ya same here but mr stark is so sexy thow

The whole 'drinking too much and having to pee so badly I'm sure I damaged my kidneys, but not wanting to leave for fear of missing something' thing? Oh, I know THAT feeling. I did the same thing at both Transformers and Revenge of the Sith.

HB

From what I heard, this Iron Man and all the other Marvel movie characters are more from the "Ultimates" Universe line than the "normal" one (black Nick Fury is the biggest tipoff). Stark is a playboy with a bit of doucheiness, Thor is more of a wandering loner and a vigilante environmentalist, and Captain America will be a soldier, but more of a super-soldier (if that makes any sense).

It's sort of in between. Movie Hulk, for instance, is much more like the regular version (with a touch of the old TV series) than the celebrity-obsessed, cannibalistic Ultimate Hulk.

Eh, as a reader of the old series from the 80's up, they didn't build a deep character into Tony Stark in the comic book other then he was hard working but also a asshole of a playboy with a combined charm. It was made for kids so they mostly concentrated on showing him in action. I think that Robert Downey Jr's portrayal is about as close as we'll get in Hollywood movies.

I found the whole "new element" sort of hoaky.

The Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Captain America movies were all planned to lead up to the Avengers movie from the very beginning. It was Marvel's idea.

No, I'm saying the movies were always planned to lead up to Avengers, ever since the original deal was made to make them.

Why? They're putting real thought into the whole thing.

admittingly ironman 1 was pretty slow when it comes to action too. after all, it only had 3 action sequences. the escape, the attack on the middle-east city/airplanes, and final battle. and a whole lot of text and filler inbetween. Except for the last battle, none of them lasted longer than 8 minutes I think.

Still, it was a good movie regardless. So hopefully the second one is still good so long as you remember that the man driving the armor is just as much the hero as the battle armor itself. so gotta at least be half talk and non-action.

I do like this movie. I also had to pee really bad, but you probably don't want to know that. What I do want to know is if you stayed after the credits.

Yup ^_^

my friend thought it was a sword, Cloud's sword, from final fantasy. I laughed.

I totally thought the same thing!

"B-B-B- BUSTER SWORD? WAIT, WHAT THE FUCK..."

Paltrow looked rather boney in that dress early on.
Love to see a womans clavicle, but I could not help but think shee needed a sammich.

I totally agree.

I totally agree.

Like any other oomics company, Marvel gums up their own story line every few years by "re-inventing" it for new readers. Inevitably 95% of old readers get tired of superhero foolisness and start reading sports magazines or the newspapers instead. Or just give up reading. In any case, I remember when Clark Kent worked for a newspaper, not a TV station... or internet news page (if that's what he's doing now).

I enjoyed the first Iron Man movie for a number of reasons, of which action is only one. Non-stop action actually grows dull after a while, becoming a lot of meaningless noise and motion. But Iron Man never interested me, not even as a kid, so there wasn't much about the character that could hold my attention long. Consequently, I thought the first movie said everything there was to say about Iron Man. Where he came from, how he coped, what happened because of it, a glimpse of where it might go in future. What can a sequel add? More fights? More special effects? Who needs it -- there are three dozen movies every year with the same.

But Iron Man 2 may not be such a bad deal. If and when I see it -- "previously viewed" DVDs make it affordable to watch almost anything -- it will probably hold up as well as some other superhero movies I don't mind.

Where I draw the line is with making Thor and Captain America. For one thing, Thor was always a candy-ass, stupid idea for a superhero. Not so much that he's a Norse god as because Stan Lee had the strangest ideas of what a Norse god was like. A lot of fake "olde tyme" English and a winged helmet do not a Norseman make. Asterix the Gaul looks like serious history by comparison and was a damn sight funnier.

Then there's Captain America. A walking, talking billboard for somebody else's patriotic chauvism. That's going to thrill me right down to my toes... I can understand the appeal in 1943, but 65 years later he looks more than archaic... he's an act of desparation. Evidently Marvel/Disney won't stop from trying to make every Marvel character they own into a $100,000,000 property if they can.

