The Avengers The Avengers Critics Reviews Thread - Part 2

[Whiskey Tango]

Yeah, because everything is a message for fanboys.

When a reviewer directly calls the fans out you bet your ass it is.

 

[flickchick85]

Sometimes the average joe is a better and more honest judge of a film than some elitist snob who is dependent and obligated to powerful media outlets.

and many times people from blogs are more passionate and expressive about certain films than the pros who resent having to sit through fanboy genres.

The average joes speak through the box office. That's all I need to know what they think. If I want more, I can use the user reviews on Fandango, MovieTickets, Yahoo, etc. I find that most critics are NOT elitist snobs, they're just people who have seen more movies than most of us out of necessity, so they tend to have a more discerning taste. When I actively go looking for reviews, those are the kinds of opinions I'm looking for. And they seem to like The Avengers just fine. Elitist snobs wouldn't. I have no interest in average joes who have decided they are critics because they started a blog. There ARE bloggers who have earned their stripes that do get counted on Metacritic, so I'm not biased against bloggers or anything, I just want a filter.

I know this sounds snobbish, but I have a great deal of respect for the field of film criticism (I strongly considered going into it at one point but decided I wasn't a good enough writer to go into journalism), and I feel that the line between professionals who are educated and experienced in that field and fanboys who start a website should not disappear.

 

[warcam]

I just watched Iron Man 2 again.

I think is very under rated. Just as much fun as the first one and the action towards the end is very cool.

Black Widow and War Machine both kick arse t:

Just about to do the same thing. Part of my countdown to Friday t:.
Tomorrow night....Thor.

 

[ElMariachi]

I just watched Iron Man 2 again.

I think is very under rated. Just as much fun as the first one and the action towards the end is very cool.

Black Widow and War Machine both kick arse t:

Yeah, it's very underrated. Not a great story but I thought it was hilarious and well acted. The movie itself looks great. Haven't seen many movies that look as good in HD as IM2.

 

[El Payaso]

Well, Salon.com is certainly giving this movie a rotten review. The critic there just killed Avengers. Just a total chode looking to rile fanboys.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/02/the_avengers_will_superhero_movies_never_end/singleton/

Heh, okay. Superhero movies are not this guy's thing.

But he at least acknowledged the goodies I have: Loki in Germany and Ruffalo as Banner. Those were gold.

 

[bonzob2000]

Slant review is up: http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/the-avengers/6259

It's another of those mixed reviews, in this case it leans positive enough for a fresh rating. I enjoyed it for two reasons:

1) Slant makes the Village Voice look like the MTV Movie Awards when it comes to snobbery against genre/blockbuster fare. Any positive review from them is a win.

and

2) It's probably the only review I've read that really GETS Whedon and his strengths, not just as a writer, but as a director. I like that even in a mixed review he says stuff that would get him run out of town in certain Whedon-hating circles -- like Joss being a better director than Kenneth Branagh, Joe Johnston, John Favreau, and Michael Bay.

 

[bonzob2000]

I don't get all the reviews that just seem annoyed that superhero movies even exist, like the Salon one. I think he does have a point that you can explore the mythology in more interesting ways in a long running comic series than you can in a 2-3 hour mega-blockbuster, but he totally negates that point with his whiny, "can't we go back to picking on comic book nerds" tone.

Everyone who bemoans the culture that embraces these films seems to imply that before comic book movies came along summer blockbusters were all high art, when in fact, they were just as lowest common denominator, they just had different subject matter. And just as back then, an occasional great one (Jaws, Raiders, Star Wars), can and does sneak through. There's no need to think Dark Knight, X2, Iron Man, or Avengers unworthy of acclaim just because they deal with "men in tights."

 

[Pond]

Slant review is up: http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/the-avengers/6259

Kenneth Branagh.

Brannagh used to be GREAT. He did some stuff in the 90 that were glorious. But i dont know what happened, after LOves Labor LOst he kinda lost it...

 

[flickchick85]

Slant review is up: http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/the-avengers/6259

It's another of those mixed reviews, in this case it leans positive enough for a fresh rating. I enjoyed it for two reasons:

1) Slant makes the Village Voice look like the MTV Movie Awards when it comes to snobbery against genre/blockbuster fare. Any positive review from them is a win.

and

2) It's probably the only review I've read that really GETS Whedon and his strengths, not just as a writer, but as a director. I like that even in a mixed review he says stuff that would get him run out of town in certain Whedon-hating circles -- like Joss being a better director than Kenneth Branagh, Joe Johnston, John Favreau, and Michael Bay.

