Best Romantic Comedies

 

Crazy, Stupid Love (2011): Shakespearean in nature and filled with an amazing cast, “Crazy, Stupid Love” is a quintessential rom-com.  Starring Steve Carrell, Julianne Moore, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone, “Crazy Stupid Love” mixes miscommunications and misinterpretations into contemporary California.  Emily (Moore) asks Cal (Carrell) for a divorce because she had an affair.  Cal’s whole world gets thrown into disarray until Gosling offers him a chance to rediscover who he is. In this film, everyone falls for the wrong person.  You laugh, you cry, you root for Steve Carrell and then wish him hell.  But like all Shakespearean plays, this movie leaves you reminded that love perseveres all. 

How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days (2003): Starring Mathew McConaughey and Kate Hudson, this film is the perfect guide to what not to do when you meet the man of your dreams.  A journalist who covers the “How To” section in her magazine, Andie (Hudson) volunteers to write a piece on how to lose a guy in ten days.  Ben (McConaughey) makes a bet with his coworkers that he can make a girl fall in love with him in ten days.  By happenstance the two meet, initiating a rollercoaster of a relationship. As Andie pushes Ben away with her turn-offs, she falls for him, and Ben falls for Andie even though he only needs to seduce her for his bet.  Filled with dramatic irony, you will cringe as much as you laugh at the nuances Andie and Ben share throughout their relationship.  “How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days” is an off-beat yet equally hilarious rom-com. 

 

Wedding Crashers (2005): Though it isn’t as chic-flick esque as many romantic comedies are, this film features Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn at their finest.  These two comedic geniuses would play improvising lines off each other over games of pool, and it clearly shows their work paid off.  Veterans of crashing weddings to meet girls, Wilson and Vaughn crash their biggest wedding yet.  As though this wasn’t a challenge enough, they run into trouble when invited back to Secretary of State Cleary’s house (Christopher Walken).  Wilson longs for something more with Clare Cleary (Rachael McAdams), while Vaughn is clung onto by an infatuated Gloria Cleary (Isla Fischer).  Not a line is wasted, and although it’s not your conventional/stereotypical rom-com, it is definitely funny and romantic in its own way. 

Midnight in Paris (2010): Directed by Woody Allen, this movie teaches an important lesson: no matter how much you drink in Paris, unless you are Owen Wilson you won’t travel back in time.  After getting a little too tispy at a Paris winetasting, the aspiring author Gil (Wilson) is transported to 1920’s Paris, where the modern arts flourished.  He embarks on a love affair with Adriana (Marion Cotillard) a flapper,and mingles with Pablo Picasso and F. Scott Fitzgerald. This movie does teach that life is unsatisfying no matter what time period you live in. Romantic, beautiful Paris and a fabulous cast including Kathy Bates and Rachael McAdams makes this film a must-see. 

 

 

The Five Year Engagement (2012): What if you get engaged to your soul mate, but can’t plan a wedding for any sooner than five years after the proposal?  “The Five Year Engagement” plays out this scenario in the form of Jason Segel and Emily Blunt.  Hopelessly in love with each other, the pair must make huge sacrifices for each other to further their careers.  Pressures of work, families and adapting to new lifestyles strain the bond that Segel and Blunts characters’ have.  It assesses the question of whether or not love can last through all, no matter how strong the love.

It’s Complicated (2009): Alec Baldwin and Meryl Streep have excellent chemistry in this film.  Ten years after divorcing, (Streep) and Jack (Baldwin) go out one night in New York.  After a few drinks and some reminiscing of their marriage, they embark on a love affair.  Confused and excited, they try to hide their happenings from their family and friends.  However, this bittersweet adventure doesn’t run smooth. Featuring John Krakinski and Steve Martin, “It’s Complicated” is a comedic reflection of whether or not we can honor that the decisions we made were right. 

Love Actually (2003): Various vignettes compose this rom-com, as viewers follow the lives of eight different couples living in contemporary England.  December before Christmas in London makes the perfect backdrop, giving all viewers the warm-fuzzy feeling, and with the heartwarming stories laced in enhances the overall film.  Featuring the talents of Hugh Grant, Colin Firth, Emma Thompson, and Keira Knightley, “Love Actually” is a classic romantic comedy that holds your attention with its various stories glued together. You will fall in love with everyone just as much as they do with each other in this film.

