marvel movies

Avengers Endgame: Coming to an Epic Close

by letusgotothemovies

So, this is it. The culmination of stories spread across 21 movies. The Endgame. If someone had told me six months ago that I would be this excited for a superhero movie, I would’ve laughed. Six months later, I’m just so glad I got into the genre. The journey has opened up a new universe (literally) for me. Celebrating the end of this journey was a completely different ballgame. I couldn’t get the tickets to an IMAX 3D show on the opening weekend, and I was naturally upset. Of course, this meant that I was watching the movie twice. At least.

That being said, let’s talk Endgame. There is a lot to say here. The movie left me with many questions and many, many feelings. Let us first get the negatives out of the way. The movie is not perfect. The pacing and narrative are a little choppy which makes the film seem slow in the first half. The first half of the film is largely about getting the avengers to assemble and figure out their plan. It tells a number of emotional stories of how each of the Avengers are dealing with the loss of half the universe. A universe that they vowed to protect. In the end, Tony Stark and Bruce Banner are the only people who have accepted this new reality (sort of). Starks relationship with his daughter is particularly endearing (“I love you 3000”? Come on!) Thor’s self-destructive behaviour, a radical departure from his usual macho self is a welcome turn. It makes the movie feel much more realistic and relatable. These stories were great and made me invested in the characters all over again. The build-up was essential for a movie this intense and emotional. But it made the first half feel slow. It is not boring, but I kept thinking to myself, when is a big action sequence coming up? And this is coming from someone who doesn’t think of herself as a fan of action movies (at least so far).

The other problem with Endgame is that for a large chunk of the movie, the Avengers aren’t dealing with an antagonist. Thanos realises that the Avengers are going to use the infinity stones to derail his plan of mass genocide a good few minutes into the movie. The Avengers don’t face off with him until later. This means the Avengers, already set up to be the “Earth’s mightiest heroes,” are not being challenged by an external antagonist as they do their jobs. The heroes barely display their powers. While there is a lot of emotion, we don’t see much avenging for a long time.

There are also a couple unanswered questions in the movie. For one, time travel. I hate when films use time travel because the physics of it cannot be soundly explained and it leaves me with more questions than I know what to do with. What happens to the alternate timelines created by the Avengers’ actions when they go back in time. What does Cap’s decision to life his life with Peggy mean for the universe? Furthermore, when and how did Cap become worthy to lift Mjolnir?

Lastly, I didn’t quite like the treatment of Black Widow and Hawkeye. I love both of these characters, and while they are integral to this film, their arc doesn’t feel as complete as that of the others. Black Widow’s big scene was in Vormir, when she sacrifices herself so Hawkeye could get the Soul Stone. One of the highlights of Infinity War was the scene where Thanos sacrifices Gamora to get the soul stone. It was deeply emotional and helped demonstrate the significance of the stone. When this scene was recreated in Endgame, the bar was set very high. Unfortunately, the scene missed the same emotional intensity. Black Widow’s death was incredibly sad, but treated better, it could have been one of the best scenes in the movie. Similarly, Hawkeye’s turn for the unhinged was a bit of a downer. Like Thor, Hawkeye cannot come to terms with his new reality and changes radically. Only in his case, the change feels much less organic. I cant understand this new Hawkeye, because I don’t know what he is feeling. True, Hawkeye is a doer, but I wish the film would’ve given the audience more of an insight into his mind and heart.

