Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Avengers

This is topic The Avengers in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001859

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 04-28-2012, 08:35 PM:

After years on the outer, never quite making the big time, Buffyverse creator and Toy Story scribe, Joss Whedon, has finally arrived. His previous feature, Serenity, was squarely targeted towards fans of his prematurely axed Firefly TV series and so never achieved the wide audience it may otherwise have received or deserved. With The Avengers, however, he finally gets his opportunity to bring his special brand of loving fanboism to the masses.

Compared to that other great superhero ensemble flick (no, not Fantastic Four!), Bryan Singer's X-Men, The Avengers is the kitschy one of the two but it is no less a film. Whedon shows that he knows how to do kitsch without descending into a tired, boring, groan-inducing cliche (like Fantastic Four). Of course whedonphiles have known this for many years and now the rest of the world will know it.

The primary difficulty in an ensemble film such as this is making sure that each character within the film has enough space to develop. The Avengers has an advantage here in that Marvel have taken the time and expense to develop most of the characters externally in their own franchises but even so, whedon has done exceptionally well in giving each hero a respectable amount of screen time so that no one (almost) is short changed. No one character is elevated above another, they are all equals. This principle has most importantly been applied to The Hulk.

As the least glamorous member of the team (he's big, green, angry and barely talks), Whedon has smartly elevated Hulk to the biggest, baddest ass on the team. He's the one that nobody has successfully controlled (with the exception, perhaps, of his alter ego, Bruce Banner); no force has subdued him; no weapon has destroyed him; everyone is shit scared of him. When faced with an angry Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), the demonstrably deadly Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) stands her ground but is clearly petrified of him. The Hulk is the trickiest character to handle and Whedon does so elegantly.

Likewise performances are good from the entire cast. Iron Man naturally gets all the best lines given Robert Downey Jnr's ability to deliver them with aplomb. Black Widow is given the most character development (appropriate since she has not had a movie of her own) and Johansson does well with the subtleties of her character as she wields her personal vulnerabilities like weapons. Samuel Jackson is just Samuel and we love him for it. Hawk Eye (Jeremy Renner) is short changed a little on character development but perhaps he'll be fleshed out further in future instalments. In any case, he's not a major player in this plotline. Chris Evans will be pleased that hardly anyone will remember his role in Fantastic Four and his performance here will erase that memory completely.

The action is suitably spectacular but that's par for the course these days. Nothing feels slow throughout the proceedings; the action, dialogue and plot snaps along nicely and the script feels like it has spent exactly the right time in development to iron out all the wrinkles, which is refreshing.

As good as this film is, however, it does represent yet another needless application of 3D technology. This seemingly endless tirade of 3D blockbusters has become positively tiresome. Like most before it, 3D adds very little to this film; if anything it's a distraction. 3D films present completely differently to their 2D counterparts - and not usually in a good way. The 3D effect forces you to focus on very specific parts of the scene, specifically (and literally) the focus or subject of the image, to the exclusion of everything else. It induces a kind of tunnel vision in the viewer. Watching a 2D variant, more detail is apparent in the background as we're not being directly distracted by whatever is hovering in front of our noses - much like a magician's trick. That we see more detail in a 2D image is contrary to our expectations of 3D, which is meant to be an enheightening experience. This needn't be a bad thing, however. Like any other cinematic device, it could be used to good effect (it could have useful applications in horror movies, for instance) but it shouldn't be overdone as is the case with this currently endless slew of 3D flicks. The best 3D movie in recent times is easily Hugo. Clearly Scorsese understands the tool and is smart enough to know how to use it effectively and appropriately.

That aside, The Avengers will do well at the box office and it deserves to, and Joss Whedon will get his long overdue just desserts into the bargain.

9 out of 10.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-29-2012, 06:02 AM:

Wow! That is the most literate review I have seen in a long time. Louis

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 05-04-2012, 02:48 AM:

My customers loved it tonight. BtW, two cookies. One at the very end as usual was not noted in the other feature info section.

Well though out review.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 05-05-2012, 02:10 PM:

CINEMA: 13th Avenue Warren, Wichita, KS
AUDITORIUM: 18
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital Cinema DLP/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]

RATING: Three stars (out of four)

The Grand Auditorium first show is at noon, the 3D showing at 11:30, and this lowly stadium seating 2D presentation is at 11:15. I figured "Nobody will go to that one". So that's the one I went to.

Yeah...I was wrong. It wasn't full, but every row...even the front...had people in the seats.

THE PLOT: Um...bad guys vs good guys? Wackiness ensues.