 

 

When Harry Met Sally (1989): Brought to you by rob Reiner, “When Harry Met Sally” poses the question of whether men and women can just be friends. Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan star in this film as two friends who meet each other over the course of several years. Crystal believes that men and women can be friends without sex getting in the way. Ryan disagrees, as some women believe that what can seem a simple compliment can be called out as a pass. This film traces Harry and Sally through their relationships, as Harry and Sally meet up and reminisce over love lost. Ryan and Crystal’s chemistry is flawless, as life takes them back to each other various times.  The soundtrack is also pretty stellar, as Harry Connick Jr. is the main attraction of it. This film will leave viewers sure that love isn't hopeless, and worth the risk.

French Kiss (1995): A disheartened Kate (Meg Ryan) heads to Paris, in fear that her fiancé is straying from her.  On her flight, she meets Luc (Kevin Kline) a Frenchman, and their meeting drags her into his plant smuggling.  Kate searches the country for her fiancé with Luc, but the time they spend together makes them fall for each other.  Ever twisting and turning, their adventure teaches them that sometimes if you let go of someone, you can find someone better when you least expect it.  Quirky and light-hearted, “French Kiss” is a wonderful film that proves you can find love in the most peculiar places. 

27 Dresses (2008): Stuck being a bridesmaid for 27 weddings, Jane (Katherine Heigl) is about to be one for the twenty-eighth time.  This wouldn’t be such a big deal if the man her sister was marrying wasn’t someone she had been secretly in love with for quite a while, plus plan the wedding.  When she meets Kevin (James Marsden), her world gets turned upside-down further, as he clings onto her possibly to advance his own career as a writer.  This film is a lighthearted reminder of how even when things seem completely hopeless, it is important to stay true to yourself.  Even if you always say yes to others, it is important to put yourself first every now and again.  Although it is a pretty stereotypical chick-flick, “27 Dresses” is a must-see for anyone who loves staring at James Marsden for a good couple hours. 

"The Internship" Review

                Opening two weeks ago was Shawn Levy’s latest (attempt at) comedy, “The Internship.”  With a brilliant premise and the dynamic duo of Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, you would think that the film is foolproof.  You would be wrong.  The director of “Date Night” and the “Night at the Museum” films has failed to make “The Internship” worth seeing. 

                A set of salesmen who feel past their prime lose their job, and contemplate if their careers will ever pick up again.  Billy McMahon and Nick Campbell (Vaughn and Wilson) search for an opportunity to get them back in the work field.  They land an interview for Google, and once they are voted in they are given the opportunity to compete for a highly-coveted internship.  Throughout the remainder of the films, Campbell and McMahon experience the trials and tribulations of competing against technologically-geared college kids.  With highs and lows along the way, they figure out where their skillset can truly be utilized and work their way back up into the world. 

I particularly loved the movie “Wedding Crashers;” it’s in my top ten of best comedies.  Vaughn and Wilson balanced out each other perfectly, as not a line between them was wasted.  However, in “The Internship” some of their attempts at humour were failures.  I would even say at a couple points their roles were more obnoxious than funny.  I found it hard to identify with them and felt little sympathy for them.  At certain moments, I even rooted against them. 

The band of misfits they collaborate with throughout the film seem to work well, cast-wise and as far as their performance is concerned.  The lack of chemistry however made little room for sympathizing with their situation at hand. 

The plot line to the movie was a very interesting concept.  How would it work if college kids competing for internships at Google had a couple of salesmen about twenty years older than them in the mix? A clashing of mentalities and ways of life, and an eventual harmony between the age gap would be the result.  In “The Internship,” it was difficult for that to fully develop.  Maybe it did, but it was hard to notice as I found the soundtrack very distracting and took away from most of the movie.

What really bothered me about “The Internship” was the fact that in the middle of the movie, there was a ten minute interlude where McMahon and Campbell took their fellow Google team members out to a California night club.  It was very out of place, and little of it made a difference to advance the plot.  I could understand a short two-minute clip that gets its purpose across and moves onto the next scene, but dragging it out took away from what the premise was there to suggest. 

Overall, I was very disappointed.  Watching the trailer will give you as much comic relief as though you watched the entire movie.  If you are looking for a laugh-out-loud summer flick, I’m sure you can Google “good summer films” and “The Internship” won’t be anywhere within sight. 

