Reviews Film / The Avengers 2012

Darn, sorry for first commenting one of my own reviews again but the good parts of this film are such stand out things it feels wrong to not just say that they were there and did exceptionally. Pepper Potts managed to bring a whole new tone to the film in 5-6 lines, there's a bit with a phone call to her later on which is some of the closest the film got to real pathos. Black Widow managed to tell a films worth of story in one conversation with Loki, there was a fantastic shot where the camera turned upside down which was something by itself and almost every time the heroes look hurt or injured they really managed to make you feel that they were hurt, tired, but they would go on even though they were beginning to doubt that they would get through it.

EDIT: Also used the word 'play' too much :D

One of the film's biggest advantages is that it didn't have to tell the villain's origin. We already knew Loki from Thor, and the Chitauri were pretty much just window dressing. Notice how the "take out the mothership to defeat them" plot was only barely hinted at; the nuke taking the entire army out almost seems like a coincidence.

We'll have to wait and see how they handle Thanos in the next movie, but I'm looking forward to it.

Also, the Hulk vs. Loki fight was one of the greatest Crowning Moment Of Awesome and Crowning Moment Of Funny combinations ever.

Yes I'd agree with this, what they didn't do, which hopefully they might think about doing next time, is using the prequel films to move the plot forward too, so they can get in a decent plot and keep the banter

The Hulk v Loki thing is just one example of how surprised I am over the control Whedon had, that's such a him thing to do. He did it in Firefly and a little bit in Serenity

I agree with most of what OP said, except the part where you refer to Spiderman 2 as the perfect Superhero movie. Nuh-uh.

The Avengers itself was very, very, Whedon, and though I was expecting something more by way of plot he made it up with the great characterization and humour.

:D I'm not the only one to hold that opinion http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040629/REVIEWS/406300301/1023 and Movie Bob listed Spiderman 2 and the Dark Knight recently as his reasons why maybe The Avengers isn't quite the best

Maybe perfect isn't quite right, but the best Superhero movie where 'Superhero movie' doesn't just mean film with superheroes but film with superheroes that follows that pattern that almost all superhero films pre-Dark Knight followed :D

What do you think deserves that title? ^^

Well, I really hate ALL the Spiderman movies, even though I admit the second one is the least horrible. The story and character of Spiderman (which has always been my favorite super-hero) were mercilessly butchered in order to make it more holywood-like. I won't even begin to talk about eveything that's wrong with Spiderman 2 (and I really hope the reboot can fix all that crap).

That said, I pretty much agree with the review. Avengers is very good characterization-wise (you couldn't really expect nothing else from Joss Whedon), the humor is flawless, the plot, although simple, is well-built and everything else. I couldn't praise it anought. To ME it's the best super-hero movie to date, only comparable to The Dark Knight (although not really "comparable" since it's a very different approach to the genre).

PS: I think X-men 1 and 2, X-men First Class, Iron Man 2, Captain America, Batman Begins, OLD Superman 1, OLD Batman 1 and 2 are all very decent super-hero movies.

PS 2: I think the Spiderman movies, first Hulk, OLD Batman 3 and 4, OLD Superman from 2 on, Daredevil, Green Lantern, Elektra, Ghosr Rider, X-men 3, Wolverine and New Super-Man are all utter crap.

PS 3: Avengers and The Dark Knight are the ones one-step beyond. The best of the whole bunch. Iron Man 1 is the one in-between, very solid, but just short of being awesome.

I don't think The Avengers can be the best for me because I think it needed to do something or say something a bit more to quite finish it off (also spice up/(Shorten?) the final fight a bit, as said in other comments thread, a Dragon would have been enough)

But when I said that Spiderman 2 was the perfect superhero film I really meant best film of a very certain type. One suit-wearing hero, conflicts between identity and secret identity, girlfriend issues, typically supervillain badguy nemesis comes to power through-film fights through film and eventually is beaten. Themes truth/love/friendship/care-bear etc and nothing fancy.

