Again, he said it was overstuffed, muddled, and that it deserved the critical smackdown. What is your definition of "speaking out against", and how does that not qualify?
I'm aware of what he said, and you've made a point of reiterating his words several times in this thread, it seems.
Maybe we have different opinions or views about what we consider to be "speaking out against" something. Personally, I would equate it more to someone publicly taking a firm stance on a subject/issue, most often with the intention of protesting/rejecting something and/or spreading awareness about the subject/issue at hand.
"After the recent court case, college students across the country are speaking out against rape on college campuses."
"Jennifer Lawrence speaks out against the gender pay gap in Hollywood."
"This activist has spent the past year speaking out against animal cruelty at SeaWorld."
"Dozens of celebrities have spoken out against Donald Trump."
I also think there's a clear difference between speaking out against something and simply giving on honest opinion about something when prompted to do so. If someone asked me, "Do you agree that Burger King is not as good as McDonalds?"...I would probably say something like, "Well, Burger King's burgers are sort of flavorless and a bit overpriced compared to McDonalds, so yeah, I understand why most people prefer McDonalds." I think it'd be pretty silly for someone to go on about how I had "spoken out against" Burger King in that case. It'd be a little different if I were to reiterate my words multiple times in different public forums, or if I'd chosen to share my anti-Burger King opinions on social media or something. That would be me making a point to speak out against something.
Similarly, if someone asked me my opinion about Donald Trump's policies and I said that I disliked all of his proposed policies but happened to agree with one of them (which is not true) and explained why, I'd be a little shocked if you guys started going on about how "The Shape has spoken out in favor of Donald Trump!"
In the case of Irons, he casually answered a question posed to him, and his answer wasn't "loaded" with any intention other than to give a seemingly honest answer to an interviewer -- which is something I have no problem with. He didn't outright say it was a bad film, or that it should have been better. He didn't say that films like BvS shouldn't be made, or that they should have hired a different creative team, or that he was unhappy with the process of making the film, or that he was against the idea of making another one, or that he wishes he was never involved in it. As far as I know, this is the first time he's said something like this and might be the last time, so it isn't like he's out there making the press rounds, trashing the film and reiterating his words at every turn to multiple sources -- at least for now.
Now, of course, you can feel free to ignore everything I've just said and come back at me by breaking this down in the most technical, literal way possible. "You're wrong because Jeremy Iron said this to someone, so he was 'speaking', and the words came out of his mouth so he was "speaking out", and he agreed with something negative about the movie so he was therefore 'speaking out against' the movie." But I think you understand what I mean regarding the connotation behind this phrase in terms of how it is most commonly used, and how that differs from the situation we're currently discussing.
Again, this is just my view on the phrase and you're free to continue feeling otherwise and viewing it differently.
