I think this might be pretty cool. I hope Rourke gets this role, I think that it would great.
Per Variety:
Posted: Wed., Jan. 7, 2009, 2:45pm PT
Mickey Rourke sizes up 'Iron Man 2' Actor may play Russian villain in Marvel sequel
By MICHAEL FLEMING, MARC GRASER
In what would mark his first studio film since resurrecting his career with "The Wrestler," Mickey Rourke is in talks to play the main heavy in "Iron Man 2," the Marvel Entertainment sequel that director Jon Favreau begins shooting this spring.
Sam Rockwell also has begun talks to play a villain in the pic, to be distribbed by Paramount Pictures in summer 2010.
Which role Rockwell will play has yet to be disclosed by Marvel, but Rourke is in discussions to play the Crimson Dynamo, a heavily tattooed Russian arms dealer. He's considered to be an evil version of Iron Man because he battles the superhero in a nuclear-powered suit of armor.
Script is still being written by Justin Theroux, and Marvel has been trying to keep a wrap on details leaking out to fanboys.
Rourke goes into the Golden Globes weekend vying for best actor in a role that revived his career. Robert Downey Jr. soared to become one of the most bankable stars in Hollywood when "Iron Man" grossed more than $600 million worldwide.
Rockwell most recently appeared in "Frost/Nixon" and "Choke."
Rourke is repped by ICM.
Posts: 5425 | Location: "Stay Classy San Diego!" | Registered: June 15, 2006
So presumed winner Mickey Rourke (my bet's still on Sean Penn) plans to follow in the illustrious steps of fellow thespians such as Helen Mirren and go straight for the (mediocre?) franchise sequel as the (disappointing but lucrative yet ultimately embarrassing) follow-up to his Oscar-winning role?
Purcifer, I know that it's a medicore role. But it would be pretty cool if he changed things up, show his range. Heck, everyone cheered on Robert Downey Jr. for this film. Why not Rourke?
Posts: 5425 | Location: "Stay Classy San Diego!" | Registered: June 15, 2006
Originally posted by caresa: Purcifer, I know that it's a medicore role. But it would be pretty cool if he changed things up, show his range. Heck, everyone cheered on Robert Downey Jr. for this film. Why not Rourke?
Robert Downey Jr. sold if not his soul then his reputation ("Hey, if little punks like Tobey Maguire can have superhero franchises, why can't I?") when he signed on as lead in the appallingly over-rated Iron Man.
I mean, someone around here has to admit it's over-rated, might as well be me...
Originally posted by caresa: Purcifer, I know that it's a medicore role. But it would be pretty cool if he changed things up, show his range. Heck, everyone cheered on Robert Downey Jr. for this film. Why not Rourke?
Robert Downey Jr. sold if not his soul then his reputation ("Hey, if little punks like Tobey Maguire can have superhero franchises, why can't I?") when he signed on as lead in the appallingly over-rated Iron Man.
I mean, someone around here has to admit it's over-rated, might as well be me...
I don't see how this could have soiled his reputation when it is the movie that made him a star again... and probably even to his surprise it was not only very popular but well-reviewed. Being in this movie is going to get him a lot of work in both serious films and movies meant to bust blocks... much like Johnny Depp in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: pacinofan,
Posts: 27161 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
Originally posted by caresa: Purcifer, I know that it's a medicore role. But it would be pretty cool if he changed things up, show his range. Heck, everyone cheered on Robert Downey Jr. for this film. Why not Rourke?
Robert Downey Jr. sold if not his soul then his reputation ("Hey, if little punks like Tobey Maguire can have superhero franchises, why can't I?") when he signed on as lead in the appallingly over-rated Iron Man.
I mean, someone around here has to admit it's over-rated, might as well be me...
I don't see how this could have soiled his reputation when it is the movie that made him a star again... and probably even to his surprise it was not only very popular but well-reviewed. Being in this movie is going to get him a lot of work in both serious films and movies meant to bust blocks... much like Johnny Depp in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies.
