IRON FIST: SEASON 1 NON-SPOILER REVIEW

[Darth Knox]

So I thought I would switch things up and do a review for a tv show as I have just finished bingeing all of Iron Fist.

PLEASE NOTE - THE FOLLOWING IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW. I WILL NOT REVEAL ANY MAJOR PLOT POINTS FROM THE SHOW.

While the MCU is killing it at the box office, the DCEU is struggling. However, on the small screen, DC are absolutely smashing it, with The Flash, Arrow, Legends of Tomorrow and Supergirl all massively popular and appealing to many different demographics. Meanwhile, Marvel's tv shows are seriously lagging behind. But not when it comes to Netflix.

With two amazing seasons of Daredevil, a great season of Jessica Jones and the timely socially relevant Luke Cage all blowing up the internets, Marvel's Netflix-verse (MNV) is doing fine and dandy. Being on Netflix has freed up Marvel from any constraints that may have been placed on them if these shows were on network tv.

In an effort to bring more comic book properties to life, the ultimate aim of the MNV is to have the ultimate tv team-up by bringing the superhero team The Defenders to the small screen. By focussing on the more "street level" heroes that Marvel has in it's stable, we have been given some dark 'n' gritty character pieces that have been thoroughly entertaining.
So, how does Marvel's latest release Iron Fist shape up? Is all the so-called "cultural controversy" well-deserved? Were the poor critics ratings on point?

The story/plot
After being presumed dead for 15 years after the plane carrying him and his parents crashes in the Himyalayas, Danny Rand comes back to New York to reconnect with childhood friends and try to live up to the legacy of his new status as the Iron Fist.

Overall opinion
From the off, let me state that all the critics who gave this shows poor ratings were wrong. Do not misunderstand me, the show has it's problems which we will get to in a minute. However, let me address the "cultural controversy" first. We all know that Hollywood and network tv has a tendency to appropriate aspects from other cultures and use that as a basis for a "great white hope" in movies and shows. It's been going on for years and is nothing new. And we all know that there has been a greater cry in recent years for wider diversity for actors, allowing more ethnically diverse actors to be cast in roles. With Iron Fist, there were some corners of the internet accusing Iron Fist of having a white character to be teaching an Oriental character aspects of her culture. This is sooooo not true and it just goes to show how little understanding and/or background research into the character those commentators did.

Secondly, there have been some people who complained that a show that features a lead character who is skilled at martial arts, doesn't feature masses of martial arts action. Again, this is unfair. Not only can you not just have 13 episodes featuring lots of action (as that would get monotonous and get in the way of the storytelling) but I feel those critics misunderstood that Iron Fist is more an exploration of an individual trying to find his path and place in the world; it is a character study about an individual who just happens to have some amazing abilities (similar to Logan) rather than being a show purely about super powers. That is very consistent with the tone and storytelling that has already been seen in Daredevil, Jessica Jones and Luke Cage.

Now, onto the good stuff. In my opinion, the show is really good. It is not as dark and gritty as Daredevil or socially relevant as Luke Cage, but it definitely deserves it's place in the MNV and does a decent job of pulling together certain plot threads from the other MNV show as we approach all the characters teaming up as The Defenders. It's not perfect. Some of the dialogue can be very generic and unbelievable although all the actors involved do as well as the can with the material they have been given. As far as I'm aware, the creative team that was behind the other MNV shows was not (heavily) involved with this show and it is obvious at times that this is the case. The best analogy I can think of is Rocksteady producing the first Batman games (Arkham Asylum and Arkham City) and then a different company made Arkham Origins, trying their best to emulate the style and feel of the predecessors but not quite getting it right. Not bad, but just noticeable.

