The Avengers (film)

[shootemindehead]

I thought his name was Big McLargehuge? :P

[bassman]

I thought his name was Big McLargehuge? :P

[clanglee]

Sorry to get back on topic, but yeah. . .Avengers. I saw it on the midnight opening. Absolutely loved it. Havn't enjoyed a movie that much in the theater since I saw Fellowship of the Rings. Granted, they are both movies that I was looking foward to and franchises that I had followed for a long time. So perhaps I went in biased. But I had a huge dopey grin on my face throught both movies. There were some slow parts and some things that didn't quite gel (had a problem with Hawkeye being a badguy for so long and the whole "oh yeah we can fix this because of some unmentioned failsafe" ending) But on the whole I found the movie so. . .I don't know. . .satisfying I guess. Like on a primal level satisfying. It was just a damn fun movie for me. In my youth I used to rail against certain directors, Speilburg specifically, because of the obvious and cliched attempts at emotional stringpulling. I could see it happening and therefore it pissed me off. It wasn't magical anymore because I was . . .aware. That awareness, the knowledge that I was being manipuated and seeing the method of the manipuation pissed me off and caused me to poo poo all sorts of movies. I don't know If I just got past it in my old age, or I just don't care anymore, but I hardly even notice or worry about obvious film cliches now. I even feel a sense of nostagia about the stuff I used to hate. Case in point. . I loved Super 8 mostly because it felt like an old Speilburg movie. I dunno. . .but whatever. . .Avengers was good stuff. . . . that is all.

[MinionZombie]

^^^ I loved Super 8 too. A touching story, beautifully told, and it made me feel pleasantly nostalgic even though I wasn't even alive, let alone a tween, in the 1970s. Spielberg, being a producer on the flick, certainly had a little bit of a guiding hand in it, but not quite as much as it could appear - but then again JJ Abrams wanted to do a Spielberg-like movies from the 1970s anyway, so the influence is certainly there regardless of the beard's actual level of involvement. Got it on blu-ray for Xmas, well worth getting if you're a fan of the movie. Saw it in the cinema too and was spirited away by it. Big fan of that flick.

[shootemindehead]

A great director can manipulate the crap out of you without you even knowing it and Spielberg is a great director. But, I agree with you on the schmaltz thing. His early work is still clearly his best material. 'Duel', 'Jaws', 'Close Encounters'...they were all adult-oriented efforts, with an incredible amount of tension deftly sprinkled throughout. Even 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' retained an "adult" approach. It's after 'E.T.', that Spielberg changed the game and started making stuff for his "inner child" and "infantilizing the audience", as Peter Biskind put it. Although, 'E.T.' is still a great film, it's hard not to watch it and see all those strings being plucked in the most obvious way, even at 10 years of age. I agree with Pauline Kael's assertion that Spielberg had fallen into the role of "melodramatist" in his later work, although I certainly wouldn't go as far as calling him a bad director, like she did. Even great directors have their limitations, I suppose.

[bassman]

^^^ I loved Super 8 too. A touching story, beautifully told, and it made me feel pleasantly nostalgic even though I wasn't even alive, let alone a tween, in the 1970s. Spielberg, being a producer on the flick, certainly had a little bit of a guiding hand in it, but not quite as much as it could appear - but then again JJ Abrams wanted to do a Spielberg-like movies from the 1970s anyway, so the influence is certainly there regardless of the beard's actual level of involvement. Got it on blu-ray for Xmas, well worth getting if you're a fan of the movie. Saw it in the cinema too and was spirited away by it. Big fan of that flick. I enjoyed Super 8, but felt it probably tried a little too hard to be a nod to Speilberg. If anything, Jon Favreau made something closer to the mark with Cowboys and Aliens(also produced by Spielberg).

[Neil]

Have to say, just watched it, and found it rather clunky, paint-by-numbers and generally all a bit "meh"... Yes, a good fun watch at the cinema, but it all felt just too scripted and on rails... The "meh" results from all the predicable big action with lots of pretty meaningless big bangs and crashes and not really one moment of actual real concern or risk Only high points for me were one or two slap stick moments involving "The Hulk". Would have to say I felt "Captain America" was a far stronger film for example; There was actually some character exploration and depth to it, which is why it resulted in a far stronger experience (for me at least). If I gave Captain America a 7.5/10, I'd give "The Avengers" maybe a 6.5? -- -------- Post added at 10:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ---------- A great director can manipulate the crap out of you without you even knowing it and Spielberg is a great director. But, I agree with you on the schmaltz thing. His early work is still clearly his best material. 'Duel', 'Jaws', 'Close Encounters'...they were all adult-oriented efforts, with an incredible amount of tension deftly sprinkled throughout. Even 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' retained an "adult" approach. It's after 'E.T.', that Spielberg changed the game and started making stuff for his "inner child" and "infantilizing the audience", as Peter Biskind put it. Although, 'E.T.' is still a great film, it's hard not to watch it and see all those strings being plucked in the most obvious way, even at 10 years of age. I agree with Pauline Kael's assertion that Spielberg had fallen into the role of "melodramatist" in his later work, although I certainly wouldn't go as far as calling him a bad director, like she did. Even great directors have their limitations, I suppose. Watched Jaws recently, and God it's a good film, but who ever did the lighting needed to be shot. It's like people have got super bright torches pointed at the faces (in the day time scenes) -- -------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ---------- I enjoyed Super 8, but felt it probably tried a little too hard to be a nod to Speilberg. If anything, Jon Favreau made something closer to the mark with Cowboys and Aliens(also produced by Spielberg). I enjoyed Super 8. But I felt like it was just "trying too hard" full stop Not sure why some folks give it such a hard time, as it's certainly got some nice aspects to it!

