Category Archives: Sci-Fi

It’s finally the beginning of summer – and just for good measure, the moviegoing season opens with one of my most-anticipated films this year. Though I certainly wasn’t familiar with Iron Man prior to his big-budget cinematic debut, he’s quickly become one of the most entertaining characters in Marvel’s ever-swelling arsenal of superheroes…thanks in large part to Robert Downey Jr.’s winning portrayal. Needless to say, I was pretty excited about “Iron Man 3.”

And indeed, it’s a rousing sci-fi/action flick that concludes hero’s story arc in fine fashion. It’s a strong finale…but falls just short of brilliance.

The film picks up shortly after the events of “The Avengers.” Tony Stark (Iron Man’s billionaire-playboy-philanthropist alter ego) is traumatized by flashbacks from the battle of New York, to say nothing of the looming threat from a terrorist identified only as “The Mandarin” (Ben Kingsley). To further muddy the waters, rogue scientist Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) has resurfaced, after a twelve-year hiatus, with a mysterious new “wonder drug.” Killian’s Extremis promises to allow the user to regenerate lost body tissue…but there may be a terrifying (and fiery) price attached.

Technically, it’s great – and a cut above its predecessor. RDJ’s performance is as fantastic as expected, and the special effects never overwhelm the human drama. That said, I only wish it had taken the chance to delve deeper into some of the questions it raises.

It’s not hard to interpret the “Extremis” concept as a metaphor for insidious ideology (heck, all you have to do is stick an “m” or “t” on the end). In an early scene, Aldrich Killian describes the Extremis drug as filling a void inside the brain…a slot “designed” for such an infusion. In other words, human beings are quite literally completed by a powerful, burning force that promises to restore the parts of themselves they have lost.

This is a potentially brilliant concept. One of the biggest weaknesses in the “Iron Man” films (and indeed, in Marvel’s superhero lineup as a whole) has been the failure to develop a truly iconic ensemble of antagonists.

The most terrifying villains are those fueled by non-self-serving interests (this is something Christopher Nolan’s “Batman” movies exploited brilliantly). People who sincerely believe they are in the right, pursuing a grand ideological goal beyond their personal ambition, can’t often be fought via strength of arms. Conflicts over principles, rather than mere immediate power, drive the stories that are truly outstanding. (Why is Heath Ledger’s Joker so scary? Precisely because he can’t be “bought, bullied, or reasoned with.”)

“Iron Man 3” hints at a willingness to develop this. In several intense sequences, seemingly innocent civilians turn out to be infected with Extremis…making it virtually impossible to trust anyone. This is precisely what makes films like “The Dark Knight” and TV shows like “The Following” so menacing: a pervasive sense of dread, stemming from the very amorphousness of the enemy. After all, how can you fight a force – religious, ideological, or utopian – that can’t be punched, burned, or tossed in prison? Furthermore, director Shane Black draws in a steady stream of parallels with the War on Terror (most notably when one of Stark’s allies, girded in red-white-and-blue “Iron Patriot” armor, breaks into a Pakistani sweatshop). Threatening videos released by the Mandarin are clearly patterned after those put out by al-Qaeda and its affiliates. When coupled with the Extremis element, it’s not hard to read “Iron Man 3” as a cogent study of worldview clash.

(Some spoilers follow)

Unfortunately, Black jettisons these elements as the film progresses toward the inevitable bang-bang-bang conclusion. It soon becomes clear that the entire Extremis plot is simply a mad-scientist scheme from weapons developer Killian. (A striking tableau, in which the Iron Patriot is suspended crucifix-style over a flaming abyss, drives this point home with a sledgehammer: obviously, the military-industrial complex is crucifying America.) Even the Mandarin himself turns out to be somewhat…less intimidating…than one would expect. In “Iron Man 3,” real intellectual complexity simply doesn’t materialize as well as one might hope. (This is exacerbated by the constant use of glib one-liners, which occasionally serve to cripple the film’s dramatic tension.) By the time the credits roll, Tony Stark has yet to face an enemy fueled not by power-lust or greed, but by belief. And that is perhaps an unfortunate concession to popcorn-movie palatability.

