Iron Man 3

blueman

Shane Black just signed to direct, no word yet on who might write it but crossed fingers it's him too. This could be the best IM film yet if Black and Downey Jr. can recreate their sparkling rapport from the awesome "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang," the film that likely got Downey Jr. the IM gig to begin with.

thesecretagent

I really enjoyed Iron Man, but thought the sequel was rubbish - just a set-up for another. Hopefully it will be a vast improvement.

Mr Martini

So, the trailer for IM 3 has been released. Looks like it's going to be good:

http://trailers.apple.com/movies/marvel/ironman3/ironman3-tlr1-m4mb0_720p.mov

darenhat

I have no doubt that it will be enjoyable, but I have to admit I'm a bit unenthused. Part of the fun after the original Iron Man (and Thor and Captain America) was the build-up to the Avengers movie. Now that Avengers has come and gone, watching a 'solo' superhero flick seems a little flat. I wish there was a bit more effort in the Avengers film to continue the expansion of the Marvel film universe that would have sparked more curiousity for Iron Man 3.

TonyDP

Now that the Avengers has come and gone its natural to feel that the standalone films will seem somewhat anticlimactic by comparison; we are after all going from an all-star team back to a solo adventure. I don't think this is lost on Marvel however; they have already started hyping Iron Man 3 as the beginning of "Phase 2" - the lead up to Avengers #2 and I'd be shocked if we didn't get some other characters making an appearance. I'm sure SHIELD will be present and Marvel loves to use these movies as launching pads for other franchises (rumors persist of an Ant Man movie and The Wasp was recently revived in the comics so an appearance by Hank Pym might not be out of the question). There has always been crossover in these films (it also sets them apart from WB's standalone DC movies and I'm sure that's not lost on Marvel either) and I have a feeling that will happen to an even larger degree going forward.

DaltonFan1

I think Iron Man was one of the few standalone films that really holds up rather than just prepping for Avengers, unlike Captain America, Thor or the various Hulk movies. The sequel is fun but basically repeats most of the first film and the bad guy is just a less effective rip off of IM again.
I expect part 3 will be better assuming they don't lose too much of Tony's hilarity in order to make it darker.

Moore Than

Here is the new official UK trailer for Iron Man 3 which will be released on 25th April.

Iron Man 3 -- Official Trailer UK Marvel / HD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ke1Y3P9D0Bc

Mr Martini

Moore Than wrote:

Here is the new official UK trailer for Iron Man 3 which will be released on 25th April.

Iron Man 3 -- Official Trailer UK Marvel / HD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ke1Y3P9D0Bc

Saw this on the Yahoo News ticker this morning. It had a story with it titled See Iron Mans new power

There's a mild spoiler at the end of the article. The article warns you of the spoiler before you read it:

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/exclusive-iron-man-3-trailer-shows-tony-stark-164716198.html

QGirl

I'm completely ready for this one after The Avengers. And I do hope we all get to see a little sneak peek of Thor 2: The Dark World after the credits. )

James Suzuki

I guess I'm looking forward to it.
Not a huge fan of the Superhero stuff but I thoroughly enjoyed The avengers and both Ironman films.

Moore Than

Iron Man 3 is a huge hit at the box office. The second biggest ever opening weekend in the US with an estimated $175.3 million dollars (behind The Avengers $207.4m). The film opened a week earlier overseas, taking $504.8 million at the international box office - meaning it has already grossed $680.1 million in total.

Iron Man 3 triumphs at US box office
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22421917

Sir Miles

QGirl wrote:

I'm completely ready for this one after The Avengers. And I do hope we all get to see a little sneak peek of Thor 2: The Dark World after the credits. )

No you don't.

Thunderpussy

)

The is nothing worth watching after the credits, save yourself some time and Leave.

Sir Miles

Thunderpussy wrote:

)

The is nothing worth watching after the credits, save yourself some time and Leave.

Yea...the people behind me were quite put out that they had waited to see what was at the end...their mate had, apparently, told them it was worth sitting through the credits for ! I would just guess he was annoyed at sitting through them and wanted to piss his mates off too )

TonyDP

I saw Iron Man 3 over the weekend. I'm typically a fan of these comic book films but I found this one to be quite disappointing for a number of reasons.

