Iron Man 2 (while performing admirably at the box office) is widely considered to be the lesser of the two Iron Man films – in part because the most memorable thing about the villain was his fondness for birds.
The man who played that bird-loving bad guy, Mickey Rourke – who recently spoke to our very own Roth Cornet about his distaste for Iron Man 2 – went into further detail while promoting the forthcoming Greek mythology epic, Immortals.
On his attempt at complexity with Ivan Vanko – courtesy of Crave Online – Rourke said:
“[W]hen I did Ivan Vanko in Iron Man, I fought… You know, I explained to Justin Theroux, to the writer, and to [Jon] Favreau, that I wanted to bring some other layers and colors [to the charater], not just make this Russian a complete murderous revenging bad guy. And they allowed me to do that. Unfortunately, the [people] at Marvel just wanted a one-dimensional bad guy, so most of the performance ended up the floor.”
He continued:
“[It’s] ****ing too bad, but it’s their loss. If they want to make mindless comic book movies, then I don’t want to be a part of that. I don’t want to have to care so much and work so hard, and then fight them for intelligent reasoning, and just because they’re calling the shots they… You know, I didn’t work for three months on the accent and all the adjustments and go to Russia just so I could end up on the floor. Because that can make somebody say at the end of the day, oh **** ‘em, I’m just going to mail it in. But I’m not that kind of guy. I’m never going to mail it in.”
While speaking to MTV Splash Page, Rourke blamed both the studio – for their desire to make mindless comic book movies – and Jon Favreau – for his lack of conviction (or in Rourke’s words, his lack of “nuts”) — for Vanko’s deficiencies:
“If they let you play the bad guy with other dimensions other than one-dimensional. You have to fight for that though, to bring layers to the character. Otherwise, if you’re working for the wrong studio or let’s say a director that doesn’t have any balls, then they’re just gonna want it to be the evil bad guy. […] So, if you’re working with some good studio guys that got brains and you’re working with a director with a set of nuts that’ll let you incorporate that then it’s fun. Otherwise, you end up with what happened on ‘Iron Man.’”
By comparison, The Immortals‘ director, Tarsem Singh,was significantly more impressive. According to Mickey Rourke:
“Tarsem was great. He’s really smart, innovative. He had little things that were all ‘Oh wow.’ And that’s what it’s all about – to have somebody working with you that can kind of take your performance further than you maybe think you can or whatever. And he was so enthusiastic that it rubs off on the crew, it rubs off on the other actors. So it’s a collaborative, supportive kind of thing, instead of a laborious technical twelve hours. You get through the day and you look forward to going to work the next day, sometimes.”
It’s interesting that Mickey Rourke is choosing now to bash Iron Man 2 (repeatedly, and to different outlets), when Marvel has since released two financially successful films and has its biggest – The Avengers – on the way (not to mention Iron Man 3, written and directed by Shane Black (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang)). Perhaps that’s because this is the first major villain Rourke has portrayed since Iron Man 2, and he still has a terrible taste in his mouth about the whole ordeal.
Check out Roth Cornet’s interview for more about how unhappy Mickey Rourke is with the Iron Man 2 end product.
Do you agree with Mickey Rourke about Iron Man 2 and its lack of a strong or interesting villain? Let us know in the comments.
-
Follow me on Twitter @benandrewmoore.
The Immortals hits theaters this Friday, November 11th, 2011. Iron Man 3, which it is safe to assume won’t include the participation of Mickey Rourke, is scheduled to hit theaters May 3rd, 2013.
Sources: Crave Online, MTV Splash Page
![Fall TV 2013: 10 Best New Shows [Trailers]](http://static.srcdn.com/slir/w87-h65-c1.33:1/http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/abc-fall-previews-shield.jpg)
‘Dexter’ Season 8 Trailer: The Hunt Begins – How Will it End? 
‘Game of Thrones’ to End in Season 7? 
‘Pacific Rim’ Featurette Explores ‘Drift Space’; First TV Spot Offers More Action 
‘Halo’ Live-Action TV Series From Steven Spielberg Announced 
I am a fan of Robert downey jr BUT the only thing about this movie that was even remotely intereseting was Mickey Rourke. Hadc they allowed him to make a real character of the villain it wouls have added immensely to the film BUT it is after all based on a comic book and that is the movie they wanted. Too bad. Rourke is a fantastic actor. There are not many scripts that match his talent.
Well said
He was the fine with the movie when it was out and he was receiving praise for it, and now he’s bashing it to anyone who will listen? It seems like he’s bitter that he doesn’t get to be in the sequels.
A bit late to this news, but I just want to say…
His performance of Vanko is much much more memorable than that King-whose-name-I-completely-can’t remember in Immortal. I only remember the part where he stabs the eyeballs of his henchman with his finger, while as Vanko… I still remember every detail of scene he was on, like when he’s accompanying his dyng father, the prison scene, the attack on the race-track, his bird… and many others. I think he felt like a much sophisticated and brainy villain there than the Immortal’s one.
I love the Iron Man movies. I thought Rourke was awesome in the movie & I can see from the opening scene of Ivan Vanko & his dying father that there was a lot of emotion there. Ivan loved his dad and blamed Howard Stark for his father being deported & since Howard is dead already, Tony is the next best target for his rage. I didn’t see Ivan Vanko as being one-dimentional. I thought Justin Hammer was more one-dimentional than Ivan.
As for Marvel Studios & bad guys, look at Loki. He is by far from one-dimentional. He’s the God of Mischeif & Lies, yet he could see that Thor was arrogent & reckless. He knew that he would not be heard if he tried to voice his concerns about his brother becoming King. So he snuck a few Frost Giants into the weapons vault knowing they would fail. When Thor decided to go to Jutenhiem with the warriors three, Sif & Loki, Loki ordered a gaurd to tell Odin Thor’s plan. He mentions that the gaurd should have been flogged for not being quicker. When he realizes he is a Frost Giant, his entire life becomes a lie. He grew up believing Frost Giants to be monsters. Everything he did, convincing Laufey to kill Odin, only to then ‘save’ Odin then destroy the Frost Giants was to prove himself worthy of Odin’s approval & love. He even said he never wanted the throne. He only wanted to be Thor’s equal. If that’s not multi-dimentional, I don’t know what is.
the reason why Dark Knight was so awesome because not only did they have an awesome super hero but also awesome villain. To me, joker made it possible for the Dark Knight to be so good
Mickey had a part to play and he played it. Was the part an onion, no but he didn’t write the story. One can’t blame Mickey for wanting to improve the character but this isn’t just about him a movie is a collaboration. So, Mickey said what he needed to say and did what he needed to do. I would be disappointed in him if he weren’t disappointed with the film. That being said the film wasn’t that bad but they should hire someone that understands physics to go over Ironman’s horizontal flight dynamics and Mickey’s walking capability after having his legs repeatably crushed by a large sedan. I know its a superhero movie but there is no reason to miss these simple things.
Movies which rely heavily on special effects have really high competition because special effects are so pervasive in movies these days and it becoming more difficult to impress audiences so little details like Micky Rourke is talking about can often be just what a movie needs to set it apart.