Man of Steel : A Spoiler-Heavy Review

This is late. This is soooo late. And it’s far too long. Ugh. What is wrong with me? Why do I even exist? I shouldn’t. I’m sorry.

I love Superman. That’s why I wrote this piece almost one year ago (and this piece shortly after that. Just in case you wanted to give my site some traffic or whatever. It’s cool, though, it’s totally cool. Just…y’know, if you want to). And I want you guys to know, I was REALLY hoping that Man of Steel would, against all my expectations, be an amazing film. I know that sounds egocentric…because it very much IS. When a superhero movie comes out (especially a superhero as iconic as the Man of Steel) I can’t help it: I DO feel like it should be tailor-made to my sensibilities. I also nitpick it to death and pass judgment on it when it fails to live up to my ludicrous standards. And, as I feared, I was right about Man of Steel. It wasn’t the great movie I desperately wanted it to be. Now the viewing experience itself wasn’t terrible, but it reminded me of The Dark Knight Rises: a film that’s enjoyable on the surface, but immediately falls to pieces upon closer examination. I hope this list adequately explains how I can be a Superman fan and not be a huge fan of his latest cinematic “triumph.”

NATE’S HATES

1. The Cinematography

I am not the hugest fan of Zack Snyder. I was desperately hoping that Brad Bird or Darren Aronofsky or even Martin Campbell would snag the director’s spot for Man of Steel. But once Snyder was on board, I figured we would at least get some decent action scenes. Maybe slow-motion would actually be a great way to depict Kryptonians battling. But guess what? Zack Snyder decided to abandon his strengths and cling even tighter to his weaknesses.

First of all, everything is shot through a color filter. Krypton is a drab parade of different shades of brown. Earth is a bleak gray wasteland. An ultimately pointless scene in which Zod invades Kal-El’s mind was obviously written into the movie so that Snyder could show off his “visionary” style of film-making  and cram in some of the same kind of “subtle” and  “symbolic” imagery we’ve come to expect from the man behind Sucker Punch.

The action scenes are especially disappointing because Snyder uses no slow-motion, which (as I said) could have really worked in this instance. But no, everything is fast-paced, hyper-edited, and out-of-focus. Perhaps that works for, say, Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy, or the Bourne series, or even the most recent James Bond movies, but not here; not when you’re showing alien demigods battling for the Earth’s future. That kind of conflict should feel epic, and it doesn’t (weirdly enough, the most “epic” battle scene is the one that’s the most similar to Superman Returns, in which Superman destroys an inanimate object that causes him pain).

2. Plot Problems

Let me lay out a few of these in roughly chronological order. And yes, this one’s going to be a long segment:

How is Jor-El, genetically engineered to be a scientist, able to easily defeat Zod and his troops, genetically engineered to be perfect soldiers? How does the Phantom Zone work? If it’s another dimension, Why does there have to be a giant ship, and freeze-y tubes?

How could Superman’s suit (complete with the symbol of the House of El, no less) be in a scout ship that arrived on Earth 20,000 years ago? Did Jor-El (or his AI) program the ship to build it? If so, why make it blue, red, and yellow, colors that we haven’t seen exist on Krypton? Why doesn’t the suit look more like the armor that Jor-El wears instead of the body stocking that Kryptonian soldiers apparently wear under their combat suits?

What exactly gives Superman his powers? Jor-El said that the Earth’s lighter gravity gave him his ability to fly, and the radiation from Earth’s young sun supercharged his cells, right? The whole thing about earth’s atmosphere was just a throwaway line at the time; something about it being more nutritious than Krypton’s. Well, that line apparently only existed to justify the moment when Superman is on Zod’s ship and he blacks out and loses his powers. Why? Not because of the sun. Not because of the gravity. Because Zod’s ship artificially duplicates Krypton’s atmosphere. Now I know that an atmosphere is determined by the gravitational pull of a planet and that it contains ultraviolet solar radiation, but did we really need to be SO scientifically accurate that it seemingly contradicts Superman canon? Was it just to be “realistic”, Nolan-style? Weirdly specific time to do it. Why not just say it was red sun radiation?

