Bob, I'm afraid I don't understand your enthusiasm for the Avengers movie. I get that its total fandom and geekiness, but how can any movie possibly incorporate the characters and not find itself crumbling under the weight of that many canons?
I haven't watched your video yet, so I don't know if you pointed it out, but did anyone else hear MvC2 music during the movie? When the "bad guy" was just walking on the "big stage"?I swear I did, but you can't exactly rewind it...
A review biased for hype of an upcoming film. Bob, have you ever considered once, ONCE that The Avengers has a good chance of utterly failing? And I watched your review to see how good the film stands on its own feet as a self-contained film, not as a 2 hour preview of The Avengers.Honestly, I could transcribe your review as "Yeah, Iron Man 2 doesn't do much to differentiate itself from the sequel, BUT DUDE LOOK AT ALL THOSE HINTS! Aaand the villains aren't as interesting or threatening as those in say, The Dark Knight. BUT THE AVENGERS IS GONNA BE THE BEST FILM OF ALL TIME!"OMG, NOBODY'S GOING TO BEAT THE DARK KNIGHT IN TERMS OF INTERESTING ANTAGONISTS! Is that your rationalization behind shoddy villain development? I'm not sure if either Justin Hammer is supposed to act like an idiot or if Sam Rockwell flopped, but as a villain never really did he come off as especially threatening or charming, leaving nothing but me facepalming and wishing he would get off the screen the instant he comes on. And Vanko, though a notch more threatening, just isn't enough to be INTERESTING. And I completely disagree with your satisfaction about Iron Man 2's sticking to its guns in this regard; I mean, is it too much to have good character development AND action AND villains?Okay, now let's talk action. Say what you want, but the whole racecar fight scene was pretty stupid. Do international races not have security guards? With GUNS? I mean, did nobody in the whole stadium decide not to take a shot at Vanko? Or Pepper and Happy? And are Potts and Hogan too stupid to not get out of the car and run for their lives when you have a guy with a whip that was able to cut through a f*cking car RIGHT NEXT TO THEIR CAR? As for the final fight scene, honestly, what the hell? Stark can make a state of the art armored suit, but he doesn't think to slice through the drones in the first place? It's almost as if the director was too lazy to come up with how Iron Man and War Machine take down the rest of the drones and plays a cop out. And okay, so Vanko had shoddy development but it doesn't mean you can't get a good fight out of him, right? ...nope, that battle was short as f*ck, and it even cops out there, too.All in all, it ranges from passable to pretty good at best, and doesn't even DREAM in standing up to its predecessor.
Good stuff I'm going to see it tonight. I hope I have the same experience as you did.
Oh hey, heads up kids: Spoilers in this talkback WILL be deleted ;)
Who's the one eyed black private eye that gets all the chicks? Pirate Shaft! Your damn right.
Just saw it. pretty good. As withavatr I think both camps on the extremes have it wrong. It is neither horrible nor awesome. It is solid. It has the same exact problems and strengths as the first one, inclduing a ridiculously anticlimactic final fight. And outside of mythology geek fodder, there really sin't much to make it stand out.
It was good, plain and simple. IM3 will suck balls, though. It's the law.
So you really didn't find that everything in the film was at least a tad underdeveloped? I agree with you in almost everything you said except that what you said about the villains, how you wanted more of them, applies instead to the entire film I think. I felt there was so much going on I didn't get quite enough of any one plot element. But that's just me I guess. Movie was definitely pretty good though.
Yep, disagree with practically everything here. But then again I didn't like the first Iron Man either. The first one just didn't bore the heck out of me. Everything about this movie was either completely uninteresting or bad. At best it's mediocre, but I'm more inclined to put it down with the rest of the sludge.
I think I have to agree that you are bias about Iron Man, Bob. Because watching that movie I remember it was like watching Spiderman 3. There's TOO MANY characters. Watching Tony Stark get drunk in his Iron Man suit is almost the same like watching Peter Parker dancing. And one of the thing that I like in the original is the chemistry between Tony and Pepper (which in the second movie is almost gone) and chemistry between Tony and Rhodes (which in the second movies is TOTALLY gone). Bad thing replacing Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle. All in all I agree that this film is just like a preview of The Avengers. Well, may be I have too high expectation of this. But all that aside, I have a good time.
Here's something I've never gotten: You, Bob, always harp on Hollywood about how there's not enough creativity or fantasy in movies, which is hard to argue with. There isn't, and it's due in a larger part to heavy commercialization. ... but then, over at Game Overthinker, you constantly harp on the industry and its fans- mostly its fans- for keeping the rest of the world out. Your platform, mentioned in several different videos, is that you want video games to become as accessible as movies or television. Why? Why would you want such a thing? If they became THAT accessible, they'd be even more commercialized. EA would probably bloat up to 100 times its current size and eclipse the whole US market, and do you know what would happen next? Japan, ever the social doppelgangers, would quickly follow suit. Then you'd get a march of bland, perfectly safe entertainment, just like you can find at your local cinema, or by turning on your TV. I'm not saying that the sandbox mentality is defensible, but what you're asking for... I don't think it's what you THINK you're asking for...
>>Watching Tony Stark get drunk in his Iron Man suit is almost the same like watching Peter Parker dancing.But that's not that out of character for Tony Stark. Remember, he's slept with reporters, and had flight attendant strippers, and is pretty much the poster boy for Irresponsibility when he's not Iron Man.My only issues came in two scenes and the fact that Justin Hammer was essentially filling the role of Team Rocket, but I think in the latter case, that was the point.I'm guessing Stan will show up as Regis Philbin in the next movie, or is the hair color too much of an issue? ;)
I found this movie enjoyable. Was it as good as the first? Well, the first always has a high bar to reach, but this movie comes pretty close. I will say this though:Iron Man 2 > Kick-A**Then again, I really shouldn't compare the two, since it's not fair. If you're going to compare the latter film mentioned, you compare it to other sub-genre comic movies like:Watchmen, 300, Sin City, A History of Violence, The Road to Perdition, The league of extraordinary gentlemen, Hellboy, Wanted, The Losers, to a lesser extent you compare it to Blade, and if you want something just as current, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. If that's the case, then, well, Kick-A** doesn't hold up to the big ones on this list, let alone any. Sorry, I didn't find this movie to be that good at all. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't great. It was a C-.Regardless, I really liked Iron Man 2. I can't wait for the Mandarin.
Uh...did you just praise League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?
viagra onlinegeneric viagra
The biggest problem with this movie is Gweneth Paltrow as Pots, see she doesn't seem to have anyother option then "Ditzy Romantic Comedy Girl" which would be fine if that's all she had to do but it isn't, and because Rhodey's actor changed they have to use her as the main dramatic foil, this is a mistake. Rhodey should be the main dramatic foil of the film if not the major character after Tony, I mean he's watching Stark literaly destroy himself for no obvious reason (remember he doesn't know Tony is dying) and he wants with all his might to help his friend but at the same time he has the military and his superiors roaring in his ear about the iron man suit and national security, he's caught between his allegiance to his country and his loyalty to his friend, this is where the dramatic tension of the film should come in not from Ditzy mcRed Head but because of the actor change they just couldn't do that and the film suffered for it, despite that I feel the film still stands up on it's own merits, not quite the roller coaster blast that the first one was but still very good and enjoyable, more then anything it made me think more then the first one did and that's a good thing and I really liked the CEO villain this time around and felt he could've been more developed but the thing about Iron Man is Iron Man isn't about the villains, it's not supposed to be it's about Tony and that's the important thing
Post a Comment