Film Review | Iron Man 3 (2013)

Iron Man 3 sits in a unique, perhaps unenviable, position in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The first Marvel franchise to release a third installment (whilst Captain America and Thor gear up for their first sequels and Hulk waits for yet another reboot with Ruffalo in the role), Iron Man 3 is not only a sequel to the previous two Iron Man films but also to last year's critical and commercial favourite Avengers Assemble. It's also the first film in "Phase 2" of Marvel Studios' establishment of their Cinematic Universe, "Phase 1" having been wrapped up through the previously mentioned assembling of The Avengers. Robert Downey Jr.'s fourth outing as Tony Stark therefore had a huge amount of expectations to meet from several different angles.

There's plenty here to like, thanks in part to the elements already firmly established through the original film and its sequel, as well as Avengers Assemble. Downey Jr. is once again strong as Tony Stark providing a pleasing centre for everything else to orbit around. Gwyneth Paltrow returning as Pepper Potts also does well, although her relationship with Tony doesn't go anywhere new and the character doesn't get much of interest to do until towards the very end of the film. Don Cheadle is another welcome familiar face as Rhodey, although his role here never goes beyond a combination of plot device and foil-cum-sidekick to Downey Jr.'s Stark.

New additions to the cast also vary in their success. Guy Pearce crafts potentially the most successful villain of the series in Aldrich Killian, with Ben Kingsley also doing well as mysterious Osama Bin Laden-a-like The Mandarin, delivering a mid-story twist about which the less you know before watching the better. Less successful is Rebecca Hall as Dr. Maya Hansen, who is given precisely nothing interesting to do after the first ten minutes of the film; and Stephanie Szostak and James Badge Dale as two of Killian's subordinates, delivering well in the action stakes but whose villainous motivation is decidedly unclear.

Shane Black takes over directorial duties of the franchise from Jon Favreau, as well as co-writing the screenplay with Drew Pearce, and on the whole does well. This is a notably darker and more stripped down Iron Man movie to what we've seen before. We see Tony at his most vulnerable since he was imprisoned in a cave in the first installment, which provides some fresh moments of humanity for Downey Jr. to explore within the character but also makes this at times the least humorous entry into the franchise yet. Despite being roughly the same length as the previous two Iron Man films (and a good fifteen minutes shorter than Avengers Assemble) Black does feel as though he's padding things out at times here during the film's second act, especially after the film's pacy opening. The way in which Black moves the character of Tony Stark on in the film's final moments also feels a little too underdeveloped, almost like an afterthought, to resonate as much as it should.

In the end, Iron Man 3 is a mixture of successful and less successful elements, evening out into an enjoyable but flawed action film. For a third entry into the series it holds up perfectly well, certainly better than many threequels in other film series, but also feels as though it doesn't really move the franchise as a whole on to bigger and better things like it could have. Yes, there are some things that are done better here than they have been done previously, but there's also too much that feels like it's just been allowed to trundle along as it always has. Maybe it's because it's the first Marvel film to follow Joss Whedon's multi-superhero spectacular, but Iron Man 3 feels good - occasionally very good - but never great.

7/10

Film Review | The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy has never been something that truly held my interest. Having seen all three I can say they're entertaining enough as a collection of films, reaching their high point during Spider-Man 2 before taking something of a nosedive in terms of quality with Spider-Man 3. But compared to other superheroes, Spidey just never resonated in the same way as others such as Batman or Superman. I was genuinely intrigued therefore when Marvel made the decision that, instead of developing a fourth installment of Raimi's franchise, they would reboot the franchise returning to the superhero's origins with an all new cast and director. A bold move considering Raimi's first film was less than ten years old at the time.

The film takes the story of Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) right back to its beginnings. Having lived with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field) since he was a young boy after his parents were killed in a plane crash, a teenage Peter attempts to track down Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) who previously worked closely with his father. Whilst at Connors' research lab, Peter is bitten by a radioactive spider which leads to him developing superhuman abilities.

Comparisons between this film and Raimi's efforts are inevitable, if not mandatory, so let's get them out of the way. In terms of casting, The Amazing Spider-Man feels superior, which is impressive considering the strength of many of the actors involved in Spider-Man and its sequels. Garfield brings a grittier quality to Peter Parker than we've seen on screen before, using the teenager's issues over his parents' absence and then death to develop the character into a compelling screen presence. Opposite Garfield is Emma Stone as love interest Gwen Stacy, a relationship that feels more satisfying than that seen between Peter and Mary-Jane in Raimi's films. Stone does well to give Gwen some pleasing depth, never allowing the character to be a one-dimensional object of Spidey's affections, aided further by the script's wise avoidance of ever making her a hackneyed damsel in distress.

