies, not political activism.”
well done Necron, you don’t even know when someone is agreeing with you on the issue of keeping politics out of it. but rather your “you are either with us or against us” mentality was in opposition to my suggesting there be subtlety to meaning of the discussion… I guess your chocolate is the ‘broadstrokes’ I was kidding about. lets keep everything simple and undiluted, lets look at everything at a surface value and assume everyone else is a moron because they cannot see what is so painfully obvious of your ‘right to bear ignorance’.
Excerpts from Devin Faraci’s rant on fanboys over at CHUD (http://chud.com/articles/articles/14136/1/THE-DEVIN039S-ADVOCATE-I-AM-NOT-A-FANBOY/Page1.html)
I’m not naming names, but tell me this does not sound familiar:
“What really sets a fanboy apart, though, is that he will not let go of his childhood.”
“Fanboys will flock to movie web sites, but I don’t think they really like movies all that much. They have a very small number of films that they’re interested in every year, and they’re mostly released between May and August. The fanboy may find a prestige picture at the end of the year worth getting excited about, but it’s always because of a connection to a fanboy favorite, whether it be an actor who has been in a fanboy movie or a director who has gone on the record liking comic books.”
“The odd thing about fanboys is that while they don’t really like movies all that much and they only care about their own particular films, they get really up in arms about those films being taken seriously”
“Ask a nerd why he loves something that’s marginal or dweeby or odd and he’ll likely be able to tell you. Nerds, it turns out, are not just self-aware, they think about their interests. Fanboys, when asked the same thing, will say that it’s ‘cool.’”
“A nerd will get excited to talk about a favorite movie with you – they’ll probably be able to tell you about the film’s place in the history of the genre, the director’s filmography, it’s relation to the world in which it was released and maybe even the political subtexts at play – but the fanboy, desperate to cling to his 11 year old’s vision of the world, will lash out at any deeper discussion (except for humorous gay subtext. They’ll go nuts for that)”
“And like Biblical literalists, fanboys have a set of beliefs that are set in stone and that cannot be changed. It’s this aspect that allows both crazy religious people and fanboys to be excruciatingly judgmental, even against things they don’t understand. Religious morons don’t understand evolution, so they rail against it. Fanboys don’t understand movie making so they get all up in arms when an adaptation dares to deviate from the holy text of the comic or cartoon.”
Amen to that.
Sweet mother of Gawd. Rot’s turned his fanboy rantings into Revenge of the Nerds before my very eyes.
Tou-fuckin-che!
Problem is I do not really identify with the nerds either, and I think there are just as many nerds here as fanboys. To me a nerd is too preoccupied with the arcana of the film, its still largely spoken of in commodity terms.
I’m that rare species of filmgoer who wants more than to be entertained or to classify commodities, but wants to be moved and in the process perhaps learn something about myself and the larger world. There are a lot of people who pay lip-service to this but I can honestly say most of them cannot get beyond their academic hang-ups to even start, and I’m not sure what I dislike more, the fanboy mentality or the academic.
“I’m that rare species of filmgoer who wants more than to be entertained or to classify commodities, but wants to be moved and in the process perhaps learn something about myself and the larger world.”
I’d consider myself somewhere in that category as well. I simply don’t know enough about film history to be able to make certain connections but I also want more from my movies that blow them up action. I too want something that moves me, be it positively or negatively and sometimes, seeing a bad film that really pisses me off is nearly as good as seeing a good film. What I don’t want or need from movies is complacency.
“most of them cannot get beyond their academic hang-ups to even start,” That is certainly the goal, but I must admit the many films do not take me there (although the ones that actually do are worth slogging thru everything else for sure!). And after all of that is said and done, it is very, very difficult to write about film outside of the auteur/formal-context/comparison-to-other-films-or-the-world-at-large box.
It is truly hard to articulate the personal revelation outside of the usual glowing adjectives, but hey, we try.
And Marina, were you attempting to say something more along the lines of,
“seeing a [good film that I don't like] that really pisses me off is nearly as good as seeing a good film [that i like]?”
It is ok not to personally enjoy a film, but take away something valuable from it.
“It is ok not to personally enjoy a film, but take away something valuable from it.”
Exactly. Regardless of whether I enjoyed it or not or whether its a good or bad film (because sometimes even bad films can leave a lot to talk about) but they have to elicit some response one way or another.
Yeah I understand, and to even write with the frequency that people here do, there is a mercantile logic to reducing things to commodity aspects that can be disassembled, compared and contrasted, rated, and sent down the assembly line.
and I think it is very hard to write about a film in poetic terms, or to mull over the significances ones feels about it, but more importantly (and this was my point long ago when the Iron Man punch-up started) there is hardly a climate for people to listen to that because we are so programmed that it is just likely none of could see greatness if it walked up to us waved its hands in front of our eyes.
