Iron Man 3

[Wes Blu-ray]

Originally Posted by rjf78

really enjoyed it. sought it out in 2d, 3d can sod off.

to right 3D can sod off.

[caode]

I was stuck with a 3D showing since that's what the first midnight screening was sadly. I don't mind a 3D film if it's done right. Avatar for me is still the only proper use of 3D that I've seen (I still haven't seen Hugo or Life of Pi,although I should get watching them, have them sitting here to watch) but it's clearly just been slapped on as an afterthought with Iron Man 3 to boost the box office numbers.

[Billz]

*Enthusiastically points to signature text, lol. *

[Daz_85]

Funny enough this was the first film I sought out the 2D version also. I've got tired of putting up with 3D unless its a film that was created with it specifically in mind, ie Avatar, Prometheus.

[nametag]

Originally Posted by Daz_85

Funny enough this was the first film I sought out the 2D version also. I've got tired of putting up with 3D unless its a film that was created with it specifically in mind, ie Avatar, Prometheus.

As someone who works in the industry I will say that it's not necessarily a hard and fast rule that something SHOT in 3D will always be better than something converted. If done converted WELL, you can actually fix quite a lot of issues that you can't with a 2-camera setup.

Having said that I still generally prefer 2D and saw IM3 in 2D.

Not sure what the reviewer on this site was thinking giving it 5/10, and the AV Club as well. It's clearly the best Marvel film alongside Avengers, no question. And actually it is more interesting than The Avengers in a number of ways. Looking forward to a Steel I can put next to my IM1

[NoFro]

Originally Posted by nametag

Not sure what the reviewer on this site was thinking giving it 5/10, and the AV Club as well. It's clearly the best Marvel film alongside Avengers, no question. And actually it is more interesting than The Avengers in a number of ways. Looking forward to a Steel I can put next to my IM1

Yeah I have to say that I find the film very similar in tone to The Avengers and, whilst I think that both films take the jokiness a bit too far, there shouldn't be a massive difference in the reviews in my opinion. People who raved about The Avengers and then go on about the "shallowness" of Iron Man 3 are really being a bit silly

[Show spoiler]and those who criticise IM3's villain? Loki was well performed but I can't say he or his minions were at all intimidating. The biggest threat seemed to be the committee who wanted to bomb NYC

.

What's annoyed me most is that a week ago all the reviews were really very positive on RT and yet a week later, after a week of internet backlash, there are a tonne of reviewers now slating the film. This isn't the first film I've seen this happen with. I'm not saying that no one could dislike the film but, when a film has a staggered release, the second wave of reviews (and so on) often seem to reflect the discussions that have come up since the initial release and therefore critique the film differently to those first reviewers (for better or worse) as they try to reflect the public's opinion's rather than their own.

I'd give the film a 4/5 though that could well change with subsequent viewings. I'd also give the first film a 4/5 even though I think it's better but the two films really feel quite different to me so I find them hard to compare.

[Sky_Captain]

The amount of bollocks I've read about IM3, especially dumbasses complaining about the lack of time he appears in the armor(s).

Newsflash: Tony Stark is the main character, not his suit. He has always been the main character and would still be watchable, if he'd stuck to making weapons of mass destruction and shagging hot birds.

He has no alter-ego and unlike certain other heroes out of costume, he's not a boring, humourless ****.

Marvel have snuck out a well written and brilliantly irreverent film, masquerading as a summer blockbuster. They are to be commended, not whined at, because you and your annoying kids, want more CGI shit and don't even understand the bloody character.

Ya done good, Hawkins. Ya done good.

[jamesdl]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

The amount of bollocks I've read about IM3, especially dumbasses complaining about the lack of time he appears in the armor(s).

Newsflash: Tony Stark is the main character, not his suit. He has always been the main character and would still be watchable, if he'd stuck to making weapons of mass destruction and shagging hot birds.

He has no alter-ego and unlike certain other heroes out of costume, he's not a boring, humourless ****.

Marvel have snuck out a well written and brilliantly irreverent film, masquerading as a summer blockbuster. They are to be commended, not whined at, because you and your annoying kids, want more CGI shit and don't even understand the bloody character.

Ya done good, Hawkins. Ya done good.

+1

[Billz]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

The amount of bollocks I've read about IM3, especially dumbasses complaining about the lack of time he appears in the armor(s).

Newsflash: Tony Stark is the main character, not his suit. He has always been the main character and would still be watchable, if he'd stuck to making weapons of mass destruction and shagging hot birds.

He has no alter-ego and unlike certain other heroes out of costume, he's not a boring, humourless ****.

Marvel have snuck out a well written and brilliantly irreverent film, masquerading as a summer blockbuster. They are to be commended, not whined at, because you and your annoying kids, want more CGI shit and don't even understand the bloody character.

Ya done good, Hawkins. Ya done good.

Agreed, but we were complaining about the horribly tacked on 3D, and not the film itself.

(Already seen it twice by the way. Love it more each time. )

[sukraj]

Originally Posted by WesBlurayCollector

to right 3D can sod off.

i agree i hate 3D