THE AVENGERS (Joss Whedon, 2012)

[tabuno]

Few ensemble movies, especially superhero movies offer the balanced, cohesive narrative that make for a well edited, rich character developed, and strongly compelling storyline. Unfortunately for The Avengers, though record-breaking at the box office not withstanding, The Avengers, can at best, be considered entertaining, but is more aptly described as a rather forced piece of movie scriptwriting and directing that attempts to corral a rather disparate bunch of superheros with mixed results. Unlike the more acceptable and appealing television series ensemble of super people in Heroes (2006-2010) or even the more enjoyable animated feature film of super family members in The Incredibles (2004), and the funny team of disparate members including the straight man (female) Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis in Ghostbusters (1984), The Avengers awkwardly introduces its Superheroes almost in sequel form, some with even chaotic brief flashbacks, that results in an uneasy alliance that feels quite uncomfortable as if the Jess Whedon himself was having trouble with his dialogue between the superheroes. As an example, Gwyneth Paltrow, unlike Rick Moranis in Ghostbusters (1984) is never given the opportunity to really have a solid place in the movie. And even the highly praised performance of Mark Ruffalo as The Hulk, even this bi-polar identity is left in doubt as The Hulk is presented as two different personas, earlier in the movie as this Beast and then later somewhat more questionable as this conscientious animal (which as an animal is quite unlikely a transformation). There is an apparent imbalance in the presentation among Ironman and Captain America and Thor. X-Men (2000), Fantastic Four (2005), and Star Trek (2009) all have a much more polished set-ups between their disparate ensemble characters. Instead Joss Whedon has introduced dollops of solid stand-up comic one-liners and humor that seems pretentious clever cover-ups even as they hit home. Unlike his own previous ensemble work in the well received Buffy: The Vampire Slayer (1997-2003) and Angel (1999-2004) series, here Joss Whedon is seemingly unable to recapture the same smooth but edgy magic as those earlier television series. The storyline also seems to veer in several isolated superhero scenes that make the overall rhythm and flow of the story rocky in its depiction on the screen, there seems too many characters and too many simultaneous events going on at the same time, almost more the actor script contractual obligations of screen time rather than for the integrity of the story itself. Inception (2010) probably includes some of the best integrated separate story lines that are presented simultaneously in its unique movie within and movie within a movie technique or Pulp Fiction (1994), Traffic (2001) and The Air I Breathe (2007) interweave several plot strands in a nicely, enriched presented fashion. It is apparent that some efforts at making this movie stand out with a few enhancements in special effects (like the destruction scene shot from the perspective of one of the vehicles being hurdled in the maelstrom) and several minutes of dialogue of lofty sounding metaphysical and emotional depth, yet the overall impact is more superficial without the emotive and intellectual probing found in even more singularly focused superhero movies as Green Lantern (2011), Elektra (2005), Spiderman 2 (2004) or Spiderman 3 (2007). Of particularly, note it almost seems like the news media has been influenced by over-reporting the critical acclaim of this movie as Metacritic rates it only a 69 which while good isn't really outstanding by any means, contributing to a rather false marketing effort in itself suggesting that some movie critics are in league with the movie industry itself.

[Johann]

I'm seeing it tonight in 3-D.
I'll see if what you are saying is right tabuno.
I'm going in with big expectations. It's made more money than The Dark Knight.
That means that fanboys are seing it more than once.
IMDB reviews are pretty much raves. Lots of gushing.
I'll be happy to post my impressions.

[Chris Knipp]

I saw it when it came out and was not disappointed. Sorry I didn't get the opportunity to write about it, and it's hard to go back to it right now.

It certainly helped that I had seen Thor, the Iron Man films, Captain America, etc. so I knew each character's context.

It had its best moments for me when Robert Downey Jr. first appeared, and the dialogue was good early on.

Later as with most of these pictures, after the setup the latter part of the movie becomes one big bang-boom, and is hard to distinguish from other similar pictures, including -- a bad association -- the trashy and mindless Michael Bay Transformers franchise. This was remarked by Walter Chaw in his unfavorable Film Freak Central review (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2012/05/the-avengers.html) in which he calls the movie "completely inoffensive, agreeably stupid."