If you saturate in shit (or mediocrity as you put it Kurt) its hard to be alert enough to be vigilant for that special experience, and be articulate to express it and have people around you equally alert, and have a meaningful discussion.
>> well done Necron, you don’t even know when someone is agreeing with you on the issue of keeping politics out of it. but rather your “you are either with us or against us” mentality was in opposition to my suggesting there be subtlety to meaning of the discussion… I guess your chocolate is the ‘broadstrokes’ I was kidding about.
Uh.. Rot I DID know what you were saying, that’s why I half joked about about it with the Peanut butter remark. It’s from an old TV commerical here in the States.
Even though I commented your “broadstrokes” remarks, I was actually speaking more about CHAW pushing his socio-political agendas into every movie review. But in all honesty your broadstrokes comments did seem to be agreeing with him, at least in principle. Without knowing someone and seeing facial expressions and hearing tone, it’s hard to know exactly what the hell people are really saying sometimes.
>> I’m that rare species of filmgoer who wants more than to be entertained or to classify commodities, but wants to be moved and in the process perhaps learn something about myself and the larger world. There are a lot of people who pay lip-service to this but I can honestly say most of them cannot get beyond their academic hang-ups to even start, and I’m not sure what I dislike more, the fanboy mentality or the academic.
Well said. I agree with that to a large extent, although With something like Iron Man, I’m not looking to “learn something about myself and the larger world” I just want a well crafted geek-fest.
I do fall into the fanboy/nerd mentality more than other people on here, although in my defense, I actually work in the industry, not simply comment on it from afar.
Anybody who refers to moviemaking as an industry is on the wrong end of the spectrum when discussing content. It should always be regarded as an artform. Who gives a fuck about an industry?
Artforms don’t pay my bills.
And FYI, EVERYONE refers to this field as “the industry” or “the film business” because that’s what it is. You think the studios exist to make art? LOL?
And by the way, I DESIGN the content. Who are you to advise me on how I should refer to my own work?
“FYI, EVERYONE refers to this field as “the industry” or “the film business” ”
In America. I hate that film is a business, but I understand your point of view.
Personally, I thought it was great fun. Sure, not exactly deep, since we’re asked to believe six impossible things before breakfast, but a great romp with terrific lines, and the core cast deliver excellent performances. But basically I love it because it provided witty lines which made me laugh right out loud while watching this kind comic-based flick for the first time in years. My personal favourite exchange was:
PP: What’s going on here?
TS: Let’s face it, this is not the worst thing you’ve ever caught me doing.
PP: Are those bullet holes?
@Grga Welcome to the fold!
huh… i don’t expect everyone to like this but some of the comments here have crossed the border into snobbery. many might consider me a film snob myself, but if it ever comes to the day where i can’t enjoy a well made summer action movie like this (key words: well made), the please, put me out of my miserable, unfun existence.
sometimes people take MOVIES way too seriously
and yes i’m a hypocrite
@ “He may be the thinking mans Outlaw Vern. ”
Whoa! Whoa! Settle down there Kurt, lets not say something brash. First of all no one can be compared to Vern. No one, not even Vern’s retarded identical cousin.
Secondly, how much of Vern’s archive have you gone through? Have you read his book on Steven Segal. Not only is it hilarious and sincere, it’s also impecibly researched. How ’bout his review of Hostel 2 / reply to David Poland. Or how about his most recent column in which he comments on the Democratic Primary, delivers a scathing first hand account of the Washington state caucus and then somehow manages to include a tangent on the white bourgoise knee jerk reaction to Public Enemy circa 1989. Which also manages to be a smart well reasoned critique of Do The Right Thing. And then he ties it back to the primary so it all makes perfect sense.
What’s Walter Chaw’s opinion on Public Enemy? Or Gaillo horror movies? Or Wesley Snipes direct to video action vehicles? Has he ever been to prison? When not condemning commercial films for their crypto -racism what causes does he champion?
If I were to call Walter Chaw a caricature of the exact brand of bourgoise elitism he’s supposedly attacking. Just another shrill holier-than-you, self appointed cultural hall monitor, not substantially different than Bill O’Rielley; what piece of evidence would you point to to prove me wrong? I think your analogy would be more apt if you were to say that Vern is Superman to Walter Chaw’s Clark Kent.
So if you’ve got a better reason for thinking that Vern is not the thinking man’s Vern than I’d love to hear it.
