FILM: Iron Man 3

It’s difficult to know what to say about a film like Iron Man 3. The latest Iron Man films have been fairly solid, but overall lacking in substance. While Iron Man was a good film with a solid plot, Iron Man 2, on the other hand, was very insubstantial, had a poorly devised plot and overall was a sub-average film (although I’ll concede remembering very little about either). Neither film is particularly special or groundbreaking in any way, and there’s not a whole lot to be said about either of them other than that they’re better than your average superhero flick. As I hypothesised previously, Iron Man 3 is more of the same, and there’s not a whole lot to say about it other than “another Iron Man”.

It’s not particularly deep, complex, or subtle in anyway, and Iron Man never has been. The original character had Cold War and military connotations, as did the 2008 film to some extent, but films two and three seem to be little more than cash-ins on Iron Man’s popularity. Iron Man 3 has a messy plot, an antagonist with no credibility, and runs on unbelievable “Hollywood science”. Nothing makes any sense or has any weight behind it, and I had neither an investment in any of the characters, nor a sense of the stakes - that is, I could not relate enough to the plot for any sense of urgency to make sense to me.

One of the most important things for a film where the premise is “protagonist vs antagonist” is to have both sides relatable in some way. An antagonist’s motive as simple as, say, the acquisition of money (for example), is relatable enough that the audience can believe he is a real person, and by extension that he is a genuine threat. This is a factor which helps build the audience’s investment in the events, allowing them to have power and meaning. In Iron Man 3, however, Killian’s reasons for his actions are not revealed or explored in any way, so he comes across as merely silly. Without a credible motive, a villain becomes little more than a human MacGuffin. Iron Man 3 is an insubstantial, superficial triple-A Hollywood film like most of them, relying on expensive CGI rather than good writing to carry it, and it is not helped by being a sequel to two other films just like it.

The Iron Man series has had one redeeming quality, though, and that is the characterisation. Or, more accurately, Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark and his perfect facial hair. The way in which Stark is written into this film is masterful, and Robert Downey Jr. is a fantastic actor who portrays the character incredibly well. And that might just be enough to carry the film. Tony Stark is an egocentric snarky genius, and is absolutely hilarious to watch in all three films. Granted, he might be the only reason to watch any of them, but it is enough of a reason to. I was not kidding about the facial hair either - Stark is stranded in the Deep South for at least a few days, and despite having no time or means to tidy his beard, it remains exactly perfect from start to finish. 

This brings me quite conveniently to another point: despite the silly plot and the unrealistic science, the film retains quality for the simple reason that it is played for laughs. In other words, it runs primarily on the Rule Of Funny. The Iron Man films are not generally classified as comedies, but they aren’t far off in this regard, as the only reason the films survive is because they are funny. The Avengers was a brilliant film, but only because Joss Whedon’s writing of the characters was funny - hence, the Rule Of Funny. Like in the Iron Man films, the plot was dumb, the villain was lame and the science made no sense. But the film was good because it was hilarious. The degree to which The Avengers relied on comedy to carry it is enough to label it a comedy film, and Iron Man 3 is the same. It’s not quite a comedy in the strictest sense, because it does feel like it wants to be taken seriously to some extent, but it relies primarily on humour to carry its quality, which it does well.

That’s about it. As I’m writing this, I can’t help but notice that anything I say about Iron Man 3 would be equally valid if I were talking about any other Iron Man film. The formula is pretty much the same, and it’s hard to talk about one without drawing uncanny parallels to both preceding films. This further supports my observation that Iron Man 3 is little more than just another Iron Man, and nothing more than an extension of the same story. It does quite conclusively draw a line under the series, though, with Tony Stark killing off Iron Man and pursuing a normal life. It’s good to unambiguously end a series, but I’m not sure it was necessary. Iron Man 1 had a solid, self-contained story, and didn’t need a sequel in the first place. There’s no reason to think that Iron Man 2 needed a sequel either. 

As a result, Iron Man 3 reeks of a studio playing it safe, so it can cash-in on a popular franchise. It doesn’t break much new ground, to keep box office revenue secure. Iron Man 3 does play around with some more complex themes, involving anxiety attacks and post-traumatic stress-disorder related to the events of The Avengers, and a breakdown of Stark’s resolve as such, but none of it holds any water because of the film’s light-hearted tone. There’s an inherent sense of inconsistency when the film tries to be serious and portray Tony Stark as vulnerable and fragile, then two minutes later he summons his colorful suit and sarcastic personality while flying around blowing things up.

Overall, though, I did enjoy it. As I said, the characters (especially Tony Stark) are well enough written to carry the film entirely, and it is genuinely funny. Primarily, it plays itself for laughs at the expense of many other things, but it does it so well it works nonetheless. Iron Man 3 is both missable and forgettable, but you can’t exactly go wrong with it - it’s still a good, fun, funny movie. But that’s all it is - so don’t go in looking for more, or you’ll only be disappointed.