Mickey Rourke Really Doesn’t Like ‘Iron Man 2′; Calls Marvel Movies ‘Mindless’

Published 3 years ago by , Updated February 10th, 2012 at 12:22 pm,

Mickey Rourke Dislikes Iron Man 2 Calls Marvel Movies Mindless Mickey Rourke Really Doesnt Like Iron Man 2; Calls Marvel Movies Mindless

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.”

Ivan Vanko Loves Birds in Iron Man 2 Mickey Rourke Really Doesnt Like Iron Man 2; Calls Marvel Movies Mindless

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.’”

Mickey Rourke as Hyperion in Immortals Mickey Rourke Really Doesnt Like Iron Man 2; Calls Marvel Movies Mindless

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

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. the movie was Ironman 2, not Whiplash. sounds like he is being a whiny @$$ because he waqsnt the star of the film. they onl have 2 hours or so to tell a story in films, and most people dont want to see an hour of the villians back story.( the exception to this would be the dark knight) MR is even going on about what a piece of crap 13 is. i guess sly didnt let him spread his acting wings enough in the expendables, so he’s not gonna be in pt 2…oh well. imo, i don’t find him that great of an actor. some people think he was brilliant in sin city… i think it was the make up, and he seems to be using the same voice in immortals as he did in im2

    • I kind of agree. I like Rourke, but he’s too candid with his criticisms of other people. He’s had this problem since like, forever, but I thought he was being a little more humble lately until all this stuff came out. He’s been running his mouth like a faucet for the past few days now. It’s bugging me. Did Marvel drop the ball with Iron Man 2? Kinda, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near as bad as Rourke is making it out to be. He’s exaggerating.

      • When he wants the movie to be more then just “mindless”, and the producers make it THE WRONG WAY, I have to agree with him, I seen IM2, and no way should he have been one dimentional among other giant flaws in the movie…

        • I’m with you on this, Brandon.

          His character was one-dimensional. His character was underdeveloped. He just came off like the crazy, snarling/evilly grinning guy with the birds, when it seemed like there was more to the character.

          A great villain (with many nuances and insights) can indeed make for a better movie, and they often do.

          It’s like there he is, and then he’s gone for long stretches of movie.

          And, Jeffro, you really came away with the impression that Rourke was just whining because he wasn’t the star? I think he knew, going into a movie called Iron Man 2, that he wasn’t the main guy.

          His character left little impression because, as Rourke says, the deeper characterization that he delivered was on the cutting room floor. Iron Man 2 spent too much time trying to set up the Avengers. So it was part Iron Man sequel and part promo for the Avengers.

          That corporate aspect of these Marvel movies are hurting them as standalone movies.

          Iron Man 2 would have been better if they didn’t shoehorn in all the promotional Avengers content.

          • I have to agree with Jeffro, that it really sounds like Rourke is complaining becuase he wasnt the biggest thing in that movie. It wouldnt be the first time someone who wasnt playing the title character thought they should be the star. *Cough* Halle Berry *Cough*.

            And I would like to ask Rourke if he thought the previous Marvel Studios movies were deep, thought provoking stuff. If he says “No, of course not,” than I’d like to say, “stop complaining, you knew what you were signing up for, you took the paycheck, plus you appeared in Expendables.”

            True Whiplash could have been deeper, but he didnt need to be. He was angry becuase he thought his father was betrayed by Tony’s father. IM2 wasnt the best film, maybe because of all the The Avengers promotion but it still needed time to devote to The Avengers. The Avengers is basically Iron Man 3, Capt America 2, Thor 2 and Hulk 2, at least in terms of storytelling. If it means The Avnegers can hit the ground running, then I dont mind if Marvel needs to devote some time from IM2. Even if that hurts Mickeys feelings. Thats the cost of having a Shared Cinematic Universe. Plus this is Marvel Studios first go around, try not to be to harsh on em. If they are still having problems like this with the movies before The Avengers 2, go for it.

            • I like to think that Marvel Studios film were kinda deep in IronMan and Incredible Hulk. IronMan had a man questioning his legacy. Hulk had a man seeking control but than learning to use the chaos. Everything else was much less thought provoking and one note. Although Loki is a clear exception.

    • The Banhammer is powering up!

  2. There was nothing “fun” about IM2. That’s just the only thing a Marvel apologist can say to excuse how horrible that movie was.
    Rourke is right. IM2 had the money behind it but not the talent and not the proper direction.
    IM2 is down there with Spiderman 3.

