Iron Man isn’t a comic character I followed growing up: I was more of a Spider-man guy. That said, I greatly enjoyed watching Robert Downey, Jr. fall into Tony Stark, arguably the perfect role for Downey’s playboy-esque manner and bravado.  The first movie centered on Stark’s survival at the hands of Afghan terrorists, then converting his military-reliant weapons and technology business into a peace-driven venture, helping to wipe away the decades of damage wrought by himself and his father before him.  The second outing for the character, Iron Man 2, focused on Stark’s new-found celebrity, as he coped with the fact that the world knows that he’s Iron Man.  To be honest, I didn’t care for the second one all that much, but upon a second viewing awhile back, it grew on me a bit.

Enter Iron Man 3, the first post-Avengers movie featuring, well, an Avenger.  The first Iron Man movie helped pave the way for Marvel to bring The Avengers to the big screen (and it was awesome…), and now, with the third movie in the franchise, it’s all about Tony Stark coming to grips with the aftermath of the events in last year’s hit.

That is to say, a lot of this movie deals with Stark enduring something akin to PTSD.  Like…a lot of this movie.

I don’t mean the movie’s bad, but there’s a lot of comedy to it, a lot of character interactions, a lot of Tony Stark and how he deals with the world around him.  But I didn’t think there was all that much Iron Man in it.  Sure, he was walking around in the suit (or dragging it behind him…), but even when he was in the suit, he was literally just walking around, chit-chatting, making jokes…not actually being Iron Man. Heck, he nearly didn’t fly until the end of the movie.  Most of the action scenes dealt with Tony: not with Iron Man.

The performances by the actors were all superb, as always.  The effects were great.  I saw it in IMAX 3D, and while I can recommend the “IMAX” part of that, I didn’t think the “3D” was all that necessary.  If you want to see it in any normal digital theater, you probably won’t miss much.  Still, I can’t say the 3D detracted from my experience at all.

The story wasn’t even bad, necessarily.  It kinda returned to the “foreign terrorist” feel from the first movie, along with another baddie from Stark’s past (played by Guy Pierce, who I thought did a decent job…though Ben Kingsley should have had more to do, in my opinion).  But there were so many threads going, between the PTSD line, the Pierce line, the Kingsley line, the relationship with Pepper Potts (Gwenyth Paltrow), the Iron Patriot stuff, and others that focusing on fewer threads may have helped solidify the story a bit better.

Seriously, why Iron Patriot?  It was barely featured, yet it seems like a big deal was made of it in all the marketing.  Why?

So, in the end, I’m glad I saw it, but the first movie still reigns supreme.  Perhaps I’ll like this one better on a second run-through, but for now, I’m just considering this one “so-so.”

Good thing Star Trek: Into Darkness comes out next week.

In an effort to express my “anticipation level” for this movie, let me first point out that I read the book, “The Hobbit,” for the first time this Fall, and I re-watched the “extended edition” versions of “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy over Christmas Break (about 11 hours of content, give or take).  It’s about as “prepared” as I could get.  Having just read the book, I was at a loss to explain how exactly they were going to turn a relatively short book into another three movies.

Surprisingly, “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” didn’t really feel all that long to me.  Yes, it’s longer than it needs to be (running time is 169 min), but I’m honestly surprised that it gets you about a third of the way into the book, while also “filling in some gaps” that are left out, in tying it more closely with “The Lord of the Rings” (henceforth referred to as “LotR”…).

Perhaps I should back up a step.   “LotR” covers the adventures of a hobbit, Frodo Baggins, and his crew as they attempt to destroy the Ring of Power so it cannot be used by the evil Lord Sauron to take over Middle Earth.  Frodo obtains this ring from his uncle, Bilbo Baggins, but we aren’t really told how he got it, except that another character, Gollum, had it before Bilbo and desperately wants it back.  The book, “The Hobbit,” was actually published almost 20 years before “LotR,” and it contains the back story for how Bilbo got the Ring.  In movie form, it’s being presented as a prequel, even though  the book was actually published long before.

To be honest, going through the story here isn’t going to be all that interesting.  It follows the book, but also includes a few additional scenes with actors from “LotR,” including Ian Holm and Elijah Wood, and others from the movies.  Unfortunately, in this case, they’re looking quite a bit older than they did in “LotR” (perhaps I did a disservice by re-watching them a few weeks ago…), even though in this film, they’re shown prior to the events of “LotR.”  Ian McKellen also looks remarkably older, despite the presence of a huge beard, though it’s worse in some scenes and barely noticeable in others.

Generally speaking, the acting was great, the pacing was slow at times, but was far better than I expected, and the effects were spectacular.  Seriously, they were good 10 years ago, but it’s noticeable how far the technology has come to the point where CGI and “real life” blend together better than before.  Again, there really isn’t anything special to mention here as, if you saw the previous movies, you should know what to expect.  Though, I should note that the CGI work on Gollum is pretty spectacular, and has really come a long way in 10 years.  I’ve read some complaints (in relation to the “48 fps” debate…) about the quality of the makeup and the props though, personally, I didn’t think the effects in that regard were that bad.  Maybe here and there, but certainly not offensive.

