Retro Review: Iron Man

         
           This is to be my first entry in a new series I like to call "Retro Reviews", where I'll be reviewing old movies and analyzing whether I still feel the same way about them now as I did back then. With the Avengers hitting in America in less than a week, I decided to do my first Retro Review series on the Marvel films, starting of course with the film that started it all, Iron Man.

           What can I say about this film that people haven't already said? I think it's brilliant. Personally, Iron Man is among my favorite comic book film adaptations (beat out only by The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2). Robert Downey Jr. single handedly took one of Marvel's B-list characters and made him iconic. His interactions with the rest of the top notch cast, from Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts to Terrence Howard's Rhodey to Jeff Bridge's Obadiah Stane, make the film something to truly behold. What I really love about this film is the sense of realism given off by director Jon Favreau, how he allows the passage of time to move realistically in order to make us believe that building an armored suit is really possible. The building of the armor is handled so expertly, from the steampunk-esque Mark I to the shiny Mark II to the iconic red and gold Mark III, that I can't help but be entranced by every aspect of the story.

           I know I've already mentioned it, but I really have to hand it to RDJ. He embodies Tony Stark perfectly, and yet at the same time redefines the character, bringing out his witty, sarcastic side to make him a truly unique individual. The personal arc he goes through is genius, with Stark learning what it means to be held accountable for his actions and take responsibility for the weapons he created. One of my favorite scenes, one which I think exemplifies this arc beautifully, was when he lands in the Middle East and takes out the terrorists in the Mark III. Not only was it a glorious set piece, but there was something that felt right about it. When we think of superheroes out to "save the world", I often wonder why any of them don't get the idea to go out and actually solve the world's problems. Batman's in Gotham, Spidey's in New York, but it  seems like they always handle problems on an urban level instead of an international level.  

           Now here's Iron Man, who in the comics was made as a metaphor for the military industrial complex, and here is reimagined for the War on Terror in place of his Vietnam roots. Either way, it's brilliant to see a hero actually responding to world wide threats. He sees a news channel about suffering in the Middle East, he goes there and beats the crap out of terrorists. This is a superhero who actually gets it. It also helps that, unlike the adolescent, drama-infested Spider-Man or the dark, brooding Batman, Iron Man actually gets to have a little fun.

             The film is full of humor, from the trials of building the suit to Tony's interactions with Pepper and Rhodey. I found myself laughing out loud at some of the gags. More than anything, the first Iron Man really captures the essence of a Marvel comic book, all the while making it modernized and cinematic enough to work as an enjoyable film that everyone, not just comic book nerds, can enjoy.

             With that said, I do love how the director added in easter eggs for comic fans. The Ten Rings was an excellent way to reference Mandarin without fully showing him, and I really hope that Iron Man 3, despite what Shane Black says, includes him just to resolve that plot point. The foreshadowing of Rhodey's transformation into War Machine was a nice touch, although I wish we got to see what Terrence Howard would have brought to the role had he not been recasted. Somehow I get the feeling he would have had a better dynamic with Tony had he donned the War Machine armor, but I'm here to review what is, not what could have been (besides, this is more relevant to Iron Man 2 anyway). Speaking of which, I noticed how the F-22s were code named Whiplash 1 and 2, which is a nice throaway considering Favrau's choice of villain for the sequel. And of course, there's SHIELD. The acronym pun was funny throughout the film, and I loved the introduction to Coulson, who despite not being a comic based character has gone on to become a breakout supporting role in these films. And then of course is the all-important end credits scene, a brilliant way to tease fans with the Avengers initiative. Four years ago, I thought it was just wishful thinking, but now it's actually happening and I couldn't be more excited for it.

           Now that all of this has been said, the question remains: how does the film hold up? Do I still enjoy it just as much now as I did four years ago? The answer is a resounding yes. Not only does Iron Man act as a spring board for Marvel's grand plan, it also works beautifully as a standalone film. Yes, there are teases to a sequel, but as a film it really does work well. The "I Am Iron Man" reveal at the end not only spells dangerous consequences for Tony's future, but also plays on his character, and completely subverts the "rule" in superhero films that the hero has to have a secret identity. But back to what I was saying, the film does hold up after repeat viewings. It's a magnificent film that to this day is one of my all-time favorite superhero movies. Tomorrow I will be reviewing "Iron Man 2", the next phase in Tony Stark's personal journey as well as the next step on the road to the Avengers.

Hunger Games review

      Well, I have returned from seeing The Hunger Games, and being the huge movie freak that I am, I must compulsively reveal my thoughts on the matter to the entirety of the Internet. I will begin by reviewing it as a film and then as an adaptation of the book, since I have had the privilege of reading said book.

