The Avengers (2012) *spoilers from post 1181*

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Didn't mean 'weakest' in the physical sense, but more the character sense. I think him adapting to the modern world was something that could have been played up much more, especially given the trauma he experienced at the end of his dedicated film. But here that's relegated to a pointless montage and a few throwaway lines of dialogue. A shame, really. Didn't really think it fit when he ultimately took

up the baton as tactical leader: seemed a bit too intimately familiar with contemporary New York geography for someone who was just unfrozen, anyway

I did laugh at the bit when

someone mentions flying monkeys and he gets so excited as he exclaims "I get that reference!" as Thor didn't

titan18

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Thought it was merely OK to be honest, verging on the disappointing. Biggest problem is a sluggishly paced and overlong first act that is neither funny, exciting or interesting enough. Actually wearisome waiting for things to inevitably kick off: kept waiting for

Thor to show up in some exciting fashion, but ultimately he just sort of dropped in from the sky in an anti-climax. Kinda made his character cliffhanger at the end of his film pointless. Obviously the budget didn't quite stretch to Oscar winners!

Second act is a big improvement, as it gives Whedon room to work with his strengths: interesting, funny and confrontational people in an enclosed environment. The banter, the interactions and the dynamics between all the characters are strong.

Loki's scene with Black Widow was particularly strong IMO, as were most of the interactions in Banner's lab

. An unexpected

Galaga

joke around the middle is also the film's most deserved and nerdy chuckle.

Third act kind of combines the strengths and weaknesses of the first two. On one hand, it's fairly characterless, especially

the alien enemy who basically just provoke a New York blowing up action scene

, the ilk of which we've seen several hundreds times before. Yet at least with Whedon's clear directorial eye the action remains coherent (a compliment that seems weird, but is by no means a given these days) and the characters do get their chance to shine

(even if Hawkeye and Black Widow are a bit unavoidably useless compared to the rest of the hyper powered friends)

. Hulk gets the best punchlines.

Literally

.

There were times when The Avengers threatened to become more, but ultimately it just felt too long for too little reward. Not to say it isn't entertaining: it most certainly is, and with anyone other than Whedon at the core it could have been much worse. But as is it's merely decent. It actually seems like a shame to more or less abandon the strong, interesting character motivations seen in the previous films. Obviously there isn't a hell of a lot of time for character work with so many personalities seeking your attention, but this at its worst feels like a mere stop gap between the 'proper' continuation of these characters' stories (the Captain and Thor especially).

So yeah, solidly entertaining, but must say my experiences were far removed from the excitement I've seen elsewhere. Some of the audience seemed to be loving it - too much so, I'd say, laughing their asses off at jokes that weren't all that funny - so what do I know?

Pretty much the same that I felt on the film itself. It was good, it was entertaining but it's not great, and not the the best superhero film as I've seen people say elsewhere.

Also, as there are sequels already announced, the end battle was anti-climatic imo. None of them were going to die bar potentially Hawkeye so the action felt weak.

Memnoch

P.S. If you want an example of a film by Joss Whedon (director of this movie) with a much smaller budget, but lots of great action and a lot more heart as well as being quite memorable, I strongly recommend Serenity. Not that it was perfect. And at the time I had watched it first, I hadn't ever heard of or seen the TV series that went with it.

Turtwig

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Jernal wrote: »

Disagree. In the comic books that's all he ever was the Morale and spiritual leadership guy. He never really was that super physical. I thought they nailed him in both movies. Moreso this one.

Didn't mean 'weakest' in the physical sense, but more the character sense. I think him adapting to the modern world was something that could have been played up much more, especially given the trauma he experienced at the end of his dedicated film. But here that's relegated to a pointless montage and a few throwaway lines of dialogue. A shame, really. Didn't really think it fit when he ultimately took

up the baton as tactical leader: seemed a bit too intimately familiar with contemporary New York geography for someone who was just unfrozen, anyway

Actually agree with you here especially on the geography point. There was one poignant scene tho involving the cap where he has a reunion with somebody dear to him that whedon ultimately had to cut and strongly lamented doing so. Perhaps that may have filled in his back story and modern character more?

