Iron Man 3

[JasonEvans]

First of all, most of you don't need this review. You already know that you are a fan of Marvel/comic book movies or that you hate them. You already know that almost nothing would stop you from seeing this, or that almost nothing could convince you to see it.

And that is good, because this is not a movie that is so bad that it would turn off a comic book movie fan nor is it so great that it would change the mind of someone who does not like superhero films. In other words, it ain't Green Lantern or Daredevil, but it ain't Dark Knight either.

The bottom line is that Iron Man 3 is quite good. In fact, it may be one of the best "third films" ever made. Three is generally the kiss of death for movie franchises. Return of the Jedi was only decent. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was ok, but not great. Beverly Hills Cop 3 sucked. Dark Knight Rises was the worst of that trilogy. Spiderman 3 was poor. Superman III was just plain awful. By the time we got to the third Matrix film, it was just godawful. About the only third film that comes to mind as being a great film is Toy Story 3. I am sure I am missing some others, but those are the ones off the top of my head.


Anyway, Iron Man 3 is a strong installment in the franchise. It is much better than Iron Man 2 and takes the character in some new and interesting directions. Tony Stark spends a lot of time outside of his costume in this film, which was a bad thing in Dark Knight Rises but really works here. Robert Downey Jr has always portrayed Tony as a swashbuckler but he gets to reveal some more depth to the character this time around as Tony is feeling really vulnerable and is having panic attacks, mostly about his feelings for the love of his life, Pepper Potts. Pepper is a far bigger character in this movie than in the previous ones, she has become much more than window dressing, and that too serves the film well.

The action sequences are good, though the final battle and some of the other ones suffer from a bit too much kinetic energy and fast-paced movement that is hard to follow, but the real star of the movie is the humor. I laughed out loud numerous times in this film and Tony's funny relationship with a young boy he meets in rural Tennessee is a real highlight of the flick.

I don't want to get into too many plot details until the movie has been out for a bit, but I would urge you not to think too much about the motivation of the bad guys or the "powers" that some of the villains seem to possess. If you think about it too much, it stops making sense. But, we can talk more about that once more of you have seen the film.

By the way, one of the real stars of the film is Tony's many Iron Man suits. He has made some very cool upgrades and the film has some real fun with all the possibilities. I wish it had done more and had explained more of how each suit was unique.

For now, I'll keep this short -- good film with a lot of humor and some well-done action. Good story setup (though it breaks apart late) and strong directing from Shane Black. He's not Joss Whedon, but he's getting the job done nicely here. Everyone in the cast seems to really be having fun, especially Ben Kingsley as the bad guy The Mandarin. When we finally get to really spend some time with this character about 2/3rds of the way into the film, you will certainly find him interesting. I do wish they had done more with Don Cheadle's War Machine (aka: The Iron Patriot). He is almost exclusively used for laughs.

--Jason "I'll be interested in hearing from all of you once you see it... I would give it a 7 or so on a 1-10 scale" Evans

[JasonEvans]

I just got the "is it worth paying for 3D" question from someone. My answer is no, it is not worth the upcharge. I did not feel like any of the scenes were especially better or jumped off the screen due to 3D. But, my 3D tolerance is low and I think the vast, vast majority of films in 3D have no business bothering with that technology. For example, I thought Oz the Great and Powerful was AWFUL in how much it pandered to the 3D cameras and stuck everything in your face. Ugh! Iron Man 3, thankfully, does not do any of that.

--Jason "there are probably less than 5 films I have seen in my life where 3D was worth it" Evans

[snowdenscold]

The bottom line is that Iron Man 3 is quite good. In fact, it may be one of the best "third films" ever made. Three is generally the kiss of death for movie franchises. Return of the Jedi was only decent. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was ok, but not great. Beverly Hills Cop 3 sucked. Dark Knight Rises was the worst of that trilogy. Spiderman 3 was poor. Superman III was just plain awful. By the time we got to the third Matrix film, it was just godawful. About the only third film that comes to mind as being a great film is Toy Story 3. I am sure I am missing some others, but those are the ones off the top of my head.

I totally disagree about IJ&TLC, but that's OK. It's one of my favorite films, but maybe that's because I was 5 or 6 when it came out and watched it a lot when I was younger. And on a side note, I got to visit Petra (in Jordan - where the exterior of the finale took place) a year and a half ago.


