It seems that a superhero sequel will not get a wrestler after all. According to
New York Magazine, Mickey Rourke revealed that he won't be playing a role in
Iron Man 2.
"Right now, we're not doing
Iron Man 2," Rourke told the site. It was widely reported that Marvel Studios came in with a lowball offer of $250,000 for a role in the film and apparently negotiations have broken down.
Rourke recently signed on to appear in Sylvester Stallone's new film,
The Expendables as well. We'll certainly keep you posted on any news revolving Rourke or
Iron Man 2.
DVD News
1 Comments
25 Comments
Umm killerman, don't speak. Seriously. You're making pypebomb look good. What the hell does responsibility have to do with living off of 250,000? I barely get 6,000 a year and I get by just fine. I don't need a fancy job. I'm content. Unlike you. Who apparantly thinks 250,000 is not a lot of money. Yeah maybe if you're Paris Hilton's brother or something and you are just rich that's chump change. Be smart. Stupid people bug the shit out of me. You make me shake my head that's how fucking retarded you are killerman. And if I could live off of $250,000 wouldn't that mean I'd be budgeting the money and what's that word that has to do with that... OH I REMEMBER IT'S CALLED RESPONSIBILITY, dumbass. Clearly if you blow $250,000 and can't live off of that, you're irresponsible with money. So that must mean that is you. Even if you had kids (which I don't cause I have a brain and know to wear protection), you could live off of that. You couldn't go buy expensive shit obviously like an expensive house but if you bought a cheap house and BUDGETED your $$ you'd be fine. It hurts you to think doesn't it?
Exhibit A)
93.5% fresh at rottentomatoes . com critic/community aggregator, based on 223 critic reviews and over 5000 community reviews with an average rating of 8.15/10. Not bad.
Exhibit B)
The Dark Knight, which only the errant naysayer would call a poor film (yes it had flaws, but that doesn't make it instant shit) averaged 92% fresh and had an average rating of 8.2.
Were they the same kind of film? No, but I would say that both have these movies warrant sequels. You seem to be focusing SOLELY on the plot, of which you have given a fairly pedestrian analysis anyway, when any sitcom writer could tell you that performances can make or break a film. Downey Jr. delivers a great performance that basically guides the whole movie. The script wasn't bad, but it would have bombed with most other actors.
If the best you can do is accuse me of being gay for thinking an ACTOR did a good job ACT-ing, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your shortsightedness about films.
It must be embarrassing for you that your ass is burnt out an bloody from rejection letters from actual studios. Unless you aren't any sort of filmmaker and you just think you're clever using a pseudo-studio as your avatar. Then it's burnt from retard-iarrhea.
but u know what leave the skull on... :). we never know what's underneath.
Fuck it, they can get a lot of people to play Whiplash OR Crimson Dynamo. Downey Jr. Is the powerhouse, if they lost him I'd be worried.
Pype Bomb...do you even understand that the movie was based on a comic book? They have loads of stories they can tell, most of them are actually pretty damn good. There have been few movies as true to the character WHILE entertaining as Iron Man.
And Twisted, I missed you. Lolz, just don't go all gay on me. :P