Iron Man 3 Official rate & review IRON MAN 3 thread!

[ctsketch]

As much as I like the IM3 score (especially the end credits, which are amazing), I feel that IM1 has the superior score and theme. It's the only one of the three that has a single identifiable theme for Iron Man throughout, and it's totally badass, too.

Errr there is a theme for Iron man 3 that plays 4 to 5 times throughout the movie in different tracks...

 

[ctsketch]

Yeah IM1 easily had the best and most identifiable theme of the trilogy IMO. I can easily recall it and hum it. For the life of me I can not remember the IM3 score and I watched the film both Monday and yesterday.

[YT]n5riyajbsq0[/YT]

except this track which appeared like 5 times in the movie (IM3)...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK94_EF_D2s

 

[Tony Stark]

Armond White isn't an RT critic anymore because he left the New York Press, which is included in the Tomatometer, and now works for a publication that is not included on RT. Accusing White of being in the pay of the studios is beyond laughable. The man never saw a blockbuster he didn't hate. If the studios were paying him, they wasted their money.

Thanks for posting this. I was about to call DK a liar and a troll (which he is) for saying this, and link to this article:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/armond-white-claims-he-was-kicked-off-rotten-tomat,65156/

which states exactly as you state. I hope DK has a permanent ban coming his way to troll this thread. You read his recent posts, and it's been nothing more than to start flame wars, not to state his opinion on any movie.

 

[JangoNate]

Yes, IM1 has a theme. I guess my problem with it is that I got the score and listened through it and it only clearly popped up once when he's hammering the Mark 1 armor in the cave. Thought it was awesome, I was disappointed when it wasn't as clear throughout the rest of the score. We hear allusions to it, but it doesn't play like that one time in the cave. It's almost as if it becomes something new as the armor changes, and I guess that's cool, but it I wanted something like that theme pounded out in all of those heroic moments, but it wasn't.

IM3 had a theme that didn't change or morph. It was a series of notes that appeared at all of those heroic moments. When the suit leaves Pepper for him to stop the attack on his home 'Bam!' there's the theme. When the Air Force One crew were saved 'Bam!' the same series of heroic notes. And my favorite was when Tony and Rhodey got their 'backup.' It's weaved throughout the movie and fired me up when I heard it. My wife who's not into scores at all told me at the end of the movie that she could hear that great theme I was humming around the house and loved it.

Of course, I've been listening to the score since before I saw the movie, so that could be a big reason why I was able to identify it. So to recap: IM1's theme is awesome, just way underplayed, while IM3 became a constant crescendo when the action heated up and I loved it.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Then someone says they like the IM1 OST better, and people claim it's because we had more time to get accustomed to it.

So you're saying people don't grow more familiar with things over time?

Because I didn't say **** about why someone might like the first one more and I don't care which one they prefer. I suggested that one possible reason it's more easily recalled is because we've had a much longer period to become familiar with it.

But don't let a little thing like accuracy get in the way of your indignation. It's wonderful when people misrepresent things you say just so they can act offended and use the eyeroll smilie.

 

[Norek]

So you're saying people don't grow more familiar with things over time?

No, not really - I'm saying it is possible, in fact I stated that IM3 for example might grow on me in the future when I see it again, or I might like it even less. But just because you're familiar with something more doesn't mean it isn't better.

Because I didn't say **** about why someone might like the first one more and I don't care which one they prefer. I suggested that one possible reason it's more easily recalled is because we've had a much longer period to become familiar with it.

As I suggested before that one possible reason why people claim IM3 is better than The Avengers and IM1 is because it's simply newer. It's for everyone to decide for themselves of course, but time does change things. That's why I said I'm curious to see how IM3 (and the OST) hold up in the future.

But don't let a little thing like accuracy get in the way of your indignation. It's wonderful when people misrepresent things you say just so they can act offended and use the eyeroll smilie.

Well I'm not staring at your face, I'm not hearing your voice, and I don't really know you, so sometimes things like this happens.

And I can't say I'm offended actually, I really liked IM3's score, and I've listened to it for a while now, but even so I'm not sure if I like it better than IM1's.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

Because they are artists....not worker drones who are afraid to express their own idea's and themes.

If they're so anxious to take comic book characters and tell their own creative story with them, then why not co-write a run on a book?

