Age of Ultron Avengers: Age of Ultron Fan Review Thread (Spoilers) - Part 1

[hitmanyr2k]

There was a lot of controversy about Black Widow and, though I don't agree with it, I can see why. I like the idea of her not being able to have kids because of that program. It makes sense, it works fine. However, how it's phrased in that scene doesn't do it any favours with "You're not the only monster" coming right after a line about how she can't have kids. I can see how it'd lead people to think that was what was being referred to, though I really doubt that was the intent. It was simply a poorly executed delivery of that information. The flashes we got of her backstory were good, however I'm glad I watched Agent Carter prior as otherwise they feel a bit too brushed over. While they don't really take up any more or less time than the other visions, due to her lack of an origin-explaining solo film, the quick flashes feel too brief when it feels like there may be more to explore there. And though it wasn't the film's fault and I don't hold it against it, I'm not sure why Julie Delpy popped up there. She's a great actress but she has about three lines of dialogue and 5 seconds of screen time, I don't see why such a talented actress was needed for a nothing role. But back to Widow, I think she was serviceable her. Not really great but not bad. It felt like there was potential for her to be a lot better than she was. Winter Soldier did a better job with her.

I thought her "you're not the only monster" line was pretty straight-forward and impossible to miss, at least the way I interpreted it. It's not spelled out but it shouldn't have to be. She was sterilized, couldn't have kids, and as she said it made things "easier". And I took that to mean easier to kill and do horrific things without a second thought since she'd never been a mom or had to care for anyone in that way, just get the job done. It took me back to the first Avengers when Loki is chiding her about the things Hawkeye told him about her (Dreykov's daughter, the hospital fire, etc.) and her ledger gushing with red. I imagine children died during those acts. Scarlet Witch's visions brought all of that back into focus for her and reminded her what a monster she was and the reason for it.

 

[Spitfire]

I thought her "you're not the only monster" line was pretty straight-forward and impossible to miss, at least the way I interpreted it. It's not spelled out but it shouldn't have to be. She was sterilized, couldn't have kids, and as she said it made things "easier". And I took that to mean easier to kill and do horrific things without a second thought since she'd never been a mom or had to care for anyone in that way, just get the job done. It took me back to the first Avengers when Loki is chiding her about the things Hawkeye told him about her (Dreykov's daughter, the hospital fire, etc.) and her ledger gushing with red. I imagine children died during those acts. Scarlet Witch's visions brought all of that back into focus for her and reminded her what a monster she was and the reason for it.

I completely agree with Snow Queen that this scene was clumsily written and any reference to fertility shouldn't have been included.

Whether a woman is a mother or not has zero impact on how she conducts herself. The implication that being childless could make you have less regard for human life should never have even been considered.

BW never says she's a monster due to her infertility but its such an emotional issue for many women of course it would attract controversy.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

I completely agree with Snow Queen that this scene was clumsily written and any reference to fertility shouldn't have been included.

Whether a woman is a mother or not has zero impact on how she conducts herself. The implication that being childless could make you have less regard for human life should never have even been considered.

BW never says she's a monster due to her infertility but its such an emotional issue for many women of course it would attract controversy.

Zero impact? What? You can't be serious. Childbearing and motherhood would no doubt mess with the thought process of a trained assassin and cause her to "think" before committing horrific acts...like killing other children. That's what the whole sterilization was about, to make as efficient killer as possible.

 

[Spitfire]

Zero impact? What? You can't be serious. Childbearing and motherhood would no doubt mess with the thought process of a trained assassin and cause her to "think" before committing horrific acts...like killing other children. That's what the whole sterilization was about, to make as efficient killer as possible.

If you read my post you will see it refers to why including a sterilization story would be a theme considered controversial to many and not the practicalities of Widow being an assassin. Is motherhood the only barrier to her killer role? Would falling in love not have a similar effect? Or meeting a new friend who showed her a different path (e.g. Hawkeye which we know actually happened)?

