This is topic Iron Man 3 (2013) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001945

---

Posted by Carlos Villalpando (Member # 7411) on 05-02-2013, 08:17 PM:
 
CINEMA: Cinépolis Zentralia, Colima.
AUDITORIUM: 9
PRESENTATION: Christie 2K DLP (2D)
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Right Channel failure during trailers, but it was corrected right before the movie started.
RATING: 4 (out of 5)

So, I decided to go see this movie.
-ME: 4 tickets for Iron Man 3 at 3:40pm, please.
-EMPLOYEE: That show is sold out.
-ME: Then for 4:00pm, please.
-EMPLOYEE: That show is sold out.
-ME: Then for 4:40pm, please :I
-EMPLOYEE: It's 40 dollars.

After Avengers (which I found to be a very good superhero movie) I had somewhat big hopes for this one.
Right from the movie's start, I noticed it has a different style from its predecessors. It has a more "comic-book like" style, when the other 2 were more "serious" (yes, even with Tony Stark's sarcasm), and I think I liked that style a little more than the one this movie had.

As always, Robert Downey Jr. gives a wonderful performance as Tony Stark, also Gwyneth Paltrow —as Pepper Potts—, Ben Kingsley —As The Mandarin—, Guy Pearce, etc.

The film definitely has the epic feeling I wanted it to have, in the first act, but it looses it in the 2nd act, only to recover it at the 3rd act.
It has some spectacular action scenes, like that one from the trailers when Stark's house is destroyed, which is spectacular —although a bit messy in the editing— and exciting (Having Pepper in the Iron Man suit was an exciting twist), and the Big Battle at the end with all the suits.
The sound mix was great as well.

Although it has a good amount of action scenes, I thought they kinda abused of comedy in this one. In Avengers I thought comedy was greatly balanced with drama and action, but here I felt they totally overused it, taking the drama from a number of scenes and replacing it with a joke.

The one thing I didn't like that much, is the twist they made for The Mandarin character. As I've read in Wikipedia (hehe), he's the greatest villain in the Iron Man universe (in the comic), but here, they turned him into a joke (again). I thought it would have been A LOT more epic if they followed the villain storyline (anyone who have seen it will understand what I mean).

Surely it is a great superhero movie, highly entertaining, unpredictable and exciting —with spectacular action scenes and all— but it certainly IS NOT what it promised to be.
The trailer promised a greatly epic movie with Tony Stark totally devastated, having to choose "to have an empty life or a worthy death", and probably one of the best villains of superheroes movies. That's not what we have in the film.

4/5
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-03-2013, 12:23 AM:
 
Is it better than Iron Man 2? That one was awful and made me never want to watch an Iron Man movie again.
 

---

Posted by Carlos Villalpando (Member # 7411) on 05-03-2013, 03:54 PM:
 
It's definitely better than Iron Man 2
But my favorite is still the first one.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-03-2013, 06:16 PM:
 
I haven't watched all of it yet but I can tell already that it (like its predecessors) suffers from the "Transformers" syndrome where a six inch metal thing unfolds, unwraps and slides out etc. to eventually be many times its original size.... but once unfolded it's still thick and rugged enough to be "armor." Plus all the tiny motors and mechanisms that make the thing work seem to be completely impervious to being bent, knocked out of alignment or otherwise damaged.

Don't they take physics into account AT ALL in these movies?

I already know the answer to that I guess. But I'm still looking forward to watching it -- buzz last night from the crowd was very good.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-03-2013, 08:37 PM:
 
Ok Mike, you asked for it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZtXtDBQviA

 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-04-2013, 07:24 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Don't they take physics into account AT ALL in these movies?

---

Physics is just a lame excuse for a limited Special Effects budget .

quote:

---

It's definitely better than Iron Man 2 [Smile]
But my favorite is still the first one.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Is it better than Iron Man 2? That one was awful and made me never want to watch an Iron Man movie again.

---

+1 (decided to see this with a friend much against my wishes ... )
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-06-2013, 11:22 PM:
 

quote:

---

Ok Mike, you asked for it:

---

Thanks...that was hilarious! I do remember thinking how dumb it was that Superman could grab a helicopter or a gigantic object like a building or a huge boulder by just holding two inches of the object at one end in his hand and lift the thing back into place.....HELLO, the weight of the object would make it break and fall. I also thought it was a giant cop-out when Superman spun the world backward to get out of the jam in the first movie (and the Donner cut of the second). To me it was just lazy writing -- don't put your character in a jam if you can't write a plausible way to get him out.