To be fair, all of this is much deeper than what most superhero films even try to accomplish, so “Iron Man 3” is to be commended in that regard. And none of the foregoing discussion should be read to imply that “Iron Man 3” isn’t worth watching. The action scenes are great – really great. Certain sequences do bear a passing resemblance to “Transformers,” but they never become pointlessly cacophonous. Overall, the film is immensely entertaining, anchored by strong performances and effects, and eminently quotable. (In fact, it’s probably a better movie than last summer’s “The Avengers”). And, honestly, there’s something to be said for a little levity in an increasingly dark-and-edgy genre.

So, in the end, go see “Iron Man 3” (especially if you’re a superhero movie aficionado). Just don’t expect much complexity.

VERDICT: 8.5/10
A worthy capstone to a solid superhero saga, marred only by a few missed opportunities for greater depth.

Normalized Score: 6.9

It’s been way too long since I posted a movie review, I know; honestly, it’s been a quiet couple of months on the filmgoing front. A lot of the more philosophically-inclined movies out now (“To the Wonder” and “The Place Beyond the Pines” spring to mind) are in limited release, leaving the multiplexes stocked with mindless brain-candy. That said, Joseph Kosinski’s sci-fi epic “Oblivion” looked promising…and at the very least, visually breathtaking.

Visually breathtaking it may be…but alas, profound it is not.

Without giving away too many spoilers, “Oblivion” is the story of drone repairman Jack Harper (Tom Cruise). A costly war with the extraterrestrial “Scavengers” has left the world in ruins, and most of Earth’s population has migrated to an orbiting space station. The power needed to fuel said station comes from a series of hydroelectric power generators defended by automated “drones” (hovering sentinels fitted with machineguns) – these drones protect against possible attacks from leftover Scavenger packs. Harper, along with partner and erstwhile lover Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) soon learns that the postapocalyptic world holds a compromising secret – one that will force him to reevaluate his own identity.

To start with the positives: “Oblivion” is visually majestic. Shot in Iceland, the film mercifully refrains from an abusive overload of CGI effects, preferring to focus instead on gorgeous wasteland panoramas and natural scenery. That’s not to say there’s not plenty of sci-fi action (there certainly is, especially toward the end), but this is a good example of a movie that uses digital effects to complement (rather than supplant) real-world cinematography. Tom Cruise (channeling the sci-fi seeker-of-truth he embodied in “Minority Report”) also turns in a compelling performance.

It’s unfortunate, then, that Cruise’s character is the only one to get much development. Virtually all of the film’s secondary figures are introduced and tossed aside with little fanfare…even the legendary Morgan Freeman is criminally underused. Furthermore, there are some fascinating philosophical ideas at play beneath the surface here – what constitutes the human soul? are humans more than simply the sum total of their memories and experiences? are self-sacrificial actions based on a transcendent set of moral standards? – but sadly these elements play second fiddle to a generic Hollywood conclusion. As “Oblivion” draws toward a close, one would be forgiven for wondering if the writers had simply run out of original material (the climax pilfers left and right from “The Matrix,” “Independence Day,” and “2001: A Space Odyssey”). The film’s turgidly paced second half squanders the capital built up by its introduction – though the movie clocks in at only two hours, it feels far longer.

That’s a real shame, because “Oblivion” starts out so well. From an aesthetic standpoint, it’s a sophisticated, engaging, and beautifully crafted piece of filmmaking. The plot, however, is a sprawling agglomeration of concepts and story devices that never quite coheres satisfactorily. It’s one thing to be complex and ambitious; it’s quite another to generate a great setup and offer a weak payoff.

(I would say more, but pretty much anything I write after this point is going to give away major plot developments).

That said, is it still worth seeing?

Suffice it to say that I was never bored; “Oblivion” is an entertaining popcorn blockbuster that, to be fair, is actually a pretty good movie. My disappointment is more centered on “what might have been” than what actually turns up onscreen. Kosinski is a talented director, and it shows. Anyone expecting “Prometheus”-caliber material won’t find it here, but “Oblivion” is a solid prelude to the summer movie season.

VERDICT: 6.5/10
An entertaining but insubstantial sci-fi action flick.

Normalized Score: 2.4