Whedon established a clear link between her being childless and her disregard for human life and women are frequently judged based on their fertility, decisions to have children etc. It's the theme that should not have been included and Whedon had other options for the character.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

I saw the movie last week...i give a 7/10.

What i liked:
> The quiet moments
> The dialogue during the fights, even if it, sometimes, takes away the urgency
> The Vision. Not the origin and all that, but the calm in his voice
> Hawkeye and Black Widow. The best characters in all the movie


What i didn't liked:
> Hulk, Thor, Captain America...even Iron Man...they are all extremely badly used.
> Ultron. The worst thing about the movie.
> Iron Man being Ultron's creator and being the main reason for everything that happens.
> The love story between Natasha and Bruce....c'mon...really???!!
> Strucker. He appears in the "credits scene" and has no relevance in the all movie?


Two other details i don't like, but this goes about almost all Marvel movies:

> The sheer passion of taking the masks out. The last fight, where Captain America doesn't even wears the mask, is beyond pathetic. I totally accept it when it comes to Hawkeye, but not about Captain America or the lack of Thor's helmet (the man is a viking, for crying out loud)
> Marvel is much more interested in creating the universe then to actually get the characters right. I love the idea of the Marvel universe, but there is a time to say enough is enough. Why can't a Marvel movie be only about the title characters, without putting anyone else there? Why do all characters need to be tied with each other?

 

[Great Mind(s)]

If you read my post you will see it refers to why including a sterilization story would be a theme considered controversial to many and not the practicalities of Widow being an assassin. Is motherhood the only barrier to her killer role? Would falling in love not have a similar effect? Or meeting a new friend who showed her a different path (e.g. Hawkeye which we know actually happened)?

Whedon established a clear link between her being childless and her disregard for human life and women are frequently judged based on their fertility, decisions to have children etc. It's the theme that should not have been included and Whedon had other options for the character.

Ever see Kill Bill? Anyway the point is that they dehumanized her as much as possible. They did try to take away her "feelings" too, she was a cold assassin. She was forced to kill innocent people at a young age. It's not like they took away the ONE thing that kept Natasha
from being a killer, its just one of many things that they did to her and she used it as an example because it was a physical transformation that altered her. When else has Black Widow ever mentioned having children , its not like its her motivation or like the big reveal about her origin.

 

[marvellover]

I saw the movie last week...i give a 7/10.

What i liked:
> The quiet moments
> The dialogue during the fights, even if it, sometimes, takes away the urgency
> The Vision. Not the origin and all that, but the calm in his voice
> Hawkeye and Black Widow. The best characters in all the movie


What i didn't liked:
> Hulk, Thor, Captain America...even Iron Man...they are all extremely badly used.
> Ultron. The worst thing about the movie.
> Iron Man being Ultron's creator and being the main reason for everything that happens.
> The love story between Natasha and Bruce....c'mon...really???!!
> Strucker. He appears in the "credits scene" and has no relevance in the all movie?


Two other details i don't like, but this goes about almost all Marvel movies:

> The sheer passion of taking the masks out. The last fight, where Captain America doesn't even wears the mask, is beyond pathetic. I totally accept it when it comes to Hawkeye, but not about Captain America or the lack of Thor's helmet (the man is a viking, for crying out loud)
> Marvel is much more interested in creating the universe then to actually get the characters right. I love the idea of the Marvel universe, but there is a time to say enough is enough. Why can't a Marvel movie be only about the title characters, without putting anyone else there? Why do all characters need to be tied with each other?

same here

AOU is basically an large advertisement to phase 3 films

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

A lot of the attempts at humor just did not work this go around. Even some of Stark's quips were kind of flat. It also felt long this time around. Even though I'd say AOU was better than the first Avengers, it kind of dragged a bit.

 

[Mad Ones]

This is not a great movie and it isn't as good as the first one. It was entertaining and the new characters in the movie worked the best. I think future hype might actually be a problem for Marvel. I went into this movie with Civil War, Wakanda, and Thanos on my mind, which I think really affected my engagement with Ultron. It's a good enough movie to keep the franchise going but Marvel needs to aim higher than this.

