Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

This is topic Avengers: Infinity War (2018) 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=002347

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 04-28-2018, 03:55 PM:

CINEMA: Regal Warren East, Wichita, KS
AUDITORIUM: 14
PRESENTATION: Warren GRAND slope auditorium with a balcony that I'm not sitting in so really who cares
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]

RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

THE PLOT: Thanos wants to collect the set of infinity stones. Wackiness ensues.

If you don't like spoilers, just stop reading now because I'm going to lay out everything that happens to save you the time and effort of bothering to go. The Avengers need to stop Thanos from getting his paws on all the infinity stones. They fail and the credits roll, listing the literal thousands who were involved in the making of this picture right down to the assistant payroll accountants. Then a commercial for the all-new 2019 Infiniti QX50, starring Samuel Jackson, airs. Then we all exit to the lobby, where kids are telling those waiting in line to see this that it's the greatest movie ever.

It is a fun ride with the humor you'd expect in a Marvel feature and much more clever pop culture references than were in Ready Player One, at least up until Act 17 or so, when it goes all "Last Jedi" dark and I'm like "God, resolve this already." But do they? NO. THEY FREAKING DON'T. Apparently this is part one of whoever knows how many parts. GOD DAMMIT MOVIE.

So just sit this one out and go to the follow-up, which hopefully there's only one of.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-28-2018, 11:47 PM:

It's yet another interminable, 47-plots-to-follow, universe-at-stake, funny-in-spots, Marvel movie. I tried reading the Wikipedia plot summary of this one and was lost by the end of the second paragraph.

It's really too bad there isn't some other thing to be "at stake" besides the WHOLE UNIVERSE. They've backed themselves into a corner with this. I liked it when the movies were more simple, such as Superman being mainly concerned with Lois Lane and the population of one city at a time.

I also wish they'd just knock it off already with putting the extra scene at the VERY end of the credits. Just stick it in after the major celebrity name checks and the title, and then be done with it. The audience has already sat there for about 3 hours, and at least half of them get pissed when they have to wait through 12 minutes of gobbledy-gook to get to the ending of the movie - which isn't really an ending.

I suppose we're inching toward the time when the movie runs for about a half-hour, then the end credits, followed by two hours of extra scenes. If I was directing the new Deadpool that's what I'd do.

As expected, this movie has plenty of those stupid "touch your arm and your whole suit unfolds from nowhere" scenes too, which irritate me because they're physically ridiculous, but then I suppose the whole MCU falls in to that category so whatever.

The people who like this kind of thing are loving it, though -- my friend Keith was positively giddy about it -- so, as Pope Francis famously said, who am I to judge? The hardest part of playing this show is having to stand at the exit and act like I loved it. The Oscars ought to have a category for "Best Exit Acting by a Theater Owner."

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 04-29-2018, 08:30 AM:

If you want spoilers, just read the comic. The story has been changed quite a bit for the movie (to use the characters that Disney has worked up) but the basic plot is the same - and the solution (ie the next movie) is also there for anyone to see.
The magical tech (ironmans suit, etc) is ridiculous, of course. Other questions arise - why does Thanos walk up that mountain when he can apparently travel freely through space and time? And that is NOT forging, it's just casting.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 04-29-2018, 12:52 PM:

So the forging is a forgery? [Big Grin]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-30-2018, 10:44 PM:

Cinema: AMC Patriot 13, Lawton, OK
Screen: #7, IMAX Digital, Seats K14 & K15
Format: Dual 2K Projection 3D, 5.1 audio
Presentation Problems: Audio needs more oomph.
Movie Rating: 3.33 stars out of 4

It looks as if I liked this movie more than quite a few other viewers. One of the big complaints is the dark, cliff-hanger ending after 2.5 hours of run time. It was obvious years ago when Infinity War was first announced that this would be at least a 2 part saga. I expected a big cliff-hanger and dark ending, although this movie finished darker than expected, perhaps too dark to even believe.

