The Avengers

12467

Comments

  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    It may still be early, but they're counting 36 reviews at RT, so it's probably not going to drop very much. That is very encouraging, but I'm still not entirely sold on it. If I have some friends who want to go, I'll probably go, but otherwise, I'm waiting for DVD/VOD.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    I've been looking forward to this for a long time, and was probably going to enjoy it to some extent regardless simply by being a Marvel fan, but I'm really pleasantly surprised by the reviews. Films like The Avengers just don't get reviewed this positively, regardless of how good they are. Very surprising indeed that so many critics seem to like it. Hopefully it's not a bad sign. ;)
  • DanielMorgan
    DanielMorgan Posts: 324 Just Starting Out
    Watching it tomorrow, very much looking forward to seeing Josh Whedon's work. I have to say though, from the footage Iv'e seen, I'm not very impressed :S. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qQ9iOc_j3U
    CG looks a bit clumsy. BUT ..... obviously this is only a small scene, and AT LEAST 80% of my brain is being run by little comic nerds so , still UBER PUMPED ;)
  • fredclips
    fredclips Posts: 228
    I'm in Australia, one of the very few times we get stuff before the US. :)
    I did have to drag my girls to see it. They are not really super-hero fans.
    I had to explain to them that I understand them not wanting to go... but I wasn't going on my own!
    They did both like it in the end. Not really surprised as they are fans of Firefly and Dr Horrible.
    Both the girls did noticed very "Joss" jokes as well. Which I didn't think were not out of place at all. Very similar to what we have already seen and heard in previous Marvel movies. These movies have not been trying to copy the style of 'Batman'. (dark, slow and boring)
    BTW: You can follow what is happening in the action scenes!
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 378 Enthusiast
    edited April 2012
    Just got out of a press screening and wow.
    I thought the inconsistent directing, cheap-looking production design, or overall bland, uncinematic visual style would get to me, but no- it's something much more fundamental.
    There is no story. And when there is, it's masked in a hour-long barrage of CSI: Miami-style one-liners. Seriously- OH- MY- GOD.
    The writing, while witty, played more like Rush Hour 2, an action-comedy, than the subtle, occasional charm of the likes of Iron Man or Thor. It was almost unbelievable. Some cheered in the theater, some cringed heavily at the frequent and hard-to-follow nerdgasms onscreen.
    Me, I just sat there- unable, all but at one point, to truly feel engaged.
    The movie lacks any build-up or payoff on a basic level- and so all my prejudices and quarrels aside, it failed me and my comrades expectations at the core. This is the plot and subjext of Transformers 3, but without the grandoise cinematic approach.
    What you've got instead is a constant change-off of insults and jokes between already-not-very-grounded characters in a very, very campy environment. What could've come out as something like the excellent 'The Ultimates' comic falls flat because it comes off kitsch- and at the same time has to shoe-horn in the more-grounded character personalities and worlds of the previous films- which lands it in this awkward middle-ground that's very, very difficult to 'get into.'
    Unlike the reviewer to the right of me, who bit at his fingernails in awkward review and called it the worst movie he'd seen in a while- and unlike the reviewer to the left of me, who said she considered wearing a costume and cried, covering her eyes, as Hulk smashes through a faux-New York- I'm somewhere in the middle. I can't call it the worst movie of the year- but it's very damn close. And when I saw the likes of, say, Harry Knowles of Ain't It Cool News a few rows in front of me, tweeting away in his motorized wheelchair, stuffing his face full of popcorn and already priming his online review to read 'THE BEST MOVIE EVER!', I have to say..............I got a little disgusted.
    This could've been a really, really great movie. Not just a statement, not just a comic book film. But a great movie in the ranks of Spiderman 2, Batman Begins, or The Dark Knight. And it just..........wasn't. But it didn't matter, because the comic book nerds will pay for it, and most of them will be so entranced in the set pieces, they'll love it.
    Well, I'm a comic book guy, and I respect what Marvel tried to do. But from the beginning I didn't like how it was handled. And even without my biases, I had fundamental problems with the television-dramedy-style of the writing. It felt cheap, it played cheap, and looked bad. And it makes me sad it'll be rewarded for it. Not a great movie, not a good one.
    Bad.
    Wished it wasn't, but it is. And I'm astounded the Tomatometer still holds it so high.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    Now I'm REALLY excited about it!
  • fredclips
    fredclips Posts: 228