How did Krypton’s destruction free the prisoners from the Phantom Zone? Why was it so easy for a prison ship (that Jor-El designed, by the way) to be taken over and converted into a vessel of war? How has Zod aged appropriately over a span of 33 years, but Faora hasn’t? Why would Zod reveal his presence to earth, when it would have been so much easier to search the internet for references to alien activity, locate Lois Lane, discreetly abduct her, use the brain-raping technology we know they have, and take Kal-El by surprise? I’m assuming that would have been just as easy (if not easier) than creating a broadcast that automatically translates words into every known language on earth, so why did Zod take such a big risk and tip his hand? Because he has “a flair for the dramatic”? WHY? He shouldn’t be susceptible to that kind of vanity if he was really genetically engineered to be the perfect soldier, right?

And if  Zod’s ultimatum was some kind of psychological tactic intended to terrify and intimidate, it failed; Earth still tried everything in its power to resist his incursion, and all the broadcast did was give them time to mobilize. Plus, you don’t need to break the spirits of a population if they already aren’t a threat to you AND you intend to completely destroy them, not subjugate them, right? For that matter, why did Zod NEED to terraform the Earth into a Krypton-style planet? His explanation was “We don’t want to endure years of pain adjusting to these abilities like Kal-El did.” WHAT? What kind of soldier throws away a tactical advantage like that? They spent more than three decades living in a flying prison! How could that be worse than spending a little time getting used to your completely AWESOME GODLIKE POWERS?! Plus, his argument is completely moot, since only a few minutes later he’s completely adjusted to his powers and he’s fighting Superman to a standstill!

For that matter, why does Zod need Earth to be the new Krypton? If he has a world engine that can terraform ANY planet into a duplicate of Krypton, why inconvenience himself by choosing Earth? He says he has no interest in the powers a yellow sun gives him, so why Earth? The whole reason Superman resists him is because he plans to use the codex to repopulate Earth with Kryptonians. Easy solution: find another planet (there are plenty of them, as Zod would know), use the world engine there, tell Superman you have no interest in threatening his adoptive planet, and then he’ll gladly cooperate and help you find the codex and use it. Or, why not use the world engine BEFORE coming to earth, show up in a non-threatening vessel, and tell Superman you need his help to revitalize Kryptonian culture. Boom. Done. Remember, this version of Zod doesn’t have anything personal against the House of El (unlike Zod in Superman II). He was even friends with Jor-El. He should have no reason to punish the earth, and he shouldn’t have any animosity against humans or Kal-El. He just wants the codex, which is not an inherently dangerous item.

Of course, Jor-El DID imply that Zod wanted to eliminate the bloodlines of Krypton that he deemed impure or whatever. Now, let’s leave aside the fact that Zod (as he himself states) was genetically engineered for the sole purpose of protecting Krypton, and therefore shouldn’t be:

A) capable of starting a destructive civil war that divides his people during a planetary emergency.

B) jeopardizing Krypton’s future by eliminating any portion of a highly-structured gene pool perfected over generations of planning.

If Zod is willing to destroy the traditional version of Krypton to begin with, why not use his own people as templates for a new Kryptonian society? You know, his loyal followers, the highly skilled people all willing to die for him? Just have them start breeding, or have the creepy German guy whip up some clone-ish stuff. They have the technology, since they were going to use the codex anyways, and Zod already planned on rebuilding Kryptonian society in his own image.

