IMDb > The Avengers (2012) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Avengers
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Avengers More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 9 of 168: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]
Index 1674 reviews in total 

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Let's be Honest Here...

6/10
Author: ax viking1
10 November 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This picture was the highest grossing film of 2012 and was raved about and spoke highly of. however in my opinion this movie was heavily overrated and didn't really offer anything groundbreaking or worth while.

The films story is weak to say the least and is presented in the form of "Here you go, here it is". The main plot for this film is Loki has somehow come back from the dead and has joined forces with an alien race called the Chitauri to take over the Earth with the stolen Tesseract. So with Hawkeye and Selvig brainwashed and kidnapped, S.H.I.E.L.D's base destroyed there is no other option but to begin the Avengers initiative. That's it.

This story might not sound to bad, which in reality it doesn't even though being a bit simple. The reason I think the story is weak is because there are so many plot holes, which are never explained or expanded on. Examples of these plot holes are:

-How did Loki can come back from the dead? -How did Thor return from Asgard to Earth? -The inconsistency of how the Hulk can control his anger -Why was it when Iron Man throws the nuclear missile into the rift where the Chitauri mother ship is, it kills every Chitauri warrior on Earth? -(Picky one) How are the Avengers actually talking to each other when none of them are actually wearing earpieces?

The film's start is very under looked because of the good climax. To be honest the start is actually boring and not compelling at all. This is why I think this film is heavily overrated as people only remember the very well done battle scene.

So they're the major issues with the films however there are some positives. All of the actors perform very well, especially Tom Hiddleston as Loki but with the exception of Jeremy Renner's portrayal of Hawleye, which was very dull and boring. Action sequences are handled well but sometimes cam across repetitive and didn't offer anything new or exciting. The Special effects and CGI was very good and didn't look bad or too unrealistic. The film's pay off is also very satisfying.

I can only hope that in the upcoming Avengers 2: Age of Ultron they can add something new or compelling.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

NOT even close to being the best superhero movie of all time

6/10
Author: oskarandreolsen
8 December 2012

When I first saw the trailer for this movie I thought it looked pretty cool, and when the review started coming in I immediately got excited.

When I finally got to see the movie I realized after the first 20 minutes that this wasn't the movie I was hoping for. Now let me explain why.

I can start off with the script. The script is not good, by adding some over-dramatic, cheesy and boring dialogue doesn't make a movie good. But the script isn't terrible, some of the cheesy comments fits with the dialogue and makes you laugh a little.

But the one thing that is directly terrible with this movie is the story. For those of you who don't know the story, it goes like this; Thor's evil brother Loki has come to the earth to claim it as his, and then he gets a thing called the Tesseract, and afters that he opens a portal so his alien army can enter the earth to take control over it. But then Nick Fury brings together the superhero team called ''The Avengers'' to stop him. I don't think it's necessary for me to start explaining why the story is so terrible, most people should understand why.

And I know a lot of people have claimed that the film don't need a good script or story because it's so entertaining. Well, I don't agree. The first 1 and a half hours of the movie is really boring, and I actually considered leaving the cinema, but then the movie catch up with some really cool and visually stunning scenes.

Some things in this movie was good, like most of the acting, the CGI and some of the dialogue. But overall this is just an average popcorn movie with a superhero flick.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

All this buildup leads to nothing.

4/10
Author: mccormick632 from United States
3 November 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I hate this movie. There, I said it. I watched it in theaters and came out mildly entertained but disappointed, and I re-watched it again recently, only to hate it. This is a poorly written mess whose awful writing has somehow gone unnoticed by everyone I know. To all those people who haven't seen this movie yet, let me spare you the trouble: Marvel's The Avengers, sucks.

For starters, out of the five movies made before this, I only saw three of them, and of those three, only one was actually good (Iron Man). Iron Man 2 was a boring mess, and Thor was more of the same, only with Natalie Portman, so that made it worse. The Avengers takes all these superheroes, most of which I never heard of, and throws them all together for the first time in cinematic history. An impressive feat; but if the Harry Potter movies were any indication, just because it's an interesting idea, doesn't always mean it is good. Usually it means it's total c***.

The good: the actors look the roles. Whoever cast Chris Hemsworth as Thor deserves a raise because he looks perfect. Robert Downey Jr. looks like Tony Stark, Chris Evans is Captain America, and so on and so on. The acting isn't all memorable, with Downey just doing what he does in every single movie he is in, i.e. play the annoying guy. Zodiac (great movie by the way), Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (another fun movie), and the Iron man films, there is not one character who could not be swapped out for another and make any difference.