    Now I'm REALLY excited about it!
    lol

    But a great movie in the ranks of Spiderman 2, Batman Begins, or The Dark Knight. And it just..........wasn't.
    I can give you Spiderman 2...that train scene was really something. But I really don't care for the Batman movies. I'm sure lots of people like them... I just don't see why.

    This is the plot and subjext of Transformers 3, but without the grandoise cinematic approach.
    By cinematic approach do you mean completely impossible to follow action?

    The writing, while witty, played more like Rush Hour 2, an action-comedy, than the subtle, occasional charm of the likes of Iron Man or Thor.
    Iron Man was good. But it's ending was craptastic. Lets have the final action scene with a almost out-of-power hero. That'll be fun. That's why people come to a superhero movie!
    The Avengers was fun. I'll happy watch it again... which is more than I could say for Rush Hour 2 ;)
  • NuttyBanana
    NuttyBanana Posts: 151
    edited April 2012
    Saw it tonight and it lived up to my expectations, I thought it was great. Good pace, writing and action. The characters made their way into the film with a good flow and without wasting time on introducing them again.
    The banter between characters was great and the comedic elements were spot on. The hulk/Loki "I am a god" moment got a lot of laughs.
    The finale was as good as I'd heard and hoped and I'm glad to say the film now sits among my favourites.
    I won't bash your review Andrew but we obviously have very different tastes! In regards to the rottentomatoes reviews, the 2 negatives are from 1 score which is 3/5 which should result as fresh and the review was full of errors, and the other by a reviewer who has apparently claimed to go against popular opinion to get website hits. That's all I've read on the matter but as we all know, we all enjoy/dislike things based on our own prefs.
    My only problem with the film tonight was the venue, Odeon. They turned the audio down far too low once the film started which was basically to hide a "corrupt audio file". The sound blew out and distorted when it peaked, so every action scene was met with loud crackles. We were told it was affecting all of their showings and I assume all of the cinemas. I got a refund and may use that to check it out again next week to catch up with the bits I missed.
  • madmike
    madmike Posts: 135
    I saw this at my local odean in 3d ( so was worried about the above sound comment), I took my 12 year old son and my mate who is 28, im 36 so broad age range. I wouldn't say it was the best super hero movie ever. It certainly had my favourite on screen hulk, as most of my friends have agreed. I found the film very entertaining and found myself laughing in a good way throughout the film. Ive always been a fan of Joss whedons work and I knew what to expect going in.
    I wasn't expected something like the dark knight. I wasn't impressed with Transformers 3 or the spider-man movies. In my own opinion this surpassed all those films. And I thought as brief as it was the mid end credits sequence was the best one yet.
    I did think it was a very slow burner to start, still it did keep me entertained throughout, and yes I love cheesy dialogue. The film gave me what I wanted.
    If you go into this film judging it on the style of the dark knight (ive loved the Nolan batman films) then you will be disappointed. Of all the marvel films leading up to this they were all light hearted in style, bright colourful super hero films.
    In conclusion its fun popcorn movie one that made me laugh, and smile.
  • NullUnit
    NullUnit Posts: 779 Just Starting Out
    Saw it last night and it was awesome! Loved it. Joss Whedon did a great job juggling all the characters and their arcs. The Hulk is the break out character of the team, he was great. I liked how they setup Secret Invasion and Civil War for the next movies.
    This is not Batman and that is fantastic, because we are getting a Batman later this summer. This movie is the opposite of Batman.
  • DanielMorgan
    DanielMorgan Posts: 324 Just Starting Out
    I hope they never make a sequel to it. Its appeal is that its never been done before. It should be a one time thing!
  • jawajohnny
    jawajohnny Posts: 143
    To anyone who's seen the movie:
    I know that there's a "mid-credits" scene (which appears after the "title" credits play), but is there also a scene after the credits? There have been rumors floating around that they just recently shot one. I'm wondering if I should stay through all the credits when I see this Friday!
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    edited April 2012
    I'm that guy who sticks around and watches the credits just to try and acknowledge everyone who worked on it. I won't remember them, but it's some time to think about the movie, and be like, "Oh, John Smith was one of the compositors for the underwater sequence." And have people ask you, "Is there something after the credits?" as they leave their garbage behind and check their facebook feed while they head outside for a smoke.
