Iron Man review
May. 5th, 2008 10:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alobearAh, the next in the series of superhero movies, which was heralded by assurances that it would be "plot and character driven, dark and meaningful", and largely turned out to be "depthless action fest". I fall for it every time.
Still, overall, I enjoyed Iron Man. It was a lot more violent and with a much higher body count than I was expecting, but it also had a lot of enjoyable character moments and some impressive action sequences. Most superheroes in movies tend to be teenage nerd-boys or stolid men of honour, so I liked the fact that Tony Stark was a bit of an arse. I thought Robert Downey Jr was an excellent choice, who did a good job with what little he had to work with, and I even liked Gwyneth Paltrow as the assistant with the obligatory silly name.
I just always seem to come out of these films thinking they could have been so much better. Empire seems convinced that now we've got the origin story out of the way, any future instalments will be significantly improved. I enjoyed Iron Man enough to be interested in sequels, but what I think I really need to do is accept that depthless action fests are what sell, and that going in with the attitude that this is not necessarily a bad thing will undoubtedly increase my enjoyment.
Next stop - Edward Norton as Hulk.
Still, overall, I enjoyed Iron Man. It was a lot more violent and with a much higher body count than I was expecting, but it also had a lot of enjoyable character moments and some impressive action sequences. Most superheroes in movies tend to be teenage nerd-boys or stolid men of honour, so I liked the fact that Tony Stark was a bit of an arse. I thought Robert Downey Jr was an excellent choice, who did a good job with what little he had to work with, and I even liked Gwyneth Paltrow as the assistant with the obligatory silly name.
I just always seem to come out of these films thinking they could have been so much better. Empire seems convinced that now we've got the origin story out of the way, any future instalments will be significantly improved. I enjoyed Iron Man enough to be interested in sequels, but what I think I really need to do is accept that depthless action fests are what sell, and that going in with the attitude that this is not necessarily a bad thing will undoubtedly increase my enjoyment.
Next stop - Edward Norton as Hulk.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-05 12:00 pm (UTC)At least with Hulk you know going in that they have deliberately removed everything that you liked about the Ang Lee version.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-05 12:39 pm (UTC)As for Hulk - the Ang Lee version was an excellent psychological thriller, in my opinion, that just re-emphasises the "depthless action fests are all that sells" argument. So, yes, I will be going in with a different attitude for that one. However, Edward Norton is a big draw, as far as I'm concerned, and I'm hoping that his presence and scriptwriting contributions will make a difference.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-05 05:37 pm (UTC)I'm torn regarding Edward Norton and Hulk. I thought the last Hulk film was the biggest pile of rubbish I've seen on screen for a long time, but this new one... Edward Norton... but the Hulk = rubbish.... but Edward Norton...
no subject
Date: 2008-05-05 05:51 pm (UTC)I did rather liked the character work in this movie, and I would certainly not classify it as a 'depthless action fest'.