Robert Downy Jr. Tells evilbore how it is. "Fuck Dark Knight and DC"

[Beardo]

http://gawker.com/5037992/robert-downey-jr-fuck-dc-comics

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."

Sounds jealous.

[bagofeyes]

sounds fake

[Tucah]

I love RDJ

[TakingBackSunday]

Both Iron Man and the Dark Knight kicked ass.  Gaf needs to get this through their heads.

[Candyflip]

He sounds like his character in Zodiac

[cool breeze]

He is joking.

[Eric P]

I loved The Prestige but didn't understand The Dark Knight.

the prestige was horrible with the main conceit being the character's super saiyan abilities with spirit gum and horse hair

[TakingBackSunday]

Oh come on, the Prestige was pretty fucking great until the end.

[TakingBackSunday]

I didn't find it boring at all, odd.

[Eric P]

i didn't find it boring

i found it stupid

what worked on the page did not work on the screen

[Grecco]

Didnt he not read comics till he started on Iron Man?

[MrAngryFace]

RDJ is ultimate no matter what

[Tauntaun]

RDJ is ultimate no matter what

I can't lie, I'd prob lick his 'stache. 

[Raban]

DAVID BOWIE WAS IN THE PRESTIGE? /redownloads

And btw, RDJ had my respect, but I read this article like a week ago. Complete idiot now. Sorry, but Iron Man is standard comic-book movie fare, The Dark Knight was almost an art film. And both DC and Marvel have pretty much the same amount of total shit under their belts. Any real fan of comics who makes an unbreakable allegiance probably doesn't really read comics, because they're too caught up in dragging stupid fanboy shit into every conversation.

I'll give RDJ he was brilliant in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, amazing in Zodiac, pretty outstanding in A Scanner Darkly, but Tropic Thunder and Iron Man? He's sleeping through his roles nowadays, and somehow still reaping all the credit.

[bagofeyes]

DAVID BOWIE WAS IN THE PRESTIGE? /redownloads

What movie were you watching?

The Dark Knight was almost an art film.

 

[Raban]

DAVID BOWIE WAS IN THE PRESTIGE? /redownloads

What movie were you watching?

Wait, was he Tesla?

EDIT: HE WAS. ZOMG. Too bad the movie was still mostly shit.

[Greatness Gone]

How was he unable to understand TDK if he understood The Prestige?

BTW, I bitched on GAF about how Iron Man sucked and how TDK was better, when in reality I've yet to see Iron Man. lol.

[MyNameIsMethodis]

Prestige was terrible. Absoltuely terrible. Like Radiohead terrible.

A Scanner Darkly is awesome though, therefore making RDJ amazing and Bale a little whiny bitch.

[WrikaWrek]

He rocks in Tropic Thunder.

[Solo]

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.

[WrikaWrek]

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.

[Solo]

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.

[BamYouHaveAids]

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.

[Solo]

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.

[Raban]

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.

That's hilarious.

[WrikaWrek]

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.

[Solo]

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.

[WrikaWrek]

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.

It slow downs, but there's still the Hotel fighting sequence. But yeah, it kinda blows its load too early, well...with opening action sequence as a matter of fact, but still there's a crap load of action in the movie, the movie is just longer than it needs i guess.

Well, i can't wait for the IM Blu ray. And i can't wait for Quantum of Solace, even thought i think it's kinda lame how much it looks like bourne so far, but so what, it's a good thing if i think about it. And in all honestly? I don't give a fuck about the next Batman, you know why?

Ledger is dead, so this joker is out. And they won't bring Bane because they are pussies, so they will probably put some shit character like Riddler in it, and not to mention TDK lost its balls torwards the end, and in all honesty, Nolan doesn't know shit about shooting an action sequence. The fighting sucks dick, the car chases feel like they were shot in slow mo, and the editing sucks.

[BamYouHaveAids]

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.

[chronovore]

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.

I saw it on the plane recently, meaning it didn't benefit from having bitchin' FX and sound quality; result - it is a decent film which does a good job of showing Stark. Arguably it does a better job of showing Stark than Batman Begins does of showing Bruce Wayne.

