A mixed bag

Rating: 5/10 (28 August 2013)

After five movies and one giant superhero mash-up, the Marvel superhero formula is getting as stale as old bread. With the only Marvel stand- alone superhero film to have a sequel (so far - Thor: The Dark World and Captain American: The Winter Soldier are imminent) being Iron Man, did the world really need a third entry into this franchise? More importantly, did we want it? Well, with over $1 billion in the bank and the label of fifth highest grossing film of all time, the answer is an overwhelming yes. The franchise certainly needed a fresh injection of life - Jon Favreau's massively disappointing follow up to his impressive Iron Man (2008) perhaps showed his inexperience as director, though he has stayed on to reprise his role as bodyguard Happy Hogan (looking worryingly bloated). Changes have been made, and although the critics seemed to lap up Iron Man 3, audiences opinions seem strangely polar opposite.
Interesting choices for director have always been Marvel's thing, to allow a respected or rookie director a chance to inject their own sensibilities into the familiar superhero film. Sometimes it pays off - Kenneth Branagh's Shakespearian background gave Thor (2011) a certain gravitas when it could have been plain silly. But sometimes it doesn't, such as the choice of Joe Johnston - whose career is a very mixed bag anyway - for Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), which I found rather dull. So for Iron Man 3, in steps Shane Black, 80's buddy-comedy extraordinaire, whose filmography was somewhat re-discovered in fits of nostalgia of late, especially after the excellent Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005). And deservedly so, as Black's obvious talent for writing led to movies such as Lethal Weapon (1987) setting the benchmark for countless buddy movies to follow (and ultimately damage the sub-genre). So Iron Man 3 would bring Tony Stark back down to Earth, allowing a more intimate side to be seen and a chance for the supporting characters to finally make their mark.
It's certainly more down to Earth, with less of Tony Stark's quick- humour and arrogant prancing (which is what we love him for, especially with Downey Jr.). His new foe would finally be a match for him - not just a man in a different sort of Iron Man suit, but a true criminal mastermind that would meet him physically and mentally, in the same way that Bane smashed Batman in The Dark Knight Rises (2012). And after the opening third, Tony Stark is simply Tony Stark. His suits have been all but destroyed, his friends are far away, and the prototype escape suit he is left with is damaged almost beyond repair, so even the trusty JARVIS (voiced by Paul Bettany) isn't there to help. He must now use his wits, but without his suit, he is physically and mentally vulnerable, not helped by the pursuing super soldier Savin (James Badge Dale).
This is where I find that superhero movies get interesting, when the central character is stripped of all his powers and we see the true man (or woman!) underneath. Yet Stark's task is a rather tedious one, trying to put the pieces together of a relatively simplistic yet clumsily executed central plot with the help of a precocious child (played by Ty Simpkins), who just so happens to have an obsession with engineering. Didn't child sidekicks die out in the early 1990's when film-makers realised that no-one likes them? If it is in fact Shane Black's way to give a nod-and-wink to the audience, then there's not really any call for it. This is not a throwback to buddy movies so in-jokes of the like have no place here.
If there's one thing to be said about Black after seeing this, is that he must have balls made of diamonds. Alec Baldwin's character in Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) certainly would have employed him in real estate. The decision he made regarding the main villain of the story is one that had the comic-book nerds shaking the foundations of their parents' basements, and one that had me appalled. I cannot say much without revealing the twist, but it's a baffling decision, one that would have been rather clever under different circumstances. It leads to Stark's nemesis being just as dull as previous instalments, which have been the main problem with the franchise. Finally we could have had a bad guy up to Christopher Nolan's standards, but it is side-stepped in favour of something all the more familiar.
Iron Man 3 is a mixed bag. Action-wise, this is the best so far, with excellent CGI work leading to a thrilling climax which includes an army of iron men suits. But the humour - Black's forte and something that has been spot-on in the first two movies - seems forced and, at times, awkward. James Rhodes (Don Cheadle), Tony's best friend and frequenter of War Machine, has a larger role, but the chemistry and banter between the two lifelong friends is just not there. They are certainly no Riggs and Murtaugh. It also outstays its welcome, stretching credibility as far as it will go to the point of the ridiculous (since when has Tony Stark been Jason Bourne?), but it is a definite improvement of Iron Man 2 (2010), employing a more interesting internal struggle for Stark than mere daddy issues, and a more satisfying climax. As a whole, Iron Man 3 was undoubtedly a let-down for me, quite shocking given the talent involved, but my eagerness to see the film and my unquenched thirst for superhero movies proves that Marvel's formula still works even if some of their output just isn't up to scratch.
www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.co.uk