The Avengers The Avengers Critics Reviews Thread - Part 2

[Carnage27]

I've been wondering -- does RT select the pull-quotes, or does the reviewer indicate what should be used for the quote the same way they indicate whether it should be positive or negative?

The reviewer picks the quote.

 

[Suzanne78]

Agreed. The lack of self-awareness when it comes to these things can be really off-putting.

I don't think that's fair. Most of us read the reviews and we discern which ones are, for lack of a better term, quality. That goes for both positive and negative reviews. I don't take Harry Knowles' raves seriously because his writing gives me a headache. I can't take some guy like Jeff Wells seriously because he docks points from The Avengers for RDJ's political leanings, something that has absolutely nothing to do with the movie in front of him.

To make a blanket statement that we lack self-awareness frankly insults me.

 

[sgaana]

It's not necessarily having just superhero fans review superhero films, but at the very least, making sure a critic leaves their personal baggage with the genre - and in the case of that Jeff Wells character, the actors - at home and review the film on its merits, the film that is onscreen, right in front of them. In some of these reviews, it felt like the critic is commenting on the culture and critiquing what they assume is the idiocy of the fans of the genre, or the franchise in total, rather than critiqung the movie itself.

In that respect, TA is getting the short end from some of these critics.

This.

The point isn't to have superhero-movie FANS only reviewing the movie. The point is to have someone who can make a fair assessment of the movie.

"I hate all movies of this type" isn't a fair assessment, and "all movies of this type are equally bad" isn't a good analysis.

It's more useful for a critic to be able to sit down with a genre and say, "for this genre, this movie is..."

I expect it of critics of horror movies. I expect it of critics of westerns. I expect it of critics of romantic comedies. If I'm reading the review, the chances are really good that I already know whether I generally like that genre and am even considering going to see the movie based on that broad knowledge. What I want to know from a critical review *IS* how a movie stacks up against others in its genre, and perhaps whether it does things that are surprising for its genre.

I cannot actually believe that there is almost anyone in the audience who reads reviews of movies thinking, "gosh, I just don't know whether I'd like a romantic comedy movie -- please tell me whether the romantic comedy genre is worth my time, Mr. Critic!" People know what they generally like or dislike.

A really intelligent review could make someone who thinks they don't like the genre check out the movie anyway. (I hate horror movies, but I've been at least tempted by The Cabin in the Woods thanks to reviews, which I read because I was just curious.)

But I'm really tired of reviewers who feel they have to be Crusaders of Taste. "I don't like this type of movie AND NOBODY ELSE SHOULD EITHER". Blah blah don't tell me what I should or shouldn't like. It's my $15 and my 2 hours of escapism.

Also, what the heck is wrong with being a fanboy or fangirl? We're all hardcore fans of somethiing or we wouldn't take time out and post on messageboards like these, with Avengers quotes ot Batman links in our sigs and superheroes in our avis. I'm never insulted to be called a fan of something I love.

Pfft, well, you notice that "fangirls" are completely invisible in these reviews. Apparently the only people who could possibly be lifelong comics fans or be exciting for this movie are boys.

I suppose we should be grateful. At some point critics will discover the existence of fangirls and then we can look forward to loads of condescending bull****, too.

 

[Suzanne78]

How about criticizing some of the good reviews that engage in hyperbole or is that type of criticism off limits because this is a fanboy product?

I haven't yet seen the movie, but I'll immediately dock Harry Knowles review because of this very thing. It's nothing but meaningless hyperbole.

 

[yads]

I quite like Harry's enthusiasm personally - but it's impossible to deny the hyperbole accusation. When everything's AMAZINGLY FANTASTIC, nothing is.

 

[mc7791]

This.

The point isn't to have superhero-movie FANS only reviewing the movie. The point is to have someone who can make a fair assessment of the movie.

"I hate all movies of this type" isn't a fair assessment, and "all movies of this type are equally bad" isn't a good analysis.