Metacritic gives it a 79, which could be worse but also beggars the term "well-reviewed." We need not go far afield to find critical viewpoints:
"Though Iron Man is diverting enough in the comic-book-movie mode, there is one thing it doesn't have, and that is dramatic unity. Unlike the irreducible element that is its namesake, Iron Man the movie is an alloy, a combination of several different and disconnected components that don't manage to unite to make a coherent whole." --Kenneth Turan, The Los Angeles Times
"Favreau and his team know they have to entertain us, too. But rather than craft a sci-fi action-drama out of geopolitics, they spray the movie with Teflon and complete a checklist: Cool toys? Here. Expensive effects? Check. Damsel with a twist of distress? Yup. Climactic nighttime brawl straight out of "Superman II" (but badly staged)? Got it. Incoherent plot? You bet... Downey appears to like all this make-believe. Even the clunky dialogue sounds witty out of his mouth. This is not a part that makes great demands on his talent, and his slummy approach to it is amusing." --Wesley Morris, The Boston Globe
"[Downey] can make offhandedness mesmerizing, even soulful; he passes through the key moments in this cloddish story as if he were ad-libbing his inner life." --David Denby, The New Yorker
"It succeeds only fitfully. Toggling between Stark's impish goatee and Iron Man's full-metal body condom, and amid so many generic fireballs, kill shots and earsplitting thumps, bumps and crunches, the film finally collapses under its own weight." --Ann Hornaday, The Washington Post
ITA with you, Purcifer, that I think that Iron Man is totally overrated. But it still remains to be a Fun film to watch. I mean I don't love Iron Man, but I did enjoy it.
I think that it would be nice to see Rourke expand his range instead of just doing drama. Heck, Streep did Mamma Mia!
Posts: 5425 | Location: "Stay Classy San Diego!" | Registered: June 15, 2006
Originally posted by caresa: Purcifer, I know that it's a medicore role. But it would be pretty cool if he changed things up, show his range. Heck, everyone cheered on Robert Downey Jr. for this film. Why not Rourke?
Robert Downey Jr. sold if not his soul then his reputation ("Hey, if little punks like Tobey Maguire can have superhero franchises, why can't I?") when he signed on as lead in the appallingly over-rated Iron Man.
I mean, someone around here has to admit it's over-rated, might as well be me...
I don't see how this could have soiled his reputation when it is the movie that made him a star again... and probably even to his surprise it was not only very popular but well-reviewed. Being in this movie is going to get him a lot of work in both serious films and movies meant to bust blocks... much like Johnny Depp in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies.
Metacritic gives it a 79, which could be worse but also beggars the term "well-reviewed." We need not go far afield to find critical viewpoints:
"Though Iron Man is diverting enough in the comic-book-movie mode, there is one thing it doesn't have, and that is dramatic unity. Unlike the irreducible element that is its namesake, Iron Man the movie is an alloy, a combination of several different and disconnected components that don't manage to unite to make a coherent whole." --Kenneth Turan, The Los Angeles Times
"Favreau and his team know they have to entertain us, too. But rather than craft a sci-fi action-drama out of geopolitics, they spray the movie with Teflon and complete a checklist: Cool toys? Here. Expensive effects? Check. Damsel with a twist of distress? Yup. Climactic nighttime brawl straight out of "Superman II" (but badly staged)? Got it. Incoherent plot? You bet... Downey appears to like all this make-believe. Even the clunky dialogue sounds witty out of his mouth. This is not a part that makes great demands on his talent, and his slummy approach to it is amusing." --Wesley Morris, The Boston Globe
"[Downey] can make offhandedness mesmerizing, even soulful; he passes through the key moments in this cloddish story as if he were ad-libbing his inner life." --David Denby, The New Yorker
"It succeeds only fitfully. Toggling between Stark's impish goatee and Iron Man's full-metal body condom, and amid so many generic fireballs, kill shots and earsplitting thumps, bumps and crunches, the film finally collapses under its own weight." --Ann Hornaday, The Washington Post
That number is better than some of the films in the Oscar game this year and of course you can find bad reviews. NO movie gets universally good reviews. That is just a fact.
Posts: 27161 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
That number is better than some of the films in the Oscar game this year and of course you can find bad reviews. NO movie gets universally good reviews. That is just a fact.
Sort of like death and taxes? Still, you have to admit that although Downey is credited with a good performance, those same critics call it "slumming." Isn't that what Mickey Rourke has been already doing for years, until The Wrestler? Why go back?
Originally posted by caresa: Purcifer, I know that it's a medicore role. But it would be pretty cool if he changed things up, show his range. Heck, everyone cheered on Robert Downey Jr. for this film. Why not Rourke?
Robert Downey Jr. sold if not his soul then his reputation ("Hey, if little punks like Tobey Maguire can have superhero franchises, why can't I?") when he signed on as lead in the appallingly over-rated Iron Man.
I mean, someone around here has to admit it's over-rated, might as well be me...
I don't see how this could have soiled his reputation when it is the movie that made him a star again... and probably even to his surprise it was not only very popular but well-reviewed. Being in this movie is going to get him a lot of work in both serious films and movies meant to bust blocks... much like Johnny Depp in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies.
