Iron Man 3 (2013)

[Gopher]

I don't deny this movie has comic book logic. Hell, you could call IM3 a revenge film, a buddy cop movie, a cop-kid action comedy, and a James Bond riff all in one. But it's consistent comic book logic and it's not going for anything more realistic that would clash with stuff like Guy Pearce breathing fire. . I also loved the way they handled Tony's anxiety issues post-NYC. He's a fascinating character to watch when he has no control of his life.

[Jack Nevada]

Yeah, even though I have to give them props for doing something that ballsy, in the end the twist left kind of a bad taste in my mouth. 

Edited May 4, 2013 by Jack Nevada

[Chewy]

Yeah the anxiety stuff is great, the stuff with the kid is great, the twist is hilarious and I actually liked both of the villains.

 

I think my biggest problems with the film are that it glosses over some exposition that could really use another minute or two of explanation, and that Rebecca Hall's character is utterly pointless. Like, she does nothing in the movie. Why?

[Jack Nevada]

The movie also felt a bit rushed. Like all things hadn't been totally thought-through and sometimes it was pretty sloppy too, like they had to push this thing out while The Avengers fever was still strong

[Chewy]

The twist was utterly hilarious. Kingsley's the man.

 

...And unfortunately, the twist was half of the film's major problems in the second and third acts. I haven't seen a marketing campaign pull the wool over the audience's eyes in such an almost shameful way since Spider-Man 3.

 

Shane Black LOVES pulling the wool over an audience's eyes. I hope he makes a few more movies with completely misleading trailers. I love it.

 

I don't see anything shameful about it. The trailer presents the movie the same way the first hour of the movie presents itself. That's kinda the point of a twist - if you let the audience know it's coming, it loses some of its impact

[FTF]

Shane Black LOVES pulling the wool over an audience's eyes. I hope he makes a few more movies with completely misleading trailers. I love it.I don't see anything shameful about it. The trailer presents the movie the same way the first hour of the movie presents itself. That's kinda the point of a twist - if you let the audience know it's coming, it loses some of its impact

Many people hate bs bait and switch tactics like that though, me included, and the bigger the movie the more people it will piss off (ala IM3). Where IM3 wins points though is that it's really good up until the twist, and pretty good/good after. I did like it more upon second viewing though, as I thought I would since I knew what was coming (review is a couple pages back), so def leaning more towards the B+ side of my grade. Edited May 4, 2013 by FTF

[The Movie Man]

Many people hate bs bait and switch tactics like that though, me included, and the bigger the movie the more people it will piss off (ala IM3). Where IM3 wins points though is that it's really good up until the twist, and pretty good/good after.I did like it more upon second viewing though, as I thought I would since I knew what was coming (review is a couple pages back), so def leaning more towards the B+ side of my grade.

 

Think very small % care about the switch and the mainstream movie going public want to see a good movie....

 

And here yes they did a good Bait & Switch but they gave good time to both BK and the real villain, where never got rushed.

[Shawn Robbins]

I don't deny this movie has comic book logic. Hell, you could call IM3 a revenge film, a buddy cop movie, a cop-kid action comedy, and a James Bond riff all in one. But it's consistent comic book logic and it's not going for anything more realistic that would clash with stuff like Guy Pearce breathing fire. .I also loved the way they handled Tony's anxiety issues post-NYC. He's a fascinating character to watch when he has no control of his life.

 

Tony's character arc was fantastic. Best part of the movie for me.

 

Shane Black LOVES pulling the wool over an audience's eyes. I hope he makes a few more movies with completely misleading trailers. I love it.

 

I don't see anything shameful about it. The trailer presents the movie the same way the first hour of the movie presents itself. That's kinda the point of a twist - if you let the audience know it's coming, it loses some of its impact

 

I'm all for pulling the wool, but this was just filled with great concepts with poor executions IMO. If you're going to trick the audience, don't water the movie down for it. I feel like that's what happened. For the first time ever in Iron Man's solo films, it felt like we had a credible villain that actually threatened Tony (and the world for that matter). And then not only is a trick, but the puppetmaster is no more of a credible threat than Whiplash or Iron Monger.

