IRON MAN 2 Takes Down HOOD Comments -


Showing items 31 - 39 of 39
<<  <  1 2 3 4 
wessmith1966 5/17/2010 2:35:07 PM

hanso...Black Widow was a natural for IM2. She's a part of Tony/IM's world in both the original Marvel Comics version and the Ultimates version. The character as written for the movie was an amalgam of both versions and as such was a shield agent. I think it was a perfect way to, not (as you said) "pimp" the Avengers, but weave the Marvel movie universe together. It seems Shield will be the thread that knits the movies together which makes perfect sense. It's an organic way of blending the films into an overall vision with "pimping" the characters out to forcibly bind the movies together.

hanso 5/17/2010 3:35:08 PM

I completely understand but to me you take her character out you get the same movie.  You ditch her, keep Nick Fury so you still got the Shield thread going to tie up the universe and use her time for Whiplash or Justin Hammer.  Her time or Favreau's time should've gone to Rourke cause him hiding out with a cockatoo is a waste.  Like I said, I'll be pissed if they start taking away time from the Bat villains to give it to some characters to link to JL.


ponyboy76 5/17/2010 4:08:33 PM

In my opinion, the main villain in Iron Man 2 wasn't Justin Hammer or Whiplash, so I understand not giving either all that much screen time. The villain in Iron Man 2 was Tony Stark.  I don't think if you get rid of Black Widow, you have the same movie. It wouldn't have made any sense to have Nick Fury integrate himself into what was going on. He has other things to deal with. It made much more sense that he would have someone keeping an eye on him and who better than Black Widow.

lracors 5/18/2010 9:15:53 AM

My review of Robin Hood (I do this our work newsletter)

Robin Hood is a film based on the Robin Hood legend, like it would be anything else. Directed by Ridley Scott and with Russell Crowe excellently playing Robin Longstrider who, is destined to become Robin of The Hood. It co-stars Cate Blanchett nicely portraying Marion Loxley. Robin's men consist of Kevin Durland (Little John), Scott Grimes (Will Scarlet/Robin's nephew), and Alan Doyle (Allan A'Dayle). Mark Strong plays Sir Godfrey with ruthless abandon. He is making playing really good bad guys his hobby. William Hurt makes a nice return to film playing the noble William Marshal and Max Von Sydow in a surprisingly stirring support role as Sir Walter Loxley. All in all a very well cast film and well acted. In particular, the beginnings of romance between Robin and Marion is finely done. The political mechanics of the age are a tad weighty at time however do not overshadow the film.

The film is billed as a Prequel to Robin actually becoming The Hood, but, it still embodies the charm, camaraderie, wit, and... oh yes... skill of Robin. This is now my absolute favorite version of Robin Hood on film. This Robin is a guy not to be messed with, his years in the Third Crusade have honed his skill and knowledge of military tactics, hand-to-hand combat, and (of course) expert archery. This is a solid entertaining vision of the Robin Hood legend. Remember the original stories were not written until 2 centuries after his death, so I am open to any interpretation and this one was absolutely riveting.

The landscape of England and parts of France were beautifully filmed by John Mathieson. I did not detect too much CGI usage and where it was i really didn't notice since it was so well done. There were a lot of good stunts and co-ordination of many arrows being fired at and fired upon the actors. The epic battle sequences are very well done, personally I could do a little less with the cam-shake close-up's (1/2 star nock) fortunately, those are not overwhelming. Musically the film is not like the trailers (thank god) but more akin to music of the period. Do not listen to claims that this is Robin Hood meets Gladiator, those people do not know what they are talking about as there are only a handful of action sequences.