The film takes place a few months after the events of The Avengers where we find Tony Stark suffering from severe anxiety attacks whenever he thinks back to his encounter with the alien armada and actually travelling thru a wormhole. In order to cope with his ongoing anxiety issues Stark has been tinkering with his armors and creating all kinds of new technology including the prototype Mk 42, an armor that can literally obey his will and attach attach itself to Stark in pieces. Further complicating Stark's life is the Mandarin, a shadowy terrorist who is striking at the heart of America, and Aldrich Killian, a rival businessman who is peddling genetics altering technology called Extremis.

There are A LOT of places where the movie really goes off the rails in terms of storytelling, logic and just plain old entertainment value. For the 11 people who still have not seen the film, I'll enclose the rest of this post in spoiler tags....

With regard to Stark's anxiety issues, my question is why? Stark has always been a brilliant, resilient guy who can overcome any situation (as we've seen him do time and again for three movies). To have him suddenly become a nervous wreck, especially after kicking so much ass and taking such a commanding role in Avengers makes absolutely no sense within the context of the story.

Despite the fact that the USA is literally under attack by shadowy forces, none of the other Avengers or SHIELD (an agency that specializes in this sort of threat) are even mentioned and that makes no sense, especially later in the film when the president of the USA is kidnapped right off of Air Force One. If Marvel went to so much trouble to create this larger universe, then why ignore it so utterly.

One of techs Stark has been tinkering with allows him to remotely control his armors; its an interesting gimmick but the movie relies far too much on it and it robs the film of a sense of danger; it just isn't as dramatically satisfying to see Iron Man save a dozen people in a daring mid-air rescue, only to then realize that Stark was in a dark closet remotely controlling the armor the whole time.

The Mandarin, as he is presented, is an absolute travesty. Much was made that the comic book version could not be used as it was a racially insensitive stereotype. The filmmakers therefore appeared to make the Mandarin a racially ambiguous villain who wants to destroy America. That's fair enough and all well and good but halfway thru the movie, we discover that he is really only a coked out, washed up actor being used as a decoy to hide the real villain: Killian.

Killian (played by Guy Pearce) is an exact copy of the Riddler from Batman Forever, right down to a nerdy long haired first appearance, a rejection by his idol, and his use of that event as a motivation for revenge. The parallels are so amazing (and utterly devoid of any imagination) that Warner Brothers could probably sue for plagarism.

For a movie with the words "Iron Man" in the title, Stark spends precious little time in his armors as he really only has two sequences where he is in costume. The rationale here is that the Mk 42 is badly damaged near the start of the film and Stark's other armors have all been ostensibly destroyed by the Mandarin's forces. Of course, when Stark unveils a literal army of armors for the big finale and final assault on Killian, it begs the question: why didn't he just use one of those for the 75% of the film that he is running around in danger, constantly being shot at and generally thrown around?

Of course, when he finally gets in the armors, they all appear to be as fragile as wet tissue paper; again, hard to understand since he was able to use the same tech to take on an alien armada in Avengers and came away largely unscathed.

Speaking of that big finale, its your typical noisy, chaotic explosion laden extravaganza composed of quick cuts that make the action all but impossible to follow. To add insult to injury, Stark doesn't even defeat the villain, that honor is left to Pepper Potts.

The movie then rushes to an ending as Stark decides that he doesn't need his armors after all and remotely destroys them. He cures Pepper, who had also been exposed to Extremis and even decides to have the arc reactor and shrapnel it was preventing from entering his heart surgically removed. All this happens via voiceover and a few quick scenes in the span of about 45 seconds of screentime and leaves you wondering if it was that easy, why didn't he do it right after he was rescued back in the first movie.

Even the post-credits scene which has become a staple of these Marvel movies is a letdown; a pointless bit of comedy between Stark and Bruce Banner (aka the Hulk). Most people in the theater I saw the movie at didn't even recognize Mark Ruffalo, who couldn't even be bothered to shave or get a more recognizable haircut; it's as if he walked in off the street, filmed his scene and left (which is probably exactly what he did).

...There is more (so much more) and I could go on but I think I've already pummeled this dead horse enough.

So after all that this comes down as the weakest Marvel movie yet, even worse than the generally rushed and leaden Iron Man 2. That it has made boatloads of money is a sad comment on what people consider good entertainment. That writer/director Shane Black was able to put such a sloppy, plot hole laden story to film is a further indictment of what passes for good writing. Just sad all around.

Pendragon

Sir Miles wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

)

The is nothing worth watching after the credits, save yourself some time and Leave.

