Jim's Movie Reviews: 2 Guns

Director Baltasar Kormakur's second major studio release featuring Mark Wahlberg,  2 Guns, opened last Friday and proceeded to secure the number one spot at the box office, albeit for a relatively slow weekend.  Based on the Boom! Studios graphic novels by Steven Grant (which I have not read, yet), the film is the latest in a long list of comics adaptations in recent memory, yet seems to tread territory more familiar to the action films of the 80's than the tights and capes films of the last decade.

When I bought my ticket, I was looking for lite action fare, but with comics personality and panache.  The action movie genre as a whole, in my humble opinion, has been taking itself entirely too seriously lately, and the previews seemed to indicate a lighter treatment of the buddy cop motif, which looked to be something I'd enjoy.

The film concerns the exploits of two secretive "good guys", Bobby Trench (Denzel Washington) and Mike Stigman (Mark Wahlberg), each working undercover for a different entity, and each unaware of the other's true disposition.   What starts as a bank robbery caper quickly turns into a sort of ground war between various factions, including a number of corrupt government agencies (5, maybe  6?), drug cartels, and those working multiple angles.  Both characters begin the movie wholly convinced of the way things ought to work, and only by throwing out the rule book, so to speak, can they succeed.  

Let's get straight to it:

The Bad:  Personality the film has, in spades, although I hesitate to say what type:  It's all over the map.  The action is played too straight and certain dramatic moments are too intense to belong in a farce/parody, but the plot is simply too outlandish to belong in either straight-up action drama or even buddy cop territory.  The worst part is the way the film switches personality and tone from scene to scene:  There are about 6 intense gun battles, for example, that are played completely straight by the camera, the editing, and the direction, but these are predicated by grab-bag action movie plot devices that go to outlandish extremes and dialogue that's anything but serious. Seriously, every government agency mentioned in the movie, from the Border Patrol to the US Navy, the ATF, the DEA, the CIA, etc., is involved in drug smuggling, has its own Snidely Whiplash corrupt official, shadow organization and/or black ops hit-squad that initiates broad-daylight gun battles with impunity.   Sometimes, the movie seems to be heading for the dramatic intensity of something like Drive or Dog Day Afternoon, other times it seems to want a more comedic or stylized approach akin to a Troublemaker Studios effort, and yet other times, it feels like a shallow buddy cop flick similar in tone to (insert Eddie Murphy buddy cop movie here).  The trouble is, the style elements are so diluted by the schism that it's hard for the film to succeed in any one of its many aspects.  In this regard, Washington's Trench character is played a little too straight, and has some elements of plot attached that are a bit too dramatic to fit:  There are those moments where you know he's phoning in his typical Washington "seasoned rogue" gig you're likely used to from previous efforts.  He does have his moments, but he's out-shined by his counterpart in just about every scene (more on that below), and he is his most successful playing off Whalberg's superior lead.

The Good:  There are indeed some well-filmed action scenes in the movie, and there is a good amount of fun to be had if you check your mind at the door.  Whalberg seems to know exactly what to do with his character, who goes from doe-eyed believer in the system to "I don't give a shit" rogue during the course of the film. The character arcs are basically the same between the two main draws, in that fundamentally each hero must become their cover, and Whalberg's Stigman is the most apt, delivering one-liners and little personality ticks that get you believing early on that he is polarized along those lines, but could make the leap between wheelhouses easily. He gets the most entertaining of the two main sets of dialogue, and delivers every one-liner and insult to great effect.  My only complaint was that he didn't, or maybe wasn't allowed to, go farther with it.  If it were my film, I'd have written/directed his character as a straight SNL parody of himself, complete with "Do you like Entourage?" fourth-wall-breaking debasement, but that's just me.

The Conclusion:   This film would make a solid rental, good for a weekday night or a slow Saturday.  I don't know that the cinematography or action merits the big-screen treatment, and there's little else here to justify a "go buy a ticket" recommendation.  Perhaps for this last weekend and the next couple, it could scratch that itch for a movie buff that just has to have a movie to go to.

