The Avengers The Avengers Critics Reviews Thread - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yup, same here. I consider myself a fanboy, don't own any costumes and I think the prequels generally suck.

And honestly, fanboys can be some of the harshest critics too. When we turn, we REALLY turn. I hate SM3 with the passion of 1,000 suns for instance. General audience probably has a far more balanced view of the movie's quality, to say the least.
 
http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_template.php?identifier=2463

3.5/4 James Berardinelli

He is one of my favourite critics. This will definitly increase the metacritic score.Love this bit
Ultimately,*"The Avengers"*is all about action. The main storyline is pretty basic. The most impressive thing Whedon does with the screenplay is to provide all the characters sufficient screen time and keep the movie from becoming a runaway special effects extravaganza. The explosive, high octane finale - a massive battle that runs for more than 45 minutes and in which half of New York is leveled - works so much better than anything in*"Transformers"*because we*"care"*about the heroes and because attention is paid to the little details. While Iron Man and Hulk are up in the sky smashing big, ugly flying monsters, Captain America is saving people trapped on a bus.
 
http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_template.php?identifier=2463

3.5/4 James Berardinelli

He is one of my favourite critics. This will definitly increase the metacritic score.Love this bit

Very good review. He makes an interesting point about how regular superhero movies will seem pretty boring compared to Avengers. Watch out Amazing Spider-Man and TDKR. Going to be tough for the individual sequels for each of the Avengers characters to follow up on this movie.
 
I think anyone posting on these forums would qualify as a fanboy. That's my take. Most of us aren't crazy enough to dress up in a costume to watch a movie, but we're all crazy enough to come on here and talk about these movies and characters in a way that 99% of the general audience would never even consider.

Exactly -- and that underscores my point that it (and "fangirl") are terms with a lot of elasticity, depending on the user. I kind of mean it that way, too -- if I am so much a fan of something that I get on messageboards to talk about it, yeah, I'm fangirling it. I like a whole lot of stuff that I don't go that extra distance for.

TomPiltoff means one thing by it -- but I'm not sure we can just assume that that's the way reviewers are using the term. I'm not saying that his definition isn't one of the likely definitions.

But, it seems pretty likely that there are reviewers who say "fanboy" and mean "any adult who reads comics and likes movies like this", which is a whole lot broader than "the guy who'll camp out in line and wear a Darth Vader costume to the movie".
 
And honestly, fanboys can be some of the harshest critics too. When we turn, we REALLY turn. I hate SM3 with the passion of 1,000 suns for instance. General audience probably has a far more balanced view of the movie's quality, to say the least.

You have 2 types of fanboys. You have the Purist and then you have the obsessive. The purist care more about the quality and content of the adaptation of there favorite comic book property and are more likely to be hyper critical. The Obsessive will love anything having to do with there favorite comic book property no mater how low the quality.

Example:

I'm a DBZ fan yet i hate all the Aritri Dragon Ball Z: Budokai games with a passion. When X-play did those hit job reviews on Budokai I was happy. Other DBZ fans where extremely upset that X-play gave Dragon Ball Z: Budokai such a low score. Even though the earlier Budokai games were complete crap. There are still fans defending Budokai 1 and 2.
 
Last edited:
And honestly, fanboys can be some of the harshest critics too. When we turn, we REALLY turn. I hate SM3 with the passion of 1,000 suns for instance. General audience probably has a far more balanced view of the movie's quality, to say the least.

I somewhat enjoyed SM3 at the time, although I knew right away it was the weakest entry in the franchise. Looking back now, I have an even lower opinion of that movie, seeing all the other films that have come out since. I remember seeing IM1 the next year thinking how much that film blew SM3 out of the water.

SM3 isn't a bad film, it's just completely disappointing on every level imaginable to what it could have been. I even hate how there was no final swing like SM1 and 2. I haven't watched SM3 since it came out on Blu-Ray, and I can't bring myself to watch it now. I remember when I bought it on Blu-Ray, I didn't watch it for several months after.
 
And honestly, fanboys can be some of the harshest critics too. When we turn, we REALLY turn. I hate SM3 with the passion of 1,000 suns for instance. General audience probably has a far more balanced view of the movie's quality, to say the least.

Or they hated it but they let it go the next day.
 
Oh, no man. How did you do?

Got a C on the exam and in the class because the final was our only grade for the semester. I'm not sure how much help an extra few hours of studying would have meant, but you never know. The possibility of it certainly bothered me at the time simply because the movie was such a letdown. If it had turned out great, I probably would have not minded the grade.
 
Got a C on the exam and in the class because the final was our only grade for the semester. I'm not sure how much help an extra few hours of studying would have meant, but you never know. The possibility of it certainly bothered me at the time simply because the movie was such a letdown. If it had turned out great, I probably would have not minded the grade.

