Once again, David and I went on a date to the movies. Once again, we bring our bickering to the masses.* Here are our thoughts on IRON MAN 3.
Ed:It isn’t really important to “vet” myself in preparation for reviewing a film, but I do think it is worth a few words to give readers an understanding of where I’m coming from regarding the Marvel films in general and the previous IRON MAN films as well. Short story: I’m a fan! I have liked every film that has featured Robert Downey Jr. playing Tony Stark. As a matter of fact, I don’t think the world gives enough credit to John Favreau for the million great decisions he made to lay the groundwork in IRON MAN for this whole awesome wave of MarvelVerse we are currently experiencing. But I digress. I’ve also loved just about all of IRON MAN 3 Director Shane Black’s previous work. And I’d say that is one of the reasons I feel underwhelmed by IRON MAN 3. Do I think the film was done justice by Black’s writing and direction? Sure. It is a totally fine comic book movie and a fairly worthy cornerstone on which to build Marvel’s Phase 2. I’d even like to see Black return to the Marvel Universe, but only in order to completely knock it out of the park, which I don’t believe he quite pulled off here.
David, it wasn’t important for me to vet myself, but it IS important for you to vet yourself. Please prove to us how you are a much bigger geek than me. Or just let us know where your expectation level was resting when you entered the theater and what you think of Black and Favreau.
David:Ed, you’re wrong. I mean, you’re right about a few things — but for the most part, wrong. IRON MAN 3 is amazing, not just “totally fine,” and is handily the best of the trilogy. If you want me to vet myself, I love the first IRON MAN. The third act has quite a few issues, but the foundation Favreau laid is impeccable. It was funny and the first ⅔ is flawlessly executed, but the ending… IRON MAN movies have yet to stick their landing. IRON MAN 2 had the same issue without the benefit of the first ⅔ being fantastic. There are many cringe-worthy moments in IRON MAN 2, and like the first film its ending is a wet fart. It just lays there, flopping around, all moist and smelling vaguely of fish. That said — I can still enjoy it, but all the credit should be given to Robert Downey Jr.’s portrayal of Stark. Without him, it would have been the worst superhero movie since the FANTASTIC FOUR films. Awkward segue incoming: THE AVENGERS was one of my favorite movies that year, and was a nerd-dream come true. Tony Stark was a huge part of that.
So, that’s where I stand on Tony Stark in film. As far as Shane Black, I think he is a master and KISS KISS BANG BANG is incredible. I wasn’t super excited about IRON MAN 3 until he signed on, and boy did he deliver. IRON MAN 3 is a Black movie through-and-through. His trademark humor breathes new life into the IRON MAN movies — Stark actually feels a bit dangerous instead of the caricature he developed into in part 2. He is every bit as hilarious, but with this hard edge, a tonal balance that only someone like Black can straddle. There are moments in this movie that will straight up offend parents, and I love that. There are moments with a child that threaten to become saccharine, but Black cuts it down with brutal sarcasm right before it reaches that precipice. It is pretty much as subversive as a mainstream superhero movie can possibly be, and it is easily the funniest film in the Marvel catalogue.
Not only is this the funniest movie in the Marvel universe, the action is easily the best of the IRON MAN trilogy. The plane sequence advertised in trailers is breathtaking, and I had clammy hands throughout it. The climax delivers and revels in mayhem and destruction via Iron Man suits.
So about that ending. Does IRON MAN 3 firmly plant his feet this time, and deliver a third act that actually lives up to the rest of the movie? What say you Ed?
Ed:I really don’t think anything “subversive” is going on at all in IRON MAN 3. And maybe that is part of where my disappointment comes into play. I’ve been really excited about that film since Shane Black was attached. He got to write AND direct a massive Marvel movie! On the one hand, this is totally great news for Black as a human, because he’ll probably see way more money come his way than he ever has before, and, like Joss Whedon before him, he’ll probably now have access to much larger scale projects than he did before. But, on the other hand, by saddling Mr. Black with the constraints of a “four quadrant” film, I feel he was slightly neutered. A movie on the scale and scope of IRON MAN 3 really can’t afford to go against the status quo all too hard, and it really didn’t. And Shane Black tends to write pretty hard-R material. I read some snippet online somewhere that his first draft of the script was literally filled with F-bombs because he didn’t realize that you couldn’t say the “F” word a lot in PG-13 films. That is totally endearing, a little sad, and totally makes my point. Wouldn’t it have been WILD to see Shane Black’s R-rated, no punches-pulled IRON MAN 3? But it isn’t even worth contemplating because there was never even an iota of a dream that this would happen.
