The Avengers (2012) *spoilers from post 1181*

sheehy83 wrote: »

Just watched the hulk again and as good as norton was, I thought ruffalo was much better. any reason stark was telling general ross about the avengers at the end or was that just a little way of telling the audience whats coming?

Oh you should def watch thor. People kept going on about how crap it was but I thought it was very good. Worth watching for loki alone

I thought Thor was the best of the buildup movies so far. I dont count the first Iron Man as it was Iron Man 2 that was a lead in to the Avengers.

Saw it tonight and posted my thoughts on the IMDb forum. If nobody minds, I'll just copy and paste? Anyway, here goes:

First off, I want to say that if you're a Joss Whedon or Marvel then that is fan service of the highest order. It may be the most expensive fan fiction ever created.

You've got truly heroic moments from your favourite characters, some terrific laughs and an astounding final sequence in Manhattan that must last around 40 minutes. Also, the interactions within each character is the very smartly observed, even if the storyline itself is hardly anything to write home about.

One of the mains problems I had, however, is the same problem I had with Thor. Hugely fantastical elements lightened for casual audiences with broad comedy. Out of the five pre-Avengers films, I enjoyed Thor second least (wasn't a fan of Iron Man 2) because I prefer my superhero films somewhat grounded in my own reality, such as the original Iron Man, The Dark Knight or X2. With Avengers, clearly you need an intergalactic villain of huge proportions but for me, seeing Tony Stark fly away from a giant alien serpent is a bit jarring four years after watching him take on Middle Eastern terrorists.

The second gripe is linked to the first in that suspension of disbelief combines with a sense nothing you're watching has any real bearing. I quickly grew bored during the first Wolverine/Sabretooth fight in Wolverine because watching two people with superpowers isn't that fun. There's nothing at stake and this is a real problem with Avengers - Iron Man and Thor aren't actually going to really hurt one another, fans just want to see them fight and that's what you get.

This is a problem in the third act where despite Loki's army being well established with a sense of forboding, their arrival is akin to watching the TMNT beating on random footsoldiers. They're absolutely hopeless and we know that with big budget sequels for each Avenger on the way, nobody is in any real danger. Unlike in the X-Men movies, nobody here is disposable whatsoever so the multiple fight scenes become a little superfluous.

Having said that, this is a great film. I don't think it'll go down in the very top tier of superhero movies but it is what promises - the first ever truly "all-star" superhero movie and that kind of promise brings unique joys and as I've mentioned, some unique flaws.

(By the way, I write for an Irish website so I'm sure elements of this post will crop up in my review a few days from now - just in case anyone thinks it was plagiarised!)

Agreed - if you have hugely powerful characters grounded in reality (cough Superman cough), and they dont have anyone to hit (hard), then whats the bloody point. That has always been the one thing that has been lacking in the Superman movies - someone to actually put it up to Superman.

And since this is a collection of superpowered individuals, the dynamic of pitting them against a horde of monsters would seem to make sense. The alternative is pitting them against a mirror team of baddies (cough street fighter movie, mortal combat movie cough).

I get what you are saying - i know what movies are coming down the line and as a result, you can infer who is very likely to live, but that didnt take away from the movie for me.

Just my 2c.

Ill add that i mean that in the modern age of movies. I dont think the effects were available to make Superman 2 epic by todays standards.

If you did Superman 2 with Avengers SFX, direction and such; you will have a hell of a movie (which is hopefully what will happen next year).

'78 Avengers TV movie. They fight KISS

hightower1 wrote: »

My thoughts exactly, superman returns failed cause the appeal of superman was watching a tiny man fight huge and hugely powerful foes but in returns he what....lifted a large bit of land? Meh, the plane chase scene was great cuase it showed off superman at his best - taking on something massive. Maybe with Zod in the new version we'll get a good old brawl. As of right now the best superman action scenes are in the animated movies.

Superman Returns had a sh1te villain, ohhh, Lex Luthor wants LAND! only Superman can defeat an evil property developer. hopefully the new movie gives Supes a more interesting villain than a crafty real estate scammer. the problem with Superman is while the character has a fantastic origin story and mythology, unless he's fighting something that can hurt him back its kinda pointless, thats why Superman 2 was awesome, he's actually in peril.

^ yeah genuine WTF with that, even as a kid I hated that scene, love when he crushes Zod's hand though. is Michael Shannon playing Zod in the new one? he's amazing in Boardwalk Empire so will be cool to see what he does with the role

krudler wrote: »

Superman Returns had a sh1te villain, ohhh, Lex Luthor wants LAND! only Superman can defeat an evil property developer. hopefully the new movie gives Supes a more interesting villain than a crafty real estate scammer. the problem with Superman is while the character has a fantastic origin story and mythology, unless he's fighting something that can hurt him back its kinda pointless, thats why Superman 2 was awesome, he's actually in peril.

Luthor could be one of cinema's great villains if they only thought to make something of him thematically. He's a brilliant human man who irrationally fears the alien, but who rationally fears the ultimate consequences of having an invinciple superman inflict his morality on the world. Next to him, most of the Superman stable of villains amount to large punching bags of varying degrees of toughness. It'll be nice to have a change of pace, but the real shame is that no one's yet made a Superman movie where Luthor wasn't just a one-dimensional greedy antagonist with some kryptonite.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Tickets booked in glorious 2D.

I thought this 3D fad was over Serious lack of screens showing it the way it should be seen.

2D showing for me on Thursday as well. the hell with this 3D malarkey

For the advanced screening, it was in 2d, the 3d version hadn't even been finished. Whedon said he's not big into 3D but the film was finished and then converted into 3d so there scenes weren't filmed gimmicky like thors hammer coming straight at you, but it's an action film so you'll stil see coming at the screen.

I need to see this. Now. I have managed to avoid all the tv spots but the marketing bonanza really is overkill. Just give me the movie. I need to see it so much I am doing something I rarely do; going to the cinema alone. I'd rather watch this alone or with like minded people who like these kind of movies rather than most of my mates who turn their noses up at superhero flicks

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Also: everyone looks silly in 3D glasses.

How can you not look cool in a pair of Avengers 3d glasses!