pym
Reservist Avenger
"About 20 yards to my right…"
Posts: 200
|
Post by pym on May 10, 2013 20:03:26 GMT -5
I am wondering why they released a 'Christmas' movie in May.
Just saying...
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on May 10, 2013 22:57:34 GMT -5
You know......I don't have a clue either as to why. Maybe they are keeping some form of timeline within all the Marvel movies as this film seems to occur shortly after the Avengers movie so maybe Christmas was coming up.
All I do know is terrific movie, really the best one so far in this series. The armor(s) are secondary for a change (no worries/concerns over it's existence, construction, deployment, etc) so focus is more on the characters. Intriguing set-up with the villain(s), loved the style of the film (Tony talking/reminiscing) and carrying on the consequences of what Tony endured during the Avengers movie.
Also get a real sense of Tony's techno-world, that is technology perverted/subverted and Tony has to put things right. While this story carried main elements of Ellis' Extremis story, it also carried elements of Fraction's espionage run, especially his first storyline The Five Nightmares.
Overall, very well done.
|
|
pym
Reservist Avenger
"About 20 yards to my right…"
Posts: 200
|
Post by pym on May 11, 2013 16:47:51 GMT -5
Well said Marv!!! It reminded me of later Metal Men...when they had human faces and clothing. Be well!
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 11, 2013 19:17:40 GMT -5
I've moved the topic to its rightful section. It is, after all, a movie
|
|
pym
Reservist Avenger
"About 20 yards to my right…"
Posts: 200
|
Post by pym on May 12, 2013 7:25:15 GMT -5
My apologies, Shiryu
|
|
|
Post by wundagoreborn on May 13, 2013 14:08:20 GMT -5
The armor(s) are secondary for a change (no worries/concerns over it's existence, construction, deployment, etc) so focus is more on the characters. . This was my favorite element - that the armor was as often a liability as an asset throughout. That, and the fluid way Tony goes in and out of armor in brief bursts kept the focus on the man as the hero, not the suit. Very well done.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on May 18, 2013 9:02:11 GMT -5
This was a bit of a disappointment for me. I really loved the first two Iron Man films, but this one got it wrong for me and lost the magic. It was an OK over the top actioner, Kingsley's turn was amusing, and Downey's always watchable -but it didn't really do it for me.
One of the things that makes Iron Man the ideal screen superhero IMO is that he's really quite plausible -munitions manufacturer creates ultimate weapon. Makes sense. The technology seems ever closer to reality (except that the comics keep moving it further away -unwisely in my view). The first film really got that. Elements of that had been undermined after the first movie -but credibility was completely abandoned here. I can't really explain this without spoilers, so...:
SPOILERS
Most annoying for me is the 'costume changing' sequences. In the comic book format you could get away with the old magnetized chainmail in the briefcase -it allowed for quick changeovers and for the character to conform to the demands that were standard in the superhero genre. The first movie got it just right in going for the more realistic robot drone dressing wheel (and the memorable 'you've caught me doing way worse things than this' scene). In IM2 and especially Avengers they moved away from this, but whilst I didn't like it I could live with it. With this move you now get Stark flying through the air from suit to suit without any concern for plausibility or suspension of disbelief and it ceases to be a live action film and is nothing more than a loud cartoon with a lot of explosions.
Furthermore, the army of extremis goons who are a match for an IM suit, and the proliferation of suits really detract from Iron Man being 'special' -it makes the whole thing prosaic in my view.
The other thing was that there wasn't any real drama. We got far less of a sense of Tony's lifestyle, there was no real story for him personallly and his relationships with the other characters were pretty meaningless. Even the attempt to manufacture some kind of development regarding Pepper felt utterly contrived and forced. What the hell was the cute kid sequence for?
I've always felt that Iron Man 2 got a lot of undeserved flak, but this one was a let down. An empty film. It'll kill time but little more.