I guess I meant the best hollywoody superhero story and I don't think any have done it better than Spiderman 2, of the ones you list I guess Old Superman and Old Batman would count.

For me the Hierachy of films with superheroes in them would probably be

• Dark Knight
• X-Men First Class
• Spiderman 2
• Batman Begins/The Avengers
• Iron Man 2
• Thor
• Iron Man 1
• Spiderman 1

The other I haven't seen or think are complete rubbish (coughspiderman3cough). I've got a little bit of a bias to films thinking films or interesting character play-offs, otherwise X-Men First Class would probably have to drop a few places and The Avengers would rise a couple. For instance Avengers would beat Spiderman if it wasn't for my bias and Doc Oc's storyline. Equally Iron Man 1 might've beaten Iron Man 2. Spiderman 1 was rubbish just not Ghost-Rider rubbish

Some points:

1. I don't think many movies can manage to out-rubbish Ghost-Rider.

2. I must say that Thor wasn't that great for me. That's why I haven't mentioned it among my "very decent super-hero movies list" before. But I also don't think it belong on the "utter crap list". It's... ok, I guess.

3. It seems that we only disagree on the Spiderman movies which I really, really hate. Part of the problem is that these movies are too childish, too holywood, full of silly lines that don't really work, etc.

4. As for Spiderman 2, I'll give you that it's not horrible at plot, story AND visuals like Spiderman 1 / Spiderman 3. I guess I could've liked it if I'd never heard of Spiderman before. The main problem with it is characterization (which is also present in the other two of the "Trilogy of the Clone" as I call them as a joke). You see, Spiderman is never spiderman in this movies.

Torbey Maguire is not really a good actor, but that would've been fine if the script had Spiderman on it. For starters, how is Spidey SILENT while fighting? How is Parker the snarky wiseass (and even so, very tonned down)? How Mary Jane stopped being a strong and independent woman and became your standard holywood love-interest? Not to mention the lame deliveries (from otherwise good actress Kirsten Dunst).

And even though Alfred Molina looks the party and acts the party for Octopus (which is more than can be said for any other actor on that movie... including the secondary cast... well probably except for Jameson...) his origin butchers the character. I usually have no problem with movie origins being different from comics origins, IF you stay true to the character. So octopus is no longer a power-mad genious driven to insanity by society's disapproval and short-sight, but just some well-adjusted professor who had an accident? Great.

5. As for "the best super-hero movie" on your terms "One suit-wearing hero, conflicts between identity and secret identity, girlfriend issues, nothing fancy, etc, etc..." I'd say Old Superman has the upper hand. And for a very good reason: I think the public (well, the minority that's savvy enought, anyway...) has grown accostumed to this formula and most people who are into this kind of movie won't really dig the formula unless it's twiked with.

6. Oh, and as for the formula being twiked with, this is part of the reason Avengers is so awesome! Joss managed to to turn something that would have been great anyway (the first high-budget super-hero assemble on the big screen) into something more. This movie delivers exactly what you want from it and yet surprises you so much! Typical Whedon, really.

Also, I don't think Avengers is a movie that's not trying to 'DO' anything nor 'BE' anything. I'll give you it's not trying to 'SAY' anything about society or politics (although there are some jabs, specially on clean energy and the real interests of our goverments if you look closelly, but it's not ABOUT that). It's not a movie that proves a point, like "The Dark Knight". But not all movies have to be that.

What it IS and DOES is to tell the story of some very different, lonely (and since it's Joss Whedon, snarky) people and how they find many differences and yet many similarities among themselves and yet manage to mend this differences for the greater good. It's a movie about trust and sacrifices and what being a hero really means. It's just not so obvious about it (like, say, old Superman).

So octopus is no longer a power-mad genious driven to insanity by society's disapproval and short-sight, but just some well-adjusted professor who had an accident? Great.. Eh, I found his Anti Villain treatment in Spiderman 2 more interesting. From what I've read of Doc Ock's origins, (I've read 3, Ultimate Doc Ock, Amazing Spiderman Doc Ock, and one more I can't place), he's always some goody-goody nice guy who gets caught in a bad experiment and turns insane the next day from it. Very shallow, not much depth. There's rarely much of a motive to him, aside from revenge at times, but the movie makes him more noble, if misguided. And Alfred Molina is good at playing that sort of character.

