Is right here.

Sounds good! Thanks for the review! I'll try to keep the issues you bring up in mind when I see it.

Glad to hear you liked it Stephen! I'm with you 100% on Mark Ruffalo's performance as Banner, he knocked Edward Norton's attempt out of the water.

I also posted a (totally spoiler free!) review over on Geekin-Out.com, if you're keen to read more praise for the kick ass movie. I definitely plan on seeing at least one more time on the big-screen.

If anyone could shed some light on why it was released in New Zealand and other countries so far ahead of North America, I'd be keen to here it. The early release is pretty unusual and I'm really curious as to the reason behind it.

I thought I gushed a bit too much in my review. But it's just so rare that I go to a Hollywood 'summer' blockbuster with moderate expectations and have them more than met. It has its flaws, but unlike the flaws of The Dark Knight (which is also rather good) they didn't bug me at the time.

By the way, James, I've added a spoiler warning to the subject line, so I want to ask: what was the thing you felt should have been included, but they left out?

I can only think of... okay, one more warning, mild spoilers ...







.

the mansion. Was that what you had in mind?

SPOILER-TASTIC:





Funnily enough, I hadn't even thought about the mansion, but that's also a good point. Personally I didn't miss the mansion too much, although at the end when they all appeared to be climbing into sports cars I did think for a moment that they were at the mansion.

The thing I thought they really missed out on, unless I missed it and made a total ass of myself in that review, was their battle cry, "Avengers Assemble!". The main reason, perhaps, for not including it is that it probably would sound rather hokey being screamed by Chris Evans (or any of the cast) however I was still disappointed the film didn't include the line in some small degree. Even having a character say it in hushed tones, perhaps a dramatic whisper, would have been suitable.

As I mentioned, it's not really a huge deal -I loved the movie. Just a small tidbit I felt could have been worked in easily and was sadly left out.

That's a spot on review of a kick ass thrill ride that lacks the thematic depth of something like The Dark Knight or even Superman II. While I've liked a lot of his past work, I've never been a Whedon fanboy but the way he managed all the stuff crammed into the Avengers, particularly what he did with Ruffalo's Banner and Johansson's Black Widow, was pretty damned impressive.

Mike

With all the source material to draw from, it's amazing how badly the movie dragged. The in-fighting was pointless, but then so was Secret Wars, so that's forgiveable. But that 15-20 minute lull between the second and third acts? No way. The action finally started at one hour-forty, by which point it didn't even matter, and the best (i.e. non-whiney) parts of which were already shown on the commercials.

I went to an Avengers mArathon on Thursday at my local multiplex. For $30 bucks we saw "Iron Man", "Incredible Hulk", "Iron Man 2", "Thor", "Captain America: The First Avenger" and then at 12:05 a.m. Friday "The Avengers" -- all in 2-D. Besides the film, we also got lanyards, buttons, removable tattoos and one lucky person (me!) even got a ballcap.

Overall I'd say the movie was good but not great. Since many others have commented about the the good parts of the film, I'll mention the things that I think did not work.

I think Whedon wrote Nick Fury & Thor without much confidence. They both seemed unsure of themselves in both word and body language. And they should have let Thor take Loki back to Asgard. Since Loki -- a teleporter -- was on Earth to prepare for an invasion, the notion that a SHIELD helicarrier was a better place for him than Asgard was foolish.

And what was up with setting a third of the film on the helicarrier? That part really dragged.

Hawkeye was on Loki's side for over half the film, but as soon as he says he's OK and his eyes become unclouded the others trust him implicitly. Like the Norse God of Trickery couldn't have faked his recovery.

And lastly, the aliens. Not enough of a build-up or motivation for them. In the first five minutes of the film we hear their leader say they want to invade Earth. Then nothing with them for over 90 minutes.

Maybe I'll feel differently after I see the IMAX 3-D version on Wednesday.

How long was that event? Like 14 hours? AAarggh!


Your criticism is dead on.

You left out the biggest one. How does The Hulk go from being berserk rampager that smashes anything in his path to helpful teammate for the final battle?

Mike

Stark had been saying all along that Banner needed to let go - i.e. to let himself change into the Hulk for a purpose (at least, that's the implication I took, and I think that was pretty strongly implied.) When he changed first, he had just been arguing with the others and was already angry with them. He was distrustful and felt a but betrayed or used. All this was exaggerated by Loki's influence (at least, again, I think that was the implication of the scene with the staff). So when he was unexpectedly hurt from the fall and unwillingly transformed, it was just berserk Hulk, attacking those he had just been angry with as Banner.