Anyway back to this movie. I'm going to have to give up on action films, I guess. They are just too fast and frantic anymore. My wife said she liked the movie but still had to admit she didn't quite understand a lot of the story. I guess I would have to say the same. I enjoyed what I was watching but kept losing track of what was supposed to be happening. So I went and read the Wikipedia plot summary and there were plot points and other stuff in there that I didn't remember seeing in the slightest.

I liked it when an action movie's hero had some actual weak spot -- Iron Man doesn't appear to have one here, in fact he doesn't even seem to be subject to physical laws.

I liked it when there was ONE story that you could follow from beginning to end, as opposed to the scattershot affair that passes for a story in this movie.

I liked it when there would occasionally be a break from the action. I liked it when you only had to believe ONE fantastical fact (such as: The hero has super powers.) In this movie, you need to believe the hero has super powers (even though he doesn't), he's not subject to the laws of physics, his machinery is impervious to damage (unless it is critical to the plot that something stops working properly), and all of his stuff continues to function perfectly even though his entire house/lab/workshop is completely destroyed. I liked it when the hero had a set of rules he had to follow.

I liked it when something that's supposed to happen in the "present day" would use present day technologies to make it seem like yes, it really COULD happen.

I liked it when you could wonder how they pulled something off in a movie -- knowing that a set had to be built, some actor had to actually do the stunts, and whatever machinery they were using actually had to work in front of the camera or "fake it" effectively -- as opposed to now, when probably 90% of the time we are essentially watching a glorified Looney Tunes cartoon, except without most of the humor.

I liked it when the action would dwell on a shot for more than a nanosecond, so you could get a feel for what was happening.

I liked it when a movie ended when it ended, and didn't tack on an extra ending scene that left most of the audience coming out disappointed that they "waited eight minutes for that?!"

I have to say I enjoyed this better than the noise-fest that was the last Transformers movie, but not by a whole lot. If it wasn't for Robert Downey Jr.'s smartass remarks they wouldn't have had much.

The sound mix was excellent and the VFX of course were spectacular. If only a person was allowed to actually see them as they flash by. I'd be curious how many "cuts" there were in this movie.

My rating: 2 out of 5.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-07-2013, 09:03 AM:
 
Here ya go, Mike, the perfect book to read while not watching superhero movies. It will let you be the cranky old guy who ruins it for the kids

http://www.amazon.com/James-Kakalios/e/B001JPCKVM/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1
 

---

Posted by Carlos Villalpando (Member # 7411) on 05-08-2013, 09:05 PM:
 
After a rewatch today I realized I didn't really like it.. some movies I can watch them over and over again and don't get tired of.. but with this one I couldn't stand the second viewing.
 

---

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 05-09-2013, 08:37 AM:
 
The Mandarin character was changed because in the comics he was a 1960's version of Fu Manchu. The producers wanted the film to play better in China, especially since one of the producers is a major Chinese production company. In fact, the Chinese version of the film features additional footage that includes China-centric elements just for that audience.

I loved the film. Saw it in digIMAX. Only thing that concerned me was the Ten Circles. This was the terrorist group from the first Iron Man film. But was the Mandarin actually related to them or was it all just part of the set?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-09-2013, 08:53 AM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Don't they take physics into account AT ALL in these movies?

---

Nah. I was laughing pretty hard at the scene in the first Iron Man movie where Tony Stark's "beta" Iron Man suit runs out of fuel or whatever. He flies like an incoming meteor into a sand dune. Stark's insides would have been reduced to a lumpy pudding from the force of that crash if something like that happened in reality. Instead Stark walked away from the crash a little shaken up. That "beta" suit didn't even have any air bags, instant crash foam or any other story excuse to keep him from getting killed. Did he even have a pillow in that thing?

It might actually be more interesting if they grounded these super hero movies and most other action movies as well into reality. There might actually be more suspense invovled. But that would involve screenwriters, producers and directors working harder to do a better job rather than insult the intelligence of the smarter members of the audience.

Yeah, I'm willing to charge many of today's movies are made for stupid people. It's drama on a grading curve. In today's movie business marketplace it would be flat out impossible to green light a movie like Lawrence of Arabia. Movies that make people think, read between the lines, etc. are seen as too risky.

Instead we get action movies that are trying to apply the broken laws of physics from The Matrix into a contrived reality.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-11-2013, 07:27 PM:
 
So you guys are willing to accept he survived open-heart surgery in the desert with no medical supplies, anesthesia or expertise, recuperates and then build a power supply for his chest out of spare parts... and then you have trouble with the suspension of disbelief??
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-12-2013, 06:13 PM:
 
No expertise? Hey, we're talking about Tony Stark here. He's got all the experience to build a super-reactor to power an electromagnetic coil to keep a splinter from entering his hearth, but pulling out that splinter takes almost three entire movies.

Actually, I think it would be great to see what happens if we lock Tony Stark in a room together with MacGyver and the A-Team.