I know I am being nit-picky. I wish the emotional scenes had action and the action scenes more emotion. But Endgame isn’t just any old movie, is it? It represents the end of an era for true fans, and the directors, Anthony and Joe Russo, have made it suitably grand. There are more than a few great shots and scenes. The shots of outer space, for instance, filled me with awe. The fight between Captain America and his older self from 2012 is awesome. The shot where they clash shields is one of my favourites from the MCU. Of course, when Cap yells, “Avengers, assemble!” a big smile swept across my face. And of course, there is the big action sequence towards the end of the film. Whatever misgivings I had about the paucity of action in the movie simply disappeared as soon as that scene began. It is grand and nostalgic and features every character from the MCU. Some characters get more attention than the others, but I guess in a film this big that comes with the territory. These scenes and shots, however, are simply embellishments on what is a solid movie. The film’s real strength comes from getting the audience invested in the characters. It is so easy to focus on the powers the characters possess rather than the people they are. Endgame avoids that trap by a mile. Instead it presents us with three-dimensional characters who have grown, both since their first films in the MCU and within the movie itself. Since it is impossible to do this for all the characters in a three-hour long movie, the film chooses to focus on the three main Avengers – Thor, Captain America and Iron Man.

Take the case of Iron Man. I never much liked his character (I know, I know, it’s an unpopular opinion). I thought he was too arrogant and quippy. After the first Iron Man movie, when he reveals to the world that he is Iron Man, it is largely another feather in his cap. He is not just a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist, but also a literal superhero. Over the years, he understands the responsibility he has on his shoulders because of his suit both towards his fellow Avengers and to the people affected by his actions. Thor transforms from a brutish fighter to a protector of nine realms to realising the magnitude of his own power to languishing in despair when he finds that his power isn’t enough. Over the years, Captain America sheds some of his old fashioned, military man personality and begins to question authority. He goes from being just a supersoldier to becoming an Avenger who keeps the interests of the universe at heart. These are changes that the Avengers and other MCU movies have showed us over the years.

Endgame completes the arcs for these characters. It does so by making these characters dig deep into their feelings. Additionally, Banner finally reconciles with the Hulk and the characters work together to become mutually beneficial to each other. Thor and Stark get to reconnect with their (dead) parents. Iron Man – or shall we say Howard Potts – who had always been distant from his father gets a chance to spend some time with him and learn how much he is loved. Frigga’s counsel helps Thor accept his failure and move on from it. The drunk and sloppy Thor returns from Asgard as the God of Thunder with his beloved Mjolnir. Cap gets to see Peggy again and gets glimpse of the life he lost. These backstories are important because they dictate the course of the characters’ actions for the remainder of the movie. Thor sheds his sloppy avatar and returns to battle as the fighter he is. Cap understands the magnitude of his sacrifices over the years and accepts that he needs to live for himself, and not just for his duties as Captain America. That explains his decision to live his life with Peggy as Steve Rogers and pass on the mantle of Captain America to Falcon. Stark realises that his father loved him very much, but he had to do the work he was supposed to. When it comes time to sacrifice himself, Stark – initially reluctant to re-join the Avengers for the fear of losing his own family – then fully accepts the responsibilities that come with his suit and comes through for the Avengers and the universe. After all, he is Iron Man. Despite the paucity of action in the first half of the movie and the disappointing character arcs of Black Widow and Hawkeye, Endgame’s ability to make me care about the characters the way it did left me feeling a multitude of emotions at the end of the movie.

I think I can safely say that Avengers: Endgame was exactly the sort of ending that this phase of the MCU needed. And what a ride it has been! When else have you seen twenty-one inter-connected stories come together in one great movie? Starting to follow these movies has given me one more thing to love and be excited by. And that is absolutely wonderful. I can wait to see what Phase 4 has to offer.

 

 

Thor: Ragnarok – Giving Thor a movie he deserves

by letusgotothemovies

Okay, this movie is a little different. Unlike the previous Thor movies that were grim in their tone, Thor: Ragnarok is an out and out comedy and a full-blown entertainer. From the very outset, the film demands that the viewer buy into this premise to fully immerse himself/herself into the film. This took me a while to get used to. For instance, in my first two viewings of the film, I couldn’t quite get used to Led Zeppelin’s Immigrant Song in the background during the first and final battle scenes. Battles, after all, are supposed to be serious affairs with a few light moments peppered in to ease the audience. The MCU has established that. Ragnarok breaks this mould. And once you buy into its tone, you really appreciate the difference. You even enjoy Immigrant Song and play it on a loop for days after the fact. Ragnarok is supposed to be the end of worlds. But there is no time for doom and gloom here. The movie leaves you feeling satisfied. A large part of this has to do with the development of the two central characters in the movie – Thor and Loki.