It's as good as any of the recent Marvel efforts that led up to this one, but really not better, unless you count "better" as "geek orgasm" moments. Hulk pretty much steals the show...his scene with Loki brought the house down like nothing I've seen before. Full audience laughter and lengthy applause.

Marvel fans, of course, think this is the greatest movie ever made. Really, it's a fun popcorn movie any age can enjoy.

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 05-06-2012, 09:06 PM:

Greetings:

I saw the movie today in San Francisco with friends. While I enjoyed the movie, it was simply average. Per haps I've seem too many superher movies but I found the storyline all too familiar. I was pleasantly surprised, however, to see that it was filmed in 1:85.

There was a trailer for an upcomming Batman movie and a Spiderman movie, both of which will probably be better than this film.

Mike

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-06-2012, 10:32 PM:

I guess the main thing that bugs me about this kind of movie is when they have events that would CLEARLY kill a human being barely bruise people. They get slammed into the ground after falling off a building or being hit by a car, and they just get up and keep running.

Great popcorn flick though. We were thoroughly entertained and it seemed shorter than it was. 4 out of 5 stars from me.

Posted by Melanie Loggins (Member # 6454) on 05-07-2012, 10:35 AM:

Mike, that's so funny, because I was annoyed that it was in flat. I was looking forward to seeing a big spectacle on a wide screen!

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 05-07-2012, 12:59 PM:

I'm assuming it was in flat due to the increase of non-masking "premium-format" screens in the big chains

As for the movie itself, was good, but not great. Not something I'll rush to see again.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-07-2012, 01:28 PM:

What got me also: being in FLAT. Had to do a three machine interlock and mindset got the best of me since all of the other MARVEL releases were in SCOPE:

had all my tabs for screen and machine set for SCOPE. Hit the start button and "blammo": the first trailer, being a widescreen trailer was more widescreen on the screen..."Dang-IT!!" closed the lamphouse damper, hurried up to switch the tabs back to FLAT, and reopened the damper. Rushed to the other houses to reset the tabs switches.

Got caught on that one... Our 2D houses sold out quick than the 3D houses, which didn't even come close...

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-07-2012, 01:57 PM:

I prefered films in scope when I used to frequent all of our wonderful single screen theatres in Honolulu such as the three Waikiki theatres, Cinerama, Royal, Queen, Kapiolani, Princess, Palace, Hawaii as well as the Kuhio and the Varsity before they were twinned but they all do not exist anymore except the Hawaii that was renovated and is now a gorgeous performing arts centre. Like every where else, all we have are many multiplexes that projects scope movies on small screens that are not as wide as they should be. The only exception are the larger houses at the Consolidated's Ward Centre, Regal's Dole Cannery 18 and house twelve at Regal's Pearl Highland 12. It is a joy when the movies I buy a ticket to see are playing in a large auditorium but I usually wind up in a smaller house.

- Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-07-2012, 03:34 PM:

The flat-ness of the picture didn't bother me. I do like scope pictures better, but once the movie started I didn't even think about it.

quote: Jonathan Althaus
I'm assuming it was in flat due to the increase of non-masking "premium-format" screens in the big chains

I highly doubt that, considering the majority of blockbuster-type movies are scope these days. Probably an 'artistic chioce' on the part of the director.

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 05-07-2012, 04:18 PM:

Hi Melanie; others:

I appear to be one of the few members of the forum that prefers 1:85. Actually, 1:66 is the ultimate, but you only get that with the occasional French movie!

Perhaps because the image ir more intimate...?

Mike

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 05-07-2012, 07:49 PM:

Saw this film, twice.

1st tIme:
CINEMA: Cobb Village 12, Leesburg, VA
AUDITORIUM: 8
PRESENTATION: RealD 3D / Dolby 7.1
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Subwoofer was slightly blown.

2nd time:
CINEMA: AMC Empire 25, New York, NY
AUDITORIUM: 1 (IMAX)
PRESENTATION: Digital IMAX 3D
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Some woofers were blown. During the trailers, there was an annoying rattling noise when there was a lot of bass. Oddly, this went away when the film began. Also, 3D trailers were shown in 2D. Not sure if this is a showmanship choice.

RATING: Nine (out of ten)

THE PLOT: The world becomes terrorized by an inter-dimensional force and 3D. Avengers Assemble!

All I could say is that it is a very fun and exciting, action-packed film, but will possibly not be the best 2012 will offer, considering TDKR, The Hobbit, etc.

Seriously, why does everything have to be in 3D? It's a complete money-grubbing screen, and the technology is being abused. The trailer for The Avengers looked really good in 2D. Still, with that being said, the 3D conversion was decent, but nowhere near as good as the 3D trailers for films shot in native 3D that was before the film.