But let's be real here, if you want storytelling that doesn't involve some mystical over-the-top super powers or some mega-tech that comes at handy when needed, it might be better not to watch a franchise based on some comic books .
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 05-13-2013, 12:00 AM:
 
CINEMA: Valle Drive-In Theatre, Newton, IA
AUDITORIUM: 1
PRESENTATION: 35mm/2-channel FM stereo
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Picture was a bit soft...they usually project a really sharp image here
RATING: Three stars (out of four)

It was a perfect cool evening and I couldn't resist. Sunday is apparently the night to go to the drive-in...there were maybe a couple of dozen cars and nobody was smoking.

THE PLOT: Uh, a guy pretends to be a bad guy, and there's some fiery guys who can heal things and an oil rig and...oh hell, I don't know. Wackiness ensues.

I kept hearing about how this movie had a darker Tony Stark, yet I found this nearly as much fun to watch as "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows". I've seen intended comedies where I laughed less than this. Kingsley's character? Just freaking great.

Pretty fun summer popcorn movie right here.
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 05-13-2013, 10:34 AM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Don't they take physics into account

---

I used to get into big arguments about this with my brother when we
were kids, watching "The Bionic Man"

He thought it would be great to have a bionic arm that would
give him the strength to lift a bulldozer or something equally heavy.

I kept arguing that even if you HAD a super-strength bionic arm,
it would still be attached to your non-bionic shoulder bone,
- - which would instantly splinter when you tried to lift the 'dozer.

We actually got into a fist fight over this once.

Thank God he DIDN'T have a bionic arm, or he would have killed me.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-13-2013, 11:39 AM:
 

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

But let's be real here, if you want storytelling that doesn't involve some mystical over-the-top super powers or some mega-tech that comes at handy when needed, it might be better not to watch a franchise based on some comic books.

---

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that excuse for lazy story telling.

Suspension of disbelief is ALWAYS a factor that must be considered when writing a screenplay and directing a movie. The audience will go along with all sorts of outlandish things if the "reality" is painted the right way. If there is enough things in place to make whatever fantasy being portrayed visually plausible the audience won't question it.

For instance, I'm not going to question Superman, a.k.a. "The Man of Steel" being able to fly through a concrete wall at 600mph and not get so much as a scratch. When you have a mortal man flying in a metal suit doing the same kind of thing, yeah I'm going to wonder why his body doesn't get turned into bloody pudding mixed with bone chunks.

When certain feats of action in movies are presented in too much of an over the top manner the audience will tune out of the movie. They won't feel any suspense because their subconscious is yelling "bullshit." At best the reaction will be "that looks cool," but it will always be tainted with the asterisk notation of it really being bullshit.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-13-2013, 11:26 PM:
 
Excellent post Bobby. I was trying to think of a way to say exactly that.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 05-14-2013, 12:53 AM:
 
I think the willing suspension of disbelief works here because we are charmed by the genius Tony Stark and his story is set up by believable circumstances as in Iraq, etc. We want to believe like when we fall in love. In the right context we will accept just about anything compelling for a couple of hours. Later we look back and replay the film and decide whether it worked. If it does, this is a great movie.

For me, "Alien" was one of those films. It worked every time I saw it and there was nothing realistic about any of it.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-14-2013, 11:19 AM:
 
Stretching reality works only to a certain degree even when the actors are delivering great performances. The trick is to push things only to the point where the audience won't notice it. I mention that one point in Iron Man where he crashes the first crude iron man suit into the sand dunes at high speed. I immediately thought right there such a crash in reality would kill anyone instantly. As an audience member my mind isn't supposed to go there. I still liked Iron Man. I even bought a copy of it on Blu-ray. But I still think that scene is laughable. There's plenty of other scenes in Iron Man that aren't very plausible, but that first iron man suit crash was a doozy.

Some action movies are so bad with this sort of thing that they're really laughable. Like this scene from Torque:
Catfight on Motorcycles!
That scene is so damned stupid it makes me deliberately want to take out my disgust against the extremely obvious product placements in the scene and never drink Pepsi or Mountain Dew again.

This is bad enough I fully expect buddy cop movies in the future to contain scenes where the ordinary hero cop pursues the bad guy leaving an office skyscraper by avoiding all the time wasted by taking the stairs or elevator and just jump out of a window and fall 20 or so stories. Nah, he won't get splattered on the sidewalk. He'll land in a cool pose like Morpheus in The Matrix. There will even be cracks in the sidewalk. But that cop will be OK because he had mad cop skillz in freaking reality.