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
Some of those killed, such as Loki, Heimdall and Vision (and even Gamora), may stay dead. But there is no way others like Spiderman, Black Panther, and almost all the Guardians of the Galaxy are going to stay dead since there are future stand-alone movies in the works for them. Disney is running this show and its investors wouldn't stand for that big of a character house-cleaning. If anything, I was fairly certain Captain America and Iron Man were going to meet their fates since the contracts of both Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr end with this MCU saga. Steve Rogers was assassinated in the comic books and Bucky Barnes took his place as a new Captain America. But how would Bucky do that in any future movies if he has been reduced to ash?

Bunch of Tedious Crap Here:
The initial marketing for MCU Phase (Is it Phase 3?) let the cat out of the bag with Infinity War "Part 1" and "Part 2" movies slated for 2018 & 2019 respectively. They dropped the whole "Part 2" thing in the marketing when certain youth anthology movies (Hunger Games With Different Names) crapped out when dragging final chapters over the space of two movies. I guess the "Mouse House" panicked over that. "Untitled Avengers Movie" is supposed to make us think the 4th Avengers movie will feature a whole new story, villain and world-ending threat when it's just Part 2 of the movie we just watched. There was no practical way to squeeze all this stuff with Thanos, the Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, Wakanda, etc into just one movie. I throw the "etc" in there because there other characters not seen in this movie who are involved in the plot. They'll be in other Marvel movies and the next Avengers movie next year.

At least four Marvel movies will be released between now and the next Avengers installment in 2019. Deadpool is in the X-Men universe even though his story-line has intersected with that of Spiderman in the comics. It's highly unlikely Deadpool 2 will have any involvement with the Avengers story-line, other than Josh Brolin playing different villains in both movies. Ant Man & The Wasp and Captain Marvel are both likely to set up plot developments for the next Avengers movie. It's shaping up as more prerequisite "homework" for viewers before this Part 2 thing next year. At least it's not as freaking confounding as watching Lost.

Venom is a big question mark since Spiderman crossed over to the Marvel MCU. The symbiote first appeared in Spiderman issues in the 1980's and has been written into story-lines with Thanos and other Marvel comics characters. It's unclear if the Venom movie coming out this fall will be a purely standalone thing unrelated to Spiderman or the Avengers/Thanos. I am digging how they modeled the Venon character in the latest trailer:

End of Tedious Crap

Anyway, we're all familiar with the plot line of Infinity War. The movie had its moments. Thor's interaction with Rocket was one of the funnier highlights. Rocket had some of the best one-liners. When Peter Quill (feeling inadequate next to Thor) says, "I'm muscular," Rocket replies, "Who are you kidding, Quill? You're one sandwich away from fat." It goes without saying the show is packed with a shit-ton of complex CGI imagery, although a couple of the artificial CGI characters struggled with the "uncanny valley." The female villain, Proxima Midnight, was in that iffy territory in close-ups. They did a good job on the Thanos character (which seemed like a mix of CGI and practical makeup effects).

Cynthia and I watched the movie on our local IMAX-branded theater screen in 3D. Just about all the movie (if not all of it) was shown in the 1.9:1 aspect ratio, filling the entire screen. Other "standard" theaters are showing it in 'scope. I'm wondering if the IMAX-branded shows actually showed more imagery or less. It was clear anamorphic lenses were used on a lot of the live action footage. The credits said "filmed with IMAX cameras," but it seems like this movie was another Rogue One style effort where the Arri Alexa 65 was paired with Ultra Panavision 70 lenses. They even included a ridiculous Ultra Panavision 70 logo in the credits. When Infinity War was first announced there was hype about IMAX and Arri working together to use the Arri Alexa 65 to fill the taller screen height of "IMAX With Laser" screens. I guess they didn't end up doing that. The football-shaped bokeh would have been rotated 90 degrees if they did.

quote: Mike Blakesley
As expected, this movie has plenty of those stupid "touch your arm and your whole suit unfolds from nowhere" scenes too, which irritate me because they're physically ridiculous, but then I suppose the whole MCU falls in to that category so whatever.

