The Avengers (2012) *spoilers from post 1181*

constitutionus

well got to see this yesterday but work stopped me commentating on it.

i thought it was great.

perfect?

no. the first arc is , not a mess, but a bit aimless as a set up for the final two.

its not unenjoyable , in fact the script is brilliant and one of the best aspects of the film - its classic whedon in places, but its just a little off or something.

and the conscerns i had about caps new suit IMO were borne out. it just doesnt look right. the close ups are grand but the helmet is camp as hell and the effect from a distance isnt as good as the one they pulled off in his own film.

but aside from that its visually very good. i was scared the hulk would look awfull but the only really dodgy shot of him is the one they used in the trailers (must say as well that there was some nice manipulation going on in those. in an age where people are afraid to see everything in them its nice to see someone cut them in a way so what your seeing isnt actualy in context with how it plays out in the film ). in fact as others have said the hulk steals the show being a great source of humour and pathos

all the cast did themselve proud but i have to throw a little more in the direction of ruffolo whom i cant stand but surprised me in being very good as banner in this. i was expecting to need a shot of adrenlalin to wake me up from his preformance but he plays a blinder here. same for johanson. the girl really emotes her arse off in this. she really conveyed how tramatising the hulk was for her and with the black widow being "an actress" i really didnt know half the time if i could trust what she was saying/doing.

hiddlston though REALLY needs to get plaudits.

to be the bad guy against all these hollywood a listers takes some balls and he's marvelous in this. i really hope his careeer takess off from what he's done in thor and the avengers.

theres just so many little things in this that i loved. the audience i was with was a happy clappy crowd too but there was a stage where i near joined in so involved i became in the spectacle and there IS genuine laugh out loud moments.

like i said its NOT PERFECT.

But its a damn good avengers film, i even welled up a bit when certain people died, and with the cameo at the end it looks like the next one will be even bigger (i just wish they could actually get everyone from that story in it. the FF/XMEN/AVENGERS ? now that would kick arse !)

7/10 as a fan.

say 6/10 for a newbie.

Memnoch

Deleted User wrote: »

Arrghhhh this thread is now getting way too deep for this movie. Its just a good fun movie i had a great time, it was everything i expected and more.

That's fine. Let's accept it as a good fun movie.

But it's not the movie that other blockbusters should aspire to be. It's not a movie that I will remember years later and say, yes, it was a great film. It's not a movie that delivers on every level that it could have.

I think it was worth the price of admission. I will probably go to see it once more just for the fun of the action. But it could have been so much more.

It could have been deeper.
It could have been more epic.
It could have been more original.

In the end, it lacked heart, it lacked a soul. I've seen every Marvel film on these superheros. Iron Man I was the only one that delivered as a total film.

I love action and I love superheros. Though I haven't read a lot of comics. It's great that comic book fans are loving it, but I would suggest that is because of fullfilled childhood nostalgia rather than genuine quality.

johnny_ultimate

Basically that. We've yet to have someone call The Avengers an out-and-out 'bad' film, although that's perhaps not to be expected in the slight mania of opening weekend. There are various adjectives I'd use to critique the Avengers: enjoyable, undemanding, silly, predictable. But perhaps the most prominent one is underwhelming. Not bad, simply decent. Enough for some, not enough for others.

Memnoch

Doctor DooM wrote: »

It has its serious side as well- a lot of people seem to be missing that

Banner has a redemption arc where he learns to stop hating the Hulk- which in turn brings the Hulk somewhat under his control

. But apparently I'm the only one who's noticed that, perhaps it's too subtle

With respect, I think this is wishful thinking and you are imagining something that happened way different to how it actually did.

In one scene he's out of control, falling out of the airship and going shooting down after getting smashed by the fighter jet. Then he's in the warehouse/factory getting clothes from some old dude. The next time we see him is when he arrives at the final battle and turns into 'controlled hulk.' Where/how/why this transition happened is a total mystery. It's not subtle. It's just changed without any rhyme/reason. He doesn't go through some kind of struggle where he learns to be more restrained. He just does it, out of the blue. A total copout by Whedon.

Handsome Bob

I had a similar beef elsewhere but I was told that it was

Loki's staff that was driving Hulk nuts. But I thought the staff drove everyone nuts in that scene. So how come everyone else managed to get their head straight once the attack started yet Banner couldn't control Hulk?

Baggly

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Basically that. We've yet to have someone call The Avengers an out-and-out 'bad' film, although that's perhaps not to be expected in the slight mania of opening weekend. There are various adjectives I'd use to critique the Avengers: enjoyable, undemanding, silly, predictable. But perhaps the most prominent one is underwhelming. Not bad, simply decent. Enough for some, not enough for others.

And to offer a counterpoint to that, how i would describe the film would be; fun, not pretentious, entertaining, true to the spirit of the previous movies, action filled.

Some will like it, some will not; but its not a definitive movie; its the next step in a series, and as such, i thought it was a good next step.

constitutionus

titan18 wrote: »

Ya, I don't think Hawkeye should get his own film. However, I think a SHIELD pre-Avengers could be good, show more of Hawkeye, Black Widow, Nick Fury and Coulson.

i'd be up for that.

i dont think hawkeye, black widow , or fury have enough appeal to drive a major film on their own but as part of a shield one i think you could have something great.

one of the few gripes i have with this film is we really didnt get to see that much from fury. yes he had a few good fight scenes in the begining , and alot of dialouge that was welcome, but nothing that i thought defined him like black widows fight in ironman 2.

be good to see a prequel shield film like you moot to see why these guys have the clout theyre supposed to have and how they got their tech, which has got to have something to do with tonys da and the organistion in caps first film. (plus im all for more coulson ! )

Memnoch

Handsome Bob wrote: »

I had a similar beef elsewhere but I was told that it was

Loki's staff that was driving Hulk nuts. But I thought the staff drove everyone nuts in that scene. So how come everyone else managed to get their head straight once the attack started yet Banner couldn't control Hulk?

Fair point. I believe that is called a plot hole.

I suppose the argument is that once the hulk is out, he can't be controlled till he's burned himself out. Yet he turns up in the final fight in a much more restrained manner. Like someone flipped a switch. It's not really consistent.

Baggly

Handsome Bob wrote: »

I had a similar beef elsewhere but I was told that it was

Loki's staff that was driving Hulk nuts. But I thought the staff drove everyone nuts in that scene. So how come everyone else managed to get their head straight once the attack started yet Banner couldn't control Hulk?

Maybe its the difference between working oneself up into a state and having someone really really upset you.

Baggly

Memnoch wrote: »

Fair point. I believe that is called a plot hole.

I suppose the argument is that once the hulk is out, he can't be controlled till he's burned himself out. Yet he turns up in the final fight in a much more restrained manner. Like someone flipped a switch. It's not really consistent.

He is a gamma radiated 'rage monster'; and depending on the era, there are any number of rules of why this should OR shouldnt have happened.

Ill refer you to my above post - controlled entry into rage vs. forced entry into rage.

Memnoch

Pter wrote: »

He is a gamma radiated 'rage monster'; and depending on the era, there are any number of rules of why this should OR shouldnt have happened.

Ill refer you to my above post - controlled entry into rage vs. forced entry into rage.

I'll buy it... just about... though I'm not really convinced. It still feels inconsistent and more like, it had to be this way to suit the plot, rather than, well this is the character and this is how the character would behave, regardless of what the plot needed them to do.

Baggly

Well think of it this way; you get a bang on the head, you get angry. You walk into a boxing ring to fight, you get yourself angry.

johnny_ultimate

I would agree with DooM that Banner at least has the foundations of a character arc, even if it didn't make a whole lot of sense in various respects

(surely if he had 'control' of the Hulk it would have come into play earlier than the moment of highest dramatic convenience)

. More than I can say for the Captain or Thor (especially Thor).

Memnoch

Pter wrote: »

And to offer a counterpoint to that, how i would describe the film would be; fun, not pretentious, entertaining, true to the spirit of the previous movies, action filled.

Some will like it, some will not; but its not a definitive movie; its the next step in a series, and as such, i thought it was a good next step.

Well I'm sure Twilight fans would say the same about it. I had an argument before going to see it with the Mrs with her saying action films are no different from twilight. I.E. Action porn for men vs romance porn for women.

But a film can be a romance or an action film. What sets GOOD romances and actioners apart from bad/average ones is the qualities that ALL films hold in common.

Here is where I feel the avengers falls

Genre appeal - 4/5
Character. - 3/5
Theme - 1/5
Subtext - 1/5
Story - 3/5
Originality - 2/5
HEART/SOUL - 2/5
Acting - 3/5

I still think that it would be ludicrous to compare this to twilight. But I don't think I could make a very strong argument for it.

But if I was rating the Dark Knight on these same categories


Genre appeal - 5/5
Character. - 5/5
Theme - 4/5
Subtext - 4/5
Story - 5/5
Originality - 4/5
HEART/SOUL- 5/5
Acting - 4/5

Mindkiller

What sort of subtext are we meant to look for in a superhero movie?

Handsome Bob

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I would agree with DooM that Banner at least has the foundations of a character arc, even if it didn't make a whole lot of sense in various respects

(surely if he had 'control' of the Hulk it would have come into play earlier than the moment of highest dramatic convenience)

. More than I can say for the Captain or Thor (especially Thor).

In fairness to Thor though he was quited invested in the plot due to Loki. Cap was the only really sore thumb out of the big 4.

johnny_ultimate

Handsome Bob wrote: »

In fairness to Thor though he was quited invested in the plot due to Loki. Cap was the only really sore thumb out of the big 4.

Aye, but it felt like he was just sort of there for the sake of it without really being invested in the story, if that makes sense. It felt particularly unconvincing

that he was there on Earth and wouldn't visit Portman's character (or vice versa)

. I know they kind of batted this away in one kind of pointless scene, but it just felt like it made the entire cliffhanger of Thor utterly redundant.

Kur4mA

I thought it fúcking rocked tbh. That may have been because I purposely set the expectation low due to the drivel that was Captain America and Thor, but I was still surprised and really enjoyed it. I'm planning to go see it again. This was definitely the best Hulk we've seen on the big screen imo and Loki was just a fantastic villain. Such a ****, right to the end.

Handsome Bob

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Aye, but it felt like he was just sort of there for the sake of it without really being invested in the story, if that makes sense. It felt particularly unconvincing

that he was there on Earth and wouldn't visit Portman's character (or vice versa)

. I know they kind of batted this away in one kind of pointless scene, but it just felt like it made the entire cliffhanger of Thor utterly redundant.

Ah but they did have that bit where

Coulson (I think?) explains to Thor that Jane was put in hiding by SHIELD for her own safety. Maybe Thor didn't want to visit her for fear of putting Loki onto her scent.

johnny_ultimate

Handsome Bob wrote: »

Ah but they did have that bit where

Coulson (I think?) explains to Thor that Jane was put in hiding by SHIELD for her own safety. Maybe Thor didn't want to visit her for fear of putting Loki onto her scent.

That's the scene I was referring to Could have at least done with an epilogue before he

soared off to Asghard

though. The return to status quo seemed kind of important here.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

That's the scene I was referring to Could have at least done with an epilogue before he

soared off to Asghard

though. The return to status quo seemed kind of important here.

Think Thor had better things to be doing instead of heading off for a booty call though :pac:

johnny_ultimate

krudler wrote: »

Think Thor had better things to be doing instead of heading off for a booty call though :pac:

If Natalie Portman was your Mandatory Love Interest, I'm sure you'd find the time.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

If Natalie Portman was your Mandatory Love Interest, I'm sure you'd find the time.

If it meant getting to ride Natalie Portman I would have fcuked off in the middle of the battle, never mind waiting for the enemy to be defeated.

hightower1

TBH people saying the didnt like it just come off as wanting to not like it and pick apart things like subtext and charecter development in order to seem like some movie snob and not like what the masses like.

Its a comic book movie at the end of the day, its was an entertaining flick and didnt set out to be anything but that or ever have the potential to be citizen kane ffs. Give some people a bun and they complain its not foie gras :rolleyes:

brianregan09

Right i went to see this last night and loved it , Now my opinion on it , and lads seriously get off Christopher Nolans arse will ye, if he read this thread his head would be the size of a bloody blimp, Yes Inception was fantastic and Dark Knight was good but it was not the most fantastic thing ever concieved since god himself made the earth lol as some of you are making out, Heath Ledger was amazing but so was Tom Hiddleston in Avengers (he had the misfortune of not dieing thus his performance won't be blown out of proportion)

Any way onto the Avengers its a comic book movie about a guy in a mechanical suit, a guy who took some super strenght potion, a gamma mutated monster , a god and some regular secret agents teaming up to fight a god and his alien army so its not exactly going to be grounded in realism is it ?