BTW, not much bothered me about Alien other than some minor gripes. Like, why is it when computer systems crash or malfunction in movies they're always shooting out fire and sparks? I've been using computers for over 30 years now and seen at least a few serious hardware failures. I never saw a computer shoot out cinematic big sparks.

Explosions in space won't make any sound, like the sound the Nostromo makes when exploding (multiple times). You can't have noise in a vacuum. Almost every space movie, except 2001 has broken that rule. But many audience members are stupid and think something is wrong with the movie if the space explosions don't make any sound.

Do those Weyland-Yutani androids, like Ash or Bishop, have to change their milk on a weekly basis? Won't it turn into cottage cheese and get real stinky after awhile?

 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 05-14-2013, 02:06 PM:
 
In fact to add to Bobby's point, the tag line on the "Alien" poster was,

"In space, no one can hear you scream"

What was cool about this film is the minimalist approach, the rusty tramp steamer aspect of the space freighter and you don't see the Alien until way into the film. This was the first and best one but it was some 35 years ago. The second one was very good in its own way; after that it was crap all the way.
 

---

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 05-14-2013, 02:58 PM:
 
Bobby,
sounds like you need to give up movies and just watch reality tv shows. No special effects there for you to criticize.

Rick
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-14-2013, 04:07 PM:
 
Nah. Some movies just need to stop being so stupidly shitty. That's all.

Screw "reality TV." If you want to talk about programming putting lies in front of lenses "reality TV" fills the bill. The concocted drama posing as real life is a bigger waste of time than bad action movies. I found it amusing when some "Pawn Stars" reality TV personalities were exposed for faking a lot of their shows.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-14-2013, 08:30 PM:
 
Well they are all fake, it's not like the cameras magically appear in real life.

I don't know if this is the same thing you mention, but one on the Storage Wars people who got booted from the show went public that they seed the storag bins to make the show more interesting.

I love that TruTV (formerly known and affectionately missed as Court TV) is campaigning they don't have reality shows, they have actualities. I wonder if they know that was the original name for documentaries?
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-19-2013, 12:08 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

For instance, I'm not going to question Superman, a.k.a. "The Man of Steel" being able to fly through a concrete wall at 600mph and not get so much as a scratch. When you have a mortal man flying in a metal suit doing the same kind of thing, yeah I'm going to wonder why his body doesn't get turned into bloody pudding mixed with bone chunks.

---

I guess they nuked the fridge quite early on in the series.
And that's why I reminded you, that you're watching a franchise based on a comic. Maybe you're not supposed to expect any such kind of realism, just like you wouldn't expect them from a comic either.

You know, I practically agree with all of your statements, but I think it is quite personal in how far you go with this sort of things.

For example, I enjoyed most of the current Iron Man films, but probably because I expected them to be much worse. I could quite easily forgive the not-so-realistic story elements, because they already start at the very introduction, where Tony Stark manages to beat McGyver and the A-Team single-handedly by building his "beta Iron Man" suit from some scrap lying around.

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

BTW, not much bothered me about Alien other than some minor gripes. Like, why is it when computer systems crash or malfunction in movies they're always shooting out fire and sparks? I've been using computers for over 30 years now and seen at least a few serious hardware failures. I never saw a computer shoot out cinematic big sparks.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Explosions in space won't make any sound, like the sound the Nostromo makes when exploding (multiple times). You can't have noise in a vacuum. Almost every space movie, except 2001 has broken that rule. But many audience members are stupid and think something is wrong with the movie if the space explosions don't make any sound.

---

According to 2001, there is classical music in space .
But ever imagined how lame it would be if the Death Star would explode without an epic rumble?

In the end, even the movies that try to be very realistic, like 2001 get stuff wrong. The floating pen scene for example, as stunning as it is, is not an accurate portrayal of weightlessness.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-19-2013, 02:11 PM:
 
THe reason why they are making so many comic book movies these days is precisely why they need to more careful in what superpowers they give the characters and set some semi realistic limits to avoid the audience member from getting jaded by the action scenes. THere has to be a sense of danger and I dont get that from ANY superhero comic book movie these days. I didnt realize Spiderman became superman with the way he is indestructible when bouncing into buildings.

Iron Man 3 was OK. I didn't see it as much of an improvement over Part 2 despite Shane Black(my favorite action writer from decades ago) helming this. I still liked it but not something I would want to watch again.

REgal Hollywood 24, Auditorium 8 was the venue. If I didn't have so many cheap discount passes, I would not be visting multiplexes that often. 11 bucks plus for the experience is a joke. Half the auditorium was cordoned off by yellow tape. The ac unit was blasting a lot of cold air with a lot of force. THe movie was letterboxed on a small common height screen with no masking. I guess with the lack of adjustable masking on those iMAX and LieMax screens, I guess theaters feel they can get away with it.
 

---