I did laugh out loud at Stan's cameo though.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on May 18, 2013 9:17:59 GMT -5
This was a bit of a disappointment for me. I really loved the first two Iron Man films, but this one got it wrong for me and lost the magic. I'd have to disagree with you on this one. Granted the Ironman films have never been my favorite of the series, just like I've never been a huge fan of Ironman in the books but I thought this one was a huge improvement over the 2nd film. The first was probably the most I've enjoyed Ironman in a very long time in any medium and I was surprised how much I liked the Black Widow in the 2nd movie (And the Avengers) since I've really never liked her at all on paper, but otherwise I thought the 2nd movie was underwhelming. My biggest problem with the 2nd movie was that I really didn't like Stark. I'm all for heroes having problems and quirks to make them more human but he was so self-centered in the 2nd that I had difficulty even rooting for him. I also thought the villain was very unmemorable. This movie still didn't have the most memorable of villains but Kinglsey was certainly entertaining and moreover, though Tony was still a long way from Clark Kent (Not that I'm saying that's what he should be) he did seem heroic. I liked the kid sequences. I thought something was needed to make Tony a little more human and relatable and, for me, his connection to the kid helped. I would still rank this behind Avengers, Thor, Captain America, and the 1st Ironman but I did like it. The 2nd one- let's put it this way - I bought it on DVD but haven't even watched it since I did. I've started too many times and still will but I keep remembering how little excitement I felt at the theater and just haven't bothered.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on May 18, 2013 9:56:02 GMT -5
This was a bit of a disappointment for me. I really loved the first two Iron Man films, but this one got it wrong for me and lost the magic. I'd have to disagree with you on this one. Fair enough, each to their own. To my mind this sounds like its missing the point. From the getgo Stark is supposed to be in a downward spiral because whilst he appears publicly to be on top of the world he's actually dying. It was quite cleverly handled so that the comic reading audience is likely to initially suppose that they're seeing the Demon in a Bottle storyline. Right from the initial expo speech with the 'wrong' Ratpack DJ (that's tux to you uncivilized types ) This has brought out his worst arrogance and self-centredness in his behaviour, and at the senate hearing we see more excess and self aggrandizement. The iconic image is of Iron Slob inside the doughnut. It's also funny -the bit where he subs himself for his driver at Monte Carlo is hilarious. Yet Stark is always doing the right thing throughout, displaying self-sacrifice, hammering Hammer, in spite of the superficial character flaws. The bit where Coulson threatens to tazer him when they're getting him back on track was great. Tony's feet of clay are actually a highlight in both of the first two flicks IMO. They're more disturbing in IM2, but it turns out there's a reason for it and the self-destructive spiral worked for me. Anyway, evidently I see it very differently to you. I guess I can't argue with you getting whatever impression you did, but personally I thought Rourke's character worked well actually. It was a curious decision to blend Whiplash and the Crimson Dynamo, but I can understand why they opted for this hybrid character route. The comics' Whiplash is just a bit nondescript and uninteresting as a character from a dramatic point of view, but has very distinctive powers/tech whilst the Crimson Dynamo's associations are too explicitly Soviet to be usable in this day and age. I also think that just another armoured guy (Iron Monger mark 2) would've just been too much of a retread. Actually one of the things I was least thrilled by was the armoured version of whiplash in the finale -I'd have preferred he remain distinctive. Anyway, all I can really say is that I didn't get the same impression about this. Incidentally, the younger yuppie version of Justin Hammer worked really well as an indictment of modern corporate sleaze and complacency, but wouldn't it have been great if Ian Richardson had been alive to play the version from the comics?
|
|
|
Post by spiderman1984 on May 19, 2013 18:44:23 GMT -5
i thought Iron Man 3 was a great movie, i really did enjoy it.
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on May 23, 2013 20:31:12 GMT -5
Well, the quick change allows for a faster pace throughout the movie. It may be more realistic to have the robot wheel disassemble the armor for him (quite liked the version used in the Avengers movie), but having to do that constantly would slow down the film.
Also, Tony has been getting progressively better in this area in every film so for him to reach this level where he can basically walk out of the armor is acceptable for me. If anything, I find the notion of the individual pieces of the armor being able to take flight and home in on Tony's location, regardless of distance, to be more a stretch of belief than Tony's ability to walk out of the armor.
