The Avengers

12357

Comments

  • DX6channel
    DX6channel Posts: 72
    My brother and I saw Wrath of the Titans in 3D and I must say that it was the best 3D film I've seen (and I've seen a bunch). It really emphasized the scale of everything well (especially the underground stuff and Kronos).
  • KahvehRobinett
    KahvehRobinett Posts: 442 Just Starting Out*
    edited May 2012
    Yes I also just watched Wrath Of The Titans and thought the 3D was amazing. I almost forgot it was in 3D several times while watching it. I wish the Avengers was shot in 3D. Otherwise I know it will be more distracting then it will help bring me into the film.
  • jawajohnny
    jawajohnny Posts: 143
    edited May 2012
    SPOILERS AHEAD (Obviously!)

    Loved it. Loved it. Loved it.
    You know... usually I understand reviews that I "don't agree with"... but in this case... I have no idea what movie Andrew watched... because it wasn't The Avengers. :P
    The Avengers easily ranks as one of the greatest comic book movies ever... right up there alongside the Nolan Batman films (and possibly Spiderman 2). Joss Whedon's script is absolutely brilliant... balancing the action with plenty of satisfying character moments. It's quite remarkable how not one character drew the short end of the stick for this film; all of them received ample screentime. I'd list some of my favorite "moments"... but I'm afraid I'd just end up listing the entire film. Really... the dialogue, laced with that classic sarcastic Whedon humor doesn't let up. Maybe I'll just list a few things. One of my favorite lines was:
    Thor: "Loki's my brother."
    Black Widow (I think): "He's killed 80 people in the past 24 hours..."
    Thor: "He's adopted."
    Actually, many of the best "moments" were the "silent" ones. Thor and the Hulk are standing and admiring their handiwork in taking out a roomful of baddies... but the Hulk punches the lights out of Thor for good measure. The entire theater literally lost it at that point. Then we all obviously went nuts again when he beat the crap out of Loki. Then of course... the wordless, single-shot end credits scene was just masterful. Masterful. Oddly, not many people stuck around through the entire credits (perhaps they thought the scene after the "main" credits was all they were going to get?), but all of us who did got a great kick out of it.
    And speaking of the audience... this was probably the most fun theater "experience" I've ever had. The packed theater was totally into the movie... cheering and/or laughing throughout the entire thing. I don't think I've ever seen an audience that was that engaged in what was going on. Ever.
    So yeah... all in all... The Avengers is just an excellent, excellent movie. It's immensely satisfying on all levels. The action scenes were outstanding (especially the final one, which felt like the third act of Transformers 3... but shot coherently and featuring characters we actually care about. I didn't have a problem with the cinematography at all... to me it looked very much in line with the other "Marvel" films... just without the letterboxing. Put simply... it really looked like a comic book.
    I'm sure I'll have more to say later (after my inevitable second viewing), but for now I'll leave it at this. The Avengers is easily the best Marvel film so far... and it deservedly sits in the top tier of "greatest superhero films ever". Outstanding movie. 10/10
    Also... R.I.P. Agent Phil Coulson. "His first name is "Agent".
  • guitar74
    guitar74 Posts: 506
    edited May 2012
    I saw the Avengers last night and well.... There was certain scenes in the movie where some of the aliens looked like they were done about 6 years ago, to me. At times there was a lot going on for one scene. There was a ship thing that was a lot like the snake thing from Transformers 3. It was a good movie overall, but some of the effect shots, in my opinion could have been better. It seems like Capt America, Iron man and etc had a hard time keeping their characters together at times. I was suprised for a 3d movie there was not more 3D interaction coming at the screen, so it would look like towards you! I also found out that Promethisus is coming out in 3D in the states and I cant wait for that movie!
  • guitar74
    guitar74 Posts: 506
    edited May 2012

    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.

    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.

    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.