 

This is all my opinion, of course, but I went in expecting to see a movie where the critics just didn't get it and expected another Avengers. For the first hour, I thought that's exactly what was happening. And then came the twist. Which isn't the problem for me. The problem was the lack of delivery after the twist. To write something that bold, you have to be able to top your previously established threats--and they didn't, IMO. It was blue balls cinema 101.

 

That said, I respect the fact that Black and co. did something ballsy in the MCU. It just didn't work this time.

[Chewy]

Fair enough. We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I thought Pearce's character was about a billion times more credible than Whiplash and a bit more credible than Obadiah.

[Spidey Freak]

Tony's character arc was fantastic. Best part of the movie for me.

 

 

I'm all for pulling the wool, but this was just filled with great concepts with poor executions IMO. If you're going to trick the audience, don't water the movie down for it. I feel like that's what happened. For the first time ever in Iron Man's solo films, it felt like we had a credible villain that actually threatened Tony (and the world for that matter). And then not only is a trick, but the puppetmaster is no more of a credible threat than Whiplash or Iron Monger.

 

This is all my opinion, of course, but I went in expecting to see a movie where the critics just didn't get it and expected another Avengers. For the first hour, I thought that's exactly what was happening. And then came the twist. Which isn't the problem for me. The problem was the lack of delivery after the twist. To write something that bold, you have to be able to top your previously established threats--and they didn't, IMO. It was blue balls cinema 101.

 

That said, I respect the fact that Black and co. did something ballsy in the MCU. It just didn't work this time.

 

I thought the puppetmaster was a more credible threat than Whiplash and Iron Monger. He was far more calculating, had a far more ambitious plan- basically control the entire developed world with both POTUS (AIM supporting VP would become POTUS after the current one was killed off) and the most dangerous terror threat working for him, creating supply and demand all by himself, wanted to only use Tony as a tool instead of trying to get back at him/try to take over his industries, and even when he did a petty, personal thing like kidnap and Extremise Pepper, he admitted so. Physically too, he was a greater threat as he was damn near invincible. The fact that he was FAR harder to kill than other Extremis soldiers could be explained by assuming that he perfected the formula on himself. (Also note how Savin, high ranking henchman, was harder to kill than the regular Extremis soldiers like Ellen Brandt).

 

I think the risk was worth it. They openly analyse the enthusiasm in making "terror figureheads" like Bin Laden, Gadaffi, Saddam more potent than they actually are, which is incredibly ballsy for a "fun and safe superhero blockbuster".

Edited May 4, 2013 by Spidey Freak

[Shawn Robbins]

I think I would have totally agreed on Pearce's character being more credible had he actually been given a proper villainous arc. Get rid of the Mandarin and use that time to establish Killian more.

[Chewy]

Killian's arc is there but it's a bit more subtle while Trevor does his thing. I suspect you'll like him (and the movie) more after a second viewing, I've been hearing that from a bunch of people who were thrown off on initial viewing

[JonnyCraig]

8.5/10

 

My favorite of the IM series, thanks to crisp pacing, creative action sequences and very good performances from the entire cast.

 

Also, a lot of people don't realize that the reason for the twist wasn't solely to do something different, it was largely because of the common belief that

the Mandarin character, along with the likes of Fu Manchu, was a vessel for unfortunate Yellow Peril-era stereotypes. Since this is the 21st century, Black both sought to defy some of the unfortunate racially-tinged cariactures in classic comic books and bring a certain sense of reality to something that is otherwise slapstick fantasy.

Edited May 4, 2013 by JonnyCraig

[Spidey Freak]

I think I would have totally agreed on Pearce's character being more credible had he actually been given a proper villainous arc. Get rid of the Mandarin and use that time to establish Killian more.

 

 

Killian's arc is there but it's a bit more subtle while Trevor does his thing. I suspect you'll like him (and the movie) more after a second viewing, I've been hearing that from a bunch of people who were thrown off on initial viewing

 

Exactly what Chewy said. The second time I watched it, it is apparent how much Killian was developed as a lethal threat, it is only not apparent in the first viewing because folks were still reeling from the consequences of the twist, and in the first half, were just not paying much attention to him when Mandarin was around.

 

Also, doesn't the fact that Killian basically created  the Mandarin automatically make him a million times more credible and devious than if there were an actual, terrorist Mandarin? It is just the level of theatricality and flamboyancy that the Mandarin possesses which makes him appear to be a greater evil. But that was the entire point of the movie- We create our own demons.