 

[VictorShade]

Eh, that's stretching it a bit. I'd like to see Madame Masque, but I don't think she's Leader of AIM material. And Ellen Brandt's scars are authentic to the comics, but that's not in reference to Madame Masque: it's in reference to Man-Thing, who burned her face badly.

Yeah, Im not well versed in MM's backstory I'll admit, but a twichy, half beligerent(?), english accented Manderin was kinda stretching it a bit as well.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

If they're so anxious to take comic book characters and tell their own creative story with them, then why not co-write a run on a book?

Because they're film directors, not comic book writers.

 

[ColKel]

Hi to all members. As this is my first post on this board, I think a short introduction is in order.

I’m not really a comic book fan but i remember as a kid that Iron Man was my favorite superhero. The last Iron Man comic book I read was probably at the age of 10. In no way can I describe myself as an Iron Man comic fan boy. Now 30 years later I have to admit that I am a huge Iron Man movie fan. I think the reason I love Iron Man is partly because of the character of Tony Stark and partly because of the cool Iron Man armor. Also, out of all the superheroes out there, with the exception of Batman, Tony Stark to me seems the person I can relate to the most. Here’s a guy, not a guy with extraordinary superpowers, but a normal guy who uses his intellect and ingenuity as a superpower. In the first movie we see Tony Stark triumph over physical adversity and in the second we see him triumph over physical and emotional adversity using exactly that.

I loved the first Iron Man movie and really enjoyed the second even though the second movie had it’s faults. For me, I know I enjoyed a movie whenever I leave the cinema and feel like buying a ticket to see it again at the very next showing. This happened with IM1 and IM 2 but sadly not with IM 3. So far, in all the Marvel movies I saw in a cinema I waited patiently for the after credits scene, even the ones that didn’t have one, just to get a taste of more of the preceding movie or to get a glimpse into future of what the Marvel universe has in store for us. In the case of IM 3 I left as soon as the credits started. I honestly couldn’t have been bothered to wait till the end of the credits.

Now, I understand that art is subjective. This is why some people would look at a work of art and see a masterpiece and others would see the doodle of a 3 year old. And in the case of movies it’s probably more so just for the simple reason that movies contain such a wide range of artistic expression. It really does fascinate me how movie makers pull everything together into an enjoyable cinematic experience. This seemed to be the case with both IM 1 and IM2, but sadly, for me at least, not with IM 3.

I’m not trying to convince anybody that liked IM 3 that it’s a bad movie. I am actually quite envious of people that did like it. As stated previously, we all look for different things in art whether its fine art, literature, music or in this case a movie.

As this is a review thread I would like to apologize beforehand if this post does turn into somewhat of a rant but I feel that I have to vent my frustration concerning IM 3 in some way and, unfortunately, this seems to be the best way. The following are some of the things I found lacking in IM3 and is probably more of a deconstruction than a review, but here goes anyway :

Please note that the following does contain spoilers, so continue at your own peril :

Spoiler

1- Our hero and his alter ego.

Firstly, Tony Stark. One of the things that bothered me most about Tony Stark in IM 3 was the lack of continuity in his character from the previous IM movies, as well as Avengers. Here’s a guy that almost gets blown up by a RPG in Iron man 1, is injured so badly that he needs to have an electro magnet implanted in his chest to keep shrapnel from entering his heart, is held captive for months in a cold and dingy cave only to almost ,once again, be blown up by exploding Stark weaponry while escaping by means of a flying armored suit only for the suit to fail and fall out of the sky and crash land in a dessert, gets shot out of the sky by a tank in Gulmira and gets shot at and hit by a fighter jet. Only to then find out that his friend, partner and mentor was the one trying to have him killed and then having him steal his arc reactor, which is keeping him alive, from his chest, almost dying only to then be thrown into a bus, blown up, run over by a car and, again, almost dying from the big arc reactor blowing up beneath him and ..... no Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

In Iron Man 2, almost gets sliced and diced on a race track in Monaco, dying from Paladium poisoning, gets beat up by his best friend in the mark 2 suit, almost gets killed by a bunch of flying armored drones and again almost gets sliced and diced by a guy in an armored suit and...... no PTSD. Then in Avengers, have an epic fight with a Norse God and, again, sliced and diced by a huge turbine blade..... no PTSD.

