This film shows what the so called effects blockbusters can be like. Well scripted, acted, directed, at no point boring or confusing, and the funniest film I have seen this year, but in a good way. There are a couple of scenes with the Hulk that will make you laugh out loud. This is what an acton blockbuster should be in every way, even the 3d isn't to bad, although its a bit dark at the start. I can't believe Marvel pulled it off. 9/10

So should I see this in 3d, or 2d?

I saw it in 3D, and didn't even notice. This is a good thing. The 3D was so well-integrated into the film, that you simply enjoyed the movie, and didn't pay attention to the effect. I thought it was perhaps the best example of 3D that I've yet seen, and that include´s Avatar. Avatar's 3D was exceptional, but you always noticed it. Like an exceptional soundtrack, 3D should enhance the experience, not be the main focal point.

That said, I don't think the film would be any less enjoyable in 2D.


I haven't seen Hugo, though, and I've heard that is exceptional.

has james said when he'll post his review(or if he's seen it yet) on twitter?

Nope

I saw it in 2D and would only ever recommend seeing a movie that way, I detest the fad of 3D so I would never give it a recommendation.

Solid movie, nothing brilliant but it is definitely FUN. Sharp dialogue and humour that is actually funny. It probably goes on a bit long and the main antagonists (being otherworldly) are pretty jarring if you haven't seen Thor.

Hulk steals the show near the end but Tom Hiddleston is probably my favourite screen presence in the whole movie. Still finding it funny that Whedon got an old fashioned use of the C-bomb past the MPAA.

It's not a fad if it's done right.

I'll call it useless until the day I die. It pops up every 25yrs or so and disappears, studios and cinemas invested more in it this time so it's sticking around but I don't think I know a single person that seeks out the 3D version. The best use of 3D is Avatar but as most of us figured out the movie works just as well (or not depending on your opinion of the film itself) in 2D at home on Blu Ray.

"Immersive" pfft a good story, script and acting is far more immersive to the mind than visual gimmicks. And any movie that has a post-conversion is nothing but a money grab, I know Joss Whedon actively protested to have Cabin in the Woods 2D and I have to assume with a movie as big as The Avengers the studios had more clout than he did on the matter this time.

Every post-conversion I've seen has been crap. But Avatar benefited from 3D, as did How to Train Your Dragon, The Avengers, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Coraline and even Beowulf. When done right, it enhances the film experience and is not "gimmicky" at all.

Actually Avengers was post-converted I believe

Avengers was post-converted but that wasn't a detriment for me. Unlike something like Avatar where the 3D enhanced the experience, in The Avengers it wasn't really like that. Unlike other post-conversions, it wasn't really a negative. The extravagant fight sequences towards the end were great in 3D and I am assuming they would be great in 2D as well.

They did a great job, then. The Avengers would be just as good in 2D, but the 3D enhanced the experience for me, and was definitely a positive.

I refuse to see any film in 3-D unless A(it was shot that way to begin with, or B(none of my theaters have a 2-D option.

Nice call.

thanks, I think JB is fairy predictable for certain types of movies(in general he gives high scores to most flicks that get raves, but almost always goes high when nerdy fanboy type movies get raves - Dark Knight, Avatar, etc. was pretty surprised by 'only' 3 stars for Star Trek though)

There's something depressingly predictable about reactions to big movies these days, of which Avengers is the worst case yet. JB's 3.5 stars is as much a given as Armond White's brutal condemnation. RT's universal praise is as preordained as the criticism of "Nolanites." Nothing unexpected ever happens anymore, and it gives the impression that nobody is right or wrong...that everyone has a right to their opinion. Any movie can be good and any can be bad. Even though that's clearly not the case, we're so far from the truth of the situation that it seems hardly worth pursuing anymore. I haven't seen Avengers yet...I'm seeing the midnight on a casual basis with friends and hope to enjoy myself; I doubt my appreciation with the film will run much deeper than that, but the sad part is, I don't think it's supposed to.

Why is predictability in reactions and reviews a bad thing? After all, isn't the intention of reviews is to get a general sense of how the majority feels toward a certain movie so it can help us in making a decision whether to see it or not (in my case anyway)? Predictability should be an issue when it concerns with movies themselves, not with the reactions to them. And again, a review/reaction is like just a person tells you how they, and they alone, feel after watching a movie. Why should that figure into how you feel about a movie, or how you think you should feel about a movie?

As many posters know, I have bashed Ebert, and meanly, quite a bit in the past year for a lot of reasons. Today, I must hang my head and concede the utmost degree of respect for his reality-check Avengers review, and particularly for this last paragraph:

It's almost as obnoxious and juvenile as an MGamesCook post.

He agrees with me, now I can hug him.