Rate the last film you watched



  • Sinster 7/10  I like a good Horror movie, but was not scary.....!
    I watched the first of StarTrek 2009 again.  Auto-pilot was destroyed, but he set a course and did not have to stay there.  Could have used a transporter and etc, since the ships defense systems were working on auto, could have gotten on the shuttle.  That is the problem with star trek 2009.
  • Iron Man Three
    The girls and I went and saw this last night and enjoyed it.
    They hadn't watched the first two movies but didn't mind RDJ in the Avengers and were happy to go see this. (So Marvel must be high five-ing themselves about that)
    There were also some complete surprises in this movie that I didn't expect at all. So nice to see a movie 'unspoiled'. The trailers don't give everything away!
    I liked it far better than IM2 and probably more than IM1... but that might be because I didn't like the final action scene in the first movie.
  • edited April 2013
    Skyfall --- 8/10
    I have to say I'm a bit disappointed, given all the hype this film had.  I dunno... there's really just not much to it.  The first part of the movie spent a lot of time establishing that Bond is old, washed up, and a substance abuser... but then they went absolutely nowhere with any of these physical and mental struggles.  I was expecting some sort of payoff to this, but nope, by the end he turned right back into the typical action hero.  Basically, based all the positive word-of-mouth, I assumed there would be a bit more substance to it than the "Some men are coming to kill us, so we're going to kill them first" story it ended up being.  Still, it's a pretty slick and extremely well-made film.  Roger Deakins' cinematography is nothing short of gorgeous, Thomas Newman's score is excellent, and of course Javier Bardem turns in a really great, performance as the villain.

    @fredclips --- You lucky dog, getting to see Iron Man 3 already!  It doesn't open until May 3rd in the U.S., and the wait is just killing me!  On that note maybe everyone can refrain from posting too many spoilers until it opens up in the U.S.?  Or at least, be sure to use the spoiler tags!!!  :)
    EDIT:  Yeah, what is up with the international release dates recently?  The world gets Iron Man 3 a week before the U.S., and it looks like the same thing will happen for Star Trek Into Darkness, too.  I find that a bit odd, seeing as how J.J. Abrams and Bad Robot are so strict about spoilers "leaking" out...
  • Iron Man 3: 6.5/10
    I didn't enjoy this as much as I was hoping to. One of the characters in the middle part of the story I found irritating (and in fact, a lot of that middle part could have been dropped to make it a more pacy film)... I'll say no more to avoid spoilers. That aside, it was a pretty good romp and definitely worth a watch for fans of the franchise/superhero flicks in general.
    Personally I thought IM1 the best, and I actually enjoyed IM2, which seems to be uncommon!
    Citizen Kane: 8/10
    Continuing my film education, I watched this the other week. There's a great story, and the general experience was compelling. There are also a fair few cultural references I actually understand now, which is nice.
    While the storytelling style and cinematography were apparently innovative and well ahead of their time, this wasn't obvious to me, having watched it after various hundreds of films which succeeded it and probably reused the ideas, so it wasn't as great as perhaps it ought to be.
  • EDIT:  Yeah, what is up with the international release dates recently?  The world gets Iron Man 3 a week before the U.S., and it looks like the same thing will happen for Star Trek Into Darkness, too.  I find that a bit odd, seeing as how J.J. Abrams and Bad Robot are so strict about spoilers "leaking" out...

    Here in Australia we are used to getting movies 'way' late.
    Sometimes stuff is held over for months. Thankfully that only happens rarely now, I'm guessing they are trying to stop a bit of torrenting!
    TV is the biggest problem for me! Just try to keep yourself spoiler-free for Game of Thrones or Walking Dead while just randomly browsing the internet  :dry: 
    However, it does always seem a little strange when I see something before it's out in the U.S.
    Nice... but strange  ;) 

  • TV is the biggest problem for me! Just try to keep yourself spoiler-free for Game of Thrones or Walking Dead while just randomly browsing the internet  :dry: 

    Ugh yes, +1.
    Although I'm willing to forgive the Americans for wanting to watch their TV shows first (though 6 months to a year later is a bit harsh!)