Anyway, you could argue that Harry Potter & the PoA was better than the two before it (though some of that is source material), Goldfinger stepped things up, and The Good The Bad and the The Ugly really took those films to another level.

And then there's Godfather III.

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

[Let me preface this post by saying I rarely see movies in the theater anymore and am not really into the comic book super hero movies. I saw the first two recent Batman movies and liked them a lot, but I haven't seen any of the Avengers, Spidermans, Hulks, Wolverines, etc.]

Last night, as part of a marketing promotion, I got to see Iron Man 3. Having not seen either of the other Iron Man's or the Avengers, I was actually a little confused by some of the references, but not so much that I couldn't follow (not that deep a plot). I'm not sure how to discuss this without delving into spoilers but I felt that many/most of the characters were a bit hollow. I just didn't get their motivations. Was it money, power, or revenge? Downey Jr. did a great job however and overall it was enjoyable especially if you like Audis.

That was my first 3D movie BTW, and I have to say I didn't care for it.

I sound like an old fart. I wasn't always like this, I promise!

[Olympic Fan]

I also thought the Last Crusade was good -- much better than the No. 2 film in the series (although No. 2 was infinitely better than No. 4). And since you brought up Last Crusade -- and Sean Connery -- I should also mention that Connery's James Bond series really hit its stride with No. 3 -- Goldfinger. And while I'm not usually a fan of the Long of the Rings, don't most fans think that No. 3 was best?

But overall, I agree with your premise that the third film in a trilogy is usually the weakest.

Godfather 3 and Aliens 3 are two more examples where a great series goes off the track in the third film.

[brevity]

I also thought the Last Crusade was good -- much better than the No. 2 film in the series (although No. 2 was infinitely better than No. 4). And since you brought up Last Crusade -- and Sean Connery -- I should also mention that Connery's James Bond series really hit its stride with No. 3 -- Goldfinger. And while I'm not usually a fan of the Long of the Rings, don't most fans think that No. 3 was best?

But overall, I agree with your premise that the third film in a trilogy is usually the weakest.

Godfather 3 and Aliens 3 are two more examples where a great series goes off the track in the third film.

Awesome, if unintended, typo regarding the interminable Peter Jackson films.

I think the quality of a third film depends a lot on whether the story was envisioned as a trilogy in the first place. In these cases, I should think the third film won't disappoint. Return of the Jedi is actually a fairly strong third film, but suffers in comparison to The Empire Strikes Back. The Dark Knight Rises has a similar problem, but note that the resolution was very crowd-pleasing. Spider-Man 3 has many issues, but does a fair job with the Harry Osborn character arc. The last 3 Bond films have been a trilogy in spirit, with the clear dip in quality in the middle.

But without that initial vision in place, it's more or less a crapshoot. Directors change, time passes. In these cases I would grant the assumption that the third film will be weak: fan anticipation is low, actors are looking forward to ending their contractual commitments, etc.

[Tom B.]

I also thought the Last Crusade was good -- much better than the No. 2 film in the series (although No. 2 was infinitely better than No. 4). And since you brought up Last Crusade -- and Sean Connery -- I should also mention that Connery's James Bond series really hit its stride with No. 3 -- Goldfinger. And while I'm not usually a fan of the Long of the Rings, don't most fans think that No. 3 was best?

But overall, I agree with your premise that the third film in a trilogy is usually the weakest.

Godfather 3 and Aliens 3 are two more examples where a great series goes off the track in the third film.

Actually, I thought the first movie in the LOTR trilogy was the best. It was #3 that won Best Picture, but I really think that was more of a recognition for the whole trilogy as a body of work.

Agree that Last Crusade was good -- almost on par with Raiders, in my book, and definitely better than Temple of Doom. And don't even get me started on that fourth one.

I may be in the minority, but I actually think Godfather III was decent. Sofia Coppola is the weak spot, but once you get past her, I thought the movie held up fairly well. It's not on the same level as the first two, but c'mon -- we're talking about two of the top ten or so movies ever. Any flick that's merely good, but not great, is going to pale by comparison.

[JasonEvans]

I knew my trilogies comment would sent this thread spinning off in a different direction for a bit. That's ok, once ya'll have started seeing Iron Man 3 tonight at midnight we can get back to discussing what is likely to be the top film of the summer.