At the heart and soul of this film is how Robin became The Hood, through kindness, fairness, generosity, and loyalty to his adopted friends and family. That is what really sets this film apart. People didn't flock to him because of his name or title, they did because of his actions great and small. This is the best Robin Hood film since Errol Flynn's The Adventures of Robin Hood which, I watched many times on masterpiece theater. For 140 minutes, you get great acting, direction, cinematography, and action sequences. This film moved along at a brisk pace so well done that it does not feel long. Alas, when it was over i didn't want it to end, I hope they do a sequel, but if not, I am very satisfied to have seen a great version of Robin of The Hood. 3 1/2 out of 4*'s

lracors 5/18/2010 9:21:06 AM

My Iron Man 2 review

Iron Man 2 pick’s up right where Iron Man left off then fast forwards to six month’s later for the next stage in Tony Stark’s life. Stark is played again, rather effortlessly, by Robert Downey Jr. The cast from the first film has all returned with a change in Jim Rhodes now played by extremely talented Don Cheadle (who quickly owns the role). New to the cast is Academy Award winner Mickey Rourke as the very well played Ivan Vanko, a physicist bent on revenge against Tony who is essentially the flipside of Tony his polar opposite. Justin Hammer (An industry rival of Stark) is played by Sam Rockwell, who hams up the role more than necessary thus defeating the element of what made his character such a great antagonist to Stark in the comics. I was disappointed because he had such a great multi-faceted role in the underrated Sci-Fi classic “Moon”. I was expecting Justin to be more devious and dangerous. Scarlett Johansson plays Natalie Rushman (comic geeks know who she really is) a new aid for Stark. Unfortunately she isn’t given much to do but look… and say not much… then look… be looked at… and drop non-too-subtle hints as to the upcoming Marvel film slate.


Directed by Jon Favreau again and scripted by new writer Justin Theroux surprisingly not much changes in the scripting. Tony is still the same Tony with the same rapid fire witty dialogue. I realize that sequels rarely top the original as is the case here. Plot wise it is not as emotionally driven as the first film (more action) and the resolution is too easy. I was surprised not to see any elements regarding “The Ten Rings” organization hinted at in the first film (comic fans know what this represents) but that’s a minor gripe. What hurt this film the most was not the writing but, the acting of two of the new major roles. As I have previously indicated, Sam Rockwell’s over-the-top silly portrayal of his character as bumbling and inept coupled by the lack of any real acting by Johansson hurt the film when sequences were involving either one of them. Thus when Hammer finally does issue a threat I’m like, “yah right”. That aside, Rourke is golden and Don Cheadle is a vast improvement as Rhodes and a welcome addition to the Marvel-verse as he is signed to future films. This time around Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury) has a larger welcome film presence which is nice to see because he is the anchor of the Marvel Film-Verse.


The music is rock driven very similar to the first film (almost a carbon copy). The visual effects are top notch given that this is a major tent-pole film it is to be expected however, it doesn’t look as real as the first film did (like the brilliant sequence of Iron Man’s first outing in the Middle East). Sure the battles are progressively bigger and noisier and as a result suffer in not being very realistic. The amount of explosions and damage spread around would have resulted in many casualties. The film still delivers despite its faults which are forgivable. Thus the film is driven by the excellent Downey and Rourke (who unfortunately do not share as much screen time together), solid visuals, and a driving rock score resulting in this being a solid entry in the Marvel Film Slate. (3 out of 4 *’s)

emeraldgemstone 5/19/2010 3:13:33 AM

I have enjoyed Iron man and love it very much

caredskinfan 5/19/2010 5:52:27 PM

  IM2, IMO was too campy. Where the first movie was serious, this movie went too far the other way. Not taking itself serious enough. The drunk scene while in the IM suit was horrible and didn't allow me to take IM serious through the the rest of the film.

   I found tony stark to be an annoying jerk rather than an annoying jerk with leadership qualities. Just my two cents


lracors 5/20/2010 6:55:48 AM

He is an annoying jerk that's one of his many flaws he think's he can lead but he really hasn't done so thus the absolute failure he had in "running" the nation's heroes after civil war and the fundamental dispute with Captain America over freedom of choice vs following the rules.  Having said that... Downey does own as Tony Stark and is creating exactly the kind of person he is.

dragonrojo38 5/21/2010 11:25:30 PM

I knew it! Sequels always suck (Not always). You expect more action than the first but get disappointed in the end. That's what happened to me when I went to see Dark Knight. I expected it to be as good as Batman Begins but it sucked. I guess I should lower my expectations next time there is a sequel.

<<  <  1 2 3 4 


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