Ok, So I just read a review on Iron Man published by The LA Times. I have to say either Kenneth Turan (movie critic) just doesn't like movies or he didn't really see the movie Iron Man in the first place. This guy just starts off the review with a bad attitude!
"IRON MAN? This is the name for a superhero? Rather than sounding like a six-pack of blue-collar beer, shouldn't the handle for a fighter for truth and justice be something sleek and modern like Titanium Man or even Uranium Al? Isn't Iron Man a little old-school for today's computer-generated movie franchise world?"
What!? Are you kidding me?! Iron Man would not be Iron Man if you called him Titanium Man. Only a fool would ruin 100% of it's fan base! Geeks like us would go ape shit and start a riot on Marvels doorstep if they even suggested it! Obviously he has never picked up a comic book in his life.
"Iron Man" is diverting enough in the comic-book-movie mode, there is one thing it doesn't have, and that is dramatic unity. Unlike the irreducible element that is its namesake, "Iron Man" the movie is an alloy, a combination of several different and disconnected components that don't manage to unite to make a coherent whole."
This is why I say he could have never saw the same Iron man movie that I saw, because the one I saw was a Solid working component, sure it had several different gears but they worked together and made Iron man work much like his suit.
"Though many of the film's sequences are fine in and of themselves, when joined together they tend to seem not of a piece, unable to provide the single sweeping narrative we crave. Favreau, who has worked in different genres with mixed success (yes to "Elf," no to "Zathura"), may not have noticed, and, frankly, audiences likely will not either, but the situation remains."
The situation remains that your an idiot and you have no idea what your talking about.
"Sadly, the film's fun-loving party animal Tony is not with us for very long."
Uh... how long was he with us for? because I could have sworn he was in almost every scene of the movie.
"Though his heart has been damaged by (how ironic!) shrapnel from one of the bombs his company created, Tony, it turns out, is not a man to mess with. Turning dour and serious, he fools the jihadists, who show themselves to be bears of very little brain, and constructs his first Iron Man suit, which makes him look like an especially fierce refrigerator-freezer."
Thats because jihadists are of very little brain. Who's side is this guy on? And it looked to me like Tony was wearing what geeks would refer to as the Mark I. It looked nothing like a refrigerator-freezer. The thing looked bad ass, for being put together with what he had to work with.
"Once he's back in the U.S. of A., it turns out that time spent in the cave has turned our hero into yet another Tony, this one a touchy-feely guy who believes he has "more to offer the world than making things blow up."
He still kept his sense of humor though. Don't we all go through times when we want to make ourselves better?
"He promptly retreats to his Malibu basement, where he spends far too much of the movie's time in the trial-and-error process of getting his new, improved titanium-and-gold Iron Man suit to work. I understand that this film is an origin story, but even so, enough is enough."
I just don't even know what to say at this point. This is one of the funnest parts of the movie and anybody with an imagination will appreciate it. You obviousy DO NOT UNDERSTAND that this is an origin story! Iron Man did not pop out of an egg and be Iron Man. He wasn't bit by a spider. he didn't fall into a vat of toxic waste. Iron Man is a self made superhero we want to know how the suit was built! I know this guy thinks he's a critic but enough is enough.
"Yet more Tonys emerge in the rest of "Iron Man," from the Human Rights Watch monitor on steroids who protects innocents in Afghanistan to the superhero who fights a behemoth called Iron Monger in the film's elaborate finale. With all these Tonys running around, it's not surprising that "Iron Man" feels more convoluted than it needs to be. Downey's unbeatable charisma makes these problems less troublesome than they would be otherwise, but wouldn't it be nice if they didn't exist at all?"
Can you see what I'm talking about!? How many Tony's were there again? I saw one Tony Stark played be Robert Downey Jr. And it was a consistant character. The whole movie was character driven! It's so frustrating that there are critics out there like this. Putting a movie down just because the majority thinks it's amazing, maybe he really didn't see it, Maybe he was paid off to say what he said. I don't know. But wouldn't it be nice if this article didn't exist at all?
I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But when their opinion is wrong, I will be there to point it out.