IRON MAN 3 Has Its Moments, But Not Quite Indestructible

IRON MAN 3 Review:

- How important is it that a movie subvert expectations and deliver a major twist? As I tried to process some of the curve balls that Iron Man 3 throws at its audience, I noted that some major movie critics were singing the film's praises in large part due to its element of surprise. On some level, I see their point. The big-budget superhero movie has become so paint-by-numbers, in so many ways, that it's undeniably refreshing when a major franchise film like this one dares to be different. But what is the twist without a purpose? Is a twist really that great if it's more of a "gotcha" and less of a true, jaw-on-the-floor "holy $%&#" moment? It's hard to talk more about this without walking into major spoiler territory. But I will say this: while I appreciate a film that isn't beholden to cannon and that takes pains to be original, I ultimately put more value - especially in a superhero epic - on high drama. The novelty alone of the big "WTF" moment isn't enough in and of itself.

That's not to say that IRON MAN 3 doesn't have its moments. In a way, I really admire that this is an auteur-style Marvel movie. Think about it: in the world of comics, Marvel began on the backs of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, and then eventually had a very defined in-house style for years to come. But then you think about the creative dynamos who came into the House of Ideas and created the most exciting stories and artwork, re-imagining classic characters under a unique lense. In general, some of the best modern superhero stories have come when a classic character is paired with a visionary creator or creators. In comics, we've been living in an auteur era for a few decades now, and we're still feeling the reverberations from the likes of guys like Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, Ed Brubaker, Warren Ellis (whose Extremis story forms some of the basis for this flm) and many others putting their own unique spin on the big superhero universes. So why not let the same thing happen in movies? Marvel's whole Phase 2 plan seems to be opening that door. Shane Black on Iron Man, James Gunn on Guardians of the Galaxy, Edgar Wright on Ant Man (and before that, of course, Joss Whedon on The Avengers). And so what we have here is most definitely "Shane Black's IRON MAN." And that's cool - sort of awesome, really. In some ways, Black and Iron Man are a natural fit. Black specializes in the kind of snappy dialogue and sardonic humor that was already a big part of the first two Iron Man films. Robert Downey Jr. is also, of course, a near-perfect vehicle for Black's style (see Kiss Kiss Bang Bang for further evidence). I like it. I like that we are now in a place where we can get not just the uber-generic superhero movie, but the film noir superhero movie, the urban crime superhero movie, the cosmic space epic superhero movie, the fantasy/magical superhero movie. Bring it on.

But maybe the problem here is that there's too much push and pull between a pure Shane Black Iron Man, and the big, franchise, post-Avengers event-movie Iron Man that fans expected and the corporate overlords at Disney likely felt comfortable with. What I mean is, Shane Black seems to want to do a stripped-down movie about Tony Stark. He finds an interesting angle - a Tony Stark who is now a hero, who has settled down with Pepper Potts, who is at a good place, on paper ... but in practice, he is still haunted by the sins of his past. This Tony Stark spends long hours alone tinkering in his workshop, suffers from anxiety attacks brought on by his battles with evil aliens in The Avengers, and who can't quite give his relationship with Pepper the attention it deserves.

I'm all for the stripped-down, Tony Stark-in-a-crime-caper version of Iron Man - especially in a third movie where the usual formula's gotten a bit tired. But this movie can't fully commit. The moments that lend themselves to Shane Black's trademark style tend to shine. When Tony Stark finds himself invading a hostile compound sans his armor - having to assemble makeshift weapons from common household items - it's an awesome moment. That sort of clever, slightly-subversive stuff ... Black nails. Same goes for the scenes between Tony and a young boy named Harley who helps him out in a bind, and becomes a sort of defacto kid sidekick. Scenes that could have been positively painful in the wrong hands are funny, smart, and surprisingly touching under Black's guidance. Even little moments - like Tony and Rhodey (formerly known as War Machine, now known as Iron Patriot) - bickering back and forth in the heat of combat ... this is the stuff that Shane Black knows and loves and 100% gets.

