Iron Man 3

Since I have not read comic books for almost forty years, I am often unfamiliar with the back story and the multiple mythologies that grow up around those characters. The Marvel comic book movies of the last seven years or so, have gone a long way to bringing new audiences to those stories. The first "Iron Man" movie back in 2008, was one of the best films I saw that year, much less one of the greatest comic book movies ever made. Tony Stark was an original interpretation and Robert Downey Jr. was the right man for the job. Today, after several movies where he has played that part, I think it is safe to say that he is earning every dollar that he gets paid. The whole persona that Stark puts out in these movies is a reflection of the performance that RDJ gives. While the character of Iron Man/Tony Stark may continue after he leaves the part, his impact will hang over every future story that Marvel tries to tell.

If you like Robert Downey Jr.s' snarky persona and witty one liners, then you should find plenty to enjoy in the third film that bears the name of the main character. This movie is all about giving Downey Jr. the chance to quip and pontificate and pose for the audience as the brilliant and self absorbed billionaire superhero. He trades throwdown insults with the villains, he plays modest megalomania with secondary characters, and he gets to pose heroically when the suit gets thrown on him. That said, there are a few things about the movie that are going to be problematic for fans of story telling. This film is all over the place, setting up confrontations that don't pan out and building a set of rules to operate under that are going to be ignored. It is overstuffed with visual gimmicks and there is a never-ending series of fight scenes that while great to look at, don't make much sense and do little to build any tension in the film. The motivations of the characters remain murky, that includes our hero, his sweetheart, and the multiple villainous characters that come along.

The premise of the challenge that Iron Man faces here concerns a DNA regeneration process that might allow for the kinds of physical restorative powers shared by The Wolverine in that sister series of comic book heroes. At the same time, there is a mysterious terrorist with incredible reach who seems to be honing in on an ultimate act of terror that no American know how or strength will be able to respond to. It turns out that these two threads of storyline are connected in an interesting way, but it will probably escape anybody who is not paying close attention because neither of those plot lines gets any development except through action. I generally agree that movie stories should be shown and not told, but we are not shown enough in the events of the film to make the threat completely clear and what is explained is sketchy and fragmented and inconsistent. In "The Avengers" last year, our team of superheroes was faced by aliens with godlike powers and advanced technology. It's a comic book so we can swallow that. The powers that are faced down in this story are supposed to be based on human science and genetics, but they come off as a little outlandish. When the main enemy opens his mouth and becomes a creature out of "The Fellowship of the Ring", it is too hard to swallow. In the climactic battle sequences, the powers of those evil opponents seem to fluctuate so much that they might better have been mutants who developed separate strengths. It is never clear why some are defeated and others continue. The final battle between Iron Man and his nemisis is also inconsistent. One strategy works temporarily and then fails but when it is repeated a few minutes later it succeeds, without any explanation.

There are some fun surprises along the way. The Mandarin character is underutilized, and there is a reveal that is clever but undermines the tension of the story. It does however help explain the weird accent and why Ben Kingsley is playing a character who is supposed to be from the orient. Guy Pearce starts off well but by the time the storylines are being played out, the originality of his character is lost and the most important part of any action film (the quality of the bad guy) gets lost in a series of action sequences and fights that are great to look at but make very little sense. I did enjoy the rescue stunt that involves Air Force One. There was a quieter scene when Tony is waiting for his technology to come to the rescue that works pretty well. One henchman voices the thoughts that all of us should wonder whenever there are hundreds of extras being killed in service of the plot. It was the most entertaining bit in the movie. It got a big laugh and it was one of the only times in the movie that someone other than Tony Stark was half way interesting. Unfortunately that moment lasts about five seconds and then it is back to the mayhem.

The choices that Tony Stark makes and the technology that gets employed are both arbitrary. He is alone in Tennessee working with nearly nothing at one moment, and then has the command of three dozen robotic versions of Iron Man in another instance, without much reason why except that it helps make the final conflict bigger. In the first "Iron Man", Stark is the hero and the story is about his rise to face adversity. The second and third editions are all about spectacle. They provide that but without the kind of emotional connection we got from the original story. If they are not careful, Tony Stark will turn into Jack Sparrow, a great character in need of a story that will wear out his welcome."Iron Man 3" will play well for early summer, and it will live on video and broadcast quite happily. It is not as disjointed as the first sequel was, and it has a high level of entertainment value, but it does not have the drama that it needs to reach for greatness. The trailers for the film promised an uncompromising confrontation between a sinister and mysterious figure and our hero. What we got was even more conventional than that, and it was less satisfying as a result.