As an aside, a week ago when the European critics had weighed in on it, Iron Man 3 was at 92% on Rotten Tomatoes, a number that sent my expectations sky high. Now that more and more American critics are posting reviews, the number is down to 80%, which seems about right to me. That is a fine number for an action flick, but a notch below Iron Man 1 (93%) and Avengers (also 93%). By way of comparison Iron Man 2 got a 73%, which feels a tad high if you ask me.

-Jason "IM3 is breaking records overseas, but I don't think it will have Avengers legs and will ONLY make about $400-$430 million" Evans

[Udaman]

No spoilers until tomorrow...but a question for anyone who's seen it....

Is it worth seeing in 3D, or is regular format just as good?

[JasonEvans]

Here is a really good in depth review from my friend Matt Goldberg of Collider.com. We sat next to each other at the screening and came away feeling almost identically about the film. I think he liked the action more than I did.

Also, even though I mentioned it earlier, I will say it again, I don't think this film is worth the 3D upcharge. In fact, the ending is sorta dark and probably would be better from a non-3D projector.

-Jason "so, who is going to see it at midnight tonight?" Evans

[JBDuke]

I totally disagree about IJ&TLC, but that's OK. It's one of my favorite films, but maybe that's because I was 5 or 6 when it came out and watched it a lot when I was younger...

And now, I officially feel old. :-P

[bjornolf]

--Jason "there are probably less than 5 films I have seen in my life where 3D was worth it" Evans

Just out of curiosity, which ones do you find worth it?

[JasonEvans]

Just out of curiosity, which ones do you find worth it?

Avatar. No question about it. Best use of 3D yet.
Toy Story 3
Life of Pi
Hugo
and maybe Up or How to Train Your Dragon

-Jason "The only movies I have told people the NEED to see in 3D are Avatar, Hugo, and Life of Pi" Evans

[CameronBornAndBred]

Avatar. No question about it. Best use of 3D yet.

I was thinking about this when you mentioned above about the "stuck everything in your face" mentality with 3D. That's why Avatar worked so incredibly well. It wasn't the in your face stuff that made it amazing, it was the subtleties that weren't expected, like details in a fine painting. The "dandelion seeds" blowing as the characters walk through, the initial scene when the soldiers are exiting their pods and the sense of depth we got, etc. 3D was used to create a believable environment, and it worked astoundingly well. There were a few shots of "it's coming right at us!" that everyone expects, but for the most part it was toned down. Everytime I go see a 3D movie, I hope to find one that matches the experience of Avatar, and it is surprising that none yet have given that Avatar was the "pioneer" of the new 3D that we are seeing now. In fact, it might not be matched again until Cameron gives us Avatar 2.

[JasonEvans]

I was thinking about this when you mentioned above about the "stuck everything in your face" mentality with 3D. That's why Avatar worked so incredibly well. It wasn't the in your face stuff that made it amazing, it was the subtleties that weren't expected, like details in a fine painting. The "dandelion seeds" blowing as the characters walk through, the initial scene when the soldiers are exiting their pods and the sense of depth we got, etc. 3D was used to create a believable environment, and it worked astoundingly well. There were a few shots of "it's coming right at us!" that everyone expects, but for the most part it was toned down. Everytime I go see a 3D movie, I hope to find one that matches the experience of Avatar, and it is surprising that none yet have given that Avatar was the "pioneer" of the new 3D that we are seeing now. In fact, it might not be matched again until Cameron gives us Avatar 2.

Did you see Hugo? Marty "gets it" and used 3D in some remarkable ways in that film. The fog and steam in 3D were simply incredible as were the clock parts inside the walls of the train station.

-Jason "ok, Iron Man is now out... how about we talk about this film that is going to make $150+ million its opening weekend!!!" Evans

[CameronBornAndBred]

Did you see Hugo? Marty "gets it" and used 3D in some remarkable ways in that film. The fog and steam in 3D were simply incredible as were the clock parts inside the walls of the train station.

-Jason "ok, Iron Man is now out... how about we talk about this film that is going to make $150+ million its opening weekend!!!" Evans

Not in 3D, I wish I had. I could see from the 2D that it probably worked really well.
I picked Iron Man in my vote because I am trying to keep up my reputation of not being an idiot, but I'm not going to see it. I haven't even seen IM2 yet. Maybe one day I'll get the trilogy on DVD.