I keep up with my Vern reading (although I’ve not bought Seagalogy yet). What I was trying to say is that Vern takes a populist approach and Chaw takes a bit more literature/poetry approach. I’m not saying one is necessarily ‘smarter’ than the other, just that their writing styles are different. In hindsight, I can see how that above comment is easily misinterpreted.
I think you confuse Chaws passion for the possibility of mainstream cinema and his angry disappointment with most of it with ‘shrill holier-than-though’ – I rarely find him shrill.
Film Freak’s extensive pieces on Cronenberg, an examination of the entire body of work, also with Interviews, etc. are certainly worth a read over there in the archives.
“If you honestly don’t understand the relationship between the far-left and anti-americanism, google those keywords.”
if googling is the argument from the right, I’d say the right has lost the battle. i can google ’911 fraud’ and get one hell of a list of results, that doesn’t make it so.
i don’t like you very much.
Nice to hear you talk sense again Goon.
>>if googling is the argument from the right, I’d say the right has lost the battle. i can google ‘911 fraud’ and get one hell of a list of results, that doesn’t make it so.
Yea.. you’re right. I should spend hour and hours typing thousands of lines of text explaining it all to Henrik instead. Great idea! No one is going to chnage their minds on the subject and arguing about it is pointless. Henrik made his views clear and so did I.
>>i don’t like you very much.
boo hoo… now i’m gonna cry
Now for fight number two.
@kurt,
I would prefer to describe Vern’s perspective as an outsider rather than populist.
As for Whatisdick’s tone being “literary” or “poetic”, eh… grumble grumble…
lets just compromise and agree that Walter Chaw is the Canadian Vern.
I still have not read WC’s Cronenberg series but I look forward to it.
>> Now for fight number two.
LOL that’s no fight.. not even close.
On another forum I follow, two guys got into it and one of the guys hired a private investigator to track the other guy’s personal info, which he proceeded to post all over the forum along with various threats about kicking his ass in person since he knows where the guys lives.
Now THAT’S what I call an e-fight..
@ LOL that’s no fight.. not even close.
Sorry necron. I’ll make sure that my fights aren’t so pussy next time.
“No one is going to chnage their minds on the subject and arguing about it is pointless.”
Perhaps so. I can accept that you have different political beliefs than I, or for that matter, most of the people on this site. What I have a hard time putting up with is the fact you’ve been posting here a short time, bring politics into things pretty often so far, and painted leftists as anti-american in a community where most people are centrists or leftists.
if you want polite discussion, refrain from such lowest common denominator attacks on people’s character. thanks.
I believe Film Freak, or at least Mr. Chaw is a native of Denver, so perhaps not the Canadian Vern. Vern has a much more casual writing style, but behind that he’s razor sharp. The sign of a good film-critic is that I am compelled to read them even when I completely disagree (Southland Tales for one, but several others).
>>What I have a hard time putting up with is the fact you’ve been posting here a short time, bring politics into things pretty often so far, and painted leftists as anti-american in a community where most people are centrists or leftists.
if you want polite discussion, refrain from such lowest common denominator attacks on people’s character. thanks.
———–
Go back and read the thread – I didnt bring up politics until Kurt linked the Chaw review which was nothing BUT politics masquerading as a movie review. My initial Iron Man comments had nothing to do with politics. So the way I see, Kurt introduced politics into this, not me.
And FYI, Henrik started the political shit with me in another thread going on about “Americans this” and “American’s that” I did my best to avoid it over there was well.
I find it ironic that guys like Henrik, Rot, you etc. all jump in and reply to my comments because they offend you. but all I’m doing is the same exact thing since Chaw’s and Kurt’s comments offended me. Chaw’s comments offended the hell out of me so I said my peace.
I see a lot of things on here that offend me in fact, but I don’t say shit about it. I’ve been lurking for ages before I started actively posting. I guess only YOU are supposed to pipe in when you feel insulted, huh?
And who’s making attacks on people’s character? I did call Kurt a film snob, but that wasn’t meant to be an personal attack on his character. I’m a snob about a lot of things myself. Would you prefer “film elitist”
If Kurt only wants liberals to participate in his threads, all he has to do is say “Only liberal comments that reinforce my world view will be tolerated” and I’ll leave.
>> Sorry necron. I’ll make sure that my fights aren’t so pussy next time.
Huh? It’s not your “fight” in the first place. I was kidding around. And I was told that I was the one not capable of understanding sarcasm!
People are getting way too jumpy around here.
Necron, by “fight number 2″ I was refering to my debate with Kurt regarding Vern vs Chaw.
