To say Marvel’s Iron Man 3 is better than Iron Man 2 is the understatement of the year. The sequels may occupy the same world but, in terms of quality, they’re not even in the same ballpark. The golden Avenger’s third solo outing restores the series to the glory of the original and, in some respects, surpasses it.
When franchises get to the third chapter, the results tend to fall into two categories — a carbon copy of the original’s formula (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, which I love despite its recycled Raiders template) or a staggering drop in quality (Godfather Part III, Superman III, X-Men: The Last Stand). IM3 manages to avoid both pitfalls. One reason is obvious — low expectations thanks to the universally panned prior installment. Next to IM2, anything would be an improvement. But to say that’s the only reason the new one is better would be unfair to the filmmakers.
So how does IM3 rise above the Part III doldrums that plague so many other franchises? Read on to find out, true believers!
IT TAKES CHANCES
After shooting two Tony Stark adventures back-to-back, director Jon Favreau hands the reigns to writer/director Shane Black. Black doesn’t work much, but what he lacks in quantity he makes up for in quality.
The movie feels more like a continuation of his Kiss Kiss Bang Bang than Iron Man and that’s what keeps things fresh. In addition to reprising that movie’s director/leading man collaboration, IM3 boasts other Black traits as well — a Christmas setting, a Hollywood backdrop, witty voiceover. There’s even Lethal Weapon banter between Downey Jr. and Don Cheadle assuming the white cop/black cop partnership.
The biggest chance the film takes is with Ben Kingsley’s villain, The Mandarin, a 1960s comics antagonist created in stereotypical Fu Manchu fashion. Black updates him to a global Bin Laden-like terrorist of the most frightening command, but that’s only part of the reimagining. The other part can’t be spoken of lest half the fun of the film be spoiled. Let’s just say this reworking could’ve irked fanboys like myself if it weren’t handled in such a uniquely entertaining way.
IT DOESN’T IGNORE PREVIOUS FILMS
Fans pester Tony with questions about the Battle of New York, the climatic sequence of last summer’s Avengers blockbuster. They want to know what it’s like to fight aliens and hang out with Black Widow. (Wouldn’t we all like to know that last answer?) The biggest pest is a 10-year-old played by Ty Simpkins whose chemistry with Downey Jr. is the highlight of a movie filled with highlights.
Stark avoids the kid’s questioning not out of annoyance (not just out of annoyance), but out of trauma. Nearly sacrificing himself in The Avengers and realizing we’re not alone in the universe would shake up any human, the consequences of which take the form of nightmares and panic attacks in the new film. Like the superpowered war veterans he fights later on, Stark struggles with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
IM3 acknowledges previous chapters in other ways too. There’s a cameo by one of Iron Man’s fellow heroes. When the military rebrands Cheadle’s War Machine armor as Iron Patriot and repaints it red, white, and blue, they don’t say the change is influenced by Captain America, but we know it is. And Guy Pearce discusses how subtlety has had its day “ever since that big dude with the hammer fell out of the sky.”
IT’S NOT A SLAVE TO PREVIOUS FILMS
The surprise success of the first movie was partly due to the Swingers-like dialog that, whether it was or wasn’t, always felt improvised. Everyone loved it. So too did Favreau who amped it so high in the second movie that the plot was all but forgotten. Not so in Black’s take. He encourages the same type of light improv without ever losing track of story.
Black also ditches the penchant for every villain to match ol’ shellhead by wearing armor — Jeff “Iron Monger” Bridges in the first film, Mickey “Whiplash” Rourke and his drones in the second (the character’s signature electric whips only lasted one slugfest). Here we have radioactive soldiers who easily hold their own against Stark, forcing him to rely on brains more than metallic brawn.
IT ALWAYS COMES BACK TO CHARACTER
From the villains’ motivations to the voiceover pay-off in a post-end credits scene, everything about the screenplay revolves around one thing — Tony Stark. Not to keep bashing IM2 (not only to keep bashing), but that film climaxes with combat involving dozens of automated armored suits. So too does the new film, albeit with a major difference. IM2’s suits were mindless drones built by the bad guy for the sole purpose of special effects mayhem. No one cared. IM3’s arsenal of armor is created by Stark during sleepless nights, a result of his PTSD, a result of his actions at the end of The Avengers. The ultimate fate of the arsenal is also tied to our hero. The result of all these results is simple — we come to care about metal costumes because they mean something to their creator.
There’s great writing on display in Iron Man 3, along with great acting, directing, and everything else. This excursion more than lives up to Stan Lee’s adjective that has preceded the title of Iron Man comics for decades — Invincible.
Ok, I am glad you have shed your east coast cynicism. But, too much sun and salt water has clouded your vision for this movie’s glaring disappointments. In no particular order…
1) Who was the guy who ate John Favreau?
2) Crazy blunt product/television show placement.
3) How was Tony Stark’s address formerly a secret? (Star maps? Google Earth?)
4) Too many shots of Guy Pearce walking slowly to kill Tony Stark.
5) Confusion over the end of series. Will there be any more iron men movies? Probably not. Will there be more avengers movies? Of course.
6) It seemed easy to fix Tony’s heart. Why did he wait so long.
7) Nobody in Tennessee had a southern accent.
7) Why would a guy, who can breath fire, do it only once? And never in battle.
I may think of more, but these items coupled with too much joking around made my trip to the Jordan’s IMAX theater a disappointing one. Until the Man of Steel… Jamie