Hmm... put it that way, maybe you can't blame them. Maybe what I fault is the belief that they can succeed. Somethings are best left on comic book pages.

Well can't very well have Thor as a hero to get by if he's too much like old-time norse mythology presented, particularly since he originated back when the CCA had such control over things.

As far as Captain America goes, he's not a patriotic billboard, he's a representation of the ideal. He's not republican, democrat, conservative, liberal, what have you. He lives the ideals we espouse but rarely seem to follow.

After seeing "Independence Day" I'll have to see this to believe it. ID was stained with a lot patriotic claptrap that really annoyed me.

Well ID is quite a bit different than Captain America and his general depictions. True they had to retcon out his 1950's history as a replacement due to the anti-communist ranting it became but other than occasionally being abused as someone's soap box Cap speaks for the ideals of America and not the fleeting policies of the ever-changing government or ephemeral fads.

Yeah, but that's part of what's irritating about that sort of thing. What American values? Aren't they the same democratic values that the entire "West" enjoys? Or do you just mean Vegas and permissive gun laws? It's like at the beginning of the old '50s TV Superman show, where you see George Reeves in front of a big flappin American flag while the voice over tells how he stands for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way." You mean Superman wouldn't protectthe British Parliament against a bomb threat, or would let a bunch of Australians drown in a flash flood? I mean, how narrow-minded can you get? Of course, if it's just that the poor guy can't be everywhere at once, I can understand. In that case, Superman really stands for "Truth, Justice, as long as it's not too far from downtown Metropolis."

sooo looking forward to seeing the movie

...I liked it well enough....But I like titles like *SCOTT PILGRIM vs. World more 'cause it's not a main-stream pop-culture HOW MUCH money can it make comic franchise...I'm not looking forward to THOR or CAP...

Hey, just because something is made by a larger company doesn't mean it can't be good.
Robert Downey Jr. really loves chewing the scenery, and I wouldn't have it any other way!

I'm not sayin' That R.D.jr. & Faverue ain't kickin' ass with their talents,It's just that when you look at The D.C. vs. Marvel Movie pissing contest that's going on The only winner will be the studio execs...

As long as they're making good movies, I think the fans win, too.

Wishful thinking...I'd love 'em all to be Home runs but FANTASTIC FOUR,DAREDEVIL & ELECTRA stand as testimony...

I don't understand how he made the new element AT ALL, but I wasn't enraged by it because hes such a bad-ass, I figure he does shit like that all the time!

He created it...with SCIENCE!

YES! NOW IT ALL MAKES SENSE.

science

I liked this one way more then the first one. However I totally agree, Scarlett Johansson is one damn fine hotty!

You forgot the most important part - we finally got to see WARMACHINE!
I'm sorry, but I've been a fan of the guy since I first started reading comics. It's good to see him get some screentime, and he's a perfect foil for Tony.

As someone else noted, the movie Iron Man was somewhere between the classic version and the Ultimates Version. Ultimates version wasn't a normal human but that setting the characters considered heroes are considerably more lethal in application than the classic version (as we see with Stark and his flame throwers, other than his escape from Vietnam Iron Man in the comics used non-lethal methods rather than the more lethal movie features). Classic Iron Man is an alcoholic and had bouts of that over the years, even lost his company for a while because of it. He's also got control issues and supported enslaving every super-hero in the US borders as 'acceptable'. So he's had a lot of decay into a villain in recent years that the movies have had to steer away from.

I've seen the movie now, and I thought it was about on par with the first. Iliked the Cheadle Rhodie more, having freshly watched the first one before seeing the sequel, I thought Howard Rhodie was just kinda 'there' with not much feeling in him, wheras Cheadle Rhodie I felt I could read better on screen. I dunno.

The only thing I didn't really like about the movie is that they mixed Whiplash (or Blacklash) and Crimson Dynamo into one single villain..but it's okay..the movie's still good enough. =)