WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

"Iron Man 3" - What Did You Think?

Posted: May 3rd, 2013 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
"Iron Man 3" - What Did You Think?Submit Comment
The third "Iron Man 3" installment, which is also the first film in the second phase of Marvel's cinematic universe, is now playing in theaters. If you already had the chance to see it, we want to know what you thought. Write your mini-reviews in the comments section below.

On RottenTomatoes, "Iron Man 3" has a 77% fresh rating, down from 92% in just the last five days. Many critics agree that Robert Downey Jr is great in the movie and there are fantastic special effects, but the plot begins to fall apart. Even with its problems, almost everyone found it entertaining.

The new movie cost about $200 million to make, but has already grossed over $300 million internationally. Experts believe that the film will earn around $177 million during its opening weekend, getting one of the biggest debuts of all time.

Click here to read our "Iron Man 3" review.

Source: WorstPreviews.com

Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 140 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
YoungChris writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:46:26 AM

It's was a good movie .. Way better then Iron Man 2 thats for sure .. 8/10 ...
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:59:18 AM

Man, what an easy article to write. No news, no work, just ask people what they thought. Let them do all the work. And yet, you can't be bothered to do anything for us, like banning the spammers, adding an edit post option, or washing the cat crotch off Dustin's tongue.

Anywho, haven't seen Iron Man 3, but if it's even slightly better than the number two, it's worth the two hours.
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:09:08 AM


disappointing after all the positive buzz - strongest side was the humor but the story was weak,the villains were lifeless and RDJ was on autopilot.could have been better with a different director and a better script.
j-man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:13:31 AM

Once the 'twist' was revealed, the film became horsesh*t
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:24:55 AM

^^You mean the twist of The Mandarin being Killian's puppet?
supaflywill writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:36:28 AM

should of kept the same director - story was crap - hardley any action - boring and nothing new - villans were crap - something outta x men , kingsley was the only funny bit in it , was really excuted about this movie but i was overall dissopointed , i rekon this is a big kick in the nuts for marvel ....if the man of steel looks good as it looks and the story most of all is good then it will blow iron man outta the water
supaflywill writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:36:53 AM

should of kept the same director - story was crap - hardley any action - boring and nothing new - villans were crap - something outta x men , kingsley was the only funny bit in it , was really excuted about this movie but i was overall dissopointed , i rekon this is a big kick in the nuts for marvel ....if the man of steel looks good as it looks and the story most of all is good then it will blow iron man outta the water
supaflywill writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:37:55 AM

should of kept the same director - story was crap - hardley any action - boring and nothing new - villans were crap - something outta x men , kingsley was the only funny bit in it , was really excuted about this movie but i was overall dissopointed , i rekon this is a big kick in the nuts for marvel ....if the man of steel looks good as it looks and the story most of all is good then it will blow iron man outta the water
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:51:09 AM


you bad bad boy
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:51:43 AM


i agree with you 3 times
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:52:40 AM

f*ck it, Rambo. Not like Iron Man 3 is worth the secrecy anyway.
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:00:27 AM

i agree but the fanboys won't
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:01:50 AM

^^Meh. The crying of fanboys is music to my ears, Rambo. Maybe they'll sing me a Nolan serenade too.
Taco writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:07:06 AM

Shane Black never wanted the Mandarin in the movie. Said it was a racist caricature. So I believe him and the studio decided to go with the route the movie takes. A compromise for all. Purists will be upset but its the mivie version not the comics. I give it a B+
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:11:16 AM

I watched the first Iron man again yesterday - such a great movie,I love the first act,how the arrogant starks is reduced to nothing in the cave and Yinsen sacrificing his life... defiantly the best marvel movie.
Deaft0ne writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:27:45 AM

More people are going to be pissed that Star Trek Into Darkness is a blunt-force remake of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan than The Mandarin being some p*ssy alcoholic weird theater actor instead of the real villain in Iron Man 3.

JonDrama writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 9:15:50 AM

Great film, much better than IM2 for sure anyway, but better than Iron Man? Probably not. Shane Black was a great choice and RDJ was brilliant as always, still hate Paltrow though
Maacho writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 9:16:39 AM

I was quite disapointed about the Mandarin, I had hopes to see more of the real Mandarin. I didnt mind the twist, but it would've been better if there was another twist, like ben kingsley hade Killian under a mindtrick or something, to save his own ass.
pornfly writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 9:17:57 AM

just saw your post for New Superman Poster...
Awful just awful and in such poor taste

I didnt say anything about it not being funny tho
Deaft0ne writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 9:25:52 AM

lmao I just saw it too.

You Will Believe A Man Can Die
thelazybum writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 9:34:28 AM

For me the twist was not the letdown, it was the whole President thing they brought to the plot.totally mundane.and how did tony stark end up in Tennessee from Malibu is exactly where i started to lose it.if not for rdj and ben kingsley this movie could've been worse than IM 2.
Bunny X writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 9:49:50 AM

well we all know IM3 will do great at the box office. So does it even matter how good or bad it is? I mean the marketing machine behind it alone is driving this film past all others this summer.

I will say this though. The more I see of The Man of Steel, the more I am liking it. I think this will be the surprise dark horse winner this summer.
Im actually started to get more excited to see MoS than IM3.
Malcontent writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 9:50:51 AM

Oh Mink. You bad boy. Dropping spoilers and acting coy. For the most part the people on these sites are not concerned about spoilers or are already in the know. Seriously Mink, all these exciting posts you make. Does it make your imaginary girlfriend laugh?

