I have a new found appreciation for Iron Man 2. I no longer view it as the movie that was a letdown after Iron Man, but the sequel I took for granted that wasn't a total piece of *beep* like Iron Man 3.
Justin Hammer, I personally apologize for considering you an annoying and terrible character. Aldrich Killian showed what that really is.
Hammer and Vanko in Iron Man 2 are definitely much better villains than Killian in Iron Man 3. They had much more focused and clear objectives. What exactly was Killian trying to accomplish?
shareWhat exactly was Killian trying to accomplish?
Are everyone idiots? Does no one get what killians plan is? Idiots... its simple he has a terrorist in the other hand and the leader of america in the other. He wants to create to supply and the demand (war=guns, ammunition, granades etc. Guns=money)
shareNo... He didn't have a terrorist. He had an drug addict actor to take the credit for the accidental explosions of people who got extremis from Killian. And why would he want ammunition? He can do many different skills with fire. I'm sorry but you're incorrect.
share[deleted]
Killian simply wanted revenge. I don't think its much more than that. He did get himself into the mix with the "Mandarin" and the Ten Rings and Extremis, but that ultimately boils down to his being power hungry. And since he is obviously planning to have some control and continue the terrorism streak, I think he is somewhat relatable to Commissioner Gordon's quote, "Some people just want to watch the world burn."
shareWhat exactly was Killian trying to accomplish?
I was just about to post that same feeling. I was not a huge fan of Iron man 2, but your right...IRON MAN 2 was better....Maybe it was that Stark was more in the suit and actually dealing with the VILLIAN he was supposed to deal with. IRON MAN 3 was ok though....
shareIM3 is easily the worst of the series. 1 is the best from a script point of view, 2 has some great action. 3 has the weakest script, villian and use of Iron Man (in suit)
shareCouldn't agree more OP.
share3 has the weakest script, villian and use of Iron Man (in suit)
Great post. I agree with everything you've said here.
It amazes me that people miss this part of the story, even though it was pretty much blatantly illustrated during the second act with Harley. I think some of them hated the idea of the kid being there. Some of them didn't like the idea of an "Iron Man" movie without the suit. But that is exactly what it was for.
Harley served as the guru/wizard to set Tony back on the right path. His purpose was to help Tony realize that he didn't need the suit. The suit was there BECAUSE of him, and his abilities, not the other way around. And that even when the suit wasn't there, the key to what made him Iron Man was always with him.
I loved watching him improvise. The sequence of Tony busting into the Mandarin compound with just the hand-built tools was awesome. And in true fashion, after he proves that he has the heart and mettle to face adversity on his own, without the suit, the suit arrives (in pieces) and rebuilds him to complete the equation.
IM2 tried to show us the faulted side of Tony, but I think the impending death story line got in the way of that. In IM3 it's really about his own doubts and his own personal shortcomings, and I preferred that line and watching him overcome that to find himself again.
•—•
Mrs. French's cat is missing...
I fully agree, I watched both IM2 and IM3 recently, and not in that order, having taken a long time off since the last viewing.
IM3 was a good Iron Man film, story, structure and style. The let down is the weakness of the suits that have previously survived encounters with Loki, Thor, Cap, a helicarrier engine (same suit up to this point) and then the Battle of New York. As a standalone premise, IM3 is only highlighting the strength of Extremis Soldiers, but it doesn't stand to comparison if you watch a run of Iron Man films and then see the suits being destroyed like the carved polystyrene they really are.
IM2 was a lot less shiny and bright than IM3, there was something very real about it and the more I watch it the more I appreciate the whole Expo setting. And yes it has flaws, like how did Vanko know Stark would be on the track long before Stark decided? Did he just know Stark would be in Monaco and wanted to get his attention, and it's only coincidence that Stark was in the Stark Ind. car? Or how the whips can cut through a car, but not Tony's ankle? Nick Fury and Iron Man in a donut diner? (it just doesn't look right to me)
I have always been left with the impression that IM2 has too much going on, that it's bloated, but the whole thing sails in at 2 hours. 2 hours shouldn't be a struggle, but if you just let go, it's not.