Now that is a well-written and insightful negative review.

 

[Figs]

The average joes speak through the box office. That's all I need to know what they think. If I want more, I can use the user reviews on Fandango, MovieTickets, Yahoo, etc. I find that most critics are NOT elitist snobs, they're just people who have seen more movies than most of us out of necessity, so they tend to have a more discerning taste. When I actively go looking for reviews, those are the kinds of opinions I'm looking for. And they seem to like The Avengers just fine. Elitist snobs wouldn't. I have no interest in average joes who have decided they are critics because they started a blog. There ARE bloggers who have earned their stripes that do get counted on Metacritic, so I'm not biased against bloggers or anything, I just want a filter.

I know this sounds snobbish, but I have a great deal of respect for the field of film criticism (I strongly considered going into it at one point but decided I wasn't a good enough writer to go into journalism), and I feel that the line between professionals who are educated and experienced in that field and fanboys who start a website should not disappear.

I agree with this big time! I'll choose an actual professional critic any day of the week if I'm interested in reading reviews. Not some fanboy who happened to get fanboy celebrity status because he may have started a website in the early 2000s and it got big. I won't name names, but one such person who did this and actually gets to do interviews at Comic-con writes some of the most childish and exaggerated reviews I've ever read, to the point where I can't take him seriously.

 

[Pond]

I don't get all the reviews that just seem annoyed that superhero movies even exist, like the Salon one. I think he does have a point that you can explore the mythology in more interesting ways in a long running comic series than you can in a 2-3 hour mega-blockbuster, but he totally negates that point with his whiny, "can't we go back to picking on comic book nerds" tone.

Everyone who bemoans the culture that embraces these films seems to imply that before comic book movies came along summer blockbusters were all high art, when in fact, they were just as lowest common denominator, they just had different subject matter. And just as back then, an occasional great one (Jaws, Raiders, Star Wars), can and does sneak through. There's no need to think Dark Knight, X2, Iron Man, or Avengers unworthy of acclaim just because they deal with "men in tights."

North By NOrthwest is neither deep nor meaningfull, and its one of the greatest movies ever made.

But you know, many critics HATED Star Wars... And yes, some said that Jaws had an interesting plot but no characters of worth.

 

[bonzob2000]

Now that is a well-written and insightful negative review.

Agreed, except it's (technically) slightly positive. But yeah, I wish more of the negative reviews had that level of insight and respect.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

Well, Salon.com is certainly giving this movie a rotten review. The critic there just killed Avengers. Just a total chode looking to rile fanboys.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/02/the_avengers_will_superhero_movies_never_end/singleton/

I don't know. His review is all over the place lol. It sounds like he's just tired of comic book movies and the hype that surrounds them. For all of his criticisms this paragraph below struck me that his review can go either way...especially the sentence in bold. I think he just wants it all to be over. From the sound of it maybe he foolishly thought The Avengers was the big finale that would end these Marvel comic book movies for awhile and then the sight of Thanos in the credits set him off

There’s no point getting exercised about public taste: Millions of people out there are eager for the visceral vacation from everyday life that “The Avengers” will provide, and given the difficult task of packing all these superheroes into one story, Whedon succeeds pretty well. (I’d rank “Avengers” above “Iron Man 2″ but below the first “Iron Man,” roughly on the same level as “Thor.&#8221 My problem is less with the movie or its audience or Joss Whedon — although I honestly don’t think being an A-list Hollywood director serves his talents appropriately — than with the penumbra of bratty, entitled coolness that surrounds the whole project. It’s a neat little postmodern trick, actually, to simultaneously position this movie as the most central pop-culture event of 2012 and insist on some kind of edgy, outsider status that renders any and all detractors as pipe-smoking William F. Buckley squares, defending a nonexistent Establishment.

 

[Vulklin]

I don't care what anyone says, the bumblebee scene from Transformers 3 was excellent. It was emotional and very well done. Just as good as anything in Avengers.

The rest of the action was crap though

 

[TheVileOne]

So basically he thinks that Whedon should not be an A-List director on big budget projects and stay as a TV producer/show-runner.

