Follow TV Tropes
Stop me if you know this one: The bad guy builds a device atop a tall building in the city to create a portal through time and space to lead an army of mechanical mooks for an invasion. The good guys all rally together with all their previously accumulated gusto to fight against them, but eventually realize that they will be overwhelmed as more hordes swarm through the portal. The heroes try to reach the top of the building to close the portal, but then they are instead able to destroy the device controlling the mechanical mooks, shutting them all down The Phantom Menace style.
Sound familiar? Well guess what: that movie came out in 2011, and it's called Phineas and Ferb The Movie: Across the 2nd Dimension. Then along came The Avengers, which ripped off the entire schtick. I mean, I get why Marvel did this: "Oh hey, look what Disney did! We could totally also make a big buck by cramming together all the nostalgia that appeals to the lemmings we call fans into one massive action-packed movie! No one will notice—" Yeah, nice try Marvel, but I noticed, and now here I am, calling you out! Mark this day, April 1, 2019, the day that I exposed you as the plagiaristic frauds that you are, and the historical day from which your scam you call a business finally started downhill. But you only got what you deserved for what you did to poor Disney.
Checkmate, fanboys; y'all need to give up your childish power fantasies and check out REAL art that truly apotheosizes synergy and camaraderie, like Phineas and Ferb and My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic and Slush Invaders.
Avengers is probably one of the most popular action blockbusters of the last few years, and frequently cited as an entertaining and hype movie.
Unfortunately, I can't really share that sentiment.
The big problem is actually quite simple: the Avengers is a movie that only works if you are interested in seeing all the characters from their previous films together in a big action movie.
Unfortunately, at this point in time, only two of the Avengers had solo movies that were in any way compelling, which were Iron Man and Captain America, and the latter's movie was honestly not that great, merely better than Hulk and Thor, both of which were woefully mediocre popcorn action movies, even if the latter had a handful of redeeming qualities.
This already left the movie with a shaky foundation to stand on. I only had two characters in this movie that I really cared about, and unfortunately because the film was juggling so many characters, neither of them comes off as particularly interesting. I had no real investment in any of the character arcs in this movie at all, the conflicts felt contrived, and it's especially disappointing that none of Loki's complexity seems to be present in this film; he's just a self-important twat. Hawkeye's addition strikes me as particularly pointless because he exists solely for Natasha to have some sort of personal conflict, he is not interesting, and does not contribute anything besides being a plot device and shooting some arrows.
In summation, the film suffers from Eight Deadly Words. Without any characters that I could care about and no real substance to the film, all that remained was a vapid blockbuster action movie that offered me pretty much nothing. At no point was I entertained by anything that was going on, and my brother was actually so bored he left before the film was even a third of the way finished. It was this film and Iron Man 3 being so undercooked, that led me to losing faith in Marvel for years.
I understand why people like this movie, but I honestly feel that it's one of the weakest MCU films. Phase 2 has provided much more compelling and interesting movies, such as Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy.
Disappointment abounds in Whedon's The Avengers, with weak characterization, overuse of slapstick and character banter, and an anti-climatic finale, but the worst is the erasure of Loki's complexity as a villain.
For whatever reason, Whedon decided to ignore Loki's characterization from the Thor film. There Loki is presented as a mostly very emotionally controlled individual. He is also a powerful sorcerer, able to perform impressive magic even without the aid of Gungir or the Tesseract. Additionally, he is capable of holding his own during physical combat with Thor.
From his very first line, fans know that Loki is exploiting Thor's brashness, but it's hard not to sympathize as he descends into villainy. Loki had a quietly sinister but slightly tragic air, not the typical bad guy encountered in superhero movies.
In Avengers, Loki appears legitimately frightened by Thor, and is often seen laughing maniacally. He is easily fooled by Natasha's ploy despite his own centuries of manipulation, but also loses his dignity as he becomes the subject of slapstick humor that would be much more at place in a campy Batman movie.
Loki seems to have lost his sorcery skills, which are barely utilized without a magical aide. Also, Hawkeye manages to down Loki with a single explosive arrow. Described as a "diva", Loki has completely lost any menace he once held.
In Thor, fans remained uncertain of what Loki's next step would be in his multi-faceted schemes. Here, his goal is the villainous cliche of world domination, with a generic villain motive, killing indiscriminately as he kicks all the puppies he can find along the way. Whedon removes Loki's unique Tragic Villain aspects, in favor of a character that's simpler to write: his Loki is more like a Bad Guy of the Week from Buffy The Vampire Slayer than anything similar to the previous movie incarnation.
