So did you like The Avengers movie?

I thought it was fine for a big action ensemble flick. Decent balance of roles. Well, maybe Thor got a tick less then he might have, but Scarlett J had a real nice role to play, a mix of action and personal stuff. Black Widow and Hawkeye as... friends.


  • I liked that Hulk's features looked like Hulk, but also like Mark Ruffalo.

    But I did find myself shifting in my seat a bit. I would go to see a movie about the BW/Hawkeye relationship.
  • I was blown away. I thought it was amazing. And funny.
  • I'm really tired of these films. i did not see it, so i can't speak for quality in this case. I've seen several of the recent Marvel films and i've been left with a sour taste. Also i don't really like the company, so they are not getting money directly from me. I may watch this film if it is on free TV, but I won't seek it out.
  • Amazing, loved it.

    Loved that the Hulk actually looked like Mark Ruffalo and that they remembered that Banner's actually a competent scientist, Cap was a cornball, there was an actual ending (something Whedon struggles with at times), loved the unabashed embracing of the whole thing as a great action movie without being too self-referential (something I don't really like in my comics/books/movies)...just a lot of fun.

    The now-standard Marvel after-credit scenes (there were two) were great. And next paycheck, a donation to match my ticket cost is going to Hero Initiative.
  • Based on these comments I'm guessing it should please the fan base. Batman and Spiderman yet to come, plus some animated films, Brave and Frankenweenie, so we have a summer of tentpole efforst to compare and contrast.

    John Carter of course is already out. Avengers looks poised to do bigger box office, and without getting back into the reasons (marketing etc) do you think Avengers was "better" than John Carter? Avengers had bigger and louder set piece action, and decent characterization, but diffused by being a group story. John Carter had the more traditional focus on a single protagonist, and so for me,a more appealing focus. I think I liked it better...
    but I give Whedon serious credit for achieving a well balanced approach to multiple leads.
  • Bit of a negative review in the NY Times.

    For me, the key line is this:

    The light, amusing bits cannot overcome the grinding, hectic emptiness,
    the bloated cynicism that is less a shortcoming of this particular film
    than a feature of the genre.

    It is in the end, a superhero movie, and your tolerance and excitement for it may reflect your tolerance and excitement over super heroes in general, and Marvel in particular.
  • Totally not surprised at the NY Times review, or Ebert's review...but as Marvin says, reactions to it probably have a lot to do with your overall feelings when it comes to action movies and comic book adaptation movies and superhero movies.
  • I'll see it on Monday.

    On a side note:
    I also heard how much money it made over the weekend. That's some serious coin... but they have promoted the he'll out of it and I'm sure that also cost a few pennies.
  • Totally not interested in the NY Times review or Ebert's review. Or, frankly, anyone else's review. (A review is just one person, giving their opinion. I used to be that guy at several newspapers, I know how little it means. A respected, famous reviewer is still just one person with an opinion.)

    Like I said earlier (but didn't elaborate), I loved the shit out of it. Great script, great cast, great directing. Not just a satisfying payoff for the "shared universe" franchise they've built, but a movie that raises the bar for the franchise. There wasn't a single moment in it I was bored. The action scenes were jaw-dropping, the comedy was hysterical, the character stuff was really done.

    My only problem with it was that Emo Kid Loki was just as dull to me as he was in Thor, and his minions/partners weren't at all fleshed out (and the coup de grace that finished them off at the climax was a bit underwhelming. You'd think they wouldn't be vulnerable to [redacted], right?)