    • Edit: IM2 is down there with Spiderman 3 AND X Men 3: The Last Stand.

      • Not so. However, I will say…

        I didn’t agree with the direction IM2 took because I was expecting a deeper commentary on wealth, celebrity, and political power. But I understand why IM2 was the way that it was. It was a stepping stone to get to the Avengers, and as controversial as that is, I thought it was a good one. So in spite of me preferring that the movie had went in a different direction, something more Tony Stark centric, I don’t hold that against the movie.

        What I do hold against the movie, given that I’ve accepted the direction Marvel chose to go in, is that it had bad pacing. It dragged in the middle.

    • agreed

  3. Meh.. I actually liked IM2 a lot. I know it’s not really a good film necessarily, but I enjoyed it.
    BUT I totally understand where Rourke is coming from. His character really could have been developed more and could have had a little extra something behind it. It’s unfortunate that they didn’t really let him do what he wanted to do. He’s right about Jon too. Even Jon and RDJ said they weren’t happy with how IM2 turned out. Jon should have fought the company and turned the fanboys against them so he could have made the movie he wanted to make, instead he just succumbed to everything Marvel told him to do. I understand there are contracts and obligations and whatnot, but you’ve gotta put up a fight in this business if you’re really passionate about telling your story and making the film you want to make.

  4. I understand where hes coming from…thats how I feel about the X-men franchise. THe X-men were so complex and layered in the comics..one might even say humanly flawed. And I have such a terrible taste for the movies because I feel they never really understood what the X-men and other mutants were going through…and they never quite got it right, even with X-men first class (which was in my book the closest of all the movies to the subject matter).

  5. Rourke may come off as his usual charming self, but the message isn’t that far off. Comic book movies have fallen into this holding pattern of being watered down because I think they still equate the genre with cartoons, and therefore kids. Just like most of the comics they come from these movies need two things more then anything else, a hero that people care about, and a bad-guy that people love to hate.

    The weaker and more one-dimensional the antagonist, the less important the protagonists struggle is. That for me has always been one problem I had with a character like Superman. Him fighting Lex Luthor and a gang of parolees really doesn’t do much, especially on film. That is probably the reason Superman 2 was and still is so highly regarded. Supes got his teeth kicked in, and had to actually struggle to win.

    If they keep making all these villains pumped-up versions of Wile E. Coyote then the movies are going to keep feeling like giant Road Runner cartoons.

  6. WOW! Someone’s desperate for attention! ;) – JK (kinda)
    IM2′s villain was pretty one-dimensional (BUT that’s because the movie wasn’t about the villain, it was about Tony Stark — I guess no one told Rourke that…)
    Cap’s villain was also one-dimensional, and while Weaving’s performance was good, I thought he could have done better — i.e. a bit more hardcore: when I read a Cap comic that features the Red Skull, I always get chills (he’s a pretty scary dude), but the movie version was nothing like that: at the most, I felt a little intimidated by him (but never scared).
    BUT, Loki (played by Tom Hiddleston) was the second best comic-book-movie-villain I’ve ever seen (almost as good as TDK’s Joker), and I’m pretty sure Hiddleston didn’t have to “fight the studios” to give his character some depth…
    So, while the Marvel movies has had some underwhelming villains (IMO), there has been one or two great villains as well.

    I completely disagree about Marvel making “mindless movies” though… sure, some of the movies does have some mindless scenes, but that statement he made was completely wrong and unnecessary IMO.

  7. I sort of agree with Mickey. I mean I walked out of Iron Man 2 disappointed and part of the reason was the villain. It’s like the barely even used him. He had the race track scene and then the scene at the end where he was defeated (which was short by the way). They made it to the point where he was just there. The way the movie was, it seems they could have left him out and still had the same movie basically. IM2 was definitely over hyped, hopefully IM3 will be much much better.

  8. Let’s see…Rourke has already been out of work for many years in Hollywood because of his mouth and it looks like he is at it again..If you want a more artistic approach then work arthouse films..

    I think Rourke is getting ready to shoot himself in his other foot…

  9. With the exception of the first Iron Man, the first half of Captain America, and the first 20-25 minutes of Thor, Marvel films have been pretty awful so far. IM 2 just could not pick a direction and was a total stepping stone Avengers film. I don’t know why people defend it for that; that’s what made it mostly terrible. It should have been it’s own movie fully realized with more subtle tie-ins to how things come together. Marvel does not give it’s fans or audience enough credit in that we can pick up on the small things. In fact that’s what we do best! Nitpick the details.

