|
Edit: Could a mod place the 'The' behind 'Avengers' please? Will remove this line then. The Avengers (Superhero/Action, US, 2012) Wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDB Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson Directed by: Joss Whedon  Continuing the epic big-screen adventures started in Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger, Marvel's The Avengers is the superhero team up of a lifetime. When an unexpected enemy emerges that threatens global safety and security, Nick Fury, Director of the international peacekeeping agency known as SHIELD, finds himself in need of a team to pull the world back from the brink of disaster. Spanning the globe, a daring recruitment effort begins. The Avengers is a strange film, it's a kind of 'Superhero Origin' movie that is the result of four previous 'Superhero Origin' movies. It begins by establishing the characters and the villain, and ends with the well known team assembled (don't count on any surprises there, they wouldn't be planning The Avengers 2 if that was the case). The Avengers truly deserves a perfect score, and I'm going to tell you why. First: Every hero gets his/her time. For obvious reasons, the introductions of the various heroes (and further character development) are short, but it really is enough. This movie couldn't be this good if it wasn't for the previous movies, even if they were a mixed bunch. Tony Stark/Iron Man (Downey Jr.) is given quite a lot of attention compared to the other heroes, but it's quite obvious Marvel Studios, with two Iron Man films and a third on the way, wants him to be the star of the show, and Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark is as wonderful as always. Thor (Hemsworth) is his usual stoic, Shakespearean self, and he plays well with his ("Adopted.") brother Loki (Hiddleston). The Asgardians are corny, but that's kind of the point. Steve Rogers/Captain America (Evans) is Captain America, and that's the reason he was great in Captain America: The First Avenger. He's sufficiently awestruck by the world of 2012 (or whatever it is), and he often feels like the most human of the heroes. He's a natural leader, and by gluing the team together he lives up to his name. You might say his real superpower is the ability to get superegos to work together. Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Johansson) and Clint Barton/Hawkeye (Renner)are the new guys, and they suffer because of the time constraints. While we've seen a bit of Black Widow and her skills in Iron Man 2, little time is devoted to Hawkeye, and I hope we'll see him in later Marvel Cinematic Universe movies. Still, the rest of the characters get enough screen time, and the only "Main Hero" who feels a little bit ignored at times is Bruce Banner/Hulk (Ruffalo, it doesn't help that he's the third actor to play the Hulk so far). Lastly, Nick Fury, Director of S.H.I.E.L.D. (Jackson) is just plain cool, there's not much else to say. What really makes the characters work is the fact that they play so well together. The whole movie is hilarious; Joss Whedon delivers his hallmark dialogue as always, and there's a lot of great slapstick ("Puny god.") to go with it. If I wasn't laughing, I was in awe at the action, and the action is my second point Second: This movie does action perfectly. I don't think I've ever seen such wonderfully physical, gritty, cartoony, breathtakingly epic action before. It takes the technology of Iron Man movies, physicality of the Thor and The Hulk movies and cartoony violence and great explosions of the Captain America movie and combines it all in a veritable roller coaster ride of CG, flying bodies acrobatics and pure fun. The pinnacle is and amazing single-take shot that shows of every single hero in an enormous battle, and that one shot alone is nearly enough to give this movie five out of five on the action. But it can't survive on action and characters alone. Third: The plot is exactly the kind of plot that this movie should have. It has a simple premise (Villain wants to invade the earth, heroes must assemble and kick villains rear end), and the story trucks along while the characters interact. While the single-superhero movies can devote time to internal conflict and personal stories, this is a movie about a team, and we want to see how the team members work with each other. It's in many ways a movie about earth and (super)humanity itself, and the world as a character evolves and grows. The plot does what it has to do, and it does it well, and while that could have defeated a more personal movie, it's the right thing for this one. Last: The direction makes it all fit together perfectly. The film is filled with amazing