21 Mesmerizing GIFs Of Ray Harryhausen's Magical Creatures

21 Mesmerizing GIFs Of Ray Harryhausen's Magical Creatures

Ray Harryhausen. Rest in Peace

Lawrence of Arabia/Vertigo Double Feature Vlog

I was checking in on Facebook, just before Lawrence of Arabia started, and my blogging Buddy Eric from New York had just posted his review ten minutes earlier. His comments are very insightful so I'd like to share them here.

For the KAMAD VLOG Posts on these two films, click on either image and the video blog will show up. Hope you have fun, both posts are far shorter than the JAWS link from Friday.

Jaws Vlog Link

Click on the Poster to Reach the VLOG or go to the KAMAD VLOG link to the right.

The Other Great Performance from Jaws

I think every Jaws fanatic thinks Robert Shaw's Quint is the finest supporting performance of the last 50 years. It is incredible that it went unmentioned at the Academy Awards, when looking at it through the prism of time it seems so clear that it was a game changer. The Indianapolis monologue itself would have been monumental but it is also surrounded by a dozen other scenes that are iconic. Shaw however was not the lead in Jaws. His character actually disappears for almost a hour after we first meet him. The movie has to survive on more than Quint's ticks and grumbling the half seen shark. The unacknowledged backbone of the movie is the work of star Roy Scheider.  

The steady presence of Chief Brody is the hook we can hang onto during the emotional upheaval and thrilling action that takes place in the story. He is our surrogate into the political, scientific and emotional stories that collide during the course of the movie. Brody is an average guy trying to do his best for his family and the town. Scheider gives a great conflicted performance on the ferry when the town elders confront him about closing the beaches. The expression on his face and the vocal tone when he pleads that he was just acting on what he had been told, mimics all of us when we have been stuck between a rock and a hard place. The whine of powerlessness is just below the surface and Scheider underplays it perfectly.

Whole essays and dissertations have been written about the theme of man's inadequacy in the face of nature as evidenced by this film. The Brody character is the manifestation of this.  He is at the beck and call of petty officials. Brody has to listen to complaints about the kids karating the picket fences, or the red zones in front of some store. Schieder shows the powerlessness in two great scenes, when he takes the slap from Mrs. Kintner and his shoulders and face collapse with guilt and remorse. Later at the council meeting, he can never be in the right spot. He gets pushed out of the center and shunted to the side as if he were a kid in his dad's way. Those moments are in the script but it is the performance that makes them memorable. Here is an example of that real, physical , display of need and desire played out with the little boy who plays his youngest son. Everyone remembers the scene but don't forget it is Schieder who sells the powerlessness so well that only the love and admiration of his child can begin to pull him out of the funk he is in. That's the point at which he starts to fight back against those powers that overwhelm him. It's when he is drunk and at his lowest that he says, "I'm the chief of police, I can do anything I want."



Roy Schieder is also responsible for the most iconic line from the movie, a bit that he improvised and shows the terror he faced. Maybe I am over reacting but it simply seems to me that he has never been given full credit for the contribution that he made to the film. His part is to play the weak link in the chain. Hooper is smarter, Quint is tougher, and both in their own ways lord that over him. Schieder has to be believable, not as a loser, but as a man that has not yet faced up to the biggest challenges. He needs to prove himself to himself. Unless his performance is solid, his character will be swallowed up whole by the likes of Dreyfess and Shaw. The fact that we still root for him and are not ashamed to see ourselves in him is a tribute to the job he did as an actor. He may now need glasses, he may have to kowtow to local tyrants, he may sit in the car on the ferry back and forth to the mainland, but he still manages to be a hero. In a pissing contest over scars, he loses by an appendix, but in a battle to the death with nature, he manages to make a man out of the everyman in all of us.