  • jawajohnny
    jawajohnny Posts: 143
    edited April 2012
    I generally stay for the "main" credits, but I check out once the VFX/sound credits start to roll. No sense in staying through those, especially when the theater workers come in and noisily start to clean up all the trash around me. I do watch all the credits on any Blu-ray I watch at home, though. The only time I didn't stick around for the main credits was at a showing of Star Trek when the lights came up and revealed a team of Secret Service agents escorting someone out of the theater, and I rushed out to try to find out who it was. :P
    I always find it hilarious when I stay through the credits and see everyone else around me leaving --- only to miss a during or after-the-credits scene. They're all rushing to get out, and they'll look at me like I'm the "nerd who's staying for the credits". I get the last laugh though. :)
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    edited April 2012
    Saw The Avengers yesterday and absolutely loved it. No, it's not the Best Film Ever, but it's hugely entertaining. The fact that it isn't TERRIBLE is remarkable, given the history of superhero movies with lots of characters (X3, Batman & Robin, Fantastic Four). That it is actually rather good is a relief and a surprise. As I said months and months ago, I'm not sure anybody but Whedon could have pulled this off.
    As has been pointed out, this isn't Batman. And what I love about comic book movies at the moment is that something like Nolan's Dark Knight series and Marvel's Avengers series can both exist at the same time, and be so utterly different. A far cry from the 1990s, when EVERY comic book movie was trying to be Burton's Batman or Blade.
    Avengers is a little fumbling at the start, but it pulled me in once they got to the helicarrier, and from that point onwards it just got better and better. The key thing is that it takes the time to mesh the characters together before finally delivering a big finale in a way that previous Marvel movies haven't quite managed.
    People are talking about whether Whedon will do Avengers 2, of course - but I'd rather see him do a Hulk movie. He seems to get that character in a way no previous director has managed. Also fantastic to see that VFX technology has FINALLY got to a point where the Hulk can be done properly.
  • guitar74
    guitar74 Posts: 506
    I did not know the avengers was released overseas before the US. I'm going to see it when it opens this weekend in 3D. I love the 3d Movies! I think they should make the hulk around 8 feet tall and huge. The hulk in the avengers looks really big, well I saw in the trailers! But I love the ironman movies, liked captain america, so this has to be good. Thor was ok for a one time watch! I did not know this, but I got excited, that Prometheus movie is going to be in 3d in the USA, I did not know this and that movie is going to rock in 3D! Hope the Avangers will be a good movie. The theater in town did not play The Raven, I got a little bumbed out over that!
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    Guitar74, single-handedly keeping the 3D movie industry alive.
  • TheRealJayWalker
    TheRealJayWalker Posts: 223 Enthusiast
    Guitar74 - I think you'll love what they did with The Hulk in Avengers. I think ILM nailed this and he blends in with all the other characters nicely (quite difficult for a big green dude).
    I saw it in 2D as I'm not a fan of 3D (with the exception of Avatar), and not once did I sit there and think 'I'd love to see that in 3D'.
    It works brilliantly without it I think. All in all, a cracking film and the first one i've seen in ages which had the whole audience watching and was nice not to be blinded by someone's iPhone or HTC in the row in front coz they were bored!
    It's great that comic book films have advanced to this stage where finally studio execs have wised up that sticking to the roots of the comic can produce a good story.
  • I had heard that the new Dark Knight Rises trailer was going to play before the Avengers; did it?
  • madmike
    madmike Posts: 135
  • jawajohnny
    jawajohnny Posts: 143
    edited April 2012
    @guitar74 --- The Avengers is not "real" 3D. The movie was shot in 2D, and was converted to 3D in post-production. Therefore, it will absolutely not look as good as "shot-in-3D" movies like Avatar, Transformers 3, and Prometheus. Yes, the 3D "conversions" are getting better... but they still pale in comparison to the real thing. Personally, I don't waste my money on post-converted 3D --- I would just see it in 2D instead.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    Also, Avengers is a very dark film in its first half, and I've seen numerous reports of it being projected far too dark in 3D. Wasn't a problem in 2D.
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out