Dirt writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 10:29:46 AM

I don't understand the bitching for this movie. I thought it was the best of the series.

I like that it feels like a Shane Black movie, I like the idea behind this movie. Tony Stark is Iron Man, in or out of a suit. It is a good progression of character.
Fightclub1 writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 11:03:50 AM

I enjoyed it. Not as much action as the previous two but still really worth your $8. I give it a 31/2 / 4, better than the second not as good as the first but on the right track
WV-Films writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 12:25:50 PM

It was Ironman Forever.
UltimateActorTenor writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 12:41:27 PM

I loved it. It was the Iron Man sequel we have all been waiting for. The humor was great, the action was awesome. It was a genuinely good Iron Man movie. But I still like the first better.
CelluloidMan writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 1:07:37 PM

None of the sequels can touch the original...great redemption arc of "the man that has everything and has nothing..."

Everyone was perfectly cast and had chemistry while the technology was grounded.

The first part will always be the one to beat.

Jaros428 writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 2:15:41 PM

"I'm blue da ba dee da ba dy"
BadChadB33 writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 2:27:42 PM

Just got back in from seeing it. Like everyone says better than the 2nd but not as good as the first.
witwicky-potter writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 2:42:17 PM

The trailer misled alot of us.I was expecting action that would blow my mind but nope.when the critics said it was better than The Avengers and when Whedon asked wht he would do after what Black did in IM3,I really thought I'd be blown away.I think when the critics praised it,they were refering to the story which had a bit of realism to it and not the action part(I blame Nolan for this type of Story telling)..It felt weird,dint feel like an Iron Man movie at all
defiant1 writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 3:08:39 PM

Less than impressed. Not enough action. The whole thing felt very sad. Kinda felt like I did when I got done with Dark Knight Rises. From what I got from the rest of the crowd, none of them were thrilled either.
on May 3rd, 2013 at 3:48:55 PM

Spoiler alert. Minkowski is a pedophile
SoftimusPrime writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 4:01:27 PM

A great movie but Favreau's departure from directorial duties was bad. Shane Black is a legendary writer but as a director he's a bit generic.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 4:16:21 PM

I prefer ephebophile, PLASTIC d*ck.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 4:26:53 PM

Star Trek reviews are mixed


"Offering a nonsensical mess of conspiracy theory, 'Into Darkness' ends up becoming something stuck midway between a muddled Truther metaphor and a nearly beat-for-beat remake of the identically-plotted 'Star Trek: Nemesis,' widely regarded as the franchise's worst entry," Lesnick writes.

If Lesnick faults "Into Darkness" for borrowing too liberally from "Nemesis," Ain't It Cool News' Mr. Beaks (please let that be a pseudonym) chastises it for aping "Wrath of Khan" too liberally. He gripes that Abrams has diminished the good will he established with his first sprucing up of Kirk and company.

"The problem is right there in the title: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' insists on its own weightiness. That it forces its hand by shamelessly pilfering from the greatest big-screen Trek of them all is unforgivable," Mr. Beaks writes. "It's so misguided that, frankly, it makes 'Star Trek' '09 look like a lightning-in-a-bottle accident."
jikae writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 4:27:30 PM


All right, seriously?? You guys all liked the movie? The only good part about the movie were Robert Downey Jr, Ben Kingsley, and a little bit of Guy Pearce. As comic books fans, which I'm not too familiar with the Iron Man stories, how could you like this movie?

1. They made The Mandarin as a present day Osama Bin Laden-type who is actually played by a British theater actor.

2. The whole concept of the Extremis virus didn't make any sense, meaning the only way to destroy them is by blowing them up, but the Chick lies dead on a powerline and the guy gets shot through the gut. WTF.

3. Pepper Pots is now a superhero? Since when?

4. Tony Stark takes his arc reactor out? What? And in the end, they say that "Iron Man will be back".

There are so many other things to write about, but those are the 4 MAIN points of the story that absolutely make no sense to me. Can anyone explain those to me?

One more thing, yes, the Iron Man films and Tony Stark had a lot of great humor, punchy one-liners. This film was basically Lethal Weapon with only one white guy. The plot was something out of a 90's action movie; bland, predictable, and just plain sad for a 2013 Marvel film. Not completely surprising since it's done by a guy who wrote films in the 90's.

Ever since Disney officially took over, Marvel hasn't been as strong as they used to be. (Also happened to Pixar; ie: Brave)
pornfly writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 4:38:56 PM

they shouldve waited till Into Darkness was released before they made the decision to just hand Star Wars over to this guy
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 4:54:45 PM

@jikae: You're f*cking retarded if you think the action movies of the 80s and 90s are worse than f*cking comic book movies. You just can't compare sh*t like Iron Man 3 to films like Lethal Weapon and The Long Kiss Goodnight, and if you think Marvel makes more enjoyable films than action flicks at the height of 90s cinema, you're deluded as you can get.

What the f*ck is wrong with kids today?

@pornfly: Agreed. I was just thinking last night my support of Abrams for the new Star Wars film and his partnership with Valve in making a Half Life movie is probably all wrong, and all the folks who felt differently are right.

Basically Abrams gutted Wrath of Khan to make his Nemesis, and that can't be good.
Deaft0ne writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 4:58:59 PM

If you read the link I posted, the guy is mad that STID is mostly just STTWOK but more flashy and abrasive. A main contention is the buildup to Kirk dying instead of Spock behind the glass feels very ham-fisted.

