Movie Review: Iron Man 3 (2013)

If I didn't know any better, I would think that Iron Man 3 was intended to be a satire on the hypocrisy of US foreign policy, or, possibly, a propaganda piece. Examining the protagonists and antagonists reveals many interesting similarities, as does comparing the actual US government to that in the film.

Let us consider Aldrich Killian (played by Guy Pearce), who is portrayed as the "bad guy" because he seeks to influence the vice president by offering a cure to his daughter's disabilities (as well as assassinate the president in order to put the vice president in a more powerful position). Why? He wants the US government to be involved in more conflicts so that he can make money as a military contractor. This is, indeed, evil, but how different does that make him than Tony Stark/Ironman? Stark is a rich playboy who made his billions as a...military contractor. Both Killian and Stark make money by selling weapons and other war materiel to governments that kill hundreds of thousands of people. Is there really anything that morally separates them? If there is, it seems that the film would have you believe it is the fact that Stark saves the president of the United States. I'm not sure why it is the case, but it seems that Hollywood would have us believe that the lives of government officials, above all the president, are much more important than those of the rest of us.   

Also interesting is the movie's apparent commentary on the US government. Similar to reality, the fictional government engages in various forms of euphemisms, changing the name of Col. Rhodes' armored suit from "War Machine" to "Iron Patriot" since the latter is considered better for public relations. This is all part of making war, one of the most destructive and death-inducing activities of mankind, more acceptable to the public. Likewise, the US government prefers the term "collateral damage" when the US military causes the deaths of civilians, and "enhanced interrogation techniques" for actions that used to be known as "torture."

Currently, the US government intervenes in the affairs of many countries with very little protest from Americans, even though nearly all Americans wouldn't stand for a foreign government doing something similar here. Does Iron Man 3 condone this hypocrisy? In the film, Iron Patriot breaks into the homes of foreigners, threatening them with guns. This scene is portrayed in a comedic manner as if the rights of foreigners are of no consequence. Or, when he breaks into a garment factory, the women working in it express their gratitude as if he is their great liberator, rather than a foreign invader. It almost seems like something out of a recruitment commercial, that whatever the military is, it is above all  a "global force for good."

Ultimately, though, I don't think the creators of Iron Man 3 had any intention of making any political commentary; they simply regurgitated common ideas: foreign intervention is virtuous, the military-industrial complex is an acceptable way to become rich, and the president's life being threatened creates instant drama, even if we have no other reason to care about him besides the fact that he is the president. The goal here, rather, is to milk as much money as possible from the Avengers franchise, nothing more. They will likely continue to churn out superhero movies as long as their revenues are greater than expenditures. And that's ok; not every film has to be an Oscar winner. But one would hope that movies would have at least some consciousness of the world in which they are being created and not simply acquiesce in being apologists for US foreign policy.

Guy Pearce Double Feature: Lockout (2012) and Lawless (2012)

There is almost something charming about how cliche the trailer of this movie is: The president's daughter has been kidnapped but there is one "loose cannon" crazy enough to try and save her. Every attractive young female needs to be put in distress and every B.A. renegade needs such motivation in order to take action, lest any display of actually caring puts his B.A. apathy credentials in question. Despite what is is, Guy Pearce plays his part convincingly, or at least in a way that kept me interested. He is paired with Maggie Grace of Taken fame, who also gets the job done.

For full disclosure, it's been over four months since I watched this movie, and it wasn't particularly memorable. The US president's daughter is visiting a prison colony in space and there is a breakout. In order to preserve his freedom, the state forces Snow (Pierce), a CIA agent, to go to the colony and rescue her. Snow agrees, and the bulk of the movie is him doing this as well as making a contact with an inmate who has information about a briefcase that proves Snow's innocence. There are some good action scenes, but overall I didn't find the film particularly engaging; why should I care about this woman? What's really at stake should Snow fail?

In the end, Lockout is a slightly above average sci-fi action movie that did its job of entertaining me during an international flight. I have no desire to watch it again, but just recall it with B.A.-like indifference.

Despite all of the big names in Lawless, I'm not sure the film has much content of artistic value. Its main accomplishment seems to be how skillfully it can show progressively escalating and increasingly shocking acts of violence. I suppose this helps tell story. But if there is anything of redeeming "social value" that this film has, I believe it is reminding us of the inevitable consequences of prohibition.

The economics of prohibition follow a predictable pattern. It leads to less competition among producers (or, more accurately, it encourages undesirable forms of competitiveness: instead of competition coming in the form of reducing prices or providing a higher quality product, it comes primarily in the form of who can best apply violence to maintain market share and settle disputes). Why? Because its black market nature cuts off access to legal forms of redress; you can't exactly resolve your dispute with your drug dealer in court. Also, since there is really no identifiable victim, law enforcement can much more easily turn a blind eye to it  (for a price) without much outcry. This is where Guy Pearce comes in. And he does a great job of making you hate him.

Local law enforcement doesn't have the power to stop the Bondurant family from selling moonshine, but why should they want to since they get a cut of the profits? Pierce comes into town as a federal law enforcement official and promptly demands a much higher take of the Bondurant's revenue. This leads to the aforementioned escalating acts of violence, until it meets an inevitable resolution. And that is an adequate summary of the movie.

There isn't much else beyond this besides watching Shia Labeouf and Tom Hardy attempt to woo various women. I just don't feel like it told much of a story and therefore would have a hard time recommending it.