deanb Posted May 4, 2013 Report Share Posted May 4, 2013 See, to me it's no different than any of the other films so if you like those I'm not sure why you'd specifically be wanting to pick this one apart. Reveal hidden contents It's been a week since I saw it but I'm pretty sure there was a distraction of sorts involved with Rhodes. Don't forget unlike playboy millionaire Rhodes is a trained soldier without the suit so it's reasonable he'd be able to overpower guards. The Extremis equipped people beat the Iron Man suits several times over (this was actually a big point in the original comic that Tony only beat the Extremis dude by taking a modified Extremis dose himself, and utilising Iron Man suit). They'd also already not accounted for someone, without a suit, breaking into their Miami base so it's reasonable they wouldn't think their Extremis Soldier guarded cargo ship would be able to be sneaked upon too. An incompetent bad guy over confident in their plans or lacking in the audiences full scope and 50:%0 hindsight, it's not out of the realm of possibilities as far as comic books go. Maybe only a secure line can connect through to Air Force One (which'd make sense, why would any random landline have the ability to call the presidents personal plane?) They do go to grab and dismantle the Iron Man suits many times over in the final fight. Also the fights pre-cargo battle are...well Iron Patriot is an ambush, and air force one is a single remote controlled Iron Man suit. The final fight is two dozen or so Iron Man suits versus two dozen or so extremis soldiers, and Stark directly confronting Killian with a wide range of moves between both of them. It was pretty much explained that the FBI had no idea what was causing the explosions to put two and two together. They'd also not really made any specific observations on how weird looking the blast shadows were, just that there was no clear bomb. Even in the real world investigators struggle to match MOs, especially over such long time periods (and geographical in this case too). He sets up a puppet President, he tortures Starks love interest, he cages up Stark, he makes a fake terrorist too, he is a psychopath not a straight cut businessman. He doesn't just want money, he wants control. And he doesn't just have a super soldier serum, he has a broken super soldier serum. so it's not like he could necessarily just pop out and sell it straight off. Super powered bank thieves are also a pretty outdated and useless thing to have as well. And the Mandarin thing was pretty succinctly explained (should've been obvious tbh); he can't just stick his own face out there as the man behind the attacks. Hence an actor (which also gives him full control compared to dumping a bunch of weapons on actual terrorists which semi-fucked up in the first film). Maybe a tad harsh for saying you're wanting to go in hating it. Maybe some other external force. It just seems weird to enjoy all the others then take issue with and pick apart IM3. Especially when you've missed one element: Reveal hidden contents How the fuck did that female agent die just by being blown out the kitchen n landing on cables when main AIM guy survived being inside and exploding Iron Man suit. And how did all the other Extremis folks die, I think some fell to death off like crates and cranes that got cut down, but that doesn't kill Potts. In the comic he only kills the Extremis guy by Blowing his head off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainHurtBoy...2 Posted May 4, 2013 Report Share Posted May 4, 2013 My holes list was not meant to be comprehensive, which is why I didn't include the last part. I don't think any other one of the Marvel films had holes as obvious or gaping as this one. Holes, again: Reveal hidden contents It is not reasonable that he would be able to overpower the guards if he were chained up like Stark was. Why would they not secure him fully? He is obviously a threat. It's not like he can just break out of handcuffs using force. It's not obvious enough that he could escape to simply assume that he does so. The thing is, AFTER someone breaks into their base, it makes sense that they would cover their bases by having someone controlling the Patriot suit. Also, the fact that there were dozens of Extremis soldiers there suggests that they were expecting *something*. The Air Force One thing is just clearly a hole. Why wouldn't he call the President on his cell phone? IIRC, the Pres makes a call on his phone FROM Air Force One to stop the Mandarin from killing that innocent. I'm also fairly certain Air Force One has cell reception, given the fact that some commercial airlines offer cell reception in the modern day. There's no reason for Rhodes to have the VP's number but not the President's. Why wouldn't Killian disable the suit immediately, then? How was Killian v Iron Man even a fight, if he could just tap him and stop the suit, like when he attacks Tony as he's trying to save Pepper? Again, the FBI thing is very obviously an indefensible hole. This isn't just any MO, these are explosions which leave distinctive shadows on the walls. This is *weird shit* that would be recognized immediately. I understand that it was "explained the FBI had no idea what was causing the explosions", but that doesn't mean it makes sense that they didn't realize, or that they didn't make an observation on the profile-shadows. That is objectively strange, inexplicable stuff. The connection would be immediately clear to anybody acquainted with the Tennessee blast. So his motive is that he wants to control everything, and he is a psychopath. Okay, then. Instead of being a nonsensical villain, he's just an awful one with a really poorly-formulated, unnecessarily complex plan