visuals, and the wonderful technology, jet motors, space weapons and envy-inducing holoscreens never stop coming. It's a CG overload, but CG is cartoony, so that's not a bad thing in a movie like this. As previously mentioned, the movie is exhilarating and hilarious and it's all delivered like a mini-gun salvo. I'd say Thor has had a rather unfortunate costume change, and Loki looks sort of silly (which is pointed out, mind), but everyone else is cool, sexy or both. With The Avengers, Joss Whedon was handled a thousand piece puzzle that could have ended up like anything, like roadkill (or certain X-Men movies) but he assembled every piece, every character, set piece, legendary weapon, neurotic super-genius, cheesy Asgardian and comic book trope in to what I will unabashedly call a masterwork. This is exactly what the Avengers should be, and there's really not much else to add. 5/5 Black Griffon fucked around with this message at Apr 30, 2012 around 23:42 |
| # ? Apr 30, 2012 23:38 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 05:26 |
|
|
Typical (bad) super hero movie. And by that I don't mean all super hero movies are bad, the bad ones (such as this one) require you to not only turn off your brain to enjoy, but also lock the door on the way out. The entire plot is nonsensical even for a superhero movie, we just saw Loki defeated by Thor alone in a previous movie and yet we're supposed to take him seriously as a villain against the ENTIRE avengers team? There's an army behind Loki but it conveniently doesn't show up until 20 minutes until the movie is over, an army which is led by some sinister people you don't know, don't care about and were literally given less than 3 minutes of screen time to see in a near 2 1/2 hour long movie. Movies like this are fine if you exist in a vacuum, are able to turn your brain off from ALL thought, but if you're like me and can't stop yourself from asking even the most basic plot questions then you aren't going to find this movie that enjoyable. 2/5
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 16:27 |
|
|
Any movie with a big collection of superheroes needs to be epic and The Avengers doesn't let down upon that point. This isn't a story about a single villain that can be easily thwarted, this is Loki at his finest, the scheming trickster god working out his plans with the help of a race of conquerors. It ties into the previous movies as it must, especially with the most recent Captain America movie, and builds upon them further. I had heard rumors about it being too focused on Black Widow since it was Josh Whedon directing it, but such claims were definitely unfounded. As Black Griffon said, the attention was spread well between the big names and while Widow and Hawkeye did get less attention they were still covered in the course of the movie and not forgotten. Definitely helps to have an understanding of the source material. Saw it in 2D, so I can't comment on the 3D version. Rating: 4.5/5
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 07:18 |
|
|
This movie is written as if a 5 year old got his Thor, Loki, and Hulk dolls and mashed them together going rawr, boom, and hahahaha, then made a movie out of it. Too bad they didn't up the maturity level of it all and try to make a good movie. 1.5/5
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 11:51 |
|
|
im deeply upset this movie based on childrens picture books doesnt compare to shakespeare. 0.5 out of 10 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 12:31 |
|
|
I felt the movie had good pace and flow between the action scenes (there were a lot of action scenes). I was very impressed that they managed to give every character an equal amount of the limelight. The film never felt too focused on any one member of the Avengers. I saw the film in 3D and thought it was very dark and didn't contribute to the action. The final battle of the movie takes place in broad daylight, which is nice seeing as many films like this have big action scenes at night to cut down on costs, and I found the 3D sort of "muted" the visuals and lighting through out the final scene. The score was very weak, in my opinion, but they still had some gold old fashioned heavy metal for when Ironman flies in to save the day. HACKING PA SYSTEM The film got many laughs and cheers from the audience in my showing. It manages to walk the line between serious and goofy. I recommend the big screen viewing for the very well done action scenes and fun set pieces. Flying aircraft carrier ahoy! However I wouldn't recommend the 3D for the lighting nuisance. Hopefully someone else can elaborate or disagree on the 3D point. 4/5 worth it for the big screen and audience participation.
