Iron Man 3 (2013)

This was the second part of my first ever drive-in double feature, the first part being Monsters University. I had held out for years until there were two films showing that I thought would make the occasion worthwhile. The first one met that goal but this Marvel Universe sequel did not. I don’t know what happened to Tony Stark in The Avengers (which I have not seen) but the fun of the Iron Man series seems to have disappeared completely.

Months after the events of The Avengers, Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) is haunted by nightmares and panic attacks. To cope, he plunges himself into making dozens of new super-suits, drawing the ire of his girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). Meanwhile, a once flaky scientist from Tony’s past (Guy Pearce) reemerges with a potentially game-changing new biomedical process. When an international terrorist called The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) destroys Stark’s home, Tony is believed to be dead. This allows him to work in secret to both uncover the secrets of The Mandarin but also to get his super hero groove back.

I’ve always believed that Iron Man was Marvel’s answer for DC Comic’s Batman- an incredibly smart person who makes up for a lack of super powers with brains and gadgets. While Batman often faces a number of flamboyant criminals, the Iron Man film series has featured more practical baddies. After defeating a corrupt businessman in a super-suit and a genius inventor in a super-suit, I was hopeful for more unique villain. The strength and power of the Iron Man suits require a villain of extreme abilities in order to pose much of a threat. In a way, Iron Man 3 splits the difference and creates two villains- one to challenge Tony’s brain and the other to challenge the power of his suits.

Unfortunately, neither villain really satisfies. The Mandarin seemed like a great villain at first and I even think his true identity is quite clever. But when you think about it, he is little more than the fusion of red herring and MacGuffin. The ruse doesn’t even make the second villain seem any smarter because he ends up being little more than your paint-by-numbers, overconfident, super-powered comic book villain.

As a summer blockbuster and a comic book movie, Iron Man 3 does not hold back on effects-heavy action sequences. The Extremis storyline lends itself to a lot of special effects at times, plunging the series deeper into the sci-fi realm. The whole connected Marvel Universe strikes me as deeply rooted in sci-fi but, not having seen The Avengers, Iron Man 3’s level of sci-fi takes something away from the series, which had been fairly realistic up to this point. Just like most summer extravaganzas, some of the special effects are too prominent and don’t pull off their intended illusions.

Superheroes struggling to find the drive to fight crime again is nothing new but it is interesting watching Tony Stark go through the process. His whole wallowing in a funk through most of the film creates an atmosphere that is more brooding mystery than summer action flick. It doesn’t go all Christopher Nolan-Batman on you but it is definitely a departure for the series. Had the villains worked out better, this probably could have been the best in the series instead of experiencing the growing pains that it does. Even its cathartic ending doesn’t satisfy because you know the Marvel machine won’t let one of its most bankable characters walk off into the sunset just yet.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Sliding Doors (1998)

Edwin Schrödinger is famous for proposing a thought experiment involving a cat locked in a windowless room with some poison. His quantum mechanics brethren argue that, reality being based on our subjective observations, until one opens the door to the room, two realities actually exist: the cat is both dead from eating the poison and alive from not eating the poison. The option you perceive to be true when you open the door determines the fate of the cat. This principle comes into play during Sliding Doors, which could have also been called Schrödinger’s Chick Flick.

Helen Quilley (Gwyneth Paltrow) gets fired from her job early in the day and heads home to sulk. She reaches the train station at the last possible moment and her life splits into two realities. In one, she makes the train, arrives home to find her boyfriend (John Lynch) in bed with another woman, dumps his sorry butt, and falls in love with another man (John Hannah). In the other, she misses the train, stays with her cheating bohemian boyfriend, works two crappy jobs to support his goal of becoming a writer, and is generally frustrated with life.

When I was a young lad in the 1990s, this was one of those films that ‘everybody’ was talking about. Gwyneth Paltrow was the ‘it girl’ of the moment, and chick flicks never go out of style. What’s not to like? While some sequences are cleverly shot to produce a seamless transition between realities, this film will disappoint anyone hoping for any serious philosophical musings. I wouldn’t be so harsh as to call the twin realities a gimmick but it never really evolves past the point of being an interesting idea.