    Capt. America was an extremely well written, acted (some cheese to it but it fit), and fleshed out movie… for about an hour. After he becomes the “actual” Cap movie goes way down hill and they totally wasted the Red Skull. Totally. Such a great villain and actor and he goes NOWHERE.

    Then there is Thor. Arguably the hardest hero to pull off because he is so fantastical instead of Sci-Fi/Technology modern era. Also, the movie I was personally most looking forward to. Loki was such a badass and stole every scene he was in but then they send Thor to Earth. Then nothing happens except Thor goes all Twilight on Natalie Portman, doesn’t really have an arc where he earns his humility/humanity, and fights the Destroyer for 20 seconds.

    All of the Marvel movies have these few great scenes or excellent characters start to come to life but they can never sustain it. This is coming from a huge fan of comics and these characters. There is so much more they could have done. I get they have 2 -2 1/2 hours to fit a lot in but obviously GOOD films can do that. The Marvel films (again with some exception) have been meh. Here’s hoping Avengers can step it up and be a complete movie.

  10. ha ha funny, all of your opinions.
    Men lie, Women lie, Numbers dont. IM2 was a good movie.

    • How did you come to that conclusion?

      • Using Elderwand’s logic, Avatar was the greatest story ever told. Sigh.

    • So, we have to submit to the logic that IM2 was a good movie? Sorry, but that won’t happen. I would agree that numbers do give an indication about how many people saw and most likely enjoyed it, but that doesn’t mean we can’t form our own opinion.

    • It was enjoyable (at least for me) but you have to admit the glaring problems. I don’t necessarily agree with everything MR said, but IM2 could have been much better.

  11. Whatever, Mickey Rourke. Did you get paid to do what you did? Yeah. So what the problem is?

    His immortals character better be freaking awesome, the way he’s talking.

  12. I agree with somethings mickey said but i think maybe he was just going a little overboard on marvel studios.

  13. Has anyone seen or heard this guy talk? Obviously he is not in the right state of mind…

  14. Mickey Rourke doesn’t help himself out too much considering how bad he acted in IM2. I think Whiplash could’ve been better if Rourke hadn’t acted so cheesy. Guy’s supposed to be a great actor but could’ve fooled me with what he showed in that movie.

    I will say that I didn’t like IM2 as much as the first but I think that had a lot to do with the actors cast, Don Cheadle as Rhodes (Terrence Howard was better), Rourke (just bad), Scarlet Johansson (awful). After doing such a great job on #1, how did Marvel and Jon Favreau let IM2 go so far off the rails?

  15. I have to agree, partially, with Rourke.

    Iron Man 2 had no guts. It was simply a mindless action flick — and that’s too bad. It could have been more.

    I was never sold on J-Fav as the ultimate director for Iron Man. I think he struck gold the first time, but it was more the fact that he had a great costume and an amazing actor than it was his direction.

    I’m anxious to see Shane Black’s take.

  16. I believe Rourke his candidness aside.

    • It’s not like Rourke is the first person to not be too thrilled with a movie they are in. The other question is why do they keep asking him about Iron Man 2 at this point? Do they ask anyone else who is still in these films about what they think about them, and would they give a candid answer?

      • I dunno, there’s a couple points where he just brings it up because he feels like it.

        • He brought it up in the interview Cornet did for this site but, the whole interview seemed to more about the projects he had done in the last few years since his “comeback”. Stringing together a piece of that interview with articles from other sources, that may be months or more old, can take things out of context.

          It’s not about even agreeing with him or not, if he is being asked about the work he has done then he has the right to say how he feels about it. Let’s face it people don’t ask this guy questions expecting to get stock answers from him anyway. You want a sound bite, or some statements that can draw this kind of attention, then you know he’s the kind of guy to give them to you.

          And as I said other actors have done the same thing, Ewan McGregor was critical of The Phantom Menace and still did the other two movies. I don’t see the problem with someone having some creative integrity and saying they didn’t like something that they were involved in, whether they are getting paid or not. Maybe if more people in the movie and television business were more candid with themselves at least there wouldn’t be so much mediocre to bad work being done and it being accepted as the norm.