Loki's slide into Obviously Evil could be the Tesseract's influence. Banner does suggest something along those lines. However, this possibility is never vindicated or revisited; presumably, the reason why Avengers-Loki is so far off from Thor-Loki that he could be two entirely different characters is Whedon's laziness as a writer.
I had been eagerly awaiting this movie since 2010, and now I finally got to see it earlier today and it didn’t exactly disappoint. But I did have a few issues:
1. The slapstick-ish humor. Now, while a bit of comedy is generally a good thing, I found some of these “puns” occasionally annoying as they felt a bit shoehorned into the plot for the sake of a few cheap laughs. Sort of, “oh it’s been ten minutes without some jokes so let’s just have The Hulk bitchslap Thor, that’ll make them laugh” and after a while it got old. One or two of these puns can be fine, but when you are in the middle of an action scene, and this happened for the 5th time you just want them to quit dicking around and get on with the actual fighting.
2. The fact that the villains are some sort of nameless alien race where everyone looks the same. I would have preferred actual villains with names and personalities for The Avengers to fight against (like Red Skull and Whiplash from Captain America and Iron Man 2). And no, Loki barely counts as a Big Bad as he was basically a Butt Monkey throughout the movie.
3. The 3D was pretty pointless.
4. Slight Anti-Climax.
Otherwise, I think it was a good movie and very entertaining. They handled the large cast of superheroes quite well (I was a bit worried that it was going to be like X-Men 3 with lots of characters that did absolutely nothing), but in The Avengers no one felt all that left out or useless (although Tony Stark seemed to have to most screen time and the best lines).
All in all, it’s a good movie, it looks GREAT (!), but it's neither better nor worse than the movies leading up to it. It’s really just a bigger cast and more heroes.
I recommend seeing it, your mind is probably not going to be blown away by its amazingness, but you will most likely feel entertained at the very least. And the movie certainly opens up for a sequel.
As in my other review, if you find any spelling/grammar fail, do tell.
Really, The Avengers is nothing epic. It works as a group superhero movie, but it's mostly rehashed cliches with no originality. There's little tension present: we all know that in the end, the heroes will defeat the bad guy. And they do, almost effortlessly, largely remaining confident to the point of smugness.
We've all seen the invincible force invading from a portal to another dimension before, i.e. Hellboy 2, Transformers 3, and Ghostbusters 2.
As mentioned elsewhere, Loki is suddenly cartoonishly evil for some contrived reasons; he used to be coolly and subtly menacing, and now he's compared to Hitler several times and written as a quasi-rapist. It's as though the writers realized he was popular and tried as hard as they could to write him as unlikeable. Very frustrating and disappointing, most of all because Loki had so much opportunity as a villain. Loki's sudden Butt Monkey status only emphasizes the Avengers' lack of challenge.
Black Widow is astoundingly generic and very, very American as the token woman to a team of white American superheroes (there's a token alien/god as well). She features in a very odd scene with Loki that's clearly intended to be feminist, but it doesn't work in a number of ways. Whatever girl-power to be found there is somewhat negated by all the ass shots of Fury's main two female subordinates.
Still, Widow's completely platonic relationship with Hawkeye is refreshing after several lackluster Marvel romances that suffer from the lead having much more chemistry with the other main male character than his love interest, which occurs both here and in Thor.
Also, apparently it's routine for those who are adopted children to be murderers. Good to know.
On a brighter note, despite some of the dumb humor and pointless dialogue, most of the characterization is done pretty well, though Tony Stark is sometimes mouthy till he's being an unlikeable jackass.
The Avengers isn't brilliant or particularly inspired, though it can be a escape into a world where the lines between hero and villain are extremely visible and morality is always black and white, where the villain is clearly malevolent with absolutely no redeeming qualities, and the heroes are unshakeable. It can be mindlessly fun, but it falls short of being anything masterful.
Marvel has embarked for much of the 00s decade on an epic quest: to pump out movies detailing the origin stories of their most famous heroes to make audiences familiar with them so one of the biggest gambles in cinematic history pays off. And pay off, it did. The action is spectacular, the characters are played by actors long comfortable and skilled in their roles, and the plot, while flimsy, doesn't matter.
