If you like nonstop action and lots of thing blowing up, you’ll probably enjoy Iron Man 3. If you’re looking for originality, character development, and a chance to give your adrenaline glands a rest – well, you probably wouldn’t be in the theater watching it. Unless, like me, you wanted to do something together with your comic-book-action-hero-loving husband and sons.
One viewer at imdb.com calls it an average movie and says that he (I’m guessing, but could be she) was hoping for a darker story. It was plenty dark enough for me, thank you, and so filled with violence that after a while I started letting my eyes glaze over a bit. I just don’t get what’s entertaining about explosions.
Special effects are impressive, I suppose, if you like special effects. Personally I don’t like watching people’s bodies look like they’re turning into molten metal.
I found myself wondering how much of the stuff that got blown up was real as opposed to cheap models of the real stuff. If all of even most of it was models, they’ve gotten pretty good at making it look real. But I suppose movie-makers these days do gets lots of practice at it – all the previews before the movie were just as violent.
I enjoyed the first Iron Man movie and thought it was a nice change from the superhero movies I had watched before with my husband and sons. I know when a story (movie or book) is good there’s always a desire to extend the characters and their circumstances into sequels. But they very rarely have whatever it was that made the original so good.
There were some good scenes. Just not enough. And when a bunch of comic book fans are writing negative reviews of the movie, I know my reaction is not just because I’d rather read a book than watch an action movie.
But I did like the kid with the potato gun.