Ironman

It's a nice movie but it was not 'Batman Begins'.
It had lots of similar characteristics with Batman Begins but something had reduced the value of this movie, reminded all of us that this was just yet another movie based on comic.

The only problem I had with Ironman were, it looked at the world as black-and-white. I agree with reviews from Laremy Legel in film.com

When the bad guy is just plain motivated by evil it sets up a less interesting story arc.

Ra's Al-Ghul (a.k.a Henry Ducard) perhaps had the similar thought like Osama ibn Laden or Amrozy. The world was corrupt and they believed they were the answer. In Legel's article

Which brings me back to my unadulterated love affair with Batman Begins. In that film, which I'd call the best of genre, the villain has a legit point. You kind of think, "well, perhaps Gotham should be put to the torch." It's a more complex and ultimately rewarding story because there's much more to think about.

In Ra's Al-Ghul word, "When a forest grows too wild, a purging fire is inevitable and natural."



While, the villains in Ironman were simple. They were bad guys. They didn't have any good in them. They just wanted to be bad.

Most of the reviewer of the Ironman I read online got the lack of depth of the story in the last half the story while I had the feeling in the first quarter of the story. When you watched Tony Stark was brought outside the cave for the first time, you realized the villain of the movie was just simply.. bad.

Why?
Because there were no any children nor any house. They were not freedom fighter nor anygroup who fought for some kind of ideology. The situation was different compared to Batman Begins' League of Shadow where their base was near to a small village. From that moment, I realized Ironman wasn't another Batman Begins.

I'll gave 7,5 of 10.
I still love Robert Downey Jr. performance.



*cough! cough!
*nextTime
*If I Was Trapped In Heavy Rain
*I should went home immediately
*took a bath and medicine
*instead of watching movie