  • AdyAdy Staff
    edited April 2013

    Ugh yes, +1.
    Although I'm willing to forgive the Americans for wanting to watch their TV shows first (though 6 months to a year later is a bit harsh!)

    I finally got round to catching up on The Walking Dead, but I'm now getting woefully behind on Game of Thrones. I really need to watch them as Sky are due to upgrade my box shortly & I'll lose them all! There just aren't enough hours in the day!  :wacko: 
    Commando - 8/10
    This for me is Arnie at his best, it doesn't matter that I've watched film possibly 100 times or more, I still watch it every time it's on & pretty much quote every line. It's stupidly over the top, devoid of any real story & full of cheesy one liners like; "Don't wake my friend he's DEAD tired" & "Remember, Sully, when I promised to kill you last?... I lied!"
    Ace Ventura: Pet Detective - 7/10
    After finding out the girlfriend had never seen this, we decided we would watch this & I would educate her on a comedy master-class that was Jim Carrey's earlier movies. And although people can't stand him, I actually still really like this movie. For obvious reasons it has dated a little & I'm not sure she enjoyed it as much as I did, but on the plus side, now when I quote "Like a glove", the girlfriend at least understands where it comes from now!

  • edited April 2013
    Super 8 6/10
    Great atmosphere, great effect, great acting. But I found the story to be a little bland and unemotional. Had some good scares though, and the cinematography was great. But I couldn't help but feel uninvolved, and distant from the characters. I really wanted to enjoy it, but sadly I couldn't enjoy it nearly as much as I thought I would. Largely due to what I though was a overly simple story, and a distinct lack of emotional involvement.
  • Pain and Gain 6/10
    This is a classic Michael Bay movie... saturated bright gun battling fun that has tons of dolly shots where they circle around an actor as they appear to stand up outside.  It's a funny movie but not Ted funny.  If you've seen Bad Boys 2... think of all the "funny moments" like Martin Lawrence getting shot in the butt.  That's the kinda humor.  I saw this movie Sunday morning for 7 dollars and as long as you are not spending that much money on tickets and know what to expect by way of a Michael Bay movie...
  • edited April 2013
    Ugh! Michael Bay.
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator
    The Avengers - yeah, I know. But I rewatched this recently and enjoyed it even more second time round. That may be due to not being surrounded by idiots in a cinema. While it's far from flawless, the structural sleight of hand used to shoehorn such disparate characters into a single movie while maintaining some kind of verisimilitude is really quite impressive. Whedon's commentary is also well worth listening to, particularly from a screenwriting perspective.
  • edited May 2013
    To The Wonder - 6/10
    I absolutely loved The Tree of Life, so I had high hopes for this, coming so shortly after that.  It certainly seems to work as a companion piece of sorts, but it's lacking in a few key areas.  It's a stunning film to look at with gorgeous cinematography and excellent locations, and I never once wanted to stop watching, but there's a distinct lack of dialogue that I didn't particularly think the acting could make up for.  In traditional Malick style, there are whispered voiceover soliloquies that reveal the minds of the characters, but their actions don't really work with it.  
    Affleck in particular is very wooden.  He rarely says anything, and when he shows any emotion at all, it's anger.  Kurylenko does a serviceable job as the field-twirling, free-spirited, apparently incredibly bored and probably self-conscious object of affection, but her character as well is just not that interesting.  Worst of all though, is Bardem's priest, who serves no purpose in the film whatsoever apart from filling time.  His voiceovers occasionally brush with the themes of the story, but overall, he could have been cut out entirely and it wouldn't have hurt the film a bit.  These characters don't seem to have much motivation, and they often feel like marionettes; effigies suspended from Malick's fingers, only here so the landscape isn't the only thing in frame.  I dunno, maybe that was the point.
    The story as well isn't anything special.  It's ground that's been covered countless times in the past more artfully and acutely than it is here.  It can be moving at times, until you realize that it's also incredibly predictable despite it's somewhat fractured presentation.  There's a fair bit of meandering (especially in Bardem's scenes), but otherwise it's pretty straightforward.
    I've been a big fan of Malick's work in the past, and I can't say I didn't enjoy watching To The Wonder, because I really did, but it's probably my least favorite of his films that I've seen.  Beautifully filmed, but it feels lazy, or "easy" compared to something like The Tree of Life, or The Thin Red Line.
    Edit:  Upon further reflection, I've decided that Bardem's scenes were actually more resonant than anything else in the film.  They feel out of place because they are sort of secondary to everything else.  I think if they had cut Rachel McAdams' scenes, and extended Bardem's, it would have been a better film for it.