The Avengers is an awesome superhero film, but fails in one critical area: the villain. The Avengers is about the greatest (Marvel) superhero team: consisting of a genius in a suit of Powered Armor, a sexy but deadly spy, the Norse god of thunder, a Super Soldier, a Nigh Invulnerable mass of green muscle, and an archer whose skills put Olympic athletes to shame. To choose Loki as the villain to oppose that Dream Team just perplexes me. "Let's assemble this team of our company's greatest heroes and put them against a person who was soundly defeated by one of the team's individual members.". My mind be baffled, good sir.
The way I see the conflict of the film is this: Thor vs. Loki in Film/Thor was the first match, and now Loki is going up against Thor again, but this time the thunder god has serious backup. What does Loki have to say to that? Well, for one, Loki hasn't Taken A Level In Badass since Film/Thor , but at least he's still got the wits and deceit to keep his foes running around in circles, right?
No. Loki, a person whose whole thing was his skills of manipulation bred from hundreds of years of experience, is outsmarted on the first try by a mere mortal. True, Loki has an army and can (somehow) now brainwash people, but he was only able to brainwash Hawkeye (arguably the team's weakest member) and a few scientists and soldiers, and his army was actually loaned to him by another villain (and that's leaving out the fact that the army needs the film's MacGuffin to even come into play), and even then the army is quite easily taken down by our heroes.
Loki is a laughable villain (The Avengers themselves pose a greater threat to each other due to infighting), and that drags down the film considerably, knowing that heroes are only as good as the evil they stop. However, the fact that I still consider the film one of the best ever just goes to show how much the non-Loki parts shine.
But that's the whole point. Honestly, with everything they have to set up, they needed a small plot. This is not a movie you see for the plot. This is a movie you see for the characters. Granted, if you don't like them, that's fine, it's your opinion. But to judge this movie on its plot is to miss the point. Frankly, it didn't have time to be a complicated movie. It needed to be simple to dedicate time to the characters. The reason there's no symbolism in this movie is that there wasn't meant to be. Everyone who's criticizing it for not being a new take on superhero movies is obviously wanting The Dark Knight. What The Avengers was meant to be was a movie that shows how you can use the formula to make a really fun and enjoyable film. It's fun because it embraces what it is, rather than trying to shy away. It says "Hey, you know what? This comic book world is awesome." If that's not your thing, than this isn't your movie. But you know what? Give me a movie that embraces it's nature any day over one that looks like one thing, but tries to be something else. Because at the end of the day, I got what I came for. I had a fun time.
P.S. for all those people claiming that Banner's control is New Powers As The Plot Demands, you guys really need to rewatch the ending of The Incredible Hulk. It's pretty clear from there that he's learning how to control the Hulk, and he even says that he wouldn't be on the Hellicarrier (I probably misspelled that) unless he was sure he could control it. The thing he's worried about is that Loki will sabotage the ship and cause him to Hulk out involuntarily. He wasn't worried until Loki got on board, which is a telling factor in this. When it comes to his anger, he's able to keep it in check. Thus, why he was fine in the Battle for New York.
The recent Avengers film, while noted for being ostensibly a Wheden film, still has a few pitfalls, despite being relatively entertaining: it has relatively little character development. It all boils down to roughly 1/3 action sequence, 2/3 acceptable amount of plot, following a traditional formula I first saw used in Ben Affleck’s Daredevil, which is noted for containing nothing notable. Avengers is the same way, with the exception of a giant fish lizard thing rendered acceptably well in CGI.
Among other things is the exceptional amount of Whedon dialogue, by which I mean the jokes are funny, such as Loki getting ragdolled, but the dramatic scenes, designed specifically not to make you laugh, ended up being the most humorous parts of the film. Deaths are riddled with narm in sufficient amounts to make this overall a very hammy film.
Some characters are outright useless. Captain America pulls a lever and hits things with his shield. End Scene. Black Widow kicks people and has tits. End Scene.
Pros of this movie:
Okay, so first off, I love the Avengers. I haven't read the comics, but I've seen how they tend to interact through cartoons and games. This movie made me fall in love with the Marvel Universe all over again. I love the way the characters interact, and I love the subtle references to other things in the universe.
Something that confuses me though, is that people call Loki sexist, or say that Joss was trying to empower women with his scene with Black Widow.Really? To me, that scene looked like him trying to tear her apart, same as he would Steve or Tony. Gender only came into play in the mewling quim line, and even then it seemed like Loki worked himself up before he said that.