Everything about the context of his transformation at the end was different.

And don't forget the scene with Harry Dean Stanton.

The guy provides Banner with some reassurance, when left to his own device, the "other guy" is concerned with the safety of others. He steered himself toward the abandoned building rather than harm anyone.

Nice catch!

Joe is correct. Joss Whedon explains his intent with that scene.

"Banner falls into a Coen Brothers movie!" priceless

So awesome I saw it twice on opening day.

You can follow me at @BARBARIANCOMIC

It was pretty good. I thought this was going to be more of an Iron Man movie but everybody got a chance to shine.

My initial reaction to the BW/Loki conversation was, how is this happening? SHIELD doesn't have surveillance on this? Then about two seconds later I figured it out. The Master of Mischief didn't realize he was being pranked. Like I said, bad writing.

Damn, didn't even think of that.

It never occurred to anyone the first BW interrogation scene was foreshadowing?

I haven't seen it yet and I'm emabarassed to say that. I should have seen it by now.

Get on it!

Of what?

In the first BW interrogation scene, the Russians think they are getting info from her, but she's really getting info from them. She's the prisoner, but she's really in control of the situation.

In the BW/Loki interrogation scene, it's more complicated. Loki is the prisoner, but he's really in control of the situation. Except that we eventually see that BW was really playing him all along. Except that Loki really does end up winning that round on some levels anyway. So, foreshadowing, but not an exact parallel, more setting up a pattern which gets built on for more complication later.

I hadn't thought of any of that until Joe pointed it out, so thanks, Joe.

So, not so much foreshadowing, more lowering the expectations for more sloppy writing later.

Sloppy, complex. Tomayto, tomahto.

I think you missed the bigger picture, it wasn't in-exact. The device itself was used for the purpose of misleading. The foreshadowing itself was a red-herring.

The point being that a human was superior at deception than the god of deception. Which is kinda preposterous.

Preposterous? No, it's all too common. Tricksters think the rest of the world are straight men, and often overlook the possibility that others can trick as well.

First it was the throw away line by Thor that pissed off adoptees, now it's India...

"...some Indians are less than pleased with the film's portrayal of Kolkata as little more than a slum. Among them are Bollywood actors, and they're speaking up.

"Kolkata has a rich culture and heritage, and a filmmaker should respect that," said actor Rituparna Sengupta. "There are two scenes about India and they only show slums. It could have been done in better taste."

http://blastr.com/2012/05/why-hulks-avengers-introd.php


Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but it wasn't a film about India, why should the film-makers feel obligated to show an entire overview of the country, just because they wanted to have one scene in a poor area of that country?

The idea of any one scene or any given character as always being representative of an entire community is ridiculous.

I've found the type of people, usually, who tend to take offense from movies are also the type of people who have nothing better to do than pick a fight where there isn't one.

Yeah. But the way it was written, it made it overly obvious that she was lying to Loki. So there's no suprise, atleast for me, when it's revealed that she was tricking him. The whole scene you know he's getting played.

I didn't.

We're talking about Loki, the god of mischief and deception.

In a comic book movie. Gods wear superhero outfits. And humans can beat a god.

Yeah, what's "preposterous" is having a guy with a bow and arrow there.

It's all preposterous, but that doesn't make it any less fun.



...for people who enjoyed it.

I couldn't agree more. I've said many times that Batman and all his derivatives are the dumbest superheroes possible. Besides the simple logistics of dealing with their clumsy gear, so much has to be glossed over to allow them to play in the same league as Superman or Thor.

Right, because when I'm reading about a guy who flies around and shoots lasers from his eyes it's the dude in the Bat suit that seems illogical.

JFO

ABC

123

Yep. That's like FF2 where the director said that a forty foot purple guy would look silly, so they made Galactus into a cloud. And they cut out The Watcher entirely. A forty foot purple guy is silly, but an orange rocky guy, a silver guy on a surfboard and a stretchy super-science genius are NOT silly? A movie based on the Galactus trilogy without Galactus and the Watcher?

If you make comic book superhero movies you have to embrace the silly and the "preposterous" otherwise thinking any one given thing is "preposterous" is the only thing really silly.