It's more useful for a critic to be able to sit down with a genre and say, "for this genre, this movie is..."

I expect it of critics of horror movies. I expect it of critics of westerns. I expect it of critics of romantic comedies. If I'm reading the review, the chances are really good that I already know whether I generally like that genre and am even considering going to see the movie based on that broad knowledge. What I want to know from a critical review *IS* how a movie stacks up against others in its genre, and perhaps whether it does things that are surprising for its genre.

I cannot actually believe that there is almost anyone in the audience who reads reviews of movies thinking, "gosh, I just don't know whether I'd like a romantic comedy movie -- please tell me whether the romantic comedy genre is worth my time, Mr. Critic!" People know what they generally like or dislike.

A really intelligent review could make someone who thinks they don't like the genre check out the movie anyway. (I hate horror movies, but I've been at least tempted by The Cabin in the Woods thanks to reviews, which I read because I was just curious.)

But I'm really tired of reviewers who feel they have to be Crusaders of Taste. "I don't like this type of movie AND NOBODY ELSE SHOULD EITHER". Blah blah don't tell me what I should or shouldn't like. It's my $15 and my 2 hours of escapism.




Pfft, well, you notice that "fangirls" are completely invisible in these reviews. Apparently the only people who could possibly be lifelong comics fans or be exciting for this movie are boys.

I suppose we should be grateful. At some point critics will discover the existence of fangirls and then we can look forward to loads of condescending bull****, too.

I dont see why fangirls are invisible in these reviews. I am a fanboy of the Avengers and have been a fan since I was a kid. Since I am a guy is that a bad thing?

 

[Steyin]

As far as I'm concerned, only 3 of those "rotten" reviews really count. In reality though, none of the reviews matter, judge everything for yourself.

 

[Tony Stark]

This is my problem with the fanboy base, when they like a movie and the critics don't the critics are evil when the hate a movie and the critics don't the critics are evil. The critics can never win with fanboys because their complaints about the reviews are almost solely dependent upon their feelings about the film or anticipation level.

How about criticizing some of the good reviews that engage in hyperbole or is that type of criticism off limits because this is a fanboy product?

I guess the complaints are human nature, nobody wants some one to rain on their parade if they love or think that they will love something.

most of the reviews are positive so the negative ones stick out. That is all.

 

[sgaana]

I dont see why fangirls are invisible in these reviews. I am a fanboy of the Avengers and have been a fan since I was a kid. Since I am a guy is that a bad thing?

Tsk, no.

I'm mostly joking about the fact that many of the reviews specifically mention "fanboys" -- either in a good way ("this is the movie of fanboys' dreams!") or a bad way (i.e. "Sorry fanboys, hated this one too").

I haven't seen a single review mention that there are a lot of women excited for the film TOO, or that it's not only fanBOYS who may have been reading comics since they were kids and dreaming of a movie like this their entire lives.

Women: everybody had better hope they're half the audience for The Avengers, or this movie wouldn't be on track for cracking the billion dollar ceiling.

And then I'm saying, well, at least our invisibility means we don't have to put up with reviewers being condescending ***holes to us in the reviews, like you guys. Sometimes it's better not to be mentioned, I guess.

 

[Quasimod0]

Without spoiling anything, can anyone tell me if there actually is an after credits scene for the us?

 

[04nbod]

I just skimmed his review, and didn't see that, but even so, if it is true, would you rather he lied?

Ebert is one of those 'Oscar-Bait' reviewers who like 'important' movies to make their job seem meaningful. He's the last reviewer I'd take notice of regarding summer spectacle movies although knowing he gives one a thumbs up would probably comfort me that I was getting something with a little more depth but when it comes to something like The Avengers, Empire Magazine is the review I would go with personally.

I've been wondering -- does RT select the pull-quotes, or does the reviewer indicate what should be used for the quote the same way they indicate whether it should be positive or negative?

