Iron Man 3: Just Shy of Greatness

When the first Iron Man came out in 2008, expectations were blown away. That film proved, much like The Dark Knight, that a comic book movie could be fun and emotionally affecting. Iron Man demonstrated why comic characters have built such a strong connection with people across the world.

However, films like Iron Man and The Dark Knight are the exception rather than the rule. Iron Man 3 fits somewhere just below those great films. It's a good movie, but the film lacks the global consciousness, the social awareness, of the first film. Of course, that doesn't mean it's completely devoid of social critique, but its presence in the film seems to take a back seat to other more localized concerns.

Iron Man 3 begins not long after the events depicted in The Avengers. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is dealing with the effects of PTSD, not surprising considering he nearly died. Meanwhile, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) is feeling emotionally distant from Stark and just a little jealous of the time he spends in his garage tinkering with a large number of different Iron Man suits.

Meanwhile, a terrorist known as The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) is making televised threats (Osama-bin-Laden-style) against the whole of America. Indeed, one of Stark's closest friends is seriously injured during one of The Mandarin's attacks. In addition, Stark's past is starting to create problems for his present, and Stark has to deal with the consequences of his actions pre-Iron Man. After The Mandarin destroys his home, Stark is left to pick up the pieces of his life in the middle of Tennessee.

And that's all the plot I'll provide here, but this is a great place to begin my actual review. See, the section in Tennessee is my favorite part of the film. I love the exchanges between Stark and Harley Keener (Ty Simpkins), a young boy who ends up helping Stark with more than repairing his suit. A major difference between good comic book movies and lesser ones is the emotional connection between the superhero and the audience. If the audience does not feel anything for the hero, then there's no suspense, no real risk of danger. This section of the film wonderfully builds on Stark's vulnerability as a soldier dealing with the effects of war and coming so close to death. This section is where Downey's abilities as a fine actor really have a chance to shine.

Another wonderful moment in the film is a bit of a spoiler, but I'll try my best not to ruin anything. I'll simply hint. One of my favorite moments in The Dark Knight Rises involves Selina Kyle's rescue of Bruce Wayne near the end. I loved that moment because a woman rescuing helps build the possiblity that women are just as capable at saving the men they love. A similar moment occurs in Iron Man 3, and I loved it. Women need a larger presence in these types of films. It's a shame it doesn't happen more often.

*This picture is very Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2.*

My next favorite moment involves Ben Kingsley, and the only thing I'll write here is that his performance is brilliant. Brilliant, I say!

I was never all that interested in Iron Man as kid, so that may be the reason why I'm not as interested in these films as others. Iron Man 3 is a well-made movie with a lot of really good things going for it, but there is something missing, something I can't really pinpoint (call it a lack of sufficient interest), that keeps me from delving into the frenzy of fandom. That being said, Iron Man 3 is a lot of fun and much better than most comic book movies out there. It just isn't a boundary pushing film; it doesn't elevate the material beyond the expectations of its genre, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but this does mean Iron Man 3 is just shy of greatness.

*This artistic reworking of the Iron Man 3 poster below is a wonderful example of the strange, subservient positions women often take in movie posters. I'd love to see the movie depicted in this drawing!*

Star Trek Into Darkness: Criticisms aside, Still Great Fun

Generally speaking, I do try to approach each film I watch with a certain amount of critical, dispassionate distance. However, I am human, and there are just some films and series (maybe more than some) out there that bring out the "fan" in me. Star Trek films are exactly those types of films for me. It's hard not to get emotionally involved in the series. After all, it's a series I have grown up with.

While I did not watch many of the the original series episodes growing up, I loved the movies with the original crew. Even when I didn't necessarily love one of the entries in the series (Final Frontier, I'm looking at you!), there was still a measure of love for the effort and for seeing my favorite galaxy-hopping crew.

So, where is all of this leading? I'm getting there.

In the weeks leading up to the release of Star Trek Into Darkness, I've felt compelled to read a few of the early reviews. For films like this I normally avoid reviews because there's a chance my feelings might get hurt by what the critic has to say. Over the past two weeks, my head and heart have been battling it out. Reviews with negatively suggestive titles, I avoid. Reviews with more positive titles, I read. Some times this worked, other times... not so much.

Not exactly fair and balanced, I know, but then again, this is Star Trek.

Anyway, from the reviews I've read there have been considerable criticisms leveled at Abrams and company regarding the new installment. Some feel that the essence of what made Star Trek great is being lost in the push for a more action heavy summer blockbuster. Others feel that specific plot points pushed them passed the threshold of belivability.

To some extent I agree with these criticisms. The philosophical quandries presented in the earlier films and television series seem to be severely limited in favor of practically tearing the Enterprise to pieces. (I am worried that poor Enterprise won't survive its five year voyage at the current rate of destruction.) Little time is given for the characters to truly contemplate the consequences of their actions, and the film does end in a quick and lazy manner.

However, I'm taking this film as a step in character development, an episode in a new series, if you'll allow.