Kirk is then brought back to life by magic Khan blood to forego a 'Search For Kirk'

Most reviews praise the performances, especially Benny c*mbatch but say the story is stupid and very contrived by mashing up Space Seed/Wrath of Khan/unnecessary bullsh*t with Klingons and they look like the Lizard guy from Enemy Mine, not like traditional Klingons.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:02:07 PM

@jikae: All I'm saying, and maybe I was a bit harsh, is that you just can't throw Iron Man 3 in there with The Last Boy Scout. Maybe, MAYBE Iron Man 1, but not 2 and 3, and I think the first film was just an exception anyway.

Just can't believe it's come to this. Can't believe it's come to bashing Shane Black. Dude wrote some of the best action movie one-liners ever.


And in retrospect, The Avengers is totally forgettable. Worth the two hours and ten bucks, but no more. Haven't even thought to watch it again since last year.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:08:23 PM

@Deaft0ne: As a Star Trek film, I hated the 2009 reboot. Sure Quinto looks like Spock, and Saldana looks kind of like a black woman, and sure Urban with a rug and a thick accent can roughly ape McCoy, but all the other performances were WAY off, and the entire film made no sense. There was no moral, there was no sense of family. Everyone was fighting with everyone else. A fist fight here, a love triangle there. And Bana's villain was terrible. No menace. Just a really stupid guy who should have used his time travel abilities to undo the damage done, instead of nuking Vulcan.

IMO, Roddenberry had a gifted vision of what the world would look like when all stopped fighting among ourselves and started exploring space. Roddenberry was a PACIFIST, really, but Abrams went and murdered the man's soul, injected lens flares and blurs, and turned his vision of a united humanity into a bunch of spoiled Dawson Creek c*nts fighting amongst themselves to a background of exploding planets.

I hate what Abrams did then, and I hate it now. He's made Star Trek profitable again, true, but the spirit of what made Roddenberry's vision truly exceptional is long dead.
jikae writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:14:20 PM


I LOVED 90's movies. Demolition Man, Last Action Hero, ect.. Those were great movies, but if you re-watch them now, they do have a campy feel to them, but they are still great. I have to put Iron Man 3 in the same boat as those movies because this is directed AND written by Shane Black.

I'm just saying that maybe he's not made for the newer summer blockbusters. You have to have great story AND effects. In the 90's, you can get away with a cliche story, but have amazing visuals. That's why most blockbusters now get ripped to shreds. See: Prometheus, Transformers, Cowboys & Aliens. They all have amazing effects and are directed by more than capable directors, yet they fail in the eyes of the fans because of what; story.
jikae writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:16:08 PM

In the end, I saw this at 9:00 pm last night in Pasadena, the new "midnight" showing, and NOBODY clapped at the end. I've never seen a first showing where nobody clapped, EVER. So, maybe I'm not alone in this. Just saying.
Deaft0ne writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:16:16 PM


Yeah and after hearing about what STID really is, I don't even want to see it in the theater. Wrath of Khan was a hell of a movie because it was a sequel to a TOS episode and that was and still is a very original idea and has not been done since.

You truly do sympathize with Khan's thirst for revenge against Kirk and Kirk absolutely understands why along with the audience.

Elements like that is what makes the original Star Trek truly great. In Star Trek 09 I really only liked Karl Urban as Bones and Bruce Greenwood as Pike and seeing Nimoy as Spock Prime. The rest of the movie felt like pissing StAr TrEk into snow.
supaflywill writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:28:42 PM

@ I p man

Yeah , the joys of re buffing lol
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:33:31 PM

@Jikae: sure, some 90s films are campy. That's a spot-on observation. Demolition Man, Judge Dredd, almost anything with Stallone. And you mentioned Last Action Hero, but the thing is, that was SUPPOSED to be a total parody of action films. In other words, it was written as a comic lambast of action films from that period. It was a total parody, and people, for some reason, just don't get it. Dunno why.

Anywho, again, you're right. Films back them were a little on the goofy side, but then they were fun too. They weren't all dark and serious and realistic and gritty. They were FUN, like movies in that genre are supposed to be. Sure, action films now are more serious, more deliberately well made, like Nolan's entries, but the fun, the sense of excitement, the smiling and laughing you get from watching them, is all gone.

Sit through The Last Boy Scout without grinning once. I dare you. Won't happen. Now try to find a reason to smile in Iron Man 2, or The Dark Knight. It's not there. No fun, no humor, no playfulness. Cinema went and traded it's youthful joie de vivre for bitter old man cynicism.

But I must concede that I never thought Black was up to the task, to be honest. I said over and over again he's just not that strong a director. I said someone else should helm, and he should write. I said that several times over the last year. Was I right? Maybe.

Anyway, it's hard for me to say more. Haven't seen Iron Man 3, but my feeling is that the bulk of the film's failings are more thanks to Marvel, as was the case with Iron Man 2 being used as an Avengers setup, than Shane Black's directorial inabilities.
jikae writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:44:29 PM


I agree on all your points. I was just really disappointed that a Marvel movie let me down so much. I guess in the end, nobody can have a perfect record.

For the record, if Iron Man was an original character, without a comic book background, Iron Man 3 was a great movie. However, knowing the backstory and all the lore behind it, that's what made it disappointing.
Deaft0ne writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:44:42 PM


One of the primary reasons Shane Black got the job to direct Iron Man 3 was because him and RDJ became very close friends when they did Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang. I think in an Esquire interview with RDJ he said "Shane Black is my sister from another mister."