Yea...the people behind me were quite put out that they had waited to see what was at the end...their mate had, apparently, told them it was worth sitting through the credits for ! I would just guess he was annoyed at sitting through them and wanted to piss his mates off too )

Speak for yourselves...I've been HOPING AND HOPING for a Ruffalo centric Hulk movie. Looks like I'm getting my wish :P

Seen it twice this week. Truly a good film.

Mr Martini

TonyDP wrote:

There are A LOT of places where the movie really goes off the rails in terms of storytelling, logic and just plain old entertainment value. For the 11 people who still have not seen the film, I'll enclose the rest of this post in spoiler tags....

With regard to Stark's anxiety issues, my question is why? Stark has always been a brilliant, resilient guy who can overcome any situation (as we've seen him do time and again for three movies). To have him suddenly become a nervous wreck, especially after kicking so much ass and taking such a commanding role in Avengers makes absolutely no sense within the context of the story.

Despite the fact that the USA is literally under attack by shadowy forces, none of the other Avengers or SHIELD (an agency that specializes in this sort of threat) are even mentioned and that makes no sense, especially later in the film when the president of the USA is kidnapped right off of Air Force One. If Marvel went to so much trouble to create this larger universe, then why ignore it so utterly.

One of techs Stark has been tinkering with allows him to remotely control his armors; its an interesting gimmick but the movie relies far too much on it and it robs the film of a sense of danger; it just isn't as dramatically satisfying to see Iron Man save a dozen people in a daring mid-air rescue, only to then realize that Stark was in a dark closet remotely controlling the armor the whole time.

The Mandarin, as he is presented, is an absolute travesty. Much was made that the comic book version could not be used as it was a racially insensitive stereotype. The filmmakers therefore appeared to make the Mandarin a racially ambiguous villain who wants to destroy America. That's fair enough and all well and good but halfway thru the movie, we discover that he is really only a coked out, washed up actor being used as a decoy to hide the real villain: Killian.

Killian (played by Guy Pearce) is an exact copy of the Riddler from Batman Forever, right down to a nerdy long haired first appearance, a rejection by his idol, and his use of that event as a motivation for revenge. The parallels are so amazing (and utterly devoid of any imagination) that Warner Brothers could probably sue for plagarism.

For a movie with the words "Iron Man" in the title, Stark spends precious little time in his armors as he really only has two sequences where he is in costume. The rationale here is that the Mk 42 is badly damaged near the start of the film and Stark's other armors have all been ostensibly destroyed by the Mandarin's forces. Of course, when Stark unveils a literal army of armors for the big finale and final assault on Killian, it begs the question: why didn't he just use one of those for the 75% of the film that he is running around in danger, constantly being shot at and generally thrown around?

Of course, when he finally gets in the armors, they all appear to be as fragile as wet tissue paper; again, hard to understand since he was able to use the same tech to take on an alien armada in Avengers and came away largely unscathed.

Speaking of that big finale, its your typical noisy, chaotic explosion laden extravaganza composed of quick cuts that make the action all but impossible to follow. To add insult to injury, Stark doesn't even defeat the villain, that honor is left to Pepper Potts.

The movie then rushes to an ending as Stark decides that he doesn't need his armors after all and remotely destroys them. He cures Pepper, who had also been exposed to Extremis and even decides to have the arc reactor and shrapnel it was preventing from entering his heart surgically removed. All this happens via voiceover and a few quick scenes in the span of about 45 seconds of screentime and leaves you wondering if it was that easy, why didn't he do it right after he was rescued back in the first movie.

Even the post-credits scene which has become a staple of these Marvel movies is a letdown; a pointless bit of comedy between Stark and Bruce Banner (aka the Hulk). Most people in the theater I saw the movie at didn't even recognize Mark Ruffalo, who couldn't even be bothered to shave or get a more recognizable haircut; it's as if he walked in off the street, filmed his scene and left (which is probably exactly what he did).

Thank you for spoilering that. I'm one of the 11 people who haven't seen it. Hopefully, by this time next week I will have seen it. If I haven't seen it by the end of next week, there truly is no hope left for me (I'm on vacation next week. I should have time )

DaltonFan1

IM3 is awesome. Probably the best Marvel movie so far and the post-credits sequence is pretty enjoyable, even if it doesn't particularly hint at upcoming films.
And I love how the story starts before the studio credits and ends after the credits, making it feel beyond them.

welshboy78

Loved Iron Man (not too silly)

Hated Iron Man 2

Loved 3 quarters of Iron Man 3 but the finale battle sucked.

