> Overall I thought it was an above average flick, but is it just me or are
> others getting tired of these cookie cutter superhero movies?
There is certainly the formula: the origin, the villain, the battle,
the sequel. Dare I say though, that some formulas are worth repeating?
Like... forever? Especially with this cast?
>Marvel must be making a fortune of all these licenses.
Considering the company was in-and-out of bankruptcy more than once in
the 1990s, it's about time.
> The product placement was annoying, and really takes the edge off any
film
> for me. It just seems to be a two finger salute at artistic integrity,
which
> speaks volumes about the film's makers.
I've been a fan of director Jon Favreau for some time, and I think his
work acting in one of THE quintessential American independent films of
the 1990s ("Swingers") still influences him. You're right, it's a
formulaic film, but we have a load of movies that *can't* get the
formula right (X-Men 2 (Good) vs. X-Men 3 (Not so much)). This is
certainly not high art, but it's got just the right amount of heart
and diligence that makes some blockbusters withstand the test of time.
As for product placement, when they're dealing with hundreds of
millions of dollars in production costs I can't hold it against the
filmmakers. Audi does make an amazing car, and until the Q7 showed up
with the family inside I didn't have a problem with the placement; it
all fit. Even then, nothing in Iron Man is nearly as bad as "Vintage
2004" Converse sneakers in a certain other film.
Yeah, I just really liked it so I'm probably just rationalizing around
your valid criticism, but maybe I have a point.
> I did stay 'til post credits, but the very brief presumed link to the
next
> film went pretty much over my head - for fans of the comic book I'm
> guessing.
Well, you can't bring up ****ELD without... you know... that guy.
> I hadn't seen a trailer for Hancock until tonight, and *that* looks
> interesting.
Looks to me like the potential to be Smith's biggest clunker since
Wild Wild West. It'll profit because of Smith, but some of the comedic
parts strike me as rather flat. Hopefully I'm wrong.
> 2008 is shaping up to be a reasonable year for films IMO, although
there's
> still a lot of formulaic stuff out there, and a sequel or two too many.
Well, I recommend "4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days." It's perfect in every
way and... nobody's seen it.
-Steve
|