Let us start by analysing Thor. Until this movie we have seen him transform from a brutish fighter who would punch his way into and out of dangerous situations to a man who understands the purpose of governance, understands that he isn’t interested in taking on that responsibility and continuing to work as a soldier for the nine realms. But so far, we don’t really understand who Thor is. In trying to write this review, I was struggling to write about his journey. I kept taking breaks, disappointed that I hadn’t completely understood my favourite superhero. In one of those breaks I happened to watch a YouTube video about the movie. It made me realise that Thor doesn’t really have an arc so far. Ragnarok tries to remedy that by stripping the character of his paraphernalia – the throne of Asgard, Jane, his hammer – and exploring the man underneath. In an interview, director Taika Waititi said that he saw the story of Ragnarok as that of a man trying to find his way home. That man just happens to be a demi-god trying to stop the Goddess of Death from taking over his country. In the process, he discovers who he is and what it is that he values.

The first thing we notice in Ragnarok is that Thor seems much more human this time around. He no longer speaks in an archaic manner like a king from the past. He is funny, a bit stupid at times and sees himself as part of a social group outside of the palace (Remember when he calls the Hulk a “friend from work”)? Thor’s interactions with the Avengers have humanised him over the years, and the changes in his personality aren’t out of place. As the film goes on, we understand this character more. Unlike when the character was first introduced, Thor doesn’t seek out conflict. But he is essentially a fighter. Even without Mjolnir to help him, Thor is determined to break out of Sakaar and return to Asgard to try and save his home. This is perhaps best exemplified in the battle between Thor and the Hulk in Sakaar. When he realises that Banner isn’t going to recognise him and his only way out is to fight the Hulk, Thor puts up an impressive fight for his life and for the chance to leave the planet. This is also the scene gives a new layer to Thor the superhero.  When he shoots lightning at the Hulk, we see a new version of Thor who is ready to kick ass. But the audience and the character don’t realise the significance of this moment until much later in the film. Only after receiving counsel from his father (and losing an eye) does he realise that he is the God of Thunder, and as the God of Thunder he can harness lightning. He doesn’t need Mjolnir or anything else to defend himself and Asgard. This is a pivotal moment in the character’s arc. From being a warrior prince who chose Mjolnir as his coronation present and didn’t seem to amount to much without the hammer to a fighter who realises who he truly is, Thor has finally come a long way.

Furthermore, the film explores the meaning of home and nation in a much more significant way than any of the MCU films before it have done. The movie begins with Thor trying to stop Ragnarok. According to Norse mythology, Ragnarok is the end of everything. It is when entire worlds are destroyed and the gods are killed. At the beginning of the movie, Thor believes he can stop Ragnarok, and the audience believes him. But when the Goddess of Death seems unstoppable even after Thor realises his might, Thor’s character takes yet another turn. First, he is confronted with his limits despite his significant powers. He realises that he cant defeat Hela. And the only way to do so would be to destroy his beloved Asgard along with Hela by causing Ragnarok. Second, he realises that the essence of Asgard was never the planet, but the people who live on it. If Asgardians live anywhere in the universe, he will have saved Asgard. At this point, Thor has learnt much about governance. He has stopped seeking out war (unlike Odin in his early years, whose actions ultimately cause Ragnarok.) He is powerful enough to protect the universe from threats. And he understands what his kingdom really is. When he takes his place as king – in the Grand Master’s spaceship with a rotating chair as his throne – we know he is worthy.