And then in IM3, all of a sudden we are expected to believe that he developed PTSD from the one final battle in Avengers. Lets say for arguments sake that everything I mentioned did eventually cause PTSD, in IM3, having insomnia because of the PTSD, he builds a bunch of Iron Man suits to prepare for any and all threatening scenarios in order to protect Pepper, which he “can’t live without”, only to almost be blown up by the only scenario he didn’t think of, his house being blown up, after inviting the bad guy to basically blow up his house (which for a genius isn't very smart). Why not use some of the 41 Iron Man suits locked up in the basement, which can function independently as seen by the end battle, as sentries around the house ? Only to then be told by a little kid he should “build something” to cure his PTSD. You’d think he’d already be cured after building 42 Iron Man suits. Instead he builds a glove that can electrocute somebody and a couple of grenades and that seems to offer an instant cure for a deep seeded psychological condition.

I wonder what would happen if I walk into the psychiatric wing of a VA hospital with a few boxes of Lego and go up the first veteran with debilitating PTSD and say to him .... dude, get over yourself, just “build something” and hand him the Lego. I don’t think I would walk out of there.

One of the main effects that go hand in hand with PTSD is alcoholism and drug abuse. In both the previous IM movies there are clear indications that he is a borderline alcoholic, yet in IM 3 absolutely no mention of it. From what I understand, execs at Disney asked the creators of IM 3 to remove all references to alcohol. You can show a woman being murdered in cold blood, a guy having a hole shot through his chest and another having his arm amputated but you can’t show something that was clearly set up in the previous movies. Tony Stark even offers Loki a drink in Avengers. A total lack in continuity and huge fail.

At no point in the movie did Tony Stark having PTSD ring true for my. It completely went against the grain of Tony Stark/Iron Man’s character that was developed over the course of the previous movies. It’s clear to me the writers did’nt use the PTSD as a way of moving his character forward but instead tried using it as a plot device to set up the rest of the movie, which failed in my opinion.

In both the previous movies I found Tony Stark’s quips and one liners funny, entertaining and true to character but for some reason in IM3 most just seemed out of place and fell flat. In the previous movies they were clearly used as a defence mechanism by Tony Stark but instead in IM 3 they seem to be mostly used for comedic effect by the writers. As in the case where the kid tells Tony about his dad and Tony says “Dads leave. There’s no need to be a p*ussy about it”. Yet, in Iron Man2, the whole plot revolves around the fact that Tony’s dad wasn’t there for him as a kid and now, as an adult, he didn’t live up to his dads legacy. Only after seeing an old movie of his dad did he realize that his dad loved him and that he was proud of him. You would think he’d sympathize with the kid. Instead, this contradiction in character just seemed out of place and made Tony Stark seem cruel and an a-hole. Even shortly after Pepper seemingly falls to her death, Tony fires off a quick one liner. Not as a defense mechanism for just having lost the love of his life but for comedic effect after the mark 42 crashes and flies apart.

At the end of the movie, I’m sad to say, I didn’t like Tony Stark much anymore. From what I’ve heard from pre-promotion interviews, the makers of this movie wanted to take the character of Tony Stark “back to the cave” and bring his character full circle. Instead, what we got was Tony Stark not only going full circle but beyond that and basically ending up at the end of IM 3 as the wisecracking, self centered, self entitled, spoiled billionaire ass he was at the beginning of IM 1.

So, in the space of one movie he went from my most favorite superhero to my least favorite. I think from now on Black Widow will be my favorite superhero..... she seems nice.

Now, the Iron Man suits. Probably my biggest gripe in the movie was the continuity from the previous movies to this one concerning the character of the Iron Man armor. Since when did Tony Stark sub-contract the making of the new suits to Hammer Industries ?

If they didn’t break apart from hitting something they got sliced up by the bad guys like they were made from cardboard. Come to think of it, the Iron Man suits in the end battle were basically turned into drones exactly like the Hammerhoids in IM2 (been there, done that). Even the Extremis soldiers’ clothing seems to hold up better to extreme heat than the Iron Man suits. Maybe if they do decide to make another Iron Man movie Tony can make the mark 43 and subsequent suits out of the same material as Pepper’s sports bra and call them, guess what, “suits”.

You can even recharge the Iron Man suits with a car battery. Somebody should’ve told Obediah Stane in IM 1 that he didn’t need an arc reactor to power the Iron Monger suit but only needed a couple of car batteries. I guess the joke’s on him (or maybe it’s on us, the fans).