I can see you in the middle of the exam and that dancing Peter stuck in your head. :hehe:
 
AV Club gave it an A-.

An excerpt:


Since making an Avengers movie requires lining up so many moving pieces in an orderly row, it’s something of an accomplishment that The Avengers even exists. But beyond that logistical nightmare is the double agenda the film has to serve, advancing the stories of the individual characters as begun in previous films while telling a coherent, self-contained story. Factor in another wave of Marvel movies and an inevitable sequel, and that agenda gets even more complicated. All of which raises the question: Is there room for any movie within this Avengers movie?

Decidedly, yes. Written and directed by Buffy The Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon, The Avengers is big but graceful, carefully balancing small character moments with action scenes that stretch from the New York pavement to the sky and beyond. The film finds drama in the reluctant cooperation of teammates yoked together by the threat of a common enemy, as well as in the terrifying shadows cast by giant space monsters as they descend from the heavens. Tasked with meeting the many requirements necessary for any Avengers movie to work, Whedon checks off all the boxes, then sets about creating new expectations for what a big superhero movie ought to be.

In other words, The Avengers delivers and then some. Even the weakest of Marvel Studios’ films have felt like competent, well-polished pieces of product. The Avengers is that, yes, but also a heartfelt, exciting, and thematically resonant piece of big-screen mythmaking likely to please superhero geeks and general audiences alike. Though, just as Star Wars helped bring the dreams of science-fiction fans into the world at large in the ’70s, in the years since X-Men, the distinction between fans and general audiences has gotten thinner and thinner. Maybe that’s what happens in a golden age.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-avengers,73396/
 
peter-parker-dance.gif


Final Exam baby! Woo-Woo!
 
AV Club gave it an A-.

An excerpt:

Since making an Avengers movie requires lining up so many moving pieces in an orderly row, it’s something of an accomplishment that The Avengers even exists. But beyond that logistical nightmare is the double agenda the film has to serve, advancing the stories of the individual characters as begun in previous films while telling a coherent, self-contained story. Factor in another wave of Marvel movies and an inevitable sequel, and that agenda gets even more complicated. All of which raises the question: Is there room for any movie within this Avengers movie?

Decidedly, yes. Written and directed by Buffy The Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon, The Avengers is big but graceful, carefully balancing small character moments with action scenes that stretch from the New York pavement to the sky and beyond. The film finds drama in the reluctant cooperation of teammates yoked together by the threat of a common enemy, as well as in the terrifying shadows cast by giant space monsters as they descend from the heavens. Tasked with meeting the many requirements necessary for any Avengers movie to work, Whedon checks off all the boxes, then sets about creating new expectations for what a big superhero movie ought to be.

In other words, The Avengers delivers and then some. Even the weakest of Marvel Studios’ films have felt like competent, well-polished pieces of product. The Avengers is that, yes, but also a heartfelt, exciting, and thematically resonant piece of big-screen mythmaking likely to please superhero geeks and general audiences alike. Though, just as Star Wars helped bring the dreams of science-fiction fans into the world at large in the ’70s, in the years since X-Men, the distinction between fans and general audiences has gotten thinner and thinner. Maybe that’s what happens in a golden age.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-avengers,73396/

Are we still in the Golden age of Comic Book Cinema? I though we were in the Silver age. The golden age was the 1970s-1990s. The Silver age post 2000.
 
AV Club always came across as tough to please. Thats a great score from them.
 
They used to sing the same "its always the same" song for westerns too... even after Stagecoach bit theire asses.

And yes, fanboys are treated as ******ed imbeciles in some reviews, or at least as a kind of inferior mongrel to the savy critic.

And no... thats not nice at all.

Being fair tough, they do the same with people who love Transformers and what they see as horrible cinema.
 
But that is what they are doing. They are sending people who they know will tend toward the negative in most of these cases rather then be open to going either way.

Just look at what RT has chosen to highlight:

All translate into 'I don't like this kind of movie anyway'.
Those reviews are useful really. If that type of critic likes it....chances are I'll find it too pretentious, boring, and self-important. So it's a good thing they dislike it. That means it's more likely to be a good/great comic book movie.

I'm sure they want every comic book movie to "transcend the genre" (i.e. avoid it). So at least I know it is a comic book movie.

So thank god those types dislike it.
 
I like how complaining about negative reviews is despicable fanboy behavior, but complaining about what reviews people complain about is somehow a worthy topic for discussion
 
Not despicable, but definitely tedious. The discussion about the discussion is doubly so. Put its a public board so wadaya gonna do?
 
The first paragraph of that review may not really sound a whole lot like Ebert, but the rest of it sorta does, imo. I think that may be him. A "B+" should be, what, about 3/4 stars?

EDIT: I take it back, re-reading that first paragraph, it definitely sounds like him.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"