Let us now look at Loki. Unlike Thor, Loki has had a pretty well-defined character arc. In the first Thor movie, he realises that he has been raised by his father not as the prince of Asgard but as a pawn for political gains. His resentment for his father and brother comes to the forefront in The Avengers when he tries to take over the Earth by force. In Thor: The Dark World we that he became the trickster after his mother took him under her wing to teach him tricks so that he can stand up to Thor and his peers, who are physically stronger than him. We see him consumed by revenge after he breaks down when his mother dies (he unintentionally aids the murder of his mother.) He is easily one of the most interesting Marvel villains (really, one of two great Marvel movie villains – the other one being Thanos). He has certainly been one of my absolute favourite characters in the MCU. And it is not hard to see why. He is such a well-written, layered character. We feel his pain and want desperately for him to abandon his villainous pursuits, and every time he does just enough to keep us rooting for him, but also just enough to squarely place him in the villain category. I think the discrepancy between writing Thor and Loki comes from the original source of this material – Norse mythology. After watching the movie, I ended up reading Norse Mythology by Neil Gaiman. It is a collection of fables in Norse mythology and it tells us the stories of the Aesirs (gods and goddesses), frost giants, elves, dwarves and Asgard. It focuses primarily on the stories in the court of Asgard – stories of Odin, Thor and Loki. It is certainly an interesting read. Even in those stories, Loki is featured far more prominently than possibly any other character. His actions are described in great detail, as is his impact on Asgard. Loki is even painted in a somewhat sympathetic light where Thor is portrayed as boorish and thick. Even in the Thor movies, where he is the supporting character, Loki has a far superior arc to Thor. His story in Thor: The Dark World and the chemistry between Thor and Loki is perhaps the only reason I like that movie.

In Ragnarok we see yet another layer to this character which helps us understand him further. Unlike Thor, when Loki lands on Sakaar, he doesn’t try to fight his situation. Instead, he wins over the Grand Master and starts building a life there. Even when he goes to see Thor when the latter is captured, he describes to him a plan where the two brothers could take over the position of the Grand Master in time. We see that while Thor is a fighter, Loki is a survivor. Loki’s fraught relationship with his father coupled with the sense that he didn’t quite belong in the land he previously called home (the previous films show Loki as standing apart from Thor’s peer group) left him with little attachment for Asgard. Since his emotional needs were left unfulfilled, Loki uses his charm and cunning to keep afloat (albeit comfortably) rather than fight to get back what he lost. It is only when Thor tells him that he thought the world of him and that he imagined them fighting side by side does he feel the need to go back and fight for Asgard, and ultimately to join Thor on the spaceship to create a new Asgard.

Thor films have always been about excess. This film is no exception. But this is excess done right. Ragnarok develops what is integral to the Thor movies – a family saga – by helping the two central characters in the movie shine. Thor helps us understand the political responsibilities of the family, while Loki (over three films) showcases the family’s dysfunctional dynamic. But the film doesn’t stop there. It adds excellent supporting characters in the Hulk, Valkyrie and the Grand Master who take away from the grimness of a Shakespearean-style drama. Granted, Hela’s character could have been better developed. She was also a victim of Odin’s awful parenting, and could have been developed into a good villain like Loki. But honestly, I am satisfied enough with Thor, Loki and the absolute madness of the film to let this bit go.

I am so happy that Ragnarok turned out the way it did. Thor is my favourite superhero, and so far, he was left stagnating in the MCU. This film brings him into the forefront as a cool superhero, something the Russo brothers take forward in Infinity War. But more on that later. Right now, I am just going to sign off, satisfied knowing that my two favourite characters got a movie they always deserved.

 

 

Doctor Average

by letusgotothemovies

Doctor Strange has got a lot working for it. It’s the first sorcerer story in the MCU. The special effects are mostly visually stunning. The titular character is played by the beautiful Benedict Cumberbatch. It features another infinity stone. Music is used very well. And the plot is actually quite decent. But the promise of this film is left unfulfilled by poor writing. The writers have paid much attention to developing the character of Doctor Stephen Strange. Unfortunately, other parts of the story do not get a similar treatment. The movie is not as dumb as Ant-Man, but it gets close in parts.