Metacritic gives it a 79, which could be worse but also beggars the term "well-reviewed." We need not go far afield to find critical viewpoints:
"Though Iron Man is diverting enough in the comic-book-movie mode, there is one thing it doesn't have, and that is dramatic unity. Unlike the irreducible element that is its namesake, Iron Man the movie is an alloy, a combination of several different and disconnected components that don't manage to unite to make a coherent whole." --Kenneth Turan, The Los Angeles Times
"Favreau and his team know they have to entertain us, too. But rather than craft a sci-fi action-drama out of geopolitics, they spray the movie with Teflon and complete a checklist: Cool toys? Here. Expensive effects? Check. Damsel with a twist of distress? Yup. Climactic nighttime brawl straight out of "Superman II" (but badly staged)? Got it. Incoherent plot? You bet... Downey appears to like all this make-believe. Even the clunky dialogue sounds witty out of his mouth. This is not a part that makes great demands on his talent, and his slummy approach to it is amusing." --Wesley Morris, The Boston Globe
"[Downey] can make offhandedness mesmerizing, even soulful; he passes through the key moments in this cloddish story as if he were ad-libbing his inner life." --David Denby, The New Yorker
"It succeeds only fitfully. Toggling between Stark's impish goatee and Iron Man's full-metal body condom, and amid so many generic fireballs, kill shots and earsplitting thumps, bumps and crunches, the film finally collapses under its own weight." --Ann Hornaday, The Washington Post
It doesnt mean that the next one cant be even better.
Posts: 13912 | Location: canada | Registered: December 22, 2005
That number is better than some of the films in the Oscar game this year and of course you can find bad reviews. NO movie gets universally good reviews. That is just a fact.
Sort of like death and taxes? Still, you have to admit that although Downey is credited with a good performance, those same critics call it "slumming." Isn't that what Mickey Rourke has been already doing for years, until The Wrestler? Why go back?
Mickey Rourke has been slumming in the kind of movies that go straight to DVD and play late at night on cable which is different.
Posts: 27161 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
That number is better than some of the films in the Oscar game this year and of course you can find bad reviews. NO movie gets universally good reviews. That is just a fact.
Sort of like death and taxes? Still, you have to admit that although Downey is credited with a good performance, those same critics call it "slumming." Isn't that what Mickey Rourke has been already doing for years, until The Wrestler? Why go back?
Mickey Rourke has been slumming in the kind of movies that go straight to DVD and play late at night on cable which is different.
That number is better than some of the films in the Oscar game this year and of course you can find bad reviews. NO movie gets universally good reviews. That is just a fact.
Sort of like death and taxes? Still, you have to admit that although Downey is credited with a good performance, those same critics call it "slumming." Isn't that what Mickey Rourke has been already doing for years, until The Wrestler? Why go back?
Mickey Rourke has been slumming in the kind of movies that go straight to DVD and play late at night on cable which is different.
Not really, just more expensive trash.
I would think someone who loves "300" could like Pauline Kael enjoy "good trash" which is what most action movies, even the good and very good ones, basically are.
Posts: 27161 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
Originally posted by babypook: So he derailed himself mightily. As long as he keeps working, which most actors want to do, there is always a chance for redemption.
Cue the Bruce Springsteen song...
Sorry, films like Iron Man, which purport to abhor war but in reality glorify it, are at the top of my pet peeves. I suppose Downey, Rourke, et al., can cry about it all the way to the bank...
Originally posted by babypook: So he derailed himself mightily. As long as he keeps working, which most actors want to do, there is always a chance for redemption.
Exactly
Not working Vs. a million dollar paycheck Easy choice.
__________________________________ For Your Consideration: Stephen Colbert or Conan O'Brien for Oscar Host.
Posts: 4149 | Location: Mooby's | Registered: January 09, 2005
Originally posted by babypook: So he derailed himself mightily. As long as he keeps working, which most actors want to do, there is always a chance for redemption.
Cue the Bruce Springsteen song...
Sorry, films like Iron Man, which purport to abhor war but in reality glorify it, are at the top of my pet peeves. I suppose Downey, Rourke, et al., can cry about it all the way to the bank...
Robert Downey Jr. has a lot of choices in the movies he makes but with his battered face and raspy voice Mickey Rourke is mostly stuck in action films. "The Wrestler" came along but he cannot bet on playing over-the-hill wrestlers and boxers all the time. Not too many decent biker parts either.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: pacinofan,
Posts: 27161 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