In previous movies the suits were almost indestructible. My first impression after seeing pictures of the Mark 42 was that it looked like a toy. Previously the armors looked, not only cool, but tough with the striking deep red and gold and what you would expect from Iron Man. In IM3 even the colors were toned down to make the suits look weak. They even went so far as to make most of the scenes that contained the Iron Man suits remotely controlled suits or controlled by Jarvis (drones). Not only that but they dumbed the one suit (mark vii I think) down to something you wear out to the pub. Here is a sophisticated hi-tech weapon that defeated a god and stopped an alien invasion and it is parked on the curb like it’s a scooter (facepalm).

It was clear to me at the end of the movie that the filmmakers really went out of their way to make the suits look weak. This was done on purpose so that at the end of the movie you were expected to believe that “Iron Man aka Tony Stark” was more than his suits and didn’t need them. To me, this is a major fail. The suits are what made Tony Stark a superhero. Without them he is just a “billionaire philanthropist playboy” .Tony Stark is Iron Man and Iron Man (the superhero) is Tony Stark. They are not mutually exclusive.

In the previous movies the suits were as much a character as Tony Stark was. It’s what made the movies cool. This fact seemed to be completely ignored by the writers and director. I got the impression that the writers and director didn’t have a clue who Iron Man was.

After the movie I read that Shane Black wasn’t a comic book fan. This completely baffled me at first but is quite obvious if you think about it for a minute. How can somebody who isn’t a comic book fan write and direct a comic book movie ? From the previous movies you could clearly get the feeling that both Jon Favreau and Josh Whedon were comic book fans. They knew what the fans looked for in a comic book movie. Shane Black didn’t have a clue and it’s evident in what ended up on screen. Apart from the major plot holes concerning the suits they got what made Iron Man heroic and cool in the previous movies, completely wrong in IM3.

Even scenes with the suit that I did enjoy seemed to be lacking in the end. Like the scene where Iron Man saves the people that were sucked out of Air Force One. A tense rescue scene up until they all basically hold each others hands and float down into the water. Basic physics seem to fly out of the window. It probably works on a written page but cinematically it didn’t ring true and just looked fake. Instead why not have the suit break apart, as set up in earlier scenes, and have individual pieces of the suit attach to each person falling, slowing down their descent into the water and revealing in that way that Iron Man was being remotely controlled. Instead we get another useless comedic scene of the suit being hit by a truck, flying apart, revealing it was remotely controlled. Instead of a cool scene showing an interesting capability of the mark 42 we get a scene showing how weak it is all in the name of comedy.

There are many other things about the suits that bothered me but, for now at least, I’ll leave it at that.

2 – The villains & “Trevor”. What to say about the villains and dear old Trevor. I have to say I’m on the side of the comic book fans on this one. What could have been a epic end battle between Iron Man and his nemesis was sacrificed, once again, for a comedic plot twist.

I’m all for a plot twist if intelligently done, but this was just completely wasted. In my opinion, they had the whole Mandarin / Killian plot twist backwards. Instead of having the audience think that the Mandarin was the bad guy they should have had Killian as the main bad guy from the start of the movie and then only later, after Iron Man kills Killian, it is revealed that Killian was the puppet of the Mandarin instead of “The Mandarin character / Trevor ” being the puppet of Killian.

This would’ve explained how Killian went from a geek (as established in the flashback scene at the beginning) to developing the Extremis virus and becoming evil. After Stark cruelly dismisses him in the beginning, out of frustration, he turns to “the real Mandarin” to fund his experiments. That way it would’ve tied IM3 into what we knew about the ten rings in IM1 and would’ve brought the story arc full circle. Instead what we got was an interesting and dark villain (The Mandarin) being sacrificed for a totally forgettable villain (Killian). Here we get what could’ve been an epic battle between technology (Iron Man) and mysticism (The Mandarin), the antithesis of each other, but instead we get a generic bad guy. A bad guy that turned himself into basically a fire breathing lava lamp. And not only that, he isn’t even the only one with those abilities, he’s one of many (and even turns Pepper into one). That to me makes for a totally boring and forgettable bad guy and the worst in all of the Marvel movies to date.

