Ruffalo is excellent

Okay I guess you don't need to see CA... but it sure as hell makes the 'threat' of the cube all the more obvious once you've seen what can be done with it.

I've heard moar hating against CA outside of this forum and I really need to have a little rant about it. The movie is excellent, I don't get what people are so disappointed with. Rogers is just a fantastic character (I never read CA comics btw). His patriotism isn't based on hate or bigotry etc he's just unconditionally good natured and wants to do the right thing by his country, not fueled by 'vengeance for a dead relative' etc. I honestly found very little wrong with the film overall.

Someone mentioned not liking Avengers, and comparing it to Dark of the moon. Not an entirely unfair comparison (destruction!) but I think it's characters like Rogers and Stark etc who make the massive difference (also THORRRR!)

That's the impression I got from watching the trailer, well I loved Dark Of The Moon, so it's a good bet i'll love this film as well.

My main issue with the CA film isn't the character himself, Evans did a pretty decent job playing him, my main issue with that film was the story, since the cap ends up frozen at the end for 60 plus years, all the relationships he forms in the movie end up being completely pointless. Plus aside from Evans, the acting wasn't very good, especially Huge Weaving as the Red Skull, he pretty much sleepwalked though the movie and made for a pretty boring villain, and Johnston didn't do a very good job of directing the action scenes. This review more or less sums up my thoughts on the film: http://www.dustinputman.com/reviews/c/11_captainamerica.htm

This movie is just ridiculously good.

I was afraid Hulk wasn't gonna get his due, but he's damn near the star of the movie! Thank goodness he made good after the two crappy Hulk movies.

I was also afraid that Loki and his army weren't going to be worthy enough villains - happy to be proven wrong. I really should learn to trust Joss Whedon. Speaking of villains...

I'll say this about the Marvel franchises; with the possible exception of Iron Man 1, the heroes and villains were better in the Avengers film than in their own individual films.

Holy shit Vex, you're dustin putman? That is AWESOME! I read your reviews as much as I read JB's?

Vexer can't be Dustin Putman because Vexer loved Dark of the Moon and Putman didn't.

Just bought tickets for an 11:30 AM showing tomorrow morning, only $5! Now without spoiling anything, I have only seen the first Iron Man out of all the Avengers movies so will I be too much in the dark if I go in with just that?

Yeah, and Dustin also hated Expendables, which I loved, I wish I could write half as well as he does.

Did anyone else feel like Black Widow never became an interesting character despite the overabundance of her screen time, and Thor was seen far too little in the climax?

I saw this earlier today. Yep, I liked it. It wasn't perfect, but it was damn good, and I liked that most of the focus was on Stark/Iron Man, because of Downey Jr of course. The story wasn't groundbreaking or shocking in any way, but Whedon did a great job of balancing the characters to avoid the conundrum that comes up when you have a lot of strong characters in a single film, as the focus was on the *team* rather than on its members.

The easter egg at the end of the credits was pretty freaking funny, while the one that came up during the credits was a great set-up for the sequel (the villain shown is definitely right up near the top of the hierarchy of Avengers' enemies). Some more detailed thoughts below:

I had problems with both the 3D (because of brightness) and the sound (probably because of hearing loss, though I didn't have that problem with The Pirates). I had to take the glasses off a few times to see what was going on.

I loved Mark Ruffalo's take on Bruce Banner; I much preferred it to Bana's and Norton's. He works especially well with Downey, but so does everyone else. Especially Gwyneth Paltrow, which is why I'm looking forward to Iron Man 3.

I have no trouble with Scarlett Johannsen's Black Widow. Her character hasn't been developed as much as the others, but she's fun, and, if you've noticed, not 100% human. (She's been enhanced as much as Captain America, but in a different direction.) I think I heard her addressed as "Major Romanoff" which means she outranks Captain America.

I saw it here in Germany.

Black Widow/Scarlett Johannsen was fine(in more ways than one) and seemed to get more into the action than most other female characters who are mostly passive in other action movies(Megan Fox in Transformers and anyone in Mission Impossible series)What surprised me is that she is quite convincing in an action role and fighting more so than Chris Evans even.

The only issue with the characters I had was with the Hulk who seemed to the Earth's best Weapon of Mass Destruction. In one segment he is uncontrollable and destroying anything in his path and in another part of the movie his actions seem directed,focused and team oriented though still massively destructive. I am not sure I quite understand if there is two Hulk personas;out of control and not so out of control.

Ragnarok,

Writing this two days after watching the movie.

There have been good to great superhero movies (Iron Man, Batman Begins, Spidey 2),there have been merely good ones (Batman, Thor) and many mediocre or bad ones (Daredevil, Ghost Rider, both Schumacher Batman ones) But this may be the ultimate superhero movie.

Whedon manages to get all the actors firing on all cylinders throughout the movie. Downey and Ruffalo may be the stand outs. But everyone does good work. Whedon also manages to keep the tone right not letting it get too dark or veer into camp.

If one thinks its impossible to maike an intelligent blockbuster anymore, this is the movie to see.