Speaking of all this genetic engineering stuff, Faora has a line during her fight with Superman that is infuriating in its scientific…uh, notness. As they fight, she brags about how he will lose because he still has morality. She, on the other hand, does not. Why? Because she has evolved beyond it. Because she has…what the hell, guys?! Seriously?! First, Faora is one generation removed from Superman; she has not evolved anything that he, a YOUNGER Kryptonian, doesn’t have too. Also, if she has no morality, then why is she doing any of this stuff? You don’t orchestrate and participate in a planetary rebellion, travel across the galaxy for decades, and constantly put your own well-being at risk in order to rebuild your home if you don’t have a set of morals. Faora has to believe that what she’s doing is right. And guess what? Zod, also a genetically engineered soldier, HAS MORALS! He explicitly stated that he did what had to be done, no matter how unpleasant, in order to protect and preserve Krypton. MORALS! But hey, even if Faora was born without morals, it wasn’t because she evolved past them: she was genetically engineered. That’s not evolution. That’s LITERALLY INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Okay, that was exhausting. Moving on to the other problems. Oh yes, there are more:

3. Jonathan Kent is a Prick

Putting aside the irritation I endured with Kevin Costner’s predictable monotonous drawling  (I think I’ve heard him refer to it as “acting”), Man of Steel‘s version of Jonathan Kent is an awful parent, an awful mentor, and an awful role model. He tells his son that he has to decide for himself whether he’s going to be a good or bad person. It’s not a good idea to use your powers to help people, he warns, because the world isn’t ready for you, and they’ll reject you. He wants Clark to stay with him in Kansas and be a farmer, yet at the same time he keeps telling him that he’s going to change the world and that he must find out for himself what his glorious destiny will be. And when he tries to rescue the family dog (yes, the DOG) from a twister, he refuses to let his son save him because he has to keep that side of himself a secret. Are you processing this? DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS TERRIBLE?! When your son is an all-powerful alien, you owe it to him and the world to at least TRY to teach him right and wrong and, raise him to have compassion for his fellow man. The Jonathan Kent of the comic books did. The Jonathan Kent of the first Superman movie did. But from this paranoid, morally ambiguous Jonathan Kent, we only get empty platitudes, grandiose speeches, and the worst parenting style since Robert Downey Sr. Bottom line: Superman should have become a hero BECAUSE of his parents, but in Man of Steel he becomes a hero DESPITE them.

4. Superman Can’t Be Bothered with Bystanders

Superman’s respect for all life is a common thread in all of his depictions. That respect is evident in virtually any battle he finds himself forced into. If he has to fight an enemy, his first priority is to either move the battle away from a populated area or find a way to clear out civilians and cut down on collateral damage. In Man of Steel, Superman couldn’t care less about bystanders. When Zod threatens his mother in rural Kansas, what does Clark do? Tackle him, and fly them both OUT OF an isolated cornfield and INTO a busy urban area. Oh sure, he tells the civilians to get inside because it isn’t safe, but then he proceeds to destroy the town around their ears. Gas stations blow up. Helicopters crash. Buildings are reduced to rubble. Of course there are casualties, and now Superman is just as responsible for their deaths as Zod is. And that final battle? Oh, my God. We can see horrified spectators watching. We can see these two titans of destruction leveling skyscrapers and construction sites and blasting their heat vision left and right. PEOPLE ARE DYING, SUPERMAN, AND YOU ARE KILLING THEM.

That climactic moment when Superman has no choice but to snap Zod’s neck in order to save some humans? Fine with it. In the comics, he executes Zod and Faora with Kryptonite when they leave him with no alternative. I don’t think it’s particularly controversial at all. But I also say this: given his blatant disregard for the THOUSANDS of people he and Zod endangered during their little scuffle, Superman killing Zod for the sake of a small family of tourists and then screaming in anguish has a hollow ring to it.

5. Clark’s Too Old For Pranks

It was a short scene: Clark is a cook at a truck stop diner in the middle of nowhere. A pretty waitress gets harassed by Thaddeus D. Redneckington III, and Clark steps in. He shows restraint when the trucker makes fun of him, pushes him, and pours beer on his head, because he is a mature adult. Two cops (who are apparently also sociopaths) find that funny instead of, like ASSAULT or something. Clark leaves, upset. Thaddeus leaves the diner hours later, only to discover that–Wha?! His truck is completely wrecked and the shipment of timber he was hauling is ruined! BA HA HA HA! Boy, Clark was a real cut-up when he was a teenager! Of course, that was before he became a mature adult and–Wait, he’s 33 years old?! How is destroying a man’s livelihood, a company’s profits, and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment any better than beating up the guy?! I thought the whole “33 years old” thing was a clumsy and unnecessary reference to the Superman/Jesus parallel, but I don’t even think teen Jesus would be that petulant.