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 15:06 |
|
|
This was a film adaption of a comic book. If you're going into this film hoping for some highbrow, artsy, witty flick then shoot yourself. This movie is big on humor. Explosions. Punching. Costumes. Explosions. And one-liners... And explosions. The Good: Most of what I just mentioned. The Bad: Most of the characters seem to be second bananas to Tony Stark/Iron Man. And I definitely prefer Norton to Mark Ruffalo. His whole [spoiler]the other guy[/spoil] thing was irritating. And you get a sense that the film REALLY wanted to make the Black Widow and Hawkeye out to be the equals of the big guns, but really how much could they do while they have four other heroes running around who've each had their own film? Overall 4/5 Seriously stick around for the ending way after the credits. It may be the most awkward thing since that scene in Spiderman 2 where he's on the elevator.
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 16:01 |
|
|
You go to a typical superhero action movie for explosions and one-off jokes. If you want deep, philosophical pondering, you go see a Batman movie (or the parts of the Spiderman movies that no one likes). By god, the Avengers doles out the explosions and one-off jokes in spades. The action is great. The bits of comedy, even the ones that don't come from Stark, are way higher than the standard you usually come to expect from standard action movie fare. Mostly due to the timing. I expect that comes from Joss Whedon's writing. Honestly, it's a testament to Whedon's talent that he was able to bring all of these actors together and not have this movie end up a completely unwieldy trainwreck. Is the movie like "a 5 year old got his Thor, Loki, and Hulk dolls and mash(ing) them together going rawr, boom"? Kinda. But that's the entire goddamn premise of The Avengers, isn't it? As a couple previous posters have noted, see the movie in theaters to get the full experience. Overall 4/5
|
| # ? May 7, 2012 04:43 |
|
|
I enjoyed the movie a lot, it was fun, action-packed entertainment and definitely one of the better comic-based movies in my opinion. I originally planned on seeing it in in 2D but they only showed 3D and again, the 3D version proved my point that the quality of 3D animations in movies with "high quality-textures" and fast movement is severly lacking. Every fast movement was blurred, sometimes to the extent that makes eyes water. In comparison the rendered bits of equipment at the end with the actors names were crispy clear. I know it is an issue of technology but seriously if you can't make clear 3D action scenes then don't. I also had a feeling that in the fight in NY some of the "alien gliders" looked like 2D sprites against the background. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie and I like good animated 3D movies (Avatar, Toy Story etc.) but here 3D was used to cash in on higher ticket prices. I plan to see it again in 2D for the better image quality.
|
| # ? May 9, 2012 07:22 |
|
|
i really have to applaud everyone at Marvel for pulling this one off. It was four years of build, five movies and now it's time for the film that Marvel came to Hollywood to make. By God, they knocked it out of the park and made one of the absolute funnest and most entertaining comic book movie in ages. Don't expect Batman-levels of story and depth here, though, if you expected anything more than fun characters just spouting lines at each other than wait until July. Yeah, The Avengers was a hell of a blast with fun characters, snappy lines (Whedon's writing and humor is very much present here, folks) and some of the most mind-bendingly epic action set pieces you will see. The final epic battle is one of the most awesome things I have seen in recent memory. The only real knock I could possible have is that this is a summer movie but, holy poo poo, was it well put together and executed. Again, my hat is tipped to Marvel for pulling off this epic feat in the Hollywood system. 4/5
|
| # ? May 10, 2012 04:54 |
|
|
This was a great film. We went for Mother's day with my Fiance and her two kids. It didn't get boring one time from the get go, and a two and a half hour film felt more like 25 minutes. From the action, to the comedy, to build up, everything I thought was very well done. Not to mention, this is one of the only (if only) films I have been too where the audience was roaring in applause at the end of the movie. PS: If you see this in the theaters, stay through the entire credits or you will miss a very cool scene. (And if you want to laugh, after that scene when everyone leaves, stay until the very end of the credits) 5/5
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 13:44 |
|
|