    A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III - 4/10
    Here's another one that I expected a lot more from.  Roman Coppola made one of my favorite films of 2001 with CQ.  It's quirky and weird and a lot of fun.  A Glimpse Inside... is a poor, poor follow up.  It amazes me that Coppola can go from co-writing a masterpiece like Moonrise Kingdom to writing a complete stinker like this.  Maybe if he had Wes Anderson's help, the fantastical Los Angeles he's conjured would have been a little more down to earth and human.  Instead, we get a horrible mess of nonsense with terrible direction.
    There are some bits that are pretty funny, but overall it feels like Coppola was a little too inspired by his films with Wes Anderson, and doesn't have the talent to use that inspiration to it's fullest potential.  Some shots are very Anderson-esque, but it's brutally obvious that the people behind the camera don't have the same panache that Anderson has.  Especially scenes featuring both Jason Schwartzman and Bill Murray-who have both given incredible performances in Anderson's films-that fall completely flat in Coppola's lens.  The combination of a serviceable, but not remarkable script, and almost laissez-faire direction make the fantasy scenes in this film come off as trite nonsense, and not the quirky artistry that I'm sure Coppola intended.
    Even though the film clearly had some thought put into it, the production itself seems rushed, and it feels like a bit of a pastiche of Anderson films, right down to the finale which is only lacking a slow motion tracking shot, but does "cleverly" feature the main actors introducing themselves to the camera as it makes its way to a large mirror where Coppola gets his cameo.  Oh, and please, let's never hire Charlie Sheen to star in a film again.  He's a truly terrible actor, and just because he earned meme status in 2011 doesn't mean it's okay to cast him in things, even if it's "ironic" and "hip".  Or something.

    Texas Chainsaw - 3/10
    Um...  Well, remember all those other Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies you saw over the last four decades?  This is just like that except with a SURPRISE EMOTIONAL TWIST ENDING OMG.  I think it probably counts as Cabin in the Woods canon.  Definitely.  I dunno.  Hot chicks, cool dudes, road trip, inherited mansion, psycho killer, sex, crooked cops, odd motivations, stupid decisions, umm... skimpy outfits?  Did I mention hot chicks?  This is a major selling point.  If you don't have a girl with huge cans running through a carnival in a button up shirt that's only buttoned enough so it stays on, with a chainsaw-wielding maniac in hot pursuit that apparently no one else notices, it's not a modern slasher flick.  Plain and simple.
    Here's a spoilery description of a couple of scenes that exemplify why you should either watch this movie immediately, or never watch it:  So the road trip crew is filling up their gas tank in their van, and when they're done, they accidentally back up into a hitchhiker.  The hitchhiker is a little dazed, but he's like, "Well, all is forgiven if you give me some of that beef jerky.  Also I will pay you $60 to drive me to New Orleans.  Forget about the part where you just almost killed me."  So of course, our heroes agree, and all is well.  Skip ahead a bit, and we're in the inherited mansion.  The heroine who is the beneficiary of the estate makes the brilliant decision to head into town with her friends and leave the hitchhiker alone in her new house, also leaving all of the keys to various doors in the house on a table in plain sight.  SURPRISE TWIST: the hitchhiker ransacks the joint while everyone is gone and steals a bunch of silver and stuff.  Brilliant plotting; absolutely didn't see that coming a mile away. When our heroes return, they decide to not worry about it and get drunk and have a good time instead, until they stumble upon the hitchhiker's mangled corpse.  Crime doesn't pay, kids.
    Anyway, yeah.  Cabin in the Woods canon.  Hot chicks.  Chainsaw massacre.  Don't watch it.  Or do.  Whatevs.
  • Mass Effect 3 - 8/10
    Great flick.
  • edited May 2013
    This is going to be long, so bear with me.  I have a lot to say; not necessarily about the film, but I think it needs to be said.
    Let me start by saying that I haven't been very impressed by many horror films for long time. Modern horror seems to be dictated by a few basic guidelines that no one has been able to entirely break away from for some reason.  That's not to say that these haven't been used to great effect over the years, only that they've become crutches, and they're to be expected.  When a film subverts these guidelines, it's a good thing, but the films that do so are usually not very popular.
    • Kids (or their imaginations) are scary
    • Things that move quickly or unnaturally are scary
    • Things that happen suddenly are scary (especially when accompanied by a dramatic volume increase)
    • Tormented artists are easy targets for the supernatural
    • Subdued, desaturated color and dim lighting is the only way to sell a spooky atmosphere
    • Etc.  You probably get the point