 

"Man of Steel" is Beyond Super

           It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s the next big summer blockbuster! “Man of Steel” came out this June and is absolutely amazing.  Directed by Zach Snyder, the man who brought us “300” and “Dawn of the Dead” this sci-fi superhero film is perfect for the film-craving movie-goer.  Any superhero geeks such as myself should definitely check out "Man of Steel."

            The film opens with Clark Kent’s (Henry Cavill) home planet, Krypton dying-which is shown through a massive display of special effects.  Transported to Earth and adopted by Jonathan and Martha Kent, Clark struggles with fitting in.  The superpowers he has (the ability to fly, super strength, heat vision, and X-ray vision) are beyond ordinary and he keeps them hidden.  After he saves the ambitious reported Lois Lane (Amy Adams), she becomes intrigued with who he is.  Once an exposé she writes becomes leaked, she puts his life (along with her own at risk). 

            However, when Earth becomes threatened be General Zod (Michael Shannon) when he finds out Superman’s whereabouts, Superman must team up with our armies.  He battles against the evil General Zod in order to protect his new home, and these battle sequences are absolutely amazing.  Complete with a cast including Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner and Laurence Fishburne, “Man of Steel” will not disappoint. 

            From what I’ve seen, this movie is very reminiscent of Christopher Nolan’s “Batman” trilogy.  It was no surprise to me learning that Nolan was a producer for this film.  Similar to the first film of the Batman saga, “Man of Steel” was darker than past films depicting the hero.    In what could be the first film of a few in this super saga, we bounce back to defining moments in Clark Kent’s life.    Like many superheroes, Clark Kent is a troubled soul, just looking to blend in.  Although none of us can truly relate to Superman, Clark’s back-story makes everything about his life more tangible to audiences. 

It was beyond a modest effort to bring back Superman.  Although the past Superman movies with Christopher Reeves are classic, Zach Snyder ushers in a new era of a modern-day interpretation in his resurrecting the franchise.  This film also didn’t include the iconic “Superman March” written by John Williams.  In an attempt for “Man of Steel” to distinguish itself, it was cut out and Hans Zimmer was selected to compose the music for the film. 

            In fact, if it wasn’t for the immense success of the modern Batman films, “Man of Steel” would have never been a thought.  Development for the film began in 2008, when screenwriters, directors and comic book authors came together planning a potential super revival.  Christopher Nolan suggested and pitched the idea for the modern revival.  He was immediately hired to produce the film, which was a wise decision. 

            The film was slightly fast paced, and before I knew it the two and a half hour picture was over, when anyone could easily claim it was less than two hours.  The use of flashbacks kept it moving along, and you get a genuine comic-book feel from it-as everything is fleeting but just the right amount to keep one from being distracted by the constant transitioning. 

The ending to “Man of Steel” indicates some closure as to the events throughout the film. However, there is a sequel is in the works, due to how amazing this film was, along with the fact that Snyder signed a three movie deal, which includes a Justice League film (which I am beyond pumped for).  Hopefully they include Jimmy Olsen, the love-struck photographer who works with Lois Lane, as he wasn’t a part of “Man of Steel.” 

The final scenes left me wanting more, especially the last five minutes.  This definitely means something, considering Superman was never my favourite caped crusader. 

            Anyone looking to see this film should not bother wasting the extra few dollars per ticket to see it in 3-D.  The cinematography and clarity of the motion picture is so impressive that it would make no difference.  The special effects used throughout the film, from the opening scenes on Krypton to the final explosions are beyond awesome. 

            One of the negative things about this film is all the doors left open at the end.  I am definitely looking forward to seeing the next “Superman” movie to come out, provided Snyder directs it.  Two thumbs up to this film, as it will satisfy audiences all over craving something “super.” 

 

"Now You See Me" is a Must-See

                Upon entering the theatre to see “Now You See Me,” by happenstance I found nine dollars lying on the ground.  Ironically, the premise of Louis Leterrier’s latest film is for the audience members to receive monetary prizes for spectating their show.  Laced with massive heists, prestidigitation, and a stellar cast, “Now You See Me” is a must-see this summer. Be sure to "Look closely, because the closer you think you are, the less you will actually see."

