IRON MAN 2

TENIME_art wrote:But it's called the "Stark Expo" pack. It even comes with the repulsor gauntlet on her arm. Also, I don't remember Tony appearring like that at all in the finished movie.

But the scene cut was from the Birthday Party, no? So...Stark Expo does not fly.

I didn't know she came with a Repulsor Guantlet.

I don't know, was it? If so, that makes the figures even more confusing!!

And, yeah, she comes with an extra "normal" hand, but she's packaged wearing the RT.

I fucking love that.

you'll enjoy these then. lol

http://io9.com/5527578/iron-man-2-posters-that-look-forged-from-sheer-cool/gallery/

Paroxysm wrote:

that is bad ass.

My dream is to have something as singularly cool and as special as what the Alamo drafthouse presents itself to be. I've never been there, but it seems like such a cool vibe that it makes me want to make the trip. I found myself unexpectedly jealous of a friend who went to SXSW this year.

Just Googled...holy crap, they franchise. I wonder if they'd be willing to do a drafthouse/comic shop?

Paroxysm wrote:

That is AWESOME!

saw the movie yesterday and I enjoyed the shit out of it. There were a few subtle nods that the fan boys would get but everyday movie goer may not get. And you know what? That is perfectly okay. At the end of the first movie (after the credits) we saw shield and Nick Fury. Not everyone knew who he was. At the end of this one it was the hammer. The thing is, it may not make sense now but in a year so it will make sense for the non-geek. Plus not realizing what the "star shield thing" was did not take away from the movie.

Good movie though overall, and I am getting excited for this Avengers movie

I enjoyed this movie. I thought it was a great progression from the first movie. I liked how the armor and the power source in Tony's chest was actually doing him harm and part of the movie had to do with him finding a safer permanent substitute to what he was using. I also liked the whole "legacy" theme to this movie when it came to the relationship between Tony and his father. It was used just enough without it be underplayed and I liked it. I also liked Ivan Vanko's motive also had to do with legacy issues dealing with his father and how it linked with Tony's father as well.

I liked Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer. I felt that he was a bit cheesy in parts but I guess that was the point of the role. I don't know. Samuel L. Jackson was.....well Samuel L. Jackson I guess. I liked his part in the movie. He did just enough with the role and was there it seemed to point Tony in the right direction and whatnot.

Scarlet Johansson. Not a fan. She's nice to look at but I've never been impressed with her as an actress but I didn't think she brought much to the role. I just saw Scarlet and not the Black Widow. I have no idea as to how John Favreau wanted her to play the part but she played it like an emotionless drone. Those Justin Hammer robots at the end of the movie had more character than Scarlet did in her role and it took me out a bit. When you consider what a great character actress Emily Blunt is, she could have done tremendous things with the role and I can only imagine that they would have had her done a Russian accent and somehow intertwined the Black Widow and Whiplash's connection in some way. It's a shame when you think of the possibilities and what could have been. Then when you consider that Emily Blunt could have been the Black Widow, it made me sad:
http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00022362.html

Overall, I thought the movie was good. I was listening to Comic Geek Speak and I agree with Jamie D's opening statements about the movie. Especially about the villains. It wasn't bad but it could have been much better and I think I liked the first one better. Still, there was more that I liked than I didn't like and it wasn't so much that there weren't things I didn't like but maybe a bit disappointed in certain aspects. Overall, good movie. Not as good as the first one but the last scene after the credits was awesome.

Another thing I had heard when it pertains to Emily Blunt is that she was disappointed about not getting the role for Black Widow, she turned down a role in Captain America:

http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie-news/6461/why-emily-blunt-turned-down-captain-america-role
http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/movie-news/emily-blunt-turns-down-captain-america-for-catwoman-role.php

Ok after seeing it a second time... I think them cutting the Widow with the gauntlet scene out is kind of a mistake. It gives Pepper no reason to be as pissed off at her as she is when Tony and Rodie come crashing through the ceiling.

She's kinda going off on her and there's no real reason for it.

Also it was lovely to see it with the projection room light off and I missed some of the early jokes because of the retard kicking my seat.

Also... I must find some good pics of the dress that Widow is wearing at the Hammer Presentation... cause I SOOO want that dress.

Combo Mo wrote:

BAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Combo Mo wrote:

I gotta say, I'm kinda torn on how I would rate this.

Honestly, I had no real complaints on how comic material was transferred to the movie.

