Marvel's Man of Steel, I mean, Iron, returns for part-three

Rating: 7/10 (21 December 2014)

No one will doubt the fact that since 2008, the superhero movie genre has just simply exploded into a big-budget Hollywood money-making machine. I still remember the days when just this time 20 years ago, superhero movies were still a burgeoning - if not seriously overlooked (by the mainstream) - film genre, and Tim Burton's 1989 "Batman," or the first two "Superman" movies starring the late Christopher Reeve, were relegated as the best the genre had to offer.
Not anymore.
Superhero movies are a dime a dozen now, it would seem. While this was unheard-of in 1994, 20 years later, they're everywhere. It seems that on average, Hollywood is releasing at least two big-budget superhero films a year. This is good for comic book superhero fans who are finally seeing their (modern-day) versions of the ancient Greek gods get the big-screen treatments they deserve. And therein, for this viewer, lies the biggest problem with the latest crop of superhero movies.
In past reviews, I've made no attempt to hide the deep love and respect I have for comic books and superheroes. 10 years ago, I got the opportunity to see what I still consider to be the greatest superhero film of all time - "Spider-Man 2" (2004) - in the theater. Of course, at that time, the superhero movie genre was still gaining wider prominence and acceptance in Hollywood (and by extension, the rest of the mainstream as a whole), and was not the commercial fad that it is now.
My problem with the latest crop of superhero movies - meaning most of the films made since 2008 - is that the genre has become formulaic and commercialized. The earlier films made in the second wave of superhero films 10 years ago, and even the films made earlier than that, whether good or bad, were clearly driven by passionate filmmakers who understood the medium and at least tried to give their films some deeper meaning or dramatic/thematic complexity; Donner, Burton, Proyas, Raimi, Singer, and others knew what they were doing back then. I don't really see this type of cinematic artistry, and craft, much anymore; most films are just big, empty, glossy-looking blockbuster spectacles with no greater depth to them than any other major Hollywood film.
What I'm saying is that Hollywood has effectively hijacked what was once the most novel and original of film genres and turned it into formula. There have been occasional flashes of brilliance or originality - "Chronicle" (2012) has so far been the biggest "original" (meaning not based on pre-existing material) movie made during this time, and I'm sure we were all over-joyed with James Gunn's smart-alecky "Guardians of the Galaxy" earlier this year.
But I got way off-track here, and I must go back to what we were talking about originally, which is 2013's "Iron Man 3." "Iron Man 3" is perhaps the darkest "Iron Man" to come out yet. One of the biggest regrets I've ever had of this particular Marvel Comics cinematic franchise, is that Marvel's Man of Iron, Tony Stark, has had some of the most harrowing and dramatic personal battles of any superhero since Peter Parker/Spider-Man. While Robert Downey, Jr. is inspired, pitch-perfect casting as Tony Stark/Iron Man, the films have regretfully avoided the deeper dramatic possibilities that made the original comic book character so fascinating: of course, Tony Stark is arguably the most famous superhero to have ever struggled with the perils of drug addiction (alcoholism).
While a great inventor and superhero in his own right, underneath the armor, Stark was still a normal human being, and he was vulnerable to the same personal afflictions that could affect any one of us. That was what drew readers to his adventures, both personal and societal, and it was always this dynamic that made it interesting in seeing how he overcame it all. The "Iron Man" films have largely taken the "safer" (commercial) route.
In this third cinematic outing, set just before the Christmas holidays, Stark is still his big old arrogant self, though for some reason he's suffering the effects of PTSD as a result of the events of "The Avengers" (2012). This time out, he's battling a terrorist known as The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), who may or may not also be connected to yet another corporate rival named Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce). In the meantime, Stark must also try to rebuild his crumbling relationship with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and maintain his friendship with Col. James Rhodes (Don Cheadle), who also moonlights as War Machine (who has since been renamed as the more politically-correct "Iron Patriot" by his government sponsors); regretfully, Cheadle's War Machine is pretty much nothing more than a cameo here.
The first two "Iron Man" pictures were directed by Jon Favreau (who also returns as Happy Hogan, though he's also been pretty much reduced to nothing more than a cameo here), while this latest effort is co-written and directed by "Lethal Weapon" scribe Shane Black. Anyone who remembers Black knows that he was pretty much the screen-writing master behind several witty dialogue-driven action blockbusters - think "The Last Boy Scout" (1991) - back in the '80s and early '90s (before the arrival of Quentin Tarantino), so it's no surprise that virtually every bit of dialogue written here is a one-liner with an exclamation point at the end.
I already stated my ambivalence toward this film series, but I can take pleasure in the fact that this might be the last, and that at least Iron Man seems to fare better when paired up with other superheroes. Robert Downey, Jr. is his usual appealing self, but the movie itself is also a disappointment, if not a completely enjoyable disappointment.
7/10