For myself, being a longtime Iron Man fan, it's the specialty armors that are a big appeal of the character. So seeing the House Party Protocol in action was sweet and fun.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 29, 2013 16:58:22 GMT -5
So, HBSon & I caught it on Monday night (back to back with STAR TREK-- quite a long evening!), and you can place us very firmly in the thumbs-up column, no question whatsoever. I'll pretty much echo the positives mentioned above, and add that there were moments that pleasantly surprised the cynical movie-goer in me. Particularly in that, in places where one nowadays almost relflexively assumes a "darker" choice will be made. . . it wasn't. I can't TELL you how refreshing that is. [POSSIBLE SPOILERISH]--- the resolution with Pepper, for instance, I fully expected to be more along the lines of the end of the first Spiderman film-- and was even unhappily bracing myself for it-- and then. . . it was okay! Folks, sometimes I just NEED that in my escapist, superhero entertainment-! (Very smart on the part of the creators at the helm, I might add.) Personally, I liked the broader, tougher-to-manage nemesis that was represented here. It really verged on an Avengers-worthy threat, I'd think, and probably would have been had the Extremis plan progressed any farther than it did. Definitely the best movie of the three, IMO (and I really liked the first quite a bit as well. . . and the second was fine, although not as memorable). A clear and well-conveyed internal conflict can trump an armegeddon of external ones if it engages the audience well-enough, and this one had a solid internal conflict that was being exacerbated mightily by the (admittedly 'WAY TOO convoluted) external one. Loved Tony the Unarmored Guy fightin' his way through a number of scrapes w/ wits & bailing wire. Really enjoyed the way the scenes w/ the kid were played for non-sympathy. . . which made them surprisingly more effective (oh man, and funny). LOVED the fact that the armor- throughout four movies, now- spends FAR more time broken, battered, incomplete and barely functioning than it ever does as a sleek, state-of-the-art unstoppable engine of war and destruction. I don't know if anyone ever talks about that aspect, but it's a great, great trope for the series and the character. It's like the armors are perpetually operating under the Peter Principle, where he's always out there with the latest glitchy prototype, rather than the proven, dependable older generation. --when that Mark 42 buggy comes zooming in at the end of the big fight, only to collapse into pieces (again) upon landing. . . hoo-boy. . . you normally wouldn't think a moment like that could be mined so effectively for comedy. . . !
HB
|
|
|
Post by tomspasic on May 30, 2013 6:42:30 GMT -5
Thought I'd offer my muddled views on IM3: I have mixed reactions to it. Like CC, it was a bit of a disappointment to me, for various SPOILER reasons; I really disliked the Mandarin fakeout, even though I concede it was pretty clever, mostly well written, and probably more entertaining for non-hardcore fans. But ultimately it made a great character with fantastic high tech alien given powers a very prosaic trope. I entirely get not wanting the old borderline racist version, but you get to a reverse racist point where no villains can be anything except british in case it comes across as racial stereotyping. Call me crazy, but out of billions of Chinese people, I figure one or two could conceivably be bad eggs.
And then there was the Armours. Which did not appear enough, or do enough, with Iron Man in them, for my tastes. The armour action sequences were all rather confusing, and too fast paced, for me. And the 42 different suits were all made of tissue paper, getting destroyed at a ridiculous pace by an indeterminant group of villains who frankly did not seem well defined enough, or powerful enough to take on a small battalion of Iron Men.
But for all my gripes, it was still a well made and largely enjoyable film. It's just that the bar is now set so high that I can actually be mildly disappointed by a movie which I would have been ecstatic about a decade or two ago. So I guess I'm spoiled.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 30, 2013 8:52:53 GMT -5
The (likely subjective) impression I've had from the reviews in general is that superhero-savvy or comic-book centered critics haven't been thrilled w/ the film, while many, many non-genre' critics have liked it very much. I would think that dichotomy almost has to boil down to a preference for More Armor vs. one for More Tony. So-- still lookin' to strike a balance, I suppose.
