So just saw Iron Man 3 (yeah, it's been out for awhile, so what? I've been distracted) and was not impressed, at all. For sometime now I have been actively trying to review the media I am exposed to, such as movies, games, and books. This is to improve my experience and talents as a writer and as a reviewer. It's also just something easy to get in the habit of doing, so naturally I have already constructed a basic review of the movie in my head, based on the one viewing. While thinking about it, a moment from another movie entered my mind, and I started trying to place it…. Took me awhile, but then I figured it out and the review actually became a lot simpler.
Iron Man 3 is the same story as The Dark Knight but with more action and less story. A lot less story. One of the criticisms I remember about TDK was that its story seemed to be big enough for two entire movies, but instead it was fit into one. Of course when trying to contain so much in so little, some quality will be lost, but TDK is still a very good movie and the story is still quite well done. IM3 on the other hand is not nearly as good. Drawing on my creativity, I could see how the story laid out in IM3 could be expanded to seemingly be enough to fill two full movies, like TDK. But, that is only after expanding it. What was actually put on the screen is, to me, so chopped up, compared to what is possible, that it left the one movie very muddled with so many places worth exploring left in the dark. I'd hesitate to call it a popcorn movie even, as the pauses from the action can be long enough and contain enough of the chopped up, muddled story that you have to think about it, causing the issues with the story to stand out.
There is one good thing to say about it though; it makes we want to refocus on my own writing, as though my desire and attention to story could make up with this. It probably can't, but someone has got to try.