krudler

To be fair Whedon had to fit a lot of characters and their stories into this, and they all get their screen time, its like the worlds most expensive fan movie, which is basically is. If you want expanded plot and character arcs then watch the individual lead up movies. There was no way Iron Man,Thor, Cap, Hulk, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Nick Fury,and Loki were going to get extended character arcs and plots in a two hour movie, it was to get some of Marvels most famous names all on screen together, and it does just exactly that, with some great, genuinely funny moments, decent action (I prefered the smaller action scenes to the big climactic one tbh) and some excellent effects, its a perfect Friday at the movie summer flick.

johnny_ultimate

Memnoch wrote: »

P.S. If you want an example of a film by Joss Whedon (director of this movie) with a much smaller budget, but lots of great action and a lot more heart as well as being quite memorable, I strongly recommend Serenity. Not that it was perfect. And at the time I had watched it first, I hadn't ever heard of or seen the TV series that went with it.

And he also co-wrote the 'CURRENTLY IN A THEATER NEAR YOU!' Cabin in the Woods, which is several degrees more thrilling, cleverer and funnier than The Avengers.

If you can only see one Joss Whedon film this year, let it be that. Although he does have a version of Much Ado About Nothing coming out shortly, which we all know is going to reek of awesome.

Memnoch

krudler wrote: »

To be fair Whedon had to fit a lot of characters and their stories into this, and they all get their screen time, its like the worlds most expensive fan movie, which is basically is. If you want expanded plot and character arcs then watch the individual lead up movies. There was no way Iron Man,Thor, Cap, Hulk, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Nick Fury,and Loki were going to get extended character arcs and plots in a two hour movie, it was to get some of Marvels most famous names all on screen together, and it does just exactly that, with some great, genuinely funny moments, decent action (I prefered the smaller action scenes to the big climactic one tbh) and some excellent effects, its a perfect Friday at the movie summer flick.

I agree.

It's a great friday at the movie summer/popcorn film. But there are plenty of films that have been that AND been truly memorable/great/ had something to say.

So I don't buy the excuses/cop outs.

The individual films were worse baring Iron man I, which was quite endearing, genuine and most importantly, FRESH.

Is worth the price of the ticket? Yes, I think so. Is it something that will be considered a classic in two or three years and something that you'll hold up as for other films to aspire to (even other films in the same genre)? The answer for me is a resounding no.

Maybe I want too much. A film that is truly great on all levels. Not just hitting a few sweet notes here and there. There are films like that out there and I hope we'll see one this year.

Memnoch

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

And he also co-wrote the 'CURRENTLY IN A THEATER NEAR YOU!' Cabin in the Woods, which is several degrees more thrilling, cleverer and funnier than The Avengers.

If you can only see one Joss Whedon film this year, let it be that. Although he does have a version of Much Ado About Nothing coming out shortly, which we all know is going to reek of awesome.

Heard good things about Cabin in the woods. Unfortunately I can't abide anything scary. Yes, I'm a wimp.

Turtwig

I have one question.

Did Coulson really die? Could have sworn at the end he appeared in the background of the command shot of shield walking up to fury. I seriously hope he didn't because I rather liked the guy. He is the type to play deaf, dead or dumb to motivate our heroes

Memnoch

Jernal wrote: »

I have one question.

Did Coulson really die? Could have sworn at the end he appeared in the background of the command shot of shield walking up to fury. I seriously hope he didn't because I rather liked the guy. He is the type to play deaf, dead or dumb to motivate our heroes

Agree.

I have a feeling that he survived also.

Turtwig

Memnoch wrote: »

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

And he also co-wrote the 'CURRENTLY IN A THEATER NEAR YOU!' Cabin in the Woods, which is several degrees more thrilling, cleverer and funnier than The Avengers.

If you can only see one Joss Whedon film this year, let it be that. Although he does have a version of Much Ado About Nothing coming out shortly, which we all know is going to reek of awesome.

Heard good things about Cabin in the woods. Unfortunately I can't abide anything scary. Yes, I'm a wimp.