6. Golanitis

I’m quite proud of this one, actually. “Golanitis” is a term I have invented (unless the internet did it eight years ago in which case I’m sorry). The “Golan” is a combination of Christopher Nolan (also his brother Jonathan when applicable) and David S. Goyer, the men behind the Dark Knight trilogy. “Golanitis” is a condition the characters in their movies suffer from. It renders them incapable of saying anything in a short, simple, or even remotely understandable way. Instead they have no choice but to deliver stilted, melodramatic, and pretentious yet endlessly quotable dialogue that:

A) Awkwardly telegraphs huge plot points.

B) Reminds the audience that the movie does indeed have a theme, and is indeed serious and important because Hans Zimmer’s score is getting louder.

C) Is initially intended to answer a question or make a point, but instead devolves into a long story or symbolism-heavy speech that ultimately does neither.

D) Makes a great Facebook status because it sounds deceptively profound; bonus points if it can be used out of context in support of a political, religious, or personal agenda.

E) All of the above.

See, it’s easy to use superheroes (especially Superman, given his Christ-like attributes) to stage a morality play. That’s not inherently bad. But when you focus on having a big, important, serious, thematic motion picture epic without focusing first and foremost on, say, character development (or simply having a good movie with a smart plot), well, you’ll feel obliged to fill your movie with trite, hackneyed sayings that don’t sound like real people talking to one another about important things; instead, they sound like somebody reading off the inventory at a motivational poster factory. If you want a perfect example of how a superhero film avoided this trap despite having an inherently silly premise and requiring a massive suspension of disbelief, watch The Avengers. Joss Whedon knows how people talk, how to let a story’s themes speak for themselves, and how to give a colorful and absurd popcorn flick something it MUST have in order to matter: subtlety and genuineness.

ON THE PLUS SIDE/IN CONCLUSION

Now for some positive things about the movie. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention how much I appreciated the acting talents of Russell Crowe, Henry Cavill, Michael Shannon, and Christopher Meloni. Even though the idea of the Nolan boys and David S. Goyer controlling the DC Cinematic Universe makes me anxious, I’m happy that Man of Steel takes place in a shared universe. I enjoyed the church scene. I liked the overall idea of Superman and humanity earning one another’s trust. Lois Lane knowing who Clark Kent is almost from the beginning is a good change. All of these things make me hopeful for the future of DC movies. We’ll get there eventually.

Advertisements

Star Trek Into Darkness: A Spoiler-Heavy Review

I think they used “Sabotage” one film too early.

I love the Star Trek franchise, although I consider myself a casual fan (not sure what the term for that is. Trekker?). When it comes to the Trek movies, I tend not to nitpick small details. The story and its themes are what’s important to me. Star Trek (2009) was about dealing with pain and loss, the uncertainty of the future, and learning to depend on others. It almost had to be about those things, since fans had to come to terms with the retirement of the original timeline. Anyways, Abrams’ first film was very good (though it had its problems), and it did what it needed to do: get Kirk in the chair, divorce itself from the rigid continuity of the original series, and rustle up some new fans. Hollywood being Hollywood, a sequel was inevitable. Four years later, Star Trek Into Darkness has warped into theaters. Is it as good as the last one? Short answer: no. Slightly longer answer: no, because it’s better. What?…Why yes I WOULD like to elaborate at great lengths! Onward!

KIRK, SPOCK, AND THEIR BROMANCE

“Did they ever put this ‘Everything is gray now’ business up to a vote? I feel like they didn’t.”