          • I’m not saying he doesn’t have the right — or that I don’t agree with him, for that matter — I’m simply saying he brought it up of his own accord. You said, “Why do they keep asking him about Iron Man 2?” They didn’t. All the Crave Online interviewer said to him was, “I could tell you didn’t mail it in on Iron Man,” and he said the rest of his own volition. Clearly, the guy is unhappy with how Iron Man 2 went down. Fair enough. So am I, as a viewer. But after he says it twice of his own accord — with Roth and Crave — it’s only to be expected that other news organizations (MTV) are going to bring it up, as well. Yes, no, maybe so?

            Furthermore, their was just a new exchange between he and io9:

            io9: So a lot of it is finding the right director who you feel comfortable with?

            Rourke: I try to find the right director who won’t compromise his or anyone else’s integrity, and yet be political enough to give the studio what they want yet put up a fight to maintain that integrity. So we’re not watching some science fiction [frick]ing wham bam thank you ma’am Marvel piece of crap.

            Let me repeat — I think the guy is totally within his right to say these things. But you were wrong. He’s bringing this up all on his own, like a big boy.

            • I am sure I am 100% wrong since interviewers never steer people with questions. They also don’t ask what can and can’t be asked beforehand to feel out the person. Like I said it is what it is, he’s in a movie that’s coming out and articles about him enjoying making the Immortals clearly don’t have the same punch as the idea of him being at odds with Marvel Studios and to a lesser degree Favreau.

              • Hah, okay, go ahead and create scenarios based on no evidence at all instead of using the facts we have right in front of us.

                • Some of the “facts” presented could be taken as created scenarios. The Crave interview, if read in it’s entirety, dose lay pretty much all of the blame on the studio. Rourke even says in the SR interview that Marvel busted Favreau’s balls about things in the movie. The Crave piece isn’t as hard on the director or writer either and is only one of many topics he talks about. The MTV piece takes a handful of sentences about Iron Man 2, adds some editorial comments, and frame the whole article around the subject.

                  Like I said it gravitated toward the negative probably because it sells. And no I don’t take everything I read at 100% face value, if the New York Times can make up little lies then anyone can.

                  • I’m all for not taking everything at face value. I’m also all for not creating imaginary scenarios so you don’t have to admit you were wrong. Those are both good things.

                    It’s utterly obvious that Rourke wanted to talk about this. He wanted to criticize Marvel. Some of his criticisms I agree with completely, so I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it. But whatever, man. If you’d prefer to baselessly assume that these blogs brought up the topic repeatedly, have at it.

  17. IM2 was BAD. I kept wanting to give it a chance, all the way till the end. And you know what – I can’t get over the fact that it took Stark practice to learn the suit, Cheadle just jumps right in and is a friggin pro at it. That sort of idiotic action ruins it for me. I liked the first Ironman because it did touch on all the little common sense type of hurdles one would have with the technology.

    • “Cheadle just jumps right in and is a friggin pro at it.”
      How do you know he didn’t go for a test drive earlier?
      Remember, IM2 takes place 6 months after IM1: there was plenty of time for Rodey to take the suit out for a spin.

      If I had to high tech suits of armor, I’d definitely lend one to my best bud, go to the middle east, and “resolve” some of the world’s problems…

      • They dont allude to anything like that.

        Another person from IMDB remarked on it too:

        “.. In the first movie we witness how Stark becomes Iron Man, how he needs to learn to use the suit and become one with it, how he builds it and we can understand, that he is the only one, who could use it that way. Apparently we’re wrong, because all you need, is the suit. It’s like anyone could be Batman, if he just could get a hold of his cape. There is no explanation as to why Rhodes can fly this suit like he owns it, there isn’t anything told about the relationship between Stark and Rhodes..”

        Maybe I’d have to watch it again to understand,…no on second thought Im not going to put myself through a second viewing. lol

  18. i think Jeff Bridges character in the first Iron Man was the template. A complex and yet interesting character. Mickey Rooney is no Andy Rooney, hes not just complaining to get attention. Hes giving attention to the flaw of Iron Man 2 so while Marvel prepares for Iron Man 3 they can know not all parties were pleased with 2′s outcome. And btw. why the hell are they getting Oscar winning actors in roles if they won’t let them do what they want with the role?
    And besides all that is said about Mickey’s Whiplash, what about Sam Rockwell’s Justin Hammer? Am I the only one so very underwhelmed by it?

    • Mickey Rooney?

      I thought his name was Mickey Rourke!

  19. Someone had to say it. There’s way too many super hero films being made and they’re all mindless. At least Mickey had the balls to say it publicly.

  20. Mickey Rourke as whiplash was the best part of IM2 and was left out of most of it. I felt the red skull was underused in Cap, but it was an origin story. IM2 didn’t have that excuse.

