The Ohio Sci-Fi and Horror Marathons

My (spoiler-free) review.

http://www.comicheronews.com/?p=24680

Saw it in Cleveland at 12:01 last night. The Cleveland part is relevant because:
1. They used the city to film a good number of the scenes. One, where Loki dazzles a crowd to bow to him, is filmed at our most identifiable land mark, Public Square, with our Terminal Tower in the background.
2. Several hundred extras treated the showing as a Premiere w. Tuxedos, gowns, limos (also green body paint & black cat suits ) and seemed to be having a hell of a time. I saw the 5 lead in Marvel films from noon to 12, before the Avengers, so by then it wasn't only "HULK SMASH", I was smashed.
Commenting on the thorough Einhorn review, I can only recapitulate the balance of the film. It is difficult to imagine centering on each of six leads plus a multitude of minor characters with enough time so that each has an observable personality, but they do it. Thor & Hawkeye do little beyond the obvious, but their personalities are there, in their obviousness.
Also humor. Whedon wrote the script although probably not all the dialogue, but who would expect that the Hulk would get the two best sight gags in the movie?
It's still a battle/smash/violent, unbelievable heroism saves the day fantasy, but it is far better than one (or certainly I) could have expected. The final confrontation goes on way too long, but does have interludes. MARVEL has exerted enormous control of the process, a fact that is well known, but is overwhelmingly obvious when you see the leads, and in two instances, actual overlap in scenes, among the movies.

_________________
Thar’s only two possibilities: Thar is life out there in the universe which is smarter than we are, or we’re the most intelligent life in the universe. Either way, it’s a mighty sobering thought. - Walt Kelly

I went to see The Avengers at 11:59pm at the Arena. Some thoughts and possible SPOILERS.

Cameos

The cameos of Stan Lee and Henry Dean Stanton (It was Henry Dean Stanton?) was great. A member of the old Growing Pains sticom makes an apperence as well. Plus an certain enternal mutant make a cameo as well. I do hope Joss Weadon doesn't go small for the next one.

Charater development

I do enjoy seeing Tony Stark grew up some. Showing some hubris and willing to work with others. Plus calling out a member of S.H.E.L.D for playing Galaga was funny.

Great use of the Hulk. Joss didn't over use him in the film. Mark was great as Bruce Banner and the Hulk. Quite Enjoy the Hulk take on STFU when dealing with Loki.

It was great to see Captain America adapting to modren times.

I do agree that there was charater develop with Black Widow. I do hope that a prequel of sorts explain more of her background.

Hawkeye as a founding member of the Avengers was nice to see but he seems generic in the film

Nice ending to Agent Culson. Going to miss him.

Sam Jackson as his first full outing as Nick Fury. Yep he's a badass.

Loki went more insane thinking that he will rule over humans.

Overall in my opinion having Joss Weadon co wrote and direct The Avengers was a great call. It might be the closest thing to be a perfect superhero film.

Technical

I did read the reason the film was shot flat at 1.85:1. It was to get more height for the charaters.

Finally catching up with this, I was reminded of those all-star 'Monster Rally' movies of yore like HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN/DRACULA, ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, DESTROY ALL MONSTERS/PLANETS etc.. Younger generation folks got a warm-up with the FANTASTIC FOUR & X-MEN films. One lesson learned is that more isn't necessarily better. Of course, it DOES appeal to the 12yr old in all of us who just want to see MORE things blow up BIGGER! Another example of bowing at the altar of Cool.

Certainly, THE AVENGERS is a decent film. It has fine effects, a solid cast and some witty writing. But, the result is also not equal to the sum of its parts. Too scattered, too un-focused and too lacking in drama to be anywhere near "the best superhero film ever made" as many have hailed it. IRON MAN, SUPERMAN and SPIDER-MAN II come readily to mind that are all demonstrably superior.

THE AVENGERS starts off slowly with the old Seven Samurai gambit of roping together a gang to fight a common enemy. Worse, the roper, Nick Fury, is played by Samuel L. Jackson in his sleepy STAR WARS prequels 'earnest' mode. Jackson is too fiery an actor to be bottled up with sincerity (he does perk up a bit in the latter scenes). Even with a generous 142 minute run-time, we still only get a cursory backstory for the characters and their early scenes together don't gell. Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man and Mark Ruffalo's Dr.Banner come off best. Then again, they are a couple of the better actors out there now. Ruffalo's Banner is about the best I've seen. However, The Hulk still comes off looking like a cartoon character. Going back to Ang Lee's HULK, CGI still has issues trying to depict the creature - maybe, it's the bulbous green skin?

