[MAJOR SPOILERS]
This is one of the most disappointing movies ever. From trailers and earlier parts of the movie, the Mandarin is hyped up to be this super powerful terrorist threat against Iron Man. I expected it to end with Stark defending America against some big plot or scheme from the Mandarin. Instead, at the end he is revealed to be some pussy in a cave.
4/10

Once again another movie with very little action. Im really disappointed in these movies. Sure the stories are good but that's it.

**While the deeper dive into Tony Stark and his past is welcomed, the execution came up a little short compared to Iron Man’s MCU entries.**
Iron Man 3 might be my least favorite of the Iron Man franchise, but it's still a great movie. Iron Man 3 focuses much more on Tony Stark and his trauma following The Avengers rather than on Iron Man and the suit. A large portion of the film and even some action scenes explore who Stark is without the high-tech suit or fancy technology in general. Stark grapples with the fallout of past decisions and has to decide who he is at his core without the money or Iron Man. As expected, the entire cast dazzles in their performances, from Robert Downey Jr. To Don Cheadle to Gwyneth Paltrow, but the true standout is Ben Kingsley's Mandarin. Iron Man 3 is all about Stark's growth and development, and while that's a great idea, its poor villain and lack of actual Iron Man leave the film feeling a little hollow. I still appreciated the movie and its Christmas cheer, but the MCU has far better Iron Man movies and moments to enjoy.

**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.

_**Worthwhile, but a bit of a letdown compared to the snappy "Iron Man 2"**_
Released in 2013, "Iron Man 3" stars Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark in this third installment where Shellhead takes on the so-called Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) and A.I.M. (Advanced Idea Mechanics), led by Killian (Guy Pearce). After Stark's personal world is destroyed, he is left to survive by relying on his ingenuity and instincts to rise from the ashes and protect those closest to him, like Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow). In the process Tony seeks to answer a question that has haunted him: Does the suit of armor make the man or does the man make the suit of armor? Don Cheadle and Jon Favreau are on hand as James Rhodes (War Machine) and Happy Hogan respectively while Rebecca Hall plays an agent of A.I.M.
After the absolutely kinetic (and inexplicably criticized) "Iron Man 2" this third part of the trilogy is a bit of a letdown. It's a quality superhero movie, but the first act is lethargic compared to the dynamic initial reel of the previous movie. Things pick up in the second act as Stark is separated from his loved ones and presumed dead, forced to team up with a brainiac kid. While some claim that the movie's "more serious" than "Iron Man 2," it has the same tone and the same main characters/cast; the amount of "more seriousness" is marginal.
People say "Iron Man 3" plays better on repeat viewings, so I'll update this review after future viewings. But I was letdown by the lame representation of the Mandarin, the ambiguous powers of the A.I.M. operatives, the myriad Iron Man suits functioning without a person in them and the fact that everyone and their brother dons the Iron Man armor or parts of it. For instance, Pepper morphs into a veritable superheroine at one point. Nevertheless, it's not bad at all and the cast is great with Rebecca Hall and Guy Pearce effective in their roles.
The movie runs 130 minutes and was shot North Carolina, Southern California and Miami.
GRADE: C+

Very good.
'Iron Man 3' offers an entertaining 130 minutes. I enjoyed seeing the plot unfold, it isn't anything revolutionarily fresh but it's done in a way that's interesting to watch. The score and effects are great.
Robert Downey Jr. continues to be a lot of fun as the lead, while Don Cheadle is more enjoyable than he is in 'Iron Man 2'. Guy Pearce and Ben Kingsley are good to watch too, the latter amused me more than I thought he would.
I'd rank this higher than the 2010 sequel, though it's still a fair distance off the original. This 2013 film leaves a positive impression.

When I first saw this in 2013, strongly disliked it but decided to give it another watch during my re-visit of the MCU and... kind of enjoyed it, quite a bit. Still not fond of the twist wasting a great actor in Ben Kingsley to be a decoy Mandarin and instead having a cheesy one with Guy Pearce's Aldrich Killian and his lame "I AM THE MANDORIAN!" line. But all in all, a good step up from Iron Man 2. **3.75/5**

I don't understand the hate for this one. The fact that Tony Stark is barely in the suit makes for an interesting take on analyzing the humanity of the character. I also found the villain plot twist halfway through the movie to be quite clever and surprisingly satisfying.
It certainly feels more like a Shane Black movie than an Iron Man movie, but that's a great thing. It shows Marvel is willing to give their filmmakers a voice and the room to take risks in their storytelling. Iron Man 3 is a very risky movie, and to me it paid off.