So when Jon Favreau declined helming duties on Iron Man 3, Kevin Feige asked RDJ for suggestions and he championed Black to do it.

Saying all that, it is not really a bad thing if Iron Man 3 is a throwback to an 80s/90s actiom movie in it's tone and style. Too many action movies nowadays are on some eternal heavy period and I would like to see some motherf*cking fum spirit for a change.

Deaft0ne writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:45:55 PM

action, fun^
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:46:50 PM

@Deaft0ne: I agree. Sure the original movie series had some stinkers. The Search for Spock was a blur. The Motion Picture was a bombastic bore. The Search for God or whatever was downright silly. Generations was decent but was contrived just enough to kill Kirk in the most idiotic of ways. Insurrection I don't even remember. Nemesis was better but still firing on half its cylinders. First Contact made little sense. The Voyage Home was more fluff than true Trek.

Only Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country, imo, really stand out. They both address some mature issues while firing off some well-used Shakespeare, and more importantly, they remain fun while still offering a lesson.

In Khan, it was Moby d*ck, the story of Ahab's vengeance that ultimately destroys him. A powerful tale in any media. In the Undiscovered Country, it was racism, the hatred of a group of people for the actions of a few individuals. The hope for peace and unity where before there was only division and discord. Not as powerful as Khan, but a hell of a lot more powerful than Spock's Mormon brother space-jacking the Enterprise to go anal probe God.

To me, that's what Abram's films lack. The first one in 2009 was about revenge, but it had no weight and the revenge angle made no sense. The effects and the teenage prancing upstaged any moral, which was diluted to begin with. And now in STID, which reads like a venereal disease, vengeance is once again being used, so much in fact Abrams lazily appropriated Wrath of Khan like the way Webb appropriated Raimi's Spiderman.

Since when is plagiarism acceptable, much less celebrated?

f*ck that.

STID looks superficial and slick and uncreative and heartless, and as I said before, imo ST ended with Nemesis. I hope other people wise up and tell Paramount where to shove their cynical franchise reboot.
AndyInCleveland writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:50:09 PM

I loooooove listening to all you nitpicky pedantic little people. A DECADE (not all that long a time mind you) ago barely ANY of you could conceptualize a single IRON MAN film, let ALONE a trilogy, let ALONE a trilogy that has been worked into a narrative bigger than itself!!!!! What does it take to please you arrested development victims?! This movie was great! Do you REALLY think that an asian overlord with ten different "blasty magic ray gun rings" would have worked in the universe that this franchise exists in? Hey! I know! let's have Grey Gargoyle and Whirlwind in 4!!! Because direct interpretation and two villain team ups gurantee QUALITY!!!
Deaft0ne writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:50:33 PM


Yeah I hope that Paramount lets JJ ruin Star Wars and reboots his Star Trek reboot with a more sensible creative team.

Turning everything into L O S T is just patently retarded.
Deaft0ne writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:52:53 PM


I like Iron Man 1, 2 sucked, I am willing to give 3 a chance.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:53:33 PM

@Jikae: Did you read the Extremis comic storyline? Now that would have made a bad ass Iron Man movie imo. Really good, and I thought that's where IM3 would go.

Also, making Kingsley a puppet was, is never a good idea. The man stole House of Sand and Fog away from Jennifer Connelly, and as hot as she it, an old ugly man like Kingsley upstaging a beauty like her takes some major f*cking talent.

Really misleading too. You think Kingsley is going to play the ultimate bad ass villain, only to discover he's a fake and the real baddy is some other guy who couldn't carry the Mandarin's water.

Guess it makes sense, then, because China would never buy into Iron Man 3 if the Mandarin was a bad guy. Has to be some evil white guy behind the scenes just like in 24 where there was ALWAYS a white guy pulling the strings, as if to say, white people are always the ultimate villain because "colored" people are too dumb to not have good plans of their own.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:55:25 PM

" Do you REALLY think that an asian overlord with ten different "blasty magic ray gun rings" would have worked in the universe that this franchise exists in?"

You're absolutely correct, because Green Goblin aliens falling from the sky on Ewok speed-o-bikes on the set of Transformers 3 really screams cinema verite, right?

f*ck off.
IronDeadpool writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:56:21 PM

I am a huge iron man fan and from what I had gathered from the trailers and story leaks were my favorite storyline a were coming in but no they took what I loved about extremist and the mandarin and sh*t on it I actually cried a little at everything they just f*cking threw away and I am upset at what now has to be built upon this for avengers 2 I would rather watch iron man 2 any day of the week my childhood was rped in mega 3d
Deaft0ne writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:57:14 PM


But Arnold Vosloo was hilarious in season 4 of 24 as Marwan because the producers later said he was based on The Joker and reveled in pissing Jack Bauer off.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 5:57:28 PM

@Deaft0ne: Thanks for that info regarding RDJ and Black. Didn't know as much but I did suspect it, not that having a friend like RDJ is a bad thing, seeing as how Black hadn't had real work since KKBB. And now with Iron Man blasting off, looks like Black has a second chance. Pretty f*cking awesome. For him.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:00:14 PM

@Deaft0ne: Vosloo always makes a hell of a villain, no doubt, but IIRC, he too was a pawn, right? Unlike in season 3 when Saunders, who was white, didn't have anyone pulling HIS strings.