What Nick said. Also,

It truly is an amazing film. Mr. Berardinelli, would you say that "The Avengers" is the best adaptation of a Marvel comic book to date? I feel that it is the second greatest comic-book movie of all time, although "The Dark Knight" is the quintessential masterpiece of the genre.





I'm also looking forward more to an "Avengers" sequel than I am to another solo Marvel film, but I would prefer the latter option first. Such movies provide each individual character with an opportunity to receive greater emotional depth, and that is what ultimately made "The Avengers" such a great film. It has all of the action of a Michael Bay film, but with characters we actually care about. I feel that "The Avengers" is almost Shakespearean in the way that it seamlessly combines humor and action with exciting action sequences, gripping suspense, and dramatic elements. Probably the most Shakespearean film I've seen since "The Social Network", and the best summer blockbuster since the final "Harry Potter" movie. Anyway, I'm already looking forward to "Iron Man 3" and "Thor 2", but I would probably enjoy them more if they were also directed by Joss Whedon.

And yes, "The Incredible Hulk" is the weakest out of "The Avengers" films, as it makes very little reference to any of the other characters in the Marvel Universe. Still, it's a fun little movie. Three stars out of four.

What really surprised me, though, was Roger Ebert's review of the film. Only three stars? He's a great critic and all, but his review of the film seems like nothing more than a plot summary, followed by a quick sentence at the end that sums up his thoughts on the movie. Perhaps he thought that the final action sequence was too long, but I enjoyed it all the same, seeing as the film also devoted a fair amount of time to developing the characters and their struggles.

And here's a great idea I had for "Iron Man 3", but I wasn't sure what others might thing of it.

Just came out of this (I only spent $5; can you believe that?) and I totally have to agree that this was, in James' own words, kick-ass! It has all the stunts and action of a typical Michael Bay movie (really a typical summer movie) but it's executed with far more panache and skill than anything that Mr. Transformers could ever achieve. I only saw the first Iron Man out of all the prequels (and wasn't as crazy about it as a lot of people were) and I still enjoyed the hell out of this. Admittedly, as James pointed out, things start out kind of unevenly during the first half-hour or so but once Iron Man gets introduced into the story, the movie really takes off and the remainder of the running time dazzles us with plenty of spectacular action, lots of humor and sharply written dialogue (not surprisingly, Iron Man gets most of the best lines which Robert Downey Jr. delivers with all the verve he can muster) and just enough of an emotional investment in the heroes for it to all matter but not so much that this becomes a ponderous experience. Plus, as another poster pointed out, there is the fringe benefit of seeing Scar-Jo don that leather outfit for most of the movie and in addition to flaunting her sexy, curvy figure, she proves that she is more than capable of holding her own with the men in the cast when it comes to the action sequences (kinda makes you wish that she'd have been cast as Catwoman in the upcoming Dark Knight Rises instead of Anne Hathaway but I digress). One worry that I had was that with so many high-profile superheroes sharing the screen, some of them would inevitable get pushed to the margins but amazingly enough, the movie does an excellent job of dividing the screen time amongst each of them and giving everyone a chance to shine. Admittedly, some of these guys shine a little brighter than the others (Iron Man in particular) but on the whole, I would say that characters are as well-balanced as one could possibly hope for given the circumstances. This is the first time I have been to a movie theater in nearly 2 years (I tend to rent or stream my movies nowadays) and it was worth the trip. The Avengers fires on all cylinders as one of the best superhero flicks I have seen to date (although it misses the pinnacle occupied by The Dark Knight). ***1/2 out of **** easily!

Thor was excellent because of how much it was different from the usual superhero format. Or at least that was part of what I liked about it.

On The Hulk issue:

I just wanted to thank those who have replied to my question on whether Thor and Captain America are necessary to understand the Avengers. I definitely plan on seeing Thor (either through streaming or through DVD Rental -- been meaning to do so, but just haven't got around to it) and will likely do the same for Captain America.

As for the comments on the Hulk, I will provide a contrarian opinion (except to JB) -- I believe that Ang Lee's Hulk was far, far superior to Joe Johnston's Incredible Hulk. The earlier film was exceptionally well-acted by everyone (particularly from Bana, with strong support from Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliott and Nick Nolte), and was far more moving, to the point of near tragic, than the latter film, which was mediocre at best (except for Norton's performance and the special effects, which is largely equal to, perhaps even a slight improvement, over Lee's Hulk).

Correction, Louis Leterrier directed Incredible Hulk, Johnston directed Captain America.

Ang Lee was just the wrong person to direct a Hulk film, trying to make a superhero film into a dark drama was like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, it just didn't work for me at all, Bana was merely OK as the titular character(even Bana admitted that he wasn't very proud of the film) but Nolte was just weak, not the least bit convincing for a second, the action scenes were competent at best, but nothing to drool over, the CGI was incredibly obvious and mediocre and really took me out of the movie(espeically those mutant dogs), and the story just didn't involve me very much. This recap closely echoes my thoughts on the film: http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/Hulk_2003.aspx