HB
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on May 30, 2013 11:47:49 GMT -5
I would think that dichotomy almost has to boil down to a preference for More Armor vs. one for More Tony. So-- still lookin' to strike a balance, I suppose. HB Not for me. I have plenty of issues with treatment of the armour but what really made the film feel empty was the way Tony was handled. I never felt this film was about Tony Stark. He could've been any action movie hero really. With the Favreau films you really felt his love of the character and all those little details and unnecessary bits just brought him and the movie to life and it felt genuine. The only bit in this film that I felt that way about was the flashback sequence at the beginning and as a result this movie was cold and lifeless for me. The rest was just movie hero with cute kid; movie hero has woman problems and so on. Downey's great but he was working with mud.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong Crosby on May 30, 2013 13:14:41 GMT -5
I was waiting eagerly to see it and then I learned about the Mandarin thing, and decided NOT to see the film, because for me it would ruin it, no matter how good the movie could be. For an IM fan for life as I have been, it is just too much that they decided to go that route with ol´Mandy. Amongst my fondest childhood´s reading memories are some of those old issues in which Shellhead and the Mandarin engage in hand to hand combat. And Mandy has been one of the few SUPERvillians who have actually given Tony a run for his money, managing to make the reader feel that they actually are imperiling IM´s life. I say this because I believe IM´s kinda unusual among superheroes, as most of the time his worst or most persistent enemies have been normal human beings, captains of industry like Tony, and not supervillians. If anything, for the most part, the supervillians were mere henchmen for IM´s true enemies. Ah, but the Mandarin WAS the exception. There has been a lot of debate on the internet over whether he´s a racist caricature, a stereotype of days gone by, without room in these our (cough, cough...) more enlightened times... . No doubt at the beginning he was, like perhaps it was inevitable given the time period in which he was created. But the character has evolved quite a bit since those early days. For the life of me, I´ll never understand why nobody could draw inspiration from Byrne´s "Dragon Seed Saga", for my money, the best Mandarin´s characterization ever. If not directly from it, at least something loosely based on it. Mr. Byrne´s much maligned but, IMO he did a wonderful character refleshing during those IM issues. And since he did it slowly, over a number of issues, it didn´t feel forced or empty. He actually managed to turn the Mandarin into a force to be reckoned with, noble in his own way. yet deeply flawed, regal if at the same time evil. In short, if only for that brief moment in time, the Mandarin was able to join Marvel´s stable of A-list villians. Brief indeed, for no other writer who came afterwards was able (or wanted) to follow that road which Byrne had opened. I guess when the majority of internet users think that the Mandarin´s nothing but a racial caricature they´re mostly remembering the Mandarin from the ´90´s cartoon... . True, because the Mandarin´s not as popular or as well known as the Joker, not nearly as many people got mad about what took place in IM3, but for us, the few, the proud comic book IM fans it was truly disappointing, there´s no way around that.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 31, 2013 18:38:26 GMT -5
I was waiting eagerly to see it and then I learned about the Mandarin thing, and decided NOT to see the film, because for me it would ruin it, no matter how good the movie could be. For an IM fan for life as I have been, it is just too much that they decided to go that route with ol´Mandy. Amongst my fondest childhood´s reading memories are some of those old issues in which Shellhead and the Mandarin engage in hand to hand combat. And Mandy has been one of the few SUPERvillians who have actually given Tony a run for his money, managing to make the reader feel that they actually are imperiling IM´s life. I say this because I believe IM´s kinda unusual among superheroes, as most of the time his worst or most persistent enemies have been normal human beings, captains of industry like Tony, and not supervillians. If anything, for the most part, the supervillians were mere henchmen for IM´s true enemies. Ah, but the Mandarin WAS the exception. There has been a lot of debate on the internet over whether he´s a racist caricature, a stereotype of days gone by, without room in these our (cough, cough...) more enlightened times... . No doubt at the beginning he was, like perhaps it was inevitable given the time period in which he was created. But the character has evolved quite a bit since those early days. For the life of me, I´ll never understand why nobody could draw inspiration from Byrne´s "Dragon Seed Saga", for my money, the best Mandarin´s characterization ever. If not directly from it, at least something