                Four tricksters-an escape artist, a pickpocket, a sleight-of-hand card magician and a mind reader-are called together unexpectedly for a mission from a mysterious figure.  Together, Jesse Eisenberg, Isla Fischer, Dave Franco and Woody Harrelson make up the Four Horsemen.  This team of magicians makes their way through the United States.  Making three stops at Las Vegas, New Orleans and New York, where a fantastic heist is pulled off.  Millions of dollars are stolen, and crowds everywhere are mesmerized. 

                However, there is more to these heists than meets the eye.  FBI agent Dylan Rhoades (Mark Ruffalo) teams up with Interpol agent Alma Dray (Melanie Laurent), and a professional illusion deconstructor Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman) to break down what is really going on. 

                The film as a whole was generally satisfying.  The casting was absolutely wonderful; I wouldn’t have changed a thing.  Although the film’s producers were considering older actors and actresses to play the leads, I think the chosen individuals were ideal.  They all brought something to the film, and didn’t take away from the storyline.   

The cinematography was very effective.  Like watching a magic trick live, your attention was brought to various places.  As soon as you thought you caught up and were one step ahead of the supposed con-artist, they were really three ahead of you.  “How did he do that?” was a constant thought throughout various scenes for me.  Although camera angles were constantly changing and some may argue it can distract from what is really happening, in this type of film it was very effective. 

The one aspect of the film that I disliked was the fact that the elaborate, flashy magic acts were products of Hollywood.  Watching tricks as those performed in the film wouldn’t have been plausible in reality without the assistance of special effects.  There is something more alluring about clean-cut street magic.  The sleight-of-hand tricks performed in the opening scene were more impressive.  They were more modest, and sometimes simplicity is the most extraordinary way to wow an audience.  Too much flashy distracts. However, for this film, it fits in perfectly.  Magic and thievery is an interesting idea for a film, and I am pleased that the director of “The Incredible Hulk” and “Clash of the Titans” made a valiant and successful effort here. 

Although the ending to the movie was slightly predictable, the moments leading up to it on the silver screen were impressive.  The special effects were fabulous.  The action going on keeps the audience on their seats, and whenever the characters would explain what really happened as far as certain tricks go, a wave of “oooooh! I get it!” washed over the theatre. 

Anyone who enjoys the “Oceans” movies or “The Prestige” would enjoy this flick.  From what I’ve seen so far this summer, “Now You See Me” has been the most impressive.  However, the summer is still young.  The hunt for the ultimate summer blockbuster goes on. 

 

The Hangover: Part III

            The third-and hopefully final-move of the Hangover saga was released Memorial Day weekend.  Movie-goers flocked to theatres to see the highly anticipated letdown.  “Hangover Part III” is only worth your time if you show up to the theater drunk, then the poor attempts at humor will be worth your time and money.  Maybe. 

            “Hangover Part III” reprises the roles of the infamous Wolf Pack, Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Alan (Zach Galifanakis) and Doug (Justin Bartha).  “Part III” also brings back roles from the previous films, such as Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong), Sid Garner (Jeffery Tambor) and Jade (Heather Graham), along with bringing John Goodman and Melissa McCarthy and into the cast.

            The storyline of the film revolves around Alan, as we find out that his eccentric nature is the result of him having mental issues.  Stu, Phil and Doug propose taking him to a sanatorium in Arizona after staging an intervention.  On the way, they get kidnapped by Marshall (Goodman) who demands for the kidnapping of Chow, who stole millions of dollars from him. It becomes the Wolf Pack’s mission to take care of this all.  If they don’t, Doug (who is held hostage once more) will be killed. 

            Confusing plot line, I know.  The most important thing is missing though; the little nuance that makes the title of the film full of purpose.  There is no drug induced tirade, no alcohol-influenced episode gone wrong.  At least in the sequel to “The Hangover” Alan drugged the Wolf Pack again.  In this film, it is more of a wild goose chase dragged out too long. I found myself constantly checking my watch, waiting for the hour and forty minutes of pure torture to be over. 

            “Hangover Part III" takes the once-peculiar and lovable Alan Garner and turns him into an obnoxious, merciless simpleton.  He becomes self-destructive in his actions.  After seeing this film, my perception of his behavior changed from viewing him as simply being an artsy character just looking to live life, into a psychologically troubled middle-aged man.  His disposition becomes more troubled and frustrated even, as opposed to just quirky and downright strange. 