Tuckerscreator, on the original earth 616 origin, Dr. Ock is the reject/ pariah type with no friends that only gets confort from his work (which is actually a great parallel to school-days Peter Parker, but then again this characterization is not strong on any Spiderman movie to date... actually, none is...), while always cultivating som hatred from all the mockery. His experiment's founding gets cut off so he proceeds to continue his research in the basement without proper security and then things blow up. The tentacles get permanently attached to his body and he proceeds to commit crimes to advance his research and further his vengeance. Yes, there is the implication that the exploxion also messed up his mind even more culminating in his arrogant, power-hungry and psichotic persona.

To further explain my problem with the characterization: the comic's Octopus is a man driven to madness by the mockery and society's lack of comprehension, as well as his own anti-social personality, previously developed by bullying and an ability to comprehend concepts most of his peers couldn't. The movie's Octopus is a man driven to madness by some random accident.

I haven't read Spiderman which is probably exactly where our differences come from, I haven't seen Superman but I guess it probably is an easy contender for best superhero film, but I agree nowadays films have to be something different, because really stuff like Spiderman 2 (and Superman etc) aced the formula, still with a bit of a break it will probably nice to see a change up and straight film. Thor was trying to be straight but just failed at it a bit.

I do admit I have a bias and without that bias The Avengers would easily be 2nd on my list :D from a less biased standpoint I still think it needed something to be the greatest of them all.

You raise an interesting point really I know what I mean when I say it needs to be something or say something but I can't pin it down precisely. It's not about social/political meta commentary because that normally ends up being pretty lame. What's cool about the Dark Knight isn't any terrorism messages but it's a painting in chaos. Equally Spiderman 2 is the fall and redemption of a man. The Hunger Games is about how horrific it would be to have teenagers fight to the death. Lord of the Rings is epic because it manages to be about the whole of a section of history of Middle Earth.

Okay maybe we're closer to what I mean here. Right the Tesseract was a Mac Guffin, correct? And the portal and portal opener was a tecno-thingummy, the army was the buy by the box climax, the dude behind Loki was the faceless villain-behind-the-villain (Till after the credits :D ). This is Tv Tropes and we know they're all useful tools and there's nothing wrong with them, but they're tools that should accomplish something and they didn't quite do that here. The Avengers had awesome parts but they were disparate parts which is why it's great fun but not quite great.

It was very close to weaving them together. The Hulk had a great storyline that really was about something and in general the characterisation was something it would be fine to base a film on. Loki was even the perfect villain for this, reflecting the teamwork with his talent for sowing discontent. You have Coulson and Fury as light-counterparts driving the teamwork together, a very touching Black Widow storyline, which is a nice miniature of the thing as a whole.

To make it great I think all you needed to do was give the Tesseract some character importance to the team (which they actually did, just not all out, to Thor it was something that needed to be returned to Asgard, Fury had to guard it, Captain America was the one who found it, Hawkeye gave it away, they just needed to develop it a bit more so it didn't feel so Mac Guffiny) and in the final battle they needed just an inch more character development. Hulk was good throughout the battle, Iron Man had development. Maybe just a few more lingering shots of them getting tired together.

Finally it probably needed a conclusion to the team storyline, not much, basically what they did already but a little more personal than a handshake and then the Fury part should have been the epilogue, instead of mixing the two.

The Avengers really was a good film and it actually gets better the more I think about it, it's a lot of writing but I feel the thing was maybe 5 shots away from knocking the Dark Knight off its top spot on my list and 5 shots away from being about something

tl;dr If the Avengers hadn't been told fantastically it wouldn't have been very good, if you didn't tell the Dark Knight or Lord of the Rings or Star Wars properly (as happened :D ) there would still be a little bit of good somewhere, because the story itself was naturally interesting. As it happens the telling of the Avengers was so good it prettily handily beats well, most other films ever :D

Oh, I see, you're not a die-hard Spiderman fan. I see where you're coming from, sir. Now I can easily excuse you for liking Spiderman 2 and perhaps even Spiderman 1 (but not Spiderman 3... not ever Spiderman 3...).