Despite all that, I thoroughly enjoyed the show. I know some people who read a synopsis of the show may compare the character to Bruce Wayne. I can see why people would say that. However, in Batman Begins when Bruce Wayne comes back to Gotham after his 7 year absence, Alfred comes and picks him up at the airport. He has a shower, shave, grabs a new suit and then takes a trip to Wayne Enterprises where everyone instantly recognises him. Imagine, instead of that, he disappeared at 10 years old and no-one recognises him as an adult. He has no living family and no kindly old butler. Because he was a kid (and rich) he has no fingerprints or DNA on file. How would he prove he is who he says he is? (especially showing up without shoes and looking homeless). That is how the first few episodes of the show are and I found that take on the character quite interesting.

The Performances
Finn Jones - Danny Rand
I have seen some people say that Finn plays Danny devoid of any charm or personality. That was not my experience at all. I found Danny to be likeable and sweet, albeit quite naive and too quick to trust. Which given the fact he went missing when he was 10 years old and then raised by warrior monks for 15 years in isolation is kind of understandable. All-in-all, this was a good introduction to the character who still have plenty of room to grow.

Jessica Henwick - Colleen Wing
She did a good job with the character and added some depth to a conflicted personality throughout the show.

Rosario Dawson - Claire Temple
She is the Agent Coulson of the Marvel Netflix-Verse. Ever since her brief appearance in season 1 of Daredevil she has gradually been given more to do with each new show that comes out. This time around she appears in quite a few episodes, providing a nice touchstone for the previous shows, but still being consistent with how the character is after all she's experienced. Always a welcome addition seeing her on screen.

Jessica Stroup - Joy Meachum
Childhood friend of Danny's, Joy is by far the most interesting, layered and real character on the show, thanks in large part to Jessica's acting chops. The show was always the better for having scenes with her in them.

Tom Pelphrey - Ward Meachum
Ward is Joy's dick older brother. As dick characters go, Tom did a good job of making you want to punch this guy all the time. He strayed into outlandish "villain" mode a couple of times, with his performance going a little too far sometimes, but thankfully he always managed to wrangle it in before it got too out of hand.

David Wenham - Harold Meacham
Playing Dillios in 300, David is very used to appearing in comic book material. Here, he has a lot of material to work with and does a decent job of playing an almost self-serving character. As with Tom who plays his son, his performance goes a little too far sometimes, but he reels it in and (usually) sticks the landing.

The action
Not as good as we have seen in Daredevil but not awesome. You could tell that the actors were trying their hardest to be convincing martial artists, rather than relying on stunt doubles. I suppose that's one area where having a costumed hero comes in handy (less obvious when the switch has been made). But if Hollywood has taught us anything, it's that it'll be easier to take a good actor and make him be a believable martial artist than to take a martial artist and make them a good actor.

Some of the fight scenes lacked the weight and brutality of other MVN shows, but it wasn't bad. I was always thoroughly entertained, just never really blown away by anything. But all the action was in-keeping with the plot point at the time.

The effects
Some episodes had a little CGI shots in them (literally one or two shots, never any long sequences). They did what they needed to so the story/scene could move on. Too quick to judge harshly

Other stuff
I wasn't a huge fan of the opening credits look and song, something that has been an artistic high-point for other MVN shows.

I was hoping for more of a Defenders lead-in when the series ended, but I suppose Marvel want to keep the anticipation for that low at the moment.

There are a couple very subtle nods (mainly from Claire) to the other shows, including a hilarious "sweet Christmas" moment.

Speaking of Luke Cage, because it was so cool that show single-handedly has ruined all tv soundtracks for me. I didn't think much of the music soundtrack for this show, but that's probably because I am so in love with Luke's (and listen to it on Spotify regularly).