The Rating:  It's a 6 on a 10 scale for theater-viewing, but perhaps an 8 or a 9 as a rental.          

Jim's Movie Reviews: The Wolverine

So, I just got back from seeing The Wolverine, the latest X-film from Fox.

Truthfully, after the putrid bucket of nonsense that was 2009's X-Men Origins: Wolverine, this is a movie I wasn't really excited about...and it's lineage isn't exactly one to knock your socks off, either.  If you go over the credits, it stars Hugh Jackman (a great actor, but no guarantor of a decent film) alongside several relative unknowns.  Two of three of the female leads (Tao Okamoto and Rila Fukushima) have never been in a full length movie, much less a major studio release.  Writer Mark Bomback's credits don't exactly shake the rafters with such dross as Live Free Or Die Hard and the 2012 remake of Total Recall. Director James Mangold, at least, is of note for helming the 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma, as well as 2005's Walk The Line, and co-writer Scott Frank did Minority Report, so I guess there's hope to be had there.  Oh, and Christopher McQuarrie (The Usual Suspects) apparently co-wrote the script, but didn't get credit on imdb for whatever reason.

But, low and behold, Rotten Tomatoes' metascore is hovering around 75%, which, in my experience, is a pretty decent place to be for an action film.  I heard good things from the comics community, so I bought a ticket for a matinee at Penn Cinema Riverfront in Wilmington, Delaware (the 2D version).  

Getting to the point:  This is a half-decent movie.  It should satisfy fans left with a sour taste in their mouths after the '09 failure, especially those left hopeful after the far superior (but not perfect) X-Men: First Class. This is a movie that doesn't get everything right, but manages to engage enough to make it the "Wolverine movie fans have been waiting for" as it was billed...well, at least for die-hard fans.

First, the negatives:  Although the movie has an interesting setup and an engaging second act, the third act doesn't manage to bring all the plot threads to a close without some considerable stutter to the pacing.  To be honest, there are simply too many competing motivations at play, and the tone of the movie up until that point called for a more personalized, one-on-one showdown between our hero and those who vex him. I think a minor re-write, and perhaps the consolidation/elimination of a character or two, could have relieved the film of some cumbersome baggage.  Motivations early in the film seemed consistent and well thought-out, but in the end, several character arcs simply derailed in a completely unnecessary, "Wait, what??" fashion.  That, and the last nemesis, hinted at early in the film, is over-wrought and kinda clumsy...this is one place I wouldn't have minded the writers going off the comic book script.  The film suffers an ending that's either too long or it simply "ends" two or three times too often.  I can forgive even this, but I'll understand if some, especially the casual, non-comics-fan viewers, come away with a negative reaction.  Oh, and the infrequent use of steadycam, although it does enhance the frenetic quality of some of the action, gets a little heavy-handed...but not enough to spoil the fun.  

As for the positives...well, the first and second act give us a Wolverine with soul.  Mangold pulls performance from his lead, and the feeling you've walked a mile in Logan's shoes really hits home.  The backdrop of Logan's lost love is portrayed in flashbacks and dream sequences at tonally appropriate moments without straying from the path.  The Wolverine's healing factor plays a prominent role in the film, and each sequence involving our hero being wounded is used to maximum effect (truthfully, one of the most engaging things about Jackman's performance throughout all the films is his believable reactions to pain). The feeling of mystery surrounding the various players in Yashida Corporation is expertly delivered in the second act as well, although in this case the take-down doesn't have the luster of the setup.  For comics fans, the movie doesn't stray far at all from the Claremont/Miller stories it was based on.

All in all, I think the film ends up in C to B- territory. A 6, maybe a 6.5 on a 10 scale. It's good enough to be worth a matinee ticket, but the problems in the third act render my recommendation a little shaky.  This film is not for the overt film critic, and I doubt it will win any awards, but franchise fans will want to check it out:  It's the best Wolverine since X2...but that isn't saying much, now, is it?  

