Reviews Film / Iron Man 3

Would you care to elaborate on why his character's schemes were so bad in your eyes?

You seem to be indulging in every opportunity to be caustic and cynical without actually being very fact based. It all reads like you wanting to seem very avant-garde and smug. Insufferably so, in actuality. I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy the movie, but you seem to be making up flaws where there were none. If you weren't bothered or interested in following this or that and thus assumed they were flaws, then fair enough.

Honestly though? You're oversimplifying. Massively. I could take it point by point if you'd like, but that seems like a far greater investment of time and effort than you actually put in.

In brief; your review fucking sucks.

Pierce's character is kinda one of those bond villains who will plan out a lot of stuff out but do something very silly to undermine what they've set out to do (using his patented super soldiers as assassins in public places, giving Pepper superpowers, holding her hostage but not actually following through to hurt her beyond the initial threat). He had to plan a lot of things through to kidnap the president and iron patriot, so why didn't he think these other things through?

Without spoilers? Difficult. SPOILERS BEYOND:

===================================================================================================================

{spoilers beyond}

=================================================================================================================== So basically Guy Pierce wants to get rich through his scheme, which involves both deluding America with a false flag operation (to create a demand for his defence contracts) and to replace the President with a co-conspirator, who supports the villain's research for personal reasons. There are three main faults:

1) Why is the second part necessary? He's created the demand for his company with the deadly terrorist, so he doesn't have to do anything else. Instead, he uses it as a means to distract the Iron Patriot, so that he can capture him and carry out the second step of a plan that didn't need two steps. Isn't murdering the president in the middle of America (whilst the Mandarin is "supposed" to be in Pakistan) going to raise a few eyebrows? He's basically hoping that no one responds to the massive burning oil tanker, in the middle of a busy city. As soon as the emergency helicopters show up, they are going to spot Guy Pierce and his troops, fleeing the scene.

2) His personal army of super soldiers keep running around in public, setting fire to people and blowing shit up. Supposing the vice-president gets into power and he gives the green light to the super soldier research...won't people make the obvious connection between the new flaming, super healed people created by this project and the two flaming super soldiers who were murdered a half dozen people in a down town bar? How could he possibly hope to keep this all under wraps, once the vice-president's son grows a new leg and/or explodes?

3) He needs Stark to make the formula stable, but spends his time trying to piss off or kill Stark. Hell, if he just got that pretty Botanist to ask Stark about the formula, Stark would have probably just helped her without any fuss, and the whole plot could have been avoided. Instead they asked Pepper Potts, who obviously can't and won't help.

@Doctor HD: You don't have to apologise for me not liking the movie, especially seeing as I didn't say I disliked the movie in the first place. I noted some positive points as well as negative, and gave it average marks over all. Also, I am being far less caustic than some.

I generally disagree with the review, though I can understand some of the sentiment behind it. When I saw Iron Man 3, I liked it a lot, but I could easily see how someone else would dislike it.

I think it's the best of the Iron Man films, though I'm not sure how much of a boon that is to maninahat.

Saying it's "the same story" is extremely misleading. Yes, he fights against a foreigner AND a business owner, but that's frankly where the similarities end. That's like saying that Spider-Man 1 and 2 are the same because he fights scientists, or the first two X-Men films are the same because the bad guys want to commit genocide.

@Steve Potter: What about the whole "crippling emotional and personal issues"? They tend to be more the focus of the Iron Man films than the actual villains. In the first movie, it was about Stark's arrogance and irresponsibility. In the second, he was having erratic mood swings due to his heart condition. In Avengers, he was being a smug bastard who wouldn't play with others. In three, he's having panic attacks. Every movie, Tony has to go through the same basic emotional arc, in which he has to learn to get over himself and stop treating other people like shit. Even though the movie ends with him having matured and learnt his lesson, he still somehow reverts back to being an irresponsible, unstable jerk for the next film. That would be like if Nolan's Batman were to regain his crippling fear of bats, or Spiderman lose his powers between every movie.