At least the villains in the two previous movies had clear and believable motivations for trying to kill Tony Stark. Stain wanted to take over Stark Industries (clear motivation), Vanko hated Tony Stark because he felt that Howard Stark betrayed his father, stole his legacy and he should be where Tony Stark is (clear motivation). Hammer wanted to destroy Iron Man / Tony Stark because he was jealous and felt that as long as Tony was alive he would always be seen as a second rate “Tony Stark” (clear motivation). Then there’s Killian who wanted to kill Tony because Tony dismissed him on new year’s eve and left him standing alone on a roof top (motivation ?) I only have one thing to say to Killian – “Billionaires leave. There’s no need to be a p*ussy about it”.

I understand that with movies there has to be a reasonable amount of suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience, and in the case of superhero movies, more so. But in any movie where the plot holes and ridiculous plot devices start adding up and reaches a critical mass it gets to the point where the audience not only has to suspend disbelief but has to dig a deep hole and bury it. This, to me at least, was one of the biggest problems with Iron Man 3.

Before going in to see Iron Man 3 I really didn’t have an opinion either way about Shane Black, the director. I knew he directed Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, wrote the Lethal Weapon movies, The Last Boy Scout and The Long Kiss Goodnight, all of which I liked. With Iron Man 3 I was hoping for a movie as good as the first one but expecting at least a movie as good as the second. Instead I got neither. Not even close. What I got was a movie that was totally lacking in what I look for in movies, especially Iron Man movies.

I’m in no way and expert on the Iron Man universe but at times watching IM3 I couldn’t help but wonder if the writers and director of IM3 read the comics or even saw the previous movies. It was clear that they didn’t have a grasp on the character of Tony Stark or his alter ego, Iron Man. Either that or it was just plain bad writing and/or directing on their part. I think it’s all three.

Like I said in the beginning – “art is subjective. One person will see a masterpiece and another the doodle of a 3 year old”. In the case of Iron Man 3, I see the doodle of a 3 year old.

In conclusion what I got from Iron Man 3 was a movie with the look, feel and emotional depth of a 2 hour long Hasbro ad. Shane Black and the boys essentially took a beloved character and systematically performed a 2 hour character assassination.

In the end when Tony Stark says “I am Iron Man” all I could think of was “no your not. Your’e a Macgyver / James Bond wannabee.”

My intention when I started to write this wasn’t to write a “thesis” but thinking about it now I probably should’ve called it “The Death of Iron Man” because, in the end, where Iron Man 3 is concerned, that’s what happened.

Rest in “pieces” Iron Man. You will be missed.

Iron Man 1 – 9/10
Iron Man 2 – 7.5/10
Iron Man 3 – 4/10

 

[Xeno]

Thanks for posting this. I was about to call DK a liar and a troll (which he is) for saying this, and link to this article:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/armond-white-claims-he-was-kicked-off-rotten-tomat,65156/

which states exactly as you state. I hope DK has a permanent ban coming his way to troll this thread. You read his recent posts, and it's been nothing more than to start flame wars, not to state his opinion on any movie.

Thank you for posting the link to that article. I read it back when White was trying to generate controversy over his being dropped from RT, while a lot of film fans were rejoicing.

It was bizarre for DK to cite White as an example of a critic who shills for the studios because the man is infamous for his harsh reviews of virtually every blockbuster ever made. If he was going to try that angle for his trolling he should have picked a critic who hasn't hated every superhero film in this century to bolster his nonsensical argument.

 

[Deserana]

You've also had five years time to soak in the IM1 theme as compared to a few days for the most recent one.

Not trying to tell you which one you like but I think there's more going on than simply preference or identifiable qualities.

This could well be the case but I still think I prefer it. Probably because it is more rocky and for me one of the things I associate with Iron Man is... well... rocky music for some reason. For me whilst the IM3 score is good I do think it is generic.

Like someone said earlier one of the most memorable parts for some people in IM1 is when Stark is suiting up, the camera rotates and the theme is playing.

Most people feel The Avengers theme is generic but for me I think it is perfect for the film and instantly stuck with me. Very heroic. It may just be because I wasnt following IM3 so didn't expect a new score at all.

 

[JangoNate]

This could well be the case but I still think I prefer it. Probably because it is more rocky and for me one of the things I associate with Iron Man is... well... rocky music for some reason. For me whilst the IM3 score is good I do think it is generic.

Like someone said earlier one of the most memorable parts for some people in IM1 is when Stark is suiting up, the camera rotates and the theme is playing.