Ditto the amount of movies I've avoided watching fully due to my squeamishness is well a little embarrassing. It's my one weakness that the bad guys will never guess muhaha!

krudler

Memnoch wrote: »

Heard good things about Cabin in the woods. Unfortunately I can't abide anything scary. Yes, I'm a wimp.

its not scary in the slightest, its a comedy first and foremost.

johnny_ultimate

Just an aside. I have no problem with popcorn movies and blockbusters, but it takes a really special one IMO to single out as something remarkable. Serenity was one, Star Trek was (in my controversial opinion) another. The Dark Knight Rises and Prometheus stand a chance this year, perhaps the Hobbit. But I really don't think The Avengers stands out from the crowd enough to be recommended with anything other than caution. I particularly take umbrage with the

generic metallic alien threat

: a bizarre trend in recent Hollywood, and one which frankly needs to go away fast. The banter is often witty, but the characters all too often feel like pre-determined lines and costumes rather than well defined individuals. Some come off better than others in that regard - Tony Stark remains a strangely likeable asshole - but all in all it's as if they're all taking a brief break from character development and their own quite interesting narratives.

So yes: I fully agree The Avengers is entertaining on its own terms. As light entertainment that's pretty much entirely devoid of depth, it hits many admirable boxes. However, having experienced The Raid (and to a slightly lesser degree Cabin in the Woods) with an ecstatic audience recently, I have remembered just how much fun and enjoyment one get out of fun that is inherently dumb. The Avengers is decent, but in a year where it has many promising competitors seeking screentime and audiences, it offers too much of too little to achieve anything other than an evening's worth of light entertainment. Of course, that's an achievement beyond a worryingly large amount of blockbusters today, but given the plethora of talent (in front of and behind the camera) and resources available here, there's a disappointing sense that there's untapped potential here bursting to get out.

IMO, of course

Memnoch

krudler wrote: »

its not scary in the slightest, its a comedy first and foremost.

My mom let me watch this horror film with her when I was FAR too young for it. Had nightmares for weeks afterwards. I think I've watched ONE horror film since then.

When I'm in the cinema and they put on a trailer for a horror movie I always close my eyes. The one time I didn't I had trouble going to sleep that night. It's like it's hard wired into me or something. Pretty sad.

Anyway, I'm gonna trust you and go check this out. :P

Memnoch

Is it just me or have entertainment.ie sold their soul for advertising?

Does this film really deserve 4.5/5 stars? Used to be that anytime I went to see a film that got 4 stars there I was in for one of the best films of the year. Five stars was something that would be a great and truly memorable movie. Though this trend seems to be reserved for comic book films like Watchmen, which was also overrated. I suspect the reviewer is probably just a die hard comic book fan and this seems to colour his view slightly.

brianregan09

You're right it should have got 5 :P

johnny_ultimate

The anime nerd in me really wanted the SEELE SHIELD council screens to read 'Sound Only'.

Zero-Cool

This is brilliant, what facebook would look like if the avengers all had profiles. Slightly spoilery

http://lolsnaps.com/news/22291/0/

Saw it last night, loved it. I have never seen a cinema erupt like that in certain scenes. Brought the other half who loved it also. It just came together perfectly .

Oh , dont go and see this in 3D

Doctor DooM

Well that WOULD have been one of the best action films I had ever seen IF they didn't have the word Assemble at the start of it.

This flagrant use of the word completely overrode the genuine humour, good pacing, and snappy script.

Shame on you Marvel, shame.

Turtwig

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Well that WOULD have been one of the best action films I had ever seen IF they didn't have the word Assemble at the start of it.

This flagrant use of the word completely overrode the genuine humour, good pacing, and snappy script.

Shame on you Marvel, shame.

Disney's call not Marvel's.
I actually think Disney mucked this movie up with the completely unnecessary Post Production 3D and the name change for UK and Ireland.

gazzer

Went to see it yesterday evening. Absolutely fantastic

Hulk beating the crap out fo Loki was hilarious

. I was expecting it to be good but not THAT good

Its only April and between this and Cabin in the Woods I have seen 2 great movies this year so far

Was the name change not brought in so there wouldnt be a mix up with the other Avengers movie ?

Turtwig

Deleted User wrote: »

Was the name change not brought in so there wouldnt be a mix up with the other Avengers movie ?

No, they wanted to avoid confusion with the Espionage series (That movie NEVER happened!!). Silly imo.

Jernal

Jernal wrote: »

No, they wanted to avoid confusion with the Espionage series (That movie NEVER happened!!). Silly imo.

and the really bad movie that followed were Uma Thurman looks a little like Black Widow .........

http://seanconneryonline.com/avengers_cover.jpg

Turtwig

Deleted User wrote: »

and the really bad movie that followed were Uma Thurman looks a little like Black Widow .........

http://seanconneryonline.com/avengers_cover.jpg

Gee thanks. . .:(

(Day ruined now.)