**A long form review originally posted in 2013**
_Iron Man 3_ brings us into the so called “Phase 2” of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But it does so in a flawed way. I’ve said it before and reiterate it here, there is no such thing as a perfect film. But since _The Avengers_ set the bar so very high, following that up proved to simply be too much for Black’s entry to handle.
There are a great deal of inconstancies, plot holes, stupid moves, illogical choices, and weak moments (though less than much of the internet would have you believe). These issues are not enough to lead to _Iron Man 3’s_ complete and utter downfall, but they do force a sour taste into the piece overall.
This isn’t to say it’s a bad movie though. In fact it’s actually quite good. It surpasses the quality of _Iron Man 2_ and plants itself firmly in the MCU rather successfully. A move which only _The Incredible Hulk_ failed to make, but still. Yes it has its problems, yes we’d hoped for better, and yes I’ve got complaints, but the movie is not at all a failure. Manages to come full circle in a way that still leaves Tony Stark & Iron Man a future in the Marvel Universe.
Shane Black and Drew Pearce manage to bring in a sense of vulnerability that was barely touched on in the past MCU works. Even the minuscule Steve Rogers of _Captain America_ seemed in control of every situation. But here we see Tony Stark as not only a breakable man, but a man in general. The most human of any Super Hero appearance in the MCU to date. Yes the Robert Downey Jr. wit that all have come to expect from the piece is still on the table, but in between and beneath that there’s an insomniac with extreme anxiety disorders living separated from the real world, too invested in his work and shattered identity to live as the Stark everyone expects him to still be.
Pepper and Rhodey are even given a chance to pick up the slack. The three form this sort of protagonist trinity, Saving one another in a round-robin Super Hero-y way with a little more depth than I’d expected.
The _Iron Man_ movies famously have had the most disappointing bad-guy-show-downs in the genre. And though here Black gives us much more of a delivery on this front than Favreau ever did, the issues I had with _Iron Man 3_ came (almost) exclusively from A.I.M, the Mandarin and Extremis (which form the antagonist trinity now that I think of it).
So, we’ve got better a better final confrontation, but from less integral bad guys. A more human hero, stuck in a less human adventure. A better interlocking of characters, with less to do on screen. I could go on with this roller coaster, but that word essentially sums up the film. Not in that its a cliched “thrill ride”, but in that it’s a constant mess of ups and downs, with the final destination just barely justifying the start point.
Speaking non-comparitively, _Iron Man 3_ makes a good movie. Not great. But so very, very worth the watch. It’s hard for me to think objectively separate from the other films in the MCU, because I’ve seen them all so many times that there’s no way for me to forget all that’s come before when watching the movie. I’d be interested to hear from somebody who’s watched _Iron Man 3_, but not _Iron Man 1_ & _2_ or _The Avengers_. I’m sure such a person exists somewhere, and if so your input would be greatly appreciated.
I think I might have made it seem as if I disliked Iron Man 3 more than I actually did. Here’s why. From _Iron Man 2_ until _The Avengers_, I watched all the MCU films in cinemas. After each one, I immediately got that feeling of wanting to go back and watch it again, a feeling that steadily grew as time passed. Each film that Marvel released had me feeling this more strongly than the last, culminating in _The Avengers_ which I saw six times in theatres, and immediately pre-ordered the whole set on Blu-Ray the moment it became available (I bought a PS3 for the sole purpose of watching them). But with _Iron Man 3_ I sort of dropped back to a pretty low interest level once I’d left Hoyts. It seemed that although it was a really good watch, it just didn’t have the staying power I’d come to expect from these incredible Super Hero films.
67%
-_Gimly_

