|
Post by G on May 8, 2010 13:45:12 GMT -5
Okay, anybody seen this yet?
Like I said, I'll probably wait until i can rent it to see it, but I'm still curious. I haven't heard much yet, but I have heard "a bit disappointing compared to the 1st" from one or two. But then again, these weren't comic enthusiasts saying it. I'm looking for the word from the true fans.
Was this any good?
|
|
|
Post by G on May 8, 2010 18:31:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on May 8, 2010 21:42:19 GMT -5
Okay, anybody seen this yet? Like I said, I'll probably wait until i can rent it to see it, but I'm still curious. I haven't heard much yet, but I have heard "a bit disappointing compared to the 1st" from one or two. But then again, these weren't comic enthusiasts saying it. I'm looking for the word from the true fans. Was this any good? Maybe tonight if they have a late showing... df1
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on May 9, 2010 10:26:25 GMT -5
Okay, anybody seen this yet? Like I said, I'll probably wait until i can rent it to see it, but I'm still curious. I haven't heard much yet, but I have heard "a bit disappointing compared to the 1st" from one or two. But then again, these weren't comic enthusiasts saying it. I'm looking for the word from the true fans. Was this any good? Maybe tonight if they have a late showing... df1 It seemed to jump around too much. I didn't care for the villains. Still can't stand watching Paltrow. Too much overkill on the same crap. There was one frame towards the end where it gave me the classic Tuska feel of Iron Man reeling from the villain. In this case the whip. I like that a lot. I expected War Machine to be better, but I'm not a fan of him. Should I reveal the ending after the credits? The movie was better than a lot of stuff out there, but I was still underwhelmed. After seeing the poor dialogue in The Losers and seeing more from the Hammer character in this movie, it just became tedious to watch and disappoints me quite a bit. df1
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on May 9, 2010 10:31:13 GMT -5
I never saw that scene in the film. df1
|
|
|
Post by bigw1966 on May 9, 2010 12:23:26 GMT -5
Watched it on the computer the other day and will be seeing it in the theater next weekend.
Part of the dissappointment some people are having rests on the fact that unlike the first film, low expectations were not blown away by surprisingly good quality film. Meaning everyone was so hyped for this, that It would never live up to it.
I found all of the characters to be very nuanced and well played. Many parts followed the comics with slight variations. Like the fight between rhoady and tony while Tony was drunk. Tony's ego is a driving character trait in this film. It shows very well how that can get ahead of him.
WAr Machine was well used in the film, It showed that rhoady doesn't have the control or understanding to properly handle the armor like Tony. I am also glad they only used him as they did because the film is titled Iron Man.
Rourke was very good as Vanko. He played it very well and did a good job of manipulating Hammer so he could continue on his own path.
Hammer as played by Sam Rockwell was an oputstandingly sleazy character. Rockwell is such an amazing actor.
Sure the movie has flaws, and really it requires a second viewing to catch everything, It has many layers to the plot that honestly, if you are not someone with some knowledge of the comic would see it as jumping around to much. which is also part of the reason the reviews are all over the place.
They do a good job of exploring the whole Demon in the bottle story without having to put us through that entire depressing arc.
Bottom line. Its easily as good as the first one. Not better. Not worse. But just as good.
|
|
|
Post by cyberstrike on May 9, 2010 19:47:42 GMT -5
I haven't seen Iron Man 2 yet, but I always thought if you did Iron Man as a movie trilogy then Demon in the Bottle storyline would be a huge part of the second film's arc.
I know DF1 doesn't like Tony as a drunk, because it's makes him less heroic and depressing to him, (and he apparently like his heroes as paragons of virtue with no vices or real world problems), and I would agree that 100%...if Tony never beats the bottle.
Now coming from a family where alcoholism has claimed the life of my father's father, two uncles, and a cousin seeing Tony Stark, beating his alcoholism is one of the most heroic things in any media.
Iron Man beating the Mandarin isn't as heroic to me as Tony Stark beating his alcoholism and if people here don't like flawed heroes then it's their loss, because it's when people overcome their flaws weather it be ego, addictions, their financial status, intelligence, doubts, or whatever, that make them heroic to me not beating up super villain.
Don't get me wrong I love the stoic noble paragons of virtues with no vices or real world problems but they tend to bore me after a while.
