Iron Man 3 (2013) – Review

Review: Iron Man 3 is a different sort of Marvel film. It is about Tony Stark dealing with the world in the wake of the events of The Avengers and the toll it is taking on him personally. He cannot sleep. He is obsessed with what the next threat could be. He wants to be the old Tony Stark, but something within him has changed. He may no longer be up to the challenge of protecting the things he cares about (like Pepper Potts). Yet, he must face his latest villain, The Mandarin (a terrorist who is setting off bombs across America) because he still feels that it is his duty. Thus, more so than before, he may fail.

From the beginning moments of Iron Man 3, it is clear that the Marvel Universe has shifted.  Throughout Phase One, the Marvel films were light and fun (for the most part), but Iron Man 3 begins with Tony Stark (via voiceover narration) regretfully owning up to his mistakes. No longer is he the arrogant selfish showoff, but a man who has clearly seen his world view shaken to the extent that he has doubts about who he is going forward. Something has definitely changed in him. The bravado and wit are still there, but now they mask his self-doubt.

Writer-director Shane Black has created a superhero event film that does indeed have the required prerequisite big action scenes and villain who is evil and powerful enough to call to arms a superhero to defeat him, but all that is secondary to his main focus: Tony Stark’s own internal struggle. This is a personal character story, which means that Black has Stark out of the Iron Man armor for most of the film. There are already three films in which Iron Man defeats his adversaries in the suit. Now, it is time to see Stark truly address his own issues. And yet, the fact that the film is a superhero blockbuster does demand villains. Black uses his villains more as foils for Stark’s own deficiencies to by reflected, rather than fully fleshed out characters with origin stories and tons of character development – again, this is a personal narrative about Stark, the rest is secondary to the story Black wants to tell.

Stark not being in the suit is in a way refreshing, and it gives the audience the ability to connect with the character on a deeper level. He is much more vulnerable when he is not Iron Man and the action feels much more immediate because Stark could actually be killed at any moment (or at least that illusion is enhanced). Being stripped of his armor also allows Stark to fully lose everything. He has two passions (or loves) in his life: Pepper and his suits of armor. Black takes both away. The audience sees Stark at his lowest point, which makes his inevitable rebirth all the more satisfying.

However, some will take issue with these narrative choices as well. There is still a lot of action involving the Iron Man suit, but much more with Stark out of it, which changes the tone of the series considerably. The first two films are mostly driven by big action set pieces in which Iron Man battles stuff in his suit – there are lots of explosions and heavy metal music; it is a lot of fun. This film is character driven. The action, while still big and exciting, is narratively secondary. It could be greatly reduced and the film’s overall narrative would not be hurt, in a sense the action scenes do not matter.

Not developing strong villains in terms of them being full characters also seems to diminish the stakes of the action scenes. The Mandarin is evil and has a grand evil plan in a very generic 1980s Euro-villain sort of way. Black does give his villains some backstory and motivation, but mostly they just serve as plot points along Stark’s journey – because, again, this is a character piece focused wholly on Stark. Thus, while Stark defeating The Mandarin does not feel as satisfying as it maybe should, Stark growing as a person is much more gratifying on a character level for the audience, as Black has done great work creating a deeper connection between Stark and the audience (deeper than just: Iron Man is cool and Tony is funny). The audience cares about whether or not Stark finds himself, not just about whether or not he blows stuff up with his armor suit. Maybe that should not be the goal of a blockbuster film, but it makes for a much more engaging and interesting film overall (than the past two). Black also includes a fantastic twist in the film, which works incredibly well as a satire (to say more would encourage many spoilers). 

Black also puts his mark all over the film. To some extent, it very much feels like his first directorial film Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (but with a lot more action). Stark engages the audience and brings them into the narrative with his voiceover narration (that seems to mirror Harry Lockhart’s in tone and style). Black also does a brilliant job with Stark’s wit. This is probably the cleverest and deviously funny of the Iron Man films. The best moments in the film are those in which Stark is just engaged in banter (I particularly liked the scene in which he tries to intimidate two minions that are standing guard while he is held captive). And like many of Black’s films, this is set at Christmas.

Black’s Iron Man 3 ushers in a new era for Marvel produced films, one that is more character driven and personal. The success of this film, however, somewhat depends on the viewer’s expectations. Do they want an Iron Man or a Tony Stark film? After Iron Man and Iron Man 2, it seems like it is about time for a Tony Stark film, and Black has done a fantastic job with the character.