We saw the movie in 48 fps IMAX 3D, which is something of an “experiment” in modern filmmaking.  Briefly, most movies are filmed/shown in 24 fps (“frames per second”), so this movie was filmed in twice that.  This change has the effect of displaying more images to your eyes in the same amount of time, making all the motion look smoother and more vibrant, but also having the side-effect of losing “motion blur” that is sometimes helpful in disguising “plastic-y” looking props.  Needless to say, film critics either love or hate this, depending on who you ask.  If you ask me, I didn’t notice anything bad about it, yet then again, I was watching the movie “as the director intended.”  It was good 3D, it didn’t hurt my eyes or give me a headache, and I thought the 3D effects were added in sparingly, yet effectively.  If anything, 3D should be easier on your eyes at this frame rate.  You don’t need to see the movie in 3D to enjoy it, but for my part, I just wanted to see it at 48 fps and see what the fuss is all about.

If there’s any problem I’ve got with “The Hobbit,” it’s that the story didn’t really “grab” me.  I could say the same thing about “Fellowship of the Ring,” the first movie of the previous trilogy, but I think part of the reason is that, during that first viewing, you’re trying to keep track of a lot of characters at one time.  At least in “Fellowship,” they were pretty distinct and easy to remember (e.g. the elf, the dwarf, the ranger, the wizard, etc.).  In this movie, they’re almost all dwarves, and I couldn’t tell you what any of their names are.  Granted, there are only a few people you’re “supposed” to care about at this point, but some of those dwarves get a bit more focus later on in the book.  We’ll have to see how it plays out, and I can’t see how they could avoid this problem, but it deserves mention.

In the end, I’m glad I saw it and I’m glad I saw it in 48 fps 3D.  Is it better than the movies from the previous trilogy?  Hard to say, without the next two movies available to get the full comparison.  The first movie of the previous trilogy was the weakest of the three, in my opinion, and it could very well hold true for this one as well.

But if it says anything, I’m still looking forward to the next one.

After some pretty dire financial troubles for MGM, the holder of the James Bond franchise, they finally got around to producing and releasing the newest iteration in the series, Skyfall, with Daniel Craig reprising the role in time for the 50th Anniversary of Bond movies.  The reviews have been pretty spectacular, and as I enjoyed the previous outings, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, I expected to be blown away.  To be honest, I think it’s a very strong movie, perhaps the strongest in some key areas, but in the end, I still prefer Casino Royale, so far as Daniel Craig Bond movies go.

The movie is centered around an attack on MI6, the British secret service organization Bond works for.  The “attack” in question spans multiple components, from collecting the secret identities of agents (and assassinating them), to a bombing, to targeting MI6 officials directly, and so on.  In short: someone intimately familiar with the inner-workings of MI6 is out to get them (for reasons you can probably guess…), and it’s up to James Bond to stop them.

The trouble is, many of these attacks are built upon new ways of thinking.  A brave new world of espionage that has emerged in the last decade, one that the Sean Connery-era James Bond wouldn’t know the first thing about how to deal with.  It is this theme that permeates the movie, possibly most evident from his interactions with the new “Q” (Ben Whishaw), a much, much younger tech nerd who seems like more of a hacker than a gadget producer.  There’s even a clever crack about how Q Branch doesn’t make exploding pens anymore, a callback to an earlier era where brute force and explosions were an effective deterrent to terrorists.  In today’s world, however, the terrorists don’t have to come within a few hundred miles to wreak havoc: they can do it from any computer screen.

Thus, much of the movie centers around the theme of James Bond being old and broken, useless in a today’s world.  At the same time, that “new world” doesn’t know how to deal with a relic like James Bond, so the tension rises accordingly, leading to a few striking action scenes and some strong (and creepy…) moments between Craig and the villain, played by Javier Bardem.  To be honest, I wanted a bit more “action” out of this movie, as I thought the previous movies had more “Bond moments” and more spectacular sequences (don’t get me wrong, they’re still there, but there just aren’t as many).  At the same time, as is the message for the movie, this is a different time and it calls for a different Bond.  Less action, more intrigue, and surprisingly little “Bond Babe” activity.  Indeed, Daniel Craig was shirtless for longer in this movie than there were actual romance scenes to hold it in, a far cry from previous films.

In some ways, I see this more as a Bourne Identity-style spy movie, where there are action scenes, but much of it centers on the story and the characters.  This isn’t a bad thing by any stretch, but it isn’t necessarily a Bond thing, either.

So, that’s where I fall on it.  As a “Bond Movie,” I prefer Casino Royale.  As a movie, I think it was very strong, had good writing, had good action, had a good payoff in the end, and had some excellent callbacks to Dr. No.  It’s absolutely worth seeing, Craig is still a wonderful James Bond, and the producers have proven they can not only make a whiz-bang action flick, but can also take a more serious look at where in the world the character of “James Bond” fits.  If anything, it proves the character is still relevant, but also that an old dog can most definitely learn some new tricks.