Jim's Movie Reviews: Man Of Steel

Even while critics gave it a barely passing grade, director Zack Snyder's Man Of Steel went the distance this past weekend to set box-office records for a June opener.  So, who's right, the ticket-buying audience or the film buffs? Is Man Of Steel similar in tone or quality to the 1978 Superman, or 2006's Superman Returns?  Read on for my take, and find out whether you fall into the category of person likely to enjoy this film.  This review will avoid spoilers where practical, and assumes some knowledge of the Superman mythos to this point.  It will also use the 1978 Superman as a vehicle for comparison at several opportunities.

Director Zack Snyder is probably best known for the visually lavish, if not historically accurate, 300, as well as the controversial comic-to-film effort Watchmen.    So he has a certain pedigree when it comes to making films based on comics characters.  It should be noted that in both cases, Snyder had a visual palette from which to work...in the case of Watchmen, he filmed a cut of the movie that was almost a shot-for-shot remake of the books (heavily edited for the cinematic release, however).  This time around, Snyder had David S. Goyer's script to work from, a script whose story architecture was reportedly penned by none other than Christopher Nolan, father of the recent Batman trilogy.

Man Of Steel takes the same path as many recent re-boots of popular franchises, and unlike 2004's Superman Returns is a departure from the mythos first envisioned by Richard Donner in 1978.  It's yet another origin story for the character that re-tells the events surrounding his birth, but adds back-story and plot elements to the last days of Krypton that have far-reaching effects throughout the film. The first act concerns the destruction of Krypton and the infant Kal El's flight to Earth.  The second mostly concerns the young Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) wrestling with his power and abilities, and the third concerns his revelation to the world, and his conflict with General Zod (Michael Shannon) and the denizens of Krypton that hope to re-make Earth in its image.    

Visually, the film is what you would expect, given its lineage:  Flat, cool color tones, stark and imposing landscapes, and more often than not, strange alien architecture.  The film spends a surprising amount of time both on Superman's home world of Krypton, as well as inside various Kryptonian vehicles come to Earth.  Gone are the towering spires of lighted crystal from Donner's '78 effort:  This Krypton is an imposing brown cut with alien architecture right out of a Geiger painting.  The second act, changing settings between the American mid-west and Alaska territories, fares no better with the somber tones set forth in the first, and finally the washed-out greys that dominate the third act's city-scapes and alien spacecraft are occasionally punctuated by Superman's grey...er...red and blue costume.

The chief problems with the screenplay start to crop up in the first act:  It seems a compulsion for this movie to wish to one-up past efforts in the superhero genre in the action and visuals.  For example, one of the opening scenes concerns Jor El (Russel Crowe) witnessing an assassination by the rogue General Zod then fleeing home to secure his son's launch in the rocket destined for earth.  Instead of making his way across a war-torn capital city on foot, or even in a mechanical personal conveyance of some kind, he mounts a dragon, then flies home from work looping and wheeling through an epic aerial battle right out of a Star Wars prequel.  These types of excesses dominate the first and third acts of the film, to a degree that would make Michael Bay blush.  The needless pageantry is exposed for what it is when Jor arrives home (well, the dragon-landing pad outside his home), dismounts his mortally-wounded steed, and discovers that the General has all but beaten him there, Tortoise and The Hare style. Once the plot pieces are in place to begin the second act, the battle conveniently and abruptly halts, tipping the writers' hand to the utility of the device.

The second act calms a little but nevertheless favors a different type of excess.  The narrative jumps back and forth from Clark's childhood to young adulthood, and the story suffers a little here for a lack of rhythm and clear buildup of the character arc.  All the material is there for a significant look at the character, including the most poignant dialogue between his foster father Jonathan (Kevin Costner), but there are few, if any, scenes of Clark or the Kent family just being people.  In the same way that the pageantry of the first act is spoiled by excess, so is the gravitas of the second act diluted by repetitive story beats and dialogue of a singular theme.  Every word out of Jonathan's mouth is a bit of grandfatherly sage advice, to the point where you half expect a ray of sunshine to punctuate his every utterance. I don't think he has one line of dialogue in the whole film that sounds like something Dad would say, no "can you cut the grass" or "pass me the potatoes", just a constant stream of prophetic wisdom.  Every scene centered on Clark involves his actively using or not using his powers, and although the choices are explained, you're robbed of a chance to see the moral center of the character and his love for humanity develop in the rich way portrayed in Superman. Jonathan gives Clark reasons to jealously guard his secret, and those reasons compel him to the point where he must, eventually, be forced to step out of the shadows.  I don't have a problem with this change in the character's arc, except to say that it robs the Superman character of a certain moral center to suggest that all his life he was counselled to avoid revealing himself even at the cost of human lives.  Snyder tries to play up the iconography of the character in a scene in a church, but it's so heavy-handed and club-you-over-the-head subtle that it evokes laughter.  The 1978 Superman had a far superior second act when it came to the development of the character, and it was done with half the screen time spent on Clark's upbringing.