whose ridiculousness can be written off because "I guess he's a psychopath". I don't think there were any holes this overt in Iron Man 1, Iron Man 2, or Thor. I think the dialogue in the Avengers was witty enough to mitigate some of the plot's absurdity, and the virtuosity of some of the setpieces offset other negative aspects of the film. I think Iron Man 3 is simply much less well-constructed than the other Marvel films. Though I would be lying if I said this movie didn't make me reconsider my opinion of Iron Man 1 and 2. I plan to rewatch them to see if I'm still able to suspend disbelief, or if they are as riddled with holes as IM3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 5, 2013 Report Share Posted May 5, 2013 Reveal hidden contents Eh, I mainly remember the segments with the fire breathing bit where he first tries to pull some crap, and the bit where he's beating up guards on his way to meeting up Tony. The specific breaking out is not something that jumps out in my mind (which would make me assume it was something carried out reasonably to his skills and capabilities) The fact they have dozens of Extremis soldiers shows they had built an army, something that was previously shown in flashback, and also how they came across finding out that a bad dose/overdose caused explosions. They were just expecting to have the president dropped into flaming barrels of oil, why would they want someone controlling him if it's just expected to hang there then drop? They're wanting to symbolically kill the president, not turn him into an unwilling soldier. I didn't say it didn't have cell reception, just not inbound call capabilities from any old number. You really want to be doing something important and you get a random PPI call or teenage randomly pranking numbers calling the US President? I thought we already covered this: They don't have the power to disable the suits, they have super strength, heat powers, flame breath, and regeneration. The people doing the tennessee blast were not necessarily the same people covering a terrorists bombings. Yes the blast marks look visually distinct to us, and kinda weird, but it's never remarked upon by any of the characters throughout the entire film as being somewhat out of the ordinary. Blast Shadows are a real-life thing (though mainly associated with nuclear explosions). Also even with his database Tony had to broaden his scope to get the Tennessee attack to come up and initially dismissed it as it happened well before Mandarins attacks. He only ended up investigating it by accident. Loki was going to destroy the Ice Giants so his adoptive daddy, who he put in a coma of sorts, would love him. Sam Rockwell had a man broken out of prison so he could make some iron man suits for him to show up Stark, rather than hire a full blown crew of engineers. The man he hired had only two traits going for him; he also disliked Stark and he could build Arc Reactors,which were never used in the suits, of which Rourke had never actually worked on beforehand. Killians plan makes sense. It's a tad convoluted, but it if was dead simple and to the point of "I'm going to kill Stark" then there would likely be a bunch more folks complaining on how dumb the villain was. It's a series that features gods and aliens and frozen WWII soldiers, suspension of belief is kind of a compulsory requirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainHurtBoy...2 Posted May 5, 2013 Report Share Posted May 5, 2013 I didn't say I can't suspend disbelief. I just can't do it in the presence of constant mechanical holes. The world in Iron Man 3 has internal inconsistencies. I didn't think that to be the case when I viewed Iron Man 1 and 2, but it may be so. I thought Loki's motivation was understandable; I could even empathize. Rockwell's engineers had failed him in the past; Mickey Rourke had proved himself as able to build suits that could at least take Iron Man seriously to task. Neither of these plans are the work of psychopaths, and they are much more straightforward than the one in Iron Man 3. They are not comparable. It doesn't need to be dead simple, either. Middle ground fallacy, Dean. Holes: Reveal hidden contents The oil-drilling platform (that we have been calling a cargo ship) is not the main operating base of AIM. Why would they move the Extremis army there if they were expecting nothing? They clearly had security in mind, so it would make sense to maintain some level of control over the Iron Patriot suit. I'm not suggesting they were trying to make him into a soldier; that would be ridiculous. I am just saying that to ignore the fact that the President is in a super-weapon with enormous destructive potential is obviously a major oversight. Too major for me to believe it wouldn't have been thought of. Again, why would Rhodes have inbound-call capabilities for the VP's cell but not the President's? And the reason I brought up cell reception was to point out that Air Force One has on-board communications *in addition to* the President's private commline. But yeah, why would Rhodes be able to access the VP, but not the Pres? He's clearly a big deal, and it's hard to imagine someone saying "Oh, our ultra-symbolic super soldier is important enough to have the VP's number, but not the President's." It's just an inconsistency. Either have him have neither number, or both. Okay, fine, why wouldn't Killian immobilize Stark with heat, immediately? Why did Killian not, rather than punching him, or throwing him, just grab his torso and incapacitate him with heat? Bearing the previous powers Extremis users exhibited, the entire fight simply makes no sense. The blast marks are objectively visually distinct. It's not remarked as out of the ordinary, but IT IS. Again, my