Iron Man 3 (a movie review post)

 

MCU #7

Wow! It has been a long time since we had an actual Iron Man movie and, of course, there will be no more Iron Man movies. It's easy to forget how long it has been, though, since we've had a solo movie with Tony Stark considering how integral he has been in the MCU. Now I'm kinda sad...

My feelings for this movie have a changed a lot since it first came out. You can read about those here. Basically, though, I've come to terms with the changes they've made to the Mandarin and the Ten Rings. You can read a bit about that here and get an understanding of the changes to the Ten Rings. At least, I think I talked about that there. I didn't actually go back and re-read my Shang-Chi review.

The tone of Iron Man 3 is a bit different than that of the first two, primarily because John Favreau chose not to come back and direct 3. Instead, we get Shane Black, who also co-wrote the script, which is fine, but I am blaming him for the narration. It's just not a thing I'm fond of in movies, generally speaking, though it does mostly work in this one. I say "mostly" because it doesn't but, then, he makes it work at the end. Is it worth the joke? Evidently, I didn't think so when I first saw the movie, but I feel better about it now. It's "I'm not that kind of doctor" that does it for me. And Mark Ruffalo. So great.

The three Iron Man movies are an interesting arc from a character perspective: Tony becomes Iron Man (I'm going to call this the man vs man story), Tony battles being Iron Man, which is killing him (I'm going to call this the man vs himself story, especially since it's in lieu of the substance abuse story line from the comics), Tony is stripped of being Iron Man and needs to build a fire (yes, I'm making a reference to Jack London) (I'm going to call this the man vs the environment story). This is where we really get to find out who Tony Stark is or, at least, whom he has become since becoming Iron Man. Is there anything of Tony left?

Tony has come to rely on Iron Man almost as a separate entity... well, exactly as a separate entity, as we see when he sends the armor to have a date with Pepper because he's busy doing something else. Of course, there is a separate entity involved: Jarvis, the AI that Tony has created as a... personal assistant? butler? lab assistant? All of those things. And I think that Paul Bettany, the voice of Jarvis, really gets overlooked. Sure, later, he gets a chance to shine, especially in WandaVision, but I think the audience, much like Tony, forget that there is a person behind the voice of Jarvis. The question, really, is whether Tony can make it on his own without the assistance of Jarvis, whom Tony has had with him, basically, always. It's an interesting question. Of course, we all know that Tony became Iron Man without Jarvis, but does Tony remember that he is his own person?

From an intellectual standpoint, I think Iron Man 3 is terrific. It asks interesting questions and goes about trying to answer them. And Tony has become someone who takes ownership of his mistakes, something younger Tony would never have done. And I don't mean just the big ones. Well, maybe they're all big, but, when he messes up with Pepper, more than once, he is quick to acknowledge his mistake(s) and apologize and endeavor to do better, so it's on a personal level, too, not just an "Oops, I accidentally created Ultron" kind of level. I also love his relationship with the kid, Harley, and that he has to deal with his PTSD from what happened in Avengers in large part because of his interactions with Harley.

I'm less crazy about the ending, though. I like that he can't manage to get into and stay in any of his suits. I don't like that he has 40-ish suits of armor flying around taking care of the fight. It is both over-the-top and underwhelming at the same time, which leaves me feeling unsatisfied. Also, after the big ending of Iron Man 2 with Iron Man and War Machine fighting side by side, I don't like that Rhodes' contribution to the fight is to save the president and fly away. Yes, yes, this is Tony on his own. I get that, but I feel like there is something... intangible... that is missing to make the ending really work for me. Not to mention a denouement of "I fixed everything" to wrap up the loose plot threads.

Maybe Ben Kingsley makes up for all of that? He's amazing. It does, though, make me wish that he got to play the version of the Mandarin from the comics, too. He's so sinister. But... but... I am happy with the changes to that character. The MCU needs the Shang-chi version of the Ten Rings.

Then there's Guy Pearce. He's one of those guys that I find, always, completely believable as a villain. He makes my skin crawl. He's smarmy. He comes across as someone who needs to be punched. I don't mean the character; I mean him. Have you ever seen him in an interview? I'd prefer for him to not be in my movies but, if he's going to be there, it should be as a villain, so he performs adequately in this role.

It's interesting to me that, in a lot of ways, Iron Man is the only character in the MCU who gets personal stories. Small battles without the world at stake, though I suppose the stakes are higher in this one since we have AIM trying to take over the government. It feels like a grudge fight, though, between Killian and Stark, mostly because Killian makes it that way. The whole thing is a bit ironic, actually, since everything that's happening is intended as a coverup because they accidentally exploded some people.

So here I am trying to weigh this movie against Iron Man 2 and decide which I like more, and I'm having trouble coming to a decision. I guess I am going to go with 3 because I like the concept more, that of stripping Stark of Iron Man and making him survive in the wilderness on his own. That part even starts with him out in the snow, which makes me wonder if the writers were also thinking about Jack London or if it was just a happy accident.

The new MCU rankings!
1. The Avengers
2. Captain America: The First Avenger
3. Iron Man
4. Thor
5. Iron Man 3
6. Iron Man 2
7. Incredible Hulk (apologies to Mark; it's not your fault)

Iron Man 2 (a movie review post)

 

MCU #3

It's interesting looking back at the earlier Marvel movies now that we've reached the stage of "saving the world." The early movies were much "smaller" and personal. Iron Man is, ultimately, about the envy of a man and the repercussions caused from trying to kill the man he is envious of. Sure, there is a battle between the two men in mech armor, but, ultimately, it is a personal movie.

Incredible Hulk is the same. Basically, a dude doesn't like the guy her daughter is dating. His daughter is dating the Hulk, so there's a lot of smashing, but, at its heart, it's a personal rivalry. Maybe two, because there's also Tim Roth's character and his, again, envy.

Iron Man 2 is also "small" in that same way. It's a battle between the sons of two men, one who rose to greatness, the other who didn't even go on to live in infamy, just obscurity. I mean, Tony had never even heard of the other man. All of that with a side of man vs man as Tony battles with "addiction." Of course, it's not really addiction in the movie; it's his looming death from palladium poisoning, but that's a stand-in for the arc in the comics when Tony was battling his alcoholism, a groundbreaking story in its day. I think they did a decent job of reflecting that in the movie as he gets more and more out of control.

I think Iron Man 2 is a quite good sequel. Narratively, I don't find it quite as strong as Iron Man. It actually has a little too much going on in it. But, as a movie about characters, which Marvel movies ultimately are, it really shines. It introduces Black Widow, which is so much fun. We really get to encounter Nick Fury, and that's awesome. Pepper gets promoted and freaks out. Rhodey steps into his own, at least a bit. We start to get to know Coulson... Oh, and Justin Hammer!

Okay, let me just say that I love Sam Rockwell. He is completely underrated as an actor. At least, he must be due to his lack of big profile roles. I don't know; maybe he stays away from them, but he's an incredible actor, and he was so much fun in this role. His little dance across the stage at the expo is gold. Also, I just found out, he was considered for the role of Tony Stark, and that would not have been a bad choice. A different choice, because I think Rockwell would have, well, rocked in the role, though I do think Downey was the correct decision. Not that Downey is the better actor; they are different actors, and Downey is able to have a particular smugness about him that I have never seen Rockwell do, and I think that particular quality is what really sells Stark.

Anyway... It's tough to pick between two actors you think are awesome.

And, I think, that's all I have to say about this one. Oh, wait, no it's not.
I have always been ambivalent about Mickey Rourke as the villain in this movie. Or, maybe, I'm ambivalent about the villain. I don't know. I don't know if it's the character or the actor. I hoped re-watching it would help me come to some sort of decision, but it didn't. Maybe it's both. This is part of the narrative weakness of the plot. Whiplash feels retconned in because he kind of comes from nowhere and nothing. Clearly, this guy is a genius but was fine with, what, living in squalor? And we're supposed to just accept Fury's word that the guy's father was a bad guy.

And we are supposed to accept that because Fury, in the MCU, is the ultimate reliable narrator, which makes everything a bit too easy for me to be comfortable with, I guess. It's the thing that pulls this movie down a bit for me.

Still a great and fun movie.

Oh, here's an idea! My ranking of the MCU movies as I re-watch them.
Current rank:

1. Iron Man

2. Iron Man 2

3. (and it's a very, very distant third, watch for this one to just keep dropping until it hits 25) The Incredible Hulk

Avengers: Endgame (a movie review post)

Pre-movie thoughts:
We're going to be seeing Endgame in just about two hours from now. This is almost the most anticipation I've ever had for a movie. Other highly anticipated movies of note: The Phantom Menace, Spider-Man (maybe my most highly anticipated movie ever), Fellowship of the Ring. People who know me (or who have followed along here for any length of time) will know that Star Wars is my "true love," but it wasn't my first love. No, my first love, through Spider-Man, was Marvel. And, well, what has happened with Star Wars since Disney let Kathleen Kennedy have control of it has somewhat tarnished my love for Star Wars. Sorry, Star Wars, it's not you... oh, no, wait... it is you.

At any rate, this, this waiting to go see Endgame, feels a little like a return to my first love. Even if Spider-Man turned to dust in the last movie. What Marvel has done here over the last decade or so and 20+ movies is... astounding. It's what Star Wars should have been, because it was Star Wars that proved that people would come back to "to be continued" movies in the first place. So... here I am, sitting here, actually, more than a little like my 13-year-old self waiting to go see Return of the Jedi, which, yes, I left off that above list because the anticipation you feel for something as a kid is rarely the same as it is when you're an adult.

Anyway... It's time to go. I'll let you know what I think.

Post-movie thoughts:
That was a very fast three hours. There was nothing to mark the passing of it beyond the fact that my butt started to hurt at some point. The theater we usually go to recently went through this big renovation thing and put in these overly large reclining chairs, and they're still not comfortable! Is there some rule about not having chairs that are comfortable? Or maybe it's because my butt is already worn out from sitting on bleacher seats all week at the four softball games my daughter had this past week. Whatever, my butt hurts.

Yeah, I'm just avoiding talking about the movie, because, really, what am I supposed to say about it? You can't talk about this movie without it being some kind of spoiler. Can't talk about the opening scene because... See? Can't even talk about the Stan Lee cameo, the last one of him EVER, because even that's spoilery. And I certainly can't tell you my favorite scene because Mark Ruffalo would probably show up at my house and yell "NO SPOILERS!" in my face, which would be fine if he just showed up as himself, but I'm not sure he wouldn't HULK out on me and smash some thing.
No, none of that has anything to do with the movie.

Now, I'm not going to say it was the best movie I ever saw, though it did make me cry a bit and make my wife cry a lot. It wasn't life-changing or anything like that. I guess I'm too old for that kind of shit these days. It was pretty perfect, though. A perfect ending, a perfect wrap up, a perfect whatever you want to call it. I mean, look, here's the thing: As I've mentioned before, I've read The Infinity Gauntlet, the source material for all of this... stuff, and I was at a loss for how they were going to wrap it up without just copying the story, and they managed to pull that off gloriously. It was a great job on the part of the writers.

Even my younger son, who has the capacity to be even more critical of things than I am (he's young; I'm sure he'll mellow out with age; I did) said after the movie something along the lines of, "I'm trying to think if there were any faults in [Endgame], and I can't think of any, not even with the <spoilery content removed>." So... there you go. There are no faults with this movie. Unless you just don't like super heroes but, then, that's a fault in you, not the movie.

I suppose, in the end, my recommendation doesn't matter one way or the other anyway. Either you're already planning to see it (if you haven't already) and nothing I say is going to keep you from it, or you've already foolishly gone against the Marvel movies and are living a piss poor life because of it. Justice League doesn't even rise to the level of a bad joke in comparison.

I guess what I can say is that the actors deliver the kind of performances we've come to expect from them. With the exception of Edward Norton as the Hulk 11 years ago, they have been spot on with their casting, and the fixed that error with Ruffalo. It's difficult to imagine anyone doing that role better at this point. Well, I can't imagine it, anyway.

So, yeah, great movie. You should see it. I mean, if you do, then I can actually talk about stuff from the movie in a few weeks... like <censored> and <censored> and wasn't it AWESOME when <censored> and who the <censored> at <censored>?!?!

Captain Marvel (a movie review post)

Of all of the things that Marvel has done well -- and they have done a lot of things well! -- perhaps the most impressive has been bringing in their intergalactic stories in a way that seems real and plausible. [Which, all things considered, is much more difficult than making their super heroes real and plausible.] Captain Marvel is no exception to that, and I'm extra impressed with their handling of the Kree/Skrull war, something I've been vaguely worried about since Guardians of the Galaxy came out.

Okay, actually, I've been worried about that since Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, the Kree/Skrull war having at one time been something largely dealt with in the pages of The Fantastic Four. And, well, Fox really fumbled the whole Silver Surfer/Galactus thing [yeah, sure, they fumbled the entire Fantastic Four thing, especially with their most recent attempt], but, then, that was Fox and not Marvel. Is anyone else looking forward to the return to Marvel of the FF and X-Men properties? Man, I sure am!

But I digress...

I guess the thing to know here is that Captain Marvel is another great entry into the MCU. All of their movies are so good, it's difficult to even know how to rank them anymore, so I can't say how great it is, just that it is. It's solid, which is especially important since it's a... hmm... prequel is not the correct term but, chronologically, Captain Marvel happens first of all of the MCU movies. And this really could have gone awry considering that Nick Fury and Agent Coulson are both involved in this story, Fury integrally so.

Technology is amazingly amazing. Seriously. We may not be able to re-age people for real, but the tech they used in Captain Marvel will make you think they can.

Brie Larson was a surprise, at least for me. I was rather ambivalent about her as the choice to play Danvers when they announced it. I didn't see Room (and have no real desire to) so my only real experience of her was from Skull Island, in which she was forgettable. But, then, it was a movie you want to forget, so maybe that's why. I have to say, though, that Larson nailed it as Carol Danvers, at least as she is in the movie (because I have no experience of this Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel from the comics). She was... well, a delight, which is not exactly what I want to say, but it's true. She's quirky and sarcastic and and has the perfect sardonic turn to her smiles when she needs to have a sardonic turn to her smile.

And her chemistry with Jude Law was great. Not any kind of romantic chemistry, it's not that kind of relationship, but their mentor/student whatever-it-was was perfect. Of course, Law is good in this type of role, very reminiscent of his Watson role alongside Tony Stark. Um.... I mean Robert Downey, Jr.

I also really enjoyed Annette Bening. Not only is it good to see her in something again, this movie really allows her to show some of the range she has as an actress.

Actually, all of the cast was great, which has been the standard with the Marvel movies. It's another thing they do well. Really well. Pretty close to perfection. DC, on the other hand... Well, I'd say they're somewhere around the same level as Fox showed themselves to be when they cast Miles Teller as Reed Richards. Seriously, what the fuck, Fox?

All of which is to say, you should see this movie. That is, you should if you like good stories, good acting, and fun. If you're old, stuffy, and snooty, and don't get into that "superhero stuff," you'll hate this, but it's your loss, man; it's your loss. People with good taste will love this movie. And, if you're planning on seeing Endgame in a few weeks, you should make sure you see this movie.

This Means (Infinity) War!

Discussion ahead. I'm not going to avoid spoilers.
You've been warned.

Other than Lord of the Rings (which is arguably one 10-hour+ movie rather than the three movies released in theaters), this is probably the "biggest" movie ever made. It, too, was too big to be one movie, not to mention that Marvel Studios spent a decade building up to this. That has never been done before (and is a good illustration of why, despite making decent money at the box office, DC movies continue to fail (you can't set up for an "epic" Justice League battle by having Batman say "something's coming" and allowing that to be your entire setup)).

Now, let's just get it out of the way that I thought the movie was Incredible, Amazing, Spectacular, Fantastic (even though they're not in it), Invincible, Mighty... um... there's probably more of those superlatives that I'm forgetting, but those are the one's off the top of my head. Oh, it's also Uncanny.

But I also understand why some people are freaking out, though I do find the number of people responding to it with, "The ending sucked! I'm never seeing another Marvel movie ever again!" more than a little amusing. To go with the most prevalent comparison, I don't remember anyone saying that about Star Wars after Empire came out.

Maybe this is one of those movies where it really does help if you've read the source material. One of the things that Marvel has excelled at is making their movies accessible to people who have never read comic books. They've taken these outlandish (sometimes literally (Thor/Guardians)) ideas and characters and made them believable in a modern world and taken away the need to have a comic book background to be able to understand and appreciate what's going on (again, as opposed to DC and Warner Brothers who continue to take shortcuts by assuming their audience knows the background for their characters and dispenses with giving anything any amount of credibility). And you don't need the comic books for this one, either, but maybe people wouldn't be freaking out so much if they'd read The Infinity Gauntlet. Not that I believe everything's going to be "okay" at then end of this. The MCU, after all, is not the same as the Marvel Universe in the comic books. In comic books, you can depend on characters not really ever dying and things mostly going back to the way they were. Consequences in the MCU tend to be a lot more permanent. That said, having read Infinity Gauntlet, I know how everything's supposed to shake out at the end, so I'm not freaking out about all the deaths. I expected it. Some of them still almost brought me to tears.

The only weakness of the movie, if you can call it that, is the motivation of Thanos. Maybe it's only a weakness because that is the one thing they really provided no background for. That and you can't really make a case that killing half of the souls in the universe brings any kind of balance. However, Thanos is called "the mad Titan" (in the comic books) for a reason. There doesn't have to be any kind of logic involved. Especially since he seems to think that people will come to love and worship him for his actions.

To be clear, bringing balance to the universe is not his motivation in the comic series. No, in the comics, he does it all for love, which, still, is a thought that amuses me. It amuses me because it's so true. See, in the comics, Thanos is in love with Death (not death, Death), she who embodies the ideal of death. He's in love with her, but she won't give him the time of day. He decides that if he can bring her an offering of half the souls in the universe that that ought to make her love him. heh
I'm not going to tell you how that works out.

Which brings us to Adam Warlock...
Except not, since he's not in the MCU, at least not at this point. It's Adam Warlock who puts things right again at the end of Gauntlet, not that someone else can't serve that function, and I was hoping he would show up. Maybe he can't though, since he may be a part of the Fantastic Four branch of the Marvel Universe (like the Silver Surfer) and currently under the control of Fox. Yes, I'm sure I could look that up; I'm just not going to. But I digress...

What I'm sure of, absolutely sure of, is that the next Avengers movie, the one that is the sequel to Infinity War, will be a permanent restructuring of the MCU. While some of what happened will be fixed, there will be some things that are permanent in a way they never are in comic books. Chris Evans is not renewing his contract as Captain America. Chris Hemsworth is almost certainly not renewing his contract as Thor. Robert Downey, Jr., though he's stated that he's willing to continue being Tony Stark, has also stated that he no longer wants to play Iron Man, and his contract is also about to be up. None of which is to mention that if the deal goes through with Disney buying Fox, whole new areas -- X-Men and the Fantastic Four -- will suddenly be open to the MCU. Will I be sad to see the permanent departure of some of these specific characters from the MCU? Sure. But I'm also looking forward to the idea that characters may die permanently. For good. Forever. It makes these kinds of stories much more... satisfying, if that's a word that can be used for this. It makes the stakes real, and, thus, it makes the victory, even if it's Pyrrhic, real, too.
Even if it is fiction.

Oh! And all of the performances are as awesome as can be expected.

A Study in Super Heroes: Part Two -- Civil War (review)

Captain America: Civil War is a complicated movie full of complicated issues, but the main conflict centers around individual freedom. How much of our personal liberty, our personal right to make choices, should we give up for the well-being of the whole, for society? Should that ever be compelled?

That's a tough question in these days of border walls and religious exclusions. There is something to be said for providing protection and safety for society, but how much of our freedom should we give up for that? How much should be required and how much should be by choice?

But the actual question is, "Is the movie good?" That's not a tough question, though it does have a complication. If you've been following the Marvel movies, this movie is great. Incredible. It has everything in it you could want and Spider-Man! (And Spider-Man was amazing (Pun totally intended).)

The complication is that if you haven't been following the Marvel movies (and why haven't you!?!?), this is not the place to jump in. It's not enough to have just seen the Captain America movies or just seen the Avengers movies, you need to have seen all four of those to really understand what's happening in this movie. And, so, while I can understand that being frustrating for someone coming into this without the background, it's so very satisfying to see a complex story come together like this, and, honestly, in a way that I'm pretty sure has never been done before.

I'm tempted to break the movie down and walk through it, but I don't want to spoil it for anyone, so I'm not going to do that. Also, there's no real reason to talk about the principal actors. All of them gave the kinds of performances you've come to expect. Chris Evans and Robert Downey, Jr. are incomparable. And I love Anthony Mackie as The Falcon. I think he's tremendous.

However, let's look at the new guys:

Chadwick Boseman: The Black Panther has never been a character I've followed all that closely. Wakanda is interesting, but it's never been sustainable as a setting for a comic book series much like the ocean has never been sustainable as a setting for a Namor series (or an Aquaman one, for that matter). Inevitably, they have to bring those characters into "our" world, and they have never, at least back in when I was reading comics, managed to successfully integrate those characters in a way that made them interesting as primary characters. I hope that changes, because Boseman was excellent as the Panther. He brought just the right amount of gravitas to the role.

Tom Holland: Spider-Man, on the other hand, is a character I've followed closely. Since I was, like, four or five. Maguire's Spider-Man has remained one of my top three super hero movies and portrayals. He really just nailed the role. Holland seems to have returned to that mold, the geeky high school student, something never quite believable from Garfield. To cut it short, Holland was perfect. I have been ambivalent about another Spider-Man re-boot, but I'm now quite looking forward to Spider-Man: Homecoming (and not just because of the ties to this movie).

Emily VanCamp: Okay, so, technically, she's not a new-comer, but she steps up her role in Civil War, so I'm going to treat her as one. She's good. She's good opposite Evans, at any rate. I'd say I need to reserve judgement to see what they do with the character, but it's not clear there will be any further development for the character. At any rate, I'm satisfied.

Daniel Bruhl: Ah, now, this one could be controversial, because the Zemo of the movie is certainly not the Zemo of the comic books. I'm okay with that. The movie universe is not congruent with the comic universe. I'm okay with that, too. And it's probably better that Zemo wasn't running around with a purple hood on his head. Bruhl does a great job in the role. He's convincing. And that's really all anyone can ask of an actor: Did he make you believe?

It's fair to say that I'm biased in favor of these movies, but I think it's safe to say that my bias has somewhat negated by how successful they've been. Marvel has not just made flashy super hero movies; Marvel has made good, even great, movies. They just happen to have super heroes in them.

Ironbivalence

One of the things that Marvel has done so well with their series of movies has been to keep the characters true to their comic book origins. I say Marvel in the sense of the movies that Marvel has done, not in the sense of all of their characters (because, if you look at what Fox did to Wolverine and will be doing to him again this summer, you will find that non-Marvel companies have not handled the characters quite so faithfully). With that in mind, I was looking very forward to the Mandarin as the villain in Iron Man Three.

The Mandarin, for all intents and purposes, is Iron Man's nemesis. He pre-dates the Iron Man comic book just as Iron Man does [Iron Man made his first appearance in Tales of Suspense #39, the Mandarin in issue #50], so I was expecting something... well, I was expecting something epic. Iron Man's greatest foe and all of that. That is not even close to what Marvel delivered with this movie, and I can't say more than that without offering spoilers. Let's just say that I was... disappointed with the Mandarin, especially given that it was Ben Kingsley. Not that Kingsley didn't do a great job; he did. I mean, he was fantastic in the role that they wrote for him; it just wasn't the role I wanted to see him in.

Here's the thing, for most of you out there, the vast most of you, the most of you that didn't spend more than a decade reading Iron Man comic books, there will be no issue with the role of the Mandarin at all. See, it works great in the movie. Which is what causes my divergence of opinion. On the one hand, I'm disappointed with the portrayal of the Mandarin, but, on the other, Iron Man Three was completely enjoyable to watch and has a lot going for it. In my head, I know that the continuity that the Marvel movies is setting up is not the same as it is in the comics, but that doesn't change my emotional reaction to it. The "why did they change that?" reaction.

Of course, it's comic books, and, maybe, they didn't change anything. It is conceivable that the Mandarin will still become who and what he is in a later movie. Or, maybe, he's that, now, but they're just hiding it.

As for the movie itself, it was quite good. Robert Downey, Jr. was amazing as always. It's a more personal movie than the previous two in a lot of ways. Tony is dealing with... issues, mostly brought on by his experiences in New York during the alien invasion in The Avengers. For much of the movie, he's effectively alone without any armor, and it was interesting to see Tony operating as a person rather than an iron man. Downey pulled that off with what appeared to be effortless ease.

Gwyneth Paltrow and Don Cheadle were respectable in their roles. Even Guy Pearce was adequate. Okay, probably more than adequate, but I really don't like the guy, so, when he plays a villain, he gets an automatic boost from me in that regard, so I actually have a difficult time in telling whether he's doing a good job or not, because I'm not going to like him anyway. I'll know that he can actually act if he ever bothers to play a good guy and he can make me like him. And, as I stated, Ben Kingsley was amazing. He really was.

Iron Man Three is slightly different in structure than the other two. It starts with an opening narration, and I don't tend to be fond of narration in movies. Of course, it ties in with the way the movie ends, which almost makes it worth it, but not quite. It also starts and, then, jumps back, which I'm also not fond of, but, at least, it didn't do a "three days earlier" or anything like that.

Also, the CGI is a bit... clunky... in this one. I didn't know why until I got home and looked it up: ILM did not do the effects on this one. Now, that is something I completely don't understand. ILM did the effects for both other Iron Man movies and The Avengers, so why switch when Disney owns ILM, now? And Iron Man. If it was that they (ILM) were too busy with the new Star Wars, I could understand, but they have at least half a dozen films coming out this year that they're doing the effects for, so having someone else do this Iron Man seems odd to me. Oh, well, I'm sure it was cheaper. It's always about the money, right?

So, yeah, as a movie, I liked it. It's great, in fact. But that doesn't stop me from being ambivalent.

A Game of Shadows & Stardust

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

First, let me just say, I love the subtitle. I tend to be fond of subtitles, but A Game of Shadows is a great title or subtitle. I wish I'd thought of it. [Because, if I had, I might would use that for my Tib stories, which are still untitled.]

Second, I'm a big fan of Sherlock Holmes. I've read (and own) all of the Holmes stories, so, when I say I like Holmes, it's not just some vague notion of Holmes formed when I was a kid from watching movies and television shows about Sherlock.

Having said that, Guy Ritchie has done an excellent job of adapting the stories into movie format. There have, of course, been some changes (like with Sherlock's fastidiousness), but, overall, he kept all the fundamentals of Holmes and has made a faithful adaptation rather than just making some detective story and calling the character Sherlock as in many of the previous incarnations of Holmes.

Of course, the acting by Robert Downey, Jr. is superb. Looking at these movies through a James Bond lens, I would say that Downey is the Sean Connery of Sherlock Holmes. He's more rugged and less refined. More of a brawler than a fencer, which, actually, also holds true to the character; although, I'd be interested in seeing someone do a Roger Moore version who is more of the gentleman and fencer. This also falls within the realm of Holmes. Okay, so, maybe Pierce Brosnan for those of you out there hating on Roger (but I grew up with Moore Bond films, and I love them most). However, I can't actually think of anyone that would be better at Holmes than Downey has been.

Add Jude Law to that, and you have a pretty perfect team. I'm not a huge Jude Law fan. Not that I dislike him, but I think he often comes off the same from movie to movie. However, I think he's been the perfect pairing for Downey in these movies. Their combination is... well, they make an excellent team.

I've heard a lot of mutterings about how this one wasn't as good as the first, but I don't know that I can agree with that. Sure, they've removed the romantic element (and I was sorry to see Rachel McAdams go), but, really, the romantic element is not exactly appropriate as an ongoing thing in Sherlock Holmes. In almost all ways, Holmes is above romance. Adler was the only woman Holmes was ever interested in even remotely and that was because she bested him. They do add the tension of Watson's wife to the mix, and I think that serves adequately as a substitute for any romance for Holmes. His romance is with "the game."

Jared Harris was an excellent choice for Moriarty. He's not someone I would have thought of, but he was great. Quiet and under spoken, rather like a spider. He was quite chilling.

If you saw the first Holmes with Downey and liked it, this one is definitely worth seeing. For those of you that haven't read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, be aware that many of the smaller details are actually from the stories and not just inventions for the movies. Those kinds of things being included made these movies a very enjoyable experience for me. If you haven't read Doyle, you should.

But don't spend a lot of time looking for Moriarty. He's really only in two of the stories and was an invention by Doyle to provide an adequate nemesis for Holmes in order to kill him off. Which he did. And, then, brought him back later because of public demand. See that thing with bowing to public pressure in writing goes back a long way.



Stardust

Stardust is another excellent title, but, then, Neil Gaiman tends to come up with some pretty excellent titles. Neverwhere and The Graveyard Book come to mind.

As I've stated previously, I've been a fan of Gaiman for quite a while. For much longer than he's been writing novels. I was introduced to The Sandman fairly early on (definitely before 1990) and often described Gaiman to friends as the best writer in comics (as opposed to Peter David (who also wrote novels) whom I described as the best writer of comic books writing novels)). I waited a long time for Gaiman to get around to the whole novel thing. And, then, sort of missed out on some because I was busy having kids. Good Omens is one of my favorite books, and I caught it right away, but Stardust and Neverwhere slipped past me, and I'm only now catching up.

But I loved the movie! Stardust is a beautiful movie, and I've been wanting to watch it again for quite a while (but it's buried in a box in the closet that still needs to be unpacked). Reading the book, finally, has only heightened that desire.

The problem here is that the movie and the book are not exactly the same thing. Rather like with Coraline. I really enjoyed reading Stardust, but I loved the movie. The book is less streamlined. It has a lot of fairy tale type elements in it, like people showing up to help at just the right moment. But, then, it is set in fairy land, so I'm sure those things are that way on purpose. They do add so amount of whimsy to the plot.

What I like most about the book is that it is unconventional in telling its love story, which is, also, unconventional. The movie makes it more of the kind of love story we expect from a movie, but the book, although containing the same love story, approaches it completely differently and doesn't really provide a happy ending. Not that it's not happy... well, you'd just have to read it to understand, because I'm not giving that away.

At any rate, if you like Gaiman, Stardust is definitely worth a read. I don't think it's as good as what he's been putting out more recently, but the same elements are there, and it's a good story with interesting characters. Be warned, though, if you're a fan of the movie, it's not quite the same.