The Great:
- The vision. Awesome design, acting, cape, everything.
- The twins in the last act of the movie.
- Scarlet Witch's final costume (such a tease!)

The Good:
- The jokes about Thor's hammer and the "language" jokes. There were a lot of jokes in this movie but for the most part I didn't mind them.
- Ultron's voice and personality.
- Ultron's plan of lifting the city and dropping it was unique.
- Seeing War Machine in action again.
- The final shot of the new Avengers team. Interesting line-up!

The Bad:
- The twins' motivation was very unclear. The twins hating Stark for his weapons makes sense, but why help Ultron and stir up the Hulk so more innocents accidentally get killed?
- Ultron's motivations. I have no idea why he was doing what he was doing. There were a lot of missed opportunities for "family drama" with Stark.
- Tony seemed unaffected by the events he put into motion. If Iron Man isn't going to have another solo movie why not make his arcs in Avengers more interesting. They could have easily done that here.
- There was too much action. The movie looked like a cartoon or a video game at times.
- Thor was basically comic relief. His dream sequence was the least interesting and he got very little development. If I was a hardcore Thor fan I think I'd be annoyed with this movie.

The Terrible:
- Hawkeye's family.
- Brutasha. This could have been alright, but at best it resorted to old cliches and at worst it was offensive. Neither option should be associated with an Avengers movie.

B-

 

[Vartha]

Saw it again Friday and still loved it lol
Was it ME or did it seem like they seemed to cut Widow's use of the baton's?
I saw her use them during one of the fights ever so briefly

 

[Leenie]

I thought her "you're not the only monster" line was pretty straight-forward and impossible to miss, at least the way I interpreted it. It's not spelled out but it shouldn't have to be. She was sterilized, couldn't have kids, and as she said it made things "easier". And I took that to mean easier to kill and do horrific things without a second thought since she'd never been a mom or had to care for anyone in that way, just get the job done. It took me back to the first Avengers when Loki is chiding her about the things Hawkeye told him about her (Dreykov's daughter, the hospital fire, etc.) and her ledger gushing with red. I imagine children died during those acts. Scarlet Witch's visions brought all of that back into focus for her and reminded her what a monster she was and the reason for it.

This.

I really don't get the controversy. If Scarlet Witch's visions had only shown the sterilization process and nothing else, then I could see an issue. The visions clearly showed her being trained and killing people, though. Of course being a mother would change someone. If you're training someone into being a killing machine, why risk the possibility of pregnancy? That would get in the way.

I also interpreted that the people that Natasha associated herself with were especially bad because they took a lot of women's choice to bear children away from them. I can understand the extra guilt, given her history. It makes sense for her to tell Bruce, of all people, that he isn't the only monster.

Hawkeye and Black Widow were my favorite characters in AoU by a long shot, by the way. My only real issue with the Natasha and Bruce love plotline is that Bruce felt very underdeveloped; not so much in Natasha's case, though. I feel AoU gave us a lot of new information and perspective about Black Widow, and I enjoyed it.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

Does anyone else think that Thor going to the mystical pool should have happened at the end of the movie or even been an after credits scene?

Him leaving the Avengers after everything that happened was a little odd? I understand his curiosity for what he saw, but I felt it wasn't the right time.

 

[Leenie]

Does anyone else think that Thor going to the mystical pool should have happened at the end of the movie or even been an after credits scene?

Him leaving the Avengers after everything that happened was a little odd? I understand his curiosity for what he saw, but I felt it wasn't the right time.

This is why I compare AoU to Iron Man 2, in a way: There's a lot of setup in AoU for future Marvel films, just like in Iron Man 2.

I get that the Thor scene is setup for Ragnarok, but it did feel out of place. Based on the timeline in the movie, though, I don't know how it would work as a post-credits scene. Perhaps Thor should have established that he was going to meet with Selvig at the end of the film when he was talking to Cap and Tony? A post-credits scene would have made a lot more sense in that case.

 

[Mjölnir]

I enjoy the fact that AoU has both gotten criticism for setting up too much, and for not setting up enough, especially for Civil War. Shows how differently people see things.