And I will give Black and the movie some major credit - Iron Man 3 has some of the best, big-time, major-league "superhero" moments we've yet seen in a Marvel film. When Stark has to fight a battle with only pieces of his Iron Man armor in place - one leg and one arm - the result is thrilling and badass. An aerial raid on the Stark compound is similarly breathtaking - a violent, explosive assault that makes you wonder how the hell Stark and co. will make it out alive. And the big finale - a notable weakness of the first two Iron Man films - is suitably lengthy and action-packed. So I don't want to imply that Iron Man 3 simply coasts on clever bits of dialogue ... it delivers the goods when it comes to epic action as well.

So what keeps this from being the classic that it could have been? There are several elements - some new, some inherited - that derail the film a bit. One is the Tony Stark / Pepper Potts relationship. Stark and Potts rarely seem like star-crossed lovers - and their bickering seems more like genuine mutual annoyance and less like playful sparring. What this means is that when Pepper inevitably becomes the damsel in distress, we as an audience don't feel much sense of real danger or urgency. In fact, in a climactic moment when Pepper seems potentially dead and gone, Tony barely seems to bat an eye, and continues wise-cracking with barely a moment's pause. I do also slightly blame Paltrow. When she has her big moment in which she gets to turn the tables and kick some ass, there's barely a hint of excitement in her eyes. When Pepper kicks ass, it should have been the big money shot of the whole film - and it's filmed in a way that practically invites us to stop and applaud. But there was no applause in the theater I was in. Paltrow's line-reading of "wow, that was violent" (or something to that effect) came off less like the clever musings of an empowered woman of action, and more like the resigned observation of a disapproving mother. Meanwhile, there's an attempt at some forced tension between Pepper and Tony with the introduction of a scientist played by Rebecca Hall, who Tony once had a one-night-stand with years earlier. Not only is Pepper's instant "I hate you" reaction pretty contrived, but Hall's character is pretty problematic from the start. Keeping track of which side she's on (let alone her motivations for switching sides) is a chore. I don't blame Hall - it's just an element of the script that is given short shrift. It's probably no coincidence that this element - the one that feels the most pulled from the superhero cliche-book - is also the one that Black seems least interested in really developing.

Paltrow has rarely been a standout in these films, and perhaps she was a bit miscast from the get-go. I feel similarly about Don Cheadle as Rhodey. He just doesn't have the right stuff for the role - I don't buy him as a badass soldier. He seems like he'd rather be in a boardroom than out kicking ass for his country. Cheadle is featured in some great set-piece action scenes, but they're more notable for the choreography than for anything he really brings to the table. He's a great actor in general, no question. But an action hero? Iron Patriot? Not so much.

The second problematic element of the movie is, well, the plot. Earlier I mentioned all of the cool individual scenes in the film - the stuff with Tony and young Harley, the cool banter, the big action. But it all feels tied together on the loosest of threads. I mean that from a pure narrative standpoint, and also from a thematic standpoint. Guy Pierce plays Aldrich Killian, a scientist with a screw-loose and a mad-on for Tony Stark. Pierce is one of my favorite actors, and he makes the most of what he's given. But the fact is, Killian as presented here is a pretty weak villain. And as his role in the movie becomes more prominent, I kept waiting for him to take on a grandiosity worthy of Iron Man. But everything about his character feels half-baked, from his stalker-crush on Pepper Potts to his been-there, done-that evil plan to profit from a manufactured war on terror (heck, his plan is practically identical to Jared Harris' scheme in RDJ's last Sherlock Holmes movie). It's even more frustrating in that Killian's status as Big Bad comes at the expense of the initially-promising Mandarin, played with theatrical verve and presence by the great Ben Kingsley. I won't say what happens to the Mandarin that sort of takes him off the board, but I don't really get the point. To me, it comes back to: what is the movie saying? What is the theme? Iron Man vs. an Osama Bin Laden-esque terrorist (The Mandarin) - I would have liked to have seen that. Iron Man tends to have a political slant as a character, so there's rich thematic territory to explore there. And indeed, in the movie's first half, there is some interesting mini-satire as we see The Iron Patriot's futile quest to track the Mandarin. But once Killian usurps the Mandarin, the movie becomes about something else entirely - it becomes something that Black probably wanted all along - a movie about Tony Stark fighting his past. But if that's what the movie is about, then why the bait and switch? Why include the Mandarin at all? To me, the net result was a movie that initially feels big and high stakes, but that ends up feeling sort of small and inconsequential. The subversion of expectations works against the movie's narrative momentum, in my opinion. And Guy Pierce's Killian - while potentially perfect as a sleazy, unhinged henchman - feels way too lightweight to be the movie's main antagonist.

