WHY REVIEWS ARE WEIRD AND HOW YOU CAN BEST ENJOY IRON MAN 3

May 8, 2013

iron-man-3-downey-cheadle__span

REVIEWS ARE WEIRD!

SO HULK WROTE A NON-REVIEW ABOUT HOW YOU CAN BEST ENJOY THIS FUNNY, MORE-ATRADITIONAL-THAN-YOU-THINK BLOCKBUSTER

http://badassdigest.com/2013/05/01/film-crit-hulk-smash-why-reviews-are-weird-and-how-you-can-best-enjoy-iron/

8 Responses to “WHY REVIEWS ARE WEIRD AND HOW YOU CAN BEST ENJOY IRON MAN 3”

  1. Panache said

    Bravo, Hulk.

    We may overreact to spoilers, but I warned friends to beware spoiling this one. The film may not gel as well as the first, but I respect it for many of the same reasons. They’re plumbing some thematic depths in both movies and with a much lighter touch than Nolan.

    Particularly, “Iron Man Three” follows through on several themes that “The Dark Knight Rises” simply punts. It’s as if Black got a hold of a workprint or a draft of “Rises” and decided to call Nolan to the carpet for certain…lapses. I suspect that fanboys chafe as much at Black’s calling out their anointed one as to any canonical infidelity.

    Black certainly does not lack big, brass balls for his decisions with the villains and Stark’s endgame. Many writers make the connection with Bane, but I’d argue Black is pointing to each and every villain from the Nolanverse, including our beloved Joker.

    On an unrelated note, after sitting through “Iron Man 2” again, I really, truly love that Howard’s bloopers play more scripted than any scene preceding or following it. The cognitive dissonance of keeping that scene in place in its current form while trying to edit something cohesive out of the morass surrounding it–it boggles the mind.

  2. […] second is from FilmCritHulk’s article linking Iron Man 3 reviews and the nature of spoilers. If you haven’t read FilmCritHulk’s work before, get started. He’s way more than […]

  3. Richard said

    y’know. I thought Iron Man 3 was a damn good summer movie. How I’d describe it in one sentence is: “It’s Shane Black doing a superhero movie.”

    *a* superhero movie

    He took a lot of tropes that are commonly seen in several boring auto-pilot superhero films, turned them upside down, peppered it with Shane Black’isms (Right off the get-go, the opening narration was reminiscent of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang), to deliver something that’s less familiar and more fresh.

    However, I’ve gotta be honest, I hated the Mandarin twist. The whole thing was pulled off well enough. And it seemed like Shane Black was kinda satirizing the idea of the big grand supervillain putting himself up on display.

    But see, superhero movies are dumb. They just are. Everybody knows that. Everybody accepts that. But a lot of people who have been into the comics and cartoons and such, still go see these films because we care about the characters and love seeing them come to life on the big screen. I, personally, had been kinda bored of the whole Iron Man schtick for a while now, and the only reason I went into this one excited was because I love the Mandarin, and I wanted to see him come alive on the big screen. The twist pretty much null’d that one reason.

    Now, don’t anybody call me a god damn purist, because being excited for a non-Chinese, Indian, Taliban-y, weird talking Mandarin shows that I’m not. I just don’t like the treatment the character was given. I’d liken the whole thing to a public sodomy of the character.

    To get where I’m coming from, imagine The Dark Knight as it is. Except, at the end, Batman catches up to the Joker. Then “Joker” falls to his knees and confesses “I’m not the Joker. I’m just an actor called Trevor. This all has been smoke and mirrors.” And then some random suave businessman guy walks up and declares “You’re looking for the Joker. I am the Joker!”

    Booo! Utter fail.
    The Dark Knight was another movie where I didn’t care about the hero, and only went in because I loved the villain from the comics so damn much. And I’d have been just as pissed if “Joker” turned out to be Trevor.

    Good movie. Bad twist.

