Sean and I are Marvel fans. We've seen all the movies that focus on the cast of the Avengers or share part of that particular story arc (like Ant Man and Guardians of the Galaxy). Recently, we decided to re-watch those movies, starting with Iron Man (2008). So far, we've watched Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain American: The First Avenger, and The Avengers. It's been entertaining to pick up on subtle references to other movies in the 'verse and to revisit the characters. At least it was until we got to Iron Man 3, which we watched last night.
Sean and I agree that Iron Man 3 is one of our least favorites (we'll watch Thor: The Dark World next, and it ranks among our least favorites as well). The first time I watched it, I couldn't quite put my finger on what I didn't enjoy, but Sean clarified it after this viewing. The plot of the movie simply doesn't fit in a post-Avengers timeline.
To understand this grievance, one must know a little about the plot. It takes place in a post-Avengers setting, after the big battle in New York, which is alluded to many times by several characters. Tony Stark suffers anxiety attacks caused by his heroic actions in New York.
The main conflict in Iron Man 3 revolves around a terrorist working with the Vice President of the United States to overthrow the government and rule the country with an army of bio-enhanced soldiers. These soldiers occasionally malfunction by internal combustion.
Herein lies the problem: Tony Stark's Iron Man takes on the villain alone. With War Machine; just War Machine. Where are the other Avengers? I realize that Director Fury wants them to have some time off after New York, but come on! A madman is threatening the safety of the United States! Can't Black Widow help? She helps the Cap in Winter Soldier. As for the Cap, where is he in Iron Man 3? He's as all-American as it gets; doesn't he want to save the nation? Thor is off the hook; he has Loki business in Asgard. As for the Hulk, he makes an appearance . . . AFTER THE CREDITS. Supposedly, the entire movie is Stark's therapy session with Dr. Banner. But . . . why didn't Hulk "smash" the villain? Iron Man could have used the help.
I realize this is nitpicking; when you watch movies, you suspend believe. However, this is kind of sloppy storytelling from a movie franchise that is capable of far better.
Here's how the movie could have been WAY better (in my humble opinion): the entire thing could have been a therapy session between Stark and Banner (which I guess it was) about something that happened prior to the battle of New York (which it wasn't). That would be a believable, entertaining plot.
So, that's my grievance. Whew! Glad I purged that from my system!
Until the next post . . . keep smiling!