objection isn't that it did happen in the film and the film forgot about it, but that it should have happened in the film but didn't. It makes no sense for nobody but Stark to have drawn a connection. Again, Tony dismissed it because he hadn't heard of it when it happened. I'm sure someone in the FBI would have been acquainted with the Rose Hill attacks, and would have noticed at the time of the first Mandarin attack that the results were identical. These are distinctive shadow-patterns. They are weird. It's not a hard conclusion to draw. Nobody draws it in the film, and that is my objection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 8, 2013 Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 Rourke had only made the whiplash outfit, and that was hardly a suit of the kind he was then set to build (nor had he any drone experience either, he was meant to be the son of a disgraced energy scientist, hence being able to build an outfit powered by an arc reactor.) Reveal hidden contents It's clearly a main base of AIM, and they're going to kill the president so yeah an expectation on wanting to have protection of an extremis armour, but if you're wanting to symbolically kill the president why would you want to have someone controlling the suit when all it's meant to do is drop into a pile of burning oil barrels. Having access to a land based phone number of the vice president is much more likely than having methods of calling Air Force One from any random phone. Yes Iron Patriot likely has access to calling the president directly, but Rhodes doesn't have access to Iron Patriot at the time as it's now on Air Force One and he's warning about it. Killian does go to immobilize Tony many times, we may have watched a different film but Tony gets in the habit of leaping from suit to suit and having a few dozen suits helping out in the final battle, things that they were lacking of in previous battles (of which already mentioned Tony himself had never directly fought any extremis users in a suit. He either fought them sans-suit like in Tennessee, or he fought them with a remote suit, like on Air Force One.) They're in a world that has been visited by gods and aliens, things that are considered out of the ordinary for us do not apply to them. It'd be one hell of a fluke to have whichever agent is dealing with domestic explosions then also a year and a bit later then being relocated to the terrorist unit and being able to infer that the two blast patterns are visually similar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 27, 2013 Report Share Posted July 27, 2013 Insidious. It was just... not good. It wasn't scary, it wasn't creepy, it wasn't even really campy. How in the world did this thing get a sequel? I'm glad I saw The Conjuring first, because it was really good and I would never have gone to see it if I had watched this monstrosity first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCP Posted July 27, 2013 Report Share Posted July 27, 2013 Paranormal Activity 4. That ending... so funny!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted July 27, 2013 Report Share Posted July 27, 2013 PA4 was just painful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted July 28, 2013 Report Share Posted July 28, 2013 (edited) Only God Forgives One of my friends was begging us to go to the local Alamo Drafthouse to watch this but thank God [who forgives] this was in a certain free streaming site we go to, because I would have hated himself if I had to pay for this. This is the next film by the guy who brought the critically and audience acclaimed Drive, and shit maybe he thought "my combination of Ryan Gosling staring at just about everything with an autistic face and no dialogue alongside dark themes must be gold" but he was fucking wrong. This movie is artsy garbage. When you think Cannes Film Festival or some other bullshit "hunh hunh we make les good movies monsieurs!" artsy hipster douchebags who are circle jerking each other over their brilliant script that is actually shit, think of this movie. God may forgive but this movie was one of the worst films I've ever seen. It wasn't even "so bad it's good". It's just "so bad I want to punch someone in the face after I cut myself". Never again will I doubt a movie that both critics and audiences hated. This reminds me of Mullholand drive, only that one was liked by critics. I thought it was shit. Edited July 28, 2013 by Waldorf And Statler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted July 29, 2013 Report Share Posted July 29, 2013 Empire gave it 5/5 but this was in the review: Quote The surest way to differentiate Only God Forgives from its predecessor is to say Drive was a Ryan Gosling movie directed by Winding Refn, and this time the tables have turned: Gosling is making a guest appearance in a Winding Refn movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted July 29, 2013 Report Share Posted July 29, 2013 (edited) Empire might like it, but everybody else sure hates it. Also if you're gonna have Ryan Gosling in a movie with hyper violence, at least make him do something besides stare blankly. The one scene he could have been a badass he gets his ass whopped Edited July 29, 2013 by Waldorf And Statler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted July 29, 2013 Report Share Posted July 29, 2013 So what exactly made it so bad when Drive was so good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted July 29, 2013 Report Share Posted July 29, 2013 (edited) Drive did the artsy bullshit just right. This movie shoved it down your throat. It would need to be seen to be comprehended. There's a reason critics and audiences loved both Drive and both hated this one though, hard to pinpoint