Handsome Bob

Memnoch wrote: »

Is it just me or have entertainment.ie sold their soul for advertising?

Does this film really deserve 4.5/5 stars? Used to be that anytime I went to see a film that got 4 stars there I was in for one of the best films of the year. Five stars was something that would be a great and truly memorable movie. Though this trend seems to be reserved for comic book films like Watchmen, which was also overrated. I suspect the reviewer is probably just a die hard comic book fan and this seems to colour his view slightly.

I'll stand by the 3 stars I gave as I felt it was very lightweight on plot. Even Whedon admitted he did massive cutting in the editing room and this would explain why I felt the pacing was all over the place.(SPOILERS BELOW):

http://collider.com/the-avengers-deleted-scenes/159451/

Good mindless action, saved by the characters on screen doing their party tricks. It's not up to much more than that IMO.

This isn't to say that I didn't immensely enjoy it, I did, here are some highlights for me:

Loki's disturbing rant at Black Widow.
Thor pleading with his brother to come home.
Banner and Stark interactions.
Everything Hulk, including the hilarious sucker punch on Thor and the beat down on Loki.
2nd half of the final battle.
Iron Man intro to Cap, ****ing awesome introduction accompanied by Shoot to Thrill.
Iron Man using Cap's shield to blast people, reminded me of playing the ultimate alliance game.
Thanos reveal (though basically ruined by the stupid ****ing 3D).

Zero-Cool

30 minutes of deleted scenes! I can't wait for the inevitable Avengers Blu-Ray Collection

Otacon

Question:

After the Hulk beats up Loki, he says something. What was it? The audience [and me] were laughing so I didn't pick it up.

grames_bond

Brilliant movie! Loved it! whedon is god!

3d f*cking sucked though (if only the damn 2d showing didnt sell out!)

one thing I noticed:

When did Banner suddenly become able to control the "other guy" just cause he fell through a roof?

I wanna see it again - NOW!!

what the hell!

Otacon wrote: »

Question:

After the Hulk beats up Loki, he says something. What was it? The audience [and me] were laughing so I didn't pick it up.

Same happened with me, love to know what he said though. Can't wait to see it again this weekend. 2D this time though!

Doctor DooM

Jernal wrote: »

Disney's call not Marvel's.
I actually think Disney mucked this movie up with the completely unnecessary Post Production 3D and the name change for UK and Ireland.

I was joking, I loved the film and people were moaning over nothing, tbh.

Doctor DooM

He says "Puny god"

humanji

Handsome Bob wrote: »

Iron Man using Cap's shield to blast people, reminded me of playing the ultimate alliance game.

That's exactly what came to my mind when I saw that bit. Must dig that out from where ever I hide it.

mikhail

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

They have significantly dumbed him down. A few decent moments in fights, but mostly he's one of the weakest and ill-defined members of this particular crack team.

Odd, as I think Whedon has mentioned him as his favourite character.

Zero-Cool

Ya, from that deleted scenes link, sounds like Cap had some deeper scenes, like meeting Peggy, that were cut. Cap def came off as the weakest member. I think thats why he got the whole

"cap saved me"

scene at the end

Handsome Bob

Hulk and Thor for me got the most out of the plot, Iron Man and Cap surprisingly took a backseat to these two. I reckon they witheld big time on CA as they want enough material for the sequel to CA: TFA.

Turtwig

Christ! I just realised I want to go see this again today. :eek:
Discipline, discipline. . .

I just read, there has been one bad review of the movie. The person reviewing it said it lacked Character development. :rolleyes:

Zero-Cool

Jernal wrote: »

Christ! I just realised I want to go see this again today. :eek:
Discipline, discipline. . .

Yupp, it definitely has that effect on people. When it finished, I wanted to stay in the cinema and watch it all again. Blu Ray will be a day one purchase as soon as it's out!

Handsome Bob

Deleted User wrote: »

I just read, there has been one bad review of the movie. The person reviewing it said it lacked Character development. :rolleyes:

It is what it is, a good action film, nothing more than that though. Maybe the reviewer was expecting too much, but personally, it's not the game changer so many have made it out to be.

johnny_ultimate

Deleted User wrote: »

I just read, there has been one bad review of the movie. The person reviewing it said it lacked Character development. :rolleyes:

Because the film does lack character development. This should be a given in any films with such a rich cast of characters, not an optional luxury. Frankly, I think an audience that doesn't demand things like that are doing themselves a disservice.