    @guitar74 --- The Avengers is not "real" 3D. The movie was shot in 2D, and was converted to 3D in post-production. Therefore, it will absolutely not look as good as "shot-in-3D" movies like Avatar, Transformers 3, and Prometheus. Yes, the 3D "conversions" are getting better... but they still pale in comparison to the real thing. Personally, I don't waste my money on post-converted 3D --- I would just see it in 2D instead.
    I don't think guitar74 cares if it's converted or not. If The Hunger Games had been in 3D, he would have gone in that thread saying, "This was the stupidest, most unoriginal film I've ever seen, and I hated it. The 3D was great! 10 out of 10! This is my opinion of a movie that I watched."
  • Darren
    Darren Maui, HawaiiPosts: 164 Enthusiast
    People are talking about whether Whedon will do Avengers 2, of course - but I'd rather see him do a Hulk movie. He seems to get that character in a way no previous director has managed. Also fantastic to see that VFX technology has FINALLY got to a point where the Hulk can be done properly.
    Mark Ruffalo has signed on for 6 more Marvle flicks - so who knows. ;)
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    Does anybody here actively try to see 3D movies any more? Other than guitar74, obviously. Most people I know round here have been trying to seek out the 2D screenings of The Avengers - not because it's converted, but because they have a general malaise towards 3D in general.
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 378 Enthusiast
    edited May 2012
    I actively always try to stay away from 3D. As I saw the film two weeks early at a press screening here, the only option was 3D (which I thought was odd for a press screening to be in 3D)- and despite what I would consider being a visual-style-less film in general, I was surprised by the quality of the 3D. Well, at least for it being a post-conversion. And by 'quality' I really mean 'surprised it wasn't absolutely horrendous'.
    Either way, the whole film could have done without it. As you mentioned, Simon, the whole first act of the film is- I wouldn't say dark- but definitely particularly 'murky'-looking. Couldn't see a damn thing.
    The final act of the film, however- with it's complete lack of contrast or any semblance of visual style or striking aesthetic- transferred well to 3D post-conversion. ;) Plain, open, 'see-everything' shots that are bright and uniform. It wasn't as dazzling as it could have been, but 3D didn't hinder the final act, in my opinion.
    Though on the whole- just.....totally unnecessary. Probably unfairly biases, but I literally have a Pavlovian response to seeing that a movie showtime I want to see is in 3D, in that I get a very light headache/pain over the thought of eye strain. Always bugged me, that reaction. Only movie where I didn't go in with the dizzying psychological pain was Tron Legacy. And maybe Toy Story 3 or Hugo. But those both definitely benefited from the extra dimension.
    Overall, though- 3D has sailed. Sorry Peter Jackson and James Cameron.
    Also on a different note- great to see Mark Ruffalo sign on to more films. Despite my disliking of the film (Really no one else found it incredibly kitsch?), Mark Ruffalo's Hulk was easily the most thought-out and well-presented of the characters in the film- and the biggest joy to watch. The 'I'm always angry' was, in truth, a really great payoff line- and Whedon did a lot with a little of Ruffalo in developing who he is- especially for a recast. (Which I'll stay away from commenting further on)
    I really enjoyed Louis Lettier's Incredible Hulk film, as I think most people did- and I'd be sad to see it go down as another failed reboot- but if Whedon is to direct another film in the Marvel canon, I'd rather it be a Ruffalo Hulk film then another 'smash a bunch of characters together into a single-act, poorly-choreographed-fight-sequence-movie-and-call-it-"Avengers Assemble" (wtf?)'. :D
    Again, easily the best part of the movie was Ruffalo and Hulk.
  • TheRealJayWalker
    TheRealJayWalker Posts: 223 Enthusiast