Technical, aesthetics & acting achievements: Shane Black’s ability to write dialogue is brilliantly on display in Iron Man 3. He is also adept at action too, but as mentioned in the review above the best moments of this film are those in which Stark is engaged in character moments and banter. The Kiss Kiss Bang Bang vibe is also undeniable (for those who have seen it), as this film has a similar style in which the narrator tells a story about how he got himself into a big mess, but how it all worked out in the end and how he grew as a person as a result of the journey. Stark also resembles Harry and to a greater extent another Black protagonist Martin Riggs (from Lethal Weapon, which Black wrote) in that he is psychologically about to crack – a man on the edge (so to speak). Plus, this has a bit of a mystery undertone to it as well. Personally, it is my favorite of the Iron Man films and the second best of the Marvel films so far (behind The Avengers), setting the stage of Phase Two to be quite a bit better than Phase One (which aside from The Avengers was filled with entertaining but mediocre films).

Brian Tyler’s score has a good theme (which is important for superhero movies), but more so than it being particularly memorable it accompanies the dramatic tone of the film well. Black also uses his found-music soundtrack effectively to set the mood (for example: the scene in which Stark is trying his new armor for the first time). John Toll’s cinematography is very strong throughout the film. Visually, Toll and Black seem to want a slightly grittier look than the very clean and glossy style of the earlier films to fit Iron Man 3’s tone (which is darker, as the narrative focuses on Stark essentially losing everything and having to rebuild himself from scratch). Toll’s photography, however, still excels at providing wonderfully grand and heroic images of Stark and Iron Man, during the action sequences. Bill Brzeski’s production design also very much fits the tone as he seems to play with the juxtaposition of the grandeur of Stark’s old persona and the current broken state that he finds himself him (which is also mirrored in the costume and set design). The Mandarin visually has the opposite narrative arc to Stark, starting at the bottom, broken and rising to power (arrogant and self-obsessed), which works well in contrast. It allows to audience to visually see that these men are opposing forces.

As Iron Man 3 is a character piece, the performances are paramount to its success, much more so than in the past two films. The whole narrative hinges on Robert Downey Jr.’s performance essentially. He is fantastic. All of his past performances of Stark have been good too, but he is more or less playing the same character the whole time. He does not change. With this film, Stark undergoes a massive and clear transformation, which Downey Jr. plays wonderfully. He is at his best when he is tearing off one-liners at rapid pace, but more vitally he is excellent in the dramatic moments too. The audience has always liked Stark, been amused by him, and cheered for him, but here Downey Jr. goes deeper and enables them to feel pity when he makes mistakes and ultimately admiration when he picks himself back up a new man. More than ever before, the audience has a stake in the outcome and cares about Stark. Black’s narrative is partially to thank for this, but Downey Jr.’s performance is what makes the film. The supporting cast is also good. James Badge Dale does not have a lot of dialog, but he has a great presence which amplifies what is really nothing more than a henchman role. Ben Kingsley is marvelous in the film. He is clearly having a ton of fun with his character, which translates well for the audience (i.e. they are having a lot of fun with him too). Rebecca Hall is maybe underutilized, but her good work in the early moments of the films pays off well later. Guy Pearce is a great character actor and here again he does a good job creating something out of thinly written character. Don Cheadle and Gwyneth Paltrow are also good in support. They bolster Stark, but are also removed so that Stark can find his way alone.

Summary & score: In many ways Iron Man 3 is more a Shane Black film than it is a Marvel film, but that works greatly to its benefit, as this is the best and most personal of the series to date. 8/10 

Cloud Atlas (2012) – Review

Review: Cloud Atlas is an extraordinarily ambitious piece, woven together with absolute brilliance. The film features six stories about human relationships throughout the history of man, dealing with love, friendship, freedom, and bravery among other things – each connected in some way to the last.

Cloud Atlas is structured as a series of six shorts that are all intercut to tell a story about human resilience (the triumph of will and pursuit of truth and love). In each short there seems to be a love story, a friendship and a journey that leads to the flourishing of freedom (freedom from bondage, freedom to love, freedom from persecution, freedom from wrongful imprisonment, freedom from tyranny, freedom to find truth, freedom from past mistakes, and just plain freedom – the right to be free). Each short is also linked by the work of a character in an earlier story (a book, political teachings, letters, and journal). The lead character in each future reads about or sees the story of the character in the short before theirs, which seems to have an impact on them. There is also a piece of music that seems to exist outside of time that links all the stories (much like the comet birthmark), seeming to indicate these characters are also connected on a spiritual level as well (like destiny continually bringing them together across time inhabiting different bodies – which makes sense out of having the same group of actors play different roles in each time period).

While the stories are all fluid, and the overall piece has a sound structure, the high level concepts in the film, like destiny and ‘everything is connected’, feel a bit messier. The comet birthmark for one – does this suggest that the spirit or soul of the person is transferred across time, reincarnated over and over and drawn again and again to other versions of the people they loved and truly befriended in past lifetimes? There are so many references in the film; it would take multiple viewings to catch them all. Is there a puzzle that can be solved or mystery unraveled by acquiring and linking all these connections? Or, are all the connections just an artifice, merely present as a McGuffin – or a through line for the narratives? It certainly does encourage further thought, which can be taken as a good thing.

Cinematically, the film is a massive undertaking (the biggest German production of all-time), with the six stories split between two crews. Director Tom Tykwer wrote and directed Letters from Zedelghem, Half-Lives: The First Luisa Rey Mystery and The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish, while the Wachowskis (Andy and Lana) wrote and directed The Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing, An Orison of Sonmi-451 and Sloosha’s Crossin’ an Ev’rythin’ After. And yet, the most impressive aspect of the film is how well it flows and how well all the elements of the different stories go together, both building on each other and existing as separate narratives. From and writing and editing standpoint, it is one of the most astonishing films in recent memory.

Tykwer and the Wachowskis get the audience to care about the characters in every story. There is not one story or set of characters that dominate the audiences’ attention (which is vital to the film’s success – especially since it is 172 minutes long – one short cannot take persistence leaving the others to be a lull in the overall narrative, and conversely one cannot be particularly less engaging as this would disjoint the flow as well). The film, along with great characters, is filled with gripping tension, exciting action and compelling drama, but also infused with enough comedy and fun moments to give the audience a break and let them breath. All the stories are cut so that their own three-act structures fall around the same time in the film, giving the whole piece an overall momentum and tone that is in sync.

However, the film has some issues as well. Chiefly, its thematic messages (everything is connected and freedom) are a bit heavy handed. The viewer is practically beaten over the head, repeatedly, with the themes. Some of the connections are (somewhat) subtle (like Timothy Cavendish reading Javier Gomez’s book on the train or Vyvyan Ayrs dreaming about the eatery where Sonmi-451 works), but most are essentially grandstanded and shoved in the viewer’s face constantly (seemingly assuming that there is no other way that the viewer could make the connections – like the comet birthmark being explicitly focused on). This does detract from the film quite a bit, taking away from the wonder of the story. Force-feeding the film’s ideology blatantly to your audience is not really the best way to go about it.

Also, the film goes to great lengths to present clearly established good guys and bad guys. There are almost no complex characters struggling with both dark and light elements (Zachry being maybe the only one who the audience truly questions, with Timothy possibly being a bit dubious at the beginning). Overall, the characters are well-drawn and dramatically interesting (making for good protagonists and antagonists), but when it comes to their morals they are all fairly cookie cutter. The audience never doubts the intensions of any characters, nor are they ever skeptical about a character. The character roles are just too cut and dry (this one is unilaterally good and this one bad).

Another issue arises as a result of the actors playing multiple roles across the six stories. The make-up is sometimes unintentionally comical or at least noticeably odd looking. This takes the audience out of the moment (which is something, as a filmmaker, that you never want). But really, this is more of a minor issue that does not take away from the film that much as a whole.

Issues aside, Cloud Atlas is a magnificent, entertaining and engaging film, and one that is essential in today’s film landscape (where blockbusters are mostly sequels and generic broad studio fair). This is a film that dares to be challenging and adventurous. I wish there were more blockbusters like it.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Both Tom Tykwer and the Wachowskis have made great films in the past (Run Lola Run and The Matrix respectively), but those films were over a decade ago with unsatisfying work since. Cloud Atlas sees their collective return to prominence as talented and important filmmakers (and is my favorite of their films to date). Suddenly, I am looking forward to their next films (the Wachowskis are in preproduction on Jupiter Ascending).

The work of the crew on the film is wonderful. The score composed by Reinhold Heil, Johnny Klimek and Tykwer has a beauty to it. Their Cloud Atlas Sextet feels both timeless and musically important, functioning as the emotional nexus of the film. Their score has dramatic weight and magnitude to it as well, accompanying the scale and scope of the film presenting a wondrous tone (I like this piece). Visually the film is splendid – capturing the feel, delicacy and awe of each story. Cinematographer Frank Griebe and production designer Uli Hanisch worked with Tykwer and cinematographer John Toll and production designer Hugh Bateup worked with the Wachowskis. Even with two separate filming crews, there is a shared aesthetic to the film (it is actually tough to tell which crew shot which section) – one that features a very clean and glossy look, but with a hint of grit and grim behind the scenes. The photography is stunning, allowing the colors of the film to pop; while the design of most of the sets seems to be a mixture of a nice façade that when looked upon closer shows levels of decrepitude. There seems to be a constant clashing of clean and glossy elements with dirty and worn out ones (both visually and narratively).

The company of actors must have had a lot of fun on the film, many getting to play six characters. The performances are mostly good, but there are also a few instances in which it is clear that certain actors are better suited to particular roles than others. Tom Hanks, James D’Arcy, David Gyasi, and Hugo Weaving are all very good, but Jim Broadbent, Doona Bae and Ben Whishaw steal different moments of the film (and Halle Berry is not terrible, which is really all you can ask for). Hugh Grant is also his charming self (and has a fantastic, completely different appearance).

Summary & score: Cloud Atlas warrants multiple viewings (and at least one of those should be in the cinema to take full advantage of its grand and radiant scale and scope). The question is – will it get better with each viewing or grow tiresome (I really do not know), its initial splendor revealed to be a dilapidated mess (much like the Neo-Seoul eatery once the customers have gone home)? But, after one viewing, it is remarkable. 9/10 

Movie of the Week – Braveheart

This week’s movie is Braveheart (1995).

The pseudohistorical action drama is about William Wallace, a Scottish commoner who unites 13^th Century Scots in the battle to overthrow tyrannical English rule. The film is directed by and stars Mel Gibson (for which he won an Oscar), and features an iconic score from James Horner (one of my favorites from the 90s), brilliant cinematography from John Toll (probably not as good as his work on The Thin Red Line, but close – and he won as Oscar for it) and good production design from Thomas Sanders. As a teenager, I utterly loved this movie – every part of it – it was my favorite movie of all-time. Now, having seen a lot more stuff and grown up a bit, I still really like the film and find it wholly entertaining, but its overbearing Hollywood narrative structure lessens my overall admiration of it. Gibson and screenwriter Randall Wallace (and if you have seen any of his other films, it is abundantly clear that he buy into the Hollywood structure mind-body-and-soul) craft the film to elicit and dictate the audiences emotional interaction with the film, manipulating the audience (something great directors do as well, but here it is far more blatant). Now having seen more films from better filmmakers, I find it heavy handed and a bit forced. It is also hard to take Gibson serious now, which hurts the film as well – given he is in almost every scene. All that aside, it is still among my favorite films (especially among action/war). Gibson is good in the film, among my favorite work of his as an actor (but again, his antics since have hurt the film in the present). The supporting work of James Cosmo, Sophie Marceau, Patrick McGoohan, David O’Hara, and especially Brendan Gleeson and Angus Macfadyen (who I to this day still call The Bruce) is fantastic. Braveheart won the 1996 Best Picture Oscar and personally has a ton of nostalgic appeal for me. It is a must see for fans of historical dramas (though, much of the history in the film is wrong), war movies and action films. Check out the trailer.

Available on Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming and to Rent