Final verdict
It's not as great as the previous Marvel Netflix-verse shows, but that doesn't make it bad. Iron Fist was enjoyable and engaging and I am definitely looking forward to seeing The Defenders team-up

Score - 6.8/10

My TV rating system
10- Breaking "F*%king" Bad (A+)
9- Bloody Great (A)
8- Really rather good (A-)
7- Pretty decent (B+)
6- Definitely above average (B)
5- Middle of the road average (C)
4- Mediocre (D)
3- Meh (E)
2- Crap (F)
1- Why the hell did I waste my time on this abomination (unrated)

After-thought - Critics
Earlier in the week I was counting down the days until Iron Fist dropped. But then, mid-week, I saw a video by Screen Junkies News that highlighted the poor critical reception the show had. I was crushed, all my enthusiasm shrunk down to tiny grains of sand. However, despite all that, I was still determined to see the show. Given my review, maybe I enjoyed it as much because my expectations had been lowered. Or maybe not (we'll never know). So, my question is: Should we listen to critics and let their opinion influence our expectations for a tv show (or movie)?

[Kham-Ryn Kurios]

Great write up. +1

Ive really enjoyed it so far.

To answer your final question: I think if we as the audience are going to let a critic's opinion influence us, we should learn the difference between a critic, and cynic.

[Drahcir]

I chose to avoid any reviews after I heard it was received negatively - I'm currently 6 episodes in and while it's not as good as the others, it certainly is an entertaining addition to the marvel universe.
Luke Cage and Jessica Jones are the best of the best in my opinion, but this doesn't seem too far off from Daredevil.

[LivingBrain]

This is in response to the after-thought:

Alright, I'm just gonna unload here. This is something I've been thinking about for years and have a lot to say on, much of it from personal experience, which I'm just going to lay out.

So, as anyone can probably see, I'm a film nut. I try to watch at least one movie every day, and enjoy old things (yes, even silent movies), foreign things, and indie things along with the usual fare. I love it all and voraciously devour and study it. However, I also have experience in two other areas: filmmaking and film criticism. Some of you may know about my filmmaking experience (which, for the sake of keeping this short and protecting some information I like to keep personal, I'm happy to lay out over a PM), but what I haven't talked about yet is my experience in film criticism.

The reason I haven't talked about it is because it was very short-lived, and not something I look back on very fondly. I had a blog where I wrote essays and reviews, and even got some stuff published in another outlet. It wasn't anything too big, but I had fun with it. That is, until I hit a wall. I discovered that I didn't yet have enough life experience to be as insightful as I wanted to be and I didn't have enough knowledge of film history to make my material interesting. Could I write interestingly? Yes, and I could analyze stories and acting well enough to make my material worth a glance. However, these other two aspects got in the way.

One thing you don't realize about being a film critic is that there's an insane amount of pressure to be insightful and knowledgeable about everything you see, and I just wasn't up to the task. I could talk about superhero movies really well, but throw a historical drama in front of me and I struggle to find things to say, meaning my reviews just end up being paragraph upon paragraph about how the story was good and some of the actors were too. That's boring to read, and not worth much of anyone's time (of course, this was several years ago; I'm a bit better now).

Here's the other thing: you have to watch A LOT of movies. One of my professors in college used to be a film critic and he saw over 200 movies every year. Can you imagine how insane that is? I was nowhere near that myself and I was exhausted, not just from having to go out and see these things so frequently but also because I was mentally taxed. Writing at that frequency is really, really tough, especially when, as previously mentioned, you need something good to say with every single review.

Now here's the last thing to mention, the most important reason why I quit, and the one thing I really want to get across more than anything:

When you're a film critic, your readers are assholes.

Literally, every single review gets negative comments, and it's always someone trying to take you down in some way. You receive a lot of personal insults on a daily basis over something as arbitrary as movies and, along with the stress of normal life, it take a massive toll on you. It slowly ate me up inside to the point where, for my own personal happiness, I had to quit.

Do you guys know why critics are so grumpy? It's not just because they're taxed physically and mentally from seeing a crapton of movies and make very little money for their work, but because they get treated like sh## for it too.

Think about it: you've just watched your 3rd movie of the day, are now working on the 4th draft of the 6th review you've worked on that day, while keeping up with online comments and engaging with some readers so you can appear personable, while endorsing the paycheck that will just barely make you able to afford your rent that month. Then, all of a sudden, because you gave SUICIDE SQUAD a negative review, some guy you don't know is wishing death on you and your family, after you've already fielded several insults to your intelligence that day.