I have to say that I was somewhat disappointed by this third instalment of the Iron Man series of movies. Sure Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark is quite funny (not always but a lot of the time) and there are plenty of nice special effects and things being blown up.
However, the story is just crap. The premise of Killian using the Mandarin for terrorism to cover up the fact that his experiments occasionally fails is just ludicrous. The Mandarin himself is a joke and another good example of how ignorant script writers just pick names out of existing material and uses them not caring how much they screw up established characters and world building already done. Whoever wrote this script should be ashamed of himself.
What is worse, the entire movie is very anti-Iron-Man. It starts right of with Stark being obsessed by his Iron Man suits and a lot of harping about him stopping being Iron Man. Most of the time Stark is running around without his suit and the few times he is in it then the suit does not work properly or is shot off him almost immediately. Actually, most of Stark’s cool stuff is just shot to hell most of the time.
The end is full of fireworks but again, it is mostly a display in how you can destroy Iron Man suits and some more anti-Iron-Man crap.
I cannot say that I did not enjoy watching the fireworks and special effects but as a whole I am disappointed with this movie.

This was probably the first time a movie has made me this angry in the theater. It pissed me off then and it still pisses me off when it's on television. If I could summarize this film in one word, it would be: obnoxious. I wasn't really hyped for this film but I was expecting to have some fun since I did enjoy the previous Iron Man films. This was the movie that made me start to dislike the character of Tony Stark/Iron Man (RDJ is still the man though). Stark's narcissism had charm in the previous films but here, it made him into a complete idiot, dick, and coward. The Mandarin had potential to be an effective villain but the movie scraps him for a more lame villain than Justin Hammer from Iron Man 2. The comedy was forced and annoying and the story has plot holes that were distracting. I watched Thor 2 a while after this released but the taste from this movie was so bitter that even though I thought Thor 2 was alright, I just didn't want to see anymore films from this cinematic universe. This movie is what killed the MCU for me.

There can be many reasons why the original director of a franchise may decide not to return for a sequel, though they all usually have in common that they're very Hollywood-politically-correct. So exactly why Jon Favreau decided not to helm the third instalment of what is, for all intents and purposes, 'his baby' Iron Man, I can't be sure. But I can tell you one thing: something definitely changed.
Everything about IM3 feels different from its predecessors. The atmosphere is darker, which is not to say it's really just a lot less humorous (which is – let's be honest – precisely what we love about Iron Man). The new characters are terribly underdeveloped and overall it's just a great deal less interesting. The storyline was completely vague to me; I'm still not really sure what the whole point of it was. And probably the biggest flaw of all – the first two films had really cool, interesting villains. This one's just really quite weird and not charismatic at all. Possibly at the core of the problem is the fact that it wasn't just one bad guy, it was many. The leading roles are shared by Guy Pearce and Sir Ben Kingsley, and – big shock – it was the latter who disappointed me the most. Not only was his role quite small, I thought it was also incredibly lame. I'd love to explain to you why, but that would be a major spoiler. I noticed some people in the audience laughing at the plot twist of Kingsley's character, but I thought it was just completely stupid and weak, and a total waste of such a great actor. Pearce is not bad, but never really manages to elevate his villain to a higher level, largely because he had zero character development to work with. Same thing with Rebecca Hall. Or the rest of Pearce's cronies for that matter... Too many to count. Sigh.
Well, at least we still have Robert Downey Jr. He's as reliable as ever when it comes to carrying a film, but even he can't help it that his character is almost boring in this one. Where's the humour!? Where's the cynicism we all know and love?! Where's Tony bloody Stark! This is not the familiar overconfident, pompous macho we adore. All of a sudden, and for NO apparent reason whatsoever, this guy is insecure and suffering from anxiety attacks! What the F! Not to mention the fact that his superhero alter ego is almost completely absent for half of the film, because he's off somewhere in the middle of Tennessee finding himself or whatever... I mean, geez... I know the director left, but didn't any of the screenwriters return either? The fact that Pepper Potts had only about two minutes of relevant screen time also certainly didn't help. And when she was there, she was humourless and annoying. Big sigh.
The more I think about it, the more I'm having a hard time trying to think of good things to say about this film. At least the visual effects were solid, and the sound effects were awesome.
This was actually the first time I've seen a film in 3D. I've always avoided it because I was sure that it would be a complete distraction from the story. Turns out I was right in my assumption. I found it hard to focus on what was really going on, and this might have definitely been an influence in trying to follow the plot, so there's a big chance I missed a few things. Nevertheless, I can't help being very disappointed with Iron Man 3, especially since I love the first two so much.
This is definitely a filmmakers' case of "could've, would've, should've". They obviously tried very hard, but never quite manage to get there.
No story, no interesting characters, no filler. Nothing. Too bad.
_(June 2013)_