For those wondering about convergence and finality, yes, there is some. I won’t spoil the ending for you but I will say that I was not a fan of how the realities converge. There is a cute little sendoff that suggests our principal characters are somehow aware of the other reality that could have been, but that’s all it is- cute. It serves its purpose as a chick flick by giving audiences plenty to gush over, rant about, and hope for.

I suppose I was expecting more from this film, though I don’t know why. It was buzz-worthy upon release but it hasn’t gone down in the annals of 90s movie must-sees. Maybe Brits and anglophiles will get more out of it, but I think it’s pretty clear throughout that Paltrow’s accent is phony. That and you can clearly tell where harsher swear words were over-dubbed in post-production to gain a more audience-friendly, PG-13 rating.

Calling Sliding Doors a failed experiment is unfair for three reasons. First, it was not the first film to dabble with simultaneous timelines. Second, it strikes me that the filmmakers never set out to make a philosophical, quantum physics-inducing film. Third, the story itself is enjoyable and entertaining. If you’re feeling like taking in something quirky and different, check it out. If you pass on it, it’s not the end of the world. At least not in this reality.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Iron Man 2 (2010)

I labored over what rating to give this film, I really did. I didn’t buy into the hype of its solid predecessor, probably to the ire of a few comic geeks and fanboys, but I still acknowledged its merits. Now shed of the restrictions that come with an origin story first installment, the Iron Man franchise is given a chance to expand its territory and flex a little summer movie muscle. Fortunately, Iron Man 2 doesn’t fall flat like so many sequels before it have.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) has an awful lot on his plate. Since revealing himself as Iron Man, he has spent six months using his unbeatable suit to bring us as close to world peace as possible. What thanks does he get for this? Firstly, the US government is jealous and trying to force Stark to hand over his suit designs for military use. Second, a Russian man named Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) creates his own arc reactor and deadly weapons to exact revenge on the Stark family name. Oh, and there’s also the nasty little fact that palladium core of Stark’s mini-arc reactor is poisoning him, with death just around the corner.

There are other bumps in the road as well. A shifty defense contractor is willing to hire Vanko as a consultant in developing new mechanized drones to one-up Iron Man. Stark also continues his rocky relationship with his personal assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). Finally, he’s being hounded by a mysterious organization called S.H.I.E.L.D. as well. With all of this going on, what the heck is a superhero to do?

Here’s my beef with Iron Man 2- the main conflict between Stark and Vanko (and later a team of artillery-laden drones) is more or less a retread. The fact that Iron Man has brought about world peace illustrates the fact that the only thing that can possibly pose a threat to him is another super-suit. In Iron Man, second-in-command of Stark Industries Obadiah Stane built a similar arc-reactor-fueled suit in an attempt to take out Stark/Iron Man. This time around it’s Vanko with a suit-like weapon and an eventual full suit of his own.

The only difference here is motivation. Stane sought to eliminate Stark because his reckless behavior and crisis of conscience were bad for business. Vanko just wants revenge because his father was cast away with no credit for designing the original arc reactor with Tony Stark’s dad back in the day. Revenge is a perfectly acceptable motive (and honestly, it’s way cooler than greed) but you can’t deny that the means of exacting that revenge are a smidge redundant. It works for this sequel but Iron Man is going to need to come up against a different kind of villain in the future if the series is going to stay fresh.

Vanko isn’t the only storyline in the film, which is a helpful distraction. The pursuit of Stark by S.H.I.E.L.D. is interesting because it throws very different personalities together that create sparks and some witty banter. His struggle to find a new power source for the arc reactor in his chest is interesting and it fits the mold of superhero sequels in that it makes Stark reassess himself and his priorities. Fortunately this (and a little daddy issue resolution) is as serious as Iron Man 2 gets.

Batman Begins ushered in a new era of ‘serious’ comic book films. Iron Man is a breath of fresh air because, while still playing things rather serious and realistic, the filmmakers pump in a lot of sarcasm and fun into the mix. Instead of sulking over his new-found responsibilities, Tony Stark embraces his role as Iron Man. He plays it up for the camera and genuinely loves what he does. He’s a bit narcissistic but that’s part of the character’s allure.

Another reason Iron Man is so different is that he doesn’t have a secret identity. There’s no duality here like with Batman, Superman or Spider-Man. Tony Stark has one consistent personality in and out of the suit. He’s not trying to blend in. He’s already told the world he is Iron Man and is milking it for all it’s worth. None of the other major superheroes walk around exposed like this and it makes for a completely different story experience.

Chances are, Iron Man 2 is everything you were hoping for in a sequel- it’s bigger, louder and every bit as fun, if not more so. It’s not as deep as the first installment, but did it have to be? We know what Stark stands for- peace, justice and a party every other night. The filmmakers aren’t bogged down with crafting an origin for half of the film so they fill it with what the summer movie crowd likes- explosions, special effects and a little bit of silliness. I mean, seriously- Daft Punk’s “Robot Rock” playing during a fight scene? Chuckle City my friend.

In many ways, Iron Man is the ideal summertime popcorn superhero. Deep thinkers can hold off for the next Batman movie and fanboys can always latch onto the next B-list or lower superhero flick that gets made. Iron Man made it cool for superheroes to be a little corny again. Iron Man 2 feels like the kind of movie the filmmakers wanted to produce the first go around but couldn’t because they literally had to do an origin story. The plot is undoubtedly a tad repetitive but I think I’d rather watch this sequel again over the first one any day. Besides- I can’t think of another time when I have ever seen my mother-in-law bobbing her head to AC/DC songs. That alone has got to count for something.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Iron Man (2008)

After the success of the X-Men and Spider-Man franchises, Marvel Comics brings one of its most beloved comic book heroes to the big screen. It melds the original spirit of the comic with current events and a few updates. Mixing high-flying action, wit and an anti-war message is a tall undertaking but Iron Man manages to pull it off in just the right bright and loud package that comic book fanboys and summer movie audiences require.

Billionaire playboy Tony Stark is on top of the world. He is a brilliant inventor and head of the most profitable weapons manufacturer on the planet. He is a wry, sarcastic son of a gun and loves his liquor. However, after he is attacked and held prisoner by a terrorist cell after a weapons demonstration in the Middle East, Stark suffers a crisis of conscience. After building a robotic suit to facilitate his escape, he destroys his captors and finds his way home.

Stark holds a press conference and proclaims that his company will no longer manufacture weapons, having been on the receiving end of their awesome wrath. The decision is balked at and blocked by the company’s board of directors, as there is very good money to be made from war. Stark then focuses his efforts on creating another version of the suit, intending to use it to do good in the world. The arrival of a mysterious new hero doesn’t go unnoticed though. Questions swirl around Stark as his personal relationships and business associates create equally unique turmoil in his life.

Robert Downey Jr. brings Tony Stark to life and makes him believable, not only as the womanizing playboy but the redemptive soul looking to help others as well. I think the casting of Downey was a brilliant move because he is one of only a handful of actors who could pull off the redemptive arc of Stark’s story. The Tony Stark we meet in the beginning of the film is very similar to Downey’s behavior during the late 90s. He battled addiction and came out on the other side a changed man. Having lived through such a dramatic transformation surely helped him get inside the mind of Tony Stark. Any time an actor can bring personal experience to their character, the performance is strengthened in ways other actors can only dream of.

While Robert Downey Jr. truly brings the film to life, the supporting cast of Iron Man helps keep everything in check. Gwyneth Paltrow’s Pepper Potts creates a believable personal assistant who has all but had enough of her boss’s antics. She is frustrated but she loves the man, probably the only reason she still stands by his side. Jeff Bridges portrays Obadiah Stane, the quintessential heartless businessman. He is more concerned about making money and keeping the stock holders happy. During the second half of the film, it is revealed just how far he would go to protect his two main interests.

