Iron Man star Robert Downey Jr. will not be jumping from Marvel to D.C. anytime soon. In an interview with MovieHole.net to promote Tropic Thunder, the dashing actor fearlessly tore the ass off The Dark Knight and the comic empire behind it. "Didn't get it," he said, "still can't tell you what happened in the movie, what happened to the character and in the end they need him to be a bad guy. I'm like, 'I get it. This is so high brow and so fucking smart, I clearly need a college education to understand this movie.' You know what? Fuck DC comics. That's all I have to say and that's where I'm really coming from."
Downey also explained, "My whole thing is that that I saw The Dark Knight. I feel like I'm dumb because I feel like I don't get how many things that are so smart. It's like a Ferrari engine of storytelling and script writing and I'm like, 'That's not my idea of what I want to see in a movie.' I loved The Prestige but didn't understand The Dark Knight."
And don't bother warning him about possible reprisals for such loose talk. "You know, you're never too old to burn your bridges because I believe I have offended everyone. I think I've got a couple more. 'I'll burn that bridge when I come to it' is my favourite phrase I've ever coined."
I loved The Prestige but didn't understand The Dark Knight.
RDJ is ultimate no matter what
DAVID BOWIE WAS IN THE PRESTIGE? /redownloads
The Dark Knight was almost an art film.
DAVID BOWIE WAS IN THE PRESTIGE? /redownloads
What movie were you watching?
Both Iron Man and the Dark Knight kicked ass. Gaf needs to get this through their heads.
Both Iron Man and the Dark Knight kicked ass. Gaf needs to get this through their heads.
I still can't believe that people think IM was anything more than decent.
Both Iron Man and the Dark Knight kicked ass. Gaf needs to get this through their heads.
I still can't believe that people think IM was anything more than decent.
It was a simple movie, if that's what you mean with "decent". The thing is, it's simplicity was great, it had style, the character rocked, the story moved at a nice pace, it didn't feel stupid, and at the end of the day it was fun.
Say like Casino Royale.
I feel like that applies as much to the Dark Knight as it does to Ironman. Crappy action sequences, hammy acting, carboard characters etc. It has those exact same flaws.Both Iron Man and the Dark Knight kicked ass. Gaf needs to get this through their heads.
I still can't believe that people think IM was anything more than decent.
It was a simple movie, if that's what you mean with "decent". The thing is, it's simplicity was great, it had style, the character rocked, the story moved at a nice pace, it didn't feel stupid, and at the end of the day it was fun.
Say like Casino Royale.
By decent I mean it had one great element (lead performance) and a bunch of crappy ones (crappy action scenes, hammy acting, cutboard cut out characters, bland direction, and so on).
I feel like that applies as much to the Dark Knight as it does to Ironman. Crappy action sequences, hammy acting, carboard characters etc. It has those exact same flaws.Both Iron Man and the Dark Knight kicked ass. Gaf needs to get this through their heads.
I still can't believe that people think IM was anything more than decent.
It was a simple movie, if that's what you mean with "decent". The thing is, it's simplicity was great, it had style, the character rocked, the story moved at a nice pace, it didn't feel stupid, and at the end of the day it was fun.
Say like Casino Royale.
By decent I mean it had one great element (lead performance) and a bunch of crappy ones (crappy action scenes, hammy acting, cutboard cut out characters, bland direction, and so on).
Both Iron Man and the Dark Knight kicked ass. Gaf needs to get this through their heads.
I still can't believe that people think IM was anything more than decent.
It was a simple movie, if that's what you mean with "decent". The thing is, it's simplicity was great, it had style, the character rocked, the story moved at a nice pace, it didn't feel stupid, and at the end of the day it was fun.
Say like Casino Royale.
By decent I mean it had one great element (lead performance) and a bunch of crappy ones (crappy action scenes, hammy acting, cutboard cut out characters, bland direction, and so on).
Casino Royale's flaws are in its structure and editing, not in characterization or acting, so it makes them easier to accept.
Both Iron Man and the Dark Knight kicked ass. Gaf needs to get this through their heads.
I still can't believe that people think IM was anything more than decent.
It was a simple movie, if that's what you mean with "decent". The thing is, it's simplicity was great, it had style, the character rocked, the story moved at a nice pace, it didn't feel stupid, and at the end of the day it was fun.