    Does anybody here actively try to see 3D movies any more? Other than guitar74, obviously. Most people I know round here have been trying to seek out the 2D screenings of The Avengers - not because it's converted, but because they have a general malaise towards 3D in general.
    I'll be honest in that 3D is not a selling point for me anymore. To be fair, Avatar was well done in 3D and my wife and I saw Alice in Wonderland also which was OK'ish. We walked out of Pirates 4 as the 3D was too jarring and after that we've avoided it at all costs (hate to think what Transformers 3 was like).
    My only gripe though is that we're finding that cinemas are putting 3D movies on their biggest and best screens and relegating the 2D version to their smaller ones (even though our local is a Vue multiplex). For me this is unfair to those who don't want to see a 3D version but still would like to see a new blockbuster on one of the new HD screens. We saw Wrath of the Titans 5 days after release in 2D in what amounted to a broom cupboard.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast

    Either way, the whole film could have done without it. As you mentioned, Simon, the whole first act of the film is- I wouldn't say dark- but definitely particularly 'murky'-looking. Couldn't see a damn thing.
    Yep. While I loved the film, I can't disagree that the first half was almost entirely without visual style and was decidedly murky. The forest fight in particular felt like it was a great fight shot rather obliquely - a bit like the amazing car chase in Bourne Supremacy which was hidden behind terrible camerawork.
    As mentioned, it was only once they reached the helicarrier that I felt the movie found its identity. Whedon's style came through in the script, but not in the visuals.
    What slightly mystifies me is the choice of cinematographer. Because, really, the DP should have brought the cinematic style that Whedon maybe doesn't bring himself - just like how his choice of cinematographer on Serenity really paid off.
    [quote]The final act of the film, however- with it's complete lack of contrast or any semblance of visual style or striking aesthetic- transferred well to 3D post-conversion. ;) Plain, open, 'see-everything' shots that are bright and uniform. It wasn't as dazzling as it could have been, but 3D didn't hinder the final act, in my opinion.[/quote]
    See, once the action kicked off I felt like there really was style, and some of the best superhero action style I've seen so far. It maybe didn't relate directly to any particular movie style, but it did feel directly to me like seeing a comic come to life on the screen. It's also the point where the script worked best, as it was all pay-off, rather than slightly awkward setup.
    [quote]Though on the whole- just.....totally unnecessary. Probably unfairly biases, but I literally have a Pavlovian response to seeing that a movie showtime I want to see is in 3D, in that I get a very light headache/pain over the thought of eye strain. Always bugged me, that reaction. Only movie where I didn't go in with the dizzying psychological pain was Tron Legacy. And maybe Toy Story 3 or Hugo. But those both definitely benefited from the extra dimension.[/quote]
    Agreed. I think Tron Legacy was the last 3D movie I saw in 3D, actually. I remember being really excited about it because the 3D was being used for a story purpose, rather than just....'because'. Even then it didn't feel like it was impactful as it should have been, and having watched it several times on 2D blu-ray it works just as well.
    3D adds very little, and mostly distracts me from the film either through discomfort or gimmickry.
    <wild speculation>Another 2-3 years and 3D will be gone, I reckon, until the next attempt in 10-20 years.</wild speculation>
    [quote]I really enjoyed Louis Lettier's Incredible Hulk film, as I think most people did- and I'd be sad to see it go down as another failed reboot- but if Whedon is to direct another film in the Marvel canon, I'd rather it be a Ruffalo Hulk film then another 'smash a bunch of characters together into a single-act, poorly-choreographed-fight-sequence-movie-and-call-it-"Avengers Assemble" (wtf?)'. :D
    Again, easily the best part of the movie was Ruffalo and Hulk.
    [/quote]
    Agreed. Much as I really liked the Letterier Hulk, the Whedon Hulk feels like the first time the character has really come alive on screen, through a great combo of acting, writing and CG that is finally good enough. Whedon's strengths are in character and story, both things which were slightly hamstrung in a project as unwieldy as The Avengers. Let loose on a proper Hulk film he could do something truly fantastic, I think.

