Why Not Just Call it Tony Stark: The Motion Picture?

Rating: 6/10 (24 May 2013)

Given the intense run-up to this film, I was far too aware of studio machinations behind it. I could almost smell the ink on the contract Downey Jr. signed to the franchise that certainly guaranteed him a minimum amount of face time. It's ludicrous how much time he spends as just plain old Tony Stark, running around with a gun or with self-made gadgets or wearing only part of the Iron Man armor (careful to keep his face exposed). The character seems to have gone far beyond anything the comic envisioned. The movie version of Stark is more complex and that's great. Except, the armor has become no more than a metaphor for the theoretical armor Stark hides behind. They come up with many imaginative ways 42 suits of armor (all built by Stark alone because he can't help it), but in the end they just seem like more excuses to get Downey Jr's face in front of the camera and STILL have scenes with armor so it can be an Iron Man movie. I would reckon that the armor spends very little time on screen, if anyone were to sit down and calculate it.
One other issue I noticed: Disney bought Marvel. Disney's animated movies move along at a bullet pace. They seem to be pushing for that same style with these comic book movies now. The way IM3 is cut, there's no time to even consider what you just saw, no time for emotion whatsoever. I wanted to raise my hand and shout, 'whoa just take it easy! Slow down!' For instance, the movie's best action sequence, where Iron Man rescues the passengers of Air Force One, starts and ends before you can even soakin what just happened.
Oh and I didn't see it in 3D or IMAX but I can't imagine why anyone would want to.