Say like Casino Royale.
By decent I mean it had one great element (lead performance) and a bunch of crappy ones (crappy action scenes, hammy acting, cutboard cut out characters, bland direction, and so on).
Casino Royale's flaws are in its structure and editing, not in characterization or acting, so it makes them easier to accept.
Iron Man didn't have shitty action, the action sequences were good, not great, the acting was just fine, and the direction was what the movie needed.
It was a feel good movie. That's why i compare it to Casino Royale, casino royale didn't have a character like Tony stark, but the story was just as simple, the characters and acting were good enough to sell what was happening, and what it did well was have an almost non stop rythm with the action, that felt gritty. Very much like Bourne.
Iron Man was just "cleaner". It's a feel good movie, and feel good movies are rare.
Both Iron Man and the Dark Knight kicked ass. Gaf needs to get this through their heads.
I still can't believe that people think IM was anything more than decent.
It was a simple movie, if that's what you mean with "decent". The thing is, it's simplicity was great, it had style, the character rocked, the story moved at a nice pace, it didn't feel stupid, and at the end of the day it was fun.
Say like Casino Royale.
By decent I mean it had one great element (lead performance) and a bunch of crappy ones (crappy action scenes, hammy acting, cutboard cut out characters, bland direction, and so on).
Casino Royale's flaws are in its structure and editing, not in characterization or acting, so it makes them easier to accept.
Iron Man didn't have shitty action, the action sequences were good, not great, the acting was just fine, and the direction was what the movie needed.
It was a feel good movie. That's why i compare it to Casino Royale, casino royale didn't have a character like Tony stark, but the story was just as simple, the characters and acting were good enough to sell what was happening, and what it did well was have an almost non stop rythm with the action, that felt gritty. Very much like Bourne.
Iron Man was just "cleaner". It's a feel good movie, and feel good movies are rare.
I will agree on:
- IM being a fun, feel good experience. On that level, I enjoyed it. But its still not a movie I will ever watch again.
I will continue to disagree on:
- the action stuff. So bad. Great CG, but such badly put together sequences, and so boring.
- CR having non-stop rythym. Even as a Bond nut I feel CR's biggest flaw is easily its schizophrenic structure and pacing. Its an action movie for the first hour, then the pace slows and it becomes a thriller, then it slows down even more when it becomes a love story, and then it ends with a crowd-pleaser of a moment.
TDK definitely has flaws too, but I think it exceeds IM in every way. Better writing, acting, direction, you name it. Action scenes are a wash, though - both have shitty ones. Nolan shouldnt be allowed to direct action scenes, and Favreau shouldnt be allowed to direct fullstop.The movies are approached entirely differently. Ironman is a light-hearted summer action flick TDK is an attempt at a semi-serious crime drama. You can't just flat compare them with some sort of checklist since they aren't trying to occupy the same void. It's as asinine as comparing Hot Fuzz to There Willl Be Blood. You should judge them by how well they succeed against other movies in their respective approaches.
Both Iron Man and the Dark Knight kicked ass. Gaf needs to get this through their heads.
I still can't believe that people think IM was anything more than decent.
Yeah, that's a completely fair analogyTDK definitely has flaws too, but I think it exceeds IM in every way. Better writing, acting, direction, you name it. Action scenes are a wash, though - both have shitty ones. Nolan shouldnt be allowed to direct action scenes, and Favreau shouldnt be allowed to direct fullstop.It's as asinine as comparing Hot Fuzz to There Willl Be Blood.
TDK definitely has flaws too, but I think it exceeds IM in every way. Better writing, acting, direction, you name it. Action scenes are a wash, though - both have shitty ones. Nolan shouldnt be allowed to direct action scenes, and Favreau shouldnt be allowed to direct fullstop.It's as asinine as comparing Hot Fuzz to There Will Be Blood.