I could go on and on, or I can simplify it into two points.
1: I liked it better when they called it Skyfall
... and...
2: I liked it better when they called it "The Phantom Menace."
Merging the two didn't work, no one in their right mind would actually rip that much of a film with The Phantom Menace's reaction from fans.
But despite that, and a lot of other points people have covered to death, you have to like it... because they say you do.

Black Panther is a groundbreaking film that stands out among its comic book movie counterparts. With a nearly all-black cast and a unique visual experience, the film takes audiences to the technologically advanced African nation of Wakanda. The story follows T'Challa, who becomes the new Black Panther and king of Wakanda after his father's assassination, as he fights to secure the safety of his nation against the threat of Ulysses Klaue and Killmonger, an evil and ruthless enemy. The film is well-acted, visually stunning, and carries a unique and powerful message about heritage and tradition. The cast, led by Chadwick Boseman as T'Challa, delivers strong performances, and the women of Wakanda, played by Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira, and Angela Bassett, are particularly fierce and impressive. Despite some inconsistencies in the CGI, the film's contained narrative and emphasis on character development make it an important, entertaining, and enjoyable movie.
__________________________
Black Panther es una película innovadora que se destaca entre sus contrapartes de películas de cómics. Con un elenco casi completamente negro y una experiencia visual única, la película lleva al público a la nación africana tecnológicamente avanzada de Wakanda. La historia sigue a T'Challa, quien se convierte en el nuevo Pantera Negra y rey de Wakanda después del asesinato de su padre, mientras lucha para garantizar la seguridad de su nación contra la amenaza de Ulysses Klaue y Killmonger, un enemigo malvado y despiadado. La película está bien actuada, visualmente impresionante y transmite un mensaje único y poderoso sobre el patrimonio y la tradición. El elenco, encabezado por Chadwick Boseman como T'Challa, ofrece actuaciones sólidas, y las mujeres de Wakanda, interpretadas por Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira y Angela Bassett, son particularmente feroces e impresionantes. A pesar de algunas inconsistencias en el CGI, la narración contenida de la película y el énfasis en el desarrollo del personaje la convierten en una película importante, entretenida y agradable.

I was hoping to see black revolution all over the world with cool weapons from Wakanda. Sadly that didn't happen, all weapons were destroyed before they were able to leave Wakanda

This is quite a tough film to review objectively; at times it is as good as any from the comic-book universe; the cinematography and effects are top drawer and the pace of the action is usually well judged and enjoyable. The writing and the acting, on the other hand, are a different matter. Chadwick Boseman as "T'Challa" is about as wooden as they come as he returns to rule his outwardly agrarian African nation ("Wakanda") that secretly has some state-of-the art kit based around a rare, but enormously powerful mineral from outer space. In this particular outing he isn't much helped by Martin Freeman ("Agent Ross") or Forest Whitaker as the sagely "Zuri". Letitia Wright injects some charm as his tech-savvy little sister "Shuri" and for a bit at the beginning, Andy Serkis hams up nicely as South African arch villain "Ulysses Klaue" (pronounced claw) but once it settles down, it becomes a beautifully shot but rather bland, simplistic right vs wrong, do the right thing type of story. I do like Michael B. Jordan ("Erik") - here he has a screen presence that is charming, cheeky and he knows how to work an audience - and I have to say I was on his side pretty much from the outset, but sadly though, the ending is never in doubt and with neither suspense nor jeopardy to sustain it's initial promise, "Black Panther" just ends up being a great looking, but pretty shallow festival of colour and CGI.