 

[flickchick85]

Agreed, except it's (technically) slightly positive.

True, I should've said "mixed."

 

[PokeJ]

I don't care what anyone says, the bumblebee scene from Transformers 3 was excellent. It was emotional and very well done. Just as good as anything in Avengers.

The rest of the action was crap though

Did you like Freeway scene in TF3?

 

[flickchick85]

I agree with this big time! I'll choose an actual professional critic any day of the week if I'm interested in reading reviews. Not some fanboy who happened to get fanboy celebrity status because he may have started a website in the early 2000s and it got big. I won't name names, but one such person who did this and actually gets to do interviews at Comic-con writes some of the most childish and exaggerated reviews I've ever read, to the point where I can't take him seriously.

Gee, I wonder who you could be talking about. And I agree.

 

[bonzob2000]

North By NOrthwest is neither deep nor meaningfull, and its one of the greatest movies ever made.

But you know, many critics HATED Star Wars... And yes, some said that Jaws had an interesting plot but no characters of worth.

The Star Wars thing is kind of myth. Early screenings were disastrous, but by the time of release it was a sensation among audiences and critics both (there were a few detractors, it's true -- Pauline Kael amongst them).

But yeah, every film has its critics. What's funny is I'm sure Jaws was criticized for having thin characters, but watching it today, it spends more time on character stuff than most award winning dramas do, let along summer blockbusters.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

Slant review is up: http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/the-avengers/6259

It's another of those mixed reviews, in this case it leans positive enough for a fresh rating. I enjoyed it for two reasons:

1) Slant makes the Village Voice look like the MTV Movie Awards when it comes to snobbery against genre/blockbuster fare. Any positive review from them is a win.

and

2) It's probably the only review I've read that really GETS Whedon and his strengths, not just as a writer, but as a director. I like that even in a mixed review he says stuff that would get him run out of town in certain Whedon-hating circles -- like Joss being a better director than Kenneth Branagh, Joe Johnston, John Favreau, and Michael Bay.

I believe that review has already been counted as fresh on RT.

 

[bonzob2000]

I don't care what anyone says, the bumblebee scene from Transformers 3 was excellent. It was emotional and very well done. Just as good as anything in Avengers.

 

[bonzob2000]

I believe that review has already been counted as fresh on RT.

Yeah, I said it was fresh in the comment you quoted. But it's definitely very borderline. He says it's well-made but doesn't quite achieve greatness.

 

[Pond]

The Star Wars thing is kind of myth. Early screenings were disastrous, but by the time of release it was a sensation among audiences and critics both (there were a few detractors, it's true -- Pauline Kael amongst them).

But yeah, every film has its critics. What's funny is I'm sure Jaws was criticized for having thin characters, but watching it today, it spends more time on character stuff than most award winning dramas do, let along summer blockbusters.

I was there. I remember the bad ones. I was for Jaws too. Bit of an old fella... Its true it got MOSTLY good reviews, but the bad ones werent few... And they were vicious. Mixed were also common.

And Jaws is a magnificent character piece, really. How you can watch these three charachters on taht boat and say they have no personality goes beyond me...

 

[bonzob2000]

Brannagh used to be GREAT. He did some stuff in the 90 that were glorious. But i dont know what happened, after LOves Labor LOst he kinda lost it...

Agreed... he has great ambition as a director, but he's not subtle at all. In his earlier films he was working with great material so it worked, but when he was applying his over the top, hyperbolic style to crap like Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or Sleuth, it became embarrassing.

Still, while I was mixed on Thor, I think he was a solid choice overall and put most of that film's faults on its script. Those ultra slo-motion shots of Thor in the rain are pure Branagh and perfect for the material.

But yeah, Whedon is better .

 

[Iceman]

Sometimes the average joe is a better and more honest judge of a film than some elitist snob who is dependent and obligated to powerful media outlets.

and many times people from blogs are more passionate and expressive about certain films than the pros who resent having to sit through fanboy genres.

I want to read professional reviews from experienced critics who are unbiased and far superior in their film knowledge and writing/analytical skills than the guys here for eg. Thankfully the majority of the guys on RT fit this criteria but there are enough that don't unfortunately. A random blogger's view even when insightful has no more value than the next blogger or a good forum poster. A lot of people here can write very well and have posted reviews that are better than some of the dodgy reviews that manage to get listed.