Political correctness is just downright silly.
Deaft0ne writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:03:46 PM

Yeah regardless of reviews I think Iron Man 3 will clear a billion and that is 2 birds: Downey remaining as Stark for Iron Man 4 and Avengers 2&3, and Shane Black receiving a much deserved Phoenix-like career rebirth and being in demand again.
jikae writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:04:04 PM


Thank you! Finally, a sensible man.

Michael Bay was to Transformers as Shane Black was to Iron Man.
Deaft0ne writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:05:29 PM


Yeah Marwan turned out to be a pawn, he told Bauer as much when he fell to his death in ep 18 or 19 IIRC.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:07:09 PM

Hey look, people, I wanted The Dark Knight to be The Long Halloween, but you see how that went...
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:09:11 PM

'Men in Black 4': It's happening

j-man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:10:27 PM

@mink aye lol
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:16:31 PM

Habib f*cking marwan - now that's a villain.
Deaft0ne writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:17:03 PM


rofl@the grueber!
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:21:39 PM

one of my fav Arnold Vosloo moments:

Tanman32123 writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:35:40 PM

I'll watch this tomorrow, Most likely... Probably..
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:38:57 PM


you'll mostly like to watch it...mostly...
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:39:50 PM


the third one was pretty good imo :-) nice time travel story with a heart warming twist in the end.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:42:40 PM

@Tanman: you'll like it. Just go ahead and say it:


And I'm watching IM3 now.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:45:42 PM

@ip_man: MIB3 was one those movies I saw for free in theater by just walking in and sitting down. Not bad. Had a good story, but Brolin is no real stand-in for TLJ imo even if he did nail his accent. And probably not enough alien quirkiness to satisfy fans of the first film.
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:48:37 PM

yes,but generally compared to other threequels (hope i got it right) it was surprisingly good.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:54:20 PM

You're right. It was certainly no Alien3, Terminator 3, Spiderman 3, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, Superman 3, Highlander 3, Transformers 3, POTC 3, X-Men 3, Batman Forever, Robocop 3, Matrix Revolutions, Poltergeist 3.
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:56:44 PM

and blade 3
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 6:58:20 PM

though matrix 3 tops my list as the worst - what a total disaster that was..
pornfly writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:11:37 PM

Wassup with BillyBlanks' 'Balance of Power'
and those 'The Circuit' movies?
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:14:02 PM


lol :-) the first clip summarizes the main problem of that pile of sh*t - lots of pointless characters we didn't care about.
a movie showing morpheus taking a sh*t would have been more interesting.
pornfly writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:16:46 PM

And i need a recommendation for a first time Stephen King reader
from anybody that gives a crap
TAN/MINK in particular
Thx in advance
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:23:48 PM

@Pornfly: IT, if they can read "big" books, or Christine/The Shining if they want a smaller book.

Blaze is also good.
cress writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:26:51 PM

Most of the reviews I've rewd for Star Trek have been very positive. I don't really want to know spoilers ahead of seeing the film, so I try to avoid them. But so what if it has smatterings from WRATH OF KHAN in it? It's following the alternate timeline storyline created with the 2009 film. If you hated that film, and you are a Trek purist, I guess you're automatically ready to hate anything that follows it.

I think WRATH is the best Trek film. But I enjoyed the hell out of the 2009 film. People gave a sh*t about Star Trek again after that film. And that's why INTO DARKNESS have the biggest box office of any Trek film ever. If you ask me, Rick Berman and Brannon Braga almost destroyed Trek. They were "Yes Men" who kept taking Paramount's paychecks, when they should have put on the brakes for some quality control. NEMESIS was an embarassment.

I'm not an uber-fan. I grew up loving the original show, seen the episodes and films numerous times, loved Next Gen as a tv series(not so much as films), and grew tired of seeing a new show being introduced every couple of years.  And I love Abrams first film. And I'll be in line for this one.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:28:02 PM

@ip_man: I recall one critic Neo and Morpheus had cameos in their own movie, referring to Revolutions. It was that bad.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:32:13 PM

@Cress: I don't give a f*ck if the masses rediscovered Star Trek with Abrams' pieces of sh*t. The masses really just mean the iPhone Generation. What I DO care about is the spirit of Star Trek, the spirit of Gene Roddenberry. It's not about purism, it's about the vision that man had for the future of humanity, and Abrams' shallow, superficial, glib and pretentious re-renderings don't come close to Rodenberry's heart and soul, his vision. THAT'S the problem.

And STID is more than just a smattering of Wrath of Khan references. They ripped off huge chunks of the original film because the *ssholes in charge couldn't come up with anything fresh and innovative. Just a f*cking remake with stupid teenagers, lens flares, blurs and explosions.
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:32:45 PM

yep,I guess Lana was in charge of this movie while her brother was more in charge of the first two
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:35:01 PM

And no offense to you Cress, but I think you just saw ST as space opera with ships and robots and laser guns, Star Wars for nerds instead of dorks, because if you think what Abrams has done is just as good as say, TNG or TOS, then you've missed the entire point and purpose of everything Roddenberry tried to accomplish. You've missed entirely the spirit of Roddenberry's vision, or barring that, you just don't care about the vision part.

But I do.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:40:53 PM

The top comments from the above clip:

THIS is "Star Trek" at its finest- cultural, political, and educational debate without interference of selfish bias, or sexy skintight outfights and flashy explosions to tantalize the eyes.