  • Does anybody here actively try to see 3D movies any more? Other than guitar74, obviously. Most people I know round here have been trying to seek out the 2D screenings of The Avengers - not because it's converted, but because they have a general malaise towards 3D in general.
    I use to love 3D back when it was a rarity. It was a novelty I got a kick out of. I remember being a kid and watching Jaws 3D. I still have my glasses from when Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare came out. Of course this is back when the 3D didn't work too well, but it was still fun because you felt like you were getting something extra at the theater.
    I was excited when 3D returned to cinemas in the past few years. I was a projectionist at the time I had seen them install the new 3D filters over the lenses at my theater. I got to test out the newer glasses on a National Geographic Doc about Sea Monsters and I was blown away. But then I remember watching the 3D Re-release of Nightmare Before Christmas and being not so impressed. That's when I really understood the difference between projects created for 3D and 3D conversions.
    Now it's over saturation for sure. Last movie I saw in 3D was Toy Story 3. Loved the movie. Hate that we paid extra for the 3D. Added nothing and honestly took away from the experience having to wear those annoying glasses which essentially did nothing for that movie.
    I'll of course make exceptions for works that obviously demand to be seen in 3D, like Avatar. But those projects don't come out all the time. 2D is what I seek out as I actually want to watch the movie. I'm hoping that 3D will be less used in a few years, but I do hope eventually we 3D can return to being a fun novelty on event films that can really utilize it and or use it to support the story and movie going experience. Until then I'm perfectly fine using my own eyes.
  • jawajohnny
    jawajohnny Posts: 143
    edited May 2012
    [quote name="Andrew"]As I saw the film two weeks early at a press screening here, the only option was 3D (which I thought was odd for a press screening to be in 3D)[/quote]
    I actually asked Roger Ebert about this on facebook last year, after noticing how he'd always complain about the awful 3D he'd seen in a post-converted film. He replied that (at least in his area), press screenings are always in 3D.
    [quote name="Andrew"](Really no one else found it incredibly kitsch?)[/quote]
    Apparently not. The Tomatometer is settling around 93%... and it's getting almost universal acclaim from the general audience that's seen it so far. It seems you were expecting/hoping for a totally different kind of film than the one everyone else knew was coming.
    [quote name="Simon K Jones"]
    <wild speculation>Another 2-3 years and 3D will be gone, I reckon, until the next attempt in 10-20 years.</wild speculation>[/quote]
    That's probably not accurate. In 2015, James Cameron will come out with Avatar 2 and breath new life into the 3D market. The cycle will just repeat itself. :P
    The problem with 3D is that so few movies are shot-in-3D compared to post-conversions... and out of the ones that are shot-in-3D, only a handful of those are done well.
    The good:
    Avatar
    Tron: Legacy
    Transformers: Dark of the Moon
    Hugo
    Any animated film (as long as it's projected bright enough)
    Prometheus and The Hobbit will probably fall into this category, since both have master filmmakers behind the lens (or lenses I should say).
    The Bad:
    Pirates 4 (actually shot-in-3D but still not good, apparently)
    Final Destination (shot-in-3D, but in a gimmicky way)
    Anything that's converted in post-production. This excludes older films that were specifically converted to 3D over a longer period of time, such as Titanic and Phantom Menace --- which were supposedly pretty good.
    So overall... 3D done well is amazing... but we only get one or maybe two of those films a year. Not a good trend.
    I'll be seeing The Avengers in 2D, of course.