It takes too long for the thin story to get going and all the colorful self-hip dialogue and splashy effects only go so far. The hoary putting supporting characters into Zombie-like trances (only to snap outta it "just in time") thing is something younger Marathoners laugh at during screenings of 40s Serials or 50s B movies. Of course, THE AVENGERS has modern production values and a hip cool attitude, so it's ok, here. Right. And, the all-powerful energy source cube that if it falls in the wrong hands the world will be imperiled? Innovative.

Yes, it's a comic book, so nobody expects incisive plotting, but a bit more humanity would have helped. (and that human element is what makes the trio of films mentioned earlier far superior) More problematic to me was using Thor and Loki (Hiddleston does wonders with the cliched role) as the central plot points. The mix of Mythology and High Technology was uneasy at best, downright silly at worst. All the "I'm a God" stuff never fits in well. Sure, Loki uses Aliens as his army, but they are a undistinguished band of metallic Transformers wannabees which look like rejects from Michael Bay's drafting table.

It was good to see folks like Harry Dean Stanton, Jenny Agutter and Director Jerzy Skolominski getting nice supporting bits. Clark Gregg's Coulson is one of the few characters in the film with a heart, and not just quips and CGI action chops. In the inevitable sequels, it would be nice to emphasize the former attribute over the two others.

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

LAConnection lobs hipster nitpicky criticism towards a popular movie that nerds love?

I am Jack's total lack of surprise...

_________________
Aliens? Us?
Is this one of your Earth "jokes?"

The main thrust of the review concern issues that are hardly nitpicks -- Such as the entire (un)dramatic structure.

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

You are allowed to be critical, and I found flaws with the movie as well. I just don't understand why you won't let yourself get excited about anything. Every time you review a movie it seems like it is always with the caveat that you "finally got around to seeing it." Is there anything you would rush out to see because you just can't wait?

Please don't take this as a personal attack or anything, because I truly don't mean it that way. Sometimes nerds just like to nerd out over nerdy things. This board and Boston's are (theoretically) dedicated to those who wish to do just that. I just don't understand why you always feel the need to put us in our place just because something is popular.

For a more specific counter-argument, I totally disagree with your assessment of it being "scattered" and "un-focused." Plus, your criticism of Loki's "I'm a God" arrogance is unfounded because that is actually addressed directly in the now legendary "Hulk Smash Loki" set piece. I agree that the MacGuffin was weak and there was no real sense of danger, but I thought the characters, the banter and the "heart" of all the various relationships was all spot on, and there were numerous genuine, unforced laughs.

I've been on the "too much CGI" bandwagon for a while now, but in service of a story like this one I think it was just fine. Too often it is a crutch, but sometimes it's just a necessary evil.

_________________
Aliens? Us?
Is this one of your Earth "jokes?"

Well-reasoned comments. I don't object. Point by point:

I do excited about seeing certain films. I mentioned the trio of superhero movies that are thrilling and substantial in the review. As far as taking time to catch up with certain films - my work schedule often limits me to seeing one film a week. I have a wide wide ranging taste in movies. If I can only see one film, I will almost always give priority to those films in limited release over blockbusters. Recently, I've seen two Norwegian films, plus films from France, Italy, Belgium, Israel and Turkey and a few small indies (including a pair of quasi-SF films - SOUND OF MY VOICE and SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED). Films like DEEP BLUE SEA, KID WITH A BIKE and FOOTNOTE (which, according to a photo from the Marathon of the theater marquee, you could have seen!) were exciting to watch. Even in a city like L.A., most of these films get one week to prove themselves or they are gone. So, yes, it took 6 weeks to "finally" getting around to see THE AVENGERS. I wouldn't trade most of the choices I made in the interim, and I knew THE AVENGERS would still be there. As I've noted before, I simply wasn't born with the "I've GOT to see it first!!" gene. Movies aren't vegetables - they don't spoil if you don't consume them in a week or so.

As to Loki, we just disagree. One mildly amusing Hulk smash does not an integrated and cohesive plot make.

I don't think I made an argument against CGI as a whole. Sure, there are times when filmmakers apply the more is better approach, but, it's here to stay. After several tries recently, I still just hate the way the Hulk looks on film. It just looks very cartoonish and comical.

