Sign In Now ► or Create A New Account ►
5 comments
8 comments
Rank This Matchup or Comment/Reply Below
on 5/14/2013
Same film. The talks is better in IM, obviously, and the action in it is more inventive and actually follows a more rhythmic wave. Star Trek has better urgency though and doesn't share in the cliched bullshitisms of a slightly Disneyfied superhero flick.
on 11/2/2013
Star Trek was better in every way.
on 11/3/2013
Into Darkness was the more satisfying sequel for me.
Iron Man 3 was far more interesting although I enjoyed them both. Into Darkness was too much action and not near enough heart.
Ironman 3
on 11/11/2013
Iron Man 3 wins this one. The action is more varied and there is actually a story to be told. The rehashed tweek know as Into Darkness never actually bothered witha plot.
Both were fantastic...slight lean to IM3, but this could change at any time.
on 1/29/2014
Iron Man 3 suffers from a rather weak third act (the same can be said about the two previous installments), so the edge goes to Star Trek Into Darkness.
Into Darkness was, like Abrams first attempt at a Star Trek film; a disappointing, pale imitation of a good Star Trek film. From the predictable reveal to the laughably bad 3rd act. What a waste of time, money and talent.
Iron Man 3; more creative, bold and entertaining throughout. Into Darkness had its moments, most of them involving Benedict Cumberbatch, but are pretty unmemorable plot and a woefully rushed, throw-away ending hampered it. Iron Man 3 wins.
The flaws of Into Darkness are farther to see past, while Iron Man 3's few flaws can be easily overlooked by its fantastic . . . Everything.
on 1/31/2014
Into Darkness.
on 2/11/2016
Into Darkness any day
on 1/12/2019
Iron Man 3 is a great film. Star Trek was so bad that they were forced to scrap everything. Kind of speaks for itself.