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on May 9, 2010 20:42:04 GMT -5
I haven't seen Iron Man 2 yet, but I always thought if you did Iron Man as a movie trilogy then Demon in the Bottle storyline would be a huge part of the second film's arc. I know DF1 doesn't like Tony as a drunk, because it's makes him less heroic and depressing to him, (and he apparently like his heroes as paragons of virtue with no vices or real world problems), and I would agree that 100%...if Tony never beats the bottle. Now coming from a family where alcoholism has claimed the life of my father's father, two uncles, and a cousin seeing Tony Stark, beating his alcoholism is one of the most heroic things in any media. Iron Man beating the Mandarin isn't as heroic to me as Tony Stark beating his alcoholism and if people here don't like flawed heroes then it's their loss, because it's when people overcome their flaws weather it be ego, addictions, their financial status, intelligence, doubts, or whatever, that make them heroic to me not beating up super villain. Don't get me wrong I love the stoic noble paragons of virtues with no vices or real world problems but they tend to bore me after a while. I thought they handled alcoholism okay. I've never had a problem with heroes making mistakes if they are in fact capable of remedying the mistakes by themselves. I have a problem with movies depicting widespread destruction and the lead characters giving each other high 5's and laughing that they caught the bad guy after they've destroyed millions of dollars in property. I didn't care for Tony's alcoholism storyline in the comics, but more so because it bored me. In the movie, the drinking portion was just one aspect they forced into the plot that left it bouncing everywhere. They'd get more life out of these characters if they'd tell one good story rather than try to jam 4 into one. I thought the movie had some very bad science in it and they wasted time trying to whitewash it with plausible science. df1
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on May 9, 2010 21:22:53 GMT -5
Watched it on the computer the other day and will be seeing it in the theater next weekend. Part of the dissappointment some people are having rests on the fact that unlike the first film, low expectations were not blown away by surprisingly good quality film. Meaning everyone was so hyped for this, that It would never live up to it. I found all of the characters to be very nuanced and well played. Many parts followed the comics with slight variations. Like the fight between rhoady and tony while Tony was drunk. Tony's ego is a driving character trait in this film. It shows very well how that can get ahead of him. WAr Machine was well used in the film, It showed that rhoady doesn't have the control or understanding to properly handle the armor like Tony. I am also glad they only used him as they did because the film is titled Iron Man. Rourke was very good as Vanko. He played it very well and did a good job of manipulating Hammer so he could continue on his own path. Hammer as played by Sam Rockwell was an oputstandingly sleazy character. Rockwell is such an amazing actor. Sure the movie has flaws, and really it requires a second viewing to catch everything, It has many layers to the plot that honestly, if you are not someone with some knowledge of the comic would see it as jumping around to much. which is also part of the reason the reviews are all over the place. They do a good job of exploring the whole Demon in the bottle story without having to put us through that entire depressing arc. Bottom line. Its easily as good as the first one. Not better. Not worse. But just as good. I'm quite familiar with the comic having somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 issues. I understand why it jumps around because all the Marvel movies have been doing it. I just think it's poor pacing and it pulls down the entertainment factor of the overall movie to do so. I like Strawberry Ice cream and I like Pizza. I don't want Strawberry Ice cream on my pizza. The way Marvel crams all these plots together makes the movies less entertaining than if they'd stuck with one plot. Hammer was indeed sleazy. He was obnoxious to the point that he was implausible. Losers did the same thing with their villain and it comes across as bad campy comic book dialogue. I thought Rockwell did a terrible job, but partially because his lines were so bad. Again, for the movie to work, they have to maintain as much plausibility as possible. The best science fiction is that which is based on the most science fact. Using Palladium in a cold fusion reactor... not bad, but it's only associated as a catalyst because of it's unique interaction of acting like sponge in the presence of heavy water. The short supply of rare earth metals like Palladium & Platinum are one of the reasons you don't see a full blown conversions to fuel cell technology. I'll set aside my disbelief that he could create a particle accelerator in his house. It's very difficult to accept that he created a new element. There are other elements out there and science is forcing them into existence, but they are highly unstable lasting only milliseconds in the lab. I'd rather see them say he made a new isotope but that too is equally stupid since there are only a limited number of preferred combinations. An unstable isotope or element would be radioactive which would create more danger for him. Vanko Jr. was equally implausible. A physicist and computer hacker/programmer walking around like a homeless body builder grunting noises like an animal. I felt this movie tried to hinge too much on a few key scenes. Still don't care for a black Nick Fury and thought Black Widow was completely underutilized. Liked seeing Happy Hogan as he was the character most true to the comic. df1
|
|