            The combination of a weak plotline, turning the eccentric Alan into a jerk and enough laughs to get you through the night makes “Hangover Part III” highly disappointing.  A film that leaves you lost, questioning what the motives of the characters are is not worth watching.  Even though “The Hangover” made such an impact on ticket sales and movie fans alike, and the sequel to it was tolerable-comparatively speaking-“Hangover Part III” was an absolute nightmare. 

Gratuitous Excess: "The Great Gatsby"

   Baz Luhrmann is the latest director to take on the challenge of
bringing the American classic to the silver screen.  His
interpretation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel “The Great Gatsby”
turns a few swanky parties in the midst of wealthy Long Island towns
into a scene of chaos.
   The film is a flashback for Nick Caraway (Tobey Maguire).  He sits in
a sanatorium, reflecting on his summer in 1922 where he rented a
cottage in West Egg.  His neighbor, the notorious Jay Gatsby (Leonardo
DiCaprio), was known for throwing parties and not showing up to them.
After attending one of them out of sheer curiosity, Caraway gets
thrown into the world of chaotic excess and the secret-keeper to a
timeless love affair.  Caraway weaves together a memoir of his months
there, with Gatsby’s elusive nature as his focal point.
   Leonardo DiCaprio plays an awkward Jay Gatsby.  He is the ideal
pretty-boy Gatsby, who attempts to keep his cool and plays down his
wealth even though it’s impossible to ignore.  I couldn’t help but
laugh at how socially incompetent he was out and about, yet somehow
was able to brim with confidence with his “reassuring smile.”
Juxtaposing him with Maguire as his only friend was a good choice on
the director’s part. Casting overall wasn’t too bad.  Carey Mulligan
plays the airy Daisy Buchanan, a young woman torn between Gatsby and
her husband, Tom (Joel Edgerton).  The cast, however seemed as drawn
out as Caraway did in the sanatorium at some points.  The passion is
subtle, which doesn’t represent the beautiful words of Fitzgerald.
As every director has their own artistic licensing to put into a film,
Luhrmann left out some things.  First, Jordan Baker (played by
Elizabeth Debecki-Caraway’s love interest) didn’t play as big as a
role in the film as she did in the book.  Luhrmann also fails to show
their relationship as well.  Daisy Buchanan also was blonde in the
film, as she is a brunette in the novel.
Second, when we meet Jay Gatsby, the book depicts it as an
anti-climactic moment, as Caraway stumbles upon him by happenstance at
one of his parties.  Here, we met Jay Gatsby at one of the final
crescendos of “Rhapsody in Blue,” as confetti flew through the air,
fireworks boomed and he raised his glass in triumph.  Fitzgerald made
it seem like anyone could be Gatsby with how he introduces him.
Lurhmann glorifies Gatsby as soon as he takes over the silver screen.
He matches the rumors and build-up we see with an immense grandeur, as
oppose to in the novel.  Gatsby subtly slips into the crowd to meet
Caraway, highlighting the elusiveness of his character as oppose to
turning him into the big deal he really isn’t.
The film ended with Gatsby’s death and left out a good portion of the
last chapter of Fitzgerald’s book.  Once Gatsby dies, so does the
film.  We see no after-math for Caraway as his summer ends.
As Gatsby tells Caraway about his life whilst driving in his yellow
convertible, he speeds and races his way from West Egg to New York.
This was effective cinematographically speaking, as Gatsby’s life
takes twists and turns unexpectedly, from his younger days up to what
we see before us.
   Filmed in Real D 3D, audience members are able to hover above the
bustling New York City, and swoop down and around the luxurious Long
Island estates.  Luhrmann wanted to pull his viewers even more into
the scenes unfolding in front of them.  This was rather effective,
since there was so much going on.  Too much, actually.
   The party scenes depicted in “Gatsby” did a fine job of showing all
the spending the wealthy would do during the Roaring Twenties.  Here,
the excessive suddenly becomes too excessive.  The parties Gatsby
threw in this interpretation became almost too much.  They seem
exaggeratory, even for one of the wealthiest men on Long Island.
The scenes unfolded, showing a world beyond my wildest dreams.  They
were pretty satisfactory, and indeed a valiant effort to make up for
what was missing from to book.  Butlers were fishing martini glasses
out from the pool, women were dressed to the nines doing the
Charleston, and confetti flew in the air like a rainstorm.  What a few
opulent 1920’s parties should be are turned into endless nights of
chaos.  But then again, Gatsby led a life that was anything but
mundane.
   Overall, I commend Luhrmann for his interpretation.  It was a bold
move, mixing in so many anachronistic aspects such as his soundtrack.
I wasn’t surprised, as Jay-Z was the executive producer of the film.
Caraway says in the film “you can’t change the past.”  However,
Luhrmann tries to with the rap music and excessive beats.  I may be no
historian, but I am pretty sure that big band jazz was the thing in
the 1920’s.  Some jazzy tunes had been slipped into the film,
including Cole Porter’s “Let’s Misbehave and Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in
Blue,” which fit the era perfectly.  As far as Jay Z’s music choices
go, they just don’t fit in.
   The underlying theme of the 1920’s excessive nature consumes the film
overall.  It is pretty effective, but it becomes a distraction.  Even
though with an obscenely flexible budget making the opulent jazzy
parties come alive from Fitzgerald’s pages was accomplished in such a
flashy way, it takes away from what Fitzgerald really wrote.  “The
Great Gatsby” is the quintessential American Dream novel, and all the
glamour and glitz in this modernistic interpretation takes away from
what it is meant to be-a tale of hope, passion and repeating past.
   My rating? C+