The whole point is character development was done in Iron man 1 and 2 Thor and Captain America.

charlietheminxx

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Because the film does lack character development. This should be a given in any films with such a rich cast of characters, not an optional luxury. Frankly, I think an audience that doesn't demand things like that are doing themselves a disservice.

They each had at least one whole film dedicated to character development though :P

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Because the film does lack character development. This should be a given in any films with such a rich cast of characters, not an optional luxury. Frankly, I think an audience that doesn't demand things like that are doing themselves a disservice.

Its really a stopgap between each individuals sequels though, people are expecting way too much from it, its a load of fun to watch and its cool seeing Marvels finest on screen together, its not perfect, some parts feel drawn out whereas others feel rushed that could have done with being longer, like the scene between Stark and Pepper at the beginning was a bit overlong, whereas Cap didnt get much else to do aside from give orders and look out of place. It would have been cool seeing Stark showing him how technology has developed since the 40s or something. Or talking about his father, which I dont think came up once, Cap is Tonys link to his dad as he knew him briefly.

johnny_ultimate

But the film actively ignores or at worse contradicts many of the character motivations established in those films in favour of rather uninspiring action sequences and shallow one-liners. Not that the characters were ever multi-dimensional protagonists in the first place, but there are enough interesting loose-ends established in the previous films that all but absent here, with only the McGuffin of the previous films carrying over.

That to me is the biggest flaw of the film: after several years of teasing, The Avengers feels like a tease for another series of individual sequels. It's like an episode of The Simpsons: everything returns to the status quo at the end, with the characters having learned little. Really Iron Man and the Hulk are the only two characters who enjoy anything of an 'arc' in the film.

Its really a stopgap between each individuals sequels though, people are expecting way too much from it, its a load of fun to watch and its cool seeing Marvels finest on screen together, its not perfect, some parts feel drawn out whereas others feel rushed that could have done with being longer, like the scene between Stark and Pepper at the beginning was a bit overlong, whereas Cap didnt get much else to do aside from give orders and look out of place. It would have been cool seeing Stark showing him how technology has developed since the 40s or something. Or talking about his father, which I dont think came up once, Cap is Tonys link to his dad as he knew him briefly.

I'd rather expect too much than too little, to be honest To me it's just another blockbuster with better wit and banter. Not good enough considering the hype, buildup and talent: especially from the director who gave us the best action sci-fi movie in decades.

Handsome Bob

Deleted User wrote: »

The whole point is character development was done in Iron man 1 and 2 Thor and Captain America.

charlietheminxx wrote: »

They each had at least one whole film dedicated to character development though :P

That doesn't justify a film that someone elsewhere described as lacking a soul, which is a good way of describing the problem. Even with the scenes that were meant to pack an emotional punch, such as

Coulson dying and Stark nearly killing himself to get rid of the nuke,

something was lacking.

Whedon left a lot of stuff on the editing floor, all seemingly related to character/plot development, that's the problem IMO. A lot of scenes suffer due to this and don't have the big emotional pay off that they should.

Baggly

Lads - i dont think its that type of film (character dev, emotional payoff).

Its a popcorn eating blockbuster not designed, IMO, to redefine the superhero genre. If anything, Joss has given us the amalgam movie that at least I have been wanting for ages.

I think you are all just dissapointed its not TDK, except with Marvel; which says more about your expectations than it does about the movie.

Handsome Bob

Pter wrote: »

Lads - i dont think its that type of film (character dev, emotional payoff).

Its a popcorn eating blockbuster not designed, IMO, to redefine the superhero genre. If anything, Joss has given us the amalgam movie that at least I have been wanting for ages.

I think you are all just dissapointed its not TDK, except with Marvel; which says more about your expectations than it does about the movie.

I'll give you an example, Terminator 2, arguably the best action flick ever. But it also had great heart and developed characters, with one of the most memorable and iconic endings ever.

But, you are also suggesting that it doesn't try to be anything more than a popcirn eating blockbuster when it clearly does,

they completely missed the mark on the Coulson death scene for example.

johnny_ultimate

Pter wrote: »

which says more about your expectations than it does about the movie.

We could say the exact same thing, which I think puts us at an impasse that will never be adequately resolved