And maybe that's why Iron Man 3 entertained me throughout, yet left me with a slightly sour aftertaste. Deep in this movie's DNA, there is a huge action epic waiting to come out. And perhaps a straight crime caper Iron Man - the kind that Shane Black would have made if left completely on his own -would have been awesome and badass in its own right. But this movie is never confident enough to go all-out and just *be* that version of Iron Man. The fact that it had to go to all the trouble of messing with expectations and playing a bait-and-switch with the audience is, I think, proof of that.

It's a small thing, I guess, but even the post-credits scene annoyed me. I won't spoil it, but it's ultimately just a cutesy, jokey little epilogue, and doesn't really leave you with anything too meaty to chew on. I was dying for something awesome to get me pumped for Marvel Phase 2, and what I got was a comedy bit. It added to the feeling that this movie was clever and funny, yes, but ultimately perhaps too much so for its own good. And there's no denying that this perception was colored by The Avengers. Joss Whedon was clever and funny, but he also took un-ironic joy in playing in Lee and Kirby's sandbox. There's not much of that joy that shines through here. I'm not saying that this had to be a "Marvel" movie in the traditional sense. But there has to be a love of the world and characters as a starting point for any genre-subversion or deconstruction to really work. There's a temptation to say "suck it fanboys, this is Shane Black's Iron Man and it's different and awesome." But remember what I was saying before about how comics evolved when auteur creators put their stamp on classic characters? Well, for every Frank Miller Daredevil or Grant Morrison Superman, there are examples where the blend of creator sensibility and character just doesn't 100% mix. Auterism alone does not a great story make.

I'll remember many of the coolest scenes and moments in Iron Man 3 as some of my favorites in the Marvel movie canon to date. The movie gets the little moments right in a way that so many superhero flicks do not. But the broad strokes and big-picture narrative don't fare as well. So I think my lasting impression of the film is one that tried to be many things to many people, and ended up as sort of "meh" because of it. The first two Iron Man movies had their flaws, but they coasted by on RDJ's charisma and the general feeling that we were watching something very exciting happen - the birth of the Marvel movie universe. Now, the universe is here, the Avengers have assembled, and this return to the less-exciting cast of characters in the Iron Man-verse marks a drop in momentum from last summer's epic high.

My Grade: B

Danny Says THE AVENGERS is a SMASHING Success!

THE AVENGERS Review:

- The fact that The Avengers turned out the way it did ... the fact that it even exists ... is sort of a minor miracle. The Avengers might be the most purely comic-book-y, most geek-friendly superhero movie of all time, and yet it's a mega-blockbuster, a box-office record-setter, and is coming off of a $200 million dollar plus opening weekend. If The Avengers was a comic book series about the first mission of The Avengers, it would be hailed as one of the greatest Avengers comics ever written. This is a movie jam-packed with over-the-top action and cosmic scope, and yet, overflowing with great character moments, humor, and sharp dialogue. I mean ... are you kidding me?! This isn't supposed to happen. But it did. Joss Whedon and co. pulled it off, and pulled it off big time. But let's face it: for anyone in the know, there was never any question that Joss could write and direct the hell out of an Avengers adventure if given the chance. What was and is surprising is that Marvel and Disney had the balls and the bravery and the intelligence to go ahead and let him do it. The result is a modern classic of superhero cinema. Finally, we've moved beyond the ritualistic retelling of secret origins. Finally, we've moved past the formulaic structure of and limited scope of so many superhero flicks of the last several years. With The Avengers, we finally and truly get a movie that captures the feeling of opening a Marvel comic and experiencing sensory overload from the sheer number of colorful characters and cool, far-out concepts. This is, finally, the Marvel Universe on the big-screen. And my god, it is good.

There are a lot of elements that help make The Avengers feel like it's playing on a different quality level than most other superhero movies. To preface that, I know everyone has their favorites, but personally I'd say that, prior to now, Spiderman 2 and Captain America were my favorite Marvel movies, though I've enjoyed all of the precursors to The Avengers to varying degrees. That said, what instantly makes The Avengers stand out to me is THE SCRIPT. In typical Whedon fashion, the dialogue zings by with a snappiness that is a joy. The movie's got dozens of instant-classic, memorable, quotable lines - and man, is that refreshing or what? To me, that is a MUST for a comic book movie, yet so many have had relatively flat scripts sans truly memorable dialogue moments. And I probably don't need to tell you this, but Robert Downey Jr. and Joss Whedon's dialogue are a match made in heaven. Hearing the fast-talking Tony Stark rattle off Whedon's snarky put-downs, funny pop-cultural references, and taunts-in-the-heat-of-battle ... well, it's a thing of beauty. But the thing is ... *everyone* has great lines in this movie - the Hulk ("puny god!"), Captain America ("I get that reference!"), and so on. And everyone has great characterization to boot.

And there is the other amazing thing about The Avengers. Every. Single. Character. has their moment in the sun. The balancing act that the film pulls off is astounding. I mean, going in, I thought it was a given that there'd be some great back-and-forth between Downey's Stark and Chris Evans' Steve Rogers. But I never expected that Scarlet Johansson's Black Widow would have so many kickass scenes. I didn't anticipated that The Incredible Hulk would be a complete scene-stealer and in one fell swoop become awesome again. Tom Hiddleston's Loki is a great villain - more engaging and compelling than in Thor. Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye is badass and singlehandedly just raised the bar for what a TV or bigscreen Green Arrow would have to measure up to. I mean, hell, freaking Agent Coulson kicks ass in this movie! In every other Marvel movie, he's just been "that guy who's in every Marvel movie." But here, he's the man!

Sure, Whedon had the benefit of being able to play off of the characterizations established in the previous Marvel films. But still - one could go into this one not having seen 'em and still totally get it. A lot of it comes back to the script. Whedon brilliantly structures the film so as to deftly re-introduce us to each major character. He also layers in plenty of dialogue that's textured with characterization and character-building moments. He remembers that we love these heroes because of the characterization and because of their interactions with each other. He gets that that mix of clashing personalities is what makes superhero team-ups (and the inevitable infighting that results) so fun in the first place. So yes, Avengers has got balls-to-the-wall action, but the action is that much better and more satisfying because the characters are treated with such care and respect, and because the action is all predicated on their conflicts, teamwork, and personal choices. Like I said, each character has their major "whoah, watch me kick ass!" moments - but those moments are made all the more satisfying by the slow builds that lay the foundation for the epic battles. This is, quite simply, a new template for how to do superheroes right.

