Another Reason to See Iron Man 2!

YouTube Preview Image

From the only reliable source of news on the net, The Onion.  Now I wouldn’t actually wish that Gwyneth Paltrow be punched in the face, but I wouldn’t mind her being strapped to a chair in the film and forced to listen to such gems she has inflicted on the public as:   

“Oh yes, I can be mean. I can cave in to gossip. I can ice people out and I can definitely harbour revenge. In fact, I’m having a situation right now with a friend where I’m feeling pretty angry. But revenge is corrosive and it doesn’t make me feel good. I’ll wake up in the morning and think, ‘Ugh, I feel terrible’, and suddenly realise, “Ah, I’m a pretentious b–ch. That’s why I feel terrible.”  

“Beauty, to me, is about being comfortable in your own skin. That, or a kick-ass red lipstick.”

“I love Martha Stewart’s magazine. I love it. I love it. When I’m on location, I always make a meal for myself. It’s a good way to unwind. I make all Martha’s stuff except cakes because I haven’t learned how to bake yet.”

“You have this relationship that’s really real, and really what it is, and you don’t understand when people comment about it. It just doesn’t mean anything.”

However, I certainly would not wish physical violence on her.  Now if Geraldo Rivera or Jerry Springer were in the movie however…

19 Responses to Another Reason to See Iron Man 2!

  • Paul Zummo says:

    Paltrow getting a movie punch in the face is nothing. Hasn’t anyone seen “Seven”?

    Nice one. Unfortunately my roommate spoiled the “surprise” for me the day before I saw the movie. Although in a way that made the ending even creepier.

  • Templar says:

    Because of her portrayal of Viola in Shakespeare in Love, she can be forgiven all other transgressions. Now, she’s certainly trying to test those limits….

  • Pinky says:

    Gwyneth Paltrow’s kind of irritating, but doesn’t fly high enough to show up on my radar. Downey’s the one that gets on my nerves. I wouldn’t mind seeing his character get Sevened in Iron Man 2 (not that I’d actually go see it).

  • Because of her portrayal of Viola in Shakespeare in Love, she can be forgiven all other transgressions

    See, I take the position that her acting in Shakespeare in Love was unforgivable and will forever raise my distaste for her but perhaps that’s b/c I hated that movie so much (in part b/c it stole the Oscar from Saving Private Ryan in one of the bigger “20 years ago they’re going to laugh at how stupid people in the past were” trivia questions)

  • Tito Edwards says:

    She’s alright, except when she explains how superior she feels when she’s visiting us ‘merickans from England. Apparently pub conversations over in England are much more intellectually stimulating and more important than your run of the mill bar talk.

    Yeah, I go to bars for stimulating conversations.

  • Templar says:

    Michael Denton Says:

    See, I take the position that her acting in Shakespeare in Love was unforgivable and will forever raise my distaste for her but perhaps that’s b/c I hated that movie so much (in part b/c it stole the Oscar from Saving Private Ryan in one of the bigger “20 years ago they’re going to laugh at how stupid people in the past were” trivia questions)

    I confess I felt the same way the night those Oscars were awarded. But a few months later I was on deployment in Germany and the base theater was playing Shakespeare in Love so I figured I might as well see it. I was bowled over and moved to tears. I watched it 3 more times the week it was there, own it now and watch it frequently. It is masterful the way the writers wove so much of the life, times, and writings of the Bard into that play that I have come to realize that clearly the Academy made the right choice that night. Private Ryan is a good movie, and the opening 30 minutes and closing 25 minutes are beyond top shelf. But the 1 hour and change in between are pretty stock stuff, not even terribly accurate historically, but I still love that movie. But Shakespeare in Love….Paltrow was hardly the best performance in it, but as a whole….food for the dramatic soul.

  • Donakl R. McClarey says:

    (Guest comment by Don’s wife Cathy): Jay, the film could have been referring to the “lost” Roanoke colony (founded 1585). Although, if they were already “lost” in the year when the film was set (1593, per Wikipedia), how could anyone from England be transported there (as Paltrow’s character apparently does at the end of the film, supposedly thus providing Shakespeare with the inspiration for writing “The Tempest”)?

  • Jay Anderson says:

    I thought about that, Cathy. But there were no tobacco plantations on Roanoke Island. Tobacco wasn’t successfully harvested commercially until 1613, and the first plantation wasn’t established until that same year – 2 decades after the time period in Shakespeare in Love.

  • Jay Anderson says:

    Also, you mention another inaccuracy in the movie. “The Tempest” was written following the 1609 wreck of “The Sea Venture” off Bermuda.

    Of course, I suppose only Virginians were keeping score on that account. Folks in the Commonwealth are used to Hollywood getting the history of that particular time period wrong (see, e.g., “Pocahontas” and “The New World”, although, apart from the romance between Pocahontas and John Smith, “The New World” is otherwise quite good and a fairly accurate depiction of the Jamestown Colony).

  • John Henry says:

    Of course, I suppose only Virginians were keeping score on that account. Folks in the Commonwealth are used to Hollywood getting the history of that particular time period wrong

    It’s not just distant history, either. As a native of the great Commonwealth, I’m frequently surprised by Hollywood’s inaccuracies. For example, in Remember the Titans, the movie opens with a lady with a thick Southern accent saying “Here in Virginia, football is a way of life…” and most of the scenery suggests a somewhat rural setting. However, the team actually played in Alexandria, VA, just across the river from Washington DC and within sight of the national monuments. High school football is not particularly important there and no one talks with a Southern accent. Additionally, I am told that race relations were much better than they were depicted in the move during that time period(both of my parents went to nearby high schools – my dad played football against that team the next year). None of which, of course, ruins the movie; it’s just interesting how movies conform facts to fit certain narratives (the team played in Virginia, that’s ‘southern,’ ergo people talk in southern accents and high school football is really, really important).

  • Pinky says:

    John, you can run across an occasional Southern accent in northern VA. But football definitely is a way of life in that tight Pennsylvania/Florida/Oklahoma/Idaho corridor.

  • Templar says:

    Shakespeare in Love is Romantic Comedy and does not pass itself off as historically accurate, in fact anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the Bard knows the entire movie is a pure flight of fantasy, not unlike the work of the Bard himself, which is one of the greatest ironies of the whole movie.

    Private Ryan on the other hand is Historical Fiction, which was trying to portray a fictitious story in an historical setting, and is, in my opinion anyway, more beholden to maintaining historical accuracy on the back ground story, and in that regard they failed pretty horribly.

    Both are still great movies though, and both sit on my rack and both frequently get viewed.

  • American Knight says:

    Y’all seem to forget that Virginia is part of the upper South so our Southern accents are slightly different then people from other parts. As for enemy-occupied Northern Virginia, sadly, you’re more likely to hear a Korean or Farsi accent up here than a Southern American-English accent.

    As for Gwenny getting punched – it would do her a lot of good. She’s a smug Hollyweirdo and all of ‘em need a swift, loving kick in the rear – for their own good you know.

    As for Hollywood getting things in the Old Dominion wrong – true – but, what exactly does Liberalwood get right?

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .