**It’s a substantially weaker film than its two predecessors.**

After two frankly good films, I was curious to see what this film would bring to the public, who immediately set out to fill the studio’s coffers with their tickets money. Marvel has discovered an excellent financial lode by transposing most of its characters to the cinema, and this film is destined to be a box office success, although the quality is much more questionable.

I’ll start with what I usually leave for last: the technical aspects and production values ​​are really excellent and constitute the strongest and most solid point of the film. Directed by Jon Favreau, who has held his chair since the first “Iron Man”, the film has retained most of the crew and core cast, which helps give the trilogy the flavor of a unique work. With a solid bet on more flashy, loud and spectacular action, the film wants to appeal to a young audience that wants something big, where CGI and effects can create authenticity and a sense of danger. The quality of the effects is undeniable, but the excessive action takes a toll on the final set. It looks like a video game, a recurring mistake in these types of movies.

In addition, the film has good cinematography, it was beautifully shot, it is sharp, and it has excellent colors and light. The work of the stuntmen is meritorious, yet regularly forgotten in the minds of viewers. The sets and costumes are very good, especially Tony Stark’s house and the various armors from the movie. Another word for the soundtrack, by Dwight Yoakim, which proved to be up to the task without, however, proving to be memorable.

The cast includes most of the names we already know from the previous two films, with Robert Downey Jr. the most relevant for maintaining the leading role. The actor is good, deserves our credit, and I recognize that he tried to give his character a greater maturity and sense of experience. In this film, Stark is a much more mature, traumatized, tired and even fragile man, and his relationship with Pots has become more formal and firm, causing the former playboy to settle down and carry on a serious love relationship. I understand that this may displease some, but the film seems to take place several years after its predecessor, “Iron Man 2”, and makes mention of several events, in the meantime. With excellent technical work and the use of excellent makeup artists, Ben Kingsley shone in the role he was given and which is clearly one of the best of his recent career. Paltrow and Cheadle also leave us a positive record of his work, although it wasn’t as intense as one would expect. Favreau, in addition to directing the film, has a brief funny cameo as Happy. But it’s Guy Pearce and Rebecca Hall we should be worried about: they do what they can, and yet the film didn’t give them much of a chance to do more and better.

The biggest problem with this movie is, of course, the plot and writing of the script, dialogues and scenes. Attempts at comedy are very unpleasant, and Stark, who once had almost a barrage of phrases and jokes for all occasions, is now a serious and weary man. The material given to the actors is scarce and does not bring anything really good. In addition, the film has almost no connection with the previous films, and especially “Iron Man 2”, whose events are never really spoken by anyone.