Whoops.
So, having now had an opportunity mull the movie over in my head, consider the implications of some of the points it put out, and see a few memes that were born from it, what'd I think? Find out after the jump.
I'm going to start by stating that I enjoyed both Iron Man and its less-successful sequel. The first one told us about the creation of a hero with fantastic technology ahead of anything else the world had ever seen. It was heartfelt at times, funny at others, and had a pretty well-done action scene towards the end. Out of all of the pre-Avengers movies, I think it holds up the best on its own, particularly because it was the first of the Marvel movies, it had to be a solid introduction to how things change from a normal world to one with superheroes.
Iron Man 2 was a bit of an odd duck. While it wasn't as good in terms of story, I felt it tackled some really big ideas that they then left open for others to think about. For instance, when you're an American with a walking, talking arsenal under your control that you refuse to share with the military, who's your biggest threat? Foreign powers? Your own government? Opportunistic businessmen? Well, it turns out it's all three.
I enjoyed the fact they showed that, in even our ever-changing world, in some instances wars aren't fought by countries anymore, but by huge, nearly untouchable businesses against countries or other businesses.
What both movies did extremely well (and Avengers helped) was take a character like Tony Stark who, let's face it, is what Bruce Wayne would be if his parents never died and feels no huge responsibility for the world until it's shown that even without trying, he could have a big hand in either helping or hurting a large number of people. He slowly learns to care for others, to value his own life beyond cheap physical thrills and material wealth, but he isn't a fully-built person yet.
It's great that this movie goes in the complete opposite direction from the first one, and instead of showing us a Tony Stark who cares little for anything in the world, we have one who, thanks to recent events involving space portals and building the first solid relationship he's ever had, seems to care too much. He doesn't sleep, he barely leaves his house, and he spends a lot of his time working on trying to make himself and the people he cares about safe. He's still at an extreme, it's just swung around the other way before it can settle in the middle.
Robert Downey, Jr does a great job, of course, since I'm still convinced this is the role he was born for. It's great to not only see a well-played comic book character on the screen, but it's especially satisfying when you remember everything in the actor's life that lead to him being able to get this break.
Gwyneth Paltrow is also superb in her role, having been able to adapt to the changing world she's found herself in, take control of what she can, and manage it extremely well. Even in a couple of action sequences she manages to handle herself, something that I forget came about of her own athleticism or whether Tony ever made her train to defend herself.
There are very few "weak" roles in the film (one character manages to not only feel extremely underutilized, but also seems to change sides depending on whoever's talking to them at the time), but I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about Ben Kingsley.
He's great. Absolutely great.
...yeah, that's all I got. I think that's all you really need. I mean, it's Ben Kingsley.
So, back to the story.
I was a bit puzzled by the "big evil" in this one, as I felt some of the motivation for the underlings was heavily under-explained. I mean, I got why they went through to become what they are in the film (spoiler alert, there are threats that are able to beat up Iron Man), but I never really understood why they all turned evil immediately afterward and were willing to kill a lot of people to get what they wanted.
There were a few details in the film that prickled the back of my brain. Tony seems to manage to get across country rather ridiculously quickly when he needs to, and while I understand it's an Iron Man movie, a brief explanation of why he can't call in "that guy with the hammer" or "that rampaging green monster" to help deal with a major world threat (or, in fact, why S.H.I.E.L.D. doesn't step in at all) would've been appreciated. Maybe they did say something in a throw-away line, but I must've missed it.
There's also one rather huge symbolic gesture that Tony makes at the end of the movie that left me a bit puzzled as to what it means for his character in future films. It appears he's trying to indicate he's moved on and is a whole person, but does it mean he's never going to do that activity again? Is he just done with it all?
Oh, spoiler alert, they don't kill Tony Stark in a movie that comes before other movies that the character will appear in. Big shock, I know.
But speaking of shocks, there is one partway through the movie that completely threw me. It's extremely well done, and I think my jaw hung open for a minute or two after it was shown. If you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about, and if you haven't...geez, it's getting kinda late, isn't it?
Now, I saw the movie in 2D and thoroughly enjoyed it to the point that I'm not really sure if 3D really would've helped matters any. I did catch on that there were multiple scenes built to utilize 3D technology, but I was able to get a sense of perspective and depth without having to wear glasses over my glasses.
It seems that for trilogies, the second movie tends to either be the weakest or the strongest. Spider-Man 2 was the strongest of that trilogy, and The Temple of Doom was the weakest for Indiana Jones. The Empire Strikes Back is viewed by many as the best of the original Star Wars movies, and I'm pretty sure that Attack of the Clones is the reason why it took me several years after the last one came out to finally watch any of it.
The Matrix...man, I don't even remember the second movie. There was this thing with albinos, wasn't there? And Monica Bellucci was moving around in a tight dress, that's all I really got out of it. Oh, and that one intimate moment where I saw a backside and honestly couldn't tell if it was a guy's back or a woman's back.
...man, now I totally lost my train of thought. Oh, right. Iron Man 3 was almost as good as the first in some ways, better in others, could've spent a little less time fiddling around in a few of their location shots, and was overall an extremely solid movie.
...and why didn't Gwyneth Paltrow lose her clothing in that one scene near the end? Unstable molecules? Did she run off to grab someone else's clothes out of a locker before showing up again?
...maybe I'm overthinking this.
No comments:
Post a Comment