|
|
Post by Gilberto on May 6, 2012 5:26:06 GMT -5
I thought this movie delivered everything it promised. I went in with a measured expectation, given all the build-up and the challenges inherent in combining several franchise characters in a single movie, but they did it. They actually made this movie work.
After seeing "Cabin in the Woods" I recently decided that Joss Whedon should spend more time in the horror genre where he's shown so much skill, but "The Avengers" makes a bigger and better point, which is that Whedon's singular skills can be applied to something that is successful in and makes a positive contribution to the mainstream. Not only did he direct this movie, but he wrote the screenplay, and it shows. It's wall to wall wit, humor and posturing character conflict with just the right amount of reference and sass.
This movie also makes great use of the characters and where their respective films left them in terms of story. It's a powerhouse mash-up, like Universal used to do with their classic movie monsters (except this one works where those really didn't). And it has the biggest, best and most exciting superhero action that's ever been in a movie.
The audience was cheering and I don't blame them. Go see this one folks and, as with all Marvel movies, stay through the credits.
|
|
|
|
Post by lynn on May 6, 2012 5:49:38 GMT -5
Yes, I agree, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It was everything it should have been but with the extra added Joss Whedon sparkle. I felt his influence all through the movie, from the dialogue, to his crazy low angles, to certain plot points (if you've seen the movie you'll understand which I mean). I read a reviewer that thought he was the only person who could have pulled this movie off, and perhaps he is. The thing that worked most was seeing the characters toghether, interacting, and not just trading witticisms but as human beings dealing with this situation they're in. You don't feel like there's too many characters or that anyone is ill-treated, you're just happy to see them all together.
And, counter to our expectations, I felt that Hawkeye was well-used, in different ways to that which I'd expected.
Overall very well handled, and something I'd be happy to watch more than once.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on May 6, 2012 11:45:35 GMT -5
They found a good way to keep Hawkeye out of the picture so you weren't wondering how a master archer made the roster. The pacing is really good too, because you get into the story and then you're like "oh yeah, Thor!" You don't spend any time waiting for them to get everyone in a room. The movie makes sense and it works.
And Whedon's fingerprints are all over it. Between the subtle sinister undertones of characters' intentions or the divisive distrust that keeps them at each other's throats, with defining moments that give their arcs fruition and the unironic celebration of heroic values, this is what a superhero movie should be. Plus Whedon loves punishing people for being theatrical, so there's a lot of borderline slapstick that comes out of nowhere and is laugh out loud funny.
I think this is finally the home run that Whedon needed after a sad string of well-intended misfires. Now he'll finally get the respect he deserves as a director, so long as this movie makes as much money as it looks like. Nice solid delivery of badass, Joss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on May 7, 2012 16:19:54 GMT -5
$200 million US in the first weekend and $640 million worldwide. Everyone I see thinks this movie is awesome. We're talking about taking the office to see it as a team-building exercise. Guess Joss Whedon isn't going to be our little secret anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by broox on May 8, 2012 8:51:04 GMT -5
I think it helped that they built a fanbase for each of the characters with their own movies. They were all fun to watch (Iron Man, Thor, Captain America... Hulk not so much). Is Hulk going to get a third go at making his own movie now?
|
|
|
|
Post by drivebyluna on May 8, 2012 11:53:23 GMT -5
I've also heard rumor of a Antman comedy/action film.
|
|
|
|
Post by broox on May 8, 2012 12:32:29 GMT -5
I've also heard rumor of a Antman comedy/action film. Congratulations to them, they've finally found a superhero movie that I don't want to see ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on May 8, 2012 16:07:13 GMT -5
I don't know, originally I heard they wanted Nathan Fillion for Ant Man. But isn't he a wife beater in the comics?
|
|
|
|
Post by broox on May 8, 2012 20:44:43 GMT -5
I don't know, originally I heard they wanted Nathan Fillion for Ant Man. But isn't he a wife beater in the comics? Fillion? Damn them. Nevermind, congratulations revoked.  |
|
Glip
Robot Monkey
Posts: 101
|
Post by Glip on May 14, 2012 6:01:57 GMT -5
|
|
Glip
Robot Monkey
Posts: 101
|
Post by Glip on Aug 8, 2012 3:05:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Aug 8, 2012 4:24:05 GMT -5
Good job you people. Looks like they're starting to do more spillover between tv and movies, moving great directors between the media like actors have started doing. It's a good thing for both.
|
|
Glip
Robot Monkey
Posts: 101
|
Post by Glip on Aug 8, 2012 12:27:32 GMT -5
I love superhero movies, but I'm afraid we will grow Marvel/DC-oversaturated at this rate.
|
|
|
|
Post by drivebyluna on Aug 8, 2012 14:24:38 GMT -5
I'd like to see some Vertigo titles get converted to movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Aug 8, 2012 17:16:39 GMT -5
If DC ever gets its act together. Hopefully the new Superman movie will perform and they'll re-position the Batman franchise so it's more crossover friendly. Marvel's the opposite. They broker Iron Man's success to build more franchises but DC keeps Batman under lock and key. DC needs to build their universe.
And as far as Vertigo's concerned, their last effort was Constantine. A decent movie, but a terrible adaptation. They need to develop Sandman as an HBO show or something.
|
|
