kzap

May 3, 2013 2:49 pm As a stand-alone story I thought this was great, I think people are complaining because it's NOT a shared universe story, apart from a few nods. Which I think it just what we need, bogging down the stand-alone films in continuity and lots of characters is not a good thing, they should just tell a good story and be entertaining, which this was.

May 3, 2013 2:46 pm Fair, enough you're entitled to your opinion (unless you thought the second film was better, then you wouldn't be entitled to anything :P). I'd give it a 4/5 as summer blockbuster/superhero film. I think i would give the first one a 3/5, it might be higher if it had a better third act, an area the sequel also failed and the third film excelled in my opinion.

May 3, 2013 1:25 pm @JokersNuts Sure but only loosely, they're written and produced pretty independently, Iron Man 2 was connected to Captain America that didn't stop it sucking or the latter being good. I think my comic book analogy holds up, Hawkeye is connected to Spider-Man, they're both in the same universe, they may even cross over at some point, that doesn't mean because one is good the other will be too. I'm not saying you shouldn't be excited for Thor 2, you have the right to be excited about whatever you want, I'm just warning you that the quality of this film isn't a prediction of the quality of that film.

May 3, 2013 1:08 pm Out of curiosity Paul, what did you give the previous two films? I think 3/5 is a little low, espeailly considering how mediocre Marvel films were before The Avengers.

May 3, 2013 1:05 pm Exactly, you've said what I've been trying to far more succinctly. People on this site usually have great taste, so it's sad to see so many people hating on a good film just because it wasn't what they expected. There's no doubt in my mind it's better than the previous two, anyone who prefers the second is simply nuts.

May 3, 2013 1:02 pm "Disney was cool with that but not booze" That's the same double standard all western mainstream media has had for a long while. Just look at television you can have a character murder someone but you can't show nudity or say the word "fuck", even though those last two are far more common place and less morally repulsive. More people complain about gay sex scenes than implied rape. Even though I liked the film, perhaps more than you, I don't see how it would make you more excited for Thor 2, it's got completely different writers and directors. It's great you're excited for that film but keep in mind they only real link is the studio. It would be like getting excited for the next issue of Spider-Man because you loved Hawkeye and they're both published by Marvel, the quality of one does not directly effect the other.

May 3, 2013 12:53 pm @LEXPRIME See that's where you and I differ. All I care about is that the film itself is good, you could have a film that's completely loyal to the source material, but if it's not entertaining I won't enjoy it. You have to remember the key part of the word adaption is adapt, which literally means "to change". So if there was a Batman film with an interesting twist on the Joker mythos, like he's an actor, or an alien or a figment of Batman's imagination as long as it was a god film I would like it. In fact I personally like being surprised by films, which is very hard to do with a film based on existing material so when they manage it I think they should be applauded.

May 3, 2013 6:24 am I agree, a 4/5 is probably accurate, although I think I'm harsher on all the previous Mavel films than you and would give must of them a 3/5, except The Avengers which gets 5/5. I think people are just complaining because it wasn't what they expected or wanted, perhaps it wasn't true to the continuity of the comics, perhaps it didn't have the armor in as much but that doesn't make it bad. And unlike The Dark Knight Rises were most audiences are going to see the film for Batman, I think the general public go and see an Iron Man film (and The Avengers) for Robert Downey Jr. I thought giving Tony Stark more stuff to do outside of the armor was the BEST thing they could have done. It meant we weren't left with mind numbing, CGI machines-bashing-each-other sequences which I thought was a floor of the previous two. We got action involving real people and an actual sense of threat because the lead character was venerable.

May 3, 2013 6:12 am Um, isn't the guy the Mandarin 'executed' early in the film seen passed out on the sofa with some hookers? I'm sure that's what I saw when Tony Stark goes to confront him. I thought it all made sense and wasn't 'The Ten Rings' just an out-of-continuity nod to the character because they didn't think they were going to use him? Either that or the villains set the Mandarin up to PRETEND to be connected to them, when he's not really.

May 3, 2013 6:07 am I disagree, I thought this interpretation of Mandarin was great, as was Ben Kingsley's performance. I don't see how the twist is any different to Batman Begins