Iron man 3 makes the most sense when you stop thinking of it as a movie altogether and more as a very, very adept marketing tool.
This film, much like its predecessors, is mostly entertaining but thoroughly disposable. It’s less a superhero epic and more of a comedy posing as an action movie -- indeed, the Iron Man franchise has largely come to be defined by its inability to take itself too seriously. This often raises the question, “Is there anything wrong with that?” Why can’t this film simply be a collection of jazzy special effects and witty banter? Isn’t there a place in this world for such stories?
I enjoy hollow entertainment as much as the next guy -- I’m almost embarrassed to admit I’ve seen all of the Fast and Furious movies and may be more excited than I should be for Fast 6. I even watched GI Joe: Retaliation in the theaters. And I enjoyed it! But there is a subtle difference between what Marvel is planning -- and achieving -- with its prized collection of characters and what other movie franchises do. Namely, Marvel can’t afford to kill off any of its characters as the death of any major player would throw a huge wrench into the future plans of the money-printing empire that is Marvel Studios. Make no mistake, at the end of day, Iron Man 3 is nothing more than a 130 minute advertisement for The Avengers 2.
This may sound like a stupid point but let me elaborate. The fact that superheroes -- or any character at that -- can’t die not only inherently makes them less interesting, but also makes the stories exponentially more bland. The reasons are simple. For one, no one wants to see a hero fail -- this would prove especially detrimental to all the merchandisers, advertisers, corporate stakeholders, and not to mention, the children in the audience who look up to the character. Second, a hero’s death would (logically) mean that the story has come to an end. There would be no possibility for sequels -- although I suppose prequels and remakes would still be on the table.
If you pigeonhole a story into one dimension -- the villain must die and the hero must live, at all costs! -- all stories will eventually blend into one another, playing as nothing more than diminished echoes of one another. This means that writers struggle mightily with establishing real stakes, real threats. Should the villain threaten the city with a nuclear warhead or threaten the world with a biological virus? It doesn’t actually matter! Let’s just do both and in the end, the hero destroys the warhead, inoculates everyone, and in the process, saves all the starving children and lost puppies in the world too!
This is the problem Iron Man 3 runs into -- it’s so focused on advertising Stark’s quips that its plot becomes so contrived that no one can follow who or what the villain is or wants, much less actually feel threatened. There’s something to do with an identity switch, taking the President of the United States hostage, and creating human bombs? When Stark summons and remote controls over 40 of his precious suits in the film’s climax, all I felt was an overwhelming sense of confusion, devoid of any thrills or danger.
This might sound trite but my biggest gripe with the Iron Man movies has been Tony Stark’s vulnerability, or lack thereof. A man in a suit of armor sounds like an easy sell on paper; but it’s a difficult character to crack on screen. I imagine the original conceit of the Tony Stark character hid his demons behind his flippant comedy -- a tortured soul putting on a jester’s mask for the world. But at some point, the Stark character slowly devolved into someone who couldn’t take himself seriously. As a result, I couldn’t take the stories seriously. I wonder if Tony Stark, hidden not only behind an impenetrable suit of armor, but also behind a growingly flip attitude, even believes he’s ever in any real danger? Because the films, for all their good and bad, sure don't make me feel much of anything.