For some audience members, the third act is the part they paid to see, and for others, it's where the thing disintegrates completely.  It is for this that I am most hesitant to recommend either one way or another on this film:  The third act of Man Of Steel is an hour-long pitched battle, pure and simple.  And what a battle it is:  Skyscrapers fall, the earth is torn, the army attacks, city blocks are picked up and slammed down, alien space ships fire bolts of energy, trains are de-railed, satellites are hurled out of orbit, etc.  For an hour.  The third act doesn't build, it simply arrives, and it's not over until its over, so to speak.  Any one of Snyder's action scenes, when taken on its own, can be regarded as wonderful for its powerful imagery and beautifully moving pieces. But for all their thunder and calamity, you never get the sense that either combatant is against the ropes for more than a second or so between landing blows.  There's no lull, and therefore no rhythm to speak of, just spectacular yet inconsequential violence.  Superman on occasion stops to aid a human soldier, but he evinces almost no concern whatever for the workaday human populace.  In real-world terms, the off-screen death toll from his fight with Zod would have been staggering, yet no concern is evident until the very end, when Superman is forced(?) to make a decision that runs counter to what many fans expect of the character.

So, is it a good movie?  Partially.  See, Snyder gets the imagery and iconography right, and there is a compelling arc and poignant story notes scattered throughout the second act....I just don't think Snyder gets the music of it. Some story notes are shouted too loudly, others drowned by the thunderous drums of action set-pieces destroyed, and some are too brief or too out of sync to be of consequence.  Yes, it's a clearly recognizable three-act play, but it could have benefited from some choice editing of the third act, the inclusion of some humanizing script for the second act, and a minor re-write of the first to tone the narrative down a little.  Yes, some of the character choices in the script are interesting when evaluated out of context, but I don't know if the writers realize what was lost when they made Jonathan a jealous guardian rather than a guiding hand.  It's strange how, with as many glimpses of greatness as this film gives us, and all the talk about changing the world, it simply doesn't end up feeling like anything special...and the reasons for this are so plainly evident and easily fixable.  

Lemme see...how to rate this...I know, I'll use a sliding scale!  Find the byte below that best describes you, and you'll find your rating for Man Of Steel right after.

The Blockbuster:  You know who Superman is, but you don't read comics and you're not a fan of the '78 film (that wishy-washy rom-com with Margot Kidder that is, like, ancient) due to its slow pacing and obvious 70's special effects. You think that modern CGI is a chance to show some really cool battle scenes. You loved the Transformers movies, and think Iron Man 3 was the obvious best in the series.  Your rating:  9 out of 10.

The Andy Warhol:  You know the Superman character, and what he stands for, but you're more into the visuals than anything else.  You want to see Superman holding up a building, standing in front of a stained glass window, flying through space, on fire, in an H.R. Geiger painting, etc. You thought Sucker Punch was one of that year's best films. Your rating:  8 out of 10

The Fanboy:  You're dying to see this film.  You've waited 35 years for Superman to be done right again, and the previews are looking good.  You're very familiar with the Donner films, and happen to enjoy several comics and animated takes on the character throughout the years.  You think Waid's Birthright was really cool.  Your rating:  6 out of 10

The Keeper Of The Flame:   You are familiar with Superman's comic history, and can debate for hours on why silver age Superman is superior to any other published work in the last 30 years.  You think the Donner films were "interesting", but can't stomach the liberties they took with the character and the obvious non-canon approach to the character's back story.  Your Rating:  3 out of 10

The From The Booth Podcast Goes To Wizard World Philadelphia!