Enjoyed that!
'Black Panther', the 18th MCU film, is very good. I really like the world building of Wakanda, as well as the cinematography and costume design. The cast are, as expected, excellent as well.
Chadwick Boseman is terrific as T'Challa, as I knew he would be based on the glimpse we see of him in 2016's 'Captain America: Civil War'. He is the best actor here, but Danai Gurira runs him close. I'm a huge fan of Gurira's due to her performances in 'The Walking Dead' so knew I'd rate her here too, she's fun to watch - it's cool to see her weapon-wielding once again.
Elsewhere, Lupita Nyong'o is good and so is Letitia Wright; she's great in 2015's 'Urban Hymn', which I had seen her in previously. It's a fairly stacked cast, with the likes of Forest Whitaker, Andy Serkis, Daniel Kaluuya and Michael B. Jordan also appearing; Jordan's character isn't the best, but he himself is more than solid.

Overall Black Panther was an enjoyable movie, directed by Ryan Coogler. It is one of the biggest movies of 2018, with an outstanding cast who includes Chadwick Boseman and Michael b. jordan, amazing special effects, and a plot that leaves you on the downright edge of your seat for 2 hours and 15 minutes. After the tragic death of chadwick, had a thought about watch his movies and this one comes in my mind. This review is my tribute chadwick. This movie is pg-13, but it seems more 10 and up. The awesome sci-fi action story about a prince of an utopian country facing the incredible truth about his family, paperhelp and the mantle of the black panther, protector of the country Wakanda, was amazing, and fits in with the mcu series perfectly. I reccomend that you watch Captain america:civil war first, as it would make some elements more understandable If you like superhero action movies, fantasy, or science fiction, come see this awesome movie.

overhyped before release and overrated after release, Black Panther is nothing more than another paint by numbers MCU movie, with boring characters and a lead that lacks charisma

I really enjoyed this film, it was new uncharted never done before, and they delivered a marvel masterpiece. I look forward to seeing the next one...

Black Panther will probably be remembered as a culturally significant film more so than a great one, but that shouldn't take away from the movie's deeper theme of inclusivity. This is a really good movie with heart and intelligence.
The fact that I have issues with the pacing, the generic action, or that I don't find Killmonger as complex a villain as the movie thinks is my problem. But I don't understand how people can hate on Black Panther because it integrates social and political themes into its narrative. Isn't contemporary relevance key in determining the greatness of a film?

"Black Panther is Marvelous (pun intended)"
T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) returns home to his native Wakanda to be crowned king. Not long after he’s challenged for the throne and war looms over his homeland.
Black Panther isn’t your typical hero because let’s face it… He’s black. And apart from Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and Smeagol (Andy Serkis), everybody’s black. And that’s the way it should be.
The entire cast delivers. Boseman is excellent as king T’Challa who struggles with his new role. It doesn’t get any easierr when Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) shows up. Killmonger is a mean SOB yet you care for him (some good writing right there). He’s a worthy adversary and one of the better Marvel villains. Jordan portrays him perfectly. Director Ryan Coogler and Michael B. Jordan are a match made in heaven. This is their third collaboration after ‘Fruitvale Station’ and ‘Creed’ and again they’re successful. The movie itself gets better as Jordan’s role gets bigger.
The female characters and actors are equally impressive. Especially Nakia (Lupita Nyong’o) and Okoye (Danai Gurira) steal the show.
There’s less humour in ‘Black Panther’ than we’re used to seeing in Marvel films but that’s not a bad thing. The movie doesn’t need it.
Though it’s set in (fictional) Africa there wasn’t any filming done in Africa. Nonetheless the movie looks right. The makers did a great job of creating Wakanda. Huge props to costume designer Ruth E. Carter and composer Ludwig Göransson who help bring Wakanda to life.
On the downside there’s a lot of CGI. Sometimes it’s too obvious (rhinos say hi). Despite that the battle scenes are beautifully choreographed. Especially Okoye wielding her spear is a thing to behold.
All in all ‘Black Panther’ is another wonderful addition to the MCU and we can’t wait to see what role T’Challa and his sidekicks are going to play in ‘Avengers: Infinity War’.