 

[Leenie]

I enjoy the fact that AoU has both gotten criticism for setting up too much, and for not setting up enough, especially for Civil War. Shows how differently people see things.

I thought that AoU did just fine with setting up for Civil War, considering the new Avengers team is revealed at the end. I thought that was all the setting up they needed to do, honestly.

I don't mind setups for future Marvel films as long as it makes sense within the movie. That's why all of the Thor stuff felt out of place to me. He sees Selvig and goes to the mystical pool right in the middle of the movie, completely separated from the rest of the team while they're at Clint's house. When it comes to AoU's story, the Thor stuff was completely disconnected from it, which is why I thought there was a little too much setup for the future.

I think the mystical pool stuff would have been a lot better if they had set it up for the post-credits instead of setting it up randomly in the middle of the movie. That post-credits scene would have been better than the Thanos one (which was really "meh" to me, because it didn't reveal anything that everybody doesn't already know).

Also, keep in mind that I really liked AoU, but the movie is not without its flaws, and I think it falls quite short of the first film (and even some of Marvel's recent efforts, like their 2014 movies).

 

[OcStat]

His vision alludes to Ragnarok but it also has a lot do with the mission at hand, he learns the mind stone is actually on Earth, he sees the Vision. The Infinity Stones have been in play for a long time, and the Avengers is the place to finally address some questions that have been building up. And Thor is the only character capable of delivering that knowledge, to the rest of the team, and to the audience.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Just seen it a 2nd time, and while I enjoyed it a bit more, it also made the flaws of the movie stand out. As a Hulk fan, I still think he was terribly wasted in this movie and the Hulkbuster fight was a big disservice to the character, especially the ending of it, all to make Iron Man look cool. And as a Hulk fan that REALLY disappoints me.

I loved all of Ultron's character scenes, but to me he still doesnt come across as a threat throughout the movie. TWS gave Cap and Widow A LOT more trouble than Ultron did throughout this movie, and Ultron is supposed to be much more powerful, they got his character right, but forgot to make him a threat to the team.

The action is good throughout, but there were no jaw-dropping moments like in the first movie. I still specifically remember in the first movie when Bruce arrives at the final and is walking toward the Leviathan, I didnt know what was going to happen, and then Hulk manages to stop it dead with one punch, I remember my jaw literally dropping in that scene and I didnt close it for about 30 seconds. Not one time in this movie did I have that, and again thats disappointing.

Hawkeye, SW and Vision were all great though and I enjoyed them more on 2nd viewing. I liked every scene all 3 were in they contribute to the fun factor hugely. I like ATJ as QS as well and liked what he brought to the table in the movie, but his death scene just doesnt feel organic to me and it lacked impact, especially when you have a character making a joke next to the body, the MCU movies really need to cut that stuff out.

All of the character scenes were great, they didnt once make the movie drag and I actually wish we got more of them, the visions were also cool, though I wish Marvel hadnt asked for Hulk's to be cut out. I liked a lot of the humour as well but some of it was misplaced.

And, like with TIH, TDW and IM2, I feel Marvel really shot itself in the foot here with some of their decisions and meddling. The movie was not long enough, simple as (anyone still believe this is on Whedon?). I dont why Marvel cant get in their head that if the likes of Batman and Superman can half movies 2 and a half hours long just in a solo movie it would certainly benefit a movie with about 10 main characters in it. They really need to become more flexible in this aspect of their film-making, especially when this movie had to set up 3/4 others and deal with its own storyline.

Overall this is an enjoyable which had some bad decisions behind it, which makes it very flawed. And for me the marvel formula with their movies is staring to get tired once again. 2014 was two big steps forward for the MCU, I cant help thinking AOU was one step back. My score remains 8/10.

 

[Mjölnir]

I thought that AoU did just fine with setting up for Civil War, considering the new Avengers team is revealed at the end. I thought that was all the setting up they needed to do, honestly.