From The Booth Podcast co-hosts Ken and I went to Wizard World Philadelphia over last weekend to catch a couple of artist interviews and cover the Marvel Comics panel discussion.  We interviewed artists Phil Noto and Leinil Yu, two of the top pencilers in the bullpen, and managed to get a question answered of some of the top brass at Marvel editorial at the panel.

Jim Dietrich (myself), artist Phil Noto, and FTB co-host Ken

The Noto interview  went very well; He was very approachable and receptive to questions, but we managed to dump the audio when our recorder malfunctioned.  I had asked him if, having worked for so many comics companies on so many diverse properties, there was any title or character he regretted never having the chance to work on.  Noto replied that there were so many things he'd worked on that he was proud of, that there were no regrets.  He said that if he had to choose one, it'd likely be Micronauts or some other property that came and went before he got into the business. When asked about coming full circle with Disney (he started his professional career as a clean-up artist for the Mouse), he said that although it was strange to be (technically) working for them once again, Disney maintained a distance and were very "hands off" when it came to Marvel. I think "creatively separate" was the term used.  

FTB co-host Ken, Jim Dietrich (myself) and artist Leinil Yu

The interview with Leinil was brief, but a lot of fun.  Yu talked a little about his early influences, his current work, and his planned run on Avengers (issues 16-23)  Audio of that can be found here.

The panel discussion was informative, if a bit short on announcements about future Marvel endeavors.  Audio of the complete panel, as well as individual, select questions broken out for brevity, can be had here.

Overall, it was a fun and successful trip.  Many of the hardcore comics fans I run into disparage Wizard World Philly for being taken over by tv and movie celebrity appearances, but I have to say that the lack of depth to the offerings in Artists' Alley is overblown, imho, and they more than make up for any perceived shortfall with an unmatched level of accessibility to some of the top talent in comics.  Lines for artists are rare if they exist at all, and availability of commission sketch work, signatures, and conversation with comics creators is excellent.  

Oh, and there's this:

Don't forget to check out the podcast for more details on our trip and all the latest comics news, reviews, previews and commentary!  And special thanks to Phil Noto and Leinil Yu.

From The Booth - Pulp Friction

This week's new podcast is up!  Ken and I talk about pulpy horror comics and why some of these should quit while they're ahead, we announce a major interview "get" for Philly Wizard World this weekend, we talk First State Comic Con coming up in late June, and, of course, we review and preview comics and give you our take on the latest pop culture news and events!

The From The Booth Podcast

Jim's Movie Reviews: Star Trek Into Darkness

Star Trek:  Into Darkeness is the second Star Trek feature film offering helmed by J.J. Abrams, and is the twelfth to share the Trek moniker.  While previous entries in the franchise worked from the established canon of the 1966 television show and previous films, Abrams's 2009 offering, Star Trek, replaced the the much-beloved original cast in favor of a younger set of actors and re-imagined the mythos from the beginning.  The back story was not all that was changed, however, as there was a definite shift in tone from considered, high-minded sci-fi themes to a focus on action, adventure, and pageantry. 

The first of Abrams's films in the franchise sailed on to box-office success, and a certain level of critical acclaim as a sci-fi action/adventure film.  Fans of the 2009 Star Trek may want to see Into Darkness, as it maintains the cast, back story, director, and sensibilities of the first of Abrams's efforts.  But there are those detractors who say Abrams has missed the point of Star Trek, and his focus on the more visceral aspects has cost the franchise its soul.

My hope, in providing this review, is to give perspective on the film, both as the action/adventure vehicle it is, and how well it "fits" with established notions of character and plot from previous productions in the franchise.  This review will assume some familiarity with the Star Trek universe, and although it may describe certain scenes and settings, an attempt will be made at doing so without major spoilers.  I saw the film in 3D IMAX opening weekend, at a newer theater (in great seats, btw).

