Eh, it's okay. It's not essential viewing as the story is a standalone. It's entertaining enough. I didn't think Norton was as good as Ruffalo or even Eric Bana for that matter.
AVENGERS: Grade, Reviews, Discuss, DVD & Sequel **SPOILERS**
- Thread starter Captain Craig
- Start date
Eh, it's okay. It's not essential viewing as the story is a standalone. It's entertaining enough. I didn't think Norton was as good as Ruffalo or even Eric Bana for that matter.
I failed to mention that my first viewing, yesterday with some guys from the office, was a 3D showing. Had it been my choice I would not have picked a 3D showing but the price was reduced (matinee), and one of my buds coordinated the whole thing. I've been pretty much turned off by the overall lackluster (imho) implementation of 3D viewing so far. BUT...... it seemed superbly done in Avengers. The first film since Avatar to achieve a high quality execution of 3D technology in the theatre.
I think Marvel held off on Wasp and Ant-Man for their own stand-alone movie. That might be another good place to introduce Vision, since I'm pretty sure Hank was involved in the introduction of the first Marvel Vision.
It just occurred to me that if they go for the classic male Vision they could bring back Clark Gregg and say that it was Coulson's brain that was scanned to create the basis for the Vision instead of Wonder-Man since he doesn't exist in the film continuity.
I was a little overstimulated by the 3D. There was so much to be seen on the screen at any given time and the 3D only added to it. I think it's going to take two or three viewings to find everything I missed during my first viewing. I think I'll see it in 2D the next couple of times though. 
Yeah, Edgar Wright's Ant-Man film has been rumoured for years. Hopefully that'll see the light of day soon.
Same here. That just makes it even better!
Saw the film last night and agree with the video review that was embedded in the original post, EXCEPT, as someon who also likes the Hulk, I disagree that this was everything I wanted for the Hulk onscreen because I want the Hulk able to talk, think, and have a personality that he did originally (and not the sinple chilplike personality he's had overall sine the mid 1970ies - but his original wise-cracking, rebelious, an actually street wise p[ersonality he had in the very very beginning. That's something they've never done in the films (although the current Avergers animated series comes closer then anything previously); and for me that's an element they need to incorporate to give us the true 'comic book' Hulk.
But, like the reviewer, I too thought, "the film will probably be okay" - but as someone who's read the originial comics from the 1960ies through the early 1990ies - I really thought this film did a VERY good job with the characters and material - and is now (IMO) the best comic book film done to date.
My small favorite parts:
- When the Hulk sucker punches Thor for no reason (and Thor fies offscreen).
- When Loki is staring down the Hulk in the Stark Towers, and starts to monologue abiout how he's a god, and won't be beaten by a brutish monster - and without warniong (as he's in the middle of it) the Hulk just picks him up and starts smashing him into the floor repeatedly; and the look on the actor who played Loki after all this wwent down was just perfect.
Bit yes, this film is doing good box office for a reason: It's just a fun, well done, and entertaining film that does a nice treatment of the material it's based on. There's nothing overly deep and it doesn't pretend to be a deep substative film; it's just fun to watch.
Agreed.
Saw it recently, and I have to say this is one of the very best super hero films ever made. It exceeded my expectations! This could very easily have been an Iron Man and the Avengers film (alot like the X Men films actually were; in that case Wolverine was clearly the star and seemed to focus on him at the expense of other characters) but each character had equal time and it was all crazy to watch!
Good God. They should not only do that, they should pay you for thinking of it. (And your earlier post was great, too.) That just sounds like destiny. I can now hear Coulson as the Vision.
No Name Given praising the actor who played Loki: he stole the Thor film, and only didn't steal this one because Hulk laugh-smashed. The look on his face after the fight with Hulk was superb. Hiddleston's Loki is one of the great things Marvel's done in a series where Marvel's done a ton right.
Tom Hiddleston's Loki actually had motives in Thor. In The Avengers, he just has stupid speeches that serve as extended setups for a topper by a hero. If there was ever any point to the alien invasion, it was lost when the aliens just came to kill people. There was no sense that they had a plan or were even an army as opposed to a random bunch of killers wandering aimlessly.