At any rate -- one advantage of those particular pull-quotes is that it puts it right out there in the blurb for you that these ARE critics who are biased against the genre as a whole. So a moviegoer, and person who likes this type of movie, and who is using RT to get a sense of the film and who is only skimming the quotes rather than reading the reviews CAN just quickly dismiss those negatives as probably not having substance that concerns them.

Reviewers have control of how they come across on RT. I don't see how those 3 reviews help anyone. Say you are not a fan of this type of movie, you wouldn't be interested in it anyway and its less likely you would be reading a review to hinge on whether you will go and see it.

Say you start your review with 'I've been waiting for this for years' you are obviously setting out your bias but as least your review would represent someone likely to want to see it in the first place.

 

[mc7791]

Tsk, no.

I'm mostly joking about the fact that many of the reviews specifically mention "fanboys" -- either in a good way ("this is the movie of fanboys' dreams!") or a bad way (i.e. "Sorry fanboys, hated this one too").

I haven't seen a single review mention that there are a lot of women excited for the film TOO, or that it's not only fanBOYS who may have been reading comics since they were kids and dreaming of a movie like this their entire lives.

Women: everybody had better hope they're half the audience for The Avengers, or this movie wouldn't be on track for cracking the billion dollar ceiling.

And then I'm saying, well, at least our invisibility means we don't have to put up with reviewers being condescending ***holes to us in the reviews, like you guys. Sometimes it's better not to be mentioned, I guess.

I am not a person that would condescend to anyone. I would never be misogynistic in a review and am not that way personally either

 

[Xeno]

Tsk, no.

I'm mostly joking about the fact that many of the reviews specifically mention "fanboys" -- either in a good way ("this is the movie of fanboys' dreams!") or a bad way (i.e. "Sorry fanboys, hated this one too").

I haven't seen a single review mention that there are a lot of women excited for the film TOO, or that it's not only fanBOYS who may have been reading comics since they were kids and dreaming of a movie like this their entire lives.

Women: everybody had better hope they're half the audience for The Avengers, or this movie wouldn't be on track for cracking the billion dollar ceiling.

And then I'm saying, well, at least our invisibility means we don't have to put up with reviewers being condescending ***holes to us in the reviews, like you guys. Sometimes it's better not to be mentioned, I guess.

Plenty of women are excited about The Avengers. Certainly Tumblr, Fangirl Central, is geeking out about the movie now and has been since last summer. Some of us have our own loose fan collectives that muse over various characters and endlessly reblog gifs and memes.


Fangirls are invisible to critics because they dismiss fans as a group, IMO. They don't give enough of a damn about us, beyond thinking up new ways to diss all of us in their reviews, to realize that there are female fans. Most probably still see fans as the stereotypical nerdy male targets of bullying (and a few, like Andrew O'Hehir, want to turn back the clock to the days when making fun of comics fans was the "cool" thing to do).

 

[Xeno]

Without spoiling anything, can anyone tell me if there actually is an after credits scene for the us?

Yes.

 

[Quasimod0]

Yes.

lol, i read the description and saw the photo. t:

 

[sgaana]

Reviewers have control of how they come across on RT. I don't see how those 3 reviews help anyone. Say you are not a fan of this type of movie, you wouldn't be interested in it anyway and its less likely you would be reading a review to hinge on whether you will go and see it.

Say you start your review with 'I've been waiting for this for years' you are obviously setting out your bias but as least your review would represent someone likely to want to see it in the first place.

Right. At least those pull-quotes let me know I don't even need to go read those reviews, because they aren't going to be relevant to me at all.

As for who they're helpful for? Got me. I suppose they're "helpful" for people who are looking to have their biases confirmed -- "oh god not another superhero movie, thank you Mr. Critic for validating my contrarian viewpoint".

Contrarians need reassurance too.

 

[TomPiltoff]

To make a blanket statement that we lack self-awareness frankly insults me.

Well I didn't make any blanket statements so calm down.