[Cormacaroni]

Wow, who'da thunk this thread would have turned into an Iron Man vs TDK fight. 

Can we get Obama and McCain to weigh in on these things so the polarization process can reach its logical conclusion?

[Phoenix Dark]

I like TDK but RDJ wins. What an epic troll

Zodiac>TDK

[Candyflip]

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 Willl Be Blood.

Yeah, that's a completely fair analogy

[Raban]

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

[Tundra]

Iron Man had Gwynneth Paltrow..










/thread

[BamYouHaveAids]

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

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.

Robert Downey Jr. improvising > Christian Bale grunting like a sex offender at a tittie bar

[Solo]

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.

They're both comic book movies, both action movies, both have dramatic stuff, both blockbusters. Pretty direct comparisons can be made.

[Solo]

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

Its like you're in my mind, channelling my thoughts.

Iron Man 

[Bacon]

I get it. This is so high brow and so fucking smart, I clearly need a college education to understand this movie.

That sort of reminds me of A Scanner Darkly.

[Raban]

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.

This comes down to what you end up perceiving in movies. I didn't think There Will Be Blood was anywhere near pretentious in its writing. It was practically the lite version of every topic it covered. It wasn't deep at all. The writing and acting was just solid as a rock.

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.

You should've mentioned this before, it'd make everything you said a lot easier to understand. And in case you didn't know, it's in the nature of Batman to contemplate what he's doing and the hardships of being an antihero in a place like Gotham. Batman, in its time, was never this corny-ass superhero, he's a detective with both an obsession and a bottomless wallet. Iron Man has a lot of character depth too, but that was all crippled by the writer/director/casting department or whoever. All superheroes can have depth, and character depth is a universal way to improve the quality of a screenplay. It's more important than the plot in some cases (see: The Big Lebowski).

Robert Downey Jr. improvising > Christian Bale grunting like a sex offender at a tittie bar

I'd say it's a tie. Christian Bale was pretty miserable as Batman. But when he was Bruce Wayne, brilliance occurred.

[Raban]

The reaction to this has been hi-larious.

What, on GAF?

[Great Rumbler]

yes, and elsewhere.

People take everything so seriously these days. So Robert Downy Jr. complained about another movie, most likely in as a joke. Why should I care? He didn't even say it to my face or direct it at me. I chuckled and went on with my life.

[WrikaWrek]

It'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.

[Great Rumbler]

It'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.

[WrikaWrek]

It'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.

[Solo]

Speed Racer is quite possibly > TDK. Im still in my TDK initial love-in phase, but once that passes, I may end up sticking SR over it.

[Eric P]

wrong forum to sling SR hate

that film is beast.

[Robo]

It'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.

Wall-E

[WrikaWrek]

Speed racer? You guys don't know shit.

[Solo]

Most people shitting on SR never even saw it and thus have irrevelent opinions. Not saying you didnt see it, but by and large, this is the case.

[WrikaWrek]

I saw speed racer.

[Solo]

Well you are one of the few then.

[cool breeze]

I saw Speed Racer and didn't think it was that great, or at least on the scale that some of you consider it great.  I enjoyed TDK a lot more, and probably Iron Man more also.

I would put SR at the scale of something like Wanted or Tropic Thunder as an enjoyable movie, but nothing that great.  Still above Hancock and Harold and Kumar 2, so that is something.

[Great Rumbler]

It'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.

Well, I'm sorry that your inner child died of loneliness a long time ago, didn't mean to bring up old wounds!

[Greatness Gone]

Speed Racer is a shitty movie, there's nothing feel good about it, since it's a crap movie.

Fucking wrong.

SR > Anything done in 2008 so far besides TDK. They're equal in my eyes.

[Raban]

Wall-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. Instead

spoiler (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]

The movie wasn't filled with enough grim realities, you wanted the end to be a sad one? Man, fuck you.

[Greatness Gone]

Wall-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. Instead

spoiler (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]

Well basically every Pixar movie is a predictable, but pretty borefest from start to finish.

Except for Toy Story and Finding Nemo. The only good things Pixar has ever done. Can't wait for Pixar to do that John Carter of Mars film, which should be their next best movie.