    There have been a good handful of films released over the last few years that have promised to scare the wits out of their audiences, and all of them have left me rolling my eyes.  Paranormal Activity, The Last Exorcism, Insidious, Sinister, V/H/S, and so on.  These are films that have interesting and promising premises that inevitably fall flat for one reason or another.  Insidious has a wonderful atmosphere for the first half or so, but it completely falls apart into unintentional comedy in the final act.  I remember seeing trailers for some of these films that were allegedly shot in cinemas with night vision cameras, showing the audience screaming in delight and throwing their popcorn everywhere in reaction what's on the screen.  This is, incidentally, something I have never seen anyone do in all my years of movie-going, and I don't actually believe it is something that exists outside of fiction, but I digress. ;)
    So the problem for me is that these modern horror films are hyped up like they're going to make you literally jump out of your seat, or faint, or lose control of your bodily functions, or run out of the theater screaming and sobbing uncontrollably, but they all end up using the same ideas again and again.  The plots of Insidious and Sinister are so similar that you could easily mistake one for a spiritual sequel of the other.  Additionally, if your horror film isn't a one-off, it's a franchise.  There can be no single sequel films in the current market; it's either one film, or at least four, all guaranteed to scare you silly with the same exact premise as the last one.
    I love horror films, which is why I keep watching them despite hating nearly all of them.  I long to watch a film that will scare me like Alien, or The Thing, or The Shining.  But modern horror filmmakers seem to have forgotten (or have been coerced into forgetting by major studios) that tension is what makes people uneasy during a film, and not surprise.  Think of the last time you saw a horror movie that had a great tension-building sequence that didn't end with something jumping out suddenly, accompanied by an orchestral stinger.  These "jump scares" aren't actually scares at all, they're surprises.  What actually scares people is not knowing what's behind that door, or under the bed.  The tension of knowing that something is there, but not being able to see it is far scarier than anything that's going to make you throw your popcorn, or spit your drink at the person sitting in front of you.  But Hollywood horror seems content in letting that tension have numerous releases during the film so that people leave feeling good, and not reeling in terror.
    That's what I want.  I want to watch a horror movie, and not think, "That was awesome, I can't wait to buy the Blu-Ray and show all of my friends", but rather, "I never want to set foot in a darkened room again as long as I live."
    All this being said, Mama comes extremely close, but misses the mark by relying too heavily on those damned crutches of the modern industry.  There is a LOT of tension in this film, and a lot of genuinely creepy and sometimes horrifying moments, but it's still brought down by the standard fare.
    Actual Review Starts Here:
    Mama - 8/10
    Two young girls are taken by their father on a getaway mission after he murders his wife while fleeing from incarceration for some kind of poor business practice or another, or a bad market or something (I must admit, I wasn't paying that much attention to the very beginning of the film.)  They crash in snowy weather, and accidentally make their way to a cabin in the woods.  Here, the father intends to kill his daughters and presumably himself, but before he can do so he is swept away by a mysterious force.
    Five years later, and the girls are feral, and after some initial psychological evaluation and treatment, their uncle and his girlfriend take them in for rehabilitation.  This is where things start to get dark, and I won't spoil anything for you, but needless to say, kids are scary.  Fortunately, that isn't the centerpoint of the horror here.  The aforementioned mysterious force returns to wreak havoc on this makeshift family, and I have to say, some of the scenes in this film are downright terrifying.  I don't usually enjoy supernatural thrillers, but when they're done right, they can be pretty amazing.  
    I would say Mama has three incredibly effective scenes that make the film, and they all involve Jessica Chastain's character (she's really good in this, FYI.  Not like, Oscar-nomination-good, but she plays someone completely unlike the characters she's become known for, and she nails it) learning something about the titular 'Mama'.  These aren't the only effective scenes, by the way, only the ones that resonated the most with me, and made me think to myself, "This is what I want from a horror film."