The only complaint about this movie that I've actually seen is "Why is this superhero movie being a superhero movie and making me laugh? It needs to be dramatic and nothing like any superhero movie that ever happened!" I find that hilarious, by the way. That the only problem people have with this funny superhero movie is that it acts like what it is.
But it is quite the movie. The effects were spectacular, the action was awesome, and the actors were just plain amazing. Mark Ruffalo was Brilliant as Bruce Banner. Chris Evans is awesome as Steve Rogers. They both just know how to work their character's awkwardness. And RDJ is still the best as Tony Stark.
And just so you know, my favorite line from the entire movie was, "That man is playing Galaga. He didn't think we'd notice but we did."
Already, I'm seeing people calling the Avengers "best superhero film EVER!" and immediately others are like "LOL no way man dark knight rises is in july", so here's my opinion on all of the inevitable comparisons between the two.
The summer of 2012 is going to be remembered for a long time for its comic book movies. That's because both The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises are the culmination of years of waiting. The Avengers was first teased at the end of the first Iron Man way back in 2008, and it's understandable why everyone is freaking out about it, because something we've waited so long for is actually really good. Meanwhile, Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy had its first release in 2005, and after two excellent movies, fans have very high hopes for the final film. So, comparisons between the two are definitely going to happen.
But here's my opinion: you can't really compare the two. I absolutely loved The Dark Knight (also Batman Begins, but less so) for two reasons: First, the theme of symbolism and fear elevated Batman to something more than a man in a batsuit, and gave a really interesting, clever, and well-planned answer to a good question: What makes Batman a superhero, seeing as he has no powers? Second, the movies proved that superhero films could be taken seriously. I mean, The Dark Knight is like the art film of superhero movies. And I just saw The Avengers last night and absolutely loved it too. But here's the thing: I freely admit that the Avengers didn't really do anything different. It followed the formula for superhero flicks. The reason it was so enjoyable is that it followed the formula really really well. You could say it perfected the formula.
So why can't you compare the two? The two movies are exact opposites. The Avengers is a witty, wonderfully written big-budget action flick. People have pointed out that the plot is minimalist at best. But the Avengers doesn't really need a great plot: the writing and character dynamics make up for it, and I'd argue it is almost helped by its simple plot. On the other hand, if you take away the great themes running through the Nolan Batman movies, what do you get? A somewhat boring film with a few action pieces. TDK is great because of its serious nature and themes, while the Avengers is great because it gives the audience exactly what it wants.
HULK IS NOT A MOVIE FAN. LAST TWO HULK MOVIES JUNK, AND MAKE HULK DESTROY THE THEATER! HULK DESTROY MANY THINGS, BUT NOT DESTROY BOX OFFICE! "WHY PEOPLE NO LIKE HULK?" HULK SAYS.
BUT THEN HULK HEAR ABOUT GOOD MOVIE, MADE WITH ALL OF HULK'S FRIENDS! IS WRITTEN BY FUNNY VAMPIRE GIRL MAN. WHEN HULK HEARS ABOUT WRITING, HE WORRIED THAT MOVIE BE LIKE FIRST HULK MOVIE. NOT ENOUGH SMASHING! BUT THIS MOVIE MADE BY SMART MAN. IT HAS SMASHING AND WRITING AT SAME TIME! SO WHEN HULK SMASH PERSON, HULK SAY SOMETHING FUNNY, AND EVERYBODY WINS, ESPECIALLY HULK.
THE BEGINNING IS CONFUSING FOR HULK, WITH LOTS OF WEIRD WORDS THAT MAKE HULK'S HEAD HURT. CONFUSING! BUT THEN MOVIE GETS BETTER, AND HULK ENJOY SEEING NEW BRUCE "RUFFALO"! BETTER THAN OLD BRUCE, BOTH OF THEM! ACTS LIKE HE'S NOT ANGRY, BUT IS FIDGETY AND WEAK, LIKE BANNER REALLY IS (UNTIL HULK HELP HIM!). OTHER HEROES WERE GOOD TOO, BUT NOT AS GOOD AS HULK! METAL MAN IS FUNNY MAN. SHOULD REALLY GET NEW NAME.