    I don't know how they made the 3d titanic so good since it was shot back in 2006. That was a hell of a job converting it over!
    When I saw Tron Legacy it a Sign came up and said this movie was only half shot using 3D and it was the worst one I saw so far!
    That was a typo on my part since the internet here is having problems, so thanks for showing me that! I saw the movie on a digital projector, but to me some of the effects looked horrible, The charcters were just lacking. The Hobbit, the 3D looks Great, but its the hobbit, Hate Lord of the rings! Like I said before my friend, everyone has their right to their opinion and in the end no one is right! Thanks
  • KahvehRobinett
    KahvehRobinett Posts: 442 Just Starting Out*
    Um, Titanic was released in December 19, 1997. So it was probably shot at least a couple of months before that, not in 2006. And yes it is a very good 3D conversion.
  • jawajohnny
    jawajohnny Posts: 143
    edited May 2012
    Uh... Titanic was shot in 1997... not 2006. It looked so good in 3D because James Cameron spent a lot of time and money converting it. I don't know exactly how much time... but I believe it was more than a year. Still, it pales in comparison to films that were shot-in-3D like Avatar, Transformers 3, probably Prometheus, etc.
    The Avengers obviously didn't look as good in 3D because it wasn't real 3D.. Do you understand the difference, guitar74? It was shot in 2D and converted during the normal post-production of the film. Also... the 3D may have contributed to some of the effects shots looking sub-par to you, as sometimes I find that the "forced" 3D depth can sort of "isolate" the CG effects and make them look unnatural. All the effects shots looked great in 2D.
    Also... the best 3D doesn't send anything "popping" out of the screen. Rather, it simply adds depth to the image. It should be subtle, as if you're "looking through the screen".
  • Darren
    Darren Maui, HawaiiPosts: 164 Enthusiast
    Just saw it with my daughter and she and I LOVED it! Not much to add from what everyone else posted (agreed with the Hulk comments).
    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.
    I felt the exact same way... watching it all come together made the payoff all the more greater.
    And in all sincerity, I was totally saddened with Agent Coulson. THAT is the way you dispatch a character. From being in all those stand-alone titles, Coulson's face-off with Loki, to me was a great way to play on my emotions.
  • MichaelJames
    MichaelJames Posts: 2,031 Enthusiast
    Amazing movie. Now give me a reboot for failed marvel movies...
    Fantastic Four. I want to see this movie open up with you just hearing 2 guys beating the crap out of each other. Turns out its the Hulk and the Thing in downtown new york. The thing seems evenly matched until the Hulk Starts getting mad. Have the rest of the FF show up and find a way to end it and then move on to the main story.
    Daredevil. Just let it stay dead.
    The spectacular spiderman.... Yes you can have the amazing spider man and the spectacular spiderman out at the same time. I wanna see the classic spider man outfit again. GIve me Mary Jane as a stacked red head. Have spider man race the human touch through NY.
    Wolverine, learn something from the avengers, do not try to make it overly dramatic and increase the pacing. I want to see the scene from the civil war events where WOlverine goes after Nitro(i think) and nitro touches the surroundings. You see Wolverine's adamantium skeleton and then 2 minutes later you see wolverine healed
    Brings me to the next movie merger.... Marvel's Civil War.
  • StaffOnly
    StaffOnly Posts: 76 Just Starting Out
    From wiki:
    2012 re-release also known as Titanic in 3D[133] was created by re-mastering the original to 4K resolution and post-converting to stereoscopic 3D format. The Titanic 3D version took 60 weeks and $18 million to produce, including the 4K restoration.
    Also I would say that I didn't see any strange VFX shots in the Avengers which is amazing to me considering how many different and highly difficult challenges ILM (and Weta Digital among other supporting VFX houses) had to handle. I think the (sometimes shoddy) 3D must have thrown you off guitar74.
    SPOILERS
    I can't really say anything about the film itself that hasn't been said (which is why I decided to be lazy and not make a review), but it surpassed even my expectations (which were high ever since they hired Whedon). There is something very different about the nergasm-type awesomeness Whedon created whenever these characters were together on screen that had something to do with how he (and the previous movies) gave it weight. We've seen heroes together in X-men, The Incredibles and Fantastic Four, but it never felt big and earned like what Marvel has accomplished here. With Whedons amazing genre-savvyness and brilliant humour, action and characterization you're just so on-board with the film that he has the audience from the start. I've never been in a theatre with such an enthusiastic audience before. Norwegians (who are very shy) were actually clapping, cheering and laughing hard.
    And the set-pieces were the best yet seen in a superhero-film. They were big and well thought out. The shot where we go through all the Avengers fighting all over Manhattan in one long shot is some amazing VFX. If you've just seen the Avengers you'll be amazed at how small-scale everything in a film like The Incredibles looks afterwards. Also we're so used to seeing the HULK transform in close-ups and quick cuts (which was traditionally done because of VFX-constraints), so not only was the line "I'm always angry" really cool, but then in one shots we get to see Ruffalo turn around, transform and punch that giant thing in the face in one smooth move which I was really exited to see.
    When you write a character that can fly you end up with the problem "Could he have flown here?", "Would this be a challenge if he can fly?" which I've seen writers fail on many times (like all the time in the TV-show Heroes). So I can only imagine the head-scratching that went on when dealing with having all these abilities in a scene and having to write/plan set-pieces where everyone gets to use everything. And Whedon and co. never failed. Every time something had to be done, they always chose the correct character (and superpower) for the job. This might not seem so important to non-nerds, but it will break the spell immediately if you mess up bad enough.
    I'm also a really big fan of how Whedon first knows what the audience expects, and then uses it to shock you like when the villain starts talking (the hero is normally obligated to listen) I immediately thought "Are you kidding? The HULK is going to stop and listen now? Like he's James Bond?", but no, HULK smashed him in the most shocking and funny moment in the film. Any other writer/director would have kept those characters far apart through the battle for that very reason, but Whedon knows we expect that and chose to be awesome instead. I wish more directors did that. Normally when people walk out of a movie I'll hear them say stuff like "That was a good/bad/boring/cool movie.", but on Avengers they would say: "That was really cool!"
  • MichaelJames
    MichaelJames Posts: 2,031 Enthusiast
    The humor was well done. Like Thor coming to the aid of the hulk and then the hulk randomly punching thor.
  • jawajohnny
    jawajohnny Posts: 143
    edited May 2012
    Speaking of "humor"... I'm hearing that the U.K. and other territories outside the U.S. didn't get to see the second after-the-credits scene... rather they only got the one after the main credits. Some people apparently stayed through the credits only to see nothing. I would assume it's because this was that "super secret" last-minute scene that they only filmed a day after the world premiere a few weeks ago.
    Simon, or anyone else overseas want to confirm this? If this is true... then you guys really missed out on a super hilarious "shot". I referred to it as "masterful" in my initial review above.
    The scene I'm talking about is this:

    SPOILERS FOR THE END CREDITS SCENE BELOW:

    The scene I'm talking about is a one-shot "payoff" to the exchange between Tony Stark and the other Avengers after he wakes up after falling through the portal. He says that he knows this "shawarma shop" a few blocks away that they should all go and eat at. But they tell him there's still a bit of fighting to do.
    After the credits finish rolling though... we fade into a shot of all the Avengers sitting around a table at the shwarma restaurant, eating in complete silence, as the restaurant staff cleans up the damage around them. We stay on them for thirty seconds or so, and then cut to black. That's it. One shot, no dialogue. Awesome.
  • fredclips
    fredclips Posts: 228
    Nope, I didn't see that scene here in Australia when we saw this a couple of weeks back.
    Going to have to look for a CAM version of just that scene online somewhere!
  • StaffOnly
    StaffOnly Posts: 76 Just Starting Out
    That scene was only added to the US-release. I did indeed wait the whole credits for no scene (though I knew at the time that only the US would probably get it). Shame we didn't get such a cool scene, a lot of people waited. As long as it is on our Blu-ray.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    By the way, as I've noticed a few people adding spoiler warnings, the forum does actually have a spoiler tag. Simply wrap your spoilery stuff with the word spoiler surrounded by square brackets.
    Like this. :)
  • MatthiasClaflin
    MatthiasClaflin Posts: 674 Just Starting Out
    I saw this on Saturday and wasn't really impressed at all. The characters were okay, but I found the plot to be utterly boring. The one-liners were good but other than that, I found the dialogue to be pretty boring. As far as the characters being balanced, not having the movie focus on one in particular, I'd say they seemed to focus quite a bit on Iron-Man over most of the others, but that's just how I felt.
    The special effects also were not impressive at all. There is a shot of the Stark Tower in the end that looks like it came straight out of a video game. The Hulk was pretty good, but nothing particularly impressive.
    To be honest, the whole thing seemed like a very long, but very well written TV episode rather than a movie. In my opinion, there was nothing outright special about it. A standard superhero movie, with a standard plot and good characters. It was a pretty good movie but I definitely wouldn't see it in theaters, had I known.
    6.5/10 - it was just an average movie IMO.
  • MichaelJames
    MichaelJames Posts: 2,031 Enthusiast
    Well you are officially the first person i've read or know who was not impressed. To me the movie was impressive just because it hasn't been done. To combind so many movies into one super movie and give equal billing?
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    edited May 2012
    To me the movie was impressive just because it hasn't been done. To combind so many movies into one super movie and give equal billing?
    It's still a superhero movie, which has been done dozens of times.
  • MatthiasClaflin
    MatthiasClaflin Posts: 674 Just Starting Out
    edited May 2012
    Like I said, I don't think they gave "equal billing." I feel like Iron-Man was more prominent then any of the characters. Also I haven't met anyone, in person, who was impressed. All of my friends that saw it were totally let down by the hype that was brought by this movie, only to find that it was sub-par in many ways.
    Oh and am I really the only one who found the plot completely boring?
  • NullUnit
    NullUnit Posts: 779 Just Starting Out

    It's still a superhero movie, which has been done dozens of times.
    As compared to scifi, horror, drama, comedy and every other genre which has been done a billion times. Superhero movies add something fresh to the action/scifi genre.
    I loved it. But, I'm already an Avengers fan.
  • jawajohnny
    jawajohnny Posts: 143
    edited May 2012
    [quote name="Matthias Claflin"]As far as the characters being balanced, not having the movie focus on one in particular, I'd say they seemed to focus quite a bit on Iron-Man over most of the others, but that's just how I felt. [/quote]
    According to IMDB, screentime breaks down as follows:
    (1) Hawkeye: 12 minutes, 44 seconds, (2) Thor: 25 minutes, 52 seconds, (3) Bruce Banner/The Hulk: 28 minutes, 3 seconds (4) Black Widow: 33 minutes, 35 seconds, (5) Iron Man: 37 minutes, 1 second, and (6) Captain America: 37 minutes, 42 seconds.