Obviously such movie are made to make money, but I don't think just because they're big box office means they're made ONLY to make money.

However my puzzlement over why so many adults like comic book material remains. I still think Marvel commics are something boys should drift away from after the age of nine or ten, and even then there were other comic books I liked better. I wonder what happened to "The Spirit" and "Plastic Man," comics from the Forties that I think were more cool.

[Johann]

MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS


This is a BIG movie.
The first real blockbuster of 2012.

Tabuno is right: this movie corrals some iconic Marvel superheroes with mixed results. As a first attempt at making an Avengers movie, it gets a passing grade. Joss Whedon has a lot of responsibility and pressure to get this right, and he gets it right to a degree.
The spirit of these characters are there, but it could have been the best superhero movie ever if they took the finished product and saw it as a "Prototype" BEFORE releasing it. I know, spending $270,000,000 on a prototype movie is ludicrous, but Man, what improvements could be made to make it one of the best action films ever made if only they tweaked and amped up some things even more.
That's how I see this movie.
As a prototype.

The visual effects are quite impressive. No one can deny that. And with ILM, Digital Domain, Weta and 15 other visual effects teams working on it, it had better have mind-blowing SFX. The end credits lists armies and brigades of visual effects people who worked on this movie. And it shows.
Particularly, the sequences with the aircraft carrier/flying ship lifting out of the ocean and taking off, the rendering of the Hulk (best rendering on film we've ever seen of the Hulk), the 3-D "Tesseract" block, and of course the all-out carnage at the end in NYC.

The script is OK, not mind-blowing. No real depth to the characters here, and they don't really need any.
They are dealing with Loki and his freakshow army, and that's the movie. We already know these characters. And if you don't, then go back and watch the other films on them. This is for fanboys all the way- lots of cool in-jokes and a great Stan Lee cameo toward the end. Plus Lou Ferrigno voices the CGI Hulk. I loved it when Hulk smashed the living shit out of Loki at one point. "PUNY GOD!"
That was Awesome.

Captain America doesn't fuck around.
He's a real Leader, a real Military Officer, and in my opinion he should be Leading the team. Nick Fury didn't do fuck all in this movie! Nothing!
He fires a bazooka once. That's it. The rest of the time he's just talking a lot and saying nothing. Shaft with an eyepatch? LOL
Steve Rogers puts Tony Stark in his place and challenges him to a fight: "Without that Iron Man suit you aren't anything" (paraphrase).
Tony fires back. Good dialogue for the most part in this movie, but sometimes, it's really bad. You can write some of those lines, but to actually SAY THEM? That's why all main actors here are PROFESSIONAL and SEASONED.
Scarlet Johannson is serviceable, nothing special. She looks good in that tight suit tho...:)
Hawkeye is good. He's kind of an anomaly here, a side-man, but I noticed him. He could be really good in future Avengers movies.
Nice intensity to him.
Mark Ruffalo is the best actor to play the Incredible Hulk to date. Just absolutely perfect as Bruce Banner.
Give the Hulk another movie! And make it as big and bad as this one. Just give him his own film. No disrespect to Ed Norton, he was great, but Ruffalo IS the character. Best character in the movie to me.
The Hulk is rendered with very realistic CGI, and he definitely SMASHES shit. Loved it. I found it strange though that the Hulk couldn't lift Thor's hammer- not even a budge??
Did my eyes deceive me or did Captain America's shield deflect Thor's hammer at one point?- the scene where Iron Man went after Thor from the aircraft and Cap freefalls after them? The showdown in the woods?
I love the way Thor's hammer flies into his hand, like a lightsabre- great sfx and sound effects for that!
That hammer is cooler than the character!
And how did Loki's scepter parry Cap's shield?
Remember that? He knocks his shield away like it's a frizbee! Did that scepter have the power to do that? I guess so..
It can deflect Thor's hammer, but Loki's scepter can bat it away like it's nothing? OK..

I also love the way they depict Iron Man flying through the air- it's exactly how I imagined him to fly in the comics.
Massive kudos to the filmmakers for really nailing how he flies around- like a fighter jet.
But Tony should have had serious injuries in some sequences: how does that suit protect him from broken bones or a broken back when he crashes so fuckin' hard at times? He just shrugs it off! And then cracks a joke! He was knocked out at one point after flying into a massive alien creatures' body (was he dead? we were led to believe so for a second) then the Hulk roars near him and he wakes up. Kinda lame.