VILLAIN LOOKS STUPID, BUT IS THREAT... TO PUNY BANNER! NOT TO HULK, OF COURSE. HORN GOD IS MEANER THAN IN OTHER MOVIE, BUT MAYBE HE JUST GOT SICK OF BEING BLONDIE'S PUNCHING BAG? THERE IS ALSO ALIEN VILLAIN THAT LOOK LIKE BUGS. KINDA BORING AND GREY, BUT HULK ENJOY SMASHING THEM AND THEIR PET DOLPHINS! EVEN HULK FIGHTS WITH OTHER HEROES ARE FUN, ALTHOUGH MOVIE LIES, BECAUSE HULK SHOULD ALWAYS WIN! THERE IS ALSO A BIG, COOL THING AFTER CREDITS, BUT HULK HATE GETTING MOVIES RUINED, SO HE WON'T TELL YOU!
HULK LIKE THE PRETTY PICTURES. HULK KNOWS THEY DON'T LOOK REAL, NOT LIKE SOME MOVIES, BUT HE STILL LIKES THEM; THEY LOOK LIKE HULK COMIC BOOKS! VIDEO IS STRONG AND DOESN'T SHAKE, JUST LIKE HULK! SHAKY CAM IS FOR REPORTERS LOOKING AT HULK! HULK DID NOT LIKE THE GLASSES HE WAS GIVEN, AND WISHED HE HADN'T WATCHED MOVIE WITH GLASSES. GLASSES REMIND HULK OF BANNER!
HULK GIVES MOVIE TEN OUT OF TEN! HULK NOW GO SMASH OTHER CRITICS ON THIS PAGE, BECAUSE THEY JUST MAKE HULK ANGRY, AND YOU WOULDN'T LIKE HULK WHEN HE'S ANGRY! HULK SMASH!
Note to any other reviewers: I am not actually a giant green monster hell-bent on hunting you down and crushing you for an internet review. At least, I'm not a giant green monster.
As far as superheroes go, I'm not the most devoted fan. I've seen Captain America, Nolan's Batman films, most of Iron Man, along with bits and pieces of the Spider-Man trilogy. I watched superhero cartoons as a kids when they played on TV, but I never actively went out to find them. I've only glanced through a few comic books for the art styles, not the story.
Why is this relevant? Because even as a relative superhero noob, Avengers has so many typical superhero tropes that nothing seemed new to me beyond the multitude of heroes. Cliché, cackling villain? Check. Formulaic plot that begins with the heroes being self-assured, doubting themselves at the middle, and regaining their confidence in time for the final battle? Check. Hero barely escaping certain doom at the last minute, nearly dying and waking up surrounded by friends? Check.
Even Whedon's creative staple of the cast snarking on each other feels tired and protracted. The only thing missing was the epic reckoning of hero and villain, which Loki wasn't allowed the dignity of having. It's a shame, because the movie suffered for it. You had to wonder how a guy so easily defeated got ahead of the heroes in the first place.
On the plus, Cap as the "man out of time" was intriguing, and Black Widow was awesomeness with a nice haircut.
On the minus, Paltrow and Downey are on completely different wavelengths while acting, which makes their romance seem disjointed and forced. He's energetic and brimming with his character's animation, while she doesn't appear to be capable of speaking in a tone that isn't whiny, breathless, or both. It's hard not to feel apathetic toward the "final phone call" scene, which I can't decide if I love for being a homage to Captain America' or hate for being so obviously lifted that it feels cheap.
If I could change one thing, I would give Loki and Thor more depth and and interaction, they're an interesting pair, and their relationship and its ramifications received so little focus.
Overall, this is every superhero flick you've seen before, but with more superheroes.
Joss Whedon tells a story, which, though typical, is masterfully developed. First, an enviable and satirical script defines the pace of the work, which remains strong throughout the film, building up tension to conclude in a powerful final act. This is achieved in part thanks to the characterization of the characters, well defined by their dialogues and the performances of the actors, which easily draw the different personalities of heroes and villains, trying to make the viewer vibrate with the clash of egos when they appear together on screen.
Special mention to Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner and Tom Hiddleston as Loki. The latter is a successful asset for the film, as the fun of seeing him interact on screen is only comparable to his great performance (amazing the scenes with Stark, Natasha and Thor) showing a complex, even tragic, villain (although occasionally terrifying) whose motivation, while simple at first glance, is more complex and interesting to an attentive viewer(pay special attention to his dialogue and facial expresions, particularly in the scenes with Thor, Agent Coulson and the ones in the final act.
