IRON MAN 2 Takes Down HOOD Comments - Mania.com



COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Showing items 21 - 30 of 39
<<  <  1 2 3 4 >  >>  
TheStormrider 5/17/2010 5:38:12 AM

@hanso:  I told you you needed to set up the security on your wireless.  Now look what those damn leachers got you blamed for.

karas1 5/17/2010 5:48:40 AM

Why are people saying Crowe is too old to play Robin Hood?  Do you guys know how old Robin Hood is supposed to be?

For the record, while I do attend the odd Ren Faire, I'm not a member of the SCA or anything.  I liked both Iron Man 2 and Robin Hood.  But I think I liked Robin Hood just a little bit more.  I'm as entitled to my oppinion as anybody else.

I enjoyed Iron Man but somehow there was something about the movie that just felt a little empty to me.  The end where the villian took control of the droids wasn't surprising.  Everybody saw that coming a mile away I'm sure.  Then it was just an FX orgy of flying robots and explosions.  Maybe I'm getting too old and jaded to find that impressive.  And none of the innocent bystanders got so much as a cut from all that falling glass much less having an aftermath of ambulances and mangled bodies as would have really happened.

I did very much like the middle of the film where Tony Stark was staring his mortality straight in the face (and totally freaking out about it).  If you've only got two weeks to live why not get drunk and make an a$$ out of yourself?

I'm wondering how this Avengers movie is going to turn out.  If all the leads are as charismatic as Stark and Fury then I fear it will be too much of a good thing.  Nobody will get enough screen time.  It will be too crowded.  It will be like a cake with too much elaborate icing and not enough cake.

If it turns into the Tony Stark show (and with Downy's strong portrayal it could) then everybody will be disappointed that the other character got shortchanged.  It's going to take a masterful hand to balance everything perfectly and how often does that happen?

Wiseguy 5/17/2010 6:04:01 AM

I think life expectancy around the time illustrated in the movie is around 30 years old, never mind if you're a crusader and then a thief. So yeah, Russel is way too old, he looks around 40-50

Hobbs 5/17/2010 7:08:53 AM

I actually thought Russel was too fat to be Robin Hood but I'll hold judgement until I see it.  Which will most likely be Redbox down the line.  Hood didn't interest me and I'm a history buff.  Box office it did what I though it would. Ridley Scott is a God overseas and I have no doubt it will make all its money and then some back overseas.  See Kingdom of Heaven for proof.

I just don't see the pimping out people are claiming...seriously the little screen time they had does it really matter?  Wise was correct when he compared it to the comics.  The Marvel I crew up always threw teasers in their comics and this is no different. 

IM1 and 2 is about Tony Stark as it should be.  I would have liked more Rourke time as well but it worked for what they did.  Though to be fair I can see now why he was hesitating about taking the role, it was a small part. 

karas1 5/17/2010 7:23:55 AM

Average life expectancy was low but healthy individuals could live as long as people today if they were clever.  Robin Hood was a smart guy.  No reason he couldn't be a healthy 45 year old.

Wiseguy 5/17/2010 7:53:57 AM

LOL, hey that's ok, we all look for ways to accept or excuse what we like. But 30 even applied to royalty nevermind again a thief, crusader and one living or hiding out in the forest.

ponyboy76 5/17/2010 7:58:19 AM

Crowe fit fine as Robin Hood. I don't think he was meant to be this really young guy  anyway. He seemed to be, like Maximus in Gladiator, a seasoned soldier that a lot of the men looked up to. I doubt the Crusades were his first campaign.  He was also not "fat". He didn't have a shredded 6 pack or anything but he was definitely fighting fit for the movie.

And its your opinion, but how can your complaint about the final scenes in Iron Man 2, be that there was too much F/X and CGI? I mean, you do realize, its Iron Man and you can't necessarily have Tony Stark and Rhodey not flying around fighting robots. I love the fact that Favreau delves some much into the characters but at the end of the day its not a character pieces. Its about a brilliant billionare that dons a flying suit and blows stuff up.

wessmith1966 5/17/2010 9:34:01 AM

As always I've been enjoying reading everyone's comments...Hanso, Wiseguy and all the other regulars who insightful and intelligent things to say and a lot of us seem split on the action in Iron Man and the ramping up of the Avengers in the movie. Personally, I think Favreau's IM movies have been great because the movies are really about Stark and the people around him with IM being just an extension of Stark's will. IM2 gave every character some time to shine while still moving the story forward. The various comments in this thread made me think about the source material, the comics themselves. In the comics a huge amount of an storyline's pages are about the people, not the battles. The battles are used to climax stories and move plotpoints, but it's the dialogue between characters that drive the stories and really pulls us into caring about the characters. Favreau used that in his movies (just like Nolan did for the Batman movies). In the comics there are scores of crossover events (especially in the last 10 years) where other characters are mentioned and other plotlines pushed to move the larger umbrella storyline forward. I guess what I'm saying is that I feel Favreau took the best parts of comic books and put them on the big screen in two impressive movies.

karas1 5/17/2010 12:05:05 PM

I understand that a movie called Iron Man will be about a guy in a suit flying around and blowing stuff up.  But that's not the part of the story I enjoy the most.  I much prefer the part of the movie with Downey chewing up the screen as Tony Stark.  Many people have voiced the oppinion that there was not enough action in the movie.  I disagree.  If there was more action it would become generic.  It would become a movie about a guy in a suit blowing stuff up. Just FX filling up the screen and taking time.  

Iron Man and Iron Man 2 were elevated above that by the performance of the actors, particurlarly Downey, who ACTED and made their characters special.  I would much rather see a scene between Tony Stark and Pepper Potts than a scene with Iron Man flying around and fighting robots.

Of course, that's just my oppinion.  Your mileage may vary.

hanso 5/17/2010 12:29:47 PM

 Darkknight - I'm not sure actors get paid by the amount of scenes they are in but even if they were why do you care about the budget?  They already had pumped millions into the movie might as well use some more for a film they know they will be making tons of money on.  Besides, the battle with the faceless robots at the end probably ran them up more money than had they cut it and just had IM, WM and Whiplash go at it for 3 minutes instead of  the 1 minute they got.

I don't think I'm way off on saying IM 2 pimps The Avengers,  IM2 has a whole scene towards the end of the film about The Avengers, how could they not be pimping that movie?  It's also my belief that Black Widow wouldn't have been in IM2 if they weren't intent on tying things up to The Avengers movie, of course I have no proof of this but thats how I feel.

Anyways it is what it is but I hope WB doesn't go that route even though it looks like they will.  I don't want to be watching the next Batman film and have to spend time with Jimmy Olsen instead of with the Bat and his villains only because WB wants a Justice League flick.

 

<<  <  1 2 3 4 >  >>  

ADD A COMMENT

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.