The Domino Effect

Hate superhero films in general as they just take themselves waaay too seriously...but I love the Ironman films because they just don't take themselves seriously at all and for that reason, I really really enjoyed IM3. Entertaining on every level. Great couple of hours entertainment.

And...


LONG LIVE TREVOR SLATTERY!!!

welshboy78

Is Downey signed up for anymore????

He was very funny in this one

I like humour in the Super Hero films but like the more "real" kind of super hero films (yeah I know that sounds ridicuolusly daft but I think you might get my drift)

Bleuville

Thunderpussy wrote:

)

The is nothing worth watching after the credits, save yourself some time and Leave.

Well I thought it was dull that he was talking to his Doctor, but someone pointed out to me
it was Dr. David Banner. aka The Hulk.

but it was a bit of a non-event.

Bleuville.

KKwheelchair

i thought it was good, the bit after the credits could have been shown maybe a bit earlier in the credits like what they did with the avengers but cant change it

Napoleon Plural

Do you have to see Iron Man 2 and / or The Avengers to follow or appreciate this film?

TonyDP

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Do you have to see Iron Man 2 and / or The Avengers to follow or appreciate this film?

Definitely no need to have seen Iron Man 2 as the events of that film are largely ignored, other than the return of Stark's friend James Rhodes who has his own armor called War Machine, later redubbed to the more family friendly "The Iron Patriot".

Events from The Avengers are referenced several times but really have no bearing on the plot other than the fact that Stark occasionally suffers from anxiety attacks whenever he recalls what he had to go thru. If you want a very basic summary of the Avengers, here you go (enclosed in spoilers for anyone who may not have yet seen it).

- Thor's half brother Loki strikes a pact with a mysterious alien force to unleash an alien army to conquer and rule over Earth.
- The Avengers - Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Bruce Banner/Hulk - reluctantly come together, bicker, argue and in-fight among themselves, before burying their differences as Loki's army starts to come thru a wormhole (a tear in space to another dimension).
- The Avengers kick major ass, defeat the army, pummel Loki to a pulp and close the wormhole. - Thor returns to Asgard with Loki as his prisoner. Everybody rides off into the sunset until they are needed again.

Mr Martini

TonyDP wrote:

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Do you have to see Iron Man 2 and / or The Avengers to follow or appreciate this film?

Definitely no need to have seen Iron Man 2 as the events of that film are largely ignored, other than the return of Stark's friend James Rhodes who has his own armor called War Machine, later redubbed to the more family friendly "The Iron Patriot".

Events from The Avengers are referenced several times but really have no bearing on the plot other than the fact that Stark occasionally suffers from anxiety attacks whenever he recalls what he had to go thru. If you want a very basic summary of the Avengers, here you go (enclosed in spoilers for anyone who may not have yet seen it).

- Thor's half brother Loki strikes a pact with a mysterious alien force to unleash an alien army to conquer and rule over Earth.
- The Avengers - Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Bruce Banner/Hulk - reluctantly come together, bicker, argue and in-fight among themselves, before burying their differences as Loki's army starts to come thru a wormhole (a tear in space to another dimension).
- The Avengers kick major ass, defeat the army, pummel Loki to a pulp and close the wormhole. - Thor returns to Asgard with Loki as his prisoner. Everybody rides off into the sunset until they are needed again.

Don't forget this: (it got lots of laughs when I saw it)

Spoilered for those who haven't seen The Avengers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYiZeszLosE

BTW, I'll see Iron Man 3 on Monday.

darenhat

More interesting to me than Iron Man 3 is that fact that Iron Man 3 director and writer Shane Black is tackling Doc Savage as his next project! As a fan of the Man of Bronze, I look forward to seeing a 'serious' attempt at a Doc Savage movie.

I enjoyed Iron Man 3, but admit that I'm either too lazy or to unimpressed with the film to pick it apart. I agree with TonyDP's review for the most part. Really thought the the Mandarin was totally wasted as a villain. And would have like to see some good seeds planted for expanding the Marvel cinematic universe. Other than the appearance of the Hulk Buster armor, there wasn't much connecting it to the comics.

Am I the only one who feels that the Iron Man movies have become too Downey-centric? I want to see Iron Man!