Finally, I did say that I thought THE AVENGERS was ok. I enjoyed it. It's just not worthy of being the the 41st best movie ever according to the voters on imdB.

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

I disagree, I still have not seen Prometheus due to lack of funds and other obligations that seem to be consuming all my "free" time, however I have talked to several people who have seen it and they have all said meh it was ok, this is killing (or spoiling) my desire to see the film. I wish I would have rushed out out and seen it opening day when I was super excited to see it.

As for The Avengers, what can I say...I loved it. Everyhing Joss Whedon touches turns to gold.

_________________
Jaws3dfan®
Follow me on Twitter

Well, then you are missing out on over 100 years of excellent movies if you "must" see them the first week. I recently saw James Cagney's WHITE HEAT for the first time. Would it have been cool to see it opening weekend in 1949 (had I been alive)? Sure. But, it's still one of the greatest American films of all time - 63 years after the fact.

And, Whedon's "gold" touch must have been on vacation with TITAN A.E. and ALIEN:RESURRECTION amongst other instances..........

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

There is something to be said for timing. I'm not saying you can't enjoy a movie after it's initial run, but lots of movies are affected by circumstance. Not everything can be WHITE HEAT, and only time will tell if THE AVENGERS is as timeless as, say, THE DARK KNIGHT. But I will say that PROMETHEUS is most definately no ALIEN.

_________________
Aliens? Us?
Is this one of your Earth "jokes?"

Hey, I've seen plenty of films not only on opening day, but, even in advance of their release. Nice bragging rights, perhaps, but it shouldn't affect the judgement over the quality of the actual film itself. Also, there are a whole generation of films that flopped with audiences in theaters that have been dubbed great only after they reached home video/cable etc.: BLADE RUNNER, SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, FIGHT CLUB etc.. If it's a truly great film, it should work on opening day, 7 weeks later, 7 years later, and even 7 decades later!

And, Doh! I forgot to mention the 'exciting' DARK KNIGHT in my list of superb superhero movies that are clearly superior to THE AVENGERS!

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

You are absolutely correct, sir. But the point I am making is that a film does not necessarily have to be a timeless classic or stand on it's own merits, or even be more than "merely okay" to be a highly enjoyable filmgoing experience. And that is where timing and circumstance come into play.

_________________
Aliens? Us?
Is this one of your Earth "jokes?"

John Carpenter's THE THING was a box office flop but has become the greatest Sci-Fi Movie of all time to the masses thanks to home video.

When talking about a movie like The Avengers you also have to include the "pop culture" status of the movie. My 9 year old daughter couldn't wait to see it because everyone who is anyone has seen it. If you didn't see The Avengers than you felt like an outcast, it would be like not seeing JAWS or STAR WARS when they were first released, you were out of the "pop culture" loop.

_________________
Jaws3dfan®
Follow me on Twitter

As you can see from my above comment on the Avengers , I disagree with LA.
However his basic point, that many can only afford the time or money to see a few films is well taken.
Also the comment that there are fantastic films that are enjoyable (or in many of our cases cheesy films that are enjoyable) years after they are made is more than well taken. It is a truism that is very easy to forget.

An odd recommendation.
I know that many here are on a more restricted time and money regimen than me. (I'm retired with a public employee pension. Boy am I rolling in wealth) But I have access to more classic films with less effort, and over the long haul at much less expense, than they are worth.
Specifically, I have a Roku setup and a subscription to HuluPlus that gives me access to the Criterion collection, a 700+ set of a huge percentage of the greatest domestic and international films ever made.
ROKU is not necessary, there are at least 4 different setups that allow you to access HuluPlus via your computer & a modum. My Roku cost $40. on sale.
My HuluPlus (& three other subscriptions) are free, using the subscription codes of my daughter's friends that she input on the mechanism. None of the subscription services seem to have a problem with this.
So I have THE BLOB!, or THE THING! or practically every Chaplin, Bergman, French New Wave, Kurasowa, 50 less known Japanese directors, Film Noire & a host of other stuff whenever I want it. Cost me a router + 40 bucks. I am sure that you have a friend with a password. If you don't, look up my daughter. She lives in Brookline.
Check it out..

_________________
Thar’s only two possibilities: Thar is life out there in the universe which is smarter than we are, or we’re the most intelligent life in the universe. Either way, it’s a mighty sobering thought. - Walt Kelly