Regardless of if a great actor is saying the lines or not, this scene is one of the finest in the franchise.

and another:

This epsiode is essentially one hour of five people sitting in a room talking, and it's easily one of the most gripping hours in television history.

cress writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:41:25 PM

Sure, Nero was a weak villian with lame motivations. But what f*cking villian isn't these days? And all Pine had to do was exude c*ckiness, arrogance, and charm to play Kirk, which he definitely nailed. No one can emulate the Shat, just Kirk's personality traits.

You can pick the story apart in any given afternoon, but as an initial, gut-reaction, it is a extremely entertaining film. That's just my take, anyway.
Stapes writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:41:32 PM

I guess Mandarin couldnt have been responsible for his actions seeing as how this is a chinese joint. Iron mans colors, red and yellow. f*ck this movie, I'll spend my American dollars on Man of steel.
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:47:58 PM

I think people have lost their patience for these kind of shows ever since the internet,Iphone and all the other crap that makes people's minds numb and looking for cheap entertainment aka michael bay look a like movie with explosions and pretty young faces.

I take JJ's vision of star trek for what it is - a one time brainless fun viewing of sh*t explodes with lens flares.

but there are some TNG episodes I watched 10-20 times which are far far superior - Timescape,clues,Yesterday's enterprise to name a few.
WallyDee writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:48:00 PM


That first Matrix clip had me in tears from laughing! Damn that movie was horrible! so was reloaded by the way.

I already gave my opinion twice about Iron Man or is it Iron Pepper....? Or Iron Mr President Patriot...? Or Iron Remote Control Man..?

He ends the movie AGAIN by saying ''i am Iron Man''
YEAH RIGHT! after seeing f*cking everybody in an armour.
cress writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:49:10 PM

Isn't that what they did with WRATH OF KHAN in '82? The criticism of the first film was that it was long, preachy, and boring. These aren't my words--I liked ST:TMP for what it was. But Paramount wanted to kick it up a notch into a more high-octane adventure film, because that's what moviegoers were wanting. That's what the market dictated, and it changed and adapted for the times.
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:51:20 PM

"He just kept talking in one long incredibly unbroken sentence moving from topic to topic so that no-one had a chance to interrupt; it was really quite hypnotic."
SACdaddy writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:52:14 PM

The film had its moments but in general it was nothing very impressive and definitely not worth the hype. From what I've read it seems that people were just happy it was better than IM2, as if that was a decent measure of quality. The plot was chaotic, the villains were underwhelming, and there is absolutely too much levity in the face of infinite danger. Anytime some suspense builds they cool the flames with some stupid joke that feels completely out of place. When will they stop trying to make Iron Man into Spider-Man? I don't remember him having a joke for every situation in the comics, that was Spider-Man's gig. Sure it fits RDJ's acting style but after 3 films I'm starting to not like the monster Marvel has created. All that being said, RDJ still carries that film well enough to not completely be bitter about the experience.

I have to say, after The Avengers this IM film's premise feels very lacking in importance and weight. From a marvel universe standpoint this film has little to no baring on the overall story. That not damming in itself but it just seems underwhelming, kind of like the storylines behind the new Bond films. I grew up watching Bond fight global terrorists hell bent on world domination or something on that grand of a scale. Now he's fighting degenerate gamblers and disgruntled MI6 employees. There's just nothing very important at stake anymore. This IM feels the same, there's just nothing of any real consequence going on. Even kidnapping the President seems minor after an alien invasion. In the long run its just subplot or epilogue of a much bigger thing that actually feels a little unnecessary
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:53:25 PM

And *I* will make them pay for what they have done!
SACdaddy writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:54:37 PM

6/10 for a few good laughs and action but an ultimately useless story.
WallyDee writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:55:57 PM

Never really watched Star Trek, I did enjoy the 2009 movie very much do.

I hope they dont f*ck up the sequel....
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:56:46 PM


Star Trek the motion Picture was a blatant and boring rip off of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and as such, it was poorly received by audiences, giving that Star Trek had been up to that point, about adventure, largely.

Fact is, Paramount sold out Star Trek for money by making TMP a 2001 rip-off, and only returned to what Star Trek fans wanted and had come to expect with Wrath of Khan, so instead of Khan being the sell-out, the betrayal of its ideals and principles, it was really TMP that betrayed Star Trek's vision and spirit.

You have it backwards, I'm afraid.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 7:59:49 PM

@Wally Dee: Just think, Paltrow can do her own superhero movie. Call it "Iron Potts", and part of her secret identity is making Tony some schwarma.

SACdaddy writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:01:23 PM

I did like the buddy cop routine going on between Rhodes and Stark towards the end of the film. At times it felt a little like Lethal Weapon 2. Didn't last long enough though for me.
Ip_man writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:02:21 PM


agree with your review.good humor but that's about it.
cress writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:02:58 PM

@Mink. Don't you think that Roddenberry's vision is more readily recognized in a television series than a feature film? It's hard to convey that in a 2 hour film, but damn easy in a 22 episode season, year after year. Point is, Roddenberry's "vision" has taken a backseat ever since WRATH OF KHAN, little by little, with each subsequent film. The message might be there, but it's obstructed by all the subterfuge of space battles and action set pieces that a feature film (and studio execs) demand. A lot of Trek fans I know say they would much rather have a Trek television show than a feature film. Do you share that sentiment?
WallyDee writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:10:10 PM

I didnt like the f*cking humor at all, it was just to much, they were forcing it and throwing it at you the entire length of the movie.

In the beginning i was laughing at a couple of tony's one liners but an hour and 400 one liners later i was like enough is enough.

First they introduce us to a new armour wich looked horrible by the way, and then they constantly take a sh*t on it by having it fall apart for like 3 times in the movie!!
Failed attempt at slap stick...