Doctor Strange has a strange villain problem (#pungamestrong #Sorrynotsorry). It has two villains, and neither of them do justice to the film. From the very beginning of the film, we know Kaecilius is formidable. He also has a reasonably well-defined agenda. The problem is that he just lacks any personality or charisma. I couldn’t seem to care about him at all. The other antagonist is the Dark Lord Dormamu who wants to take over the Earth. I actively hated Dormammu. He is a piece of bad CGI and has no explicit motivation in his desire for the Earth. The conflict in this case relies exclusively on action in order to shine. To be fair, the special effects used are somewhat palliative in this case. It is a lot of fun to see different tricks being employed during action sequences. But I kept thinking how much better it would have been with a villain who made his presence felt or at least gave a damn. I also found Tilda Swinton’s character underwritten. I love Swinton’s presence in the movie, but her character also left me with more questions than answers. For instance, why did she have to draw power from the Dark Dimension? What did she do with those powers? Since the Dark Dimension is such a crucial part of the film, these questions definitely needed answering.

Now that I’ve finished hating on the movie, let me tell you what I absolutely loved – Benedict Cumberbatch shines in the movie. His character is extremely well written, and he essays the role perfectly. From the arrogant, almost insufferable doctor at the beginning of the movie, to a dedicated student of magic, to understanding that his gifts are not for his sake, but they are his to give to the world, Strange has a strong character arc. His evolution is what makes this film feel delightful when it does. It I also nice, I must say, to see an infinity stone being used strategically rather than being feared or weaponised. It shows that the infinity stones can be used in specific ways. Their power does not lie only in blowing things up (as shown in other movies).

Beyond this, I don’t have a lot to say for this movie. It’s a mid-range film through and through.

 

Captain America: The Winter Solider – Exploring the Limits of Neorealism

by letusgotothemovies

This Captain America movie? So much better than the one before it. Captain America’s character is written so that it fits in with the Idea of America. But in this film, rather than being self-righteous, America is being self-critical and cautious. This prevents the character from becoming a stereotype, and makes him rounded. As a result, he responds much more organically to the story which is what makes the film memorable. Captain America is working for SHIELD now, an international security organisation. When SHIELD is compromised, its Director, Nick Fury, approaches the Captain to help save the organisation’s secrets and thwart any attempt at mischief. The rest of the movie is about the Captain assembling a team to uncover the traitors within SHIELD.

I guess the only infuriating thing about the film was that Captain America didn’t take the one order Fury gave him, and what circumstances suggested he follow – don’t trust anyone. Instead he proceeds to form a team with Black Widow, Falcon and Agent Maria Hill in order to save the Earth. However, I think it would have been nearly impossible to have a Captain America movie otherwise. After all, the Captain does need an army he can lead. But this film went beyond the image of Captain America and explored the person behind the costume. Captain America was designed to fight the battles of the state without question. Steve Rogers, on the other hand, can ask tough questions (even to those in power). In addition to demonstrating that he’s more than a pawn, Captain America exposes the problem with a purely neorealist understanding of security.

Neorealism, in the most reductive sense, suggests that the natural order of the world is anarchy. And power is the currency of international relations. States, in order to survive, must strive to procure as much power as possible. Power, in the case, is measured by military superiority. So, the most powerful state in the international system is one with the most powerful military capability.

How does this relate to Captain America, you ask? Well, as Secretary of State, Alexander Pierce admits that he and Fury share a realist understanding of the world. That it is necessary to remain ready to fight at all times, even if that means pre-emptively striking potential enemy targets. In this case, the struggle for power is only not between states but against alien threats as well. To that effect, Fury commissioned three helicarriers with hundreds of jets capable of striking hostile forces. A neorealist understanding of international relations would laud such policy. But the Captain recognises this policy for what it is – the powerful holding a gun to everyone’s heads and calling it security.