Sure, the ending was massive in scale and kind of fun. But Don Cheadle’s Col. Rhodes has some “Shia LeBeouf on a jungle vine” moments in there, and while the “extremis” villains / The Mandarin’s soldiers look totally cool, I never understood what the limits of their powers were or even really what their motivations were. So I can definitely agree with you that the ending was huge and bombastic, but I wasn’t invested in it. There was literally no threat. I knew exactly how it would all end after a few twists in the earlier parts of the film that I A) Didn’t necessarily see coming but B) borderline hated. We’ll talk about those twists later when we delve into spoilers. But basically I felt pretty deflated going into the climax of the film, so it didn’t thrill me like I would’ve liked it to.
Why WERE you so invested? What really hooked you and sold you on this script? Because almost all of my real issues with the movie lie in the directions the story went and in the execution of some of the plot developments. And those are pretty big issues to have, sadly.
David:Ed is being wholly disingenuous saying this movie isn’t subversive. I have no idea what film he saw. Of course it isn’t going to have titties and f-bombs, but Black still made a Black movie. His humor is rude and harsh, unlike the winking-to-the-camera style of the past Marvel films. Joke spoiler ahead: Tony Stark literally tells a young, fatherless child that “dads leave sometimes, don’t be a pussy about it.” Ed, what Marvel movies have you been seeing that have lines even remotely similar to that, that perfectly sum up the daddy issues of Stark while also making a joke? It is a harsh moment, but hilarious. And I think that’s where the dichotomy lies — Ed likes winking-to-the-camera films like EXPENDABLES 2, whereas I like good films.
So about that twist.
MAJOR SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT.
I have little to no issue with it. The Mandarin turned out not to be Ben Kingsley, and Black pulled a 180 on comic book geeks and clashed the normally lame character of Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) with The Mandarin. It is a huge mislead, and no matter what Ed says I believe he doesn’t like the film because of preconceived expectations, not because of the film itself.
I was giggling throughout the whole Ben Kingsley reveal, and I’m so happy that they didn’t make The Mandarin the stereotypical vanilla villain that the trailers promised. We’ve seen that villain so many times over the past ten years, that the subversion of audience expectations worked perfectly for me. The reveal actually lifted my spirits because it confirmed that Shane Black totally understands superhero movie tropes and that he was actively working to destroy them. It’s thrilling. As an audience we’ve grown so accustomed to how these stories play out, I’m guessing that some of the general audience will be disappointed by this film because they were wrong. And they don’t like to be wrong, as evidenced by Ed’s dissatisfaction.
There are some issues with the reveal of the villain and his true motives. The whole extremis thing didn’t work for me — like Ed said, the movie logic of it wasn’t consistently applied. Some of the extremis troops recovered from being essentially obliterated, while others died from what looked like comparatively tame injuries… what are the rules for this drug? I didn’t need an exposition dump, but at least be consistent with how you’re applying this fantasy-drug so that it fits within the logic of your own movie. It looked cool, but was a lame impetus.
Also, I didn’t really enjoy Guy Pearce. While the reveal of the true villain totally worked for me, there was a slight deflation with the fact that I no longer was able to focus on the superior acting abilities of Ben Kingsley, and instead had to settle with Pearce. He isn’t terrible by any means, but when you’re opposite RDJ as Tony Stark and Ben Kingsley chewing up scenery, it is nearly impossible to compete. Thankfully, Kingsley has this brilliant shift from terrifying darkness to hilarious, drunk mess, and we still get to enjoy his prodigious talents — just not as the villain. And honestly, it is a minor quibble, because however enjoyable he is as the villain, he is just as (if not more) enjoyable as an alcoholic, failed thespian.
Anyhow, Ed, go ahead and explain why you disagree so everyone can understand why you’re wrong.