Elsewhere the casting is fine, but never outstanding. Ifans as Curt Connors does well, but never truly shines, and feels a little miscast when in his mutated form as the film's main antagonist The Lizard. Denis Leary does better as Gwen's father police captain George Stacy, although is never given quite opportunity to develop the character in a genuinely satisfying way. The film's strongest casting choices are those of Peter's Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Sheen is reliably strong as Ben, bringing welcome echoes of his defining role as President Bartlet from television series The West Wing to make Peter's uncle a caring yet formidable presence; it's almost a shame that Spidey's origin story dictates that Sheen's character be absent for a significant part of the story. Field as Aunt May is superb, bringing gravity and heart to a role which gives Garfield's Peter some necessary emotional anchorage.

Despite the relative success in The Amazing Spider-Man's casting, the film's script and story never come across with the same level of accomplishment. The plot never resonates with any genuine threat or mystery, and takes a while to get going - the seemingly eternal blight of superhero origin stories that few manage to avoid - making the two-and-a-quarter hour running time feel overlong and somewhat self-indulgent on the part of director Mark Webb. For a superhero film the action feels restrained; the final battle between Spider-Man and The Lizard is unimpressive, and aside from a tense rescue sequence on a bridge, Spidey's heroic exploits are quite forgettable. There are also a few notably sloppy scripting choices, with plot threads and characters introduced but never resolved, instead frustratingly forgotten about.

Perhaps The Amazing Spider-Man's biggest flaw, however, is that it just never feels different enough to what we've seen before. True, the darker aesthetic that Webb has gone for is often markedly different to the vibrant cartoon colours of Raimi's vision, but this never feels separate enough from what has gone before. It's perhaps a problem that was always going to be unavoidable when rebooting the franchise so soon after its original incarnation. There's a lot here that wouldn't fit into Raimi's trilogy, but also a considerable amount that quite comfortably would. With Marvel establishing their own Cinematic Universe over the past five years, the studio was perhaps left with something of a quandary in rebooting the Spider-Man franchise. What we're left with is a new beginning for Spider-Man that's in many ways pleasing and enjoyable, but ultimately underwhelming and that feels like it was created out of necessity rather than artistic desire. It's perhaps a cheap shot, but The Amazing Spider-Man never lives up to the adjective used within its title.

6/10

Film Review | The Incredible Hulk (2008)

When Marvel set up their standalone film studio and began the multi-franchised journey towards Avengers Assemble, Bruce Banner and his asparagus-hued alter-ego were unique out of all the Avengers in that they had already received a big screen outing through Ang Lee's 2003 film Hulk. Lee's film received a mixed reaction: whilst some enjoyed the cerebral approach to exploring Banner's split personality (myself included), others felt that it sacrificed too much of the wanton destruction that The Hulk is arguably most famous for. 2008's The Incredible Hulk therefore not only needed to re-introduce the character as part of the newly established Marvel Cinematic Universe, but reboot the franchise to distance it sufficiently from Lee's version.

Skimming over the gamma ray accident which transformed Dr. Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) into The Hulk during the opening credits, the film catches up with Banner hiding out in South America and attempting to find a cure for his condition. However, General Ross (William Hurt) is still hunting down Banner with the desire to weaponise what's inside him, with ruthless soldier Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) by his side.

Looking at the success of director Louis Leterrier's film in creating a clear distinction from Lee's, unfortunately The Incredible Hulk is flawed from the very start. Depicting scenes remarkably similar to those seen throughout Lee's Hulk, the opening credits montage in fact serves as a link between the two films. Kicking things off with Banner's imposed exile in South America - the same place that he was seen in the closing moments of Lee's film - adds further confusion as to whether this is a whole new franchise or a sequel to an existing one.

Unfortunately, the film's problems just continue. This is one of Norton's most lacklustre performances,  feeling severely miscast as Banner throughout. The character lacks depth and is never satisfying: Banner is supposed to be one of the leading scientific minds in the world, and yet we never see any evidence of this brilliance. We never see enough of the internal struggle between Banner and The Hulk either, something which both Lee's film and 2012's Avengers Assemble manage a lot better. Norton's Banner essentially ends up as a bit of a sadsack who we don't particularly care about.