  21. I thought IM2 could of been better but wouldn’t go as far as thinkin it was so terrible as some people exaggerate. I recall seeing two things people wanted to see in the film. 1. Ironman’s suit case armor. 2. Tony’s alcohol being a problem within the film for him.

    As for SHIELD’s presence as a nod to Avenger’s etc., they had just as much screentime in Thor which was a better film. And i recall people wanted to see Hawkeye’s cameo in the film.

    The ending needed work i thought as it seemed like the original’s & the fight between Ironman/Warmachine & Whiplash was too short. Anyways i thought Iroman 2 was good. Not great or terrible, but good imo.

    • Iron Man 2 was good, and definitely far better than Thor. Of course, I’m not a comic book fan, particularly of the supernatural characters. I’ll stick to the rich vigilantes without superpowers, thanks.

  22. Mickey, Mickey, Mickey…

    It’s called ‘Iron Man 2′ NOT ‘Whiplash’.

    It’s all about ME kicking YOUR butt!

    Busy now, gotta fly! ~ Stark

  23. “If they let you play the bad guy with other dimensions other than one-dimensional”

    He wasn’t a bad guy in it but by “other dimensions” is he refering to his acting in the Expendables… is that what he thinks good acting is?

  24. so i just watched IM2 again, and i have some thoughts.
    Vanko: how much more depth did we really need for his character? he was driven by a misguided need for revenge. in his eyes, his dad was f’ed over by stark. he thinks stark stole his idea for the arc reactor, so he’s going after the only person he can…tony stark. what did MR think we needed, a long Shakespearean soliloquy prior to every “bad-guy” deed? we all know what was driving him. i can see where there was some stuff edited out, particularly when hammer took vanko back to his factory, there seemed to be a somewhat harsh edit, but, imo, it probably didn’t make the cut because MR is just not that good of an actor, and i base this on his closest work following IM2, the expendables. in his couple of scenes, he got to pontificate about some woman, and war, and blah blah blah. hammy stuff. i think he sux, and i probably will be spoiled on the immortals because he is in it…but i digress. his role in IM2 was ok, because, while he had a lot of screen time, he just didn’t have a lot to say, which was a good thing, imho.
    Rhoady and the suit: I think that he must have used it before, we wern’t privy to that, but, he was not the pro that tony is. he only got the upper hand in their fight because tony was wasted. plus, isn’t he he a pilot? (i have not ready many iron man comics, and am not familiar with his military back ground) not that that would make him an expert at flying the suit, as it’s way different than a plane obviously, i just think, as one of cony’s closest friends, he let him try it out a few times. he had to have, as he seemed a bit too familiar as to how to access the thing, plus i would think Jarvis would have not let him put it on.
    Shield:I’m not sure why someone made a comment about shield being “shoved down our throats”, isn’t shield an integral part of the marvel universe? again, i am not an avid comic reader. i read ‘em when i can, which is rarely, but jeez, it’s just another character in the film, and i liked that part of the story. i have liked all the pre-avenger movies, and personally can not wait for may 2012.
    these are just my observations. thanks

  25. Mindless movies? Wow! Coming from the star of 9-and-a-half weeks and 80s raunchy movies surely it must count for something, mustn’t it?

  26. The Joker, Loki and even Abomination were fleshed out villains with more than one outlook. The insanity of the joker. (I know DC but still), the frustration of Abomination, being what was considered a good soldier but obsessing over defeating an unstopable force. Even Loki.. a man confused and even at times remorseful.. I felt bad for Loki. Whiplash really could have used more love.

  27. in my opinion ivan vanko wasn’t even the main villain in the film. justin hammer was.

  28. The villain in Iron Man 2 was pretty weak and uninspired, which I found surprising for a Rourke character. Now hearing him sound off, it makes sense. Shame Marvel doesn’t want any depth to their movies. I’ll stick to the Batman movies, thanks, and there’s only one more of those…

  29. Jim Jones, judging from your last 2 comments, it’s clear you are a die-hard Batman/DC fan. I however found Two-face to have almost the same depth as Ivanko. His sudden transformation from a real good guy to a vicious killer was a bit unrealistic for me. Had he much depth of character, we should have seen those dark signs in his personality before th change. But it seems TDKR is almost sacrosanct now. I dare not comment any further on it. I respect your allegiance to the Dark Knight and your dislike for the supernatural. Maybe due to the antics of your namesake many years ago? Just kidding.