The opening was slow. The Thor/Iron Man fight was about nothing but being stupid. The helicarrier crash sequence was completely cryptic. What exactly was Iron Man doing? Since when do repulsor blasts serve as repair tools? Why was Captain America needed? Why didn't they try to land the damn thing? How is a helicarrier a good idea, as opposed to an extravagant visual?
The Black Widow was unbelievable every moment she was on screen. They tried to lampshade it with a conversation about her being a spy but it didn't work. They tried to make her interview with Loki work by anticipating it with her opening interrogation scene but failed because that didn't work either. It was obvious that Loke was suppposed to rant until the good guy got to show him up, it was in the script. They insisted on having her wave her tiny little lady guns around in battle scenes, when they could have done something as simple as have her struggle her way up the Stark tower the hard way. And if she was a Russian, her name would be Romanova.
And, a problem that any scriptwriter would have trouble with, giving that many characters something meaningful, wasn't done very well. Interpersonal conflict is kind of petty, hence a little boring. There was a flicker of interest in the faceoff between SHIELD and the real heroes over phase two but that got lost for some ignorant twaddle about Samuel L. Jackson taking names and kicking butt and generally going darkside to DO WHAT IT TAKES.
The good? Spectacle and enough references to the previous movies where there was some emotion, however rudimentary. Glad I saw it on a big screen, this one will suffer badly shrunk down so that it can't amaze you with the big bangs, and you really have to rely on the story.
C. As might be expected, read Avengers as a teen and therefore can't see this sucker without a sheen of nostalgie blinding me.
The opening was slow. The Thor/Iron Man fight was about nothing but being stupid. The helicarrier crash sequence was completely cryptic. What exactly was Iron Man doing? Since when do repulsor blasts serve as repair tools? Why was Captain America needed? Why didn't they try to land the damn thing? How is a helicarrier a good idea, as opposed to an extravagant visual?
The Black Widow was unbelievable every moment she was on screen. They tried to lampshade it with a conversation about her being a spy but it didn't work. They tried to make her interview with Loki work by anticipating it with her opening interrogation scene but failed because that didn't work either. It was obvious that Loke was suppposed to rant until the good guy got to show him up, it was in the script. They insisted on having her wave her tiny little lady guns around in battle scenes, when they could have done something as simple as have her struggle her way up the Stark tower the hard way. And if she was a Russian, her name would be Romanova.
And, a problem that any scriptwriter would have trouble with, giving that many characters something meaningful, wasn't done very well. Interpersonal conflict is kind of petty, hence a little boring. There was a flicker of interest in the faceoff between SHIELD and the real heroes over phase two but that got lost for some ignorant twaddle about Samuel L. Jackson taking names and kicking butt and generally going darkside to DO WHAT IT TAKES.
The good? Spectacle and enough references to the previous movies where there was some emotion, however rudimentary. Glad I saw it on a big screen, this one will suffer badly shrunk down so that it can't amaze you with the big bangs, and you really have to rely on the story.
C. As might be expected, read Avengers as a teen and therefore can't see this sucker without a sheen of nostalgie blinding me.
Clearing debris out of the rotors and getting them moving again. That was pretty straightforward.
To operate the control panel.
It's hardly uncommon from people to Anglicize their names when moving to a different culture (for instance, actress Nina Dobrev, who was at birth Nina Dobreva before her family emigrated). Anyway, it's from the comics that she usually goes by Romanov (or "Romanoff") while in the USA. Same with the helicarrier - it's the team's cool base.
Yeah that was pretty lame, but kind of awesome in a "Oh so bad" kind of way.
I've seen the Bana version and that was rather off putting for the character overall. But I'll give it a go if only to complete the series viewing.
The standalone Thor movie has a much different feel to it and focuses more on the characters, Thor and Loki basically just appear as plot points in this film.
And a lot of people seem to prefer the WW2 Cap outfit, as do I really.
Ouch, Bana wasn't exactly Oscar material in the '03 version, that doesn't sound promising.
I liked the Norton Hulk movie. It's a good action story with good characterization - I'd put it in the middle tier of Marvel movies, beneath Thor but above Iron Man 2 (the only Marvel Studios film that really doesn't work, in retrospect).