The final battle, that big and bombastic finale, was good, but shouldn't the humans have been freaking the fuck out? Like BERZERKO out of their minds scared?
The situation was Armageddon, or at least seemed like Armageddon, and they just run around, fleeing and screaming from time to time.
To make it more real, they could've focused more on the regular folks in New York City who were witnessing this chaos first-hand.
This was like ten thousand 9/11's (if it was real).
A cop at one point just casually asks why he should listen to Captain America, who then engages in hand-to-hand combat with aliens and the cop then radioes for help. Funny. There is levity and humour in this movie- it doesn't take itself too seriously. That's a good thing, but with musical flourishes stolen from Christopher Nolan (I heard it- the score had THE DARK KNIGHT's tone at certain points) this movie wants to be held in the same regard as Nolan's Batman trilogy. Admirable, but Nolan's work is poetic and on another artistic and psychological level. Can't compare them.

And we were treated to the best and final trailer for The Dark Knight Rises.


BANE: I AM GOTHAM'S RECKONING

Hell yeah Son.

[Johann]

Is this also the first Superhero movie in 7.1 Dolby Surround?
I have to look that up.

GREAT sound on this movie. Oscar-worthy sound, Man...

[Chris Knipp]

You do a great review, johann, but despite all your good points, what's it all add up to? a mediocre Avengers movie, by your own reckoning. And Wheedon is basically a mediocre director, with no particular bent for this kind of thing. Yet I did not find fault with it. I am just not a fanboy. Now will you go and evaluate DARK SHADOWS for us?

I don't want particularly to see that as long as I can see films in Paris that can't be seen in the US, and films from Cannes. I saw Coppola's Twix tody -- which I'm not particularly qualified to describe -- but it was worth seeing -- and then tonight I saw Wes Anderson's MOONRISE KINGDOM, which was kind of exciting (even though it's opening in ten days in the US) because it was opening day in Paris and opening film at Cannes. Mike D'Angelo, who is a very hard grader, gave it a 75, extremely high for him, and I kept saying all through "This is classic" and "This is one of his best if not his best, since RUCHMORE." Both intricate and touching and very, very, sui generis, or as one writer said of the trailers, "Wes Anderson-y."

[Johann]

I guess it all adds up to a fine prototype for a better movie.
As tabuno said, it's entertaining at best. There are wow moments, but they are the type we saw in the Star Wars prequels- brief flashes of brilliance that could be SO MUCH MORE.
More time and thought should have been given to this project.
That may seem like a slap in the face to the legions of skilled people working on it, but it's true.
I want the absolute BEST film possible with these comic book Icons.
Close but no cigar doesn't cut it anymore.
Chris Nolan raised that bar high, and if you can't live up to it, then don't make it.
You open yourself up to salvos from people like me.
I give Avengers a passing grade, because there is a lot to like.
But I also see how much better it could have been.
Why do they rush these films? Why just slap 'em together and a rush to release?
No one will kill you if you take your time. In fact you will enhance your credibility if you do so. DON'T COMPROMISE!
Kubrick took all the time he needed, and his films are almost beyond reproach because of it.

[Johann]

I can evaluate Dark Shadows now:

Worst Tim Burton film ever. And all I saw was the trailer.
An IMDB reviewer called Burton "the new M. Night Shayamalan".
OUCH.

[Johann]

Thanks for the info on Wes Anderson's latest.
He's a genius to me.
The Royal Tenenbaums is flawless. I still marvel at it- it's original, funny & quirky as hell and has a GREAT soundtrack.
Anderson has to be careful that he doesn't get into a "formula" of his own making. I'd hate for his originality and genius be trumped by "formula" or "safety". If you say his latest is "classic", that's reassuring.
I haven't seen The Life Aquatic or Bottle Rocket.
Rushmore will always be considered his best work.

[Chris Knipp]

The Life Aquatic is good, but not anywhere near as good as MOONRISE KINGDOM Have you seen DARJEEING LIMITED? Very beautiful. FANTASTIC MR. FOX? One of the best animations -- stop motion is great. MOONRISE KINGDOM is genius.