The comment was not about you, and when I said “sorry for being such a pussy” I was also being sarcastic. A term that caries with it a connotation of caustic mean spiritedness. [sarcasm]Why don’t you google it.[/sarcasm]
In the short time I’ve heard of you, you’ve managed to impress me as self-involved, knee jerkily defensive, and passive aggressive. If I’m Jumpy you’re Bunny McHopsalot.
[question]And who told they didn’t want you posting on this thread?[/question] No one’s said anything like that, the responses you’ve gotten haven’t been any more combative that what everyone gets around here. That’s the way Henrik talks to people. Apparently in Danmark that shit’s acceptable. As near as I can tell, in Danmark (if that’s a real country how come spell check doesn’t recognize it?) the way you impress people with your intelligence is by copping a snotty attitude and calling everyone an idiot.
[passive aggressive]But I jest, the kid’s alright.[/passive aggressive]
In closing please check out this informative google query on the link between the far right and anti-americanism. [brilliant and devestatingly clever irony]I can’t be bothered to type out the thousands of lines of text that explain it all myself.[/brilliant and devestatingly clever irony].
@ “I believe Film Freak, or at least Mr. Chaw is a native of Denver”
I was hoping you’d make us an offer to trade.
In any case, I’ll just have to concede that he possesses some sort of elussive charm that is lost on me. I got absolutely nothing out of his Cronenberg article. His dead end / inept interview questions were actually comical. This jack-ass thinks Videodrome is about reality television.
>> In the short time I’ve heard of you, you’ve managed to impress me as self-involved, knee jerkily defensive, and passive aggressive. If I’m Jumpy you’re Bunny McHopsalot.
LOL never been called passive agressive before.. that’s a new one. And do you honestly think I was being self-involved to assume that that the “fight” you were referring to was the exchange I was having with Henrick, Rot, Goon, etc. If so, fair enough..
And sure there is far-right anti-americanism – never said there wasn’t. But Chaw and Redacted/Rendition etc. was the target of my rant, not the Timothy McVeigh variety of nutball. If Kurt had posted a link from a guy going on about the Zionists and how America should follow the the third reich I’d have commented on that as well.
so now what i gather is you’ve dragged yourself onto some cross, handed us a couple nails, and are begging us to make your some martyr?
so even though you realize you dont think you could change anyones minds and dont want to write a zillion words disputing Henrik…
it IS worth the time to call people anti american or this or that and let the thread devolve into this bitchfest?
I’d have preferred a more thoughtful derail based on actual ideas, not ‘anti american’ insults. but you’ve asked for this, so you’re going to get it:
fuck off, troll.
>>but you’ve asked for this, so you’re going to get it
>>fuck off, troll.
LOL That was a fast meltdown..
I take it I’m not on your christmas list this year?
“the way you impress people with your intelligence”
Just to be clear, I’m not out to impress anyone.
And Danmark is indeed a real country. The problem you have is that the english language spells it Denmark, which I don’t.
“And FYI, Henrik started the political shit with me in another thread going on about “Americans this” and “American’s that””
I have been known to present point of views from time to time. I’ve never said anything on the level of “anti-american leftist crap” though. It’s the stupidity of the rhetoric people take issue with, not the views themselves. You’re free to think whatever you want, all we’re asking is that you don’t taint the website with ignorance.
Look lets just agree that Iron man is shit and get on with our lives
“I take it I’m not on your christmas list this year?”
I gave you what you wanted. It’s Christmas in May.
and by the way, when Henrik has said anything that could be even remotely considered ‘anti american’, he could probably admit that he’s been battered and batted around for them by the very same people you’ve cast in your ‘anti american’ net.
There was a brief discussion as to how one should write about film, and I never actually mentioned that I adhere to Daniel Frampton’s novel approach (in his book Filmosophy). I wrote a detailed post on it so I will just quote a passage:
“Which brings me to the matter of writing about film. Frampton calls for a poeticizing to post-film writing which is apt considering that cinema is not literature and cannot be adequately encapsulated by conventional expository analysis (as quoted in the book, Eisenstein muses, ‘The shot never becomes a letter but always remains an ambiguous hieroglyph”). The film-thinking transcends language and to bridge the gap we require a will to step outside the conventional and feel through words. I have a fondness for a conversational approach to analysis where the writing is the product of two or more people comparing and contrasting their experiences (Matt Zoller Seitz’s post is an exemplar of what I am thinking of). At the forefront of the filmosophical review should be the questions: what does the film feel about its subject? What do I feel about the subject? Where do they intersect (what Frampton calls the ‘third thought’)?