Cinemaisdead writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:14:59 PM

Mink- That's f*cking crazy, the amount of effort and time that must take I don't think I'd have the patience for it.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:15:49 PM

@Cress: All of the ten first films had a message, a meaning, a vision. You say after Khan it was all space battles, but The Search for Spock had few, the Voyage Home had none, The Search for God's d*ck had none that I can recall, Generations had little, First Contact few, Insurrection few, and Nemesis a few towards the end, like Khan.

Most of the films really weren't about space battles, then. Few that I can recall. Khan, really, had the lengthiest space battle of them all, IIRC.

And you say a movie can't do what a season of television can do, but you fail to see that 45 minutes of TNG had, has far more thought to it than three or four times of Abram's vision. Compare a Measure of a Man to Abram's 2009 film for instance.

As for your question, I'd prefer both, but they're never going to make good thoughtful Star Trek again like TNG and DS9, so why even waste my time dreaming about sh*t that'll never happen?

Star Trek is dead imo, and all that remains is the corpse Paramount animates for money like a dancing 'Weekend at Bernie' animatronic at the local carnival.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:16:48 PM

@Cinema: me either. Stop motion totally boggles my mind.
SACdaddy writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:17:00 PM

@Wally: I had the same problem with Pepper too. This whole film questions whether the man makes the suit or does the suit make the man, but at every turn they show you that anyone can get the job done in the suit. I didn't really get what they were trying to say. Also didn't like how ineffective thy made Iron Patriot but made Iron Pepper a f*cking killing machine. Wtf?!?! She's a secretary/GF with NO combat experience or experience even wearing the suit. A line or two about her test driving the equipment or at least working out would have made it more believable but this lazy ass director never let that cross his mind.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:22:31 PM

^^Right, Sac, like Black had total creative control...
WallyDee writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:25:59 PM


Couldnt have said it better myself.

All the way up to end i was hoping Tony had like an alternate War Machine armour built as like a surpise for Rhodes and that he was gonna give it to him at the end when all the other armours show up. You know because they were arguing about it a couple of times and Rhodes didnt want to admit that War Machine was a better name!

I was so let down when Rhodes got his armour back and just flew off like that never to be seen again.

I think a lot of people were disappointed by that and wanted to see more action from War Machine since he kinda is the underdog and secretly a lot of people like him more then Iron Man...
WallyDee writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:26:35 PM

cress writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:31:44 PM

@Mink. You don't have to do this, but I'd be interested in seeing the "message, meaning, and vision" of all the Trek's after KHAN, as interpreted by you. Not a synopsis, but where the thread of Roddenberry's vision runs through each film. It would give me greater clarity. I can see Roddenberry's vision easily in the tv series, but the film's are a different beast to me. Thanks.
SACdaddy writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:37:08 PM

God I hope the rest of this year's "blockbusters" don't continue down this recent path of mediocrity. If Thor, Fast Six, Star Trek, Superman, Hangover 3, and Elysium are this lame I'll be pretty disappointed.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:40:54 PM

Anyone taking bets on which celeb will die next?

My money is on Nick Nolte.
WallyDee writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:50:33 PM


So do i!
Really Looking forward to Man Of Steel the most of all! Im a big Superman fan and im just really CURIOUS to what that movie is gonna bring us.


Amanda Bynes maybe....
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:52:06 PM

@Cress: sure, the movies are a more commercial venture, I agree, moreso than the television series which was supported by commercials, but still, if you can't look at a film like Insurrection, which addresses the future of genetic engineering and the foibles of the so-called "perfect society", to see the thoughtfulness of the movies as compared to Abrams' Micheal Baying of Star Trek, dunno what to say.

Hell, critics complained Insurrection was basically one big TNG episode, so they couldn't win.

In any case, TSFS was about friendship, family, the bond between Kirk and Spock and their extended family being made whole again. The Voyage Home was about conservation, of the importance of non-human life here on Earth. Star Trek 5 was about the foolishness of trying to find God outward when God can only be found by looking inward. The Undiscovered Country was clearly a metaphor on racism, and on the fear between the US and the Soviets in an age of glasnost.

Generations was about the choice between the security of complete safety and the danger of taking chances and living life. First Contact was about Picard's Captain Abe complex and the foibles of vengeance. Insurrection I already addressed. Nemesis...the completion of Data confronting death in his final quest to find his humanity.

Abram's 2009 movie? Sexy teenagers in skin tight clothing blowing sh*t up.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:52:59 PM

You people are going to be REALLY angry if Man of Steel doesn't meet your expectations...
SACdaddy writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:55:08 PM

Btw what was up with that PTSD sh*t? Tony seemed to handle the action in the Avengers just fine. Dude momentarily flies into another dimension and suddenly he's having nightmares and panic attacks about it. You'd think he was on the Event Horizon or something and had just returned from hell. Really f*cking dumb and insulting to those who actually deal with that condition imo.
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 8:57:32 PM

"Really f*cking dumb and insulting to those who actually deal with that condition imo."

You know a lot of people with their own Iron Man suit and who fly into parallel universes?
WallyDee writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 9:00:30 PM


Honestly i dont have any expectations AT ALL.
Again, im just so f*cking curious about this movie i cant wait to see it just to see what they did.
Im not even watching anymore trailers, i only saw the first one where you just see him flying vertically into the sky.

Im preparing for the worst, so if im gonna be disappointed i wont even get angry, ill probably just be like...........YUP they f*cked it up! figures...