why Edited July 29, 2013 by Waldorf And Statler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baconrath Posted July 29, 2013 Report Share Posted July 29, 2013 Green Lantern came dangerously close from breaking Chekhov's gun cause Reveal hidden contents they made the yellow ring and then waited until near/after the credits to do anything with it. The Skeleton Key is bad because Kate Hudson's character spends the whole movie investigating the house and stuff only to Reveal hidden contents have her body stolen by the old voodoo lady and his carried away in the old lady's body in an ambulance ...and then the credits roll. Leave that crap to R.L. Stine, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 29, 2013 Report Share Posted July 29, 2013 I like aversions of Chekov's gun because it makes it harder to predict what's going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCP Posted July 29, 2013 Report Share Posted July 29, 2013 On 7/29/2013 at 10:51 PM, Baconrath said: Leave that crap to R.L. Stine, please. Has everyone else watched Goosebumps on Netflix? So god damn entertaining. Plus Ryan Gosling is in one. Rad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted July 29, 2013 Report Share Posted July 29, 2013 He is? Which one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 "The Boy With the Death Stare" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted September 15, 2013 Report Share Posted September 15, 2013 Justin and the Knights of Valour. There's only one Knight of Valour, so it wasn't off to a good start. It was just kind of dull, not like "oh my god this is terrible", but it was pretty straight-to-DVD kind of story. Kinda flopped at the start with it being the kd opting against becoming a lawyer to become a knight. Lawyers aren't much of a concept kids grasp, so you're really gonna have to aim that part at the adults and they never really bothers. There was a few running gags they probably thought were hilarious but the sucked the first time and continued to suck each and every time Reveal hidden contents such as the failed split-personality wizard . Quite a few plot threads that could have been dropped, and one with regards to the bad guy and his motivations that shouldn't have been dropped. "You don't know all the story.".....then that's it he doesn't really expand, when it's clear from the earlier plot elements that it wasn't so cut and dry on him becoming "bad". On the plus side, it avoided many cliches. On the downside it really should have stuck to the cliches. There's bits and bobs of the VA cast from Shrek in this, and on top of that Justin changes style a bit through the film to look a bit like a ginger version of Hiccup (From Train your Dragon) so I imagine the idea was to draw on some of the appeal there. They just kinda fucked it up. And going off the ending they're actually aiming to make it a series of films. Oh and this had been in "last OK movies" till I realised that apart from filling in some time, it didn't really have many redeeming qualities. Didn't even keep the kids overly amused and one of them and my step-mum fell asleep during it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted October 26, 2013 Report Share Posted October 26, 2013 Bad Grandpa. Let me start saying that if you like awkward humor you might enjoy this. If you like Jackass-style pranks you might like this. I personally have grown out of them and really cringe with awkward humor, so I was suffering the whole movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madbassman39 Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 A Talking Cat!?! My brother and I were hung over Sunday, and he wanted to watch the Disney Tarzan and looked it up on Netflix. He miss typed it and got "ata" which pulled up "A Talking Cat!?!" This movie is so bad, its funny. Terrible voice over for the talking cat, to terrible acting and camera placement. By far the best part is the animation they used for the talking cat. It looks as if they realized the night before release they needed a way to differentiate the cat's inner voice from his outer voice. I recommend anyone who enjoys terrible movies to watch this. It all feels and looks like a lead up to a porn, but it never becomes one. That shouldn't surprise you when you find out that the production company specializes in porn. By far the best chemistry on scene is between the two sons in the movie, and its not even supposed to be a romantic interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 You just reminded me of a film that I watched loads as a kid: The Cat from Outer Space. That was an old Disney film about an alien (that looks remarkably like a cat!) that crash lands on Earth and has a collar that allows it to communicate telepathically. I don't remember much else, but I don't dare watch it again... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 On 10/28/2013 at 9:01 PM, Hot Heart said: You just reminded me of a film that I watched loads as a kid: The Cat from Outer Space. That was an old Disney film about an alien (that looks remarkably like a cat!) that crash lands on Earth and has a collar that allows it to communicate telepathically. I don't remember much else, but I don't dare watch it again... Holy hell I was thinking of that exact same movie. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madbassman39 Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 Here's the trailer for A talking cat!?! But be warned, if you see the trailer the movie doesn't have much else to bring to the table beyond it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 blimey, that talking effect is worse than the realtime joke effects you get in webcam software. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.