Amassing weapons indiscriminately, ironically, can have adverse implications for security, as the film goes on to show. HYDRA, previously the deep science division of the Nazis, which later morphed into a worldwide terrorist organisation, had infiltrated SHIELD, and planned to use the weapons to kill millions of people and restore order to what they considered anarchy. Captain America’s solution was not only to foil HYDRA’s plans, but to dismantle the structures (albeit to a small extent) that subscribe to neorealist understandings of power. He calls for the dismantling of SHIELD to increase transparency and reduce temptation to develop advanced weapons programmes.

Captain America’s image promotes a much more positive Idea of America. This America is interested in cooperation and transparency, rather than amassing power. It stands against any party using power to bully the rest of the world, even in face of unimaginable threats. That endears the audience to the character and what he represents. Add to that a well-written story, and you’ve got yourself a thoroughly enjoyable film.

Thor: The Dark World – A film struggling to trim the fat

by letusgotothemovies

I really liked Thor: The Dark World, but I wanted to like it some more. Not unlike the last Thor movie, this one also suffers from overindulgence. It also suffers from poor imagination. And these two factors cast a shadow over an otherwise superb movie. Thor: The Dark World is the only film so far that has made me rewind and watch my favourite parts again. Honestly, if they would have trimmed the rest, this could have been one of the best movies in the MCU.

Why makes the great parts of this film so? I’ve said this before and I will say it again, Thor works so well as a family drama. It has all the right ingredients for it – squabbling siblings, parents playing favourites and keeping secrets from their children and a struggle for space within the family. In this case, the stakes are higher because the brothers are fighting for the throne of Asgard. The film takes the time to explore the personalities of Thor and Loki, their relationship as brothers and their relationships with their parents. And this translates into engagement with the audience. For instance, I felt Loki’s rage and grief when his mother died and he appeared a broken man. Similarly, in the scene wherein Loki and Thor fight the Dark Elves in Svartalfhiem, I felt the brothers being united in avenging their mother’s death even though they completely distrusted each other.

I wish they had only stuck to the family drama, though. Like Thor, this film also suffers from overindulgence. Here too, the love story between Jane and Thor feels forced. I forced myself to forget the utterly unconvincing notion that these characters fell in love in the previous movie. I tried to just take as a given that they’re in love. But even so, the love story simply doesn’t work. I think that is because Jane’s character is so underwritten. Yes, she has a lot of screen time, but I still didn’t get a sense of who she was. She is simply there to be rescued by Thor or to give Thor depth. Compare this to Frigga, who gets a lot less screen time, but I know everything I need to know of that character. I make this comparison to demonstrate that there was much potential for Jane’s character that was left unexplored. I also found Dr. Selvig’s research and his device to manipulate gravitational waves to provide a shortcut to a different realm like Svartalfhiem too far-fetched. In fact, Thor’s time on Earth made absolutely no difference to the film. Had the film just been set in the other realms and the changes caused by the alignment of the realms used as catalysts for the final action scene, the plot would have been much tighter.

In addition to overindulgence, the film also suffers from poorly imagined worlds. I understand the challenge of imagining an entirely new universe. And I am not mad that Asgard is so much like Earth. In fact, I even thought to myself that Asgard (for the most part) is so well imagined that I thought maybe it was Earth who borrowed Asgardian dress, customs and language. But this quickly falters when it comes to the army of the Dark Elves. There is no reason for that army to be brandishing gun-like weapons or wearing masks that look like spoofs of characters in superhero movies. For a race that is so unlike that of the human race, their weapons should have been different. Asgardian air force is also very poorly imagined. The rest of Asgardian military is equipped with swords and shields, but they have an air force that’s oddly similar to that on Earth? I wish they had come up with a new and creative look for the armies.

These negatives certainly bring the film down. But the good parts of the film simply shine. A good part of that has to do with the fact that Loki was given a much bigger part in the movie. So, while Thor: The Dark World does not come close to the top MCU movies, please excuse me while I go and re-watch the scenes between Loki and Thor for the fifth time.