Ed:I’m wrong all the time. I’m married. I can deal with being wrong. What I don’t like are plot twists that deflate the hell out of their own movies. Yes, David is right that Ben Kingsley is phenomenal in this movie. What he does with the reveal that he was only a junkie actor playing The Mandarin as an “Oz-like” man behind the curtain is funny and the performance is shockingly authentic. But the twist isn’t authentic. I agree that Guy Pearce isn’t all that hot in this film. But you know what he is playing? A generic vanilla villain. A villain who… has a vague plan to destroy the world with ‘splodin’ soldiers and his anger motivation is because Tony Stark left him on a roof once back when he was nerdy? The motivation just ISN’T there. Guy Pearce just ISN’T The Mandarin. Total full disclosure: I don’t really know the comics that well, so I don’t really know who The Mandarin is supposed to be or what his deal is. I have no problem outing myself in that regard. Because without knowing all that much about the real comics, I can tell you that none of this worked for me within the film itself.
And the need to have a plot twist is what took up lots of the valuable screen time that COULD have been used to establish motivation and which would have lent weight to the final conflict which, while massive and appropriately scaled, was totally lacking in reasons why I should care. When Ben Kingsley was still The Mandarin, and still totally awesome, he has a moment where he forces the President of the United States to call him in 30 seconds or he will execute an innocent American citizen live on pirated television feed. The President capitulates and calls, and The Mandarin shoots the man in the head and hangs up the phone. That moment was more resonant and powerful that just about anything else in the film. And it is TOTALLY undercut by the twist. I would’ve much preferred to see Ben Kingsley play The Mandarin, for real. And what David is seeing as “subversive,” I’m just seeing as… Shymalan-ian twists that undercut the value of the characters.
I also kind of liked the idea of Tony Stark having PTSD-like symptoms after the events of THE AVENGERS, but I didn’t feel like those moments were executed genuinely. I don’t suffer from anxiety myself, but people that I know who do? They don’t really get over their bouts with anxiety in mere seconds because a distraction pops up.
But look, in trying to argue with David, I’m coming off like I hated this movie or thought it was a total dud. It isn’t. The comedy is fantastic. I laughed out loud repeatedly, and many of those laughs were solely because Shane Black writes great dialog and quips real good. I agree that the stuff with the little kid was precisely hilarious because of how much of a dick Tony is to the kid.
And yes, there were at least two moments in the film that gave me goosebumps. One early on when their house is attacked and Tony uses the new powers of his telekinetic suit to throw the suit immediately onto Pepper Potts instead of onto himself. That single moment tells me everything I need to know about who Tony Stark is at his core, and that whole sequence was flawlessly executed. I also agree with David that the skydiving/falling out of Air Force One sequence was phenomenal and unique. It also works as yet another action set piece that builds up the character of Tony Stark.
But those daggone plot twists that lead us into the final showdown just deflate the whole thing for me.
I’d contend that the IRON MAN series as a whole has a villain problem. While The Avengers are fighting Thanos and the X-Men keep squaring off against Magneto… Tony Stark has literally ended up fighting rich white suits in all three of his films. Jeff Bridges, Sam Rockwell, and now Guy Pearce all play… rich geniuses who are jealous of Tony Stark and fight him real big. The Mandarin was a chance for Tony Stark to square off against a shocking and surprising threat and a super villain to boot. I’ll still see IRON MAN 4 gladly and look forward to a massive super villain in Tony Stark’s future.
Take us on home, David. And I’m Out.
David:This will hopefully be the first and last time I concede Ed being right, but honestly I hadn’t thought about the point that within the twist (spoilers ho), we trade one vanilla villain for another. He’s right about that. Guy Pearce is just a rich guy that is jealous of Tony Stark and created… a thingy that makes him glow and be all strong and stuff. It is pretty lame. That said, the twist alone is enough of a “fuck you” to convention that I appreciate it. And Guy Pearce breathes fire, which is rad.
Shane Black knows what he is doing. He subverts the audience’s expectations brilliantly, almost giving a metaphorical middle-finger to general audiences. It 100% fits the character of Tony Stark, who is a living, breathing, human middle finger. I just feel like this film and the choices made in it categorically fit Tony Stark. The action issues of the first two movies are totally quelled with this one while also keeping the comedy intact. That alone makes it the best of the series for me personally, and while you might not agree with that — at the very least IRON MAN 3 keeps the quality of Marvel films in-line and sets the tone for the rest of MarvelVerse Phase 2. If this is any indication of what’s to come, I think Marvel might be the studio whose releases I now anticipate the most.
No matter what, the movie is fucking fun. And it’s a superhero movie, not something that necessarily needs gravitas, so really — that’s all you can ask. And it delivers.
* Our Moms.