I kind of blame the Transformers movie for that crap. Suits unfolding out of nowhere is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to violating the laws of physics. The Marvel MCU has been doing silly things with physics since the first Iron Man movie. A human being can't put on a metal suit and crash into the ground or through a building at jet fighter speed without being turned into a juicy mess of bloody granola. But these are super hero movies. We're supposed to suspend our disbelief to some degree, although it would be nice if the producers, writers and directors would do more to meet audiences halfway. At least the movie seems pretty normal compared to laugh-riots like Torque.

quote: Mike Blakesley
It's really too bad there isn't some other thing to be "at stake" besides the WHOLE UNIVERSE. They've backed themselves into a corner with this. I liked it when the movies were more simple, such as Superman being mainly concerned with Lois Lane and the population of one city at a time.

I agree, I don't know why they keep doing that crap. Yeah, a threat to end our world or destroy the universe is bad. But it's so broad that it's difficult for viewers to relate to it. Plus, so many movies have done the end of the world thing that it has become very tired. Now, to be fair, Thanos wasn't out to destroy the universe. He just wanted to indiscriminately kill off half its population. It's still a pretty broad thing, even with a MacGuffin like the infinity stones and gauntlet being involved. Movie viewers can more easily relate to a goals like defusing a bomb or preventing a villain from killing a specific person. When the writers blow the threat up to a ridiculous scale the threat is no longer personified. A Gamma Ray Burst from a distant collapsing star light years away could cook off the Earth's ozone layer (or worse) in a matter of seconds. Such a thing would touch off a mass extinction event that would killl everything right down to bacteria. Odds are extremely slim of that ever happening. But if it did happen we would be powerless to stop it. So why even worry?

I think Superman: The Movie (1979) was one of the best ever super hero movies. Its villain, Lex Luthor had specific goals in mind. He wanted to create a new West Coast and get filthy rich from it (and cause the deaths of many innocent people in the process). Pretty damn easy to understand there. Never mind the science of geology and how California can't fall off into the ocean in the event of a catastrophic earthquake.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 06-07-2018, 07:57 PM:

I think the problem with a movie like this is that they have so many super-heroes involved that it becomes difficult to find something for each one of them to do -- When everyone is Super nobody gets to be the Hero.

I suppose this movie is made for the fans; it doesn't do much for me simply because there's so many little things going on that the big thing (saving the world) gets lost in there somewhere.

We've just got a lot of cast members standing around in costumes. Ok, you fly around and you beat the ground with a sword and you - yes you! Hey! Tweet! Yeah, you! Go stand over there.

And that's pretty much the story as far as I can tell.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 06-08-2018, 11:39 AM:

Bobby, you read my mind there with the Superman '79 idea, was thinking the same thing, what the heck would be wrong with a few "stop the lunatic from regional mayhem" heroism for a change? The scale of that makes the unbelievable much more believable.

Posted by Alexandre Pereira (Member # 9295) on 06-08-2018, 01:08 PM:

Howard the Duck will be in the sequel Avengers the Massive Douche Fest.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-15-2018, 02:10 PM:

First time I got bored by an Avengers/Capt America movie. I didnt watch Thor Ranganak and so was a little confused by the first scene and mistakenly thought it was the final scene others were talking about and the rest of the movie would be a flashback. Once i got past that misconception, I had a hard time staying awake. The action scenes were tedious. Every superhero seems to fight in similar fashion with no clear delineations of strengths and weaknesses. Everyone might as well be superman.

The deaths at the end meant nothing to me as most of those characters will be back in another movie anyway. Plus didnt Wonder Woman and justice league have a similar plot about the bad guy getting a collection of stones or energy sources?

There needs to be real danger put back into action movies.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 06-15-2018, 04:06 PM:

I'm pretty sure the last Power Rangers movie had the collecting of assorted colours of stones thing in it too.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-15-2018, 04:15 PM:

I suppose the main thing driving these "whole universe at stake" plots is, these movies have to resonate with a worldwide audience now. Superman 1979 would probably be a big flop because "only" the coast of California (and Hackensack, NJ) were at stake.

