Movie Spoilers Episode 61
We return this week Spoiling Bastards for an action packed show on Episode 61. Today we go over the…See More
The Spill Movie Community
If it's crap ... We'll tell you
Follow Spill!
Latest Activity
Steven Lara posted a status"Awesome day today. Saw "Wrath Of Khan" and "Superman 2" for the first time. Both were awesome and went swimming with my friends."
MAK2.0 (The Hybrid) added a page to the group Planet Tyro - Anime & Manga Enthusiasts
Untitled
For the many people who don’t know about this in Planet Tyro, what is Anime Discovery and what is about?
Well, I’m glad you asked, my blog/review series Anime Discovery is aimed towards the people who might still consider themselves either as a…
Photos
Music
Iron Man 2: When Will Marvel Learn?
WHEN WILL MARVEL LEARN, SERIOUSLY...?
Since the release of “The Dark Knight,” (I know, I know, but I do have a point to this.) the overall paradigm on how these films are made have changed forever; not in tonal terms, but it changed on how filmmakers should approach major comic book brands to capture the essence on what the source material have been able to achieve. For those who are into comic books, Iron Man was considered to be a B-list character in the Marvel Universe; but after the release of the film over two years ago, the character was surprisingly propelled into A-list status, which is right up there with Hulk and Spider-Man.
Now, the real reason that I took so damn long in writing out this review was that the film’s content took a while to process, almost manifesting itself as this pseudo brain-fart.
When seeing this film for the first time, I had this genuine sense of excitement, the kind of excitement that makes cold shivers run down a person’s spine. I did, however, felt that excitement slowly deteriorating. But after that first screening, I lied to myself that this picture was on of the bad ass pictures of the year, if not the best. In searching for my feelings, I had to go in a second time to confirm on what I just saw.
This had the potential of becoming one of the great sequels, instead this became a two hour teaser to the forthcoming “Avengers” spin off, and that really pissed me off. No, scratch that, the thing that pissed me off the most was the mediocre screenwriting. I’m pretty sure that most of the story elements, though not taking a credit in this film, were Farevau’s idea of making a sequel. Noted from an interview that he had with Creative Screenwriting Magazine, Farevau and Theroux had this conceit that this particular sequel should have what they admired from other sequels like “Empire,” or “Godfather.” Why? What those sequels had in common was that they felt organic in the way the story was told; whether it would be an intellectualization of the theme of the previous entry, posing a question of a moral debate, or what have you. In short, what makes a sequel special is that it manifests its own story on its own terms, breaking the rules of the previous entry by making new ones.
The idea was there, I recognized it almost immediately when they tried to adapt material from the “Demon in the Bottle” entry in the series. Sadly to say, the execution was this wacky hybrid of duplicating the magic of what made the first one special and labeling it a summer blockbuster, which resulted in this stale and weak peace of shit.
“Relax dude, it’s only a comic book movie.” Granted, it is a comic book movie, but I didn’t fork over ten bucks to see a silly cartoon. It felt, to me that Farveau was playing it safe, instead of taking risks that complement and accentuate Stark’s long journey to redemption, which was supposed to THE natural progression in the story to begin with. Instead, we’re given an almost carbon copy of the plot of “Batman Returns,” I’m actually serious about that.
SERIOUSLY?!
As a component to the weak screenplay were the weak characters, which served no purpose to the story whatsoever, only to serve the singular purpose of dilly dallying on screen. What was the purpose of Justin Hammer anyway? The only purpose that he served was to pose as this Max Shriek character, ala “Batman Returns.” Was there a James Bond sensibility in creating the character of Whiplash, ala Blofeld? Note to sell: whenever there is an animal on the shoulder on one of our antagonists, it doesn’t add any more inches to his dick, enough said. Out of all characters in this movie, the most disposable was Black Widow, who served the singular purpose of looking hot and kicking ass; not that I have problem with it, its just that it has to go hand in hand with the storyline, which didn’t.
Blofeld vs. Whiplash: You Decide!!!!!!!!!