Critics have been complaining about the immaturity of Kirk (Chris Pine) in this film. While I agree with them that Kirk is far from the morally-centered captain of the original series, what I feel is forgotten in the rush to complain is the fact that Abrams' Kirk is a fresh, young captain, not the experienced version we have seen in William Shatner's Kirk. Even in the original series, Kirk was already a mature and capable captain. Pine's Kirk, while quite capable, has yet to reach that level of maturity, so I actually find it refreshing to see him making mistakes.

Another criticism I've read involves the fact that Spock (Zachary Quinto) is far more emotional in this film than Leonard Nimoy ever was. There is an answer for that as well. In this alternate timeline, Spock's character is in the midst of reconciling his emotional human half with his logical Vulcan half. The vacillation Spock experiences in this film, like with Kirk, indicates a lack of maturity. These are young characters, not quite mature, but almost. They are learning, and I find witnessing this process
fascinating.

Star Trek Into Darkness does, at least, correct a major problem I had with the first film in Abrams' series: a complete disregard for modern science. Yes, years and years ago, a common trope of sci-fi was the black hole. Any problem in the plot that cannot be fixed? Use a black hole.

However, today, our knowledge of black holes is substantial enough to suggest that the events in Star Trek are quite improbable, if not impossible. I'm still wondering why they didn't just use worm holes, something that's been around for a while now in sci-fi, having taken the place of black holes. It seems like such an easy fix, especially considering the backgrounds of all the people involved (Fringe, Lost). For this film, I didn't have any such reservations, so that in and of itself is an improvement.

There is one problem I do have with the "science" of this film: Beaming seems to be both a insurmountable obstacle and a safe and easy escape route. Characters seem to have no problem hoping across the galaxy thanks to Scotty's (the hilarious and perfectly cast Simon Pegg) "trans-warp beaming" equation. However, beaming one person from the center of an active volcano is a massive problem. The logic here escapes me, and I can usually argue such problems (part of the joy of Trek-science discussions among friends).

That being said, this lapse in scientific know-how doesn't bother me as much this time around because these obvious plot devices serve a much larger purpose: the moral growth of the crew and the larger critique of a war-mongering state. Because these plot devices work to establish an intriguing rhetoric, I can forgive them. The same cannot be said of the first film.

And now, my friends, I have written my way into spoiler territory. Much of this review has lacked any plot specifics because I've been trying to save that for the end, where I must discuss another character, and I'm afraid I have to give the film's major secret away. So, if you have not yet seen the film, I'll leave you with the following: Star Trek Into Darkness is an overall improvement, a welcome addition to Abrams' stamp on the Trek universe.

Spoilers begin now.

Benedict Cumberbatch, oh what a glorious name! For months, plenty of people have been speculating on the true identity of Cumberbatch's villain. And for months now plenty of people have guessed right. Cumberbatch's John Harrison is none other than Khan Noonien Singh.

The moment Cumberbatch finally reveals his true name, I got chills. This dude is seriously creepy and a far cry from Ricardo Montalban's iconic, scene-chewing/stealing, villain from the original series and the classic Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

Again, some critics have cried foul because of rehashing of a classic. However, I don't consider this a rehashing at all. In fact, the film's writers have gone out of their way to change as much as possible. This story has very little to do with the original series episode or the previous film. There are similarities, of course: how Khan was found (kind of), Khan's basic history, and Khan's own psychosis. But everything else is different thanks to the alternate timeline. Indeed, I'm hoping any future entanglements with Khan will revolve around Spock's brilliant subterfuge at the end of the film. This time around, Khan will have a much bigger beef with Spock than with Kirk.

As far as Cumberbatch's performance goes, I loved it. He's fierce, charming (not to mention a bit sexy), manipulative, intelligent, and Scotty's reaction to seeing Khan take down three Starfleet officers is priceless and quite appropriate. Khan is a much more physically intimidating presence this time around, no wonder both Spock and Uhura (played by the lovely Zoe Saldana) are needed to take him down.

Well, if you've stayed this long, thank you. Believe me, I had no intention of writing a lengthy review, but that's how writing goes sometimes. And as my family and partner have experienced on multiple occasions, I can be quite talkative when the "fan" in me comes out. It's the essence of fandom, I'm afraid, and I'm hardly immune.

Overall, despite and because of its flaws, Star Trek Into Darkness is a great summer movie and a wonderful continuation of the Star Trek universe.

*On a lighter note... Here's some grammar humor for you. And look! There's a Contact reference in there, too! :)

Favorites: Little Shop of Horrors

After two months of nothing, I have a new post for you all, and it's an new "Favorites" essay.

Now that work has slowed down considerably, I have the time and energy to devote to writing on here, something I've greatly missed over the past couple of months. This particular post has been swimming around in my head since before Christmas, and I have now decided to sit down and write it.