Let me just preface this by saying I've never read any of the comics and saw only the Ironman movies (walked out of Thor, didn't bother with any of the others). You don't need to have seen those movies or read the comics to understand The Avengers, but it would certainly help because a lot of it I was turning to my husband going "So that guy was frozen? What's his story? Who's the bow and arrow guy? Why do they all like that agent guy so much? Why the gently caress is Gwyneth Paltrow wearing Daisy Duke shorts?". I spent most of the time trying to figure out if the guy who played Loki was the guy who played Viserys on GOT. (He wasn't) Battle scenes were awesomely epic, the story was pretty run-of-the-mill superhero save the world stuff, writing was middling to excellent with Whedon's sense of humour pervading the whole thing. For me the Hulk and Ironman made the movie worth watching. RDJ is the most charismatic actor and Mark Ruffalo's deadpan Bruce Banner was perfect. Samuel L Jackson played Samuel L Jackson and at this point, it's boring and done and please just retire. Never really cared for ScarJo, but watching her beat up a bunch of guys while tied to a chair was truly excellent. This movie was great fun and I laughed pretty much the whole way through. But I kind of wanted something...more. Worth watching if you just want to switch your brain off and watch pretty people say funny things and get tossed around like rag dolls. 3.5/5
|
| # ? May 21, 2012 02:15 |
|
|
A number of reviews and comments on this film have said you can switch off your brain for this one. While the idea of people switching off their brain definitely sheds light on why their are so many traffic accidents and YouTube fail videos in the world, I'm just going to ask "Why would you?" Is the world not oblivious enough without you okaying the act of ignorance? In fact, I'm going to ask that you leave your brain switched on. Both for personal and public safety as well as your enjoyment of this and future films. The Avengers is the film many have been hoping for from Marvel. Each of the solo films (Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Captain America) have contributed their starring characters to this epic event. Most people setting out to view The Avengers have at least seen Iron Man. I feel that being familiar with Thor will aid the viewer's enjoyment quite a bit. Thor's villain, Loki, plays a huge role in the Avengers film and, in many people's eyes, he was the best thing going for the Thor movie and one of the best characters ever to appear in a Marvel film. I'll say that I love Tom Hiddleston's Loki as much as I love Robert Downey Jr's Stark. When it all comes together, the pacing and the action are exactly what you would expect. Situations build, action ensues, and new developments arise. This continues from the beginning through to the ending credits. It moves at a speed which dares you to get up and go get popcorn because you'll probably miss something fun. You can't go wrong with this film if you're looking for some fantastic superhero action. Your super beings(Thor, Hulk, and Loki) are a joy to behold throwing their nigh indestructible selves into slugfest after slugfest. The human characters provide depth to the situation as they come to realize they are fighting something bigger than they ever dreamed. The payoff is watching them all come together, fighting on despite the odds and despite their differences. If you've ever enjoyed Superhero action films, this is a must see. Having seen both the 2D and 3D version, I can say take your pick. I found the 3D version a bit darkened by the glasses but some of the 3D is well done for a conversion. The 2D is brighter and the action is cleaner looking. 4.0/5.00 - minus a star because I think there is more to be told in this film. Will there ever be a Director's Cut? Probably not, but I'll hold a star in reserve just in case.
|
| # ? May 22, 2012 02:47 |
|
|
Pros: Lots of humor, well-paced for the most part, lots of action, excellent special effects. Most of the characters are entertaining and the main villain is well played. Mark Ruffalo stole the show as Bruce Banner/Hulk. Cons: Hoo boy, this is dumb as poo poo compared to other superhero movies. To the point where what seem like key ideas or plot points are brought up and then completely forgotten about, and at least one major character change happens off-screen for no discernible reason. You know how stories will leave things vague to seem mysterious? Well, this movie literally seems to just forget poo poo. Also, Tony Stark is a funny character in the Iron Man movies, but here he's overdone to the point where it seems like he's a coke addict sometimes. 3.5/5 - I think most people will find it entertaining (and all criticism aside, so did I) but it's super-duper shallow.