Most people feel The Avengers theme is generic but for me I think it is perfect for the film and instantly stuck with me. Very heroic. It may just be because I wasnt following IM3 so didn't expect a new film at all.

When I first heard the Iron Man 3 theme I liked how similar it was to the Avengers's theme. That's why I think I first fell for it, because I thought the Avengers's theme was so heroic and IM3 gave me the same vibe.

 

[The Ironstar]

http://www.empireonline.com/interviews/interview.asp?IID=1671

Kevin, you were adamant, weren't you, that this wouldn't have any of the Avengers in it. Not even Banner.
Feige: I wanted the first post-Avengers movie to showcase the individuals, to showcase the character which is one of the reasons why he's out of the suit, to do again what they have done in the comics so well, which is each of the heroes have their individual worlds, their sub-worlds, and occasionally meet up for a bigger crossover event. Then they go back into their worlds and have some character defining storyline, return to the crossover changed from that storyline. From the get-go, when we first started meeting with filmmakers, we said no Nick Fury, no Hulk, no Widow, this is Stark, Pepper, Rhodey, his world.

Spoiler

I loved that end credit w/Banner,it had me LMBO!!

How could not be a comic fan to enjoy?

 

[Fenrir]

My first reaction to Iron Man 3 was a solid seven out of ten, but now that I've seen Star Trek Into Darkness, I'm inclined to think that my initial assessment might've been too generous. Stark Trek Into Darkness is superior to Iron Man 3 in just about every conceivable way (much like Benedict Cumberbatch's line from the trailers). It has better writing, more thrilling action sequences that offer a much bigger spectacle, it is funny but doesn't kill its emotional moments with ill-timed wisecracks, it has more likable characters, a villain that makes both of Iron Man 3's look like a joke, and finally, Kirk and Spock's friendship is what Tony and Rhodey's should've been like.

I said earlier that time won't be too kind to Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness will make Iron Man 3's flaws all the more apparent.

 

[cherokeesam]

My first reaction to Iron Man 3 was a solid seven out of ten, but now that I've seen Star Trek Into Darkness, I'm inclined to think that my initial assessment might've been too generous. Stark Trek Into Darkness is superior to Iron Man 3 in just about every conceivable way (much like Benedict Cumberbatch's line from the trailers). It has better writing, more thrilling action sequences that offer a much bigger spectacle, it is funny but doesn't kill its emotional moments with ill-timed wisecracks, it has more likable characters, a villain that makes both of Iron Man 3's look like a joke, and finally, Kirk and Spock's friendship is what Tony and Rhodey's should've been like.

I said earlier that time won't be too kind to Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness will make Iron Man 3's flaws all the more apparent.

Yeah, because that's the first thing that's on the minds of people who go see STID: "But how does this compare to Iron Man 3?"

 

[Fenrir]

Yeah, because that's the first thing that's on the minds of people who go see STID: "But how does this compare to Iron Man 3?"

When did I say that would be the first thing on people's minds? It most certainly isn't, but that still doesn't change the fact that comparisons in retrospect will be made nonetheless, and that is where Iron Man 3 will eventually come up short.

 

[The Ironstar]