It always bothered me how quickly Kirk got to command the Enterprise in the first movie. He basically from a cadet to the captain of the Federation’s flagship in a few days! It was a little rushed. But Into Darkness acknowledges that it WAS rushed. Kirk DID take command of the Enterprise too early. He depends too much on luck. He’s irrational. He exploits the loyalty of his crew. He really SHOULD spend a little more time at the Academy. People like Kirk: he’s smart, handsome, charismatic, and a risk-taker. Which is great, but those qualities allowed him to bypass the system and become responsible for a starship before he was ready. After all, it takes wisdom and experience to learn when to take risks and when to avoid them. That’s where Spock comes in.

In the first movie, Kirk and Spock spend a long time at odds with each other. Eventually, they develop mutual respect and admiration, but their inevitable friendship is only hinted at by Spock Prime. Into Darkness delivers on that promise by showing us how much one needs the other. Kirk must learn to keep his emotions in check and look at things logically. Spock has to accept his human heritage and understand that emotion is not a weakness. At the beginning of the film, Spock is willing to sacrifice himself on Nibiru so that its inhabitants can live (“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”), and Kirk doesn’t understand how he can accept his fate so easily. Spock, meanwhile, is the voice of reason for the vengeful Kirk after Pike dies. By the end, their positions are reversed: Kirk makes the logical decision that his life is worth the crew’s, and he sacrifices himself to save them without hesitation. Spock, moved to tears by Kirk’s death, is acting on anger when he goes after Khan moments later. Maybe some die-hard Wrath of Khan fans didn’t care for the Kirk/Spock role reversal in the final act, but I thought it was a great callback to the volcano scene. In that moment, Spock was deliberately unemotional about death, and Kirk couldn’t see the bigger picture. Neither could comprehend the other’s thought process until the whole ship and crew are threatened; Kirk is forced to start thinking like Spock, and vice versa. After the events of Into Darkness, it can truly be said that Kirk and Spock are friends, because they’ve learned from each other: they now fully understand each other’s perspective, and they’re better men for it.

VILLAINY

“Yes, Khan Noonien Singh is my birth name! Why does everyone always ask me that?!”

Benedict Cumberbatch is predictably amazing as Khan/John Harrison. In the original timeline, it’s remarked that Khan is noble in his own way, and he makes a great foil for Kirk because they have many similar qualities. The same is true in this film. Khan is a cunning and savage fighter, and he has no use for rules or limitations. In that way, he’s very much like Kirk, just distorted to the extreme. Indeed, both men are aggressive, determined, and fiercely protective of their people, but Khan is willing to do whatever it takes to get what he wants, damn the consequences; Kirk has to learn the danger of that kind of attitude.

I don’t think it’s too controversial to say that Nero from Star Trek (2009) wasn’t a particularly compelling villain, but thanks to great writing and an intense, nuanced performance from Cumberbatch, we don’t have that problem here. Interestingly, in his first appearance on the original Star Trek show, Khan was initially going to be a big Nordic guy in order to hammer home the whole Nietzschean ubermensch concept. It wouldn’t surprise me if Cumberbatch’s casting was a clever nod to what almost was.

MAKING THE MOST OF AN ALTERNATE TIMELINE

WOO WOOOOOOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOOOO (Imagine that noise coming from a theremin and you’ll get it)

Into Darkness makes excellent use of the alternate timeline concept established in the first film. The chain of events that brings the Enterprise into conflict with Admiral Marcus and Khan can be traced back to Nero’s attack on Vulcan and Earth. The Federation’s leadership realizes that it’s vulnerable, so it becomes more paranoid and militaristic, aggressively exploring as much space as possible. They find Khan (Presumably aboard the Botany Bay), realize who he is, and exploit his strategic genius in order to prepare for inevitable conflicts with the Klingons and other threats. It’s an interesting idea that Khan, despite being from the past, would have a better understanding of weapons than people living in the more peaceful 23rd century. We can also see less obvious signs that Starfleet has become more militaristic: the uniforms are darker, more official looking, and certainly not what we would expect from benign explorers (whether they were meant to or not, they reminded me of the Soviets). At any rate, the story manages to address 21st century terrorism and our responses to it without appearing heavy-handed, not an easy accomplishment.