    The main themes here are loss and isolation, and they're fairly well thought out.  The acting is very good, even from the children, who are usually fairly wooden in a film like this.  You can tell that a lot of care went into the production, but as I stated earlier (and spent far too long introducing), it still falls back on 2000s Hollywood standbys.  "The False Alarm", "The GOTCHA", "The OMG WHAT IS THAT", etc.  There are also some very strange lighting issues that I couldn't quite get past.  When it's dark outside, why are all of the windows bathed in warm light from outside in the interior scenes?  Why, when it's dark in the house, are all of the windows bathed in light from the inside for the exterior shots?  Very odd, and I don't really understand why that happened.
    But really, these are nitpicks.  Mama is the first film in a while to legitimately fill me with terror, and while it still has a somewhat saccharine ending, and I didn't leave it shivering and constantly looking over my shoulder, it was immensely satisfying, even if only for those few absolutely bone-chilling sequences.  Even though it sticks with the familiar at times, and still lets its audience recover from the tension, it's a very well constructed film, and I haven't been able to say that about many horror films lately.  I can't wait buy the Blu-Ray and show all of my friends. ;)
  • John Dies at the End - 8/10
    I can see how this would be a polarizing movie. I loved it, others will hate it. Think Naked Lunch crossed with Fight Club. I love Coscarelli so, I was sold on this when I first heard about it and it didnt disapoint. Fringe fans, I predict, will enjoy this movie. Its on Netflix now so, check it out.
  • DanielGWoodDanielGWood Moderator
    Argo: 9/10
    The best, most enjoyable film I've watched in some time. The story is amazing, even more so for being largely true, the performances of the cast, including Affleck, excellent. Half an hour in, the film becomes edge-of-set tense, and then it holds you there right to the end. The only fault I can find is it's beginning, which didn't have the same depth of feeling as the rest, surprising given the content of the scenes.
  • edited May 2013
    Iron Man 3  9/10  
    I gave it a 9, because in the movie there were a few things that just bugged me, but the FX was good in it.  The dialogue was good in this movie and funny at times.
    Now the new Star trek Movie, I got mixed feelings on it, but we will see how good it is.
  • DanielGWoodDanielGWood Moderator
    Star Trek Into Darkness: 8/10
    Action-packed Abrams space-romp. In a similar vein to the previous one, so if you enjoyed that you're likely to enjoy this. Benedict Cumberbatch steals the show naturally, though Zachary Quinto does some great Spock-running.. Sporunning.. Sprunning.
  • King Kong (1933) - 12/10
    Of course, I'd seen this before, but I recently picked up the blu-ray, and watched it again, along with the series of superb featurettes on the making of the film, produced by Peter Jackson.  The movie is as enjoyable as ever to watch, but after watching the special features, and getting a deeper understanding of the way it was the inception of monster films, the first film with a relatable character that was entirely a special effect, the first film to use sound design, the first film to use a modern-style film score, how it involved the invention and development of several visual effects techniques which continued to be used for decades afterward, I appreciate it even more.  It accomplished more to advance filmmaking and special effects as an artform than any one film has a right to, which earns it a higher rating than a film can possible get.
    Jack Reacher - 4/10
    I enjoyed this much less than expected.  It never surprises, the action is unremarkable, and the performances unimpressive.  Except Robert Duvall, who turns in his typically excellent performance.  The film's chief flaw is that it feels so formulaic and contrived.  That and a complete lack of motivation for any of the villains.  That and the fact that the actual basic plot is so absurd.  Well, that and the fact that nothing is resolved at the end, and our 'hero' walks off and leaves his partner to answer for his plethora of massively crimiinal activities.
    An evil construction company (who naturally happens to keep a small army on retainer) frames a veteran sniper for 5 random murders, to hide one murder of someone who didn't want to sell them a thing, and thus would stop them digging a hole or building a bridge or something. Because taking what they can is what they do.  Well plotted, guys.
  • Star Trek Into Darkness: 8/10
    Action-packed Abrams space-romp. In a similar vein to the previous one, so if you enjoyed that you're likely to enjoy this. Benedict Cumberbatch steals the show naturally, though Zachary Quinto does some great Spock-running.. Sporunning.. Sprunning.