Why do they rush these films? Why just slap 'em together and a rush to release?
No one will kill you if you take your time

These questions are easily answered. There are three answers:

Money

Money

and Money.

Who will kill you if you take your time? The producer, the studio.

[tabuno]

It's puzzling when the astute and well versed Chris in his commentary about Avenger's seems to straddle the fence on this movie, both not being disappointed but not gushing with praise over this movie. Many times, Chris has set the standard of good movies very high since his list of movies must reach into the thousands and yet for The Avenger's such popular acceptance and mainstream, indistinguishable superhero production get a relative easy pass is hard to understand. I wonder if there's a personal bias operating here and his past love of these Marvel characters hasn't soften his heart.

I just finished watching Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003) and I was struck how both bad and good that movie was in that it was so unbelievable and yet as a fantasy, comic, female-subdued violence action thriller it really struck an entertainment cord for me. So perhaps with Chris like with me and Charlie's Angels there are those movie that are just plain dumb yet enjoyable and that's what in some movies we continue to go back and see.

I apparently enjoyed Dark Shadows (2012) more than some.

[Chris Knipp]

Not being disappointed but not gushing seems pretty natural to me, for a mainstream movie that's well cranked out but lacks anything really special. Sorry to disappoint you, though, tabuno. No personal Marvel character bias, I assure you. My lack of special feeling explains why I didn't write a review of THE AVENGERS. Also timing. I might see DARK SHADOWS today-- nothing else new left in Paris I want to see. Unfortunately I have seen Johann's and other bad reviews. Timing might keep me from writing a review, but I can give an opinion if I see it.

[tabuno]

Very well said.

[Johann]

I bought the Blu-Ray DVD and have watched it several times. I stand by what I wrote previously.
Avengers is a fine proto-type for a better Avengers movie. I found the script to be ultimately pedestrian.
And I'm not sure the pacing is jake. We seem to be teased along, with promises of huge payoff. But does it come?
How riveting is the story? Not very.
You have a "tesseract" or "cube" that offers an amazing energy source. Loki has basically started a war over obtaining it.

Nick Fury forms a special squad. Natasha/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansen),Captain America (Chris Evans- currently starring as Cap in THE WINTER SOLDIER), Dr. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) are the Avengers, with help from Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner). It's a good team, but the script doesn't really allow them to leap off the screen the way I know they could. The cast is perfect. All of the actors are well chosen for their roles. They just need a meatier script.
I enjoyed the wisecracks and some of the writing IS taut in some scenes. It just overall ultimately seems pedestrian. Like a mediocre cartoon of the Avengers.
Not that I have any ideas or can offer a better story on how these Heroes should come together in one movie-I don't envy the task Joss Whedon had of pulling it off. Plus I'm a DC guy. Marvel characters never really got me cranked up like a lot of fanboys do.
I am DC till I die.

Samuel L. Jackson as I said before doesn't do much in this movie. It's my understanding that Nick Fury is the most important Hombre in this situation, yet he doesn't seem to be "Leading" anyone. Every character seems to be barely able to let another take the lead on anything, and maybe that's the appeal of this team of superheroes- it's several distinct egos/personalities vying for the big kill.
This film is peppered with just enough action and CGI "wow" to keep your eyes locked onscreen. I wouldn't say it's boring, but the script holds the film down I think, just from it's pedestrian, leaden dialogue. It could be snappier than it is.

That said, my favorite scenes are when the aircarft carrier lifts out of the ocean to fly, when Steve Rogers & Bruce Banner arrive on it. That was some sweet CGI there.
Then there is the HULK, and the scene where he leaps off the carrier onto a fighter jet and starts ripping shit up, even ripping the pilot out of his ejector seat. Awesome CGI.
The film actually doesn't really pick up until that scene.
Loki sends Thor off the carrier, Hawkeye & Scarlett tango, the carrier is in freefall mode, with Tony trying to save it (awesome when he falls into the rotor- great CGI), and a cool supporting character dies (Agent Coulson).

The finale in NYC is a satisfying wrap-up, I guess. Lots of CGI and some nice action.
Again, I give it a thumbs up because there is a lot to like. I hope the sequel is light years better though....