[snowdenscold]

Is Iron Man 3 worth seeing if I didn't see the second one? I don't really feel like renting. (Is "Netflixing" the new term?)
I only saw the first one once, and that was obviously awhile ago. I did, however, see The Avengers last summer.

[Udaman]

SPOILERS (JE, can you change the header now to say this).

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

OK - you've been warned.
Just saw it.

A few things:

1) This movie might not end up being the highest grosser of the summer, though it certainly will be Top 5. As JE said, it's a good movie, but not great, and not awful. Personally, I was let down, but I'm glad I saw it and I (mostly) liked it. But I won't be seeing it again (and I saw Avengers three different times in the movie theaters).

2) There were certainly good parts. The humor - great. The scenes with Stark and the kid - great. The effects when Stark was saving the people who fell out of the plan - unbelievable (and real, by the way - well at least they were real skydivers). Some of the fight scenes - great. Ben Kingsley - great (though I saw the twist of him being a bumbling idiot coming a mile away). The scene with the house getting destroyed - well done, but entirely unbelievable. Downton Abby jokes - great. Favrou's character - great.

OK....so then the bad

3) As much as I like Guy Pearce - his bad buy was pretty bland, and as JE said, you could never quite figure out what their powers were. Some could do great things, but some couldn't. How did he cut the suits in half near the end (and why not just do that at the beginning).

4) The underdeveloped numerous characters - the female from the Swiss hotel, the Vice-President, the President, Don Cheadle.

5) I'm sorry, but the point that makes Iron Man so awesome is his suit....and for 95% of the movie, he's dealing with a suit that's much less than 100%. I kind of felt that way about the movie. And if he had all those other suits to begin with...why not just call one of them right away? What about his New York location? He had a ton of suits there he could call as well...yet he spends days having a kid work on a suit that wasn't fully functional to begin with? Made no sense at all. No. Sense. At. All

6) Too many inconsistencies/things that made no sense. Not calling a fully functioning suit (hell, in the 2nd movie he carried them with him in suitcases). Telling people where he lived - um, EVERYONE already knew that, and it's not like he hid his lifestyle (the 2nd biggest disappointments for me). Penny becoming a superhero - lazy (if you ask me), and when she fell into the fire...well of course she was going to survive that. With Stark and his suit...why not just grab the bad guys and fly up 1,000 feet and drop them (like X-Men First Class). The fight scene in Tennessee - the woman who walked out of the bar at the beginning, then came back in as the bad person? Why did she walk out of the bar to begin with? And why meet the soldier's mom? Mad no sense. The killing of the hostage on live TV...still don't get that.

7) Under utilized possibilities. I thought the first third of SpiderMan 3 held so much promise. I loved the idea of Spiderman getting cocky. Of him loving the spotlight, and forgetting about his friends and Mary Jane. That was believable. Then they dropped it - and made him turn evil, and never came back to that. In this one, I LOVED the idea of Stark with post tramatic stress. That seems real. He had witnessed death, and his own death, and the destruction of most of New York. Loved him having panic attacks. They could have made the foundation of this movie about that (imagine a scene where he's fighting the bad guys, and has to bug out because he's having horrible flashbacks). That was a great idea, and they just sort of dropped it. He never really addressed it, or got over it. Maybe that's a setup for the Avengers 2. Who knows (though I doubt it).

8) Biggest disappointment....other than the ending, no cameos from The Avengers. And I'm sorry, but that was a huge mistake. If Stark was in trouble (and he was) and presumed dead, someone would have come to help - Thor, or Banner, or Captain America. Someone. And this would have been SO EASY for them to cover. They could have had a simple scene where Captain America is getting ready to suit up and come help his friend, when he gets a voice mail telling him that all is good, and insulting him (playfully), or a conversation where Stark says he's fine, but that if he needs him he'll call (and Captain America or Thor saying, "just say the word"). Something. Anything. I kept expecting it to happen, and it never did. Very, very, very disappointing.

All the disappointments aside, it's not a terrible movie...just not a great one, and I would put it behind Thor and Captain America (and about tied with last summer's The Dark Knight Rises). It's a shame because it could have been much, much better.