[Danny]

Would have to say I felt "Captain America" was a far stronger film for example; There was actually some character exploration and depth to it, which is why it resulted in a far stronger experience (for me at least). same here, in my opinion captain america is a far stronger film than the avengers. Better pacing better acting, the combination of the super hero flick juxtaposed with the typical american ww2 flick just had this rare chemistry that was so more unique and engrossing than 'Michael bays transformers but with super heros'. It was not as good as dark knight but id say its the best marvel cape flick aside from spiderman 2.

[MoonSylver]

In my youth I used to rail against certain directors, Speilburg specifically, because of the obvious and cliched attempts at emotional stringpulling. I could see it happening and therefore it pissed me off. It wasn't magical anymore because I was . . .aware. That awareness, the knowledge that I was being manipuated and seeing the method of the manipuation pissed me off and caused me to poo poo all sorts of movies. I don't know If I just got past it in my old age, or I just don't care anymore, but I hardly even notice or worry about obvious film cliches now. I even feel a sense of nostagia about the stuff I used to hate. Case in point. . I loved Super 8 mostly because it felt like an old Speilburg movie. I must be like you. I started turning into a little bit of a movie snob for a while, but found myself swinging back the other way. You can't have steak for every meal. Sometimes you're just in the mood for a hamburger.

[mista_mo]

I enjoyed it quite a lot. It was very satisfying and I was never bored once during the film. The only time that I noticed the length was when I could no longer hold in my piss, and thus I had to get up and walk to the bathroom before my bladder exploded. I've never had to do that during a film before...the Avengers broke my theater washroom virginity.

[Christopher Jon]

the Avengers broke my theater washroom virginity. The Hulk popping your cherry. I do not envy this.

[rongravy]

It was not as good as dark knight but id say its the best marvel cape flick aside from spiderman 2. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Cap was awesome, TDK was a snoozefest. I enjoyed it quite a lot. It was very satisfying and I was never bored once during the film. The only time that I noticed the length was when I could no longer hold in my piss, and thus I had to get up and walk to the bathroom before my bladder exploded. I've never had to do that during a film before...the Avengers broke my theater washroom virginity. Whoa, didn't have a large cup handy to covertly shake the dew off the lily? Noob.

[Neil]

same here, in my opinion captain america is a far stronger film than the avengers. Better pacing better acting, the combination of the super hero flick juxtaposed with the typical american ww2 flick just had this rare chemistry that was so more unique and engrossing than 'Michael bays transformers but with super heros'. It was not as good as dark knight but id say its the best marvel cape flick aside from spiderman 2. If I had to pick my recent best half dozen super hero flicks, it would along the lines of:- Batman 1&2 Spiderman 1&2 Captain America Iron Man (I've missed out "Kick Ass" because it's not a traditional comic book film I guess. But I'd put that right up the top of the list, head and shoulders about "The Avengers"). Many of the rest, especially the Green Lantern just felt too wishy washy. And the Avengers, while fun, just felt like it was a film looking for a purpose. It's biggest flaw (IMHO) was the lack of any real threat; All the characters just felt invulnerable and many of the situations/action just too scripted and seemed there purely for eye-candy than any real logical plot development or necessity. Question: Why did Loki go (let himself be taken) to the super duper daft flying aircraft carrier? What was his aim again?

[mista_mo]

Whoa, didn't have a large cup handy to covertly shake the dew off the lily? Noob. Even if I did, my fiance and her entire family were there with me. I do not believe that I will further relations with them by urinating into a coca cola cup. Question: Why did Loki go (let himself be taken) to the super duper daft flying aircraft carrier? What was his aim again? His aim was to try and separate and destroy the tenuous alliance that they had formed, and to destroy the shield fortress by causing the hulk to let loose.

[Danny]

Question: Why did Loki go (let himself be taken) to the super duper daft flying aircraft carrier? What was his aim again? loki is the god of mischief, he works through manipulation and subtlety. that bit was the only sign of it in a movie where he just stabs everything instead. The original avengers story its based on has it appear as though loki is an enemy but he is actually working to push them together because his goal the whole time was to form the avengers to stir up some chaos in the universe. Something that you could construe from the after credits scene 'maybe' but in the film proper its barely there at all in favour of 'LOL REVENGE'.