I didnt watch any of the Iron Man 3 trailers either, I gotta say its a very diffrent feeling sitting in the theater when the movie starts.
WallyDee writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 9:04:52 PM


I thought that was lame too! I remember a lot of people complaining about him solving his ''dying'' problem in Iron Man 2 so easily, but meanwhile in this movie he just kinda walks off his ''post traumatic stress''
cress writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 9:11:55 PM

@Mink. While I agree that the 2009 film does not have such grandiose ideas as previous films, I think that is due to what it is. It plays on the nostalgia factor for old fans while introducing new fans to the series. It concerned itself with the introduction of the world and characters, in much younger form, and the script focused upon that. I think the film would've been bloated and bogged down if too many sub-plots were thrown in. As such, and I hope, INTO DARKNESS will be more "meat and potatoes", and have more depth in the human drama.
Tanman32123 writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 10:00:19 PM

Mink and IP

Lol obviously I'll see it, And I doubt I'll HATE it, So it'll get a decent review regardless.. Like it is Iron Man for crying out loud. He's an awesome Superhero and played very nicely by Downey.


I'd say Go with The Shinning. The first King book I read was "The Long Walk" It's a good book, But it's just them walking.. The occasional death every chapter or two, But it's just them f*cking walking for 300 pages lol
pornfly writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 10:10:32 PM

Thanks guys
that clinches it
I was gonna go with The Shining
I only read Pet Cemetary

I think your ex hacked into your account and requested me to serenade her to bed
TheFirstRule writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 10:18:28 PM

in a month 6/10
minkowski writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 10:23:09 PM

Iron Man 3 = boring.
SACdaddy writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 10:38:01 PM

@mink: know no one with fictional Iron Man suit but do know plenty of soldiers that suffer from real PTSDs. Needless to say, its not a pleasant condition from what I can tell. I guess it just seems too serious to throw into a film that makes fun of itself so much. They treat the ailment just like they treat everything else in the film...as a f*cking joke.
velocityknown writes:
on May 3rd, 2013 at 11:57:27 PM

As a comic book adaptation? I don't know and I'm really not invested in how loyal it is to the source material (not saying anyone is wrong for putting weight into that, just saying, it's not a huge concern of mine).

As a Marvel film? Best one yet in my opinion. Loved it.
velocityknown writes:
on May 4th, 2013 at 12:29:52 AM


I see what you're saying and think you certainly make valid points, but I think Iron Man 3 (barring Iron Man 4) would provide a nice ending to this trilogy and Tony Stark story.

When we first meet Tony Stark, he's self-centered, reckless and has little to no regard for those around him. His experience in the cave and becoming Iron Man certainly changed that, but I think what this film set out to prove is that ultimately, that suit was a band aid. I think this film did a very good job to conclude Tony's evolution and ability to exist as a good person without the suit. He'll always be Iron Man, but I think the important here is that he doesn't NEED to be Iron Man anymore.

As for the PTSD stuff. Look, my dad was in the Army, my sympathies for people suffering from PTSD range pretty far, but I hardly think the treatment of it was bad in this film. Tony was suffering from some minor PTSD as the events in New York made him realize there were forces beyond his comprehension that could do him serious harm. I don't think the film ever suggests that Tony gets over it, but I do think it puts him on the right path to get past it. We don't need to see him get over it, just in a place to where he can begin to work at it which is a place I think he's at at the end of this film.

I'm not necessarily offended that they used humor to deal with PTSD either. I mean, the alternative is taking it really really seriously and when you take something that seriously, people keep it at an arm's length because they're afraid to grasp the weight of it. If you treat it with some humor, it humanizes it a bit and makes people more comfortable with it.

As a piece in the overall Marvel picture, this movie probably lacked weight, but as a standalone film and Tony Stark character piece, I don't believe it did at all. Saving the president was the story, but it was all part of getting Tony to the place he was at the end. A piece that involves the larger Marvel universe gets us something like Iron Man 2, ya know?

Sorry. I wrote too much. Like, I said, I think you're opinions (and many here) are certainly valid (which is why the film seems to have become very divisive among critics as well), but for me, it really worked. Maybe it could for you too on a second viewing? Here's hoping the other summer releases won't disappoint you in the same way (or me for that matter, I'm excited for a lot of films).
Han0 writes:
on May 4th, 2013 at 3:30:03 AM

This movie was dragging like crazy with unnecessary scenes. The movie didn't take itself seriously and had too much humor. I wish War Machine could duke it out to but oh well..
BTW what movie do ya'll think they'll introduce phase three in?
Han0 writes:
on May 4th, 2013 at 3:31:40 AM

Han0 writes:
on May 4th, 2013 at 3:32:51 AM

Phase two*
Tanman32123 writes:
on May 4th, 2013 at 6:19:09 AM


She does that time to time
python6 writes:
on May 5th, 2013 at 1:05:21 AM

I THOUGHT that i was going to see an Ironman movie not a batman movie
seveltoto writes:
on October 24th, 2017 at 7:09:35 AM

aleale writes:
on November 10th, 2017 at 6:43:56 AM

aleale writes:
on November 10th, 2017 at 7:06:11 AM

sevelace writes:
on November 14th, 2017 at 12:34:19 AM

recreator9 writes:
on November 15th, 2017 at 12:06:12 AM

nikitavirza writes:
on January 17th, 2018 at 2:12:02 AM

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

"The Flash" Movie Hires Director

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"

Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved