Iron Man

[shadowkat]

A fairly productive weekend, after an extreemly tiring work week. I'm hoping after 6 more months, things will get easier, and I'll be able to focus on stuff un-work-related. At the moment however, am finding it increasingly difficult to focus on books, movies, tv shows or anything that requires concentration after my work day. I'm also discovering that I no longer appear to have the patience/tolerance/interest for heated debates regarding subjective interpretations of fictional storylines, characters, or metaphors. I don't quite know why this is so. Just that lately these discussions annoy the heck out of me.

That said, I have entertained myself this weekend, sporadically.

Saw the flick Iron Man finally. This may be the best superhero action flick that I have seen in a long time. The only other one that comes close is possibly the first Superman.

One caveat - this is not a movie for children. It is not Fantastic Four, although I wouldn't take children to that one either - but this one is more like Batman Begins, it contains adult themes and situations that are inappropriate for anyone below the age of 16. There is one scene in which the lead character is being tortured, while another depicts the potential torture of a co-prisoner. The comic itself is not for children - the story is after-all about an industrialist and weapons manufacturer, who gets injured by one of his own weapons while visiting a war zone, is subsequently captured, tortured, and escapes by building an iron man suit. I don't see anything in that storyline that should be shown to a child. I only state this because I saw toddlers in the movie theater.

The film appears to be very close to the Marvel comic book, they just update it, much like they did with Spiderman, except I think this is actually closer to the original story than both the film versions of X-Men, Dare Devil, Fantastic Four and Spiderman were.

What I liked about it -was the script, direction, and action - which were impressive. I've gotten used to busy superhero flicks like Spiderman and X-men. This movie wasn't busy. It focused on Stark, played perfectly by Robert Downey Jr. - who is amongst the few actors out there that I'd pay to watch reading the phone book. I think I've seen most of his films, including the horrible ones such as Air America. It was a stroke of genius to cast Downey Jr in this role. Paltrow, Bridges, and Terrence Howard are also superb choices. But, if the script had not been up to snuff - the movie would not have worked. The dialogue is funny. Pepper Potts, Stark's trusted personal assistant, unlike most female heroines in these films -actually is given something to do and does not play the damsel in distress. She saves her boss more than once, with ingenuity. Stark himself gets out of trouble with his brain. And Jeff Bridges manages to not ham it up as Obidah, Stark's business partner, he restrains himself and delivers a layered and somewhat interesting performance.

It is an action movie though. If you don't like superhero action flicks, you won't like this film. If you don't like stories about womanizing playboys who have epiphanies and want to help mankind? You won't like this movie.

I happen to love these things, so I adored it. Found the whole experience sort of cathartic. It had a very anti-war vibe, which I appreciated. And it was about solving a problem. Also, and most importantly, it had Robert Downey Jr as the lead...and that's never a bad thing. ;-)

If you do decide to see the flick - stay through the credits. There's a little treat after they are over that you'll kick yourself for missing.

Comments

[wenchsenior.livejournal.com]

It was a great flick, wasn't it? Not at all the kind of thing I'd normally see; RDJr is the reason I went and he was phenomenal in that role.

I've found that I tend to really like "superhero" flicks that are cast against type. I absolutely LOVED Michael Keaton as Batman, back in the day.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yes, Michael Keaton made a great Batman, the only drawback was Nicholson's Joker which was almost type-casting.

I'm looking forward to The Dark Knight which has Christain Bale as Batman (who is the perfect young Batman in some respects and it doesn't hurt that I love the actor, as much as I used to love Keaton), and Heath Ledger (who unlike Nicholson is against type) as the Joker.

Sometimes when you go against type you get less hammy acting and more character building.

Part of the reason Iron Man was so good was Downey was heavily involved in the scripting/production end. He pushed for less special effects and more story, stating that films that focused exclusively on the effects tended to be somewhat dull - ie. The Transformers, which was a real snoozefest.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I AM kicking myself... the lights had come up during the credits and the cleaners were hovering so I got up and left, and then learned from wildigital that I missed something! Boo Hoo!! I don't think i'll be going a second time, will you tell me what I missed? Please?

I'm glad you liked it as well as I did, I felt that they actually gave Stark a character arc, and I always appreciate some character growth. It was fun and surprisingly suspenseful (I knew they wouldn't kill Pepper Potts, but I was on the edge of my seat anyway).

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Oh - Tony Stark goes back to his apartment.
Asks JArvis who's there. A gravely voice answers, and all we see for a moment is a tall bald man with an eye-patch in the shadows.

The lights come up, the man steps forward, it is Samuel L Jackson. And he introduces himself as Nick Fury, from Shield, and has come to talk to Tony about the Avenger's Initiative.

His line is:" I'm Iron Man? Come on Tony, you really think you are the only superhero in this universe? You are one of several, and we need to put together a way of handling the situation, that is what I've come to talk to you about - a little something I've put together called the Avenger's Initiative."

Or something along those lines.

If you're a fan of the comics - it's a squee moment. Because in the AU Marvel Universe, or Ultimate books, the redesigned Nick Fury, who in the originals is a white WWII vet, into a black man who looks exactly like Samuel L. Jackson. Apparently Faveru convinced Jackson to do the cameo.

And they are planning an Avengers' movie - if the Hulk does well and Thor does well, then they can get Downey, Norton, and whoever is up as Thor on board, along with Captain America - it could be great. But I have my doubts. Look what happened to DC's attempts for Justice League.

Will state getting top-notch actors to do these roles is a stroke of genius. I think they've finally learned their lesson.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

thank you! And I'm still kicking myself!
I have to confess that I have my doubts too, did you see the previews for the Hulk? Ed Norton is a wonderful actor, but the big green Hulk was way too cartoony for my taste, I didn't think it was a movie I could sit through except on DVD (I only go to the theater if I really think it will be good, because otherwise I just wish I could fast forward the whole time, besides regretting the expense).
But I heard that the second Ironman movie was just green lit and they definitely have Downey & Paltrow signed for three films, so maybe that sequel isn't totally dependent upon the others...

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'd read in EW that Downy and Paltrow were only signed on for two, along with Terrence Howard. Not that it's important, that was the case with Mguire and Dunsten in Spiderman - they were only signed for two, and had to wrangle them for a third. Same deal with Bale, who signed for two. This is normal for Hollywood - most actors only sign for two films, then negotiate a higher price for the third.

And oh, yeah, it was green lit.

I don't know about the Hulk. I saw the first movie - which my brother adored (he's the only person I know who loved that movie, he also love the Titantic - he likes cool visuals, comes from being a graphic artist/film school student, I think), I thought the first one was cheesy as hell. This one? eh. The Hulk is always going to look a bit cartoony, hard not too..depends on how cartoony.

But I tend to agree - movies are far too expensive to go to nowadays, without being somewhat picky. I'm sooo glad I waited to rent the third Pirates film, I fastforwarded through so much of it. And I did the same thing with Fantastic Four. Wish I'd done that with the Transformers (worse action film next to Superman Quest for Peace, which was a smidgen worse).

I've learned to trust my online flist reviewers for these flicks. Everyone online who'd seen Iron Man - loved it. Didn't see one bad review online.

The flicks I'm looking forward to that were previewed are: Indy IV (yes, I know, but it really look entertaining), Mamma Mia (Pierce Bronsan in a musical with Meryl Streep! And ABBA songs! And Christine Briniski! LOL!),
Narnia - Prince Caspian (although it is disturbing that a children's fantasy flick is this violent, but whatever, I'm not a kid and I'm not taking one to it).

I'll probably skip M. Night Shalyaman's The Happening - too creepy. Although I do like the filmmaker's work. And most likely will skip, Adam Sandler and Mike Myer's latest, although Sandler's trailer made me laugh. Myer's made me cringe - I have no idea why I find one politically incorrect humor funny and the other cringeworthy...

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

Oh I saw Paltrow on Regis & Kelly and I thought she said she had signed for three... it could be that I misunderstood or that she just didn't want to get into the details w/Regis (or maybe she wasn't even clear on what the details were). I do know that she loved playing a smaller role, that she isn't wanting to be away from home much so taking smaller parts are easier right now. I loved how effortless she handled the comedy, so many actresses now days seem to feel that they have to ham it up...

Actually I loved everyone in Ironman, right from the very beginning, you could tell how good the director was from the way he immediately got me invested in all the young GIs who were all killed when Stark was kidnapped. It was very intense and a great way to raise the stakes right away.

I'm looking forward to Narnia, and I'll probably go see the Indiana Jones film for old times sake... I wasn't impressed with the previews for Shalyaman's 'The Happening', so I probably won't see that in the theater. I am influenced by friends online, if they seem to be enjoying something then I'll try harder to get out to see it too.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

So did I. I really thought the film was flawless regarding what it was trying to do - which is be an adult superhero/action film with an anti-war message.

Everyone was good. The direction? fantastic, best I've seen in this sort of genre in a while. Curious to see if Christopher Nolan does quite as well with Dark Knight.

Eh, movies are too expensive now for me to go see them without quite a bit of prompting. Iron Man's the first I've seen in a theater since...Juno way back in Januaray (and I really wish I waited to rent that one - so not worth the eleven bucks I paid for it).
Iron MAn which cost 10.47 was worth it.

Agree - wasn't all that impressed with Shalyaman's The Happening either - it reminded me too much of a Stephen King horror film or Signs, both of which I've seen too many times now.

[liliaeth]

Oh they didn't have to convince Jackson to take the role of Fury. From what I heard, when the artist of Ultimates designed Fury, he asked Jackson if they could use his likeness. SLJ apparantly said yes, on the condition that he got to play Fury, if ever made it in one of the movies.