Once parameters of the fictional setting are established, it's the writer's job to follow those rules. Loki is the ultimate master of deception IN THAT SET OF RULES. No human can out-trick him, at least not that easily. Thor is aware enough to understand the social implications of being adopted, so Loki should be aware enough that he's in a facility wherein he is being very closely monitored and Natasha wouldn't say something like that on the record. Sloppy, sloppy writing.

As I said above, I never thought Loki wasn't in control, I thought the "foreshadowing" was just a red herring.

But even so. No, Loki isn't as two-dimensional as your wanting to portray him. Your "SET OF RULES," are based on your interpretation. A trickster god can't be tricked? Does that mean Thor can't be struck by lightening or effected by a storm? Would a master marksman like Hawkeye be invulnerable to arrows? That's just sloppy thinking.

Trickery isn't Loki's bitch, it's his tool, his weapon, it's his hammer.

Isn't it well established in both history and Marvel continuity that the gods are imperfect? The tales of mythology are cautionary tales, gods are gods, but they embody the emotional flaws of humans as well. Thor himself needed to taught humility. Odin placing him on Earth as Don Blake, in his first appearance. The movie had Odin teaching him a similar lesson in arrogance.

Loki isn't the all-powerful complete trickster god, he is flawed, he can be fooled, he is power hungry, arrogant and prideful, how can those things not effect his character just as much as his desire to screw with everyone. Georges Dumezil considered Loki more an incarnation of "impulsive intelligence." These aren't really gods they are just flawed, exaggerated humans in parables.

Read a little Joseph Campbell.

Like that would help. I'm sure everybody realizes this but Allen's position isn't any deeper than "Allen dislikes Whedon, therefore The Avengers must suck".

Mike

It depends on what you're going for. For Batman, Christopher Nolan stayed away from the blue and yellow tights, sidekicks, and other more less realistic ideas and it worked very well for his story.

Other times, staying away from the more colorful aspects can hurt the film.

I agree with Allen here. Sure Loki and the Asgrdians are mentioned as not truly being immortal, or whatever else the humans think of them. However, you'd expect Loki not to be that stupid. Especially since he apparantly knows all of Black Widow's history of trickery, espionage and various murders. The scene didn't bother me that much because it was a great, fun movie, but I don't think the possibility of Black Widow selling out the entire human race for her friend was developed very well. I guess you could think, "ohhh, she remembers the Soviet Union falling..." but if Earth falls, where's she going to defect to with Hawkeye? Mars?

Nope. More like, Whedon has show time and time again how sloppy a writer he is and here's another example.


Also, ad hominem.

Type that in a glass house did ya?

Allen, has it ever occured to you that if you had more going on in your life, you wouldn't have to cling so desperately to your willfully ignorant opinions on stuff like this?

What am I saying? Of course it hasn't.

Joss Whedon's qualifications as a writer - He does it for a living and quite successfully.

Allen's qualifications as a writer - Message board comments that are usually mocked or ignored.

Mike

If you can find anywhere in the continuity of the Marvel-Movie-Verse where any of that is stated, I'll be more inclined to agree with you.

For the time being, I agree with Joe. Trickery is Loki's tool, not something he created. Loki getting tricked doesn't show us that he's bad at what he does, it shows us how good Black Widow is at what she does.

As for the likes of Batman and Hawkeye, it's clearly been established time and time again that 'regular' humans can fight alongside super powered people. In their world, under their set of rules, it's not preposterous.

Whether his theory on your position is correct or not, how is it an ad hominem?

Why does she need to defect?

Anyway, on the general point being argued here, I agree with Joe and Jimbo - "trickery" isn't Loki's superpower. He isn't inherently more cunning than a human, and he's not infallible. He is (like Asgardians in general) more powerful than non-superpowered humans in a physical sense. But otherwise, he's not innately superior to a human. And he's arrogant, which helped her cause. Also, I don't think that scene required that he not realise that she was trying to con him; it just required that he think that he had successfully turned the tables on her, which in part, he had. The 'red ink' stuff did genuinely surprise and upset her. She just worked with it, rather than losing it.

Even if it was, so what? Does Allen mean that no one can ever be portrayed as smarter than Tony Stark? No one can ever be stronger than the Hulk? No one can ever be a better tactician than Captain America? What kind of amateurish, two-dimensional writing is that? This "no one can trick Loki" thing is nothing more than Allen flailing about for something to criticize.

Mike

Does that make his writing contextually coherent or objectively good? No, it doesn't.