      The Hunger Games is an entertaining, well acted film with a compelling story that delivers on action but never forgets that the story and characters are required to make the film work. Jennifer Lawrence is amazing as Katniss Everdeen, who shines as both a distinctly feminine character with a vulnerable side yet is possessed of an innate strength that carries throughout the film. Woody Harrelson, Lenny Kravitz, Stanly Tucci, Wes Bentley, Elizabeth Banks, and Donald Sutherland all give off memorable performances as the adult characters who inhabit this unique world. Liam Hemsworth and Josh Hutcherson act as Katniss's potential boy toys in a love triangle, and while they do good with what they are given, they don't really come across as three dimensional characters (Hutcherson at least shows some charisma). While this film is no "Twilight", the romance does factor into the plot, but thankfully never dominates it. That falls to the viciousness of the games, which are set up spectacularly before we are thrown into the thick of it and watch as teenagers kill each other.

       Director Gary Ross uses shaky camera movements throughout the film. Towards the beginning, it acts as a hindrance, but once in the arena this style plays to the film's advantage, downplaying the violence to maintain a PG-13 rating but never backing away from the consequences. We may not see a lot of coherent killing, but there's plenty of blood and corpses, and the reactions of the characters confirm how savage the games are. In a day and age where torture porn films like Saw put gore up on screen every other minute, it's nice to see a film where violence is left to the viewer's imagination (and since it's adapting a book, is that really a stretch?) The shaky cam also gives the film a gritty feel, which makes the survival aspect of the film that much more believable.

        As an adaptation of the book, The Hunger Games delivers in spades for its rabid fanbase, but at the same time there are several elements that fans may complain about. While they do not get in the way from enjoying the film and are little more than nitpicks, the absence of these elements could pose problems for understanding character motivations in this film and the sequels it clearly sets up (this is, after all, the first of a trilogy, and given its box office gross the sequels are all but guaranteed.) First, the book is told entirely from Kantiss's point of view. Since internal monologues don't work well on film, we lose the insights into Kantiss's head that both explain her motivations and the larger aspects of this world. The film makes it clear that Peeta loves Katniss and that she needs to play it up for the audience, but without the window into her head, uninitiated film goers won't realize that Katniss doesn't really love Peeta; she loves Gale. This whole experience is supposed to make her feel confused about her feelings for Gale, but the film never explains this. It simply comes across as Katniss genuinely loves Peeta. In addition, through her insights we learn that Kantiss's alliance with Rue was because she reminded her of her sister, thus deepening their bond, but again the film never emphasizes this, so the alliance comes across as forced.

       Thankfully, the lack of Katniss's POV is made up by the addition of extra scenes between President Snow and Seneca Crane while the games are going on. These help explain aspects of the book's universe (such as the genetically modified mutts and tracker jackers) and the mindset of the government in implementing the games. It is the presence of these scenes that allows even non-fans to become immersed in the film's universe without the insights into Katniss's mind, and succeeds in making the villains more villainous and the heroes more heroic. On that note, the film did something surprising (in my eyes) by starting the rebellion among the districts one book early. This was probably to visualize the larger effect of the games on the districts and to set up the stakes that grow ever higher when the sequels come round. However, if this was the intention, then there was one element not included in the film that I thought undermined the rebellion arc they wanted to start and continue throughout the trilogy.

        This element was the treatment of the Mockingjay pin. In the film, Katniss simply buys the pin and it is presented in a context that would be confusing to non-fans. Both Cinna and President Snow know the importance of the pin when they see it, but the only reference to Mockingjays is when Katniss and Rue use them to communicate while in the arena. Never does the film reference the role Mockingjays played in the first rebellion, or how it was a symbol of resistance that Katniss would become associated with as the trilogy unfolds. On that note, while the film references 13 districts during the first war, it never says how the 13th District was wiped out by the Capitol, which will cause problems when it comes time to adapt the second and third books. I think that by not explaining these crucial plot points, the film fails to emphasize the importance of the Mockingjay, which book fans will know but to others will never get why the pin is so important. I would think that a symbol that is shown prominently on the film's posters would have been given a proper explanation, but hopefully this can be corrected in the sequel.

       Despite these complaints, I can't really fault the Hunger Games either as a film or as an adaptation. There is a lot of respect to the source material here, both for the universe and the characters who inhabit it. This is a film that will please existing fans and make new fans out of those who watch it. With a few minor adjustments (more insights into Katniss's POV and explanations of the all-important backstory) the sequels can really shine. As it is, "The Hunger Games" possesses a strong story and great character development, and serves as both a worthy adaptation and an excellent film in its own right.