posted
So disappointed. The first two are two of my favorite superhero movies mixed in with the Batman trilogy. The only thing this had that was as good as the first two was the witty dialogue. The plot was stupid, the villain was lame, as was the fake villain twist, and the action was mediocre.
I also don't understand why Killian would pick such a dumb actor to play the Mandarin and divulge important information to him regarding his plan. Why not get one of your loyal soldiers to play the role? Do you really need that great of an actor to read off the script?
Pepper dying and then being regenerated was the most predictable thing I've ever seen. It doesn't even seem like they tried to convince the audience she was actually dead since Tony barely even reacted to it. And if they weren't trying to convince us since it was so obvious that she would regenerate, why didn't Killian see it coming as well?
There were so many other plot points that just seemed half-assed and were more about having cool scenes than a coherent plot.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. I really enjoyed it, I like it even more than the first, and IMO it's the best of any of the Avengers movies.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't like it more than the first, but it was way better than the second.
I agree that the end was insanely predictable, well, maybe not totally, I didn't see the giant army of suits coming to the rescue and that was pretty sweet to see, but the part with Pepper definitely was.
I love that they integrated PTSD from Avengers, I thought that was really interesting. His chemistry with the little kid was very engaging, though I thought the entire section of the movie with the kid lifts right out and could have been replaced with something far more interesting to the plot.
I give them credit for at least trying to do something with Tony. It's a one man show, really, with Pepper being the only other character that gets much attention at all (and precious little at that). They wanted to show that he was human, despite the sarcastic, glib, smug mask he always wears (both his Tony Stark mask and his Iron Man mask), and that real heroes can't go through what he went though and just shrug it off. I think that was effective. The surrounding plot didn't always flow very evenly, but I thought the character development was rather good for a superhero movie. Certainly better than Thor.
Plus, it was pretty and funny, which at least hits all the marks for summer action flick.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked Iron Man 3 quite a bit. It was considerably better than the second film, and the plot holes weren't too terrible (with a couple exceptions). But, yes, of course Pepper's regeneration was ridiculously telegraphed -- but that's okay, because it's not like we really saw Tony taking the time to mourn; I don't think the film honestly expected us to think she was dead. Killian didn't see it coming because he's not the audience. I'll agree that the villain was weak, but all of the villains in this franchise have been weak; at the end of the day, the films are always about Tony Stark overcoming his own limitations, not the bad guy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll concur with Lyrhawn and Tom, though I did enjoy the stuff with the kid. I thought it was very humanizing for Tony and a reminder that he's just a "mechanic" after all. . . .
Definitely better than the second. Better in some ways than the first, worse in others. Hard to compare because they're different movies.
Sure, you can pick apart the plot if you like (see the Star Trek discussion), but both movies work on a mainstream entertainment level.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, most of what you criticized Star Trek for in that thread is how I felt about IM3 (with your disappoint of it stemming from your nostalgia for older Star Trek movies matching mine for the previous Iron Man films ), while your enjoyment of IM3 despite some flaws matches how I felt about Star Trek. You must have the two movies confused.
I agree though that the PTSD was a nice touch to add depth.
" I'll agree that the villain was weak, but all of the villains in this franchise have been weak"
Disagree, I thought Whiplash was a Bad A**. Killian was just annoying.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah Whiplash really wasn't that amazing. See thing is, if Ironman flies up 40 feet, Whiplash is pretty much out of options.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Iron Man 2 was easily the best of the Marvel movies, Avengers excepted. I do seem to be in the minority on that point, however.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
All the villains are relatively weak, I agree. But the personal, close to him angle in Iron Man 1. It worked as an origin story, even though the character is just as generic (but less doofy). Whiplash has a fun atmosphere and mood about him, and his movie felt like a missed opportunity.