|
| # ? May 22, 2012 17:59 |
|
|
My gut reaction to this movie is one of surprised enjoyment. If you think about the overview of this story - that involves so many divergent characters and also a clash between two worlds - it's almost like it *shouldn't* work. But yet, it somehow manages to tell a cohesive tale, and it also manages to tell the same story without it seeming like it was purely targeted for a teenaged crowd, or seeming too diverse in its scope. You can tell that the script was massaged very heavily to figure out some smart ways to have all the characters interact. Mostly - if you can manage to put your critical thinking on autopilot, you will enjoy this movie. The action in this movie is a bit over the top for me, but it didn't bother me as much as it has on other action films. It is a superhero film - so there has to be *some* incredible stuff that takes place. I guess I still feel like hollywood (in general) lacks true thoughtfulness when it comes to bashing you over the head with action scenes. Perhaps that is because I like things to be just a little more cleanly and smartly choreographed - instead what you get here is just a slew of action which seems like it's in there just for sheer volume. I like ice cream sundaes but when there are 18 scoops it's a bit much. I think the cast of this film (mostly) does a good job with their characters - although I feel that Robert Downey Jr. tends to bring an element that is a bit too abrasive in this film. If his character is really a genius I don't understand why he'd always have to be so crass about it - I also thought it was a bit flawed to include the scene with all the superheroes devolving into childish argument during the heat of the moment (mostly because I would like to believe that superheroes are sort of "above" that.) But I get why they did it - perhaps execution-wise, if they could have had more lead-in to that moment it would have seemed more appropriate. Finally, I didn't fully understand the scene with the Hulk and Romanoff conflicting - hulk goes ape in this portion of the movie but then he figures out a way to control it later on when under attack? I didn't understand how that worked. But, other than those elements, this flick is actually somewhat solid. I think the cinematography and effects are all very nice, but I would be surprised if they won awards for it. While it is quite seamless, I think that the level of detail and quality in this movie is almost becoming "par for the course" - a couple hundred million can buy some pretty good post-production - so I don't think that anything "groundbreaking" took place in the movie. There's some great live action scenes in this film too - that was nice to see since so many films over-rely on CG for action these days. Is it a masterpiece? Hardly. It's just a really good popcorn flick that will probably have other superhero films copying it just because it balances it's own seriousness with a number of tasty cheese bites. One might say it was almost marvelous. 3.9/5.0 ajrosales fucked around with this message at Jun 17, 2012 around 23:29 |
| # ? Jun 17, 2012 23:26 |
|
|
A cool action flick ruined by two very important things: 1) the score is horrid, meaning forgettable. We don't watch these things for the drama, we need something memorable, something which immediately calls back to the moment you saw Ironman clashing against Thor or Cap running through dozens of critters. The flash is there, the music however, isn't. 2) the story makes absolutely zero sense and doesn't even attempt to. Why is Loki being offered kingship over earth? By who? And, what for? He himself regards humans as little petty nothings to step on. Who are those strange yet savage monsters and why are they riding air scooters? Do Hawkeye and Black Widow really need to partake in the final battle when Hulk and Thor alone could easily do away with every villain? If the tesseract is such an important and mysterious energy device, used to transport beings from another dimension, why only send in Loki? Why not just send in the entire demonic fleet in from the start? 2.5/5
|
| # ? Aug 28, 2012 05:31 |
|
|
I kept waiting for "press start to skip cutscene" to pop up on the bottom of the screen. 2 out of 5
|
| # ? Aug 28, 2012 14:34 |
|
|
