The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Ironman 3
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9879		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Lydiaa [ Tue Apr 23, 2013 7:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Ironman 3
Watched a midnight screening last night ... Although well done, it rushed in places and totally missed the mark on the others.

Spoiler:
I personally did not enjoy how they portrayed and played out the Mandarin (this isn't a spoiler right? everyone knows he's in this movie?).


While the actions were spectacular, all the other plot let downs kinda made me wish I had just waited for the DVD. Not one I would recommand watching at the movies, unless you're really into blowing stuff up, or had a cheaper movie ticket.
Author:  FarSky [ Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Litmus test: what did you think of Iron Man 2?
Author:  Lydiaa [ Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
I quite enjoyed it... maybe 8ish out of 10?

Don't get me wrong, this movie was enjoyable in that the quirky lines and the giggles were there. But overall the story line for Ironman 2 requires less leaps of faith than Ironman 3.

Without giving too much away, I will simply say they did not do the big evil guy any justice...

Iron Man 3 is like drinking absinthe in the middle of a detox program. It was lots of fun while you're doing it, but you kinda question whether you had fun the next day. It also left a funny taste in my mouth that I couldn't quite shake...
Author:  Khross [ Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ironman 3
Spoiler:
Ben Kingsley is the Edward Furlong of Oscar winners; I blame Uwe Boll. That said, no amount of CGI in the world can make Ben Kingsley convincing in a fist fight with Iron Man. And you can't have the Mandarin without the very real threat of the Mandarin beating Tony Stark's ***.
Author:  Serienya [ Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ironman 3
Did anyone hear about the dispute between Disney and AMC & Regal?

http://www.slashfilm.com/regal-and-amc- ... y-dispute/
Author:  Jhorra [ Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm concerned about this movie. I liked the first one, but the second one was way to long and spent so much time on dumb stuff. Then the bad guy was basically a rehash of the first movie. It was just disappointing.

This one looks good from the trailers, but so did the second one.
Author:  Aethien [ Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
It's funny, but the trailers for this one just haven't turned my crank, so far.
Author:  Numbuk [ Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ironman 3
It's ok. The curse of "The third movie of a comic book series will always 'stank harder than two unwashed skunks gettin' funky'" will always be in effect. It's like a law of physics, except even harder to break.
Author:  Jhorra [ Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:42 am ]
Post subject: 
In this case though it was the second one that stank. What does that mean for the third?
Author:  Talya [ Fri Apr 26, 2013 11:59 am ]
Post subject: 
51 reviews in on RT, and 47 of them are positive.

With that said, the average review is only at 7.7/10. What it sounds like, to me, is that the vast majority of reviewers like the movie and have fun, but don't consider it a particularly brilliant piece of filmmaking. It is what it set out to be...an entertaining action comic book film. Don't expect high-drama or reinvention of the genre. It's just a standard-fare entertaining summer blockbuster.

For the record, these review numbers match the scores that the first Iron Man had (at 93% positive reviews, average 7.6/10 rating), and are significantly better than Iron Man 2 (which was only 73% positive, average 6.5/10 rating).
Author:  FarSky [ Thu May 02, 2013 10:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ironman 3
Well. That was friggin' awesome.

Now I wish Shane Black could go back and retroactively make (have made?) IRON MAN 1 and 2.

Especially 2.
Author:  Talya [ Fri May 03, 2013 10:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ironman 3
FarSky wrote:
Well. That was friggin' awesome.

Now I wish Shane Black could go back and retroactively make (have made?) IRON MAN 1 and 2.

Especially 2.


So far, it's not as well liked by the critics as IM1. But closer to 1 than 2.
Author:  FarSky [ Fri May 03, 2013 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ironman 3
They're wrong. IMO, of course.

Either way, it's a damn sight better than the stinkfest that was IM2.
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Fri May 03, 2013 12:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ironman 3
FarSky wrote:
They're wrong. IMO, of course.

Having not seen 3, yet, I'll interject to defend the first. It doesn't matter how weak the villain was -- the movie's purpose, which it wildly succeeded at, was to establish the character and innovative genius of Tony Stark. All of the most important conflicts in an Iron Man story are not between the hero and his villains, but within the hero and between him and his friends and allies.

Because this is a Marvel character, not a DC one.
Author:  Müs [ Fri May 03, 2013 1:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ironman 3
FarSky wrote:
They're wrong. IMO, of course.

Either way, it's a damn sight better than the stinkfest that was IM2.


What? IM2 was AWESOME! Better than 1.
Author:  FarSky [ Fri May 03, 2013 1:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ironman 3
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
FarSky wrote:
They're wrong. IMO, of course.

Having not seen 3, yet, I'll interject to defend the first. It doesn't matter how weak the villain was -- the movie's purpose, which it wildly succeeded at, was to establish the character and innovative genius of Tony Stark. All of the most important conflicts in an Iron Man story are not between the hero and his villains, but within the hero and between him and his friends and allies.

Because this is a Marvel character, not a DC one.

1 was good. 3 is better.

The only out-and-out bad Marvel Studios film has been Iron Man 2, which was terrible in an almost objective manner. Otherwise, they've all been somewhere on the scale from "pretty good" to "great."

Edit: The fact that this thread is titled "Ironman 3" instead of "Iron Man 3" is bugging the crap outta me. :D
Author:  Müs [ Fri May 03, 2013 2:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
See, I'd rank thusly:
Avengers
IM 2
IM 1
Thor
Captain America
(Still haven't seen Hulk, but eh.)
Author:  FarSky [ Fri May 03, 2013 2:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
Captain America: The First Avenger
Iron Man 3 (these first two are actually quite close)
The Avengers
Iron Man
The Incredible Hulk
Thor


Iron Man 2
Author:  Lenas [ Fri May 03, 2013 2:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ironman 3
I'm sorry, Captain in the first place spot? Go home Farskee, you're drunk. It's good, but Iron Man 1 and Avengers are both superior.
Author:  Müs [ Fri May 03, 2013 2:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
Captain America was boring as ****.
Author:  Müs [ Fri May 03, 2013 2:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
I have zero interest in the character as well, and as a superhero movie, it just bored me. I was fairly meh about the whole thing. It wasn't a bad movie, but It wasn't as awesome as the IMs, Avengers or even Thor.

I expected to not like Thor at all, but I loved it. I wanted to watch it again, I wanted to talk to my friends about it. Cap.. I felt.. Huh, well, that happened. It was a movie I guess. Ah well, let's put in TF3 since we rented that too.

OH GOD WHY!!! OH THE HUMANITY!!!
Author:  Müs [ Fri May 03, 2013 2:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Wait, where did the elf's post go?

Damnit! Now I look like I'm talking to myself.
Author:  FarSky [ Fri May 03, 2013 2:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ironman 3
Thor was half very good (Asgard sections), half boring as hell (anything occurring on Earth).
Author:  FarSky [ Fri May 03, 2013 2:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ironman 3
Captain America captured a genuine spirit of pulpy glee, which I prize very highly, and only three other films (that I can think of at the moment) manage that feat: Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and The Mummy.
Author:  Müs [ Fri May 03, 2013 2:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
Fair enough, but I don't think Chris Evans got the memo about the Glee. He was just... so... bland.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/