First and foremost, I've never really heard of this guy, nor do I see him as someone that I would ask for his opinion about any movie for that matter.
Having said that, I will give him the benefit of the doubt in his review and take his opinion with some understanding. But to be honest, his review really didn't complain about anything that affected the overall feel of the story, the characters, and the action. In fact, his main complaint stemmed from the fact that he wanted a Tony Stark exposé.
"Directed with a fresh zest by Jon Favreau, "Iron" does not offer any staggering or moving insight into Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) which is a shame really, because in the comics he's a bag of mess;"
Strangely enough, I'm perfectly fine with that. I don't want the moving insight to be fully revealed because it takes away the evolution of the character. Furthermore, that's one of the main aspects of Tony Stark. He does have vicious skeletons in his closet, but that closet is not open for everyone to see, nor is it made obvious in his entire existence. In fact, we go from one problem to another with Tony and his ability to handle said problem (mingled with his humanity as illustrated in his errors).
This quote kinda nullified any confidence that this person understands Tony Stark
"...a raging alcoholic and a copper-version of Bruce Wayne."
The similiarites are there, but any IM fan knows that this is pretty far from the truth, nor are his vices as overt as Bruce's are.
So based on all this, there's really not that much complaint about anything save for this critic wanting more. But I don't know how much more he wants. He goes on, saying...
"In fact, the first ten or so minutes of the film, for some odd reason, happen out of order. Usually this tactic is to invoke suspense or to provide a later twist. But that never happens. We see Stark in an army truck, hamming it up, and then boom--explosions and chaos. But before the first explosion happens, we in the audience know Stark: he is brash, charming, funny and drinks a lot. Oh and he loves women, even if they're in a soldier uniform. So after the opening titlecard goes away, and a "36 Hours Earlier" heading, what we see is an elongated visualization of what we already suspected: he is brash, charming, funny and drinks a lot. Oh and he loves women, even if they're a reporter pretending to despise him.
I wish these passages of the narrative gave us some compelling flashbacks into the Stark-lore."
I think that aspect needs to be illustrated through Tony Stark, through Robert Downey Jr's acting and not a flashback ordeal. I find this so funny because people are trying to avoid an origin story, but the road he wants is essentially the gist of an origin movie. So, in essence, he's not flipping about the development of who Tony Stark is, but I guess wants some concrete background knowledge instead of
"...the 'Zoolander' type montage of soundbites, magazine covers and photo stills of who Tony Stark "really is." This is probably the achilles heel to the whole movie."
On that flip side, he raves about how the movie picks up from after the 45 minute mark and "never looks back" as well as Downey Jr. He does say it's not another X2, but I got a feeling that it'll be on par with Spiderman if anything.
My only concern...is that the story downplays the traumatic experience Tony encounters and never touches on it, or falls short in the fact that he has to deal with the fact that his injured heart is one of those vices that reveals his humanity.
Decide for yourself, but I'm gonna wait 'til I see a review from EW or Ebert and Roper, Rolling Stone, or something with a bit more credibility and consistency.
t:
