Mainly just the Rhodey actor switch (not that I don't like Cheadle, but stuff like that just irks me) and IM2 being a little weak.
Other than those two things, I liked the first and third movies about the same. I can see why
some people don't enjoy the third as much, I just don't agree with many of their points, personally.
Also, just because it bugged me when I was reading through the thread:
Originally Posted by Adder
because it's a MAJOR PLOT HOLE. the 35 unused armors had no reason to be in the movie when you look at their significance to the story. it's clear those armors were added just to satisfy the need for a big action climax.
I agree the other armors should have had more screentime and all that, but this totally isn't a plot hole; it's just an aspect of the movie you didn't agree with or enjoy. A plot hole is when something established in an early part of a story is directly and logically contradicted at a later point in the story. Generally speaking, if you can come up with a reason to easily explain it away, then it isn't a plot hole. In this case, a person could say that the other armors were also prototypes due to their rapid construction, or maybe that the Mark 42 really was that
much more powerful in comparison to the others, even in prototype form. Just quick examples.