I recommend you see the first Superman if you care at all for the usual super-hero themes. Of course the action and effects are dated, but other than that I can't really find much bad stuff to say about it. And Christopher Reeves is likelly the best actor to have a main role in a super-hero movie (although I really like Hugh Jackman and Robert Downey Jr.).

And I think I still can't quite grasp what you mean by "being about something". Perhaps you feel like the plot could've been more complex? I think it could but it probably would need to make the film a lot longer (or the characterization, which is the best part - since Whedon was SO RIGHT about everything that make the Avengers great on the comic books - would suffer).

I guess the best answer I can give you is that the movie is about some very powerfull but lonely people, used to have their way all the times learning to get past their insecurities, misstrust and ego trips in order to work together. Stark in particular is very gilty of the ego part. And the "STRK" on his building being destroyed by the same event that teaches him to work with others and stop with the "Atlas complex", leaving only the "A" for Avengers is GREAT simbolism.

But I see what you mean with the whole "if the story wasn't well-told" argument. Well, probably it would just have been the story of great people coming together. And that's appealing when you've grew up knowing them, but probably not as much as a stand alone story for someone who would just see "heroes join up, heroes beat vilain, the end".

But I believe the minimalistic plot was actually needed not to distract people from what's really important: that was not a movie about how the Avengers beat Loki or some aliens or whatever threat they may face. That was a movie about how the greatest heroes on earth got together. Do you know how it goes don't you? "And there came a day, a day unlike any other..."

I don't think I've fully got it down. I think a great story (as opposed to a good story) is like a lovely mathematical proof, or a painting or a poem, it's at it's best when everything is there for a reason and contributes to the whole.

I agree that the Avengers story so to speak was great heroes coming together. I think what it failed on, was that two (and a half) key story elements didn't tie into it's central idea. The Tesseract wasn't linked enough to the heroes and their personal motivations and the final fight didn't quite develop character as much as it needed too (the half is that they didn't have a proper conclusion to great heroes coming together, it was a little too removed)

They did bits of all this but not enough of it. If the story wasn't well told we'd be really feeling that the Tesseract and the Final Fight were just Mac Guffins and things that were stuck in because films are meant to have them. (Something that came up a little bit in Serenity actually). Whereas if we take the Dark Knight, told poorly we can still see how the fight scenes relate to the idea of chaos and the Joker, how the final setpiece is about Batman and Jokers struggle for the goodness in people, why Two-Face is relevant to this and why him threating Gordon's family is relevant.

Equally nothing in Lord of the Rings happens because that's just what happens in stories. I'm running out of favourite films here (I'm talking about a very very high level :D ) but even in say Toy Story or The Wrong Trousers you don't think 'ah they including the standard climax' even when they are. Nothing happens in Memento that was there just because. Everything in Sixth Sense ties into the ideas of Sixth Sense and foreshadows the twist. It's not about it being more complicated, in fact where films often go wrong is when they make things more complicated, adding in a love interest that means nothing, or a plot twist that's irrelevant, but you can't quite say that about the Avengers

Indeed, Sligh, then the 616 Doc Ock may be the deeper character. But going back to your initial argument that his origin butchers the character. I usually have no problem with movie origins being different from comics origins, IF you stay true to the character., key word being "'different'", we can see that Doc Ock has almost always been just a nice guy who turned insane from an accident. The movie didn't try to change the comic's origins, it was working with the same foundation dozens of Doc Ock comics had. If they butchered Ock in your eyes, then it follows that Doc Ock should have been butchered in the dozens of other continuities released before the film and all the way back to the origin of the character. So it's not Adaptation Decay, it's just following what always happened.