    That confirms what I thought --- that Iron Man and Captain America sort of shared the most screentime. Makes sense, seeing as they appeared earlier in the film, and appeared in many of the same scenes together. A lot of attention was given to their "rivalry", and their decision to put aside their differences when they realized they had something to "avenge".
    [quote name="Matthias Claflin"]The special effects also were not impressive at all. There is a shot of the Stark Tower in the end that looks like it came straight out of a video game. The Hulk was pretty good, but nothing particularly impressive.[/quote]
    Did you see it in 3D? That might explain your concerns with the vfx. Out of the people I've talked to that saw the film in 2D, they all were very impressed with the effects. Specifically that shot of Stark Tower --- I didn't see anything wrong with it.

    Well you are officially the first person i've read or know who was not impressed. To me the movie was impressive just because it hasn't been done. To combind so many movies into one super movie and give equal billing?
    Apparently you didn't see Andrew's glowing review a few pages back. :P
  • MatthiasClaflin
    MatthiasClaflin Posts: 674 Just Starting Out
    I wasn't specifically talking about screen time but rather which character was actually focused on the most in the story, however since he was one of the two with the most screen time, I suppose I wasn't too far off.
    I did not see it in 3d. I did see it in 2d and was not really impressed with the special effects as I didn't really see anything all that special. It wasn't any better than the past marvel movies as far as special effects were concerned in my opinion. I still stand by, that the stark tower shot, at the end looks as bad as the POV shot from the first Amazing Spider-Man shot. All the earlier shots seemed good, but for some reason while watching the last one, it just seemed like I was watching a cut scene in Mass Effect or something...
    Just to clarify, unlike Andrew, I don't think this movie was bad in any sense, just not all that it's cracked up to be. I came out of the theater totally underwhelmed by what I thought would be an absolutely fantastic movie.
  • MichaelJames
    MichaelJames Posts: 2,031 Enthusiast
    The screen time breakdown is slightly misleading because there is shared screen time. Yes certain problems had the appropriate hero there to assit but who really had a story in this film. Stark had a revelation of a side of him that makes him kind of a prick and he saved the day while putting himself in harms way as in the first 2 movies. Hawkeye and Black Widow had their characters grow from small bits to full fledged stories. You had reason to care about them. Thor was just brought to earth and was used for muscle. Captain America of course had to have the most screen time he leads this team and is working through his own issues with being in a new time and trying to learn how he fits.
  • KahvehRobinett
    KahvehRobinett Posts: 442 Just Starting Out*
    Going to see it tonight. Super pumped :D
  • Froi
    Froi Posts: 966
    Se it the other day, it is AWESOME, shame the 3D glasses were a bit annoying, but the 2D version wasn't for another half hour
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 378 Enthusiast
    Saw it in 2D to try and see if maybe the 3D was throwing me off. Liked it less. Less rewatchable, more-obvious how shoddy some of the CGI setpieces/characters are, and the dialogue I anticipated so it felt more ham-fisted.
    The one bright spot, I will say, is still Mark Ruffalo and The Hulk. Despite solid acting and the best efforts of Chris Evans and an always-on-point RDJ, Ruffalo simply is given the broadest content to work with, and does so well.
  • MatthiasClaflin
    MatthiasClaflin Posts: 674 Just Starting Out

    more-obvious how shoddy some of the CGI setpieces/characters are
    So I'm not the only one who thought the CGI was just average?
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 378 Enthusiast
    Aside from the Hulk, which I thought was slightly better than the modeling/tracking of the 2008 film, I thought all of the visual effects were inferior to any previous Marvel Avengers-lead-in film.
    The visuals of Thor were more believable, organic, and artfully-done in his titular film- the Iron Man suit more-convincing in the movie from four years ago, and the aliens/invasion massively more-striking in the likes of Transformers 3.
    The overuse of greenscreen and lack of shooting in New York, yet reliance on it as a primary set piece/location, really didn't help anything either, though.
  • DanielGWood
    DanielGWood Posts: 1,016 Just Starting Out
    Saw it, loved it.
  • CranialFans
    CranialFans Posts: 92
    Saw it, loved it. Didnt think the 3D added anything extra though. Maybe i just have wonky eyes :s