I don't mind setups for future Marvel films as long as it makes sense within the movie. That's why all of the Thor stuff felt out of place to me. He sees Selvig and goes to the mystical pool right in the middle of the movie, completely separated from the rest of the team while they're at Clint's house. When it comes to AoU's story, the Thor stuff was completely disconnected from it, which is why I thought there was a little too much setup for the future.

I think the mystical pool stuff would have been a lot better if they had set it up for the post-credits instead of setting it up randomly in the middle of the movie. That post-credits scene would have been better than the Thanos one (which was really "meh" to me, because it didn't reveal anything that everybody doesn't already know).

Also, keep in mind that I really liked AoU, but the movie is not without its flaws, and I think it falls quite short of the first film (and even some of Marvel's recent efforts, like their 2014 movies).

I think it works when it comes to placement. It gives diversity and is eventually a significant part of Vision's birth. My issue with it is that they cut it down too much so that while the message of the scene is there, the scene itself doesn't play out that well. I hope we get to see the longer version where Thor is possessed by spirits and Selvig is asking them questions.

 

[Vartha]

I enjoy the fact that AoU has both gotten criticism for setting up too much, and for not setting up enough, especially for Civil War. Shows how differently people see things.

But you KNOW Steve and Tony don't get along THAT well, it showed even in Avengers. Then the discussion at Hawkeye's place shows it even more in depth. HECK even THOR showed aggression toward Tony. HOPEFULLY Tony won't make a Clor/Ragnarok in Civil war who possiblly KILL one of the two known Ant-Man/Giant-Man, tho I can see Hank being killed off seeing as he is OLD and the new Ant-man is being trained.

 

[Consona]

Well, well, well...

I detested the first Avengers.
I revere the Age of Ultron!

Much better story, much deeper characters, much more interesting and sophisticated dialogs, just much better written overall. Ultron > Loki. There are no things I feel I should complain about, and I'm guy who dislikes half of the Marvel films. So big surprise for me. This film really made me happy and I thing Marvel is getting better with every film lately; GotG, simple story, but amusing and peculiar, Winter Soldier with much deeper themes and story than previous films and now Age of Ultron, which is the best Marvel film yet, IMO.

I seriously cannot believe both Avengers film are made by the same guy! They are like night and day. The first one did not work for me, the second was just great, much more psychological and clever and atmospheric, but still funny and with great action. Well done Marvel, congratulations mr. Whedon.

 

[Doctor Jones]

This.

I really don't get the controversy. If Scarlet Witch's visions had only shown the sterilization process and nothing else, then I could see an issue. The visions clearly showed her being trained and killing people, though. Of course being a mother would change someone. If you're training someone into being a killing machine, why risk the possibility of pregnancy? That would get in the way.

I also interpreted that the people that Natasha associated herself with were especially bad because they took a lot of women's choice to bear children away from them. I can understand the extra guilt, given her history. It makes sense for her to tell Bruce, of all people, that he isn't the only monster.

Hawkeye and Black Widow were my favorite characters in AoU by a long shot, by the way. My only real issue with the Natasha and Bruce love plotline is that Bruce felt very underdeveloped; not so much in Natasha's case, though. I feel AoU gave us a lot of new information and perspective about Black Widow, and I enjoyed it.

It was more about the bigger picture of things. She wasn't a monster because she couldn't have children, it was because she was raised by insane assassins who sterilized her against her will. Not hard to put together. The audience should be able to put it together. And that's a pretty distinct thing to write down or else it would have been worded differently. Nor should he have to word differently to think, "I don't want to offend people." as a guide for character. Whedon should be given more credit to a) make that distinction and b) not to write something like that because he would know better. It wasn't sloppy, it was actually well written to the point where that's in the audiences hands to pick up and realize it for themselves. People are too attached to "I was sterilized" as an A and "monster" as the B and put it together in their heads as synonymous as something else.