@Tomwhinonumbers So you're talking about Artistic Unit, basically? I agree, the movie could perhaps use little bit more of it (let's say, it's "very good" in this criteria as opposed to "great" which it is in many others). I don't think the final fight felt just like a random a Mac Guffin nor a "blockbooster contractual plot element": it's important to the story because it showcases the Avengers acting as a team and therefore is vital to the whole "great heroes coming together theme". I also think it's beautyfully excecuted. I think you're right on the Tesseract, though. They could've tied it more with their origins and showcased more it's importance. Congratulations, you've found a valid criticism there. I still think the movie could be called great, though.

@Tuckerscreator

There are some less deep origins for Dr. Ock in the comics themselves (alternative realities, ultimate reality, etc)? Sure. Does it make it ok for the movie to use a very shallow and superficial story for it's main antagonist? Not really. SPECIALLY since the original story is actually a very deep one. And yes, it is adaptation decay, even if some other comic may have been adaption decay of the original before it.

After a quick google, yep Artistic Unity is what I'm on about. And I would accept the very good because as I said they nearly did it, I accept that the big emphasis of the fight was teamwork but they just needed and extra shot or two and have the conclusion based on that rather than on Plot!

But I don't category mark my works and Artistic Unity is the core achievement of a piece so it stops the Avengers from being completely great.

It's terrible really I feel like a class traitor but I agree with the median and modal metacritic scores (75-80) http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-avengers-2012/critic-reviews and the average user review (although the actual metacritic score is way too low, though if Memento, The Dark Knight and Inception are all in the 70's-80 then I guess its kinda fair.)

I'd give it a nine. Maybe nine point five. Based only on the fact that I don't really remember more then 1-5 movies that entertained me as much as Whedon's Avengers and that's the main reason I go to the movies: to be entertained. But I see where you're coming from. Is "The Dark Knight" more artistic? Probably. And even though it is also quite entertaining, I think The Avengers is just over all charts on this particular criteria of mine.

Is like X-men first Class. The thing is full of continuity problems (and that's only in conjunction with the other X-movies, I'm not taking into account things like bad characterisation or the inevitable comparissons with the comics) and yet I really liked, based on the fact that the script is well-writen, takes the viewers seriously and is fun as hell!

(I think both The Dark Knight and Avengers are way superior to X-men: First Class, I'm only using it as an example to showcase how sometimes I give a movie a lot of free passes based only on good interpretations, good script and overall entertainment value.)

I don't want to sound that snobby :D I'm a mathematician right? Well a mathematics student who actually likes his degree course, so I'm really into symmetry and patterns and stuff like that and I just find films more entertaining when they're complete.

Like in my list I put First Class above Avengers even though First Class is a lot more flawed than Avengers is because First Class was really true to it's ideas and following Xaviers and Magnetos bromance was a lot of fun (plus I'm deterimined to pick up Mac Avoy's stylings in this film because they were fun by themself :D )

Essentially the thing that stops this from being a great film is it's not trying to be anything or do anything or say anything.

The film does many things, though those involve explosions, energy beams, or fists.

I don't go to The Avengers to see a brooding antihero grapple with the problems of his role in society, or to see characters struggling with their internal conflicts. Leave that for other character-centric movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The fact that it isn't trying to "be anything, do anything, or say anything" is what makes it great.

I go to see The Avengers because of the forty-five minute sequence where six superheroes I've come to really like beat the pants off an army of alien invaders while inflicting gratuitous property damage. Keep the angst, the character development, and the "need" to make the movie have some kind of higher purpose. The purpose is SMASH, the movie revolves around SMASH, and it needs no "higher" purpose or to follow any other "idea." This movie's idea is SMASH, and it scores in that regard.

No you're wrong because other films on my great list or 'being something list' are 'trying to be an action film'. I like Transformers 1 and 2. If the films succeeded with the idea smash I would have given it that and enjoyed it for it as my last sentence should show I've got a stronger darn tolerance to smash than most people.

