The Avengers movie

[The Dark Knight]

Ruffalo was brilliant, agreed. He sold the facets of the Banner character. I really did feel that this guy was a well versed science enthusiast. That he knew complicated equations and concepts like the back of his hand. And he sold the sleeping beast within, the tortured soul - but also a feeling that he's learnt to live with it and has mastered his abilities. His shout at Black Widow near the start for one made me jump. He also conveyed a sense of confidence. That indeed, if you make me angry I will put you down no problems.

[Grissom]

Saw this last week and must say I enjoyed it, very entertaining from beginning to end. Loki made a better than average villain and would love to see more of him in the future. The chemistry was great between the actors as well as the conflict and humour. There were certain scenes that were a bit too similar to the transformers movies but overall a very good superhero film. It was fun.

[riddler]

i too wonder what would have happened if there was actor continuity for Bruce Banner.

In hindsight the Incredible Hulk should have been pushed back from 2008 to 2009. 2008 had hellboy, the dark knight, hancock and iron man. Quite a few superhero films already. 2009 on the other hand only had Wolverine. It was a great film but I think audiences just weren't hungry anymore for superhero films.

Thor, Iron man and cap all have sequels lined up, why not the incredible Hulk? Norton did a great job but not sure if it would have worked with him, he's a very demanding actor which seems to be why they cut ties. I thought Ruffalo's character was better written and closer to the comics and TV show. While you can't blame him, Nortons character was focused only on curing himself and avoiding authorities. Ruffalo's character does have the same agenda but portrays Banner far more intelligent. Like the comics Banner is very similar to Richard Kimble from the fugitive; intelligent but also uses his knowledge to help others.

I did like how the human characters tied together. Howard Stark created the super soldier serum which spawned Cap, Banner attempted to replicate it.

[Grissom]

Did banner try to replicate the serum or was his transformation a laboratory accident?

[riddler]

Did banner try to replicate the serum or was his transformation a laboratory accident?

it's stated in the avengers he tried to replicate it. His transformation according to his film was either something going very wrong or going very right.

[greggbray]

It's the first time anyone's managed to create a live-action world that I could believe was populated by many superheroes and not just one; and in which any character or thing from the comics could potentially be incorporated in future sequels. DC has a long way to go before they have anything even close to that. They may have had the superior animated universe, but when it comes to live action, Marvel is winning by a long stretch.

Indeed. 

I love The Avengers.  I know it has its flaws and faults, but I feel almost needlessly charitable to these.  The Avengers gave me an exciting comic book movie that showcased a terrific team up.  Ruffalo is by far the best of the recent Banners, his chemistry with Downey (a possible side effect of having been together at Zodiac) is one of the film's many strengths.

I thought the performers were tremendous.  Downey is the big marquee name, though in the film his character behaves as part of an ensemble.  I had some minor concern that the film was going to be 'Iron Man and the Avengers' but that turned out to not be the case.

I saw this film multiple times in the drive in and at a nice stadium seat theater as well.  It was just terrific fun--and it feels nice to have fun at the movies again. 

[riddler]

It's the first time anyone's managed to create a live-action world that I could believe was populated by many superheroes and not just one; and in which any character or thing from the comics could potentially be incorporated in future sequels. DC has a long way to go before they have anything even close to that. They may have had the superior animated universe, but when it comes to live action, Marvel is winning by a long stretch.

Indeed. 

I love The Avengers.  I know it has its flaws and faults, but I feel almost needlessly charitable to these.  The Avengers gave me an exciting comic book movie that showcased a terrific team up.  Ruffalo is by far the best of the recent Banners, his chemistry with Downey (a possible side effect of having been together at Zodiac) is one of the film's many strengths.

I thought the performers were tremendous.  Downey is the big marquee name, though in the film his character behaves as part of an ensemble.  I had some minor concern that the film was going to be 'Iron Man and the Avengers' but that turned out to not be the case.

I saw this film multiple times in the drive in and at a nice stadium seat theater as well.  It was just terrific fun--and it feels nice to have fun at the movies again.

I wonder if the reason Norton was booted was because of the 'too many cooks in the kitchen' scenario. Samuel L Jackson did cause a few waves early in after the first Iron Man, Norton does demand rewrites on all his scripts, RDJ is clearly doing the same. Luckily the better sense prevailed that despite his popularity, he's the only one there with two solo films. Early on each one including hawkeye and black widow got their own five minute segment (other than Thor who hadn't arrived and was obviously linked close to the villain), then they all came together and for the most part stick together. Fine Hulk separates when Hawkeye is saved and there is the extra scene Stark gets with his tower.

I definitely agree with the fun part. Here's how my 2012 theatre experiences have gone;
1. Ghost rider; spirit of vengance- god awful film. And I liked the first film but this one I really have no positives to say. The 3-d was pointless and you'd think for a 3-d film we'd get cool credits but instead we got generic black on white.
2. the avengers- you know how i feel
3. the amazing spiderman. I've reviewed it, very enjoyable and a pleasant surprise for someone who thinks the last spider-film wasn't as bad as some and generally dislikes pointless origins. I thought the origin could have been cut IMO each and every single character from the previous series got upgraded
4. the dark knight rises- again you probably know how I feel. The tagline could have been "20 minutes of batman + 50 minutes of some character you never heard of + plenty of plot holes- FUN

I watched the avengers a second time last week and it truly was outstanding. I post several times I have zero interest seeing the dark knight rises a second time but the avengers was almost as fun a second time around and I think a third viewing is in store around thanksgiving or christmas.

[BatmAngelus]

Wasn't sure where else to post this:
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/10/18/wally-pfister-dark-knight-rises-avengers/

Props to Whedon for being classy.

[The Dark Knight]

The Avengers is the more entertaining movie. I'd watch that over TDKR in a heart beat.

Wally Pfister has the right to his opinion, but it was just a silly comment to make.  Does he really want to engage in a slanging match?

There's a truck load of criticisms to be made about TDK Rises.

[thecolorsblend]

I guess I'd be all butt-hurt too if my artsy-fartsy, boring as hell non-comic book movie got trounced by an actual spectacle like Avengers. If I was an immature blowhard, that is.

F you, Pfister.