    Also, I may be a huge Joss Whedon fan, but I really felt like he subverted himself and his quirks and made a movie that works as a big-budget blockbuster first, and a vehicle for Joss Whedon distantly down the list. I felt the same way about Cabin In The Woods — there were some Jossisms, sure, but Joss Whedon fans I went with walked out of it going "Who was the screenwriter? ....Ohhhh."
  • Never really read or watched any of Whedon's work so I've no opinion about that. I agree that Loki never quite achieved a persuasive level of malice or deviousness, but I blame that on the scriptwriter, whoever that was. I squirmed a little, but overall enjoyed it.
  • To be honest, I walked out of Lampshade in the Woods wondering why anyone would really care who the screenwriter was.  Sure, it was entertaining, on a kind of detached, ironic level.  I laughed out loud at several points, I'm sure when I was supposed to.  (Bradley Whitford's last bit was hysterical.)  But I'm sorry: it completely failed to impress me with how clever it was.  The ending – which had been spoken of in reverent don't-spoil-it tones – was a huge saw-it-coming let-down.  (But then, I've seen Thelma and Sundance.)  As someone who really hasn't paid much attention to the horror-movie genre in a while, all it did was reaffirm that choice, if this kind of movie-about-horror-movies is the most creative thing the genre is coming up with.  (A bit like the comics-about-superhero-comics trend.)  Maybe not Whedon's fault... but not really to his credit either.  I'm hoping that Avengers (waiting until I can see it without having people squeezed in next to me) is less of a sarcastic love-letter to one of the writer's favorite genres, and more... an example of the genre.
  • Yeah, again — I thought Cabin in the Woods was brilliant.
  • I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, and will be posting a review later this week. If you hadn't seen the previous Marvel movies, you may be a little lost or left wanting (since they don't really develop any characters, but more work from what has been established in the previous flicks - which works well for me, since I own them all; but may leave some audiences less familiar with the characters a little confused).

    The flick was entertaining throughout, with some great character interactions. I loved when Thor said Loki was his brother, then someone pointed out he killed 82 people, and Thor immediately shoots back "He was adopted."


    Hulk had some of the best scenes in this flick, I think. Especially at the end. Ruffalo had a big role to fill, having to play a character with two previous "less than stellar films" - but I think he did it well, playing off the other characters and building upon the groundwork Norton had laid with the previous flick.

    All in all, it was the way these characters played off each other and the larger than life action pieces that really made this movie for me. Really enjoyed it.
  • Re: Cabin in the woods.
    I liked it. A lot.

    Also, I FULLY 100% agree with Brandon.  A review from a single person is meaningless *to me*.  I recently heard a news piece on NPR about a psychological study that focused on the personality types who put weight in the opinions of others, versus the types who forge on despite reviews / opinions / social views, et.  It seemed *my* type didn't care about opinions when I am passionate about a project, idea, movie or whatever.  However, my fiance and her daughter... they read reviews like the bible.  I've seen them turn down movies that they previously wanted to see because they heard / read unfavorable reviews.

    Personally, if I'm into a certain genre / topic I'll watch all kinds of versions of it (from good to the bad).  I don't need ALL my movies to be Oscar worthy or socially-accepted critical darlings.  I don't even need the entire movie to be good from start to finish.  I might only like a few scenes or some cool special effects.  I take what I can get.

    But that's my opinion / view. It shouldn't alter anyone else's opinion / view.
  • I came out of it on Friday actually wanting to fist fight space aliens, like a little kid. That might just be redirected sexual frustration though.

    But seriously, I'm a huge mark for The-Avengers-as-a-concept-and-done-well, and I thought it was a blast. Seeing it in a packed theater was nice too; the audience almost burst something when Hulk and Loki had that little scene in Stark's apartment.

    Misc. thoughts:

    - Ruffalo was terrific, with the kind of weird, haunted affability that I always dig in depictions of Banner.

    - Tom Hiddleston was slightly better in Thor, but he had more meat to work with there (seriously, rewatch Thor, watch his almost-sincere "no, guys, stop fighting" face during the initial Thor/Odin tension in the vault, and the way he tells you everything you need to know about Loki by the way he walks out from behind a pillar when Thor's throwing a hissy fit.). As is, he chewed the scenery like it was delicious in this.

    - The Hulk-as-horror-movie-monster scene was fantastic; also, the way that the otherwise unmesswithable Black Widow clearly had a special fear of the Hulk in every scene she had with Banner was an interesting wrinkle.

    - Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer a completely unrelated plot to the next film, instead of what the first post-credits scene set up. I like the character in question, but...enh.

    - Stellan Skarsgård was understatedly great as a victim of Totally-Not-The-Anti-Life-Equation.