Awesome movie

Overrated due to political correctness; it’s noble and has its points of interest, but it’s also kinda meh
RELEASED IN 2018 and directed by Ryan Coogler, "Black Panther” details events when T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) takes over kingship of the hidden African nation Wakanda after his father passes (John Kani). The kingdom is technologically advanced due to its secret resource Vibranium, a priceless, almost magical metal. Unfortunately, T’Challa’s reign is challenged by an angry American former-black ops soldier, Erik “Killmonger” (Michael B. Jordan).
With its black director and mostly black cast (with a couple of token white dudes), “Black Panther” was overhyped and overrated upon release. Critics were apparently afraid of being called “racist” by liberal fascists if they dared to be honest and say anything negative (rolling my eyes). The movie’s likable and certainly has its points of interest, but the characters are rather dull, except for Killmonger, and the story isn’t all that involving. It’s basically a mediocre superhero movie that has some blatant Bond-isms and is set apart by its primarily black cast and African locale. It fails to rise to the entertainment level of even “Ant-Man” (2015).
Still, it’s respectfully noble and the story provokes interesting questions, like isolationism vs. internationalism and African-American culture vs. Native African culture. But there’s some eye-rolling bits, like when Shuri (Letitia Wright) calls CIA agent Ross (Martin Freeman) a “colonizer,” which isn’t even accurate. Maybe it was supposed to be a joke.
The waterfall fight between the Black Panther and Killmonger was an homage to the first issue of The Black Panther series in Jungle Action: Issue #6, September, 1973. At the end of that comic’s story T'Challa and Erik fight at the top of a waterfall culminating with Killmonger throwing Black Panther over the cliff. This issue was the beginning of the "Panther's Rage" storyline by Don McGregor (featuring artists Billy Graham, Rich Buckler and Gil Kane), which ran for over two years in 13 issues of Jungle Action #6-18 and 209 pages, including the Epilogue. Many consider it the first graphic novel. Of course, this wasn't the first appearance of the Black Panther (who debuted in 1966), but it was the first issue where he was the starring character.
And it was this series that provided the intriguing exposition on T’Challa, Wakanda and its citizens, visitors & enemies. It’s a travesty that McGregor, who created the characters of Killmonger & W’Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya) and conceived this exposition, wasn’t acknowledged in this movie; shameful.
THE FILM RUNS 2 hours, 14 minutes and was shot in Georgia (Atlanta, Fayetteville), South Korea (Busan) and Iguazú Waterfalls, Argentina. Ironically, nothing was shot in Africa. WRITERS: Coogler and Joe Robert Cole (and, uncredited, Don McGregor).
GRADE: B-

The character of T'Challa made his debut in Captain America 3: Civil War.
In Black Panther, T'Challa returns to his homeland of Wakanda after the death of his father who has been hiding a secret about his brother who lived in the USA. He now inherits the throne after a challenge from a rival.
Wakanda is an african country with wealth, power and immense technology that it hides from the outside world.
T'Challa's uncle wanted an uprising in the USA. Now his son Killmonger comes to Wakanda and challenges T'Challa for the throne.
Killmonger wins and leads the struggle for black power.
Black Panther is a well made efficient film from Marvel who really have nailed down their formula. The box office avalanche has surprised me. It simply is not that good with a very predictable story.

The Black Panther is a fun romp, but it definitely has some issues. First, the good.
The action is fun, the emotions hit home, and the story isn't dirt-poor.
While the CGI gets ripped on from time to time, I thought it was solid enough for a Marvel movie. The fight scenes were relatively well-choreographed, as well. The ritual combat scenes were exciting and visually appealing. The fights in Korea were also fun to see, and while I'm not a fan of car chase scenes as a whole, I did enjoy this one. It was reminiscent of a James Bond movie.
In fact, that's another appeal, at least to me. The secret technology base and the fun action scenes were a great callback to James Bond-type movies. I do think the movie would have been complemented by giving T'Challa a similar vice as Bond's, although Marvel probably wouldn't veer down that line for the seemingly morally absolute King of Wakanda.
The story, well, it's a mixed bag. Everything seemed crammed together with major emotional keys being rushed through or somewhat ignored. The concept is fine though. A long lost relative comes to challenge the new king, wins, and shows his colors, becoming something amoral. The king comes back and takes down the usurper, realizing something about themselves/their kingdom in the process. It's tired, but not so tired it damages the movie.
This is where the issues begin to rise, though. The movie is really a movie and a half or two movies crammed into one. Wakanda has a ton of wonderful mythology, but almost none of it is explained. The movie never really explains how the Wakandans used vibranium was used to make themselves wealthy. It touches on it in some exposition, but there was much more that was just glossed over.
In addition, W'Kabi became radicalized by Killmonger much too quickly for such a pivotal relationship to flip. Some of the emotional aspects of the movie fell flat because they weren't given enough screen time.
Despite its flaws, Black Panther is a fun movie that adds to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It should have been two movies, but I doubt this is the last we'll see of Wakanda.