Sorry for the 3D rant. I wanted to say more than a few sentences for this one because I felt like it. Anyway, The Avengers is a great film, 2D or 3D.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 05-07-2012, 09:50 PM:

I was at the Egyptian today and saw this on the XD screen! wow, what a fun flix! Was really surprised how many people were there for noon Monday movie. I unfortunantly discovered where not to sit, the light directly behind me reflected back into my peripheral vision causing reflection in the glasses - ugh... should have sat one row in front of me instead.

Posted by Markus Ito (Member # 6207) on 05-07-2012, 10:16 PM:

I saw this in 2D and it was amazing. The theater was also a lot less crowded than the 3D showings, but I would still say it was about 80% full. Judging from the above posts, it looks like I didn't miss much by not going to the 3D showing. One thing that I really liked about the film was the humor. The aforementioned scene with the Hulk had the entire theater laughing for a good 30 seconds. There were a lot of one liners that the audience (myself included) found hilarious.

Overall, I'd put this at a 4.5 out of 5. It is definitely something I would go see again

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-07-2012, 11:29 PM:

quote: Mike Croaro
Perhaps because the image ir more intimate...?

What? Intimate? I don't buy that as a definition for an aspect ratio. That's like saying Scope is more horny. It doesn't make much sense. But if by "intimate" you mean "closeness" or something to that effect, then you'd love 1:1 the most. Or maybe 1:6. Only room for the lips to lock!

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-08-2012, 08:25 AM:

As those of us who grew up watching Donald In Mathemagic Land in grade school know 1:66 is almost the Golden Ratio. Our preference may be almost hardwired into our heads.

That being said, it used to be almost every French film was in scope and I don't think we've used our 1:66 lenses in more than a year. If the French are shooting in 1:66, they are leaving lots of headroom.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-08-2012, 11:36 AM:

Because I was very busy this past weekend speaking about professional photography at a Mac computer meeting on Saturday and a portrait photography class I conducted on Sunday, I did not have the time to see THE AVENGERS. It was for the best because I have the time today to see it at Regal's Pearl Highland at Pearl City here in Hawaii and is the perfect day because of the terrific discount on hot dogs and popcorn every Tuesday. Because it is a work day, hopefully the theatre will also be less crowded. I am a 3-D junkie and I am planning to watch it in that format in Real D and hope it will be in house twelve, the largest auditorium at that complex.

-Claude

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-08-2012, 12:39 PM:

You'll like the 3D version .. done very good (just wish the picture could be brighter to compensate for the use of the glasses...)

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 05-08-2012, 03:27 PM:

even the Monday BO intake was pretty amazing:

From Boxoffice.com

Tuesday Update: Disney reports that Avengers made $18.9 million domestically and $28.4 million internationally on Monday, pushing its worldwide total to a staggering $702.2 million. (Domestic cume = $226.4 million, International cume = $475.8 million).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-08-2012, 06:14 PM:

This, plus the upcoming "Brave," will ease Disney's John Carter pain.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-12-2012, 08:43 PM:

I'm amazed at the number of little kids being brought to this movie. Way more than the typical PG-13 draws, here at least. The movie's only been on for 15 minutes and we've already got our first toddler of the night in the lobby getting one of those "do you want to go home right now?" talks from his mom. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-08-2012, 12:36 AM:

Regal Hollywood 24. Chose to watch it in 2D intentionally. Chose Auditorium 24 because I had experienced a bright clear digital image over there in the past on an ok sized screen. There are bigger screens, but they are dimmer than this auditorium.
The problem?? The MASKING WAS PROBLEMATIC. There was image bleed on both sides of what is already a movie that is filmed with an 1.85:1 ratio making the image seem even squarer. I complained about it during the trailers, but nothing was done. Mentioned it to the supervisor again after the movie. The dude didn't seem apologetic, and just tossed me a free readmission pass. It's a pity because the image was projected nice steady and bright.

Enjoyed the movie after a so so opening segment which had a silly stunt sequence where people were using freaking low tech firepower like guns to go after Loki. I know it's required to suspend some disbelief, but I just found it frustrating how stupid the agents had to be to use mere guns to shoot at the bad guys and think that would be effective in the least.

So anyway, two words why I loved the movie -
Capt America: "HULK!!!"
Hulk: "huh?"
Capt America: "SMASH!!!!"
Hulk then has an expression of glee that makes you forget all the whininess we had to endure in the Hulk movies.

Loved the interplay between Banner and Stark. The movie hits the right tone for most of the time.