You're Gonna Need a Bigger Boat



Jaws
— MOVIECLIPS.com

Oblivion

It was tough this last week, avoiding several of the posts that sites I visit had on this film. I always want my first experiences with a movie to be as fresh as possible, and if I get a spoiler, or an opinion in my head too earlier, I'm afraid I will respond to the movie with someone else bias instead of my own. I could not stay entirely uninformed and still be on line, so I was aware that most of the other bloggers I follow felt it was a solid film, but all of them seemed to think it was derivative. Having seen the movie for myself, I can say that there are touches of other films, but I don't think they have much to do with the story. This felt pretty fresh to me and original enough to have me anticipating revelations without being exactly sure which way they were going to go.

Folks like me enjoy dropping names and gaining some cache from our familiarity with other films. You get to show off a little when you can say, "That's stolen from [fill in obscure film title here]. " In reality, the films being cited don't always have to be obscure to give the impression that we know what we are talking about. If the referent is well known, just make sure that the analogy is a fresh one and it will still register with others.  I can be as cynical as the next person but usually I prefer the role of sentimentalist. If a story moves me, or my eyes are filled with wonder, that is usually good enough for me. This movie succeeded at doing both of these things and that is why I can give it my recommendation. The plot twist does not have to be a blind side "Twilight Zone" original, it simply needs to make the story work and the characters matter more to me. The three main characters in this film, play out a series of what may seem inevitable outcomes, but there were some earned emotions along the way.

Victoria, played by Andrea Risebourgh, is a character that in the end is much more complicated than we are originally lead to believe. The set up of the story seems to imply a lack of depth on her part and the willingness to accept orders suggests she is merely a convenience for the plot. I thought there was a solid emotional journey and that the feeling of betrayal that sends this story in it's final direction was completely understandable from the perspective of the Victoria we meet. Her tears are not the manufactured emotions of programmed character, but rather a wounded soul who is in over her head. Tom Cruise manages to make his switch in loyalties reflect a dilemma rather than a mere awakening from a delusion. When he has to confront the same emotion after a stunning plot point, he sells it as a truly painful moment  despite his deepest emotions being awakened. In the end, Victoria does not turn out to be the love interest, but she is not a disposable character at all, and if we had to put our imaginations to it, we would see that she is more deeply effected than Jack is. This is the second feature in a row that Cruise plays a character named Jack, and it seems to suit him. He is subdued in the part but effective as a protagonist. There are two or three moments when his acting has to sell what might be an otherwise ridiculous story line. He once again is very reliable, and the star casting is undoubtedly one of the reasons for the movies success.

This is a science fiction film, so there are always going to be elements of the story that seem unrealistic. If there are plot holes, they don't intrude enough on my first viewing to take away form the suspense of the story. I like the twist and it seems completely real given the context we have been placed in. There may be some big picture questions, but when you are following the characters, those questions fade to the background. It helps that we are distracted by some spectacular design work for the world of the future. The devastated planet and the high tech living quarters and tools are wonderfully realized. Jacks vehicles and weapons are detailed just enough to make them practical while still having the cool sci fi look that I always enjoyed as a kid. The living platform that Jack and Victoria occupy, would make anyone on the West Side, jealous of their design and location. The concept for the swimming pool will almost certainly be on some billionaires feature list in their next house.

We are looking at a war film that begins by telling us that the war is over. Nothing is that straightforward however in a  science fiction film. Complications arise and the personalities of the characters drive the ability of the plot to develop. We learn that Jack is better at his job than he needs to be, and that his job is not enough for him. The crack in the facade escalates on two paths; his life with Victoria and the bigger issue of the film, the future of humanity. There are some nice revelations that tell us the real story. Some of them are contained in flashbacks, some are revealed in action and then, when we need it the most, some are shared through the sonorous tones of the great Morgan Freeman. He has a relatively small part but it adds to the credibility of the story to have his character exist at all. This was a very entertaining film, that told a story that worked for me and fit the forms of a good science fiction adventure. What elevated it for me a little was the level of conflicted emotions I felt for the characters of Jack and Victoria. The story finishes with a satisfying plot turn which resolves on aspect of the tale, and leaves the personal aspects settled on the surface but maybe frustratingly so.