As to how I rate them: Iron Man>Iron Man 3>Iron Man 2. I think the first had the right blend of action and introspection, but is let down by a ridiculous, weak villain. Iron Man 3 is in very close second.

I completely forgot to mention this in the review: fuck after credits extras. It's gotten to the point now where the cinema staff will warn you in advance whether there is going to be extra movie after the credits have finished rolling. That's very thoughtful of them, but it makes me wonder why we have to bother with it all.

They used to be a surprise easter egg, but now they are standard. Is there any reason to not just put this stuff at the end of the movie, and save me the eight minutes of waiting? It's not as if we actually read the names in the credits. I can just leave as soon as the credits roll and wait for the clip to eventually come out on youtube or whatever, but I want to see what it is. Just stick it at the end of the movie, or maybe after the one minute of arty "you have been watching" credits.

@maninahat

I disagree about the emotional drama. While it's a consistent theme in the films, it Isn't "all the same". The first film was about doing something different in life (being a hero, hero instead of making weapons). He still ended the film as a cocky jerk when he announced that he was Iron Man in the press conference. The second film was about valuing others, that he can't do everything alone. Avengers was about valuing and trusting people he doesn't know. And Iron Man 3 these lessons return but he realizes and lampshades his problems, like when he talks to Pepper about his insomnia. That's major character development over the series.

Honestly, the movie wasn't bad, but it was the first Iron Man movie that actually left me disappointed (yeah, even the second movie I kinda liked). My main deception was with the villain. Honestly, I agree that it was repetitive on this point. The trailers shaped it like the Mandarin was gonna be a big change, a villain that would bring a new kind of treath in Tony's life.... and honeslty, it kinda fall flat. While the twist about him was unexpected and kinda smart, it only left Killian as the main villain, and he was frankly lame. I mean, he was just a Corrupt Corporate Executive motivated by greed and petty revenge toward Stark. Basically, exactly the same kind of villain than what we got in the two previous Iron Man movies. That was kinda disappointing, especially with the anticipation of Iron Man's Arch Enemy finally showing up in a movie. I know it would have been difficult to use this guy without some Unfortunate Implication, but come on! Couldn't they have at least come up with something original?

I agree with just about everything you mentioned about the villain(s) in your review. The villain's plot is really convoluted. His motivations get confusing at points. The polarizing twist is a good idea...but I don't know if the execution is as good as the idea or even if the character chosen for that twist was wise.

Hmm...I really loved the film but I can't deny you have some valid points there. I'd have to agree with MFM's statement:

I think it's the best of the Iron Man films, though I'm not sure how much of a boon that is to maninahat.

About the post-credits scene thing: I agree, though the theater I saw in actually didn't show the stinger for some reason, even though most of the audience sat through the credits. A good third option, IMO, would be to do what Whedon did in Avengers: Some Creative Credits listing the main cast, followed by one post-credits scene necessary to the story, then the longer credits, followed by an easter-egg-style stinger that's not relevant to the story.

It's sad that Confused Matthew was way more nice to this movie than most of the reviews on here.

In response to 19250:

1: By controlling the president, he would have ensured that a) he was getting the government's defense contracts instead of some other contractor, and b) that the US would never actually manage to stop the Mandarin, allowing him to keep the charade up indefinitely.

2: Killian's goons showed up in that town to get the files on the dead soldier from his mother, not to fight Tony, who they didn't know was there. The fight that resulted was a spur of the moment event, not a plan by Killian. And even then, one fight involving two of his people in a small town in the middle of Nowhere, Tennessee? Can't be that hard to cover up.

3: Killian didn't want Stark's help; Maya did. Killian obviously didn't care that much about perfecting the formula much further, since he axed the brains behind the project quite casually when she threatened to switch sides, and only even bothered making a toke attempt to get Tony's help after Tony had already dropped himself into Killian's lap. Killian could already control the effects of the formula on him, as could an entire army of his troops, so clearly the success rate wasn't so bad as to make the formula unusable as long as you don't particularly care which individuals wind up self-destructing.