I saw Into Darkness with a friend who had seen the 2009 movie and nothing else from the Star Trek franchise. He also thought it was great, and I believe that’s evidence enough that Abrams has succeeded at making Star Trek accessible to new audiences without alienating old fans. The references to the original timeline were enjoyable (though not too excessive), and I think it was smart of Abrams to have Into Darkness mirror The Wrath of Khan without blatantly stealing from it. In a way, it’s comforting to know that some things are MEANT to happen, regardless of the timeline we’re in.

BUT WHAT ABOUT EVERYBODY WHO ISN’T KIRK, SPOCK, OR KHAN?

Given the huge focus on Kirk and Spock’s budding bromance, the supporting cast is surprisingly well-developed. Even though he’s not in the movie for long,Bruce Greenwood’s Admiral Pike adds a lot to the story. Into Darkness confirms his status as Kirk’s surrogate father, and their scenes together are really touching; we can tell that they genuinely care about each other. Uhura has more to do this time around, and her interactions with Spock are a little more believable. It doesn’t look like we’ll see the resurrection of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy relationship that anchored the original films, but Karl Urban is more comfortable as McCoy this time around, and the character’s friendship with Kirk is strengthened; he also gets to participate in more of the action, which is fine by me. Scotty continues to be comic relief, but he plays a major role in the movie, demonstrates his expertise, and gets some good dramatic moments as well. Peter Weller and Alice Eve are also great as Admiral and Dr. Marcus, adding emotional heft to the Enterprisetussle with the Vengeance.

NITPICKS (OKAY, FINE…I DO HAVE A FEW)

There are some minor things I would have changed. I will now list them:

1. Sulu and Chekov have nothing to do. I wanted to see Sulu fence again and I wanted Chekov to see some combat.

2. Not enough Klingons. Especially disappointing, given their awesome redesign. Here’s hoping the next one will be about them.

3. Always nice to see Nimoy, but his cameo felt really forced and didn’t contribute much.

4. I was fine with the naked cat ladies because…well, OF COURSE they would be unclothed after spending the night at Jim Kirk’s place. But the scene with Carol Marcus changing in the shuttle was an unnecessary, blatantly obvious chunk of cheesecake trailer-bait.

5. I don’t expect anybody to agree with me on this one, and I admit it’s weird, but I REALLY like the design of the Starfleet flight suits in Into Darkness, and I kind of wish they had been the new standard uniform. It seems really unfair that the female crew members have to wear skirts all the time.

I know. I know! I KNOW, OKAY?! I DON’T KNOW WHY I LIKE THEM EITHER!

6. Okay, this isn’t actually a nitpick at all, because I loved Cumberbatch as Khan, but I can’t help but wonder how Benicio Del Toro would have done in the role if the rumors about his casting had turned out to be true. I bet he also would have been pretty amazing. Just an observation.

WHAT’S NEXT FOR THE FRANCHISE?

Obviously, J.J. Abrams is moving on from Star Trek, which is for the best. I mean, even if he weren’t, we’d still have to wait another four years until the next movie in the series, and I REALLY don’t want to wait that long to see what happens with these Klingons! That’s where I think the series is headed, by the way (at least IT BETTER BE!). If Brad Bird were to take over like he did with Mission Impossible, I wouldn’t be too broken up about it. To be honest, I’m much more excited for the next Trek than I am for episode VII of Star Wars. But hey: here’s hoping Abrams gets better results from copying George Lucas than he did when “paying homage” to Steven Spielberg.

Iron Man 3: A Spoiler-Heavy Review

I love this poster.

SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS!