Emphasis on the third thought may provide a buffer zone from the ‘hypothetical value’ of theory-laden frames of reference and unrestrained ego-centered analysis. The meaning becomes an emerging character of the mix of thinkings, which if then integrated further via a dialectic with another film-going perspective (i.e. an Ebert and Roeper formula) makes yet another level to the emerging character which may provide for the reader a finer source of meaning then any single emphasis could provide.”
Take what you want from that but at the very least I think there is something to be said for post-film writing to be dialectic rather than some fixed self-contained post ‘review’. The real expression need come from the comments, and the unpackaging of ideas that affords when people are aware enough to go beyond their knee-jerk reactions and really question why they feel the way they do about what they see.
Rot, correct me if I’m wrong, but are saying that conversation is the zenith of human existence? I will agree with that.
@Henrik
well conversation is at least consistently engaging, there is a back and forth to it that unlike certain films forces you to situate yourself in some kind of dialogue with something or someone. But I have been entirely engaged in books, films, music and there is something to be said for that experience (I still think there has never been as profound an experience in my life as the awakening that occurred reading Dostoevsky).
But with film especially there is something commonsensical about sharing ideas, using the film as something to point to, and have everyone discuss what they saw and use that as a jumping off point for ‘analysis’. There is a compulsion to just regurgitate things you learned about ‘technique’ or, in the case, of adapatations, resort to compare and contrast with source material, and what goes missing is any reference, any thought to how you felt about the film directly. I think something like Van Sant’s Gerry defies you to categorize it or rationalize it, its ‘lyrical’ quality is not posturing, it is an effort to convey directly something you either understand in the core of yourself or you don’t, and deliberately (I think) divorces itself from the confines of conventional analysis.
about writing about films needing to be social in a way, I think there is a very important aspect to enjoying a film that derives from talking about it, because as Eisenstein said it is hierogylphs, there is no direct translation, the point is to find meaning in the intersection of perspectives, to sense something at work bigger than yourself… I mean if there is any ‘art’ to it all.
Ram, one of our regulars sent me this fabulous greeting card:
absolutely… I was actually uncomfortable with how misogynistic this film was, all under the banner of ‘brainless fun’. An argument I would be fine with if it was geared towards the Roger Corman crowd, but this was geared towards kids, teenagers, and I thought that was a little much.
By misogyny, are you refering to RDJ’s promiscuousness? Or is there more too it than that? I guess the Gweneth Paltrow character was very subservient…
but doesn’t he kind of work past his womanizing ways by the end of the film?
I never got past the sense of Iron Man doing all of this precisely for his ego. And for the spotlight (“I am Ironman”), I didn’t buy the ‘conscience’ angle, it just seems to be another ego-trip for stark. I’m not familiar with the source material if that is so. Again, no problem with that, but it sends out strange messages to the kiddies.
There are worse things out there, but I think the filmmakers are a bit lazy in how they handle the ‘middle-eastern’ card-board cut-out villians which just seem like an afterthought considering the ‘super villain’ has to be an American…
As always, Kermode is my hero:
That was FREAKIN’ hysterical. I nearly lost my coffee when I heard that podcast.
Normally I think Kermode aims for the joke before the insight. He’s funny but not always deep. That is certainly the case here. Bu man, that is funny,
I found the full review from which the above YouTuber editted that video (of course adding the RDJ & GP) there is some serious audio editting to get it into that form), but yes. Funny.
Speaking of our favorite critics I’ve been reading more of Mr. Walter Chaw and he’s starting to grow on me. I appreciated his There Will Be Blood review.
Still, I don’t think it’s appropriate to compare him to Vern.
Maybe if Chaw and Mark Kermode teamed up they might equal one Vern.
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=24309
is this our longest thread?
I don’t think so. It’s in the top 5 maybe. I think the fight about Aliens not knowing what water is in Signs takes top honors for most comments and most assinine.
Oh yeah, classic!
“top honors for most comments and most assinine.”
Iron Man is infinitely more assinine than Signs. Even if some people refuse to see it, because they know everything about everything.
But he didn’t actually say Signs was assinine. If you go back to the thread you’ll find I actually agreed with you. But the whole thread was pretty assinine.
what was that green drink that tony was drinking when he decided to crash his own party?
“just wait till Iron Man comes back up again.”
If you go see part 2, apparently you’ll want to sit through the credits again:
“Italian website BadTaste is reporting that “Iron Man 2″ will have an extra scene as well, and it will focus on Captain America and Thor.
It’s hard to say whether Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth will both be in the scene, but we’ve already heard that Hemsworth has some sort of a cameo. Stay tuned.”