Iron Man 3 was rarely ever funny. And then every time it tried to be funny in the explosive battle, it felt like a sick dieing puppy trieing to chase down a car, and falling short, as usual.
posted
I just thought of something. What was the point of creating the Mandarin to take credit for the humans exploding from a malfunction of Extremis? What would be the harm in just letting people wonder what caused the explosion, it's not like it could have been traced back to Killian anyways. And it would leave a lot less loose ends than creating a fake terrorist to tale credit for them that knows who is really causing the explosions.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If memory serves, almost no one had any idea it was actually human beings exploding from within-everyone thought 'suicide bombers' because hey, that's a story everyone is familiar with especially if you front a terrorist mastermind for the world to marvel at.
Without a terrorist mastermind, perhaps people begin to examine the bombings in more detail and realize it's actually a product of some extremely high technology that, as it turns out, only a relatively few companies could possibly have produced-and their headquarters and owners are all known and easy to find.
quote: When you don't know who the enemy is, you try to find out who the enemy is.
My point is that there was nothing linking the explosions to Killian in the first place. No evidence, nothing left over, no leads. Giving them the Mandarin as a lead whom, when found (I know the plan was to not have him found, but letting him know who the boss is and all the other details is just stupid), would lead directly to Killian.
quote: Without a terrorist mastermind, perhaps people begin to examine the bombings in more detail and realize it's actually a product of some extremely high technology that, as it turns out, only a relatively few companies could possibly have produced-and their headquarters and owners are all known and easy to find.
How would they have known the explosions were being caused by spontaneously combusting humans that were given a drug that may have that as a side effect?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, except for what actually happened in the movie.
Stark reconstructed the scene where Hogan was injured in conjunction with what he found elsewhere and put the pieces together. If Stark could do it, surely SHIELD could do it.
Stark had to put the pieces together just like anyone else would have, and he DID put the pieces together, which proves there WAS a trail to follow in the movie.
You're operating under the assumption that having a patsy was useless because he was virtually immune from any sort of trail leading to him, but the movie actually showed the main character following those lines to Killian.
My only complaint is that they needed to make better use of Ben Kingsley.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How would they have known the explosions were being caused by spontaneously combusting humans that were given a drug that may have that as a side effect?
By investigating and discovering the clues which were, in fact, there.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I felt like I got tricked into seeing Iron Man 3. I kept waiting for Ben Kingsley to show up with his rings and fight Iron Man.
No Mandarin for you! Here, have a generic genetically enhanced super soldier. Sure, we got the idea for him off of Brand from League of Legends, but who plays that game?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to need to rewatch the movie and pay closer attention to those parts. Perhaps I was wrong about that plot hole. But I still think, in terms of just being entertaining with a cool villain, 3 doesn't compare to 1 or 2.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Superhero villains tend to be fairly silly. Probably because they need to "be a match" for the grandiocity of a superhero- thus it's never enough to be a thief or something- they have to be a dictator or a mass-murdering psychopath.
The very best superhero villain, probably ever, was The Joker, and a lot of that was because the writing didn't depend on stakes involving the destruction of Gotham. It was just about a battle of wills.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was referring to the character of the villain, not just superpower and abilities. I thought in 1 and especially 2 the villains had cool personalities and backstories. Killian just wasn't interesting at all as a character to me. He was just annoying.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Superhero villains tend to be fairly silly. Probably because they need to "be a match" for the grandiocity of a superhero- thus it's never enough to be a thief or something- they have to be a dictator or a mass-murdering psychopath.
The very best superhero villain, probably ever, was The Joker, and a lot of that was because the writing didn't depend on stakes involving the destruction of Gotham. It was just about a battle of wills.
The Joker is a close second.
Everyone knows the best villain ever is Mr. Freeze circa Batman TAS.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'll agree that the villain was weak, but all of the villains in this franchise have been weak; at the end of the day, the films are always about Tony Stark overcoming his own limitations, not the bad guy.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), while your enjoyment of IM3 despite some flaws matches how I felt about Star Trek. You must have the two movies confused. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