RDJ was great again
The villains played their roles well (despite not having any real notoriety)
Cheadle was an improvement over Howard
I couldn't care less about Scarjo or Black Widow, so no real comments on either
I was however disappointed with Samuel L. and Paltrow's performances.

But the big joy-kill for me was that halfway through the movie I just got bored. Genuinely bored. Hell, I had two guys near me fall asleep. I can't really put my finger on why, but I just started losing interest. And once the movie started to pick up again, I didn't really care anymore.

I'd still say this was one of Marvel's better offerings, though I think I had more enjoyment with the first Ironman movie.

Just my 2 cents

LordD3r3k wrote:I gotta say, I'm kinda torn on how I would rate this.

Honestly, I had no real complaints on how comic material was transferred to the movie.

RDJ was great again
The villains played their roles well (despite not having any real notoriety)
Cheadle was an improvement over Howard
I couldn't care less about Scarjo or Black Widow, so no real comments on either
I was however disappointed with Samuel L. and Paltrow's performances.

But the big joy-kill for me was that halfway through the movie I just got bored. Genuinely bored. Hell, I had two guys near me fall asleep. I can't really put my finger on why, but I just started losing interest. And once the movie started to pick up again, I didn't really care anymore.

I'd still say this was one of Marvel's better offerings, though I think I had more enjoyment with the first Ironman movie.

Just my 2 cents

That's a fair take overall, don't agree with the boring part but its all good. My theater actually seemed really engrossed, with some really big laughs at times. Totally agree with you on Samuel L, was expecting a lot more out of him. He essentially played himself in this. I actually really liked Paltrow though, her and RDJ have some great chemistry on screen.

jaydee74 wrote:I enjoyed this movie. I thought it was a great progression from the first movie. I liked how the armor and the power source in Tony's chest was actually doing him harm and part of the movie had to do with him finding a safer permanent substitute to what he was using. I also liked the whole "legacy" theme to this movie when it came to the relationship between Tony and his father. It was used just enough without it be underplayed and I liked it. I also liked Ivan Vanko's motive also had to do with legacy issues dealing with his father and how it linked with Tony's father as well.

I liked Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer. I felt that he was a bit cheesy in parts but I guess that was the point of the role. I don't know. Samuel L. Jackson was.....well Samuel L. Jackson I guess. I liked his part in the movie. He did just enough with the role and was there it seemed to point Tony in the right direction and whatnot.

Scarlet Johansson. Not a fan. She's nice to look at but I've never been impressed with her as an actress but I didn't think she brought much to the role. I just saw Scarlet and not the Black Widow. I have no idea as to how John Favreau wanted her to play the part but she played it like an emotionless drone. Those Justin Hammer robots at the end of the movie had more character than Scarlet did in her role and it took me out a bit. When you consider what a great character actress Emily Blunt is, she could have done tremendous things with the role and I can only imagine that they would have had her done a Russian accent and somehow intertwined the Black Widow and Whiplash's connection in some way. It's a shame when you think of the possibilities and what could have been. Then when you consider that Emily Blunt could have been the Black Widow, it made me sad:
http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00022362.html

Overall, I thought the movie was good. I was listening to Comic Geek Speak and I agree with Jamie D's opening statements about the movie. Especially about the villains. It wasn't bad but it could have been much better and I think I liked the first one better. Still, there was more that I liked than I didn't like and it wasn't so much that there weren't things I didn't like but maybe a bit disappointed in certain aspects. Overall, good movie. Not as good as the first one but the last scene after the credits was awesome.

Another thing I had heard when it pertains to Emily Blunt is that she was disappointed about not getting the role for Black Widow, she turned down a role in Captain America:

http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie-news/6461/why-emily-blunt-turned-down-captain-america-role
http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/movie-news/emily-blunt-turns-down-captain-america-for-catwoman-role.php

I think Emily Blunt's scheduling conflicted with her getting the role of Black Widow right? I think Marvel really wanted her but it just didn't work out. She would have been great IMO, but maybe not the same level of starpower that ScarJo provides.

Bigtymin504 wrote:That's a fair take overall, don't agree with the boring part but its all good. My theater actually seemed really engrossed, with some really big laughs at times. Totally agree with you in Samuel L, was expecting a lot more out of him. He essentially played himself in this. I actually really liked Paltrow though, her and RDJ have some great chemistry on screen.

I think my feelings tie back to Joshua's earlier comment about the momentum grinding to a halt. I definitely felt it.