[A Marvel Fanboy]

Killian is what Tony would be like if he had been stuck into his technology confinement. The relationship between humans and technology is what the theme of IM3 dealing with.

 

Tony Stark blows up all his armors in the end but he is still the Iron Man. Unlike in IM1 & 2 and TA, Tony would not be Iron Man without his armors. "take that suit off, what are you ?" "genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist" is not the right answer. Iron Man is. That is Tony's answer to Cap, in IM3. He defeated his technology confinement. 

 

Why Tony had anxiety disorders after the NY battle in TA ? because he saw aliens, Gods, Alien technology (better than his) and most importantly of all, the Wormhole. His eyes were broaded. Saw things he couldnt imagine before. As a technology genius, who is hundreds times more sentive about techonogy than a general person, he felt defeated and frustrated. Pepper couldnt understand that, since she is not a technology genius.

 

In the opening scenes of IM3, three technology geniuses met, Tony, Killian and Maya. They all have extreme enthusiasm to technology. It all starts with very pure and simple dream. However things went to different ways. Killian and Maya failed to correctly dealing the relationship with technologies.

 

"Technology is more reliable than humans"

 

Or is it ?

 

Even Jarvis can fall asleep and Mark 42 can get disintegrated at every critical moment.

 

That's what Tony finally realized. He blew up all his suits. He got Pepper. Pepper now is his suit. His is his suit. Armors dont make Iron Man. Tony Stark makes Iron Man.

Edited May 4, 2013 by firedeep

[Sam]

Anyone thinks that at the end of the movie, it's hinted that not only Tony has surgery to remove the shrapnel, but he has also injected himself with a complete, safer, and maybe perfected Extremis? He stated that he worked on the project so that he can fix Pepper, but being Tony Stark, I wouldn't imagine him bypassing the chance to take on one of the most advanced technology for himself. He has all the variables from Killian and Maya, especially all that makes it wrong and dangerous, being a genius, I think Tony Stark would know how to fix it, to make Extremis better if he's put his mind into doing so. Just a thought.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Sam

[Adm56]

Just got back from the second viewing. I probably would have given it about a 7 after the first go around but I enjoyed it enough the second time to raise it to about an 8. I suppose I just accepted that it was a genre bending buddy cop movie and not really a superhero one at it's core. And as much as I dislike superhero loathing superhero movie makers (something that Nolan becomes at his worst moments) after further review having the guy out of the suit for 90% of the run time works well enough I guess.

 

I hated IM2 in the theaters but eventually learned to enjoy what it offered after a few viewings on blu-ray. If I had to rank the trilogy IM1 would win, but 2 and 3 are a tie for me.  Three has better 'connective tissue' but IMO the action scenes in Two are just so much better.  At least as far as in the suit Iron-man action goes.  As weak as the final battle with Whiplash is in IM2 at least our hero is in costume. I just prefer that to Tony playing MacGruber (but at least he didn't stick any celery up his ass).

[Adm56]

And folks should really read up on the changes to the Chinese version. I think it's quite ridiculous that changes were made. I have nothing against the Chinese people but it's sad that we have to suck up to a government with such a human rights record purely for financial reasons. The biggest change from what I read was at the end...Tony goes to China for his surgery...because China 'has the best doctors'. http://io9.com/did-you-know-that-iron-man-3-takes-place-partly-in-chin-486189788http://kotaku.com/why-many-in-china-hate-iron-man-3s-chinese-version-486840429

Edited May 4, 2013 by Adm56

[Punishment]

Well, just finished watching the movie with my son.  We were at the noon showing and it was maybe 25% full if that.

 

The movie was quite underwhelming, but had it's moments - they were just too few and far in-between.  They could have done a better job with the plot twist instead of making it so cheesy.  I thought Guy Pearce did a respectable job as the main villain and liked his "soldiers" as well.  My main complaint was the under-utilization of Iron Man himself and specifically his weaponry.

 

I give it a 6 or 7 out of 10.

 

Oh my son's vote?  thumbs down   He was actually getting tired during the movie - and that says a lot about the lack of action.

 

A serious step down from the Avengers for me.

[Adm56]

Definitely not as family friendly as Avengers.