This time around, I'm going to lay things out in a question/answer format.

Does the movie live up to the hype?  Most assuredly.  Hype being, of course, linked to those visceral elements we talked about previously.  If you were thrilled with the visuals afforded you in the previews, you'll get an amped version of this in the theater, especially if you enjoy 3D and opt to see it that way.  Unlike Iron Man 3, for example, the 3D in Trek is seamless, and in my opinion enhances the film experience greatly.   Space looks endless, chasms look deep, ships are imposing, debris is hurled with exciting depth and bombast.  The camera work on this film is simply stunning, and what the film-makers do with real-world sets and digital environments is nothing short of brilliant.  So far as settings are concerned, the term "epic" comes to mind early and often, as we get a more fully-realized vision of the various parts and pieces of the worlds of Trek than the 2009 film. The Enterprise herself is tossed,  turned, torn open and slammed in ways that previous feature films in the franchise could only dream of.  We've come a long, long way from the original series cast throwing themselves around the bridge consoles in mock distress, and Abrams never shies from letting the audience know that the lethal vacuum of space is just a bulkhead away.   The movie is filled with harrowing chase sequences, destructible environments, gripping hand-to-hand combat, and other action-movie essentials, and it's all paced and shot expertly to deliver an edge-of-your seat experience.


Is the movie true to the original Star Trek?   In what I see as the most essential way one can be "true" to a franchise having hundreds, perhaps thousands of creators attached to it over the past 45 years, yes it is.  The characters are all very well cared for here, the central figures of which (Kirk and Spock) each have a definite, relateable character arc.  These are characters with soul, and their interactions evoke the spirit of the original.

But make no mistake, Into Darkness maintains its hold on the action/adventure model at the expense of certain ethereal elements of the original series and movies. Character traits are still exaggerated to the nth degree, much as in the 2009 film.  Those looking for a predictably stoic Spock are bound to be disappointed, as there is an undercurrent of emotion evident in his character throughout the film.  Rather than the audience guessing through the subtleties of a vulcan/human hybrid's emotional spectrum, we get to witness the character instead try to negotiate a storm of feelings via oft-misplaced rationality.  Although fully lovable and expertly performed, Scotty and McCoy remain more comic relief and mcguffin-providers than fully realized characters.

There are changes and revisions of technical canon as well, especially where set-pieces are concerned.  The Enterprise's engineering section, for example, is still a converted brewery with a few tacked-on sci-fi-ish apparatus to convince the audience they're looking at the guts of a starship.  For better or worse, Abrams always opts for that which is visually appealing and most advantageous to story over that which is most true to the set-piece measurements and fictional technical elements of the original.  There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth among die-hard "Trek tech" experts with their Enterprise blue-prints and warp core diagrams.

Is there anything wrong with the movie?  Why yes, now that you ask, there are some things objectively wrong with the movie, in my opinion.  Although Abrams is a master at delivering an action sequence, for example, and creating engaging situations for characters, there is often some transparent McGuffin involved in moving the chess pieces into place.  A minuscule side-conflict or seemingly out-of-character moment will happen out of the blue, and one realizes later that it was only there to move character A to point B so they could do C.   A piece of technology is produced out of the blue, and one soon realizes that it is there only to perform some minor story function, whereupon it will be quickly laid aside. This is especially evident in ship-to-ship combat.  Although this is certainly not the first time we've seen this in Trek's long history (nearly all of the combat in Wrath Of Khan, for example, went against established original series "rules"), it happens so often and so overtly in this film that it detracted from my experience.  It wouldn't have been as bad, in my opinion, to simply break the rules sometimes, rather than point out the rule, point out the whiz-bang new device that allows one to break it, then break it.

The other problem, for me, is that so much homage is made to the original cast movies, that it borders on pantomime.  There is a scene in the movie (and a nearly unnecessary one, with a little wrangling) that is a complete re-make of a scene from a previous Trek film, with characters juxtaposed as if to say, "it's alike, and yet so different".  My take on this is that Abrams is trying to provide an homage to appease fans of the original crew, but it comes off as audience pandering that is just, well, hamfisted and totally unnecessary. I was moved to nostalgia during the scene, which may have been the intended purpose, but nostalgia just didn't fit with the tone, for me.