Oh well...2 weeks until Star Trek.

[toughbuff1]

Mr. T pities the fool who doesn't think Rocky 3 was a good movie.

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

SPOILERS (JE, can you change the header now to say this).

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

OK - you've been warned.
Just saw it.

A few things:

1) This movie might not end up being the highest grosser of the summer, though it certainly will be Top 5. As JE said, it's a good movie, but not great, and not awful. Personally, I was let down, but I'm glad I saw it and I (mostly) liked it. But I won't be seeing it again (and I saw Avengers three different times in the movie theaters).

2) There were certainly good parts. The humor - great. The scenes with Stark and the kid - great. The effects when Stark was saving the people who fell out of the plan - unbelievable (and real, by the way - well at least they were real skydivers). Some of the fight scenes - great. Ben Kingsley - great (though I saw the twist of him being a bumbling idiot coming a mile away). The scene with the house getting destroyed - well done, but entirely unbelievable. Downton Abby jokes - great. Favrou's character - great.

OK....so then the bad

3) As much as I like Guy Pearce - his bad buy was pretty bland, and as JE said, you could never quite figure out what their powers were. Some could do great things, but some couldn't. How did he cut the suits in half near the end (and why not just do that at the beginning).

4) The underdeveloped numerous characters - the female from the Swiss hotel, the Vice-President, the President, Don Cheadle.

5) I'm sorry, but the point that makes Iron Man so awesome is his suit....and for 95% of the movie, he's dealing with a suit that's much less than 100%. I kind of felt that way about the movie. And if he had all those other suits to begin with...why not just call one of them right away? What about his New York location? He had a ton of suits there he could call as well...yet he spends days having a kid work on a suit that wasn't fully functional to begin with? Made no sense at all. No. Sense. At. All

6) Too many inconsistencies/things that made no sense. Not calling a fully functioning suit (hell, in the 2nd movie he carried them with him in suitcases). Telling people where he lived - um, EVERYONE already knew that, and it's not like he hid his lifestyle (the 2nd biggest disappointments for me). Penny becoming a superhero - lazy (if you ask me), and when she fell into the fire...well of course she was going to survive that. With Stark and his suit...why not just grab the bad guys and fly up 1,000 feet and drop them (like X-Men First Class). The fight scene in Tennessee - the woman who walked out of the bar at the beginning, then came back in as the bad person? Why did she walk out of the bar to begin with? And why meet the soldier's mom? Mad no sense. The killing of the hostage on live TV...still don't get that.

7) Under utilized possibilities. I thought the first third of SpiderMan 3 held so much promise. I loved the idea of Spiderman getting cocky. Of him loving the spotlight, and forgetting about his friends and Mary Jane. That was believable. Then they dropped it - and made him turn evil, and never came back to that. In this one, I LOVED the idea of Stark with post tramatic stress. That seems real. He had witnessed death, and his own death, and the destruction of most of New York. Loved him having panic attacks. They could have made the foundation of this movie about that (imagine a scene where he's fighting the bad guys, and has to bug out because he's having horrible flashbacks). That was a great idea, and they just sort of dropped it. He never really addressed it, or got over it. Maybe that's a setup for the Avengers 2. Who knows (though I doubt it).

8) Biggest disappointment....other than the ending, no cameos from The Avengers. And I'm sorry, but that was a huge mistake. If Stark was in trouble (and he was) and presumed dead, someone would have come to help - Thor, or Banner, or Captain America. Someone. And this would have been SO EASY for them to cover. They could have had a simple scene where Captain America is getting ready to suit up and come help his friend, when he gets a voice mail telling him that all is good, and insulting him (playfully), or a conversation where Stark says he's fine, but that if he needs him he'll call (and Captain America or Thor saying, "just say the word"). Something. Anything. I kept expecting it to happen, and it never did. Very, very, very disappointing.

All the disappointments aside, it's not a terrible movie...just not a great one, and I would put it behind Thor and Captain America (and about tied with last summer's The Dark Knight Rises). It's a shame because it could have been much, much better.

Oh well...2 weeks until Star Trek.

Also, why did Guy Pearce turn from a geeky scientist with a startup to an insane, fire-breathing madman? Because Stark played a trick on him and left him waiting on the roof? As you said, made no sense.