IRON MAN 2

Joshua wrote:

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.

Silent K wrote:"Refuting Kerouac" is a sex move. Get on it, Josh. Voicemail is 616-951-1POP.

Bigtymin504 wrote:

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:

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.

Off_White_Lantern wrote:

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.

Even without the action for actions sake the movie wasnt real good. Top ten critics in Entertainment averaged a C for the movie. Moved away from what worked for part one and added too many characters that nobody cared about.

I wasnt real crazy about Kick Ass but it was much better than Iron Man 2. (Yeah shocked me too)

Joshua wrote:I think I liked Iron Man 2 more than Kick-Ass, but I definitely enjoyed The Losers more than both.

Bigtymin504 wrote:

Off_White_Lantern wrote:

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.

Even without the action for actions sake the movie wasnt real good. Top ten critics in Entertainment averaged a C for the movie. Moved away from what worked for part one and added too many characters that nobody cared about.

I wasnt real crazy about Kick Ass but it was much better than Iron Man 2. (Yeah shocked me too)

Well that's your opinion, that's fine. I was just saying I thought you were dead wrong about there being too much action, just don't see how that argument holds any water.

Off_White_Lantern wrote:

Bigtymin504 wrote:

Off_White_Lantern wrote:

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.

Even without the action for actions sake the movie wasnt real good. Top ten critics in Entertainment averaged a C for the movie. Moved away from what worked for part one and added too many characters that nobody cared about.

I wasnt real crazy about Kick Ass but it was much better than Iron Man 2. (Yeah shocked me too)

Well that's your opinion, that's fine. I was just saying I thought you were dead wrong about there being too much action, just don't see how that argument holds any water.

A more detailed description: Too many big name actors that were there for name recognition only, too much action for the sake of action and waaaay too many subplots and loose stories going on at the same time. Summed up it worked like a cookie cutter hero movie not like the first Robert Downey character driven film.