loosely based on it. Mr. Byrne´s much maligned but, IMO he did a wonderful character refleshing during those IM issues. And since he did it slowly, over a number of issues, it didn´t feel forced or empty. He actually managed to turn the Mandarin into a force to be reckoned with, noble in his own way. yet deeply flawed, regal if at the same time evil. In short, if only for that brief moment in time, the Mandarin was able to join Marvel´s stable of A-list villians. Brief indeed, for no other writer who came afterwards was able (or wanted) to follow that road which Byrne had opened. I guess when the majority of internet users think that the Mandarin´s nothing but a racial caricature they´re mostly remembering the Mandarin from the ´90´s cartoon... . True, because the Mandarin´s not as popular or as well known as the Joker, not nearly as many people got mad about what took place in IM3, but for us, the few, the proud comic book IM fans it was truly disappointing, there´s no way around that. That's a very reasonable complaint there, Doc. I completely get that it's a fully-aware slap in the face to the core, long-term IM fans out there. It's just a little bit like the complete de-personification of Galactus in the second Fantastic Four film. 90% (or more) of the hoped-for target audience will be clue-less, and 10% (or less) will be righteously outraged-- and I guess that's just viewed as an acceptable sacrifice to "serve" the movie as a whole. I, for one, had NO clue at all about the "SPOILER" aspect of the Mandarin's character, and honestly I was HORRIFIED at how he was initially being portrayed by Ben Kingsley. I mean, like Patrick Stewart and Michael Caine, Ben K is capable of signing onto pretty much any awful movie that comes down the pike, with more than a little "what the h$!! was he thinking??" blowback as a result. And that accent, and that Ming the Merciless groove--- ugh, I was dreading that we might have a whole movie of that. It was truly bad. So-- what we then got? Well, it did work okay to serve the plot-- and it did give us a chance to see a Ben Kingsley that, truly, we rarely do. It just. . . it didn't match up to the build-up and expectations at ALL. Maybe arch-nemeses are passe' in our brave, new cinematic world? HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 31, 2013 18:55:29 GMT -5
I am wondering why they released a 'Christmas' movie in May. Just saying... Oh! I did read somewhere (then looked it up and confirmed it) that director Shane Black has a particular fondness for setting his action films during the Christmas Season. . . and that inside all of the violence and explosions and rough language there can be found genuine themes of redemption and rebirth. The films listed are LETHAL WEAPON, LAST BOY SCOUT, LONG KISS GOODNIGHT, and KISS,KISS, BANG, BANG. And now IM3, mind you. I am a hopeless & unrepentant Christmas Avenger, and wasn't at all surprised to feel myself tap into that tingley undercurrent of "Christmasness" as Tony was careening around that snowy little Tennessee town. . . Ahhhhh. . . Hark how the bells Sweet silver bells All seem to say, "Throw cares away. . . " . . . and to all, a Good Night! SantaBelly
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Jun 1, 2013 0:05:49 GMT -5
Dragon Seed Saga? That was right after Armor Wars II, right? Man, I have to dig out those issues and re-read them, been too long since I have.
Well, it's certainly not the Mandarin we are accustomed to reading, but in service to the film(s), I thought enough elements of the character were present that it was good. Kingsley was only one aspect of the villain Mandarin, he played it to the hilt during the beginning and later on, it seemed like he was having fun playing loose and fast with his role. I laughed out loud at certain points over his act.
But the Mandarin was a ruthless businessman who manipulated people and events from the shadows, who believed himself and his tech to be superior to Stark and everyone else, and wasn't afraid to get physical to prove it. The only things absent were that he wasn't Asian and he didn't have 10 alien power rings.
You can make a case for Kingsley being a racial caricature but terrorists have become the new norm of bad guys in Hollywood so this change really doesn't surprise me. I'm kinda glad for the loss of the power rings for how would you explain them? I would think it would require a lot more exposition to do so and would the audience (the non-comic reading audience) buy into it? As HB mentioned, a fine balance needs to be struck between the two main types of fans of these films.
As for More armor vs. More Tony, HB brought up a good point. The armor was broken and wrecked about as much as it was functioning. That helped increase believability for me. It highlights Tony's flaws and forces Tony to act on his own with just his wits and ingenuity, which helped make the armor in the first place.
The perfect scene that reflects this : the Air Force One scenes. How were those people saved? Not with some ultra-powerful weapon or some high-tech widget pulled from his belt, but with courage, knowledge, teamwork, and a lot of luck.
|
|