The cast elsewhere isn't much better. Liv Tyler as love interest Betty Ross irritates throughout, Hurt's General Ross never feels like anything more than a stereotypical angry army guy, and Tim Blake Nelson's supporting role late on in the film is disappointingly grating for such a talented actor. Roth as Blonsky arguably puts in the most effective performance, but can only do so much with the script which ranges from flat and lazy to downright cringeworthy. At one point, a fellow soldier asks Blonsky how he feels before undertaking a battle with The Hulk. "Like a monster", Blonsky replies. As we've just seen the character begin his own genetic mutation a matter of seconds before, this response is entirely redundant. But, more importantly, even in Marvel's comic book setting, who actually talks like that? There are countless other examples littered all through the script just like this.

The plot bumbles along, erratically switching focus between Banner, Blonsky and Betty Ross, giving the film a distinctly unfocused feel, with characters introduced haphazardly before being swiftly removed again. The film has a couple of half-decent action sequences as its high points, but to be frank the CGI ranges from underwhelming (this is probably the least satisfying big screen realisation of The Hulk to date) to near Michael Bay levels of overkill. The final battle is oversaturated with effects making it both confusing and entirely devoid of any emotion.

They (whoever they might be) say that hindsight is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately for The Incredible Hulk, it really isn't. With Mark Ruffalo successfully taking the role of Banner and The Hulk over in Avengers Assemble (and, at the time of writing, all future Marvel projects), Leterrier's take on the character just looks all the more ill-conceived and poorly realised. Released in the same year as Nolan's The Dark Knight, one of the most successful comic book reboot films of all time, The Incredible Hulk now serves only as a perfect example of how not to rejuvenate a superhero franchise.

3/10

Film Review | Avengers Assemble (2012)

Definitely a candidate for "film with most prequels", Avengers Assemble (or simply The Avengers if you don't live in the UK, apparently retitled to distinguish it from the less-than-reviled unrelated 1998 film starring Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman) had an awful lot of build-up, anticipation and hype to live up to. There were any number of ways the film could have misfired, and should it do so it could have been a fatal blow for Marvel Studios, as pretty much all of their recent output has been building up to this one film. Thankfully, AA manages to just about live up to those incredibly high expectations.

The film sees Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Dr. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth), a.k.a. Iron Man, Captain America, The Incredible Hulk and, er, Thor, come together for the first time as superhero team The Avengers to take on Asgardian baddie (and Thor's brother) Loki (Tom Hiddleston) as he leads the other-dimensional Chitauri in an invasion of Earth.

The key to AA's success is not just in bringing together four well-known superheroes with their own discrete franchises - films such as Alien vs. Predator and Freddy vs. Jason have proven that simply throwing successful characters together does not automatically a successful movie make - but that it brings them together in such a comprehensively successful way. The way in which writer and director Joss Whedon has woven a seamless tapestry of the Old World stylings of Thor, the World War Two era characteristics of Captain America, and the modern day bearings of Iron Man and The Hulk (the last two also coming with their own idiosyncrasies) is impressive in itself. The whole thing just works, and all the better because Whedon is acutely aware of the ridiculousness of some of the concepts with which he is working. Steve Rogers' outfit is always going look the silliest, Thor is never going to slip unnoticed into 21st Century America, and Hulk can't help but be a not-so-jolly green giant. But Whedon works this to his advantage, gleaning some of the film's funniest moments from it. "You don't know what you're dealing with" says Thor to Iron Man when they first meet. "Shakespeare In The Park?" Stark quips back faster than a lightning bolt from Mjolnir.

Whedon's script isn't light on comedy, with moments throughout which aren't just amusing, but downright laugh-out-loud funny. The exchanges between the four superheroes and their conflicting mentalities produces some incredibly human humour, perfectly crafted by Whedon's razor-sharp writing. The director also knows his way around physical humour, equally well-crafted and perfectly placed within the film. One exchange of blows between Hulk and Loki is especially memorable for all the right reasons.

The performances from the whole cast are a delight. Downey Jr., Evans and Hemsworth slip back into their already established characters pleasingly well. Ruffalo deserves huge credit for making Bruce Banner/Hulk his own character after two misfired attempts at bringing the rage monster to the big screen in the last decade. Ruffalo largely ignores the character created by Edward Norton in the most recent 2008 film, and to good effect; his Banner is a paranoid genius haunted by the alter-ego he refers to only as "the other guy", and that Ruffalo establishes a character of depth and sympathy so quickly within the film reaffirms him as a genuine cinematic talent who has until recently often gone overlooked.

It's also important that Avengers Assemble never becomes about one superhero and his sidekicks. It would have been very easy to make this "Iron Man 3 (featuring Thor, Hulk and Cap)" considering Downey Jr.'s popularity and Iron Man having had two films to the other members' one (or in the case of Ruffalo's version of the Hulk, arguably none). But each plays an equal part, feeling as though each has not only their own strengths, but also shortcomings. Each character also feels as though they develop throughout the film, with each becoming more rounded as they develop as a team.

The supporting cast cannot be overlooked here either. Samuel L. Jackson is predictably excellent as Nick Fury, fleshing out a character who has been limited largely to cameos in Marvel Studios' output thusfar. Tom Hiddleston brings menace and insanity to Loki, transforming him into a genuine evil force to be reckoned with, something I feel he fell short of when introduced in 2011's Thor. Clark Gregg returning as Agent Phil Coulson is a joy in all his scenes, a wonderfully human counterpoint to the superpowered multi-dimensional larger-than-life characters surrounding him. Black Widow is surely one of the most well-developed female characters in a superhero film, making her introduction in Iron Man 2 feel somewhat one-note, thanks here to Scarlett Johansson's pleasing performance and Whedon's smart scripting and direction. Her relationship with S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner) is established well and is hopefully something that will be developed further in future Marvel Studios outings.

Avengers Assemble is not without a handful of imperfections. The good versus evil story is a little too by-the-numbers, and the Chitauri led by Loki feel somewhat generic at times. But these are minor niggles in what is a superbly crafted superhero action film. With a run time of nearly two-and-a-half hours the film could have become a real slog, but I enjoyed every minute. The action sequences are brilliantly realised, never feeling overly busy or confusing (take note, Michael Bay) - one particular unbroken tracking shot within the final battle taking in all four superheroes battling against Loki's invading forces is truly breathtaking.

Avengers Assemble is ultimately as good as anyone could have hoped the film would realistically be, and deserves to go down in cinematic history as one of the best comic book films ever made. It's equal to the sum of its parts, and the parts within it are pretty damn awesome. It takes the best parts of the films which led up to it and combines them together in a genuinely wonderful way.

But perhaps, most of all, the film is a success because it doesn't try to be something it's not. Giving the characters here a gritty and realistic reboot would most likely produce a film of pretension and silliness. The closest we've seen to that in the Marvel Universe is 2008's Incredible Hulk, which for the most part just didn't work. Christopher Nolan proved in 2008's The Dark Knight that taking a comic book character, his allies and adversaries, into a quasi-real-world setting can produce something truly outstanding; Whedon in 2012 has proven that it's possible to come very close to that level of success whilst at the same time wearing your fantastical comic book credentials as proudly as Captain America wears his star-spangled suit.

9/10

Film Review | Thor (2011)

If you were to choose the ideal director to bring a superhero franchise to the big screen for the first time, chances are Kenneth Branagh would not be anywhere near the top of your list. Branagh's previous directorial efforts have mostly been in adapting Shakespeare's works into film, as well as other high-brow literary classics such as Frankenstein. But the more you think about it, Branagh's ability to bring to the big screen The Bard's at times larger-than-life characters, full of conflicting emotions and often taking part in great battles, could be the perfect fit - especially for one of Marvel's more fantastical franchises.

When our eponymous hero (Chris Hemsworth) arrogantly defies the orders of Odin (Anthony Hopkins), his father and King of Asgard, Odin strips Thor of his powers and casts him out of Asgard to Earth. There, Thor crosses paths with astrophysicist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) on his path to redemption, which is hampered by his double-dealing brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston).

There are a lot of good things about Thor. The cast as a whole are strong, and feel at home with the combination of the fantastical and real world action. Hemsworth, a relative newcomer, is an excellent choice for Thor, making the hero's journey from conceited hothead to selfless superhero entirely believable. Hemsworth's comic timing is also impressive, providing some real laughs as Thor's old-world Asgardian mannerisms clash with the modern day. The relationship he develops with Jane Foster is touching and authentic, with Portman and Hemsworth displaying pleasing chemistry.

Thor does have its problems, however. Whilst the sections set on Earth are convincing and provide some enjoyable action sequences, the sequences away from our planet are less successful. The realisation of Asgard on screen is laden with CGI effects giving it a somewhat artificial sheen. The film also at times feels a little too much like a precursor to forthcoming film The Avengers. Thor's back story is successfully established, but other characters feel a little underdeveloped. Loki in particular, despite Hiddleston's solid performance, never felt like a genuine threat as the main antagonist. The film's ending has a similar feel to that of Captain America: The First Avenger, in that things are left on something of a cliffhanger that doesn't fully satisfy the character arcs established in this film, which leaves you wondering whether Thor was intended to work as a standalone film, or only as set-up for The Avengers.

As an addition to the Marvel film universe, Thor works and is certainly a worthwhile watch. But it's also yet another example of the problems of superhero origin stories and striking the right balance between including all the pieces of the hero's tale and telling a compelling story in its own right. In comparison with the other pre-Avengers films, it's way above The Incredible Hulk (but then most films are) but never reaches the successes of the Iron Man franchise, and sitting just below Captain America. In the end, Thor is enjoyable, but never outstanding.

7/10

Film Review | Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

Your enjoyment of Captain America: The First Avenger will most likely depend on what you are expecting before you go in and how you view it as both an individual film and part of the creation of a larger Marvel Comics universe. Because whilst CA:TFA is clearly cast firmly from the superhero movie mould in terms of it's foundations, in spirit it doesn't quite follow the patterns you'd expect. Unfortunate considering I'd sold seeing the film to my fiancée with a sentence something along the lines of "you enjoyed Iron Man, so you're bound to enjoy this", only for her to claim ownership of the next viewing choice at the cinema in recompense for her lack of enjoyment as we walked out of the screen.

In many ways we have your standard superhero origins story: frustrated by his continual rejections from the U.S. Army due to medical health problems and general scrawny stature, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is selected for a top secret "super soldier" programme due to his personality and willingness to fight. After undergoing the experimental procedure, Rogers is transformed into a "perfect" man, with abilities at the peak of human potential, and of course transformed from his puny frame into a towering musclebound adonis.

The development of Rogers' character in the opening act of the film is pleasing and handled well; it reminded me of the way in which Peter Parker is introduced in the first Spider-Man film. Whilst it means that the start of the film doesn't move particularly quickly, I was happy to accept it as a necessary element of the origins tale. However, it's in the film's second act where things begin to stray from what you might have prepared yourself for. Where Peter Parker began climbing walls and swinging through New York City, and where Tony Stark began honing his metallic suit and breaking the sound barrier, Rogers does very little in the way of superheroic activity. We get one action sequence following Rogers' transformation, and then that's it for a while. And whilst this turn of events is explained within the film's plot, it does take some of the momentum away from the film before things have even properly got started.

When the action does finally get going, again it's not quite what many will undoubtedly expect from a superhero film. The action is much more closely related to CA:TFA's war film roots than its comic book roots. The film is less a superhero film set during World War II, more a World War II film that happens to focus on a superhero. It actually feels quite different to most superhero films of recent years, and whilst this is not necessarily a bad thing, it does leave the film at times feeling a little awkwardly placed between two genres that don't often marry.

For all its "not quites", CA:TFA nevertheless has an awful lot going for it. Evans is great as the hero, giving a performance that fits with both who the character is and the time period in which the film takes place. The supporting cast are also consistently solid: Tommy Lee Jones is reliably excellent in his role as Colonel Phillips, required to run the gamut of feelings towards Rogers and his eventual alter-ego; Hugo Weaving somehow manages to toe the line between authentic and comic book maniacal villain with a strong performance; and Dominic Cooper impressed me as Howard Stark, bringing both arrogance and likability to the character. Only Hayley Atwell provides something of a weak link: whilst her performance is fine in many parts, I never found there to be nearly enough chemistry between her and Evans to make their romantic relationship anything more than hinted towards.

Ultimately, Captain America: The First Avenger works as both a standalone film and as a quasi-prequel to The Avengers film which is set to arrive next year (without giving too much away, the closing scene here could almost be the opening to that very film). It's a film that is likely to split opinion, as what some may see as bold, if not entirely successful, attempts to do something fresh and different with the superhero and war genres, others may see as unnecessary meddling to a tried, tested and desired formula. Taking a step back from (over) analysing the film, this is essentially a summer blockbuster made to entertain. And whilst it certainly could have entertained me more, it managed to do so sufficiently far more often than not.

7/10