A superhero movie with a Bin Laden type of character plotting to bomb the new World Trade Center would be a cool movie, but would the people in China want to go see it?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-16-2018, 02:06 AM:

The "home audience" here in 'Murica is the one dependably paying the bills. And it's this audience that is growing tired of the re-tred stuff. The less than stellar performance of the latest round of super hero movies, Star Wars installments and other derivative been-there, done-that gunk should be a clue to the movie studios they need to grow a pair of functioning balls and actually take a fucking damned chance on a new idea.

I've been watching some of the stock trader jerk-off fest taking place regarding whether Disney or Comcast will become the new owners of 20th Century Fox. Or is it 21st Century? A big part of the success from this buy-out hinges on Americans being totally perfectly happy being force fed the same old shit over and over and over and over and over again, but with a different number affixed to the title. The more and more these guys at the top think they're taking over Hollywood the more I think they're living under some kind of altered state of reality. These creative ideas kinds of businesses are actually a bit fragile. Coming up with good movies people are willing to pay a hefty premium to watch in theaters or to own on disc is really not all that easy or dependable. It's not like changing a few style features between the 2018 and 2019 versions of a car on an assembly line.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-16-2018, 01:27 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
20th Century Fox. Or is it 21st Century?

The first time I saw "21st Century" in print, I thought it was a mistake, but 20th Century is the studio, 21st Century is the "parent" company.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-16-2018, 01:36 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The less than stellar performance of the latest round of super hero movies, Star Wars installments and other derivative been-there, done-that gunk should be a clue to the movie studios they need to grow a pair of functioning balls and actually take a fucking damned chance on a new idea.

Also, what happened to making entertaining movies on non-nine figure budgets? The reason these franchises need to appeal to the whole world is because they cost so much to make and market. Why not spend $75 million on a movie that appeals to Americans and Candadians and try to get a $200 million or so gross out of it? It would still be a 33% ROI before home release and the downside is much lower.

When they spend $300 million+ on a movie like Solo, They need a worldwide gross of around $600 million just to break even. To get a 33% ROI it needs to be in the $800 million range. When it bombs (like Solo), there is major downside.

They could have made four $75 million movies. Now the risk on the $300 million is mitigated. If one bombs, 2 do OK and 1 is a hit they'll still get a decent ROI.

I know the franchise movies have the merchandising and marketing tie ins but the basic economics still hold true.

One day Superhero fatigue will set in to the general public and Disney will end up with a "one time charge" of several hundred million dollars when 2 or 3 MCU movies that are in production all bomb. Personally, I have no desire to see any Superhero movies at this point. The 2002 Spider-Man through The Dark Knight was the modern heyday of Superhero movies. After that (including The Dark Knight Rises) it's been downhill for the most part.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-16-2018, 05:48 PM:

Except now you've got Incredibles 2 doing blockbuster business. Keep in mind that it's:

* A sequel
* A superhero movie

So....it's probably going to beget more of the same. Also to bring this full circle, the most recent Avengers wasn't exactly a flop, either.

I think Solo would have done a lot better if they'd done 2 things: Wait until maybe a year after Episode IX to release it, and had somebody who looked closer to Harrison Ford starring in it. As it is, it just didn't excite people. I personally liked it.

Maybe Solo being a disappointment will be a wake up call that they can't just milk the daylights out of everything. But I doubt it. They'll just up the ante in the marketing department.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-17-2018, 06:57 PM:

I dont think the worldwide destruction stuff has anything to do with global appeal, but scale. The bigger the better for some of these filmmakers.

If they really wanted more global appeal, maybe they try to mine more epic stories from world literature and distill the essence into a fun hollywood scripts instead of rehashing tired comic book concepts alone. And make the superheroes more vulnerable to injury. They had to come up with kryptonite or Superman would have been really boring to read. A lot of these MArvel superheroes dont need kryptonite. Why is IronMan so freaking indestructible in that suit? IS there some super anticollision cushioning in that? He is just a freaking regular man like Batman.