Years and years ago (who knows exactly how long ago), I remember watching a peculiar little musical that my parents had rented (probably from Blockbuster, remember those?). It was filled with catchy musical numbers, strange caricatures of humanity, and one vulgar plant. I say "vulgar" because near the end of the film the plant utters an obscenity, and I was young enough to be totally shocked by it. After years of restaurant work and playground antics, words like "shit" no longer have quite the same effect. However, Little Shop of Horrors's lack of obscene language proves the old adage "less is more." But I digress.

Little Shop of Horrors is one of those films, I believe, which marks the beginnings of my current infatuations with dorky, nerdy, socially awkward guys. Yes, for some inexplicable reason I had the biggest crush on Rick Moranis as Seymour Krelborn. I think it was the glasses. Yes, I blame the glasses. Either way, he was a first in a very long line, leading all the way up to Sheldon Cooper.

The film itself is actually a remake of an old(er) B-horror film starring Jack Nicholson. Seymour, as an employee of a failing flower shop, is lovesick and depressed, which is a condition that seems to be contagious on Skid Row. That is, until one day when he stumbles upon a "strange and unusual" plant. In an obvious bid to win a coworker's affections, Audrey (played by Ellen Greene), he names the plant, Audrey II.

After receiving a paying customer, drawn to the shop by the "strange and unusual" plant, the shop owner, Mr. Mushnik (played by Vincent Gardenia), orders Seymour to keep the plant alive. Odd thing, the plant doesn't want any of the usual pant foods. It doesn't even react to anything Seymour tries. That is, until Seymour pricks his finger on a thorn. The plant then makes a sucking sound and reaches for Seymour's bleeding finger. Blood is the plant's food preference.

Of course, any rational thinking human would chuck the plant out the window and go on about his/her life. However, the film sets up the characters as being so despondent that they are willing to take a beating if an escape from Skid Row lingers on the horizon. After receiving such positive reactions from those around him, especially Audrey, Seymour forgets about his misgivings and decides to feed the plant the blood it craves.

There are other complications, however. Audrey is dating a dentist. Not just any dentist. No. She's dating the most sadistic dentist the world has every known, Orin Scrivello, D.D.S. (played by Steve Martin). Like Seymour's own unwillingness to avoid abusive behavior, Audrey illustrates an unsavory willingness to accept Orin's repeated beatings so long as she's dating a "doctor." Like most partners suffering from abuse, she doesn't think she deserves better.

From the description above, it might be hard to tell that Little Shop is a musical comedy, and a hilarious one at that. The film lovingly pokes fun at the characters and the absurd plots of monster movies, but it does so without hating its characters.

Under the direction of Jim Henson (of Muppets fame), the film is not just a musical and comedic treat, it's a beautifully shot film as well. Henson knows how to set up jokes and effectively uses light and shadow.

The opening is a perfect example. Little Shop opens with a beautiful view of a starry sky, swirling in cosmic colors. The shot then dissolves to a similar swirl of color that turns out to be an oil slick on top of curbside puddle of water. Henson brilliantly sets up the tone of the film with the first couple of shots: the grand brought low.

The film is filled with filmic wonderment, but the best effect (of course) is Audrey II. If the film were to be made today, Audrey II would be a CGI monster, and that would be a mistake, a huge mistake.

Watching the film on Blu-ray, I'm struck with how well the movie has held up over time. Audrey II is just as impressive, even more impressive today as it was when I first saw it on my parents' enormous 12-inch screen.

Using his own prodigious skill with puppets, Henson creates a gigantic plant with such fluid movement that it's hard to imagine just how he could have pulled it off. The trick involves no animation (computer or otherwise), but a lot puppeteers and a slower film speed. Basically, ever shot with the plant and Moranis was performed at a slower speed than normal so that when the film is run at a normal speed (24 fps), the movements look normal. Impressive, indeed. In camera special effects are at times more realistic than anything computer animation has produced so far. Even by today's standards, Audrey II looks amazing.

But the effects and directing are not the only reasons I consider this film to be one of my favorites. The performances are also fantastic. To start, Henson uses his penchant for cameos just as superbly as he does for the Muppets. Appearances by James Belushi and John Candy are great, but the one cameo that steals the show is one which is not in the original musical. Thanks mostly to great ad-libbing, Bill Murray's quick onscreen presence is hysterical. Murray plays an overeager patient to Martin's sadistic dentist. Their one scene together is a brilliant joke involving S & M. Of course, it's a PG movie, so the joke is mild, but still funny as hell.

The heart of the film, however, is in the performances of Moranis and Greene. Moranis seems made to play the awkward Seymour, and Greene (with her distinctive voice) originated the role of Audrey on Broadway. Moranis is loveably dorky, and Greene proves that a wispy, quiet voice does not necessarily mean one can't belt out a showstopper. Both characters are desperate to escape from their own personal traps, hoping to move beyond the boundaries of their psyches and the borders of Skid Row. I remember watching their journey as a kid and being moved.

And after all these years, I still love to watch both characters gain each other, gain their own piece of happiness, gain that special place somewhere it's green.