"/>
The most puzzling move, in the direction and in the screenplay, was how our protagonist Tony Stark chose to be portrayed. In the grand scheme of things, I think that Theroux and Farevau jumped the gun as to how the character should progress, more like taking out the cake before it’s even done baking. Like I said before, this movie was supposed to be a progression in Stark’s redemption. In the first movie, Stark came out of captivity, humbled and determined to rid the world of weapons made by his company. In this film, he becomes the product of his own hubris without ever showing that humility that he previously displayed; and on top of that, Stark commits these actions that have no real consequences, only serving the purpose to be silly and stupid!
At this point in the franchise, it feels like a McMovie to me, only to serve as a form of deplorable entertainment that has no staying power at all, only to serve the interests of the men in suits at the behest of its stockholders. Its films like “Transformers” that make this movie ironically like an antique, when all it does is to serve no real purpose, believe me, if Michael Bay hits high notes, it’s on the action, but not often. Not to sound like a snob and all, but I was actually bored with most of the action set pieces, especially at the end when Stark and Rhodes fought back-to-back against those Hammer Drones. So bored, in fact, I would rather play a few rounds at the Rock’em, Sock’em Robots toy.
Its not that I’m being cynical at the fact that I didn’t like this movie, it’s just the story kind of disregards its own fan base for the sake of selling happy meals and stooping down to the lowest common denominator. For those who really liked this film, please search your feelings to tell you otherwise, because all this film really is what was said about earlier, a McMovie that does a total disservice to its audience. I don’t expect that every comic book adaptation be like “The Dark Knight,” I just expect that a filmmaker should use his/her acquired skills and have the courage to approach such material and capture its very essence, just as the comics once did.
RATING:
RENTAL
Tags: 2, Cheedle, Don, Downey, Favreau, Iron, Jon, Jr, Justin, Man, More…
Views: 119
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Luis on -
I think you should change the size and shape of the letter there too small and too dark and having a thick blue background make it hard too read. I dont think that these is the director, writer or even the actor fault. I think these movie just suffer from a pale zombie looking business men that send what they needed it too put in the movie to the writer and to Frankenstein together with the movie plot making a mess of the movie. The writer were force to put so many plot treads from the directors plot treads the continuity plot treads plus the character plot treads making weak character and weak story. So these movie did not fail because of the director,writer or the studio.
But for being rush and trying to much had this movie been given more time to develop some of the continuity treads would have being cut short like they should have been and the character would have been develop a lot better. I actually prefer a movie for trying too much because it means that it had ambition and it actually try to be good.I find your comparison between these movie and transformer to be insulting since that movie fail for the complete opposite reason. I enjoy this movie for what it was meant to be a summer blockbuster comic book movie. I actually give this movie a mattine because it was fun summer movie do I wish this movie was better of course I do but to review it for what it could have been instead of what it is would be is just wrong.
-
Permalink Reply by Octavius on -
Like yourself, I did enjoy this movie, but I found this movie wrong for my reasons; and I really can't jab at your thoughts to this, because this film was right for your reasons--pretty fair argument, don't you think? However, I would have to disagree with one particular facet in your argument in this film. From what I've heard in various interviews and articles, this movie hardly had any such studio tinkering, which in turn gave the Farevau the artistic freedom--the type of freedom that Warners afforded Nolan when he made "The Dark Knight." From what could be determined was that Farevau--having this inability of sticking to his guns--other that he and RDJ fought a while to aquire Justin Theroux to write this film. To me, this is the truest example of Farevau, and to a greater extent Marvel, playing it safe for the sake of making some money--because if you have no been in know at what has been going on since the news of that Spider-Man reboot, Iron Man is THE, I'll repeat that again, THE ONLY CASH COW THAT THEY HAVE... PERIOD.
Second--and this applies to all movies alike, and that is that no movie should overcompensate--even if they know it---for the incomplete plot threads that outbalance the completed ones, there's not denying that fact. Like any other film that I go out and shell out my ten bucks, I really want to like this movie...I really do. It's just that after the third or fourth time on the ride is when one really starts to see the movie's inconsistancies---kind of similar to the way one would question a film like "Bloodsport" for example. When you play the film numerous times in your head, the dots don't really connect in a way that it should, just because the Farevau and his chronies didn't have the cajones to make a gamble on this film--hell, the previous film was a HUGE gamble onto itself, just because RDJ was considered to be a "High RIsk", and that really bothers the hell out of me the most. What would be the use of even trying to expand on the existing filmverse of this already cheerished mythology if the filmmakers didn't have the balls to do so?