I saw Iron Man 3 last night and I loved it. I mean LOVED it. I was satisfied with Iron Man 2 (unlike plenty of other folks) but it had its flaws, and it certainly didn’t fill me with as much joy as the first Iron Man did when I saw it in theaters. But when I heard Shane Black was going to be co-writing and directing the most recent installment, I knew we were going to get something special. In case you didn’t know, Shane Black is responsible for writing the first two Lethal Weapon films, The Long Kiss Goodnight, The Last Action Hero, and for directing Robert Downey Jr. back in 2005 in the excellent comedic noir thriller Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, which he also wrote. I’m a fan of all those movies, especially the last one I mentioned, so you can imagine my excitement when it was announced that Shane Black was writing AND directing Iron Man 3. I was not disappointed; the movie I saw last night was heartfelt, hilarious, and full of jawdropping action. I can think of very little I didn’t like about it. And because I can’t contain myself when it comes to Iron Man, I have to talk about it at length to no one in particular. For the sake of convenience, I’ll assume you’ve already seen it. Sound good?…I don’t care. HERE WE GO!

THE PLOT

The Extremis story arc from The Invicible Iron Man  comics ran from 2005-2006, and it always kind of irritated me. Despite being well-written and beautifully illustrated, there were just elements of the story I didn’t care for. I won’t go into everything that went down in the comics, but the story basically ended with Tony Stark embracing the Extremis technology in order to defeat a criminal who had been augmented with it; he integrated it into his armor and his body, so that he could operate his tech faster than thought and essentially became a living computer. I won’t pretend like my ideal of Iron Man is  more valid than other fans’, but I didn’t like that. Tony is Iron Man, but he’s still Iron Man when he isn’t wearing the armor; it doesn’t define him, or at least it shouldn’t. So of course I was pleasantly surprised and delighted to discover that Shane Black and his co-writer Drew Pearce essentially had the same notion! We’ve never seen Tony so effective without his armor, and it reminds us that he’s plenty dangerous with just the random stuff a ten-year-old kid can gather up from around the house. And, at the end of Iron Man 3, Tony decides that he’s got everything he needs to be complete and the armor had become a distraction for him, so he destroys the armor he has and removes the arc reactor from his chest (with surgery of course). Given the fact that Tony operated without any kind of life-support system for years in the comics, I don’t see any reason to think that we won’t see Tony as Iron Man again. I suppose there’s another, somewhat controversial plot element I ought to address. So I will. But first, an aside.

I’ve read every single issue of The Invincible Iron Man that exists. EVERY. SINGLE. ISSUE. Years ago, Marvel thought it would be cool to release digital versions of their comics on CD-ROM so as to be “hip.” They had one for all of their main characters, including Iron Man. I have plenty of hard copies of my favorite issues, and plenty of graphic novels, but between the 500 issues of The Invincible Iron Man on the aforementioned CD-ROM and the remaining issues I collected to fill in the gaps, I’ve read pretty much every appearance of Iron Man in the Marvel Universe. I remember watching reruns of the Iron Man animated show from the ’90s (it was terrible, but it was Iron Man). So yes, I’m quite the Iron Fan. What I’m about to say next, I don’t say lightly.

It MIGHT have something to do with this fellow.

 Are you ready? Come closer…closer……GUESS WHAT?! I DON’T LIKE THE MANDARIN! THAT’S RIGHT! Yeah, I think The Mandarin’s dated and dumb. Marvel should have let him die with the other racist stereotypes from the Cold War era. But no, he stuck around for decades afterwards, even acquiring this weird status as Iron Man’s greatest foe. I still don’t like him. He’s got magic rings (I don’t care what kind of techno-babble he uses to describe them; they might as well be magic, the way they’re shown to work), he thinks he’s a modern-day Ghengis Khan, he wants to rule the world (with the occasional variation in his plots as time goes by), he has super martial art powers, and he lives in a palace in the mountains of China. You know what all of that says to me? Meh. MEEHHHH. Even at his most sleek and modern, the Mandarin never seemed any different from Fu Manchu or Shihuan Khan from The Shadow series. I was actually thrilled when Ben Kingsley was announced as the Mandarin and he was revealed to not be Chinese. I figured that at least his motivations and personality would be different from the stuff we usually see in the comics. So when “The Mandarin” was revealed to be a besotted stage actor being manipulated by the REAL villains? YES. YES. In addition to being a remarkable ego-free performance from Sir Ben, we sidestepped all the weird awkwardness we would have gotten if The Mandarin actually was some kind of Far Eastern warlord. And, without being TOO obvious about it, Black’s decision to have unethical American businessmen be the REAL villains makes for good political commentary (and it keeps the theme we had from the last two movies with crooked executives pulling strings as well). Plus, having “The Mandarin” be an actor who was desperate for work is consistent with the theme the movie has of the best intentions and goals being twisted for unethical purposes. So no, I don’t agree with people who were disappointed with The Mandarin’s depiction in Iron Man 3, and yes I’ve read the comics, and no I don’t think he’s worth much in the comics either.