I love how some people are making good pts. about the movie
better than me

It’s quite interesting when I read soo many divergent views on Screenrant. Fact remains you can never satisfy everybody and some people just can’t be satisfied. Let’s flashback a few months (or a year) ago, when it was announced that Ben Kingsley was going to play Mandarin. There was an uproar by some that the role should have been given to a Chinese. Well, let’s just say that the ‘twist’ sort of addresses that- the guy was just an actor. No allusions to China.
Another thing, there IS such a thing as political correctness. Mandarin was one of IM’s oldest foes (his arch-enemy in fact). The character was quite appropriate then in 1960s nd 70s when there was some rivalry (tech and otherwise) between the US and communist countries. Now China has become a world power and the second largest market in the world. It does not make business sense for Marvel to offend their sensibilities by putting one of them up as the bad guy. As trivial as some of you might find this concern may I remind you of the protest in the Middle East when Aladdin was given an American accent while the bad guy, Jafar, had an Arabian accent in Disney’s Aladdin way back then? There is a reason why Marvel went the extra mile to make a Chinese version..and the sales there have been quite remarkable.. even though the Chinese-centric additions were not well-appreciated in China from reports. They made an effort to appeal to that market nonetheless. As much as many of us want to see things done the way they were in comics, we must also understand that Marvel is also business and I’m sure they are quite happy that the movie has outsold Avengers internationally. Mandarin, with modern-day China now a profitable business ally, would be a gamble I’m not sure Marvel were willing to take IMO. I doubt a ‘Real Mandarin’ will ever show up in IM as some have suggested in this thread.
I loved the movie. Personally, at par with the first IM because I found the final battle scene more entertaining and less cliche. Like I said in the review thread, the Iron Monger fight reminded me of Robocop v Robocain (in Robocop 2) for those that can remember. The Tony/Iron Man v Killian fight was quite entertaining. Even War Machine (whom I never liked because he is too similar to IM and thus diminishes IM’s uniqueness IMO) was well-utilized in the movie and didn’t get too much in the way. Like they said, there were nerve-racking twists and one never knew what to expect. This is not too common in comic book movies which are usually based off a classic comic storyline. And we have heard many complain about the predictability in comic book movies yet when the producers decide not to be… well, you can’t satisfy everyone. Period.
Granted, there are a few questions left unanswered like someone generously listed but if we analyzed comic book movies in such detail we’d be left asking why Banner isn’t stark naked when he changes to the Hulk.
The only aspect I found wanting was the end credit scene. My wife and I were the only ones left in the theater (apparently the others weren’t too familiar with Marvel movies) and I was hoping there would be an easter egg afterwards and it would be worth it. Nothing. Just humor.
But I give the movie two thumbs up.

 

[cherokeesam]

When did I say that would be the first thing on people's minds? It most certainly isn't, but that still doesn't change the fact that comparisons in retrospect will be made nonetheless, and that is where Iron Man 3 will eventually come up short.

When people start comparing IM3 to other films to try to establish what kind of legacy is there, it makes a lot more sense for them to judge it against other films within its own genre. How does IM3 compare to Man of Steel? The Dark Knight? Avengers? TASM? That sort of thing. IM3 and STID are apples and oranges.

 

[Fenrir]

When people start comparing IM3 to other films to try to establish what kind of legacy is there, it makes a lot more sense for them to judge it against other films within its own genre. How does IM3 compare to Man of Steel? The Dark Knight? Avengers? TASM? That sort of thing. IM3 and STID are apples and oranges.

See, I'm not a subscriber to the whole "apples and oranges comparison" mentality. Frankly, I believe that any two things that share common aspects can be compared, just as those on the other side of the spectrum can highlight the differences to show how they can't, but I think the latter is simply the more timid position. They may not be the exact same genre, but both Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness are summer tentpoles and franchise sequels. Benedict Cumberbatch's villain shares many archetypical aspects of comic book villains. Both films use humor consistently, but Trek nails its placement where Iron Man 3 doesn't. And of course, as I already mentioned - Kirk and Spock's friendship in this one film alone has more weight and poignancy than Tony and Rhodey's from all three Iron Man movies combined. It's a perfectly fair comparison.

 

[The Ironstar]

Love this!!!!

AMC Movie Talk-True to Source Material

[YT]OeNn_SdzIcU[/YT]

 

[Tony Stark]

See, I'm not a subscriber to the whole "apples and oranges comparison" mentality. Frankly, I believe that any two things that share common aspects can be compared, just as those on the other side of the spectrum can highlight the differences to show how they can't, but I think the latter is simply the more timid position. They may not be the exact same genre, but both Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness are summer tentpoles and franchise sequels. Benedict Cumberbatch's villain shares many archetypical aspects of comic book villains. Both films use humor consistently, but Trek nails its placement where Iron Man 3 doesn't. And of course, as I already mentioned - Kirk and Spock's friendship in this one film alone has more weight and poignancy than Tony and Rhodey's from all three Iron Man movies combined. It's a perfectly fair comparison.

I'm a huge Trek fan, and I hope the movie is excellent. That's not going to kill my enjoyment of IM3.

 

[Tony Stark]

Love this!!!!

AMC Movie Talk-True to Source Material

[YT]OeNn_SdzIcU[/YT]

Wow, if I could have a YouTube video be my signature, this would be it.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Great vid, the only thing I didn't like was they kind of lumped all cb fans into the 'complainers who hated the movie' category. Inaccurate.

 

[Repulsor Blast]

thought people might find this worth a watch:

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-iron-man-3-and-pain-gain/

i love these guys. by the way they enjoyed iron man 3.