Overall I'd have to say I enjoyed it, but The Avengers did have a few glaring problems. First of all I loved the build-up of getting all the characters together to form the team in the first half of the movie. The interactions between the individual Avengers were nicely done, with the right mix of humour and tension - no surprises there since this is a Joss Whedon joint, and he is great at these ensemble pieces. Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner is my favourite thing here. He is the most believable of the bunch. This is not to say the others were bad, but they were just portraying comic book superheroes (albeit extremely well); Ruffalo, on the other hand, elevates his character to an entirely new level. Bruce Banner has an aura of empathy, sadness and world-weariness, making him more human and sympathetic than the other Avengers. Maybe the internal struggles of Dr. Bruce Banner make him a more compelling character, or maybe Ruffalo's acting was much better than the rest of the cast (i.e. he brought his A-game while the others were simply coasting along to a fat paycheck.) Chris Evans did a good job with Captain America, but he is just too gosh darned earnest to be really compelling and stand out in the ensemble cast - especially when he has to share screen time with lovable rear end in a top hat Tony Stark and relatable everyman Bruce Banner. Scarlett Johansson was ok as the Black Widow. Just ok. There's nothing iconic about her performance; she doesn't embody her role like Downey's Tony Stark or Hemsworth's Thor. They could have put in any random A-list starlet in her role and it would have worked. I wasn't really impressed by Samuel L. Jackson. I realize he is the perfect match for Nick Fury in the Ultimates comic continuity and is the glue that holds the Avengers movie franchise together, but his character screams generic badass black man. Nick Fury, John Shaft, Mace Windu and that guy from Snakes on a Plane could all be first cousins. It's been 18 years since Pulp Fiction and 15 since Jackie Brown, the schtick has grown tiresome and distracting, give it a rest. The biggest problem I have with the movie is that the entire second half is an hour long special effects extravaganza. I'm sure they did lots of ground breaking work with the CG effects, spent countless millions of dollars, thousands of man-hours and trillions of CPU cycles rendering all effects for the big showdown at the end, but it did absolutely nothing for me. I realize these superhero blockbusters have to do this, they have to create an incredible spectacle (usually in 3D) to put asses in seats and recoup the studio's massive investment, but we've all seen this before and by now it just seems hollow and pointless. There were points in this movie (where special effects destroy Manhattan) where they could have spliced in footage from one of the Transformers movies (where special effects destroy Los Angeles) and I wouldn't have noticed. I like Tom Hiddleston, and I know the man can act, but Loki was a terrible antagonist. He didn't seem at all menacing with his magic stick. I mean, if they were going to spend untold millions doing the effects, why not just make Thanos or some other Marvel bigwigs the ultimate menace from the get go? The Chitauri/Skrulls are simply relegated to mindless minions and cannon fodder. Even people who have never read the comic books and have no inkling as to what significance the Chitauri or Skrulls have in this universe will quickly see that they are mindless minions who are only there to act as cannon fodder for the heroes. Also, the physical humour fell flat, although given the film's PG-13 rating I probably wasn't the target audience for such zany antics. TL,DR: Enjoyable first half, good ensemble cast with some standouts (Mark Ruffalo.) Let down by the overlong, inconsequential amusement-park ride of a second-half that does nothing to move the story or build the characters (Major Spoiler Alert: they kick alien butt and save the planet!) Hopefully things will get more interesting in Avengers 2. 3/5 lynch_69 fucked around with this message at Sep 4, 2012 around 17:38 |
| # ? Sep 4, 2012 11:29 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 05:26 |
|
|
If you like these kinds of movies, you'll love it. If you love art-house films, this movie will be a kind of guilty pleasure you'll never dare to admit. It's fast paced, occasionally incoherent and filled with cringe worthy cliches which is saved by a fair amount of self-awareness. The action is great but the drama is horrible (About the latter, think 2012). As a production however, this film is absolutely impressive on a huge scale, but it failed to pass my Hollywood repellant arrogance. 3/5
|
| # ? Sep 14, 2012 23:20 |
|