    Seeing it again tonight with two folks who've not seen it yet.
  • The only review I've been interested in is one that talked about a theme in the movie that goes against the "take-away" of basically every action movie in the last few decades: That being the strongest, having the biggest guns, doesn't make you safer — it makes you a target. Which I think is a super-interesting point. I don't know whether it's an intentional critique of American foreign policy embedded in a summer blockbuster or not... but still.
  • @Joshhechinger I don't think any amount of re-watching Thor is going to make me care about Emo Loki.
  • Outside of the first Iron Man (which was good), I've found the rest of the Marvel films to be excellently cast but woefully scripted endeavors.  Avengers is the first shift back up to that "Iron Man" caliber and I think works on a number of levels.  I've already seen it twice, and I think the film is going to age pretty well.  I think one of the elements that stood out to me the second time through was how much better ALL things for both Thor and Loki worked than in the scattered Asgard-focused first feature.  Thor as the more serious character works brilliantly and the hammer moves SOOOOO much better in Avengers.  And Loki follows in the tradition of brilliant Whedon baddies that you can't help but like. 

    Most of my problems stem from wishing the dynamic of "why we fight" had a bit more "Serenity"-style elegance, bizarre camera continuity (my god, the hair changes throughout), and SHIELD just being vaguely uninteresting... but I'll take what we got.

    Above all, though, Mark Ruffalo / motion-captured Hulk just steals the show for me.  Every scene.  Absolutely amazing, chills-inducing, laughter-igniting, cheer-eliciting perfection.  So much sadness, joy, and anger wrapped into a fantastic character that is pulled off with a real emotional heft and arc.  There's so much amazing stuff going on with the way Stark approaches and believes in Banner... true heroes with feet of clay. 
  • @BrandonSeifert - Loki has too much fun to be Emo; also his hair is in completely the wrong direction.

    He's like, half Drama Club, half...I wanna say steampunk, but is there, like, a thing instead where people dress up like faux Tolkeinesque gentlemen-adventurers instead and swan about? Not the Renn Faire.
  • edited May 2012
    I just saw it, in retro $10 2D.  This lived up to the hype for me. :)

    It wasn't perfect: The attempt to justify the name of the team so long after they'd been calling them "Avengers" was touching, but really really contrived.  The film also suffered a little from Batman In The JLA Syndrome, requiring a threat to all humanity... that a guy with a bow and a woman who kicks people were somehow useful against.

    But other than the clunky solutions to the Stuff That Goes With The Assignment, they got it right.  The right actors reprising their parts, none of which took over the movie, well-written dialog, enough action scenes to satisfy the popcorn munchers, etc.  When/if Warner ever puts together a Justice League film, in addition to the same STGWTA problems, and recasting Batman, they'll have the added burden of living up to the example of this film.  Bummer for them.

    I enjoyed the second epilog more than the first.  But then, I like shawarma more than I like Thanos. :)

    Loki repeatedly reminded me of Brent Spiner playing Data's evil twin.
  • No I did not.

    Though that may change in the unlikely event that I ever get around to seeing it.

    Jason - what are STGWTA problems?
  • "Stuff That Goes With The Assignment" problems: how to make a movie about a silly Silver Age superhero team work in a modern blockbuster-budget film.
  • that a guy with a bow and a woman who kicks people were somehow useful against.

    As I said (elsewhere I think) Master Assassin IS a superpower.
  • To my eye, the average alien warrior didn't seem any tougher than an average human, so hand to hand wasn't entirely unfeasible for a super soldier and a pair of master assassins.
  • My point isn't that Steve, Tasha, and Clint couldn't handle the foot soldiers, but that that the writers had to include both foot soldiers and giant flying whatsits, to give everyone a suitable target to punch.  It's pretty easy to create a credible threat for the final battle when all of the heroes are on the same power level... but not so easy when they're a mismatched set of god, assassin, monster, etc.
  • What I think was interesting is that Steve Rogers, Captain America, is having the same level of difficulty fighting these guys as normal everyday Black Widow and Hawkeye.

    They're just normal people with fast reflexes and unique weapons. But Cap's super powered! Shouldn't he be fairing a bit better than the normies?
  • Or how about this: what if the male avengers posed like the female one?
Sign In or Register to comment.