I thought the interaction between them is fantastic the bickering and the Thor/IM/Cap fight alone is fantasticly done, Also the Thor vs Hulk fight is amazing , Now the Hulk changing the 1st time , if you watched the movie you can clearly see he hates the hulk even referring to him as the other guy and that he hasn't tranformed in over a year, He is forced to change into him the 1st time you can even see him fighting it and those kind of turns he can't control , Whereas just like at the end of The Incredible Hulk he seems to have learned to control it somewhat and thats what the transformation at the end is

Thor just landing out of nowhere did piss me off though and explaining it away a bit of black magic, In the comics thor flys through space anyway so why didn't they just use this, I think it was good though that they at least adressed the jane foster situation though

Captain America i thought was great especially his interactions with Coulsen and the rest, He looked great fighting at the end with his mask off(the only part of the costume that doens't work for me)

Ironman was fantastic in this comes off as a real dickhead with a heart especially when they find out Coulsen died you could really tell it hit him hard

Widow was way better than Iron Man 2 she even does a bit of Russian in it , But outside of that i really thought she was one of the stars of the show and not just a pretty face

But Loki again stole the show, The only bit that kind of annoyed me was when Hulk just ****ed him around near the end, kind of diluted his threat a little for me even if it was funny, Isn't loki meant to be the equal of Thor i was waiting for another wicked scrap between them

and as regards Thanos.....Well didn't think they would do him exactly as his 616 version but they did but to make him feasible on the big screen they will have to depower him a bit cos with the Infinity Gauntlet where all ****ed lol

Loved it despite the few little things that annoyed me 9/10

Handsome Bob

lol, nowt to do Nolan and TDK, not for me anyway. I'm actually one of the few who has enjoyed every film Marvel have released to date and said as much on here before seeing the film.

I call it how I see it, simple. And I don't think anyone has said they hated it so that's a bit of a strawman.

constitutionus

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I would agree with DooM that Banner at least has the foundations of a character arc, even if it didn't make a whole lot of sense in various respects

(surely if he had 'control' of the Hulk it would have come into play earlier than the moment of highest dramatic convenience)

. More than I can say for the Captain or Thor (especially Thor).

actually i'd say ironman has one too.

least thats what i think the whole "what would you die for/ you only do stuff you get something out of" arguement that cap had with him on the carrier which lead to him being willing to sacrifice himself to redirect the nuke through the portal at the end of the film. tony is still really a bit of a selfish bollocks in this so getting to that stage is advancement for him.

i only really copped that one myself as the final bit played out on screen.

on the hulk thing i think Ptr has it best. surprise him and its savage lash out hulk which is why

black widow ends up running for her life. im pretty sure her being shook up by the hulk is the ONLY genuine fear she showed in a film where she faked every other instance of vulernability.

when banner chooses to let the hulk out like at the end its not quite controlled but more directed.

must say though that "dr banner. put the spear down line" was one of the better scenes in the film !

Savman

Bit of a ropey start, but it definitely delivers! Hard to have character development when it's already been taken care of in a number of other films, but I thought the cast were spot on.

Iron Man & Hulk stole the show I thought, Downey Jr. picking up where he left off and Ruffalo's struggle with the "other guy" is played out exceptionally well.

By the end of it you get the impression that Hulk is the strongest of them all, the film does a very good job of highlighting each heros' strengths and weaknesses. Iron Man with the suit off is a mere mortal whereas the Hulk genuinely seems indestructible. I thought this was without doubt the best representation the Hulk has had on screen and that they FINALLY got him right at the 3rd attempt.

Was also one of the better 3D flicks I've seen, not normally a fan of it but I thought this one was done very well indeed.

Go see it if you haven't already!

johnny_ultimate

hightower1 wrote: »

TBH people saying the didnt like it just come off as wanting to not like it and pick apart things like subtext and charecter development in order to seem like some movie snob and not like what the masses like.

Its a comic book movie at the end of the day, its was an entertaining flick and didnt set out to be anything but that or ever have the potential to be citizen kane ffs. Give some people a bun and they complain its not foie gras :rolleyes:

*bangs head* This is not what we're saying at all. We're saying that even on its own terms and on a comparative level with its appropriate peers The Avengers falls short of success: the reasons for this have been laid out several times by several posters over the last few pages. Notice that we're comparing it to other Marvel, Whedon and action films rather than Citizen Kane, Le Havre or Koyaanisqatsi. Accusations of snobbery are unfair, when in fact pretty much everyone in this thread has been reasonable and clear-headed in their criticisms pro and against the film.

constitutionus

@ savman

indeed.

if marvel/disney take anything away from this film its that the hulk is GOLD in this setting .

when he's on his todd not so much.

dont get me wrong i loved both of his outings but he cliks here as part of an ensemble of "peers" in a much much better way.

the loki smackdown had me in tears. literally throwing him about like a rag doll following up with hiddlston pulling the BEST facial expressions of "WTF just happened ?" while groaning/whimpering as the hulks stalks off to the tune of "puny god"

it was just pure win.