Iron Man 3 Review

            May third was the premiere for the final movie in the “Iron Man” saga.  Action-packed, this movie quenched the thirst of more Tony Stark for many Iron Man fans.  For the die-hard fans of Stan Lee’s comic book character, the third film was a much-needed follow-up to the disappointment of Iron Man 2.  It could have been better as far as a film goes.  However, as far as a superhero film goes, “Iron Man 3” met the unwritten code of what a superhero movie should have-lots of action, a damsel in distress, and a villain with a kick-ass evil scheme.

            Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow return, as Tony Stark and Pepper Potts.  New actors join the cast such as Ben Kingsley, who plays the Osama Bin Laden-esque villain, the Mandarin, along with Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian, a brilliant man looking to seduce Potts by means of his technological breakthrough. 

            “Iron Man 3” focuses on Stark’s relationship with Potts throughout the movie more than either of the other films have. It is clear that Stark loves Potts more than anything, but his obsession with his suits and technology create a barrier for him to show his true passion for the most important person to him. 

            Outside the walls of their California home, the Mandarin threatens society as he has built up a new army of super-humans.  He terrorizes everyone, adding more on the agenda for Stark as he sorts out the world and his world. 

The amount of explosions and action sequences will keep audience members on the watch, as everything flies through the air.  I was particularly impressed with the special effects in a few scenes.  The juxtaposition of the story and the strokes of excitement was excellent, not too much of either one. 

Tony Stark’s ego managed to fill the movie throughout, as the brilliant tinkerer uses the power of money to do what he wants.  His sarcastic wit makes us think Tony Stark is selfish, but you cannot help but love him.  The focus on Tony Stark is drawn from the first half of “Iron Man,” as though to probe further into Stark.  Audience members learn more about him, and the back story of a superhero is one of the most important things about them.  At one point, he loses everything.  His home, his girl, his technology and even his Iron Man suit; all gone.  The struggle is real for Stark, as his cleverness becomes the ultimate superpower. 

We even get a chance to study Stark on a more personal level as film-goers.  The silver screen becomes the fishbowl of Tony Stark’s crumbling world.  Looking in, we get to see him attempt to piece back together various aspects of his life that make him Tony Stark. 

            As far as I’m concerned, nothing compares with the first Iron Man movie.  The second one was a great disappointment.  “Iron Man 3” had just enough in it to make it a substantial follow-up to its predecessor.  Director Shane Black reflects on the how-to’s of the final film in a trilogy.  "Truthfully, the way to go about doing a part 3, if you’re ever in that position, as I’m lucky enough to be, is to find a way that the first two weren’t done yet. You have to find a way to make sure that the story that’s emerging is still ongoing and, by the time you’ve finished three, will be something resembling the culmination of a trilogy.”  He says, “It’s about, 'How has the story not yet been completely told?,' and I think we’re getting there. I think we’ve really found ways to make this feel organic and new, based on what’s come before, and that’s what I’m happy about."

Although “Iron Man 3” seemingly offers a lot of closure, it isn’t the end for Robert Downey Jr. as this superhero.  He will reprise this role once more in the next “Avengers” film, and there is indeed a chance that an “Iron Man 4” could be right around the corner!  So go see “Iron Man 3,” as it is the first of many this summer, cram-packed with sequels.