Be honest with me: wouldn't you be upset?

I know it seems like watching a bunch of movies and TV and writing about it seems easy but trust me, from the small amount of experience I've had with it it's grueling work, and requires the toughest skin imaginable.

So all those comments you guys give throwing critics under the bus? Well, all I ask you to do is take what I've said into consideration. If a critic ever appears angry in a review or goes unnecessarily hard on something it's because their work is tough (also, harsh reviews bring in more readers; that's a fact). You don't have to agree with them, just please be considerate, and choose to be reasonable and polite rather than fighting fire with fire (trust me; they'll appreciate it).

I have a lot more to say on this in regards to the importance of the diversity conversation (even if some criticisms in that area may not be earned with this show), the general anti-intellectualist bent that permeates the whole conversation around critics, or the fact that many of them genuinely do love movies and TV (why else would they choose this career?), but that's better saved for another essay.

TL;DR: Critics have a really tough job. Please be nice.

[Kham-Ryn Kurios]

When you're a film critic, your readers are assholes.

Every. Single. One.

[Darth Knox]

Great write up. +1

Ive really enjoyed it so far.

To answer your final question: I think if we as the audience are going to let a critic's opinion influence us, we should learn the difference between a critic, and cynic.

Thanks Kham. FYI, the "after thoughts" are actually rhetorical questions so you don't have to answer me directly

And in response to LB's rant, let me say that not ALL critics are grumpy and not ALL readers are assholes.

The phrase I use most often is "all movies are subjective" there is no right or wrong answer, there are only opinions. I think some people forget that all a critic is doing is giving their opinion. There is no rule or law that  says they are right or that we to agree with them. If watching lots of bad movies is beneficial because it helps you recognise what a bad movie is, then having critics who disagree with you is also beneficial as it makes you quantify, analyse and articulate a definitive opinion on a film or tv show.

In this day and age when anyone with a smart phone or mobile device can post their opinions online, the role of the critic is still the same as it ever was. The only difference is the anonymity the internet offers have given rise to the troll, belligerent people who just want to cause discord for no reason. Haters gonna hate. This is why I never read the comments sections of online reviews or the youtube channels I enjoy watching. Why purposely expose yourself to such negativity is my thought.

Even if a critic I like gives a movie I love a bad review, I don't hate them. I will disagree with them, but respect their opinions. I will not take it as a personal attack against me, my lifestyle or my sensibilities that a critic I like doesn't like absolutely everything I do, as long as they have given intelligent and logical reasons as to why. In fact, living in a world where everyone agreed with you about everything would be incredibly dull. It is possible to disagree about movies and tv shows and have intelligent discourse about it without feeling threatened, taking it personally or feeling the need to convince others that "I'm right and you're wrong".

Going back to the show, having read a few more reviews from critics about it, it really seems like some of them went in cold, knowing nothing about the character and his long history in the comics. If that is the case, then bravo (for one) but they may have expected something akin to the old tv show Kung-Fu with David Carridine with a superpower element and that is really not what the show or character is about. If the critics have done some research on the character and still didn't like the show, then so be it.

I think the hardest thing that can harm a tv show or movie is audience expectation; we have built up in my minds what we think the show will be and when it doesn't meet those expectations some people can react negatively ("This isn't what I was expecting, therefore it's crap"). I'm not saying the critics did that, but something definitely must have happened for so many critics to have given the reviews they did (cue all the Marvel fanboys online to start trolling that WB/DC bribed the reviewers in order to harm the Marvel brand *sigh*).

[Lord Canterbury]

Yeah . . . everything I read about it was extremely negative (except for Jessica Henwick, for the most part) but 5 episodes in . . . I just don't get where they are coming from. 