I also have criticism, however, as the final conflict may not like, to a greater or lesser extent, to those who do not tolerate the special effects. However, I must say that such scenes are a delight to the eye, well developed not only in effects but also in cinematography and style (emphasis on a sublime Oner where the camera follows the characters, artistically impressive). Also, Whedon is not content with what is called "Eye Candy", and the outcome gives us a remarkable argument structure to outline the relationships between its characters, seasoned, successfully, with irreverent dialogue and epic moments to make it more palatable.
Another negative, in my opinion is, that, although the premise wonderfully done, giving a good shape to a somewhat simplistic plot, as I said the movie does not redefine any trend that we have not seen before, despite the fact that shows such concepts much better than any other film of its kind. However, although imperfect, the film satisfies at all times, and the scale between hits and misses is enough to make of the Avengers an excellent film.
I really liked the movie.The action was great,but not too much like in some films,the humor was just right and the characters were done fantastically.They all shared the spotlight and more real personality and reaction wise than in other super hero films.It's not perfect,but enjoyable.
What really kind of stood out to me as a huge flaw was the way Loki was characterized.He was just a bit...off.He wasn't the Tragic Villain that he was in Thor and more like the classic bad guy you see in pretty much every other super hero film or show. Now,if it was a different bad guy who really was a generic villain who wanted to take over the world and kicked puppies for fun,then it would be different.
I enjoyed the film (though I wish they'd hire actual Russians to play Russian mooks and dub Natalia for once), but it still felt more like fast food than gourmet to me.
My main problem with the film was the lack of tension. It's a common superhero problem, but good movies circumvent it by making it not about the hero's physical survival or victory, but about what happens along the way.
Avengers has the problem of not just a plot and premise that leave very little space for surprises (come on, like they'd really kill off any of the main Avengers or have Loki succeed in subjugating Earth - now that, would've been a twist and real sequel hook), but having half the main cast be physically invulnerable. That leaves very little room for tension as they get the stuffing beat out of them (though the film did utilise it well on one occasion, having Hulk punch Thor in a cartoonish but still fitting moment). That may be why Black Widow, Hawkeye and Captain America intrigued me much more than I expected them to: they actually regularly got stressed and exhausted, as opposed to having blows just roll off them. Black Widow gets extra points for being a female superhero character, yet not being forced into a skimpy outfit or a formulaic romance with one of the leads, as well as having value as a badass beyond walking eye candy.
The film juggles its diverse cast fairly well without shafting anyone too much, but the invulnerable characters make the prolonged action scenes feel somewhat meaningless. Tony Stark's near death experience, while relatively engaging (his attempt to contact Pepper was touching) was one such example: have the cynical Anti Hero die saving the world, only to make them turn out okay again just as everyone is gathered around and beginning to mourn them? Reminiscent of bad Mary Sue fanfiction, really. Also, while I enjoyed the banter but did occasionally feel like the writers were trying too hard to be 'witty' - The "He's adopted" line was particularly Mood Whiplash-y and made his later attempts to appeal to Loki's sense of family utterly cheap.
Loki was memorable, but it felt more like the Avengers were helping Thor curb in his unruly, rebellious troublemaker brother than defeat an evil mastermind - a disservice to Loki as a villain.
Warning: there is gushing ahead. If you're looking for a balanced review with constructive criticism, you've got the wrong review.
I don't even no where to start here. Its like a cheesy Michael Bay movie if someone put A LOT more time and effort into the script. I guess one of my favorite things is the character dynamics qnd dialogie. Mostly the dialogue. The film has completely erased any doubts I had about the acting abilities of Chris Evans and further solidified both Hulk and Hawkeye as my new favorite marvel characters.
There is also some great humor and slapstick, and while some other reviews on this sight have criticized it as out pf place, I respectively disagree. I personally felt it wad one of the best parts of the movie, and after seeing the destruction Loki's caused because of what boils down to a hurt ego, seeing Hulk wail on him like an angry chimp playing with a stuffed toy was quite satisfing, and one of the funniest
Parts of the movie. In conclusion, this movie is now a cultural phenomenon and Im proud to be a part of it.