    • FILMCRITHULK said

      SEE THE THING ABOUT THE MANDARIN (AND HULK KNOWS SHANE BLACK THINKS SO AS WELL BECAUSE HE SAID AS MUCH WHEN HE FIRST STARTED WORKING ON THE MOVIE) IS HULK KIND OF FINDS THE CHARACTER… PRETTY RACIST. A LOT OF HULK’S ABILITY TO ENJOY THE CHARACTER IN THE COMICS HAS TO DO WITH THE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE OF “THIS WAS JUST A DIFFERENT TIME,” BUT EVEN SOME OF THE MODERN INCARNATIONS ARE TROUBLING. THERE’S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COMIC BOOK MOVIE BEING DUMB AND SILLY AND A COMIC BOOK MOVIE ADVOCATING A NONSENSE STEREOTYPE. HULK LIKES THE MALEVOLENCE THE CHARACTER BRINGS IN THE COMICS, BUT HULK THOUGHT THAT WAS VERY MUCH ACHIEVED WITH PEARCE’S CHARACTER. AND LIKE HE SAYS, HE IS THE MANDARIN. IT’S JUST A RADICALLY DIFFERENT (AND APPROPRIATELY UPDATED IN HULKS VIEW) VERSION OF THE CHARACTER. AND ALL THE MANDARIN STUFF IS REALLY THERE IT’S JUST CONTEXTUALIZED INTO WHAT IT REALLY IS: ALL PAN-ASIAN ICONOGRAPHY AND OOGIE-BOOGIE. AND THE MOVIE CONCOCTS IT INTO WHAT IT REALLY IS: STUFF THAT’S MEANT TO SCARE IS WHEN THE MOST DAMNING BAD GUY IS THE ADVOCATING FOR PERPETUAL WARFARE.

      IN THAT RESPECT, HULK THOUGHT THEY HANDLED THE CHARACTER PERFECTLY AND MADE A SMART COMMENT IN THE PROCESS.

      PLUS TREVOR SLATTERY WAS FUNNY AS ALL HELL.

  4. Shogun said

    Long time listener, first time caller…
    I went to see Iron Man 3 by happenstance, and I wasn’t entirely sure what to think of it after it finished.
    I knew that there were things about it I inherently liked, but I wasn’t sure how much, if at all, I could say that I really liked it. I felt like the movie touched on so many real issues, but just jabbed at them somehow, rather than really explored them. I Ieft the theatre wondering if Black wanted us to think about the nature of character, in that Stark’s values, lived out through his decisions, not the armor, make him the Iron Man (especially with the send-off message). I also left wondering if Black was simply criticizing masks in general, specifically the masks we don in order to face the world. Or perhaps, he addressed our almost tragically futile pursuit of a perfectly safe world and the damage we create in doing so. There also seemed to be a riff on the merits of technological developments. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
    On one hand, one might say that any film that creates such questions, especially via the comic book medium, deserves praise. However, I felt a little schizophrenic after seeing the movie because there seems to be so much under the surface that fails to become substantial. Does that make any sense?
    I subsequently watched Star Trek 12, which helped convince me that Iron Man 3 is not only a good movie, but a great one. Nevertheless, I’m still a bit puzzled, and I figured that perhaps my favorite film critic could shed some light on my befuddlement.
    Thanks in advance.

  5. Shogun said

    BTW, I suppose I should weigh in on the obvious. I loved the Mandarin in this film. Heck, I used to read Iron Man when I was a kid, but the decisions made in this move made the film better, in my opinion, and, thus, I’m all for it. Besides, they already re-branded Spider-Man. I’m sure that within another fifteen years, the Mandarin will reappear in all his Chinese glory, so why not suspend nostalgia for the sake of making a great film?

  6. Cameron said

    So, my new pet peeve with reviews has been realized this summer. And the guys from BAD have brought it to my attention.

    Why do reviewers seem to insist that flaws in a movie can be attributed to how the source material is handled? The movie they’re watching, unless the title includes a 2, 3, or the like, needs to be judged on its own merit. (STID and MoS reviews come to mind.)

    I thoroughly enjoyed STID. I saw the echoes of Wrath of Khan, but I didn’t find flaws in it because of how it differed or repeated WoK moments.

    MoS is very much the same way. After watching the movie, I’ve read a few reviews. It bothers me that people are finding faults in it based on what they feel the character/movie should do. Why? It’s a reboot.

    I’m not looking forward to World War Z nearly as much as I had been because it looks NOTHING like the book. Having said that, when I do see it, I’ll judge it on what I see, not what I think I know.

  7. Daybreaker said

    SEE THE THING ABOUT THE MANDARIN (AND HULK KNOWS SHANE BLACK THINKS SO AS WELL BECAUSE HE SAID AS MUCH WHEN HE FIRST STARTED WORKING ON THE MOVIE) IS HULK KIND OF FINDS THE CHARACTER… PRETTY RACIST.

    But a gutless move to strip out the awkwardness of the original material and impose politically correct cliches instead can never be fresh or exciting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: