Iron Man 3 (Shane Black)

Stark realism.

At last, I was able to squeeze in "Iron Man 3" into my otherwise busy schedule partly because I cannot take the attention-whoring spoilers on social media anymore and also because, well, who wouldn't? Iron Man is, after all, our most beloved Avenger. He is the coolest billionaire on film outside Bruce Wayne. Hell, the film's about an egotistically charismatic guy in a robot suit. Who wouldn't find time for that? 

Unlike "Iron Man 2" which is quite unsure if whether it really wants to be an action-packed comedy or a brooding drama, "Iron Man 3", directed by Shane "I am Hawkins from Predator" Black, is a whole new monster. For me, this marks the first time that an Iron Man installment really feels more like a Tony Stark movie, and for good reason. 

     

The plot, although the usual science fiction/quasi-political mix, feels more fun than it has any right to be simply because the film is effective in being half-serious and half-camp. In this regard, we must give proper credit to Mr. Black, whose experience in character and chemistry-driven action movies (the "Lethal Weapon" franchise) has benefitted the film a hundredfold, not to mention that he has already directed Downey Jr. in the brilliant crime-comedy "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" alongside Val Kilmer. In short, "Iron Man 3", despite its unsurprising abundance of visual effects, feels a whole lot more grounded because we see a lot more of Tony Stark outside that pesky armor. This time, we don't see Stark as a mere alter-ego but as a believable action hero who just happens to own a robot suit or two. For all I care, the film could have easily been entitled "Tony Stark" and it will still appeal to the audience. This aspect is what makes "Iron Man 3" quite an innovation, execution-wise. We see Tony run around a lot like a bearded Sam Witwicky, wield service pistols and neutralize enemies with make-shift weapons, and it entertains because his trademark, all too human wit is admittedly at a better high when he's not suited up. 

     

For some, seeing Stark more often without the armor suit lessens the essence of what the film promises to be, but for me, it has even made the film a whole lot better. Well, of course, there's that big 'Iron Men' scene at the film's climax, but aside from that, there really isn't much time to bask on Iron Man's individual awesomeness. After all, this is a pained Tony Stark we're dealing with here both emotionally and physically, so seeing him all rusty and desperate, without much time to go all CGI Fonzie inside the suit, just fits the film's overall tone.

     

The performances, on the other hand, are quite great by superhero movie standards. Robert Downey Jr., after being the evident scene-stealer in "The Avengers", has once again proved that, well, he is currently the 'King of Cool' by giving what might be his best Tony Stark performance to date. Guy Pearce was also quite outstanding in his role as the villainous Aldrich Killian, whose performance mirrors that of Kevin Bacon's in "X-Men: First Class". But the real spark plug of a revelation here is Ben Kingsley, who's just, well, 'deceptive' in his portrayal of the Mandarin. Take my word for it: I think he's perhaps the biggest surprise of the year so far, and that's both a compliment and a slight dig.

     

Admittedly, "Iron Man 3's" trailers are really the most misleading things to come out for quite a while. At the time of the teaser materials' release, some have even speculated that Marvel, perhaps after seeing the success of "The Dark Knight" trilogy, has also finally decided to go all 'Nolan' on this installment. Instead, what the film has done was take just the right amount of insightful character psychology, throw it in with the staple explosiveness and fun that make Marvel films such a joy to watch, and mix well. The crucial part, naturally, is on the mixing. Unlike blockbuster filmmakers like Michael Bay and whoever made the G.I. Joe films, Shane Black has this certain, '80s 'buddy cop' feel in his directorial style which lifts "Iron Man 3" on a league of its own. I also loved how he used some narration (by Tony Stark) to tell the story on a more personal level, as opposed to the passive narrative technique of the previous two films. "Iron Man 3", despite its flaws and slight unevenness, has nonetheless hit the right notes. Off to a great start, Marvel's Phase 2 seems to be.

FINAL RATING

The Amazing Spider-Man (Marc Webb)

Spidey reboot.

Finally, it has now been released. Ever since the film's very first promotional picture showing Andrew Garfield, ragged as hell, in a new Spidey costume has found its way in the loving hands of the internet, many have been befuddled. Why reboot the "Spider-Man" franchise if there's really no need to? Granted, the third film has swallowed more than it can chew, but the franchise, in its majority, is still a collective of truly entertaining superhero films that has also amassed great box-office returns. 

Now enter "The Amazing Spider-Man", a film that has been an object of divisiveness well at least before the trailers were released. And now that it has unveiled itself to a very critical audience consisting of skeptical fans of the previous "Spider-Man" franchise and purist fans of the comic books alike, I think it's fair to say that, at last, the speculations, arguments and general polarization is now over. Skeptics can now merely fade into the darkness and some may now declare themselves as instant believers. This reboot, for the lack of a better descriptive word, is indeed amazing. 

Director Marc Webb, who became an instant indie darling after making "500 Days of Summer", has molded Peter Parker and the other characters away from the clutches of cinematic stereotypes, and has also finely weighed even both the romance and the action. Now, I have nothing against Sam Raimi's first "Spider-Man" film, but I believe it has executed its characters in a way that's very limited and shallow. 

Raimi's characters, including Parker himself, merely exist within the parameters that their character arcs have restricted them to be. For example, there's Mary Jane the girl next door, J. Jonah Jameson the bullish newspaper boss and Peter himself as the geeky hopeless romantic; all stereotypes. Their function is to work well within those character boundaries and nothing more, and what resulted is a film that's well-executed enough but with characters that aren't really that flexible in terms of development.

This reboot, on the other hand, has handled Peter Parker in a way that's very atypical yet at the same time very relatable. There's Andrew Garfield to thank for that. In playing Peter Parker, he has combined your typical comic book charm with a sort of "Generation Y" appeal that's as convenient to identify with as the next fellow. Here is a crime-fighting superhero that can regularly knock out petty criminals and thugs alike but won't bother to accept grocery errands from his aunt. Here's also a costume-wearing altruist who has the tendency of playing cell phone games while on superhero rounds. Not since "Kick-Ass" can we identify ourselves with a superhero more.

Even the Uncle Ben and Aunt May characters, this time played by Martin Sheen and Sally Fields, are now more emotionally realistic. 

While Emma Stone, playing the crucial part of Gwen Stacy, was successful in channeling her effortless charm in the screen while also being very convincing in conjuring a great chemistry with Garfield. Although this relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy was proven to be very effective on film, we've yet to see the rest of it so I have to give the chemistry between Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst the softer spot in my heart. And let's just pretend that the interaction between Maguire's Peter Parker and Bryce Dallas Howard's Gwen Stacy in "Spider-Man 3" has never happened. 

And then there's the antagonistic role played by Rhys Ifans. Always the superhero with the most sympathetic of villains, movie-wise, Spider-man is now pitted against genetics expert Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard (Rhys Ifans). Enslaved by his own inclinations to create genetically-modified human reptiles without weakness and also to simply grow back his amputated arm, Connors is our usual villain preyed upon by his own decisional miscalculations. But aside from sympathy, Ifans, with his melancholic performance, was also able to provoke empathy from us viewers. What if we were the ones who are missing an arm? How far will this disability push us psychologically? And, more importantly, what if there's a remedy, however extreme, that's presented right in front of our very eyes? 

Though some may find Connors' transformation from a mild-mannered scientist to a monstrously cold-blooded (literally) super villain to be too much like Norman Osborn's Green Goblin transformation in Raimi's "Spider-Man", the dimensions of Connors' character is what makes him different. Unlike Osborn, Connors is a sane man driven to the edge by his own physical situation. He is very much aware of his own distortions. He knows deep inside that he is on the wrong side. 

