Discussion in 'The Living Room' started by Moridin, Jan 14, 2011.
The Avengers: I would give it a high 8 or low 9 out of 10. I was very pleased with this film.
And now, please read my blog about all the stuff I was overthinking while watching it.
A couple of disclaimers and such first. Also a friend of mine pointed out a couple of holes in the argument and I'd rather leave the blog post as is now that I'm finished, so:
1. This is all opinion, and you're always free to disagree, just please be polite about it.
2. I realize in retrospect that I may have latched onto the wrong conceptual schema to describe the aspects of the film that bothered me.
3. The main thing that bothered me in the film really is the stuff about Nick Fury and Captain America in the scenes I describe.
4. I did actually really enjoy the movie, in case my thoughts make it sound to the contrary.
Best action movie I've ever seen. Period. Period period. Way funnier than I thought it would be. And sad (those who saw the movie know what I'm talking about). It's hard to imagine a sequel being more epic. The world wouldn't be able to take it.
Yeah dude, personally, I think you kind of got the wrong idea and it almost sounds like superhero envy. Like if Nolan made a Superman movie you wouldn't like it because he's super powered. I never got the impression they put more emotional stock into the super powered heroes than the non-powered ones.
SHIELD going off on it's own may seem weird but if you know the comics and remember scenes from the movie, they're kind of above world governments and usually depicted as being controlled by the United Nations. Mutants and superheroes being government controlled (like Cap was) has been touched on a lot in the comics. Iron Man 1&2 even touched on it. The government knew about Iron Man. Definitely about Hulk. Cap and Thor may have been covered up. But they never tried to contact them. Iron Man lives in a freaking tower, he's not hard to find.
You mention Bruce Wayne and Iron Man, but what you fail to mention is they both thought they were "better" than the average person (and still do). They both inherited their money from their fathers. So while you appreciate their power more because they're average physically but geniuses, don't forget they're both spoiled rich kids and wouldn't be where they are without their money. That's no different than Thor being born into a society with great knowledge and being given Mjolnir. I understand what you mean, but the fact is they both had potential and their situations gave them the means to their end. Thor's gives him crazy powers and Batman's gives him mass amounts of cash. Both to protect people.
You're right that a lot of superheroes movies focus way too much on the action and not "holy crap that building fell over, like 5000 people just died!" Transformers had that issue for a while. You never felt that actual people were in danger, and when they were they didn't really care. You should be fighting for the safety of the public, not just to fight.
I think if I got the feeling that they put Thor above Hawkeye or Black Widow I could identify with your blog post. But I never got the feeling of "Move out of the way Hawkeye! The Hulk is here!" from the Avengers. It was very balanced and they all had pretty important roles. Just remove Hawkeye, a normal guy, and things go very differently.
It sounds hyperbolic, but The Avengers really is a top-tier action movie. Right up there with the classics. I don't think I've ever had that much fun in a movie theater. The Amazing Spider-Man and The Dark Knight Rises are going to have to be pretty damn impressive to top that.
Way to spoil it. But in terms of the way the movie works, it's a perfectly fitting and awesome extra scene.
Superhero envy? That's a larf. A lot of the same complaints I could apply to many military movies as well, actually probably moreso than superhero films. I admit I never read the comics so I'm not steeped in the lore, which I acknowledged in my question about the Council.
I'd give it a 7.5/10. There is no way this will be the best superhero movie of the summer, much less best overall movie.
The story just wasn't compelling or engaging enough. Great popcorn flick with clever writing, but it was pretty shallow. When you compare this to the Nolan Batman films it's not even in the same ballpark. But I'm fairly certain it wasn't trying to be that kind of movie. It could have had a faster paced first half of the movie, but the last act was probably the most entertaining stuff I've seen. I really enjoyed the film.
Pretty much this with a higher rating, if only because I didn't expect it to be much more than that and all I wanted was to be entertained.
Of course it's shallow with clever writing. That's what comic books are supposed to be, especially in the Marvel Universe. What I liked most about The Avengers is that it is paced and filmed exactly how a Marvel movie SHOULD be. Great action, broad story-telling with just enough camp to feel like it was ripped straight out of a serial. By my count, it serves pretty damn well as a comic movie.
Yes, the Nolanverse Batman flicks are going to be thematically more dark and compelling. But you're comparing a realism-inspired alternate Universe with quite a few creative liberties to a very well-done by-the-numbers true-to-form COMIC movie. They're completely different beasts for a reason and shouldn't be compared. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Or more on-topic, comparing Deadpool comics to Batman comics.
EDIT: TL;DR Version - The Nolanverse movies are what comic book-INSPIRED movies should be. The Avengers is what should happen when a comic book is directly converted into a movie.
7/10, I'm among the rare ones who didn't like it.
Thus far, it is the only superhero movie.
Apologizes. Someone managed to record it and put it up on YouTube. I lol'd.
Just saw it in IMAX 3D, it was not worth the extra $$$ for 3D as usual. Though seeing the trailers for Spider-Man and Prometheus in 3D was pretty fucking cool.
I'd give it a 7.5/10 it was entertaining and had some really awesome scenes but I probably won't watch it again. I still think the best Marvel movie is X-Men: First Class.
Always makes me laugh. Before the film reached theaters, nearly everyone had already made up their minds the the film would be poor and tank hard at the box office. Silly gooses. T'was on board from the moment it was announce that Singer would return alongside Vaughn. Another fun little tid-bit: the marketing for this film was wonky, and the budget deal was shit.
Considering that it's not meant to be zomg oscar worthy type film making, but a super hero/comic movie, I'd say it did excellent.
10/10 from me.
The Avengers - 7.5/10
Not SPOILER-heavy, but I may have unintentionally revealed an event that wasn't shown in trailers. Read at your own discretion!
Initial reaction in point form:
- This film sets the bar high in terms of sticking very closely to the source material.
- Great Action.
- Very funny!
- Very witty
- Cinematic quality was very weak in comparison to other hero films out there.
- Silvestri's score was less-than-enthralling.
- Smulders did not exude Maria Hill in the least bit
- Banner's will over the Hulk is unexplained
- Cap.America's shield withstanding Thor's hammer is unexplained
- Coulson died =(
Overall, not the greatest superhero movie ever made, but it will remain as the standard to go by and improve upon in future superhero ensemble films. I had a lot of fun watching it.
Some are saying that the film tops other superhero ensemble films such as X-Men 2. I disagree. If I had to choose: Watchmen, X2, and Kick-Ass (off the top of my head) are superior in their own right.
Spoilers, fuckers: True. He claims that he is always angry and thus able to control "the other guy" yet earlier in the film he goes nuts and attacks Natasha / Black Widow.
But when Hulk attacks Black Widow, there was too much going on. Banner wasn't able to think straight but when he arrives at the city, he's more calm.
dot dot dot what?
You can't tell me that Whedon's style in The Avengers is comparable to Nolan, Vaughn, Snyder or Raimi's direction and composition upon their respective superhero films. Just to be clear, I have nothing against Whedon. Hell, he had a lot to juggle with and he delivered in spades.
I think it has something more to do with the subtext Whedon was going for. Some kind of realization perhaps that Banner had. It just isn't clear enough for the general audience to grasp though.
This was explained in the end scene of The Incredible Hulk. He's had control since then.
The Edward Norton one correct?
Still have to watch that.
Separate names with a comma.