I know the comparison was flawed, the point was an action/comedy doesn't have to be as cohesive or intricately written to be successful as a movie that almost pretensiously beats you over the head with it's thematic expositions. You don't throng all movies cop movies together, do you? Both movies do have heros, but that is where the similarities end. At the end of the day I prefer a tongue in cheek movie that features a giant robot, to a serious movie in which a man runs around in an giant bat suit comptemplating the intristic rectitude found in all humans, while simutaneously dissecting the very nature of evil itself. Regardless, I don't like either movie that much and never posted about either for the very reason that these debates always turn out the same and are lame in general.TDK definitely has flaws too, but I think it exceeds IM in every way. Better writing, acting, direction, you name it. Action scenes are a wash, though - both have shitty ones. Nolan shouldnt be allowed to direct action scenes, and Favreau shouldnt be allowed to direct fullstop.It's as asinine as comparing Hot Fuzz to There Will Be Blood.
How does that make any sense? It's not asinine to compare Hot Fuzz and There Will Be Blood, it's illogical. One's a suspense drama and the other is a parody of buddy-cop action films. Iron Man and The Dark Knight both share one very important thing; they're both based on comic book characters. And while The Dark Knight has excellent composition and acting, Iron Man was about as shallow as you could possibly get with superhero films. Characters are introduced and tossed away like toilet tissue in Iron Man. And even if you ignore the dozens of plot holes and cliches, Iron Man still isn't that much of a movie, especially compared to any other superhero movie in the history of the subgenre.
I'm never, ever going to understand the love for Iron Man. I think Robert Downey Jr., while incompetent, is a great actor. However, Iron Man was about as half-assed as you could go with superhero films.
If you really want a fair fight, compare Iron Man to Batman Begins, because they're both the first in a series (or in Iron Man's case, what's sure to be a series). I'll admit I take Batman Begins down a notch for glorifying that ever-present origin story of the hero, instead of just cutting through the bullshit and getting right to the action. But even Iron Man couldn't create an INTERESTING origin story like Batman Begins did. The origin story was bathed in idiotic and ham-fisted War on Terror faux politics (at least it stuck to the original in that it was still obviously a commentary), on top of introducing that stupid-ass cellmate character who was introduced and killed off so easily I try to forget he was even in the film, until everyone else does, then I have to remind them of the banality.
Also, what the hell was the point of Iron Man even existing? The movie didn't deliver a very good motive for Tony Stark doing anything. Everything was so slap-dash and half-finished it felt like a whole bunch of restaurant-napkin ideas thrown into a script that constantly says:TONY STARK
Let Robert Downey Jr. improvise during this scene.
I'm not even going to appease fans of the movie by saying it was fun, because outside of everything I just covered, the movie was STILL shit. The soundtrack, CGI and camera work were all depressingly bland or just plain crap.
Then again, I could be wrong. It is just my opinion after all ;)
TDK definitely has flaws too, but I think it exceeds IM in every way. Better writing, acting, direction, you name it. Action scenes are a wash, though - both have shitty ones. Nolan shouldnt be allowed to direct action scenes, and Favreau shouldnt be allowed to direct fullstop.The movies are approached entirely differently. Ironman is a light-hearted summer action flick TDK is an attempt at a semi-serious crime drama. You can't just flat compare them with some sort of checklist since they aren't trying to occupy the same void. It's as asinine as comparing Hot Fuzz to There Willl Be Blood. You should judge them by how well they succeed against other movies in their respective approaches.
TDK definitely has flaws too, but I think it exceeds IM in every way. Better writing, acting, direction, you name it. Action scenes are a wash, though - both have shitty ones. Nolan shouldnt be allowed to direct action scenes, and Favreau shouldnt be allowed to direct fullstop.It's as asinine as comparing Hot Fuzz to There Will Be Blood.
How does that make any sense? It's not asinine to compare Hot Fuzz and There Will Be Blood, it's illogical. One's a suspense drama and the other is a parody of buddy-cop action films. Iron Man and The Dark Knight both share one very important thing; they're both based on comic book characters. And while The Dark Knight has excellent composition and acting, Iron Man was about as shallow as you could possibly get with superhero films. Characters are introduced and tossed away like toilet tissue in Iron Man. And even if you ignore the dozens of plot holes and cliches, Iron Man still isn't that much of a movie, especially compared to any other superhero movie in the history of the subgenre.
I'm never, ever going to understand the love for Iron Man. I think Robert Downey Jr., while incompetent, is a great actor. However, Iron Man was about as half-assed as you could go with superhero films.