"The Amazing Spider-Man", despite of initial skepticisms, came out to be a great origin story that has been made even more excellent by the performances, the standard yet affecting screenplay and the special effects that has elevated this film from meagerly amazing to something that's genuinely spectacular. We also get to see the strongest incarnation of our beloved web-slinging superhero yet. 

Sure, Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" trilogy is something that can be cherished for as long as there are fans of both comic books and superhero films, but I believe that "The Amazing Spider-Man" is the true Spider-Man film we all deserve.

FINAL RATING

Thor (Kenneth Branagh)

Thor and a lesson in humility.

Now, I'm aware of how everyone was so shocked and so surprised when Kenneth Branagh was chosen to direct this film. Branagh, known to be not that fully acquainted with blockbuster films (although he has starred in a "Harry Potter" installment), has inspired countless speculators as to the reason why he has accepted such a directorial venture. Why would Branagh direct a Marvel film? Why is a Marvel film directed by a Shakespere-inclined actor with little to no experience with action-oriented movies? They asked.

Well, for me, the question should be the other way around: Does this film deserve its director? With that in mind, I watched the film, and in the final run, as I weigh on both the film's pros and cons, I have concluded that the film ultimately did. As for Branagh, well, he capably pulled it off. No sweat.

Chris Hemsworth, which on first impression may seem stiff, played the titular character with surprising effectiveness, comic arrogance, and romantic tenderness. Just his first innocently brusque sequences in the realms of Earth (in New Mexico to be precise) filled with uneasy flamboyance and Viking-like behaviors make his performance very special. Anthony Hopkins, playing King Odin, is your typical noble but strict patriarch. While Tom Hiddleston, the film's most surprising revelation, is quite effective as the chief antagonist and Thor's adoptive brother Loki.

For the human characters, Kat Denning's portrayal of Darcy tried some comic reliefs with all her references to current 'Generation Y' fads just so, you know, she can connect with the younger demographics' funny bones, but she failed. Gladly, she has shut up in the film's second-half. Stellan Skarsgard, always the capable character actor, is here acting within mere stereotypes.

Natalie Portman, on the other hand, is the typical brainy damsel who found some romantic connection with the powerful Norse God and has also been one of the reasons why Thor decided to protect the mortal world.

Now, we've already seen director Branagh play with the wonders of exquisite production design in his rendition of "Hamlet". But this time, he plays with the complicated and chaotic beauty of CGI. Scene after scene, it seems as if he is merely testing his ability to execute every digitally-altered shots that at times, except the establishing shots of Asgard and Jotunheim (where the Frost Giants live), the fast-paced action sequences all seem sketchy, sudden and a bit too shaky and dark. Even the climactic struggle in the Bifrost Bridge, although colorful, majestic, spectacularly surreal and emotionally critical all at the same time, is filled with physically lackluster series of weapon jousting.

In one scene, we see Thor racing against time, flying with his hammer in hand, to confront his mischievous  brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston). It's from moments like this that superheroes of his kind have, time and time again, made names out of. Add up some intense music, battle-face expressions and fragile surroundings and we've got ourselves one perfect superhero situation.

But then the next scene shows Thor landing at the scene with obvious detachment. It could have been a 'great' moment right there, but the whole emotional atmosphere where Branagh could have invested much ultimately lacked the immediacy. In this scene, Thor seems lethargic and confused. What the hell happened?

But on a meritorious side, Kenneth Branagh, with the help of the hammer-clenching Avenger's expansive universe, created a wonderfully-prepared psychological conflict to put the idea of Thor's 'unconditional heroism' into a blurring test between his own kingdom's well-being, which he was born to love and to lead, and the mere mortal reality of Earth, where he learned to embrace the role of being a protector.

Is it his universe or the other? Is it Asgard or Earth? This film, for once, bravely responded without any certain cinematic answers. This is where Thor has succeeded. Throughout the endless showcase of might, magic, monsters and kings, "Thor" attained believability, at least in how a hero weighs in on what matters to him the most. In this case, Thor knows his priorities.

FINAL RATING