The Adjustment Bureau (2011) – Review

The Adjustment Bureau is a good romance with thriller and sci-fi(ish) overtones that succeeds due to wonderful chemistry from its leads and well played scenes. Overall, the narrative structure that writer-director George Nolfi employs in the film drags a bit. The film does not feel as fluid as it should and thus can seem longer than it is (or even boring in the worst case). However, this is really only a minor issue, as the dialogue he writes and performances he garners on a scene-by-scene basis are really good. Stars, Matt Damon and Emily Blunt work incredibly well together, and really drive the film and engage the audience. They feel real and relatable. The audience not only is invested in their romance but wants to see it succeed and is thus enthralled (which is the main reason this film works, I think, despite being structured poorly). The romance is genuine and Nolfi somehow is able to avoid the clichés that plague modern and Hollywood cinema when love as a genre or theme is involved. The thriller and sci-fi aspects of the film also engages the audience, setting up obstacles for the characters. It is not overly suspenseful, giving much more attention to the characters and romance, but the action scenes are staged well. The sci-fi element is a little soft, (for me) it seems to play a lot more whimsical and theological or myth based than (what I would consider) sci-fi, though this does not hurt the film at all – in fact, I think it makes it all the more interesting. The main theme of the film is predetermination versus free will (or chance). The world of the film is made up of both, Adjusters only interfering on selected important people and moments. What Nolfi does really well is not deliver these (seeming theological) overtones in a heavy-handed or forced manner. Nolfi does not have a particular agenda or set of beliefs he is trying to force-feed the audience (which is nice for a change). The world he has created (of course based on that of Philip K. Dick’s short story) feels real, even amidst these extraordinary events (as the audience accepts the world and the revelations that the characters have about whom and what is controlling elements of their lives), because they care about the characters. It is better to let each viewer infer and project what they think things mean than explicitly compel them upon the audience. Altogether, The Adjustment Bureau is a good film, with enough action mixed in to entertain those not looking to watch a pure romance – call it a romantic thriller (and did I mention it is funny too? It is).

Technical and acting achievements: George Nolfi (who wrote The Bourne Ultimatum) makes his directorial debut with this film. He shows a lot of promise as a director with very good performances across his cast and well-staged and played scenes. However, he needs to work on his narrative structure, as it is the weak part of the film (and really the toughest to get right). I look forward to seeing what he does next. Thomas Newman’s score fits the film very well, touching on all three major genres. Cinematographer John Toll (as usual) does fine work, both in making Blunt look amazing and giving the film a crisp and aesthetically interesting look. His work is among the best I have seen so far this year. Editor Jay Rabinowitz also needs to be commended for his work. This film, with its quickly changing landscapes, demanded fantastic editing, and got it. Kevin Thompson’s production design is also good, fitting the narrative well while taking advantage of the NYC local. The cast is small with only a few principal characters, but each actor gives a very good performance. Terence Stamp, Michael Kelly and especially Anthony Mackie deliver in their supporting roles. John Slattery (also in a supporting role) is a standout, however, bringing a seemingly carefree and playful attitude to the role that is a nice touch and refreshing. The film, though, largely succeeds to the extent that it does (i.e. is a great film, vs. the good to decent film it probably otherwise would have been) due primarily to the work of its two leads, Damon and Blunt. They are both perfect in their roles. They feel real and endearing, completely commanding the audience’s attention (and hearts). Their love is natural and certain.

With remarkable performances and chemistry from Damon and Blunt, added to an interesting story, The Adjustment Bureau makes for a great romance that guys will like too. 8/10

Movie of the Week - The Thin Red Line

This week’s movie is The Thin Red Line (1998).

The film is about U.S. soldiers’ experiences of the battle of Guadalcanal during WWII, and while the film itself is fictional, it is based on James Jones’ autobiographical novel. The film is directed by Terrence Malick and was the first film he made since Days of Heaven (a twenty year break). The crew is superb on the film featuring a score by Hans Zimmer and wonderful cinematography by John Toll. It also boasts an all-star cast, though many of them are briefly in the film (check out the full credits). While the film could be compared to Saving Private Ryan, both coming out the same year, both taking place during WWII, both being nominated for a number of Oscars, the films are very different – Malick’s focuses on the emotion of the characters and features the landscape prominently, almost as a character onto itself (something that is apparent in all of his films). The story is secondary (almost fading away) to the emotion that the images evoke in the viewer, while Spielberg’s film is very story driven. The initial cut of the film was far too long; some estimates have it at ten hours and others at five. It took Malick and his multiple editors about two years to refine it down to its theatrical cut, and in the process losing performances from Billy Bob Thornton, Martin Sheen, Gary Oldman, Bill Pullman, Lukas Haas, Viggo Mortensen, and Mickey Rourke and by some accounts vastly altering the initial project. What makes the film great is that while it is an epic in scope, it feels very subdued and personal. Malick’s collaboration with Toll is beautiful and there is a great scene featuring John Cusack leading a charge on a hillside turret/bunker. This is a must see for fans of war movies and/or existentialist cinema. Check out the trailer.

The Thin Red Line (Criterion Collection Blu-ray/DVD/normal DVD)