Other supporting characters include a straight-laced military man, mysterious representatives of a secret organization called S.H.I.E.L.D., and various other members of the populo minutiae. The key to the film’s success is that none of these supporting characters share in Stark’s wit and sarcasm. They react to it and often times work against it, which is key. It helps isolate Stark as the central character but also with himself. Everyone was tired of his antics before his turnaround and, after it, most have a hard time believing it is genuine. Stark really does stand alone against the odds.

In many ways, Iron Man is Marvel Comics answer to Batman. Both involve wealthy tycoons masquerading as superheroes, using their personal fortunes and resources to do so. Both are very much mortal and the only thing that makes them "super" is their devotion to their cause. Each contains a world of colorful characters, both good and bad. The big difference is that, while Batman’s Bruce Wayne is a fairly straight-shooting man seeking a mix of redemption and revenge for something he blames himself for (the death of his parents), Tony Stark doesn’t wear his nobility on his sleeve. Stark has a warmer and more approachable personality and has no inner demons haunting him. Iron Man is something of the average Joe’s Batman; a guy who would save your life, make fun of your hairstyle and then toss back a few beers with you.

This makes Iron Man all the more likable but there were aspects of the film that just didn’t do it for me. It’s very clear that the filmmakers intended this to be the start of a movie franchise and not just a one-shot superhero flick. This forces Iron Man to spend an awful lot of time introducing us to the world of Tony Stark and the characters that inhabit it. Some of these people will become more important down the line but they have to be introduced early in order for grander plans to pay off. This is the unfortunate truth about many origin story films. Time must be taken to bring you up to speed slowly and then pay off all that build up in the second half.

For some, the payoff Iron Man delivers will be sufficient. For me, it was enough to be enjoyable but I was hoping for more. Critics and fans alike enjoyed the film and it’s easy to see why. The action scenes are fun and high-energy, the computer effects look really good for the most part and the hero doesn’t go around speaking in robotic platitudes about doing the right thing. Maybe it’s because I was never into comic books and there wasn’t an Iron Man Saturday morning cartoon to watch when I was a kid, but the film failed to grab and engage me like other superhero flicks have. As good as it is, I don’t feel compelled to watch it again.

Exhilarating but not breathtaking, Iron Man left me feeling like there was more beneath the surface than the filmmakers could bring out the first time around. It’s not necessarily a bad thing but it makes for an awkward introduction. I think that the next installment of the franchise is going to be better for having gotten all the origin stuff out of the way. That’s seems to be how these things work nowadays.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Shakespeare in Love** (1998)

Plain and simple, there are too many fruitballs in the Academy. There is no reason for this movie to have won Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan, one of the most gripping, moving and emotionally jarring films ever made. Instead of choosing a clearly superior film loosely based on a true story full of bravery during one of mankind’s most horrific hours, the Academy decides to honor a piece of pure fiction taking place in an idealized vision of the Renaissance, filled to the brim with historical inaccuracies. And pleather.

Of course, Shakespeare in Love isn’t trying to be accurate in anything it does, which, I guess, is the beauty of it. Just like theatre, the film is flooded with convenience and the use of deus ex machina. There’s plenty of ham to go with the overabundance of cheese as well.

Instead of the drab garb of a repressed middle and lower class, the streets are filled with vibrant colors and fabrics that may or may not have existed back then. The Bohemian lifestyle of living for love despite wretched conditions is perpetuated and glorified in an all too unrealistic way here, and the Renaissance period is whitewashed, where even the potential of plague and illness don’t muck up the fluffy white clouds on the horizon for our characters.

But don’t get me wrong. For what it is, Shakespeare in Love is a solidly good film. It’s exactly the kind of thing its audience is looking for- a fictitious love story set up ambiguously during real events (a la Titanic and Pearl Harbor) with all the frills of a fancy theatre fruitball jolly-fest. And for delivering what the audience wants, it’s a good film. Good costuming and some good camerawork too, which is why it has such a good rating.

As far as my personal tastes go, this one is a dud. But, since I try and keep things in a cinematic perspective, I’ve got to give credit where credit is due, even though the thought of Shakespeare in pleather gives me the chills.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5