Is it a good movie?  An enthusiastic yes, from me, although there are some problems.  I don't mind at all Abrams's take on Trek; I think it stands as a worthy effort in almost every regard on its own, albeit not what others expect from the franchise.  Benedict Cumberbatch is a welcome addition as Kirk's main nemesis, and although the cast is spot-on in any of their given roles, he steals many a scene.  Although many of the features and takeaway of Abrams's films differ from things we've seen with the original cast and crew, I don't think this version can detract from what was already committed to film....if you're a fan of old Trek, and not a fan of new Trek, then rest assured no one's burning the old master reels or trying to censor you in any way...disregard these new entries as you see fit.  Laying aside comparisons for a moment, Into Darkness is a terrifically entertaining movie that uses familiar characters to tell a new and interesting story, while providing plenty of excitement.

Overall rating:  8.5 out of 10.

Jim's Movie Reviews - Iron Man 3

Iron Man 3 has officially had the second-largest opening box office in cinematic history. Some reviewers, especially those close to the comics community, are lauding it as the best of the three films, and I've even heard favorable comparisons to Avengers.  Does it live up to the hype?  Does it surpass previous takes in the franchise?  In some ways, I think so.  In other ways, not so much.  I saw the movie in non-Imax-3D last Friday with a crew of fans from Captain Blue Hen comics, and opinions varied slightly along a theme...

The review below, in case you're wondering, is written by a fan of Marvel Studios, a comics reader, comics pod-caster, and all-around superhero movie aficionado.  It's written by and for a person familiar with the first two entries in the series, and the larger Marvel Studios cinematic universe.  That doesn't mean I'm not looking for the same things from my movies as is your typical movie-goer, and it doesn't mean I'm not willing to forgive departures from the various written takes on the characters.  I watch movies to be entertained by good movies, and I read comics to be entertained by good comics, and unlike some more zealous comics fans, I'm willing to forgive when it comes to forgoing some of the finer details of the comics character when translating to film, so long as it's done in the name of quality.  There are some spoilers ahead, as an in-depth review is all but impossible to do without describing certain scenes and set-ups.

What it does right:  Iron Man 3 marks a return to, and a deeper exploration of, the introspective Tony Stark character that we saw in Iron Man.  Much of the movie is devoted to establishing Tony as a man of some maturity and sense of responsibility, the seeds for which were planted in the first film.  Tony is dealing with his role as de-facto head of Stark Industries (Potts's directorship notwithstanding) without the staple military contracts it used to subsist on, his committed relationship with Pepper Potts in place of the random one-night-stands he spent much of his youth cultivating, the remnants of his playboy image that continue to affect his everyday life, and the additional public role of superhero/savior added to an already insane level of public scrutiny.  The sheer weight of it all puts the character in a fantastic pressure cooker of roles and responsibilities, not the least of which is his fresh awareness of the gods, monsters, aliens and other fantastic threats he faces in the role he built for himself as penance for past foibles.   Tony Stark used to be a man who believed in his weapons, in his armor, as a means to free the world from war and worry.  Now, however, he's haunted by visions of threats from the great beyond he is powerless to explain or quantify.  He's a man who prides himself on his readiness, on his ability to engineer his way past every contingency, and the events of Avengers have more or less slapped this notion of the 'prepared man' down like a schoolyard bully.  Stark feels like he's just gone a few rounds with a late-80's Mike Tyson, and for good reason, and the film does a great job of illustrating this. His relationship to Pepper is clarified and continues to grow, his lieutenants, including Rhodey and Happy, are fleshed out and convincingly motivated. The main antagonist is a defined character that, although he has a very comic-bookish origin story, is ready to play the big screen, and he's sufficiently empowered and motivated to take on a solo Iron Man.

