Caught IM3 on Friday, and I must say, I didn't enjoy it that much. It felt like a modern dumb summer movie, not like Iron Man. There were Shane Black scenes lifted straight out of his other movies, I spied Last Boy Scout and Lethal Weapon ideas throughout, the attack on Tony's house felt a lot like Lethal Weapon 2's assault on Riggs' beach trailer for example. The ripoff with The Mandarin felt really cheap, and the other villains just felt generic and flat and not a credible threat. The ending was just silly and messy, there was a lot about the film that was a mess but that ending felt tonally dishonest to the rest of the movie. Part of the problem is that the movie doesn't care who Tony is, he's "inventive action hero" with some artificial elements tossed onto his shoulders pretending that there's baggage from the events of The Avengers; and Rhodey is awful, still miscast and now written completely wrong. I gave it a 5/10, it's not horribly incompetent at being a stupid action fluff film, but it's awful as an Iron Man movie (which makes 2 bad IM movies in my book) or a Marvel film at all.
Sounds like you liked it even less than me, JT.
AIM, Mandarin and Iron Patriot are all very credible threats in the Marvel Universe but this film turned all 3 into charlatans.
Also didn't like the Batman Begins rip off. The Mandarin and Ras Al Ghul, two very similiar characters have both been turned into stand-in puppets for other people, when they should have been major bad ***** villains.
In the case of Ra's Al Ghul, I get it - he was an immortal being with vaguely mystical powers in the comics. That would not have translated to Chris Nolan's grounded vision of Batman.
I prefer grounded visions. To this day I have no desire to see The Avengers. I object to Thor.
Somehow, I let Kal-El slide past. It comes from my renewed interest in Man of Steel due to Smallville (which stems from my constant interest in Kristin Kruek and love for Michael Rosenbaum's portrayal of Lex Luthor).
While we're at it: DAMMIT! Superman ought to be made with:
And any necessary others. NOT an origin story, btw - as the show (for 10 years!) covered that.
Martha, Jonathon, Lionel Luthor, even Green Arrow (well -he might work in well - as either actor who has portrayed him for the WB network) might all be unnecessary.
Great writing could provide a real challenge to "Clark" that does not require Zod or someone with equal powers.
Kneel before PLOT!
And this needs a budget of a theatrical release - not a made-for-TV movie (though I'd watch that with this cast).
Anyway, as I write my own novels for eventual publication, I may be delaying my viewing of Star Trek unfortunately.
Some of you can go out and see it right now - tonight even.
I have friends going (gone already) but I declined so I could work on my writing (this is a single SSG break as I'm about to go get something to eat).
I think I see it at 9:45 tomorrow morning as I have a baseball game in the evening and need to do a lot of writing.
Sooo, getting together... The first date available for Chaddy and Bran is May 28th, I believe. Who can, who can't?
SPOILERS FOR IRON MAN 3 BELOW, READ AT YOUR PERIL...
Yeah, the way they just cast all the good villains aside for lesser-than scenario really sucked. Iron Patriot isn't even anything here, he's not even a charlatan, just a paint job - the original is nefarious and uses jingoism against society... for the betterment of society, in a way. This was just "a guy".
Example: Col. Rhodes is barely in the film and barely useful in his armor, quickly stripped from him in some nonsense about overheating the torso to cause it to release, as if it's a coffin that opens instead of a suit he wears. And then Rhodey runs around at the end with a pistol. Yet the film also tries to put the weight of the events of the Avengers story on Tony's shoulders - the kid eventually tells him to just build stuff to get over it and it works, despite that being what we was doing throughout the film already and not working prior.
Ra's Al Ghul wasn't as big a ripoff as The Mandarin IMO, in Batman Begins there are really 2 characters with that name, the phony puppet asian guy(s, there's a second fake R'as at the party) and then Ducard is revealed to be the REAL Ra's Al Ghul and he's an effective badass, and we're not told outright that he's not like the comics character, it's left ambiguous enough. Meanhwile, IM3 is clearly saying there's no The Mandarin at all, he's an actor playing a role for AIM's Guy Pearce, and the 10 rings he wears are meaningless, and whether they tie into the Ten Rings organization from IM 1 is only lightly hinted at being the same (which means Guy Pearce's AIM was behind the plot of IM1, something pretty hateful if you think about it, try not to I guess).
The same cannot be said of The Mandarin, they make it clear in IM3 that the character was made up by Guy Pearce and has been an actor the whole time, it's clearly not The Mandarin of the comics in any way at all, and that there's no chance there ever could have been a comics version of the character out there as well.
But that's not why I didn't like the film, I can distance myself easily from the comics, that's just an ugly thing I don't like separately.
I never mentioned about availability so you're probably thinking of someone else, JT?
I'm not sure what numerical score I'd give to IM3 but less than I would give for Retaliation which I felt was merely adequate but not something I'd really want to see again
The toy line for IM3 is lackluster as well. You'd think they would capitalize on all the various armors like the Heartbreaker, Red Snapper and Igor but the best Hasbro can do are poorly articulated repaints?
No spoilers in my comments here, but I would love to discuss the newest Star Trek movie.
I loved it (in terms of a space war / action film).
There are concerns as a long time Trek fan of course. Namely the depth or lack there of for certain moral issues that could've been better addressed by this film.