    Am I the only one that really felt Chris Pine stole the show?
    Also, excellent movie. A great and worthy, fun, funny, action-packed sequel to a first film of the same caliber. 9/10.

  • The Great Gatsby: 8/10
    While the acting was a little stiff at times, the visuals, music, and casting were spot on. There was a ton of special effects in this movie, Some where easy to point out, and others were very subtle, and completely seemless. I would like to see it again for the camera shots alone. If you have read the book they basically took it right from there. Were there a few subtle changes? Sure. But very true to the characters. Love the way they used modern music interwoven into the music of the 1920s. IMHO it totally worked.
  • Just got home from Star Trek. I agree with every one else. I really enjoyed the banter between the crew. 8/10
  • Seven Pounds 8/10
    Fantastic film, wonderfully acted, shot, and scripted. It kept bouncing in between a love story, a feel good movie, and a depressive drama which worked well, although perhaps focused too much on the love story and too little of the other strangers he helped. As it progressed, it did seem to become very predictable more and more, which kind of felt like I had already watched it before despite it being my first viewing off this film.
  • DanielGWoodDanielGWood Moderator
    Am I the only one that really felt Chris Pine stole the show?

    I found his character's journey in this film (arrogant -> growing up a bit), a bit too much of a repeat of the first film, so I was wondering if he's actually able to play a different role.

    The Fast and the Furious 6: 7/10
    Another entry in everyone's favourite film franchise, with a few fast cars, lots of silly jokes, and a defiant ignorance of physics. The extended fight scenes featuring ex-wrestlers and polished bald men are becoming a staple, but are nonetheless entertaining. There is also a record-breaking scene in the finale when all pretence of reality is cast aside, whilst somehow remaining gripping. Chronology issues with earlier films are resolved, and some car stuff also happens.
  • edited May 2013
    Warrior 8/10
    A super gripping drama about a broken family. The MMA fighting was cool, but mainly interesting because of the emotional significance of each fight. Superb acting all around and some pretty good direction. My only problem was with the ending. While it worked, it still felt a little unfinished.
    Star Trek into Darkness 9/10
    I honestly haven't had more fun watching a movie. I recommend this for anybody. Loads of fun! and while I thought Chris Pine was very good, Zachary Quinto's Spock stole the finale(and by stole I mean punched it in the face). Great movie, I feel like the fun almost bogged down the logic in the story though. Which is why I gave it a 9/10 instead of 10/10.
    Clue 6/10
    Goofy, funny, silly and sometimes pretty smart. A decent popcorn flick.
    The Hunger Games 7/10
    I liked certain aspects of it. Peculiarly Jennifer Lawrence, but having read the book it felt dull in comparison. Lacking some of the most emotionally important scenes that really sold the book for me. Slightly disappointing, but still pretty good.
  • Clue 6/10
    Goofy, funny, silly and sometimes pretty smart. A decent popcorn flick.

    Clue is definitely a good time, but if you enjoyed that, I'd recommend checking out Murder By Death.  It's a similar conceit, but it's a little smarter, less slapstick, and it's written by Neil Simon and stars Peter Sellers, Alec Guinness, David Niven, Peter Falk, and Truman Capote, among others.  Also stars Eileen Brennan, just like Clue!