The film also treads new ground with its depiction of a Tony Stark who is capable and formidable outside the armor.  Much of the film is spent on an armor-less or de-powered Stark forced to use the tools at hand to defeat his enemies, and there are some cheer-worthy moments of triumph (in fact, they're the best moments of the film) that have little to do with a man in a tin suit.  If you're like me, you'll watch the film expecting at some point a musical montage where Tony builds an armor that is even more badass and goes forth to dispatch some hapless evil-doer with his top-secret falcon punch or some other such contrivance.  Spoiler Alert:  That moment never comes.  Kudos to the writers for understanding that the powers don't make the hero, and for finding ways to depict that while maintaining the action and excitement.

(Very minor spoilers ahead)  Halfway through the film, Tony encounters Harley Keener, a young boy who assists him in whatever way he can, and provides Tony with some much-needed grounding and perspective.  Everything about this sequence is good and right:  It holds true to the spirit of the super hero genre, taps into what makes these characters great in the eyes of young people, and provides several touchstones for the hopeful fan in all of us to identify with.  The movie is almost worth it for these scenes alone.

What It Doesn't Do Right:   The film suffers horribly from the creators' push to one-up previous entries in the Marvel Studios stable in the action department.  One of the action scenes (you likely saw hints of this in the previews) ends with a mid-air stunt sequence that is so laughably implausible that a collective groan from the audience is all but inevitable. "It's like, super-Point Break, man!  It's like Point Break times eleven!"  The film suffers in the third act from a dearth of settings and set-pieces, and getting the protagonist to the various settings in the desired condition becomes a mental mapping exercise that pulls you from the film.

The minions of Aldrich Killian, faceless ex-military types empowered with the Xtremis formula, don't amount to much.  Far from being convincingly motivated, the audience is to believe that once you drink the Killian Kool-Aid, you become his murderous thrall, willing to pillage and plunder at the risk of your life and the assured death of hundreds.  None has a back story worthy of note, nor is any one of them motivated beyond their listing in the credits.  Like other homage to the comics in this film, the organization they work for is more  trope than anything.

And why (spoilers ahead), oh why, did they do such a good job of showing Tony kick ass outside the armor, then end the movie with a protracted battle involving drone suits of armor controlled by the robotic Jarvis AI?  The point is not that the concept is bad, it's just executed in a way that is over-long and too involved.  What should have been a brief aside, a sort-of "look at the resources I can call upon when I'm up against the ropes" trope, is given too much screen time and eventually devolves into meaningless fireworks to punctuate the final confrontation.  The characters and set pieces are already there for a more personalized final battle between Stark and Killian, but the faceless denizens and cohorts of the antagonist and the drone armor take center stage, and the audience is emotionally invested in neither.  Worse, you know why it's there:  You can envision the board meeting where this conflagration was contrived; you can almost feel the slimy fingers of the suits and financial backers on the script, demanding the final sequence sell more toys.  It's a pity that, at the end of it all, a resourceful Tony outside his armor must bring not one, not two, but perhaps 15 versions of the armor to the battle, then suffer the indignity of a disembodied AI taking on the hero role.  Far from the masterfully executed, operatic camera ballet afforded us in the final scene of Avengers, involving characters we care about, we're subjected to a continuous barrage of non-character-on-non-character violence that quickly devolves into a mindless pyrotechnic display. A more personal Tony vs. Bad Guy (no pun intended) scene is called for here, but we don't get it.

The character of the Mandarin (minor spoilers ahead) is almost entirely squandered in this film.  This is more a comics fans' complaint, as he exists in the film without taking much away from it, and is performed by Kingsley in a convincing and comical fashion.  However, those of us familiar with the books know there was character to be mined here, and we're denied all but a Russel Brand-inspired piece of trype.  He was reasonably well-played with an eye for humor, but entirely wasted in comparison to what could have been.

 My Recommendation:  Although the movie gets a lot right (scenes involving "the mechanic" and his side-kick are pure gold), it also hosts enough wrongdoing and corporatized intrusion on the script that it doesn't belong, in my view, alongside the first in the series, nor does it invite favorable comparison to the seminal Avengers.  It invites, instead, comparisons to Iron Man 2 in terms of subject matter and quality.  A 6, perhaps aspiring to a 7 on a 10 scale, for me.