When did Spiderman become the man of steel because no matter what kind of collision he has, he never gets injured.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-17-2018, 10:57 PM:

Or they fall down moaning and groaning like they just got multiple contusions but then stand up and BAM CRASH start fighting again.

The more "action packed" these movies get, the more boring they get because there are only so many ways to beat up people and destroy buildings.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 06-18-2018, 09:39 PM:

Everyone knows what they're in for when they go to see a Superhero movie, and everyone does indeed go.

If Hollywood made a truly "great" movie, would anyone notice? If every critic and review gave 5/5 stars on a movie, would it pull in as much money as a Marvel movie before getting shuffled out of the CattlePlex 24 in 2 weeks?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-18-2018, 10:19 PM:

Superhero movies, or pretty much anything with giant explosions and/or car chases is all Hollywood wants to make any effort to sell anymore. IMHO we can thank greed over international market money for that.

Hollywood rarely makes any truly great comedies anymore. The reasons are pretty obvious. Truly great comedy is VERY HARD to do. It's even more difficult to get a great comedy to translate to foreign language audiences. This is yet another reason why a classic such as Blazing Saddles would be impossible to produce and distribute today. I don't think Blazing Saddles was politically incorrect, particularly with Richard Pryor writing a bunch of the most controversial dialog. But if the movie was made today the bean counters would be far more worried about people in China or wherever not getting the jokes.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-18-2018, 11:28 PM:

Blazing Saddles'd NEVER get made today. The studio executives would be pissing their pants before the actor finished the line, "Send over a couple of (n-words)." I think that happens in the first five minutes or so.

I think the campfire scene would survive, as would all the sex jokes, but there's way too much racial humor in that movie for today's tender-feelinged audiences.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-19-2018, 11:47 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Blazing Saddles'd NEVER get made today. The studio executives would be pissing their pants before the actor finished the line, "Send over a couple of (n-words)." I think that happens in the first five minutes or so.

Even back then studio heads were nervous as hell about it (as were the actors having to say those lines). Their out was that Richard Pryor was writing a bunch of that dialog. Still, they hit the brakes on letting Pryor play the Black Bart character, choosing a less militant, more nice actor with Cleavon Little.

Modern filmmakers have been able to get away with use of the N-bomb. It depends on the context of how it is being used, such as a character with antagonistic flaws saying it. Quentin Tarantino did get some heat about his use of the slur in Pulp Fiction. IIRC Denzel Washington personally confronted him about it.

The bigger problem with comedy (or any American movie with well written, witty dialog) is it does not export to foreign markets easily. The documentary Exporting Raymond, about making a Russian version of Everybody Loves Raymond shows many of the pitfalls. American jokes and cultural references go right over the heads of Russian viewers. And they don't relate to these American characters at all.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-19-2018, 12:31 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Still, they hit the brakes on letting Pryor play the Black Bart character, choosing a less militant, more nice actor with Cleavon Little.

That's not the reason. They changed to Cleavon Little because the studio was worried about Richard Pryor being uninsurable, due to his drug arrest history.

Wikipedia says:

quote:
Casting was problematic. Richard Pryor was Brooks' original choice to play the Sheriff Bart, but the studio, claiming his history of drug arrests made him uninsurable, refused to approve financing with Pryor as the star.[9] Cleavon Little was cast in the role, and Pryor remained as a writer.

(I was going to quote from the original article which was on Salon.com but the link is dead now. But the same info is found on the DVD or Blu Ray commentary.)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-19-2018, 11:06 PM:

I'll have to listen to the commentary on the Blu-ray disc again. I could have sworn Mel Brooks said the studio didn't want Pryor on screen in the Black Bart role because he was "too militant" and scary for mainstream audiences (which didn't make sense to me since he had already been pretty popular on TV comedy shows).

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-19-2018, 11:42 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I think the campfire scene would survive, as would all the sex jokes, but there's way too much racial humor in that movie for today's tender-feelinged audiences.

