Safe House (2012)

Posted on October 6, 2013 by badblokebob

2013 #20
Daniel Espinosa | 110 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA & South Africa / English | 15 / R

Denzel Washington is a fugitive, Ryan Reynolds is the CIA rookie who ends up looking after him — and later, chasing him — after Something Goes Wrong at the titular abode in this workmanlike thriller.

Washington can deliver a quality anti-hero in his sleep now, and the same can be said of the actors lined up as villains and questionable-types in the supporting cast: Brendan Gleeson, Sam Shepard, Robert Patrick, Liam Cunningham. Reynolds makes for a likeable if bland leading man, while the storyline and action sequences offer sub-Bourne thrills.

Nothing new, then, but those after a straightforward action-thriller could do worse.

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. One day I may update with a longer piece, but at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns – Deluxe Edition (2013)

Posted on October 3, 2013 by badblokebob

Warner Premiere’s $7 million animated adaptation of one of the seminal graphic novels is here rejigged from its original two–part release into a single two-and-a-half-hour experience. To persuade those who didn’t make the purchases first time around — and to lure back those who did — the Deluxe Edition Blu-ray also includes a new cast & crew audio commentary and a 79-minute documentary about Frank Miller’s original novel, as well as all the old special features. I don’t normally review editions on here, but in this case it’s relevant.

But before all that, what of the new cut itself? Personally, I felt it worked better as two movies.

Thing is, Miller’s original wasn’t just released as four issues, it’s very much a four-parter: sure, there’s an overarching plot, but each issue/chapter works as a finite unit. In making the transition to the screen, director Jay Oliva and screenwriter Bob Goodman did a great job of adapting two issues at a time to create two complete-feeling films: Part 1 tells the tale of Batman vs the mutants, building to a cliffhanger; Part 2 deals with the fallout of said cliffhanger.

As one long film, it fades to black halfway through and then resumes again. Whole new plot threads suddenly appear that, were this conceived as a single 2½-hour movie, should have been introduced earlier in the running time. The pace goes skwiffy, because it was designed to flow naturally as two distinct movies — action sequences butt up against each other in the middle of the film, one of which is basically a climax before the halfway mark. Considering Miller’s original structure, that arguably leaves the film with a good three or four climaxes scattered throughout.

I suppose you could count these as nothing more than niggles. Given the choice, I think this adaptation functions better in its original, intended, two-part version; but the single-film version is not fundamentally different to double-billing its constituent parts. (If you want more detailed thoughts on the film itself, you can find my original review of Part 1 here and Part 2 here.)

Though there are aesthetic reasons for choosing to watch The Dark Knight Returns as two separate features, there are several unavoidable reasons why picking up the Deluxe Edition is preferable. For starters, it’s potentially a heckuva lot cheaper. I don’t know how much Parts 1&2 are available for now, but the Deluxe Edition is only slightly more expensive than just one of those halves was when new. That said, from a UK perspective, importing it will cost in the region of £18, whereas Part 1 has already made its way into 2-for-£10 offers, and I’m sure Part 2 can’t be far behind.

Cost aside, the disc — or, rather, discs (two Blu-rays and a feature-only DVD) — themselves present a couple of incentives. Exactly two, in fact, because that’s the number of new special features. Oh, but they’re hefty ones: a feature-length audio commentary by director Jay Oliva, screenwriter Bob Goodman, and voice director Andrea Romano (for some reason the latter doesn’t merit a credit on either the box or the disc’s menu, but she is there); and a feature-length documentary all about the original graphic novel, Masterpiece: Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns. (I’ll review the latter separately at some point. If you like we can debate the line that distinguishes films from TV programmes/DVD special features/etc, but Masterpiece is almost 80 minutes long and begins with the full Warner Bros and DC Comics logos, just like A Proper Film, so I’m goin’ there.)

For the completist, all the original special features are also ported over. That’s five featurettes totalling almost two hours, delving into: the character of Carrie Kelly (aka Robin), the Joker, the film’s depiction of Superman vs Batman, the story of Batman’s creator Bob Kane, and a lengthy exploration of the adaptation and animation process with director Oliva, in a kind of Maximum Movie Mode style (though for 43½ minutes rather than the entire film — though that’s not to be sniffed at, is it?) There’s also five additional animation episodes from the archives (four from the classic Batman: The Animated Series and one from the more recent Batman: The Brave and the Bold). The only stuff that’s gone walkabouts are the Sneak Peek promos, though as they’re all for now-released titles that’s hardly a major loss (though as they constitute mini-featurettes rather than pure trailers, some completists may feel a mild tang of disappointment). All-in, you’re looking at 7½ hours of special features to complement your 2½-hour film, something even the most hardened whinge-happy fanboy would struggle to complain about.

While I’ll continue to champion viewing the two halves of The Dark Knight Returns as separate movies, this single-film version is far from a travesty. If you’ve already got the separate releases, it definitely isn’t worth picking this up just for the film; so a purchase depends on how much value you place on the commentary and Masterpiece documentary (oh, and four art cards found in the box, which I’ve used to illustrate this review). If you don’t own the existing releases then whichever way works out as most cost-effective (bearing in mind which extras can be found where, of course) is the way to go.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns – Deluxe Edition is currently available in the US on DVD and Blu-ray as a Best Buy exclusive, but goes on wide release from next Tuesday, 8th October.

* Technically the BBFC haven’t classified this single-film version, but the two halves each received a 15. ^

Les Misérables (2012)

Posted on September 30, 2013 by badblokebob

27 years after its West End debut, the long-running smash-hit musical finally makes the leap to the big screen. Such a beloved work paired with a recently Oscar-winning director and an all-star cast was pretty much a dead cert for big-name awards nominations, and so it was to be; but critical reaction was more mixed: I’ve seen people who love the film unreservedly, and others who despise it with a passion.

Let’s begin with the obvious: Les Mis* is a two-hour-forty-minute musical — some people are never going to be on board with that. “Why are they siiingiiiiing?!”, etc. Such complaints must be ignored. After that, more valid complaints do arise: the quality of said singing; the necessity of such length; whether said Oscar winning director is overrated and should he have won the Oscar in the first place; and so forth.

Les Mis is an epic tale: it spans decades, albeit in three distinct chunks. It begins when Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), freed from years of hard labour as punishment for stealing a loaf of bread, breaks his parole and disappears. Years later, we find him a wealthy man, manager of his own company and the mayor or something to boot. But his former prison guard, Javert (Russell Crowe), finds him too — oh no! Indebted to a young woman he wronged (Anne Hathaway), Valjean takes her child for a better life in Paris, where, more years later, they end up embroiled in one of the capital’s failed revolutions.

Despite its running time, Les Mis is quite brisk for much of that plot (which, sorry if you’ve never seen it, I have described a fair old chunk of). There’s no interval in the film, but on stage it doesn’t come until well into the Paris section of the tale. Such a break must help the pacing, because while I remember enjoying it all on stage (where, I might add, it’s even longer), on screen I felt the middle portion began to drag. So yes, an epic running time for an epic, but it actually moves quickly through the parts that make it an epic before slowing for a bit of a forced romance and that kind of palaver.

I noted that it’s longer on stage, which is because here some songs have been trimmed. That’s partly for time, partly for re-staging (is it “hot as hell” in a spray-drenched dock pulling in wrecked galleons? No, apparently not), and partly to squeeze in a new song so it could get an Oscar nod. That’s Suddenly, which did get its awards nom but of course lost to Skyfall. It doesn’t fit too badly into the film, as it turns out, but in and of itself is a bit insipid. How much other trims bother you will depend on whether you’re a fan or not, of course. Some of the very best numbers are left to play in full, while tonally-awkward reprises (a comedy song after the climactic massacre) are cut back to literally a couple of lines.

Much talk around Les Mis focused on the performances, with three in particular attracting discussion. As honourable wronged-man Valjean, Jackman is the star of the show, and brings his musical theatre background to bear on a clearly-sung but emotive performance. He was unlucky to be in the same awards year as Daniel Day-Lewis’ all-conquering turn in Lincoln, because otherwise those gongs might well have been his. Opposite him in the film’s central rivalry is driven letter-of-the-law lawman Javert, divisively sung by Crowe. I think the best criticism I read was that his vocal style seems at odds with the rest of the cast — whereas they’re musical theatre, he’s got a gruffer, perhaps rockier, tone. I didn’t think he was all that bad, a few moments aside, which I suppose is the advantage of hearing so much negativity in advance.

And then there’s Anne Hathaway, as much of a sure thing during awards season as Day-Lewis. To be honest, I think Jackman comes out of the film better. I can never quite escape Hathaway’s earnestness; a sense of, “look, I’m singing! And isn’t this role important and meaningful!” Her delivery of I Dreamed a Dream, so over-used in the film’s trailers, is pretty flawless, realised (if I remember rightly, which I might not) in a single shot, a soul-crushing close-up on her face. Otherwise, while she’s good really, I felt she’d stolen some of the attention that should be on Jackman.

The rest of the cast is an assortment from the can-sing (Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried) to the comedic-so-it-doesn’t-matter (Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter). The best voice of the lot belongs to Samantha Barks as Eponine. No surprise, really, as she was poached from the West End… where she’d found herself via one of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s BBC talent shows, so I imagine he feels thoroughly vindicated now (as if he didn’t before).

Famously, they’re all singing live. As a viewer, this is more appreciable as a technical accomplishment than something that makes any difference to what we see on screen. It brings some extra emotion (read: odd breathing points and half-achieved notes) at times, and a knowledge of authenticity always has a way of adding authenticity, but otherwise…

There was much surprise when Tom Hooper wasn’t rewarded with a Best Director nomination at the Oscars — much of it originating from within the Les Mis camp, I felt, whereas no one else was particularly fussed. Hooper has improved a bit as a director (finally, close-ups are framed properly!) but, to be honest, I don’t particularly rate him on the whole. For every good decision (going for a grimy real-world style rather than something typically musical-y) there’s an awkward one (the decision to represent Paris almost entirely with one slightly-stagey set). For every well-staged song (realising Lovely Ladies as a montage to show Fantine’s fall over time) there’s one that’s lacking (we don’t see any empty chairs at empty tables until the song’s half over). Hooper does an above-average job on the whole, but the lack of awards nods shouldn’t be so surprising.

After so long on the stage, a film adaptation can feel redundant or insufferably inferior. Despite the negative reaction from some quarters, I think it’s fair to say the team behind Les Mis have managed to render something that is neither of those, even if I had a nagging feeling it could’ve been even better still.

* Why Americans insist on using a ‘zee’ there I don’t know — do they think it says “miss”? How do they say the word “miss”? “Misssss”? Anyway: ^

The Dinosaur Project (2012)

Posted on September 25, 2013 by badblokebob

Found footage movies, eh? You either love them or hate them. Well, plenty of people hate them. I don’t mind them — it’s fast becoming an unoriginal idea (“existing genre + found footage = exciting new idea” is a sum that stopped working a couple of years ago), but if it’s done well, of course it still works.

The Dinosaur Project is a low-budget entry in a genre which you’d think would be awash with low-budget entries, and perhaps it is, but I’ve not encountered many of them. That said, it was shot in South Africa and has some impressive CGI, so it actually looks the part of a pricier endeavour. OK, you’re not going to confuse it with a Cloverfield-level experience, but nor does it look like something a few YouTubers knocked up down the park on a Sunday afternoon.

The story concerns a group of present-day explorers heading into the jungle to find dinosaurs. Lead explorer-man’s son tags along for various contrived reasons, and because he is Young and Hip he brings a bunch of cameras that he’s constantly recording from, hence the found footage thing. And the footage is “found” rather than “returned” because, of course, Things Go Wrong. What things I won’t say, but it will surprise no one that they do indeed uncover some dinosaurs.

Essentially, then, it’s a cut-price Jurassic Park, offering the same kind of “run away from the monsters!” thrills in a Modern way. And I don’t think it does it badly at all. If you hate the found footage phenomenon then this is going to do nothing to convert you, but if you don’t mind it, I think there’s a solid piece of entertainment in here. And if you actively like it then perhaps this is one of the better entries. It certainly has plenty of incident, which is more than can be said for some of them.

Plus, if you want to marvel at technical wizardy, the CGI and how it interacts with the real world is actually quite well done, especially bearing in mind the budget. I suppose we don’t notice such things in big-budget movies any more, because we know they can do it, but it does stand out in these low budget efforts. Which it shouldn’t. And doesn’t, unless you’re looking. Anyway.

The Dinosaur Project isn’t going to blow anyone’s mind, but as an adventure/horror-with-dinosaurs movie it’s a solid little thriller. It only runs for a brisk 83 minutes, too.

The Muppets (2011)

Posted on September 19, 2013 by badblokebob

2013 #18
James Bobin | 98 mins | TV | 16:9 | USA / English | U / PG

How I Met Your Mother’s Jason Segel (I believe he’s also in some movies from that Judd Apatow chap) co-writes, exec-produces and stars in this revival for the once-beloved puppet-y puppets.

Art mirrors life in the story: the Muppets have been all but forgotten, their old studios fallen into ruin, but when Segel’s brother (who happens to be a Muppet) overhears an evil developer planning to knock them down for good, they set about getting the old Muppets back together for a last-hurrah TV special to save their studio, and in the process restore their popularity. I say “art mirrors life”, because this is the first Muppet movie for twelve years, and it seemed to result in a wave of nostalgia and appreciation for the puppets (including a forthcoming sequel).

Segel — alongside British director James Bobin — has created a film that embraces the Muppets’ anarchic nature and old-fashioned entertainment style, while also integrating them into the modern world, to one degree or another. Things like the small-town roots of Segel, his brother and girlfriend (Amy Adams) are consciously dated, based in a movie-reality rather than the real-world, where the whole town might break into a song-and-dance number… but they know they’ve just done a song-and-dance number. Such breaks of the fourth wall abound, and constitute most of the film’s best bits.

Between a straightforward ‘get the band back together’ plot, some standard subplots about acceptance and growing up, and a host of celebrity cameos, it’s tempting to say the film must have written itself; but the skill lies in making it all seem so effortless, when I’m sure it was anything but. There’s an awful lot going on for such a simple tale, which keeps things moving and means the next delight is never more than a few moments away, be it a surprise cameo, a witty film spoof, or one of the entertaining songs (one, Man or Muppet, managed to get an Oscar. I didn’t even think it was the best.)

Some viewers and critics seem to have fallen head-over-heels for this Muppet reboot. It’s not that good. But it is an entertainingly irreverent hour-and-a-half-and-then-some, just as likely to win new fans as please old ones.

Make Mine Marvel (One-Shots)

Posted on September 16, 2013 by badblokebob

As last Monday I reviewed the latest Marvel movie, Iron Man 3, let’s this week turn our attention to the latest Marvel shorts: Item 47, released on Blu-ray a year ago this week; and Agent Carter, out on Blu-ray this month.

I’m sure you can guess which is which of these links:

Marvel One-Shot: Agent Carter (2013)

Posted on September 16, 2013 by badblokebob

A year after the end of Captain America, love interest Peggy Carter is working a desk job in New York, lacking any respect or acknowledgement from her superiors. But one night, when she’s left alone in the office, a mission comes her way…

Let’s cut to the chase: Agent Carter is easily the best Marvel One-Shot yet. The others have all been fun in their own, but they’re really quite slight and throwaway — if you miss them, never mind. This one, however, takes one of Captain America’s better characters and builds on her further — yes, character development in a 15-minute short. Not only do you get the sense that if Peggy returns in a Marvel feature the events of this short will have had an influence on how we see her, you also feel that anyone who hasn’t seen it will feel the need to go back and seek it out. In fact, this short just proves Agent Carter needs her own feature film. Considering these 15 minutes alone are better than the entirety of Captain America, I fully expect she could sustain it.

As the titular character, Hayley Atwell displays just the right mix of acting ability and action skill to carry such a part. In fact, see also last Christmas’ miniseries Restless, in which she played a similar role. You could even take that as a feature-length Carter adventure, if you wanted. Well, not quite, but close.

Action-packed, funny, character developing, and with some hilarious cameos at the end… You couldn’t ask for much more from a 15 minute superhero-universe short.

Agent Carter is included on the Iron Man 3 Blu-ray, out now in the UK and from September 24th in the US.

Marvel One-Shot: Item 47 (2012)

Posted on September 16, 2013 by badblokebob

Included on the Blu-ray releases of both The Avengers and (unlike Joss Whedon’s commentary or the tip of Loki’s spear) Avengers Assemble, Item 47 is the only of Marvel’s One-Shot shorts to date that’s actually connected to the film it’s released with.* It was greeted with great interest from fans due to its length — after the insanely short first two films, this was of such a length that it mattered; it felt like it was practically its own feature. Perhaps the memory cheats, though, because in reality it’s all of a whopping 11 minutes.

The other, more pertinent, reaction was to its quality: some fans seemed to hate it; nay, despise it. Only in geek/comic book communities could a short bonus feature inspire such vitriol. Personally, I thought it was quite good. I don’t really know what some fans expect from these short films — they’re not very long, so you can’t dig into a complex story, and they don’t have an enormous budget for big-screen spectacle (recently, director/producer Louis D’Esposito answered a question about if they could do a short starring Loki or someone by saying they could do one set in Asgard or with a super-powered character, but it would be about 30 seconds long before the budget was used up).

With that considered, the story is quite solid: after the Battle of New York, an alien gun falls into the hands of young couple Benny (Jesse Bradford, TV’s Guys with Kids) and Claire (Lizzy Caplan, TV’s Masters of Sex). When they use it for nefarious purposes, it attracts the attention of S.H.I.E.L.D., who send in Agent Sitwell (Maximiliano Hernández, TV’s The Americans… and also Thor, Marvel One-Shot: The Consultant, Avengers Assemble, and next year’s Captain America: The Winter Soldier). This is exactly the kind of tale I presume the imminent TV series Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. will be telling. Considering fans seem ultra-hyped for that, I’m not sure why they dislike Item 47 so much; or, alternatively, what they think MAoS will contain that this doesn’t. Well, character development and Agent Coulson, of course — but then your average episode of MAoS will run about five times longer than this short, so (again) what do you expect?!

Item 47 is precisely what I think you should expect from these short films: a fun little bonus tale set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It’s an entertaining few minutes that aren’t going to change anyone’s world, but are worth a fan’s time.

* Previously: The Consultant, released on Thor, connects Iron Man to The Incredible Hulk; the lengthily-titled second short, released on Captain America, connects Iron Man 2 to Thor; and the new one, Agent Carter, released on Iron Man 3, is connected to Captain America. Got that? ^

Anonymous (2011)

Posted on September 13, 2013 by badblokebob

2013 #24
Roland Emmerich | 125 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | UK, USA & Germany / English | 12 / PG-13

The director of Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, and other films which don’t imply a specific timeframe in their title, helms a film about Shakespeare? Oh yeah, that sounds like a good idea…

And it is indeed dreadful.

In fact, it’s one of those films that’s hard to criticise because I just thought it was so consistently weak. There’s a lot of middling to couched-positive reviews of it floating about, but I practically despised it. For a start, there’s the faintly ludicrous premise that Shakespeare didn’t write the works of Shakespeare. It’s a conspiracy theory that’s been around for decades, at least, and some people do believe it… but not anyone who’s serious about Shakespeare. I think the film takes it seriously, though, and that sets me against it from the off. I know there are plenty of films that tell silly stories in a silly way, but no one’s trying to convince you Avengers Assemble or 2012 actually happened.

Then there’s the confusing storytelling, which occasionally jumps around in time; the attempts at a court intrigue storyline (because the “it’s not by Shakespeare!” thing doesn’t sustain a whole plot), the kind of thing which has been done better even in something as simplistic as The Tudors; the too-dark cinematography (with occasional eye-catching images); the attempts at spicing up a period thriller with action scenes and other histrionics, which is what you should expect from the director of all those films I listed above but quite blatantly doesn’t sit right. And it’s over two hours long too, so it keeps going… and going…

Unlike Emmerich’s other films, which are hardly the height of art but are largely entertaining on some base level, Anonymous is just bad. With a quality cast and the occasional scene-redeeming moment, it’s not an unmitigated disaster. Still, this film by any other name would smell just as shit.

(If you think that one-liner was bad, try watching the film.)

(But, seriously, don’t.)

Anonymous featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2013, which can be read in full here.

Iron Man 3 (2013)

Posted on September 9, 2013 by badblokebob

aka Iron Man Three

Some have described Iron Man 3 (or, as the onscreen title would have it, Iron Man Three) as “the best Iron Man yet”, even better than the exalted first movie. Others have described it as “at least better than Iron Man 2”, the derided first sequel. I thought the first one was a tad overrated and the second notably underrated, so where does this trilogy-forming instalment fall on my personal scale? Well, that depends what you want from an Iron Man film…

Following on from the events of Iron Man 2 and The Avengers, Tony Stark is a man with little purpose. The American government have a rebranded War Machine to do their bidding; Pepper is now running Stark Industries; who knows where S.H.I.E.L.D. are (dealing with the plot of Captain America 2, probably). Tony, meanwhile, is creating endless iterations of the Iron Man armour and suffering panic attacks from memories of when the suit failed him during the Battle of New York. For all his usual wisecracking, he’s a man who’s had his confidence undermined — and if there’s one thing Stark’s known for, it’s his self-confidence.

It’s not long before some events happen that push Stark, and his Iron Man alter ego (or is it an alter ego? But I’m getting ahead of myself), back into action. But those panic attacks remain, as does his overwhelming desire to protect his first stable relationship with Pepper. Here, then, is perhaps the film’s strongest element: the development of Tony Stark as a character. It’s not as if the first two films don’t have some degree of character development, but it wasn’t so fundamental. Tony starts Film 1 as a wisecracking show-off partying womanising arms manufacturer, and ends it as… a wisecracking show-off partying womanising superhero. Film 2 and even The Avengers don’t take him a great deal further, arguably, but here he’s pushed. He still behaves recklessly, because that’s what he’s used to doing, but then the consequences of that recklessness — when he has something he cares about — are brought home. Literally.

Despite outward appearances, the Iron Man movies have always been as much — or more — about the characters and the humour as they have been about action sequences. When you’ve got Robert Downey Jr being hilarious, you want to see more of that than a robot-like superhero punching things. With Shane Black on co-writing and directing duties here (a great choice that pays off), you want to see that as much as ever, and the film keeps it up. So while Stark struggles with the responsibilities of a relationship and with how he’s going to overcome his anxiety problems, he continues to be as snarky and fun to be around as ever. And the film continues to not feature that much in-suit action.

Indeed, for much of the film the suit is out of commission: after the all-out assault on the house you surely saw in the trailer and that I alluded to above, Tony is in hiding, relying more on his own wits and detective skills to piece together just what’s going on. I imagine some people found this to be slow and dull, wanting the punchy-punchy boomy-explodey stuff of every other action movie. But after the sheer scale of The Avengers, Marvel and co are right to find a different tack. You can’t out-do what The Avengers did, and if you try to it would become implausible as to why S.H.I.E.L.D. and the super-friends aren’t sticking their noses in, so instead we have a problem on a grand scale, yes, but one for Stark/Iron Man to tackle on his lonesome.

That said, for the sake of the trailer and the adrenaline junkies, it just means the film is rear-loaded with action scenes — three climax-worthy sequences back to back, in fact. It’s a bit of a shame they’re so closely placed, because while each is well-executed individually, they’re also almost immediately overshadowed by what follows. You don’t have time to digest the Air Force One skydiving rescue before it’s off to the oil-rig for the Big Battle. The film takes a break from action by establishing where some characters are and shuffling pieces, sure, but it’s so much set up for the next sequence there’s no time to catch your breath. For me it’s a minor issue, one that will surely be less apparent on future viewings.

And future viewings are merited, because despite all the things that could be ever so depressing, the film has even more to commend it as entertainment. There’s Tony’s relationship with the small-town kid who helps him, for instance, which is suitably irreverent (“dads leave, no need to be a pussy about it”); there’s grace notes like the reluctant henchman (I’m not quoting his one line, it shouldn’t be spoiled); there’s the ’70s action series-style end credits (they brought a huge smile to my face, anyway); and there’s the film’s treatment of the Mandarin…

Ah, the Mandarin. He’s Iron Man’s big bad; the guy fans have been asking about since before the first film. I don’t know much about him, but I believe in the comics he’s some kind of magician — doesn’t sit well with the film series’ more sci-fi leanings, even after we’ve seen Iron Man meet the likes of Thor. Here, the Mandarin is reconfigured as a terrorist; a very powerful one, spreading his message by taking over US airwaves… and blowing things up as well, naturally. But there’s a twist to him, which I won’t discuss here; beyond to say that, even though I saw it coming (helped, I admit, by everyone saying “there’s a twist to the Mandarin!”), I thought it was quite brilliantly done. Ben Kingsley is magnificent.

It’ll also surprise no one when Stark’s business rival, Aldrich Killian, turns out to be a villain too. Bit of a rehash of the second film there, maybe, but — even though I liked that film — Iron Man 3 handles it better. Sam Rockwell’s Justin Hammer was perhaps a more memorable character, but Guy Pearce’s Killian fits the plot and themes nicely, and is more of a force to be reckoned with overall. My only disappointment came near the end (slight spoilers for the rest of the paragraph), when it’s revealed in a small aside of a scene that he can breathe fire. Come the big all-action climax and… he doesn’t do it again. Is it a little silly he can breathe fire? Maybe. But it does kinda work with the rest of the things we’ve learnt, and I presume it was a conscious reference to another Iron Man enemy, the giant dragon Fin Fang Foom, who Killian has tattooed on his chest. Even without that tattoo, they’ve established he has a special power, so why doesn’t he use it in the final battle? Surely that’s what it’s made for? Personally, I’d’ve deleted the earlier reference if I wasn’t going to use it at the climax.

In the grand scheme of things, I still think that’s a minor complaint. Indeed, any issues I have with the film are minor complaints, including the slightly elongated first act and the Iron Man-less second one. I think it works for the style the film is aiming at — more of a military-ish spy-ish thriller than a bombastic beat-em-up superhero flick — and that works for me. And, not a complaint, but a minor point: the Actor’s Agent of the Week award goes to whoever represents Stephanie Szostak. I’ve never heard of her and her character’s only really in one sequence, but she’s billed right below the big-name lead cast and above henchman and 24 season three star James Badge Dale, amongst other recognisable names and faces. A Christmas bonus for that representative.

So, is Iron Man 3 the finest Iron Man film? Well, as ever, that’s a matter of perspective. I do think it completes the character’s personal arc, which has flown through not only the first two films but also The Avengers. I’m not the first to note the finalising tone of the film’s final minutes, and I believe the Bondian “Tony Stark will return” at the end is to reassure us he’ll be back in the Avengers sequel rather than imply we should look for an Iron Man 4. Despite marking out release dates through Summer 2017, Marvel have said they won’t be confirming any films of their 2016 or 2017 releases for at least another year. When the time comes, I don’t think an Iron Man sequel will be among them, keeping that particular big gun — and that particular big-name actor — for special occasions. I’m alright with that, because I think we’ve had three highly entertaining movies out of him, and even without an adaptation of the (in)famous Demon in a Bottle arc, I don’t think there’s much left to do with the character right now. Plus, ending the film with the latest twist on the first movie’s renowned closing declaration is a nice way to round off a series… at least until the inevitable recasting one day.

So back to my question: is it the best Iron Man film? Well, that’s a matter of… oh, wait. Anyway, I refuse to commit. But it might be. It might well be.

Iron Man 3 is out on DVD & Blu-ray in the UK today, and in the US on September 24th. Ha-ha.

100Films.co.uk

100% movies. Except when it's about TV.

Category Archives: 2010s

Safe House (2012)

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns – Deluxe Edition (2013)

Les Misérables (2012)

The Dinosaur Project (2012)

The Muppets (2011)

Make Mine Marvel (One-Shots)

Marvel One-Shot: Agent Carter (2013)

Marvel One-Shot: Item 47 (2012)

Anonymous (2011)

Iron Man 3 (2013)