If people are offended, that's really on them. It's up to the audience in how they see things and it's more or less on the hip reactions to anything remotely demeaning towards women because God forbid you can't explore those parts without getting a reaction like that. The execution wouldn't matter, it still would be controversial. I just like that Whedon writes people as individuals with humanity. He doesn't write "strong female characters" he writes human beings and he has been put on some pedestal along with his women along with how female characters "can" and "should" be portrayed in movies. It's all ass backwards. I'll lose respect for him the day he apologizes for his decisions like this.

 

[Leenie]

It was more about the bigger picture of things. She wasn't a monster because she couldn't have children, it was because she was raised by insane assassins who sterilized her against her will. Not hard to put together. The audience should be able to put it together. And that's a pretty distinct thing to write down or else it would have been worded differently. Nor should he have to word differently to think, "I don't want to offend people." as a guide for character. Whedon should be given more credit to a) make that distinction and b) not to write something like that because he would know better. It wasn't sloppy, it was actually well written to the point where that's in the audiences hands to pick up and realize it for themselves. People are too attached to "I was sterilized" as an A and "monster" as the B and put it together in their heads as synonymous as something else.

If people are offended, that's really on them. It's up to the audience in how they see things and it's more or less on the hip reactions to anything remotely demeaning towards women because God forbid you can't explore those parts without getting a reaction like that. The execution wouldn't matter, it still would be controversial. I just like that Whedon writes people as individuals with humanity. He doesn't write "strong female characters" he writes human beings and he has been put on some pedestal along with his women along with how female characters "can" and "should" be portrayed in movies. It's all ass backwards. I'll lose respect for him the day he apologizes for his decisions like this.

Yup, yup! I agree. I thought the scene was really well-written and well-handled. It came across as very straightforward to me. The only thing I said to my friends when walking out of the theater was "I love Black Widow in this movie. She's awesome. Kind of ironic that Scarlet Johansson filmed lines about not being able to bear children while she was pregnant in real life, though." For about a week, I didn't know a thing about people being offended. Oh well.

People have a right to be offended by whatever, but I think this is a "headline" case. Lots of people on social media, as I have noticed, post things without having read them (because the headline is all that needs to be said, right? ). I think that a lot of the time, people only look for "code words" of some sort and have an almost Pavlovian response to them. I think a lot of people only heard "sterile" and "monster" and just decided to get mad about it when in actuality, the scene isn't at all about how not being a mom makes a woman a monster. Not even close.

I know that Joss Whedon left Twitter, and many people think it's because of the negative reaction towards how he somehow "ruined" Black Widow in AoU. Whedon said he left social media to do away with distractions while he's working on his future projects. I really hope he's telling the truth. Dude has nothing to be sorry about.

 

[Doctor Jones]

It's one thing to be offended. It's another to act all holier than thou and/or psuedo feminist when you take something and turn it against someone or thinking you're standing up for what's right when you're just causing more damage. In this case it's misplaced. It's the same with Mad Max but in an opposite way that's equally frustrating.

Whedon's timing is impeccable. He very well could have. He opened up about it and I believe him. Something like this shouldn't shake the guy because he's probably been attacked by worse. I just always appreciated his candor and bluntness. You don't see that often in the industry. Even if he could have waited to say that stuff about Marvel, it doesn't bother me. I didn't see it as an attack. The man has always been open about his experiences and this happened to be that.

Please don't get me started on social media and its misuse. It doesn't help these matters and it just makes people more stupid.

 

[RedRose]

Saw it again Friday and still loved it lol
Was it ME or did it seem like they seemed to cut Widow's use of the baton's?
I saw her use them during one of the fights ever so briefly

Yeah I didn't notice her batons, or that great scene from the promos where she was walking up with the big guns (but maybe I just missed it?), and I also don't know why she had that blue going all through her costume. I thought she was going to deliver electric shocks to people but I didn't notice them?

 

[Vartha]

Yeah I didn't notice her batons, or that great scene from the promos where she was walking up with the big guns (but maybe I just missed it?), and I also don't know why she had that blue going all through her costume. I thought she was going to deliver electric shocks to people but I didn't notice them?

I THINK the batons were made special for use on Ultron and the sentries, but like I said I saw the handle of one of them ever so briefly while she shoved it into a sentry's face