And brooding doesn't mean being anything either.

Heck Lord Of the Rings was being an Action Film more than the Avengers was. Smash might have been how you were justifying it to yourself but it was a two hour movie where almost an hour and a half was devoted to non combat things and the combat itself wasn't focusing on the combat. Heck in the final action piece there was almost no focus on almost half a side of combat. By justifying it as SMASH your are denying it so many of the legitmately great things it did. What did you think for most of the movie? Darn they're showing me a great character piece of Bruce Banner plunging himself into a world that he's been away from so long. I wish Iron Man would stop acting and stop blasting stuff? Darn Loki's just being incredibly charismatic and clever again, I wish he would shoot something? Or even 'hmm this is making me laugh a lot but I really came here to see stuff break'

I mean you missed so much awesome stuff in the film? When Banner said 'I'm always angry' did you just think 'good he's going to punch something at last'? That's not even a tenth of a fraction of the brilliance of that one line of dialogue and movement.

You have got me wrong, I am not an arty person and I'm not demanding depth, I didn't knock the Avengers down because it had superheroes and violence in it or because it wasn't the Dark Knight. I didn't knock it down at all, I think it's awesome but the reason why I believe it isn't great has absolutely not one thing to do with the level of action contained within

"I liked Transformers 1 and 2." => You fail taste in movies forever. =P

Seriously, though, Ive already responded this criticism. It's trying to tell the story of a great assemble. Now, it's perfectly fine if you say that's not enough. But it is something. And it's done beautifully. It's not trying to be a standard blockbooster like Transformers tries to (and fails miserably).

I also like the plot of First Class. I believe it is actually the best of the X-men movies, despite it's many, many flaws.

In the end, I think it comes down to you putting more emphasis in some things that to me really look like minor details.

I was responding to Zaptech for this bit :D

To be honest it's not surprising to me that the difference between awesome film and Great Film is minor details. If they were big details it wouldn't be on the tip of greatness, it would be very far away from greatness.

I mean X-Men First Class isn't on the tip of greatness. It's not even peeking over the edge. You've seen how much I love that film and with a complete rewrite there is greatness in it to be uncovered, but it doesn't even come close. The Avengers on the other hand was right on the line without actually crossing over

The difference is the Avengers is a film that everyone should watch and enjoy and think is completely awesome. Memento and Lord of the Rings and Citizen Kane etc are films that people should study after everyones enjoyed them and think they're completely awesome.

I've also come to appreciate just how hard this was for the Avengers to do in recent days. Okay they had some advantages, everyone wanted this to work, to see more cool superhero films, to see Josh Wheedon vindicated and I think it's fair to say that the Avengers has gotten it's absolutely best reviews from the people who wanted this to happen in the first place and the 3/5's from the people who don't like films with superheroes and the 4/5's from the people inbetween. So if the film had turned out to be mediocre it would have still got some support (and you know how its just easier to enjoy a film if you know it's something cool and you're meant to enjoy? It's something you can share with people. Like what happened with Skyrim)

But wow did they have two very different sets of people to please. To try and please me who hasn't read any comics and wants to see a good film that makes sense to me and to please fans who want to see what they already love on screen? I didn't realise there was such a difference but I mean you and me already ending up with completely different views of Spiderman 2 based on that one thing and I was watching Shadeknights commentary on the First Class trailer and it was stuff like the shade of colour of people's clothes, or the fact Xavier was young and had hair, and that the agent guy was a new character or that they'd changed mystique and mucked around with people's ages a bit and it really turned him off the film. I guess if you love something I can see how you feel like that but it must make it so hard to do things like this. Like he was angry at Galactus being a giant cloud in the Fantastic 4 but at least looking at the picture of what Galactus should have looked like, they didn't go with that either. Comics have a tone that just doesn't work on transfer, maybe a giant purple Batman/Knight person works as a villain in comics but there's no way that wouldn't become a laughing stock on screen.

How did Marvel make both people feel so happy? Maybe that's the greatest achievement of all, satisfying both audiences to such an extent