I was really surprised how much I liked this movie. There was so much going on; immigration concerns; the fight between saving the world and protecting your own country(sound familiar); the fear of an African country’s resources being pillaged; how best to handle the problems black people face worldwide; and many great authentic feeling cultural nods. All this while not being heavy or preachy. You can definitely eat popcorn to this. The villain; Killmonger, is great. Not great in that he is scary, though he is, but because he is more complex than some shadowy figure you should just trust is a bad guy because of visual effects or dramatic music.
This movie isn’t just explosions and one-liners in an exotic location. This is a great movie in general. It’s always interesting. There are great relationships between all the characters. Finally; Wakanda is really a place. It feels alive and lived in; not just impressive buildings used as a backdrop. They did a wonderful job of worldbuilding; from the rituals, to the clothing, fancy tech, and scenery. This movie is definitely worth a watch.
☆☆☆☆-1/2
I also have to add that; you get to actually see Andy Serkis! When I saw his name I thought we was going to be some kind of CGI monster. I’m just happy to see him get actual screen time.

It was with some hesitation that I went to see this movie. I was afraid that it would be burdened with too much political and social preaching. Especially knowing how much the movie is praised amongst certain factions in our society today. Sure enough there were indeed some of that nonsense but luckily it was much less than I feared.
I actually found the movie fairly entertaining. It is far from great, certainly very far from the insane hype surrounding it, but pretty okay. It is more or less a standard issue super hero movie on a big budget. Of course this means a fairly mediocre underlying story beefed up with lots of action and special effects.
The story itself is a traditional revenge story with some black power stuff. Nothing to write home about but it works as a vehicle for the action and special effects which is what makes this movie. There are the usual nonsense and plot holes in it of course. Like Shuri claiming that Vibranium (silly name but never mind) is instable at high speeds yet they have no problem making flying ships and other fast moving stuff with it.
The characters are a wee bit disappointing as far as the main characters are concerned. I felt that the main protagonist has little in terms of charisma. Killmonger, the main bad guy, was downright disappointing. To me he looked like the stereotype of a dumb thug and mostly he behaved like one. Bloody hell could they not have found an actor that looked less…well…stupid!
Personally the character I liked best was actually Klaue which was pretty cool, insane but cool. The female warriors, which were both kick-ass and smart, and Shuri is also fairly high up on my approval list.
Special effects! This is of course where this movie shines. Overall I think the special effects were good. The design of the various gadgets, ships etc were very nice. The rampaging rhinos in the final fight really made me laugh. I should have seen that coming. I definitely liked all the sonic effects. Obviously this movie would have been more or less null if the special effects would not have been a success.
On the whole Black Panther is a quite enjoyable special effects and action movie. Nothing more, nothing less. Some social preaching nonsense but less than I feared, hum ho story, lots of action and lots of special effects.

Really good movie. Good story, lots of fun. This is what DC is missing.

This is definitely one of Marvel's best because the story is compelling and the characters are well developed. Black Panther and his friends and family must defend themselves and their homeland of Wakanda from the clutches of Klau (Andy Serkis) and Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan). Not only is the lead actor great as T'Challa/Black Panther, but the supporting cast does a fine job as well, especially the female actors. T'Challa is surrounded by smart, strong women. Marvel seems to break its villain curse with Klau and especially Killmonger. Killmonger is very well developed and even sympathetic at times, despite his villainy. He sort of reminded me of Tom Hiddleston's Loki. The action scenes and special effects are outstanding. Highly recommended if you enjoy comic book movies.