I've long advocated that the real crux of any story is its characters—whether they are interesting, compelling, fun, captivating. With that in mind, I am not this film's target audience: I've never read comic books, I didn't watch Thor or Captain America, I don't know how Hawkeye snuck into the movie-verse, and I don't know Maria Hill from a hole in the ground. I don't find these characters interesting, and that means I lack the emotional context of Marvel's target audience. As such, Your Mileage May Vary.
But I just don't see what the big deal is about.
I felt like a lot of good actors and characters were wasted. Cobie Smulders had basically nothing to do; no one would've noticed if she wasn't in the film. I have loved Jeremy Renner ever since Ghost Protocol, and he saved the character, but he also felt jammed-in. For that matter, I'm privately convinced that they made a Thor movie solely to set up this film. Even worse, they're Static Characters in this movie, since it's assumed that the arcs and baggage they had in their solo outings are sufficient. (Here the fact that Fox owns Wolverine, and Sony Spider-Man, also becomes a liability, but that can't be helped.)
I found the acting kind of uneven. Robert Downey Jr stole every frame he could (and Tom Hiddleston made off with the remainder). That's either casting's fault, for not finding actors who can hold their own against Downey (which, to be sure, is a daunting task), or the screenwriters', for not finding more interesting beats for those actors. Regardless, I kept waiting for one of the other Avengers to steal the show back from Tony Stark, and the fact that they never did just undermined the whole "ensemble" cast further.
Don't get me wrong: the characters were not flat, and all the actors did a great job. It's not a mummified wreckage like Batman Forever; it breathes. But it doesn't do anything more. And from actors and a director this good, phoning it in isn't sufficient. This movie brims with so much potential that, even spinning their wheels, they made a decent film. Imagine what they could've accomplished if they'd actually tried to make a good one.
If you've watched and enjoyed any of the other Marvel films you should go watch this. It's as least as enjoyable as all of them, funny than any of them and more visually interesting (apart from maybe Captain America which I haven't seen). The character interaction is genius to watch.
But The Avengers place in history is more going to be for it being the first big cross-continuity film and the summation of the creation of the Marvel Films than being something pecial itself. It's not the perfect superhero film like Spiderman 2 because it's not trying to tell that simple hero tale, but it doesn't have the ideas or consequences of The Dark Knight either. 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. There wasn't even much of a plan, Loki acted like he did but when you look at it, it seems to be stupidly non-existent.
In it's way it's very Joss Whedon, there's nothing special but it's fun time beyond reason.
The acting is absolutely fantastic, I was blown away by it. Loki brings back his Thor awesomeness but even more so, he was so persuasive that even when he was doing monstrous things, I was thinking yeah, that does sound reasonable, we should kick puppies. His acting was so good that I secretly wanted him to win.
Captain America impressed me. Patriotism doesn't happen in Britain, we're never going to make a film about our Prime Minister single-handedly killing terrorists on a plane because our Prime Ministers are dicks. We'll where the Union Jack but we'd rather vomit than salute it and Capt did give me one twinge with 'the good old stars and stripes' but despite that he won me over.
Hawkeye was good enough that it didn't seem ridiculous that someone brought a bow to a gun-and-godlike-powers fight.
In many ways it was Bruce Banner's film. He didn't have to say much but when his trick was revealed, he'd acted so well throughout that it was instantly understandable and reflected a whole new light on his performance. He worked well with everyone, particularly Iron Man on great form.
It's relationships are special, all these radical people and somehow it works and is great. (Also props to a fantastic early scene involving German citizens being asked to kneel again.)
Right there in the title. That's my review.
There is nothing- nothing- that's going to top the 2-and-a-half hours of pure awesome projected on the screen I just saw.
Usually with superhero movies, they leave something out that I would have liked to see; Iron Man uno was less about punching dudes in power armor, and more about Stark building the suit. The Incredible Hulk was more Bourne Supremacy than HULK SMASH! Thor was more about Thor learning humility than smashing shit with a lightning hammer.
But this? This has everything. The heroes fight each other, the heroes fight aliens, the Hulk kicks the god of mischief's ass, and there are giant flying whales tearing up New York. It's funny to a degree I thought impossible. It's drama doesn't feel ham-fisted or forced, and Loki is a awesome villain, simultaneously being both funny and scary at the same time, less Villain Decay and more Villain Upgrade.
GO. SEE. THIS. MOVIE.
It's twenty bucks well spent.
(If I seem a little disjointed, it because it's hard to get so many raw emotions onto paper at one time.)
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?