I don't think that's fair. Most of us read the reviews and we discern which ones are, for lack of a better term, quality. That goes for both positive and negative reviews. I don't take Harry Knowles' raves seriously because his writing gives me a headache.

Definitely, and I also cannot stand Harry Knowles. But you know the type of person I'm talking about, and they are definitely around in large numbers.

I'm mostly joking about the fact that many of the reviews specifically mention "fanboys" -- either in a good way ("this is the movie of fanboys' dreams!") or a bad way (i.e. "Sorry fanboys, hated this one too").

I haven't seen a single review mention that there are a lot of women excited for the film TOO, or that it's not only fanBOYS who may have been reading comics since they were kids and dreaming of a movie like this their entire lives.

So what, are you seriously advocating that we all start using the term 'fan-people'?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

most of the reviews are positive so the negative ones stick out. That is all.

It's not that, people on this messageboard always do this complaining about bad reviews. I have a feeling that I'm not going to dislike the film but I won't dismiss people who do.

People don't like the same things.

 

[Drummerdude7]

Eh, depends on the review really. A "bad" review that is unbiased and fair is not a problem, at least for me. But there have been a few reviews written by unabashed trolls, and of course people are going to jump on those.

 

[sgaana]

So what, are you seriously advocating that we all start using the term 'fan-people'?

No, that would be stupid. Just as stupid as the over-reliance of reviewers on talking about "fanboys" -- which is my point. It's a stereotype, it's condescending (almost always, the way it is used), and its not an accurate view of the audience. In case you missed it, this exchange started out criticizing the perjorative use of "fanboy" in some reviews.

Like Suzanne78, I'm perfectly happy to describe myself as a fangirl. And I know guys who are happy to describe themselves as fanboys, even though other people have different and narrower definitions of the term, and often more perjorative definitions.

It might be nice sometimes to see a reviewer note that there are fangirls just as excited for this film as fanboys are. (But, I was saying sarcastically, I don't miss reviewers not sneering at fangirls the way they sneer at fanboys.)

It'd be even nicer to have reviewers just talk about the audience -- even the people who are already fans of the genre -- as if they were, you know, people.

 

[Tony Stark]

It's not that, people on this messageboard always do this complaining about bad reviews. I have a feeling that I'm not going to dislike the film but I won't dismiss people who do.

People don't like the same things.

They don't but some of the reviews are negative just to be click bait, and others are negative like the Salon.com review, just to trash the whole genre. There are some negative reviews like the Miami Herald one, that is negative, but well written and well thought out.

 

[Musty002]

http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_template.php?identifier=2463

3.5/4 James Berardinelli

 

[TomPiltoff]

No, that would be stupid. Just as stupid as the over-reliance of reviewers on talking about "fanboys" -- which is my point. It's a stereotype, it's condescending (almost always, the way it is used), and its not an accurate view of the audience.

Look, anybody who tries to fit an entire group of people under one umbrella is making a mistake. But I think the term fanboy is pretty specific.

When I think of a fanboy, I think of the guy who is going to be in line at the theater 6 hours in advance dressed like Darth Vader and who will maintain that the prequels are genius film making no matter what. Every large geek franchise has this, including Marvel.

When I see somebody attack 'fanboys' I think they're referring to that hardcore base, not just any average joe who thinks the movie looks good.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Look, anybody who tries to fit an entire group of people under one umbrella is making a mistake. But I think the term fanboy is pretty specific.

When I think of a fanboy, I think of the guy who is going to be in line at the theater 6 hours in advance dressed like Darth Vader and who will maintain that the prequels are genius film making no matter what. Every large geek franchise has this, including Marvel.

When I see somebody attack 'fanboys' I think they're referring to that hardcore base, not just any average joe who thinks the movie looks good.

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.

 

[marcvader]

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.

Yup, same here. I consider myself a fanboy, don't own any costumes and I think the prequels generally suck.