My disappointment with Samuel L. is two-fold. First, I know it's based off the Ultimate Universe, but I just don't imagine Sam when I think of Nick Fury. I always pictured someone like Clint Eastwood I guess.I just don't see Fury bullshitting in the summer breeze sipping on tea. He's just alittle too easy going for Fury, IMO. I know it's supposed to come off as a calm confidence, but it's just not working for me. Plus, Samuel's coolness factor begin to quickly diminish somewhere around Snakes on a Plane. He just doesn't carry that same gravitas with me anymore.

As for Paltrow, she came off as such a strong personality in the first movie. She'd stand up to Tony and didn't take shit. But I didn't get that same impression this time around. She just seemed too whiney, woe is me, and "Bad Tony!". Now I'm not saying this outlook didn't make sense considering her new position, I just didn't care for it, at all.

LordD3r3k wrote:

Bigtymin504 wrote:That's a fair take overall, don't agree with the boring part but its all good. My theater actually seemed really engrossed, with some really big laughs at times. Totally agree with you in Samuel L, was expecting a lot more out of him. He essentially played himself in this. I actually really liked Paltrow though, her and RDJ have some great chemistry on screen.

I think my feelings tie back to Joshua's earlier comment about the momentum grinding to a halt. I definitely felt it.

My disappointment with Samuel L. is two-fold. First, I know it's based off the Ultimate Universe, but I just don't imagine Sam when I think of Nick Fury. I always pictured someone like Clint Eastwood I guess.I just don't see Fury bullshitting in the summer breeze sipping on tea. He's just alittle too easy going for Fury, IMO. I know it's supposed to come off as a calm confidence, but it's just not working for me. Plus, Samuel's coolness factor begin to quickly diminish somewhere around Snakes on a Plane. He just doesn't carry that same gravitas with me anymore.

As for Paltrow, she came off as such a strong personality in the first movie. She'd stand up to Tony and didn't take shit. But I didn't get that same impression this time around. She just seemed too whiney, woe is me, and "Bad Tony!". Now I'm not saying this outlook didn't make sense considering her new position, I just didn't care for it, at all.

I hear you on the Sam Jackson/Fury comments. I too think of 616 Fury whenever I hear the name, even though I do like Ultimate Fury quite a bit. Thing is, SLJ didn't really channel either Furys in the role, he just kinda relied on his own personal cool factor...which you rightly pointed out has kinda diminished lately. I understand your Paltrow comments, but like you said I think they came from her circumstances in the movie, where Tony kept putting her in positions of stress. I thought it worked pretty well personally.

Movie wasnt even close to part one. Felt rushed and didnt focus much time on dialogue or story instead turning into Transformers 3. A lot of the movie was metal flying around for the sake of cgi action.

Off_White_Lantern wrote:Movie wasnt even close to part one. Felt rushed and didnt focus much time on dialogue or story instead turning into Transformers 3. A lot of the movie was metal flying around for the sake of cgi action.

See, I don't get that argument at all. There were large stretches of the movie with no CGI or action at all. There was a lot more character development than pure action if you ask me. Heck, an argument could be made that there wasn't enough action.

Combo Mo wrote:

LordD3r3k wrote:
My disappointment with Samuel L. is two-fold. First, I know it's based off the Ultimate Universe, but I just don't imagine Sam when I think of Nick Fury. I always pictured someone like Clint Eastwood I guess.I just don't see Fury bullshitting in the summer breeze sipping on tea. He's just alittle too easy going for Fury, IMO. I know it's supposed to come off as a calm confidence, but it's just not working for me. Plus, Samuel's coolness factor begin to quickly diminish somewhere around Snakes on a Plane. He just doesn't carry that same gravitas with me anymore.

While I did like SLJ as Fury, I do agree that he was playing himself more than playing Fury. I hope that that isn't the case in future movies when he has a bigger role.

If they had gone with 616 Fury, I think that Mark Harmon would be PERFECT for the role.

Bigtymin504 wrote:

Off_White_Lantern wrote:Movie wasnt even close to part one. Felt rushed and didnt focus much time on dialogue or story instead turning into Transformers 3. A lot of the movie was metal flying around for the sake of cgi action.

See, I don't get that argument at all. There were large stretches of the movie with no CGI or action at all. There was a lot more character development than pure action if you ask me. Heck, an argument could be made that there wasn't enough action.

I'm with Bigtymin, the movie was more character driven than it was about action.

Mnemosis wrote:
I think MOST of the people going to see Iron Man could probably identify Captain America's shield.

You give the casual movie going audience way too much credit.