As you've all mentioned, it's not as good as the previous ones, but it absolutely doesn't warrant the completely negative reviews I've read.

Particularly toward Finn Jones.  I actually think he plays the character well; it makes sense that someone who was like him . . . that grew up the way he did . . . would be very earnest and a bit naive to how the world works.  He wouldn't be dripping with sarcasm like Jessica or as conflicted as Matt and Luke at times.

I also can't help but think there is a degree of hate over the whole "whitewashing" thing, which was always ridiculous because the character was always Caucasion.  (And wouldn't it be a bit of stereotyping to cast an Asian Lead just because he does Kung Fu?)

Although there is always the "Raisin Analogy" in Hollywood which I agree with, but people took this one too far.

[Darth Knox]

Particularly toward Finn Jones.  I actually think he plays the character well; it makes sense that someone who was like him . . . that grew up the way he did . . . would be very earnest and a bit naive to how the world works.  He wouldn't be dripping with sarcasm like Jessica or as conflicted as Matt and Luke at times.

Exactly. Danny at the beginning of the show is right at the beginning of his career as a hero. He is readjusting to life in the modern/western world.

I also can't help but think there is a degree of hate over the whole "whitewashing" thing, which was always ridiculous because the character was always Caucasion.  (And wouldn't it be a bit of stereotyping to cast an Asian Lead just because he does Kung Fu?)

In fact casting an Oriental actor just because the character does Kung-fu would be stereotyping.

Although there is always the "Raisin Analogy" in Hollywood which I agree with, but people took this one too far.

Exactly. Three examples of that are Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin and Michael B Jordan as Johnny Storm.

And for all those people who have an issue with this, or the fact that the issue keeps being talked about, all I can say is, until the bowls in the raisin analogy are equal it will still be a topic on conversation. And so it should be. You can hate all the exposure you want, but until we have gender and race equality this conversation will never end.

Point to you for that link LC.

[Jev Moldara]

Posting here because I haven't finished the season yet.

I'm just gonna say that I absolutely LOVE the intro sequence.

Also, anyone get the "Daft Punk TRON: Legacy" vibe from that musical sequence?

Seriously, here it is without the visuals:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgj0-qaYC1U" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgj0-qaYC1U</a>

At the 0:43 mark is where the Daft Punk-ness kicks in.

[Kham-Ryn Kurios]

Posting here because I haven't finished the season yet.

I'm just gonna say that I absolutely LOVE the intro sequence.

Also, anyone get the "Daft Punk TRON: Legacy" vibe from that musical sequence?

Seriously, here it is without the visuals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgj0-qaYC1U

At the 0:43 mark is where the Daft Punk-ness kicks in.

For sure. That was the first thing MJ pointed out; she loves TRON.

[Jev Moldara]

Honestly, all the Marvel Netflix intros have been spot on perfect. Probably the weakest of the four is Jessica Jones, but it's still great.

[Lord Canterbury]

Posting here because I haven't finished the season yet.

I'm just gonna say that I absolutely LOVE the intro sequence.

Also, anyone get the "Daft Punk TRON: Legacy" vibe from that musical sequence?

It's a bit like TRON & Stranger Things had a baby . . . and named it Iron Fist.

I like it.

Actually, the intros to all 4 have been really good.  It's rare I don't skip those but I never have with any of these 4.

[Drahcir]

I like all the intros, but I actually like this one the least.
Some of the angles on it look a bit wonky to me.

[Jev Moldara]

Still say the best Marvel Netflix intro is a dead tie between Daredevil and Luke Cage. Both are simply sublime.

[Lord Canterbury]

And for all those people who have an issue with this, or the fact that the issue keeps being talked about, all I can say is, until the bowls in the raisin analogy are equal it will still be a topic on conversation. And so it should be. You can hate all the exposure you want, but until we have gender and race equality this conversation will never end.

http://ew.com/movies/2017/01/04/rogue-one-diego-luna-fan-story-diversity/