Originally Posted by kedrell
I disagree. IM2 is one of if not the best superhero sequel that I've seen to date. It continues to do what the first film did and subvert(in clever little ways) the typical superhero movie. That's been a huge part of this franchise's identity and success so far.
Almost everything in the sequel was a downgrade from the original, it felt safe and wasted Vanko
IM3 was a well made competent movie that just happened to have a giant creative brain fart right in the middle of it. They did it to try and be ballsy and shake things up and I can appreciate that on some level but in reality what they ended up doing is giving the middle finger to the fans. Especially when the douche director comes out afterwards and openly mocks them. And the Avengers was simple but it was masterfully done and hit just about all that it aimed for. I really don't give points for movies that try and fail so much as I give points to movies that aim for a target and hit what they are aiming for.
So, LOL at your opinions as well.
Just competent? Really? Avengers was simple, but i'm not talking about the plot, i'm talking about the way it was directed, Joss Whedon can write his scripts but his directing style is safe and uninspired. And it seems like the twist has only really affected fans, the rest seems to love it, i myself disliked it, but that doesn't make the film fail any targets, because it mostly succeeded. Complex plot that was still effective, the villain was actually very good compared to most other MCU villains, the comedy was top notch and the characters were interesting and engaging. It was compared to Iron Man 2 a good step in every direction.
And Iron Man 3 wasn't just competent, the film was full of personality, something MCU films have been lacking.
And i'dd rather get good and risky films than the usual safe and competent film.