Robert Downey Jr Describes Boot/Glove Sequence from "Iron Man 3"

Sound's good to me. This better be great cuz im not in the moid to be disappointed.

Off-screen, Downey and Paltrow performed the equally technical Fist/Anus sequence.

^it was the sh*t.

So really, despite the headline, RDJ explained nothing about this sequence, did he?

Iron man in hoth disguise ....iron man in night suit etc etc

I thought Cheadle was great in Flight, and I'm so damned glad they canned that candy ass whiner Terrence Howard.

I nabbed Flight for the family and threw it on the Blu-Ray player last week.

Don't remember anybody that sat through the first 20 minutes, including myself. I've been meaning to get back to watching it, as Denzel's hugely praised performance has me aching to watch it. I just couldn't handle the stock depictions of the heroin junkie, and the overall... Vibe (Yeah, let's go with that) of the movie. It either told me that Zemeckis rushed this movie out for awards season or probably got some pressure to make a live-action so he just tossed a quickie around the writers table.

Like I said, though, I will get back to it.

Oh, yeah. This article lies, again. That is all.

Zemeckis has been looking for relevance for ten years. First he tried live-action action adventure as a commercial yeoman, and got nowhere.

Then he tried animation only to discover he sucked. Now he's trying to go the socially conscious route though live-action, and on that level, Flight works, but not well enough for the year in which it came out.

It's like he's trying to get approval in the year Traffic appeared, and Hollywood, and much of the culture and audiences, is way beyond that.

In other words, Zemeckis wants relevance, and he has some, sure, but he's way behind the curve for the level he's seeking.

He needs to dig deeper and do something fresh and audacious. Way to stale and mainstream where he is now, because nudity and heavy drug use is so 1990s.

Hit the nail on the head there. Could be the reason why the film didn't work out with me. The family who I showed it to are casual viewers, so when I go back to it I'm going to have to watch by myself in the mentality knowing that it was made with dated intentions, just like you said. So I'm going to try it out with your observation and see how that works out.

Basically I'm going to have to forget Traffic and the million other movies with performance concepts and aspects of direction that were released before Flight. Kind of a cheap way to see how good the movie is (Seeing as how it wasn't made with modern intent), but then again, I can't just toss it aside with a 20 minute observation.

Some would say that it would be stupid for me to judge the movie with that much time put in.

But when the perfomances are shelled out that obvious, 20 minutes speaks volumes.

*watch -it-

*see how that works out

-sans the "out"

I'll be totally honest without veering right into negativity: it doesn't get any better than the first 20 minutes, or after the crash.

Sorry.

Hmm... Well, I guess I'm a rut, aren't I? Seeing as how I've already tore through the new releases.

I need some new sh*t to watch. Guess while I'm waiting for Hollywood to cook up something worthwhile I'll be mindlessly delving into CSI Vegas.

Yes, I know. And I also agree with your assertions that I probably will be going on like that for a... Long, long time.

*-in- a rut