Iron Man 3 is much as you might expect: lots of terrific
looking special-effects shots where the hero zooms through the sky, top-notch
production values, endless loud, banging, metallic sounds, Robert Downey Jr.
quipping ceaselessly, and several menacing villains. It is an enormous-budget,
superhero movie, after all.
Something I didn’t expect, however, was to be surprised by some
of the plot twists, ones which seldom exist in summer-action films, especially
those marketed to teenagers. So it’s got that going for it.
The film begins with Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr, reprising
his role) tinkering with the latest iteration of his iconic Iron Man suit. This
one has parts that (like a dog) come when called, the pieces magically assembling
upon him. It’s a neat effect, but one he hasn’t completely perfected, quite yet.
That he spends most of his time trying irks live-in love
interest Pepper Potts (once again played by Gwyneth Paltrow). She spends most
of the film sulking, angry that Stark spends more time focused on his toys,
rather than her. Would Lois Lane ever react this way?
But all is not routine domestic banality. Deadly explosions
have occurred all over the world, for which the mysterious new villain the
Mandarin takes credit. Played with psychopathic menace by the only British
actor (Steven Colbert points out) who’s not in any Harry Potter films, Ben
Kingsley is essentially a terrorist, who’s given to threatening rants of
pseudo-philosophical nonsense, wraps himself in terrorist iconography, and
occasionally takes over television airwaves. They’re puzzling, these bombings, because
there’s none of the evidence that usually accompanies such a crime: no powder,
blasting caps, housings, or chemical residue. The question isn’t who’s behind
the bombings, but how are they being committed?
After his trusty chauffeur Happy (Jon Favreau, stepping back
from his directorial duties) is caught in one, Stark boldly gives his home
address on national television, daring the Mandarin to face him mano-a-mano (a
phrase which always reminds me of Dice Clay, in “Ford Fairlaine”).
A showdown which (of course) takes place. In an impressive scene
involving helicopters, missiles, infinite rounds of automatic-weapons fire, explosions,
and Stark’s staggeringly-opulent mansion tumbling into the Pacific, (a similar
scene occurs in writer Shane Black’s 1987 Mel Gibson movie “Lethal Weapon”), it
appears the wealthy Stark has finally met his equal.
But this is a superhero movie, so we know that can’t be the
case.
To his credit, writer/director Black makes the interesting
choice of forcing Stark to sometimes face foes without the seemingly invincible
Iron Man armor. Instead, in this third go round Stark’s forced to be clever and
resourceful, rather than simply overwhelming his latest enemies with superior firepower.
This is one of the genuine creative inspirations of Iron Man 3.
The plot also includes a handful lesser villains, Don
Cheadle as red-white-and-blue version of Iron Man dubbed the “Iron Patriot”
(formerly “War Machine”), and mysterious chemical compound, capable of
recombining existing DNA.
Full disclosure: anymore, superhero movies leave me feeling mostly
indifferent. With the exception of “the Dark Knight Rises,” their familiar formulas
of good-guy-gets-in-trouble, all-appears-lost, hero-miraculously-saves-the-day I
just don’t find very suspenseful. Sure, the explosions (and production budgets)
are bigger and louder, and the visual effects more convincing. But there aren’t
really any 3-dimensional characters, with whom to identify. The action feels
over-the-top and cartoony, not genuinely scary. I feel like I know the basics
of what’s going to happen before I take my seat. Which might be true with most
films. However, it’s the movie’s job to distract me from knowing that.
Perhaps all these kinds of films aspire to be are escapist
entertainment? I can imagine some saying I’m overanalyzing a picture that’s
based on a comic-book. But Indiana Jones and Star Wars were popcorn movies, and
they had dramatic tension. I don’t feel much escape, when all I’m seeing
and hearing on the screen are a bunch of brightly-colored things loudly crashing
and burning. There’s never any doubt the good guys will win. Or much question
about who will live and die. Like the old G.I. Joe cartoons, after all the ammo’s
spent, the good guys are rarely even hurt (much less mortally), in these films.
When “Austin Powers” came out, James Bond films were
essentially ruined for me. Mike Myers keenly poked fun at how absurd it is
that, despite all the overwhelming waves of unimaginable violence Bond faces,
he rarely gets so much as a scratch. Without any sense that our hero might be
in some actual danger, where’s the suspense and intrigue? We know for certain
that he’ll always get up, come back, and defeat the evil super villain.
Superhero films of late similarly lack any sense of
perceived peril. I had the same problem with Thor, the Avengers, and the
much-better Captain America. Without the exhilaration of suspense, I haven’t
thought of any of them again since, even once.
Iron Man looks great, and all. Everything appears very
realistic. I’m sure it took much effort to achieve, and is an authentic
technical accomplishment. It will undoubtedly makes tons of money, and likely
inspire another sequel. It has some interesting plot devices, too. But after all as
is said and done, once the last missile is fired, the final explosion
extinguished, the bad guy vanquished, and the hero finally rides off into the
sunset with his best gal, do I really care?
No comments:
Post a Comment