Loki is the God of Trickery. He is the living embodiment of it.

In the context of your generalized disdain for Whedon and his work, it is entirely valid to point out that his writing has been judged by the public and not just found acceptable but been something people have been willing to pay to experience.

The same cannot be said for you, and the reason for that is amply demonstrated in this thread.

Mike

I'd almost tell you to stop embarrassing yourself, Allen, but I know that's futile. The Asgardians, both in the comics and in the movies, are clearly NOT gods in the sense you mean. Or what is Sif the living embodiment of? Hogun? Volstagg?

Mike

Again, if you can find anywhere in the continuity of the Marvel-Movie-Verse where any of that is stated, I'll be more inclined to agree with you.

So let's recap.

Your argument is that I am incapable of, and should be disallowed from, making critical commentary because I am not a professional writer or director.



And the irony is your remaining willfully ignorant of the fact that the entire contents of your debate manual can be summed up as: AD HOMINEM.

The earth.



Jack Kirby's imagination.

No, Allen. You made critical comments. Most of them were fairly silly and obviously generated by a pre-existing disdain for Whedon rather than an honest evaluation of The Avengers. What I'm pointing out is that Whedon has received enormous critical and now commercial acclaim for his writing and you are a lonely guy on the internet that says he sucks. If your arguments agains the film were stronger, or strong at all, your own lack of accomplishments wouldn't matter. But your criticisms are so weak and you are so persistent in making them that it gets boring simply refuting your pathetic objections and it's more fun to poke you with a pointy stick.

Mike

So, that means no one can make better mudpies than she can?

Mike

Better than most. Your cowdung-laced posts might take the prize, however.

See, Allen, this is why you're not a professional writer. You can't even summon up the creativity to personalize your insults.

Mike

That would be because you bore me.

Nah. All the old editors I worked with used to say something along those lines of, "To be a professional writer you have to be two out of the three; good, able to hit deadlines or be likable. You can even be really unlikeable, but then you'd have to be a really great writer."

So bored you hang on his every word and respond to nearly every one of his posts.

I must entertain the shit out of Allen, because he refuses to respond

I really hate the layout at the Poplitiko site: there's no way of just clicking your name to see your recent writing. Instead I have to scroll through entire essays where there's NO BYLINE to even tell me who wrote what!

Finally saw it. My review:

I have dreamed of this moment for a long time. To be able to take the entire family to a full blown superhero movie. It wasn't easy. My wife has this double standard for pg-13 viewing for an 11 year old daughter and a well versed in comic lore/prodigy of Stan Lee spotting cameo's 7 year old son. I say if it's action/suspense pg 13 it's ok. If it's sexual innuendo pg 13 then no. My wife says no to all pg 13 unless she says it's ok. Get it? She said no from the get go with this movie yet they've both seen every movie that leads up to this one. So I used my executive privelages and marched over the to the glass jar sitting on the night stand next to her bed, unscrewed the top, reached in, pulled my balls out and put them on. "We're all going. End o' story" I said.

The movie itself was great. There was one thing I purposely didn't want to know and that is how Banner turns into the Hulk. I was genuinely curious as to how he would change. Would Stark piss him off? Could he just do it? He was also the character I was most skeptcial about because I liked Ed Norton's character and I wanted to see him continue in the role

However, if there was a lesson to be learned here, it's this:
When there was action in the movie, everyone was engrossed. When there was just dialogue, my son (7) couldn't sit still. He lost interest. He farted twice during dialogue so in our immediate surroundings heard it. Then smelled it. After the second time I leaned over and told him I'd take him to the car if he did it again. So, my point is I see another reason as to why the pg-13 rating exists...a certain amount of maturity is needed to fully appreciate the parts of the movie that aren't action. If I were a patron and someone brought their young kid in an he started farting and then I smelled it, I'd be pissed.

No. The MPAA doesn't work like that. Avengers was rated PG-13 for violence and drug references. As a counterpoint, David Lynch's The Straight Story was rated G.

Being able to click each person's name to get all their articles would be really handy, I agree. There is a 'Posted by ...' line at the end of each essay. I guess we could make it easier by manually adding a byline to the top of our articles, although I'd feel like a bit of a tosser if I was the only one to do that.

Anyway, Blogger isn't the best platform for large group/community blogging I guess, in terms of that king of functionality anyway.

There's the list of names at the side, but it just takes me to your Blogger profile.