Maggie Gyllenhaal was alot better in the role than Holmes was. Holmes was just a paint-by-the-numbers cute face. Gyllenhaal actually brought real acting to the role. And for those that are on this, "but Holmes was more attractive, so she was better for the role than Gyllenhaal was," you're looking at things like a 3 year old.
You have to understand, Holmes PALED in comparison to the models that were around Bruce Wayne throughout the film that, at any given day, he could've banged to begin with. Obviously, he isn't interested in his girl on a purely physical level. That makes the "looks" argument null in void since Holmes comes across as "plain jane" in comparison to the dimes that linger around Wayne on the regular. Ask yourself, do you really think Holmes could've done a better job than Gyllenhaal in that knife scene with Ledger? Obviously not.
But back to the topic, I was fine with Howard in the role of Rhodes. And, for continuity sake, I wish he would've stuck around. But let's be real, Cheadle is one of the best actors in Hollywood. With the exception of a couple of films, Howard isn't seeing Cheadle at all on the acting tip. Diggs, White...come on. Neither of them are seeing Howard (who isn't seeing Cheadle). Cheadle has proven that he can really change himself for roles, so I have no doubt he will adapt to this role. Honestly, Howard was somewhat mechanic in Iron Man (I was fine with him in the movie since his role was limited). Since it has been hinted that the Rhodes character will be given alot more airtime in the next film, I'm glad an actor of the caliber of Cheadle is portraying him.
If you're more concerned with the "look" of the character, then I assume you were the same folks bitchin' about how Butterbean didn't portray Kingpin in Daredevil.
I'm disappointed for continuity's sake, but as far as film quality goes...this is a PLUS for Iron Man 2, not a minus.
Bookmarks