The Hugh Jackman movie, X-Men Origins: Wolverine delivered on what it was supposed to deliver. At the start of the story, there was a bit of action. The next five minutes or so during the billing, when the names of the actors roll through, is filled with action. After that more action. But then a third of the way through there was a lull in action for about a minute, then more action. A lot of action in the middle, the climax was action-filled, then the movie ended with a bit more action. In reading reviews, both fans and columns, there are two schools of thought when it comes to the new X-Men movie. One claims there's too much action and not enough depth. The other claims there was too much effort in creating depth, especially in the beginning.
In any story, be it written, film, TV, folk lore, rumor, a connection to the hero has to be made. Or else the reader/audience won't care what happens to the hero or supporting characters. Suspension and conflict won't matter anymore. Who would care? If you've watched the documentary Spielberg On Spielberg, he said his main job is to connect the audience to his film.
Let's not get into how to do that, but David Freeman who teaches techniques in writing covers it well. Check his website out at www.beyondstructure.com.
The question is, do action movies like X-Men Origins: Woverine need depth? Don't we go to movies to escape? Isn't action enough?