-
Permalink Reply by Bagface on -
Eh, it wasn't any worse than the first iron man movie in my eyes but, it wasn't any better either. It did what it set out to do, showed me lot of flash explosions and plenty of Downey Jr. being well..the amazing actor that he is. I'd give it a Full Price.
-
Permalink Reply by Will Grey on -
After being BLOWN AWAY by its predecessor, I was literally shitting myself waiting for Iron Man 2. Walking into this film, I expected a more complex story, better villians, and much more action. And for the most part, it delivered, but what seperates this one from being a great superhero film are things that made the first so great. But, what was good about this film? Well, alot is. First off Downey Jr. is absoulutly outstanding in this film. Dare I say, he is better in this one than he was in the other. We learned more personal things about Tony Stark in this one. There are really two villians in this one, and to me they both work. Mickey Rourke is terrific as Whiplash. Everytime he is on screen , the movie is at its best. The other villian is Justin Hammer played by a campy, and oh so entertaning Sam Rockwell. He is so much fun to watch!
The action, when its there its so amazing! Tops anything the first one did. Now with those pros, there are some cons. First off, Rourke is barely in this film! He was in it maybe a half an hour altogether. Rockwell, despite how good he is, is over used in this. He kind of got on my nerves after a while. Like I said, the action is good, but like the use of Rourke, its not there as much as you would hope. The MAIN problem I had with this film was how convaluted it was. There was too much going on! There was a sub plot involving SHEILD and Nick Fury that I didnt care about. I always defend Scarlett Johanssen for being a good actor, but she was pretty useless in this film. Yes she looks GREAT, but so does Megan Fox and she cant act to save her life.
So whos better in these films, Howard or Cheadle? I would say they are tied. We didnt see alot of Howard, and we saw alot of Cheadle, How War Machine is introduced is just ridiculous in every way!
So all and all, Iron man 2 is a worhty sequel that is either too much, or not enough. B+
-
Permalink Reply by Burn Victim on -
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
btw... could barely read a damn thing
-
Permalink Reply by Endicott Jones on -
ithought the film was okay, i can see why you think the way you do, i just did what the movie wanted, have fun. It defently isn't a thinking mans film and it isnt try to be. i knew that walking in. i felt my money was well paid and was a good start to the summer. Then again, this is my opinion and your intitled to yours
-
Permalink Reply by Octavius on
-
First off, I totally agree with your opinion. I don't mean to be "The Contradictor" of this discussion, but I would have to say the following: I don't expect that every film be "a thinking man's" movie like "The Dark Knight," it just that this franchise had the potential of doing something different with the genre entirely, the first film is a perfect example. What I saw that day is the equivilent of a teenager masturbating while on an acid trip, seriously.
-
Permalink Reply by Endicott Jones on
-
lol good discription. I think the biggest thing is that they didnt know what to do. the first was very good, but many complained for the lack of action. I think marvel was confused and considered that they had to fix it alot. If they make a new one, id say make it more like the first
-
Permalink Reply by Octavius on
-
Agreed; but at the same time, what made sequels like "Empire Strikes Back," and "Godfather Part II" so good is that it transends the themes of the first films. Completely turn everything on its ear esentially.
-
Permalink Reply by The question ? on -
empire is not as good a sequel as everyone gives it credit for. It has a major plot hole which under cuts a big part of the film. Which is quite similar to the so called plot hole that bothered everyone about iron man 2. When Rhodes walks in with the mark 2 armor, people complain that we never see tony show Rhodes how to use the armor. But by the mere fact that the tony isn't surprised to see him the armor should be clear enough that he taught Rhodes how to use it. It just happened up screen. Luke is never actually taught how to duel with a light saber but is some how able to hold his own in a fight with Vader.Empire built up to a climax that can't logically happen.
-
Permalink Reply by Endicott Jones on
-
i'm sorry octavius but
the question released a can of shaq fu on your ass
© 2013 Created by The Spill Crew.