If you really want a fair fight, compare Iron Man to Batman Begins, because they're both the first in a series (or in Iron Man's case, what's sure to be a series). I'll admit I take Batman Begins down a notch for glorifying that ever-present origin story of the hero, instead of just cutting through the bullshit and getting right to the action. But even Iron Man couldn't create an INTERESTING origin story like Batman Begins did. The origin story was bathed in idiotic and ham-fisted War on Terror faux politics (at least it stuck to the original in that it was still obviously a commentary), on top of introducing that stupid-ass cellmate character who was introduced and killed off so easily I try to forget he was even in the film, until everyone else does, then I have to remind them of the banality.
Also, what the hell was the point of Iron Man even existing? The movie didn't deliver a very good motive for Tony Stark doing anything. Everything was so slap-dash and half-finished it felt like a whole bunch of restaurant-napkin ideas thrown into a script that constantly says:TONY STARK
Let Robert Downey Jr. improvise during this scene.
I'm not even going to appease fans of the movie by saying it was fun, because outside of everything I just covered, the movie was STILL shit. The soundtrack, CGI and camera work were all depressingly bland or just plain crap. :bow
Then again, I could be wrong. It is just my opinion after all ;)
I get it. This is so high brow and so fucking smart, I clearly need a college education to understand this movie.
I know the comparison was flawed, the point was an action/comedy doesn't have to be as cohesive or intricately written to be successful as a movie that almost pretensiously beats you over the head with it's thematic expositions.
You don't throng all movies cop movies together, do you? Both movies do have heros, but that is where the similarities end. At the end of the day I prefer a tongue in cheek movie that features a giant robot, to a serious movie in which a man runs around in an giant bat suit comptemplating the intristic rectitude found in all humans, while simutaneously dissecting the very nature of evil itself.
Robert Downey Jr. improvising > Christian Bale grunting like a sex offender at a tittie bar
The reaction to this has been hi-larious.
yes, and elsewhere.
QuoteIt's a feel good movie, and feel good movies are rare.
huh? ... feel good movies are rare?
QuoteIt's a feel good movie, and feel good movies are rare.
huh? ... feel good movies are rare?
Yes. Name another Feel good movie this summer that wasn't a comedy.
QuoteIt's a feel good movie, and feel good movies are rare.
huh? ... feel good movies are rare?
Yes. Name another Feel good movie this summer that wasn't a comedy.
Speed Racer and Hellboy 2.
QuoteIt's a feel good movie, and feel good movies are rare.
huh? ... feel good movies are rare?
Yes. Name another Feel good movie this summer that wasn't a comedy.
QuoteIt's a feel good movie, and feel good movies are rare.
huh? ... feel good movies are rare?
Yes. Name another Feel good movie this summer that wasn't a comedy.
Speed Racer and Hellboy 2.
Lol wut?
There's a reason why Speed Racer bombed, both critically and financially, and there's a reason Hellboyd two underperformed, and went largely unnoticed.
Speed Racer is a shitty movie, there's nothing feel good about it, since it's a crap movie.
Hellboy 2 was pretty weak, as neither the main story arc (Elves) or the secondary story ark (Marriage) ever took off in any significant way. It was paced horribly, the filme felt disjointed in the whole, and by the time it was over people felt indiferent to it. And i loved hellboy 1, not to mention i'm a Del Toro fan.
So no, fail on both accounts.
Speed Racer is a shitty movie, there's nothing feel good about it, since it's a crap movie.
QuoteWall-E
if Wall-E had just ended 30 seconds earlier, it would have been F-AWESOME but the film had to have a feel good ending it would seem. Insteadspoiler (click to show/hide)it went for the feel good ending instead of the ending i felt it deserved - sure it gets to have :both: endings in a way, but it really was lumps in the throat stuff and it had some sort of deeper meaning to it - bailing out meant that they wipe their ass on that.[close]
QuoteWall-E
if Wall-E had just ended 30 seconds earlier, it would have been F-AWESOME but the film had to have a feel good ending it would seem. Insteadspoiler (click to show/hide)it went for the feel good ending instead of the ending i felt it deserved - sure it gets to have :both: endings in a way, but it really was lumps in the throat stuff and it had some sort of deeper meaning to it - bailing out meant that they wipe their ass on that.[close]