A word or two about Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian, the real villain of the movie. I think he does a great job portraying a sort of anti-Tony. When Sam Rockwell played Justin Hammer in Iron Man 2, it didn’t quite work. I saw what he was going for, but it rang false for me. He was never threatening in the slightest, and while I didn’t care that Hammer was altered from the comic books to be closer to Tony in age, I DID feel that he needed to keep his ruthlessness. Justin Hammer in Iron Man 2 is never in control, and he’s never shown to have any deeper motivation than competing with Stark Industries for government contracts. Aldrich Killian, on the other hand, is a great character. He starts off as a brilliant, eager-to-please, nobody who has nothing but ambition. Tony’s rejection is what gives him the motivation to move forward with Extremis and reinvent himself. He wants to be like Tony in the sense that he wants the same kind of power and respect, but unlike Tony, his defining moment as a scientist was divorcing himself from morality and taking what he wanted regardless of the costs. At the same time, he also can’t completely divorce himself from the validation he craved as a nobody. Which he recognizes. Guy Pearce gives Killian the charisma, confidence, and borderline lunacy that makes him a perfect dark mirror for Tony.

Oh, and I don’t know if this was controversial for anyone, but I also should mention that I don’t care if Rhodey is in the Iron Patriot armor. I know Norman Osborne was in the Iron Patriot armor. Who cares? If I were the United States government and I had access to mobile weapons platform, OF COURSE I’d call it Iron Patriot and not War Machine! Especially after the events of Iron Man 2. I didn’t care for the Iron Patriot armor in the comics, or much of the Dark Reign saga either, for that matter, so I prefer to see the Iron Patriot armor in something I DO like.

I really like how Tony’s relationship with Pepper is shown to be deep but not untroubled. Clearly they’re meant to be together, but also to fight a lot, too. And Pepper finally gets to wear the armor for a bit AND kick some tail in the finale! You’ll notice, she’s never not instrumental in saving the day at the end of an Iron Man movie. Incidentally, how does Gwyneth Paltrow get progressively MORE glamorous with every one of these movies she’s in?! Really, how?! WHAT IS YOUR SECRET GWYNETH PALTROW??!!

THE ACTION

What to say about the action except that it was breathtaking? I was worried that the final fight with all the armors vs. the Extremis operatives was going to be boring and repetitive, but man was I wrong. The plane crash scene was fantastic (I applauded), and as I mentioned before, I loved seeing Tony in action without depending solely on his suit. Black was able to combine really well-choreographed action set pieces with expertly timed humor, and it works wonders on film. I really hope this isn’t Black’s only foray into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Speaking of…

THE MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE

As promised, Iron Man 3 is not a tie-in to any larger story. That was one of my biggest problems with Iron Man 2, so I’m glad they learned their lesson. Not that the events of The Avengers weren’t referenced; in fact, it was really cool of Black and Pearce to make Tony’s PTSD from his near-death experience in that movie serve as his motivation in this one. The reason Tony can’t sleep, can’t stop building armors, can’t stop improving his techonology is that his technology almost failed him in New York that day; it’s got to be better. And he has to deal with The Mandarin and the Extremis operatives by himself because he needs to believe that he can still cut it, not just as a superhero, but as a scientist. Seriously, Shane Black and Drew Pearce are real champs. I wish them success. I have to say, though, I would have preferred a post-credits scene that was a little juicier. Maybe there isn’t enough out there to work with yet. But hey, there’s always the next Thor movie.