Iron Man’s Villain Problem

by letusgotothemovies

Like so many others, I am beyond excited for Avengers: Endgame. However, I am not a traditional superhero fan. I became interested in the genre only recently and I haven’t seen all the movies in the MCU. As a result, I don’t know everything I there is to know about the Avengers. I plan to remedy that before the release of Avengers: Endgame. Between now and then, I am going to watch and review every movie in the MCU. If anyone wants to gush about the Avengers, I am available in the comments! So here goes, the first movie of MCU Phase 1 – Iron Man…

Iron Man (2008) is largely a very fun movie. It is exciting to see a man build a suit out of the limited materials he has at hand in a cave to make an escape from his kidnappers. The action sequences with Iron Man are genuinely enjoyable. I did find the character of Tony Stark (played by Robert Downey Jr.) insufferable, but it wasn’t anything I couldn’t overlook (with the occasional eye roll, of course). Overall Iron Man is a great movie to start us off. It is well-written story with good action sequences and a decent plot – a weapons’ manufacturer trying to undo his legacy of war and destruction by becoming a superhero. The problem with Iron Man, is that this genius hero doesn’t have a comparable villain to go up against.

So that makes the principal antagonist of the film, Obadiah Stane/Iron Monger (played by Jeff Bridges), a poor villain? First, at the very outset, Stark is portrayed to be superior than Stane. In the second scene of the film, we see that at 21, Stark becomes the CEO of Stark Industries brushing Stane aside. Right away, Stark is better than his antagonist. Second, the villain isn’t able to develop his own powers. Stane steals scraps of Iron Man’s initial suit to make his own. He can’t even develop the Miniaturised Arc Reactor by himself; he steals it from the protagonist. This further perpetuates the idea that the Stane is no match for Iron Man. This is before the any direct fighting between Iron Man and Iron Monger. When the action begins, it fails to create the tension required to engage the viewer in the film. As the viewer, I already know that Iron Man can defeat Iron Monger because the film has told me so.

In addition to being perceived as less formidable, Iron Man has almost no comparable opponent for more than half the movie. At the beginning of the movie, Stark’s main opponent is his kidnapper, Raza. The playing field here is levelled because although Stark is very capable, he is trying to create something amazing in a cave in rural Afghanistan with whatever materials are available to him there. He is also in captivity making him vulnerable to his opponent. This makes the film interesting and makes Iron Man’s escape all the more impressive.

But Raza isn’t the principle antagonist of the film. He is being used by Stane in the latter’s quest for dominance. But rather than building up the character of the villain along with the hero so that the viewer doesn’t take Iron Man for granted and becomes invested in the conflict in the movie, the director Jon Fraveau only allows the viewer to see the already formidable Tony Stark transform into an almost indomitable Iron Man. At the point the viewer’s perceptions about the hero have already been developed, and the film doesn’t make an effort to subvert them. This reduces the impact of the antagonist.

About one hour into the movie, long after Iron Man’s character has been established, the movie finally reveals that the antagonist will use the scraps from Iron Man’s suit as the basis for his/her armour. The armour of the antagonist is not discussed again until 2/3rds of the movie is over. Furthermore, Stane isn’t revealed to be the bad guy until more than halfway through the movie. Even then, he is shown to be opposing Tony Stark in business, not as a supervillain. It is only in the last 25 minutes of the film (including 10 minutes of credits) that the main conflict of the movie emerges, and the antagonist challenges the protagonist. Couple that with his perception as an inferior fighter and you have the villain problem in the film.

Despite a major problem, Iron Man is a fun watch because his powers are super cool. They are tested in multiple situations throughout the film (his big escape from captivity, his encounter with militants in Gulmira, getting chased by the US government, and his final battle with Iron Monger). As a viewer this made me want to root for Iron Man. That being said, I hope Iron Man 2 offers our hero more of a challenge.