So, what about the latest Tarantino movies? They don't seem to be so racial correct to me. [Wink]

It's striking how those movies actually contain more comedic elements than almost anything coming out of Hollywood branded "comedy". The latest three movies had me rolling all over the floor, it's been a while an actual comedy managed to do the same.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-24-2018, 08:43 PM:

funny how a discussion of a movie digresses to other topics - anyhoo ... as to 'Infinity Wars' I really dug it, although with how it ended, seeing some young Marvel fan uncontrollably weeping at his mom's side was too much for my heart to take. Chipper up young buttercup all will be resolved in the sequel.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-24-2018, 11:01 PM:

They should have telegraphed more that this was a "part 1." Hell I didn't know it until a couple of days into this movie's run. We had multiple people who were upset or pissed about the ending. When I told them it was a part 1, they felt better.

What ever happened to putting "to be continued" at the end? Nothing wrong with that.

Maybe it's flop sweat. If the movie tanks they can just forget about the sequel since they didn't out-and-out promise one during the movie. (Same as with Solo.)

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 06-24-2018, 11:45 PM:

It does say "Whatzisname will return" (the bad guy) at the end of the credits.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 07-10-2018, 01:54 PM:

THEATER: AMC Universal City
SHOEBOX: 17, six rows times about 8 recliners; sat dead middle of row 3, which for the small 'scope screen was perfect
PRESENTATION: Mystery meat laser-phosphor digital; brightness and color were excellent, black level fair.
Audio was supposedly Atmos, but none of the 4 of us ever heard anything elsewhere but wall surrounds; worse, the bass was neither very low in response, nor powerful.
COST: $17.75 per recliner
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Audio was unimpressive as noted above;
Noovie used more of the screen than the feature;
Although real screen masking was engaged between Noovie and the previews starting to reduce the height to common-width 'scope, the projector was misaligned so there was 6-10 inches of unused, naked screen on three sides. On a 20' wide screen, that wasn't subtle.
The front emergency exit light to the right of the screen is ~***B~R~I~G~H~T***~ but at least gets shut off during the feature.
The used-gum enhancement to the side of my recliner was gross.
RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four), except having it be the slightest bit coherent with that many conflicts among that many characters maybe deserves three stars. Or not.

quote: Sam Graham
PLOT: The Avengers need to stop Thanos from getting his paws on all the infinity stones. They fail and the credits roll, listing the literal thousands who were involved in the making of this picture right down to the assistant payroll accountants. Then a commercial for the all-new 2019 Infiniti QX50, starring Samuel Jackson, airs. Then we all exit to the lobby, where kids are telling those waiting in line to see this that it's the greatest movie ever.

Sam, you are a classic. Now that I've seen it all, your summary really amused me.

Little to add to the previous discussion. You all are right on point. On the way to the theater, my son did an impressive half-hour summary of all that we've missed by only seeing about half of the Marvel movies. Without that understanding of who was who, and which of three universes they belong to, the movie would've been incomprehensible. Well, except for the regularly occurring "whoops, he got another stone" moments.

And I agree that the relentless stream of "must save the universe" plots is getting tiresome. From the looks of the 17 minutes'-worth of trailers we were bludgeoned with before the feature, that's all that the future currently holds. Wouldn't it be more interesting to let the bad guy win? There you go: "Earnest Destroys the Universe." Hmmm, maybe not!

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 08-16-2018, 01:17 PM:

In preparing for this movie I watched each of the Marvel Universe movies in the order in which they took place in the story; not the order in which they were released. CNET has an article about it. If I hadn't of done that I wouldn't of understood half of the inside stuff going on in this movie. All the snippets at the end of each one are fairly important. I really enjoyed it. Made me appreciate it more. Im 37 but a kid at heart. Ironically when I was a kid I hated this kind of crap. I love(d)movies like old westerns and revenge movies or classic hot rod movies growing up. Now I enjoy some of these Marvel movies and animations and stuff too. I became a home theater nut too so that can broaden one's viewing horizons.