Dum Spiro Spero
The entire point of the third Iron Man is to show that Tony is more than just his suit.
Killian is also not so weak a character as you might think.
The ironic thing is that IM1 improvised A TON, cause I remember reading that it didn't have a script!
My Top 100 Movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/hvCjV9XA8is/
I was under the impression that they were trying to own the private market for terror tech (such as extremis), but that seems a small objective considering they'd make tons of cash on extremis without serving as an answer for domestic terrorism. So, it is a little hazy. The revenge-on-Tony element is not totally emphasized as the chief goal either. There really wasn't enough clarity for Killian/Mandarin to do what he did.
Nevertheless, I found myself enjoying IM3 a bit better, but I tend to like Shane Black's writing.
Killian's goal was pretty simple. Surprised most people didn't hear him say it. As stated in the movie, it was "supply and demand." Supply the need for extremis by perpetuating war through the guise of Mandarin and then sell extremis as Killian. The only thing he needed Tony Stark for was to perfect it and get rid of the whole "might explode" side effect.
shareGood precis of the story zetsumi.
Turning to the other aspect of the OP... also after recently watching IM3 in 3D and then just watching IM2 to fill the gap, I tend to concur with the OP in that IM3 was a forgettable experience.
All the gyrations near the end made me want to puke and the lame ending finished the job. I rated IM3 only 4/10.
For the record, I rated IM2 6/10.
well said zetsumi. To add on, Killian's motivation also was that he really envied and wanted to be Tony Stark. He wanted the fame, the money, the admiration, and possibly pepper too. The extremis plan was one way of getting to said position.
shareAgreed. I thought Iron Man 2 was okay at the time...I just didn't like the very end fight with Whiplash. I thought he should he should have been tougher. Still..it was not a bad movie.
Iron Man 3 was not good at all, in my opinion. It will make a boat load of money, but it's awful on many levels. The story, the characters, the ridiculous action sequences where regular people perform miraculous feats routinely (see Rhodes shooting wires and dodging explosions while swinging from a tractor trailer)...a real disappointment.
agreed Iron man 2 is better than iron man 3.
shareI enjoy all three, but honestly 2 is my favorite. It's the one I tend to watch the most. And Vanko is my favorite villain of the solo IRON MAN films so far.
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/
While, I haven't seen this movie since it came out.. I'm pretty sure it's crap compared to iron man 3.. least for me
But I could be wrong.. I'll see if I'm as hostile about it when I re-watch it one day..
Whatever way you look at it the original iron man movie is still awesome.. thinking of moving my rating up to a 8/10 it's my favorite superhero movie bar none.. but my love of the original movie may have tainted my experience of 2.. which was a total letdown.. and I'm sure still is..
IM2 had Favreau and Theroux who cared about a good film and script but as Rourke has said, Marvel was over the top with their management (not surprised with that given Feige's now cemented role in the company). IM3 had Shane Black and, as I think of it, benign neglect from Disney so long as items on their checklist (such as the kid character, one of the few things I didn't hate) were included. Black's involvement led a bizarre element to the picture, but the seeds of a great film were there, lost in obnoxiously loud scenes with the Extremis mutants, ultimately a waste of Rebecca Hall's talent (though it was nice to have her at all, Jessica Chastain would have been great but an even bigger waste given the Hall's character's story) and more significantly, poor plot/scripting, weak pacing, and a plethora of other issues. I will say I loved Pepper's added involvement (physically, plot wise) was great, and her ending up being more than the damsel in distress was great. The destruction of the Malibu home was one of my favorites scenes of the year and a testament to the immense talent involved in the film across the board... it was just one of the few times it came across. I must say, that scene was extremely impressive.
share[deleted]
Agreed. New appreciation!