  • edited May 2013
    Star Trek Into Darkness - 8/10
    Really, really fun movie, this.  There was a fair bit of unnecessary fan service that took me out of it a little, but no more than the last one had.  There also was kind of a lot of stuff that seemed like rehashing of the last film (and obviously some of the fan service felt like a rehash as well), but overall it worked out just fine.  Absolutely loved the ending.  Cumberbatch is God, and so on.
    Also, without going into too much detail, whomever edited the trailers is a master of the mislead.  The marketing in general is genius in this regard.  I thought I knew what to expect from the film, but it turns out I had next to no idea.  Bravo.
  • DanielGWoodDanielGWood Moderator
    Also, without going into too much detail, whomever edited the trailers is a master of the mislead.


  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator
    edited May 2013
    Star Trek Into Darkness - 8/10
    Absolutely loved the ending. Cumberbatch is God, and so on.

    SPOILER! ;)
    Iron Man Three - 8/10
    Well, that was jolly good fun.
    The good Marvel movies (Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2 are OK and have their moments, but are below the standard of the rest, for me) manage to be light hearted, hugely fun and frivolous and silly and gloriously over the top, without descending into Michael Bayish irrelevance and stupidity. They've nailed the lightness of touch that Spielberg and Lucas used to bring to the adventure genre back in the 70s/80s (and which JJ Abrams is doing a pretty good job at more recently).
    It's that delicate tightrope of being fun and frolicky, but still having enough substance to make it all worthwhile. In Iron Man 3 I had a great time, but still cared enough about Stark and those around him to be involved in the drama.
    IM3 has the action and spectacle of IM1, the character and heart of IM2, and that ever-elusive satisfying climax that Marvel always find tricky to pull off.
    Increasingly, for me, this seems to be the style that resonates the most when it comes to comic book movies. I have far more time for Marvel's cartoon+pathos universe than I do for Nolan's po-faced, SERIOUS universe (which is still inherently silly, and thus doesn't work so well) - which is also why I'm a little cautious about Man of Steel.
    ALSO: It's pretty rare to have a part 3 be decent in a movie series, let alone this good. Can't think of many other examples.
  • edited May 2013
    Iron Man 3 - 5/10
    I agree with Simon that it was fun, and there were parts of it that were quite enjoyable.  The score was great, the dialogue was witty, and the whole subplot with Stark and the young boy was excellent.  And the climax was quite strong.  But there were a few major issues, which I will discuss within the following spoiler tag.
    Firstly, the tone of the film was all over the place, rather than striking a balance of comedy and drama, it felt like it was continually bouncing back and forth between the two and couldn't make up its mind.  But that wasn't a big deal.  There seemed to be a massive separation between Tony Stark and Iron Man in this film, as if they were different characters, which was in complete contrast to the whole "I AM Iron Man" theme they were trying to run.  In the climactic battle, there are Iron Man suits flying all over fighting all the bad guys, but Tony Stark wasn't Iron Man, Jarvis was.  The suits were being completely controlled by a computer entity, and Start didn't even need to be there.  I think Iron Man saved Stark more often in that sequence than Stark actively saved anyone else.  And it felt like the writers tried as hard as they could to keep Stark out of the suit, which made it end up feeling more like a Tony Stark movie to me than an Iron Man movie.  Iron Man ceased to be a man at all, and became a computer, thus hugely damaging the central character the plot hangs on.  Rather than using the Iron Man suit, Stark runs around with a handgun having anxiety attacks.
    Secondly, The Mandarin.  Relegating Iron Man's arch-nemesis to a drunk joke of an actor was a bad call.  If it had been a different character, other than The Mandarin, then it would have probably worked, but this was, as one of my friends put it, like Nolan making the Joker a banjo player in a circus.  Taking a well established super-villain and relegating them to a punch-line isn't cool.  But then, maybe this was necessary to bring him down to a level the new Stark could handle.
    Also, what's with the new suits falling apart if they take a hit any more significant that an ordinary punch.  You'd think after 42 tries the suits would get better, but these aren't nearly as durable as the earlier incarnations in the other films.  The suits are flimsy, Stark can't keep himself together, he's saved by his girlfriend who accidentally got superpowers from a shot that was supposed to kill her, the villain is actually just a joke, and the day is saved by a computer controlling a bunch of Iron Robots.  After writing this out, I'm wondering if its worth the 5 stars I gave it.
Sign In or Register to comment.