And of course, so much of the credit goes to the actors who make this film really come alive. I think that's another thing that makes The Avengers so remarkable - they actually pulled off the impossible dream of getting all the major A-list actors from each Marvel franchise back for this one. Egos were put aside - from both the actors and from the directors who willfully tied their films into the larger creative vision - and now we get *this.* Okay, sure, Edward Norton was out and Mark Ruffalo was in as Bruce Banner. And I did think that, man, it would have been really, really interesting to see Norton in the mix here. But Ruffalo is quite good, and he does a smart thing in that he really makes Banner his own. He's less Norton's twitchy, on-edge, version of the character. Instead, he reminded me a lot of Raylan Givens on Justified ... smiling, friendly, wryly funny ... with the anger luring underneath the surface. And it's that duality that gives us one of the film's most memorable moments, the revelation about the true nature of Banner's anger - which Ruffalo plays perfectly. But seriously, everyone is great here. Robert Downey Jr. is fantastic - he just owns it as Iron Man, as good as ever if not better. How awesome is Chris Evans as Captain America? Evans blew me away with his Christopher Reeves-esque performance in the Cap movie, and he carries over that same earnestness here - and it's all the more fun now that he's in our time and part of this bigger team with a more cosmic scope than his WWII adventures. Seeing Evans' natural charisma and sense of duty slowly evolve his role into team leader is a highlight of the film.

Similarly, Chris Hemsworth as Thor continues to be awesome. The dude *is* Thor. And he 100% pulls off what is surely one of the goofiest Marvel heroes and makes him a badass. Whedon lets RDJ and others poke some fun at the guy (calling him "Legolas", among other things), but still, Hemsworth is just uber-believable. So when Thor's mighty hammer crashes into Cap's unbreakable shield, it's just a moment of pure ownage that will give fanboys chills. Jeremy Renner has only made cameos to date as Hawkeye, but look, when you get one of the best actors working today to fill the role of - let's face it - one of the more B-list members of the team, you know that the cast of your movie is stacked. Nonetheless, Renner's natural badassery is key, because Hawkeye has to work as both a believable adversary and eventual ally and equal to the other Avengers. And even though Hawkeye is ultimately just a dude with a bow-and-arrow, Renner makes him a standout and a powerhouse in his own right. Same goes for ScarJo's turn as Black Widow. Johansson always seemed a little wrong for this part to me, but by god, she's great here. She makes the Widow a strong character (thanks in no small part to Whedon, who as we all know can write the hell out of kickass female characters) - a badass combatant who also has some serious personal baggage. Did anyone going in expect that arguably the film's two best action sequences would be centered around Black Widow? No? Well, they do.

And as I alluded to, the movie is just so jam-packed with fun characters and performances, it's insane. Samuel L. Jackson is one bad motha' as always as Nick Fury, agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. And yes, I'd like that S.H.I.E.L.D. movie now please. Meanwhile, Tom Hiddleston is really, really good as primary villain Loki, carried over from Thor. While Loki is less the mastermind, and more the emissary for a giant-ass alien armada that plans to invade, Hiddleston gets all the meaty badguy lines and does a great job with 'em. I was worried that Loki wouldn't be a good enough villain, having already appeared in and been defeated in THOR. But as it turns out, the combination of a cackling, scheming Loki and an evil alien army with jet-bikes, giant snake-like ships, and legions of foot-soldiers is a formidable combo indeed. Loki sort of sets things in motion, but when business picks up and the aliens invade New York, the ensuing battle is epic and just nonstop mayhem - expertly choreographed and full of momentum. I think that speaks to the fact that, hey, Joss Whedon can do action. He stages some of the most purely fun and exhilarating action sequences we've seen in a big movie like this in quite some time. I'd say that Star Wars would be an apt comparison - the level of childlike glee that Whedon clearly takes in staging the big action and maximizing all of his characters within them - it took me back to the kind of sheer immersion and kinetic energy of the OT Star Wars trilogy.

By the way, back to that cast for one minute - when you've got minor roles filled out by the likes of POWERS BOOTHE, Harry Dean Stanton, Stellan Skarsgard (reprising his role from Thor), and Gwyneth Paltrow (back as Pepper Potts), again, you know you're playing with a stacked deck. If only Mr. Boothe could have been given a bit of a bigger role ... he is just such a badass (watch Deadwood to see what I mean).

Finally, Whedon and co. just have a sense of geek-love that makes the movie feel more fun and more joyous than so much of what we've seen before in the genre. Rather than run away from the movie's colorful comic book roots, Whedon embraces them. None of that X-Men everyone-wears-matching-leather stuff here. This movie is comic book colorful, and it's great. It oozes Marvel magic. And even though the film is accessible to all, it also revels in the stuff that comic geeks love - callbacks to past continuity, the sense of a larger shared universe, the mash-up of different genres (sci-fi, fantasy, espionage) into one messy whole, and yes - the cliffhanger ending. Stay through the credits and you'll see a bonus coda that promises that future Avengers adventures may get infinitely more cosmic and grand (and stay until the very end to see a hilarious glimpse at what happens in the hours *after* the Avengers have saved the day).

So is this the perfect Marvel superhero film? Almost. It's very close. The movie does so many things right that you almost don't want to pick apart what it does wrong. And the movie is, in so many ways, a template for how to make an awesome superhero flick. And yet, narratively, I think there are a couple things that are lacking.

- As great as The Hulk is in this movie (and make no mistake, he rules it), the movie glosses over some of the character's major evolutions throughout the course of the film. Yes, it's there between the lines. But the great line that Banner says towards the end of the movie is a great line, but also doesn't explain much. It feels like a scene was cut that gave some more insight into The Hulk's eventual ability to be more in control of his rage. With a little more explanation, I think The Hulk's major behavioral shift would have felt a little less out-of-nowhere and a little more satisfying.

- I know that there's a Captain America sequel on the horizon, but I felt the movie missed a big opportunity to show the impact of America's greatest WW2 hero suddenly reappearing - and still kicking ass - in the year 2012. I kept waiting for some senior citizen (Stan Lee?) to express amazement at seeing their childhood hero back - alive, kicking, and still youthful. The movie even sets up this moment near perfectly with a great little scene where two NYPD cops ask why they should take orders from Cap.

- More fleshing out of the aliens. I loved the look and design of the alien armada - but who are they exactly and what's their deal? I know some things may carry over into a sequel, but it did feel a bit odd to have this big alien invasion be so random and seemingly motiveless. A little more backstory would have potentially gone a long way.

- Nick Fury. Sam Jackson is indeed a bad m-f'er, but probably the one character that gets a bit slighted in all this is Mr. Fury. We still haven't gotten even a glimpse of his backstory. And - I wanted at least one memorable Fury-kicking-ass moment.

- The music. Man, one of the key things that keeps this from being a true classic might just be the music. Sure, the themes are okay, but there's nothing truly iconic or memorable here. Nothing that you'll go home humming, except for the pretty-catchy Soundgarden song that accompanies the closing credits. You can't overstate how crucial the scores of franchises like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Superman, or Batman are to the success of those series - and Avengers deserved a score on par with those films.

At the end of the day though, THE AVENGERS is quite simply a game-changer in many ways. Even if it isn't in and of itself a stone-cold classic (and maybe, over time, it will indeed be regarded as such), it personally changed what I want out of superhero flicks. It moves up past the same ol' origin stories and takes us to the next level - capturing the fun and sense of anything-can-happen wonder of the big Marvel team-up and event comics of the past and present. It's got that Lee/Kirby sense of wonderment, but also a modern slickness laced with some of the best, snappiest, and funniest dialogue we've seen in a big action blockbuster. Honestly, The Avengers makes me look at other superhero movies and movie universes and desperately want them to follow this model. As cool as it is to see director-driven movies that make serious dramas out of superheroes, ultimately they *are* superheroes - and I don't see why there's any need to be ashamed of that. The Avengers has no shame, and I say that in the best way possible. It's ultimately, in that sense, a personal movie. Because even though it's 100% mass-market pop entertainment, it's also not toned down or made more palatable for the mainstream. On the contrary, it's Joss Whedon showing us these comic book icons and saying "see, see - *this* is why these guys are so cool!".

My Grade: A-