The Bad: basically everything else. Joss Whedon, in my opinion, is a straight up hack. Never mind the fact that he wrote the god-awful Alien Resurrection, but in this movie his writing is just lazy. So many things that make no sense happen and the feeling I get is that those are things that I should overlook because "it's a comic book movie." No, why can a shield developed in the 1940s withstand the full force of a Norse God!? If this stuff was so lightweight and powerful, why didn't Iron Man make his suit out of it? Why does Loki want to take over the world when, in Thor, he explicitly stated he never wanted power? There are so many other things that make no sense, but this reviews got to end sometime

The final battle in this mess takes place in New York, and it is the most boring, least engaging battle since the battle of Chicago in Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Yes, this movie is on par with Transformers. None of the characters are likable, none of the action scenes are thrilling, the humor comes of as cheap and fails, Loki's army is the most useless army out there, etc. etc.

This movie is a disaster, a titanic failure of a film. Not just because its a boring horribly written piece of s***, but because to me it represents Marvel's laziness. They know their films make lots of money, so they keep cranking out one awful movie after another. First it was Iron Man 2, then it was Thor, now it was the Avengers, and, not deciding to wait a year, they released the awful Amazing Spiderman. These guys take less time to wait for their next product than Activision does with Call of Duty.

With the announcement of the Avengers 2, Spiderman 2, Thor 2, Iron Man 3, Captain America 2, and probably Hulk 2, I gotta ask, when does this end? When will Marvel finally just kill their entire business and stop making awful movies, or at the very least, don't hire Joss Whedon.

*Side Note: No I am not a DC fanboy writing this scathing review simply because it is a Marvel film. I am writing this because I truly detested this film, the fact that is just so happens to be Marvel is a coincidence.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

What's $200 million without a good story?

Author: silverbullets from United States
20 October 2012

What an utter disappointment. Expected so much more substance from Joss Whedon. With so many great characters w/ great stories, you'd think the writers could have put together a good story. But no--that's not what obscenely budgeted films with the sole purpose of setting up a franchise care most about. Everyone's already pointed out all the ridiculous plot problems, so I'll just say that the writers had NO excuse when there's an entire comic series worth of stories to supply all they needed to work things out. A waste of some decent actors and lots and lots of money. (Pretty clear that the only moment Samuel Jackson actually enjoyed was when he got to walk out and blow up one of the jets. He looked bored or in pain for every other mediocre line.) I enjoyed most of the witty one-liners...and that's about it.

Shallow on so many levels...who cares how shiny the CG was or how many things got blown up? The studio may have raked in disgusting amounts of cash based on the hype (and the promise of a great story), but will anything else about this film be memorable? Can't see how Stan Lee would have been pleased...

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Flaw City

3/10
Author: Andrew Judkins from United States
5 November 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Despite the ridiculous overrating of 8.2 out of 10 stars on this site at the time of this review, there are some pretty good negative reviews on here. A number of people seem confused why this film is considered good or even outstanding, and they should be confused. Generally, I'm confused why people are so impressed by this type of film over and over. It is simple-minded, predictable, boiling over with clichés, ugly to look at, lacking character development, and overblown in just about every way. It really isn't worth the time for a full review, particularly in light of some good ones here already. I'll just list some flaws that I think most people are not acknowledging.

--This film is overly long. It's 2 hours and 22 minutes. A popcorn comic book movie shouldn't make your butt and bladder hurt this much.

--The pacing of this film is uneven. You expect this type of film to be packed with mindless action, but it had a lot of inexplicable lulls. I thought the dull section of the film on the floating ship would never end. The set up also took way too long and was uninteresting.

--This movie spends a lot of time on the pop psychology of its heroes as well as the psychology of their group dynamic. This becomes dull and tiresome, yet for the time spent on it we still get cardboard cutouts.

--Why is the story fueled by the Thor story line, the most outlandish and inane of the Marvel tales (close second for Captain America)? Loki is a silly, petty villain. It is hard to relate to any of these heroes, as they all seem inexplicably immortal, but the whole Norse God/Space Alien thing with Thor and Loki perhaps should have been swept under the rug. Maybe there is some sort of comic book tradition reason for this choice?

--This movie looks bad. It is ugly and fake looking. There is way too much CGI that isn't even required by the special effects demands of a scene. The action scenes have a numbing effect after a little while and it becomes easy to forget you aren't watching a video game.

--This film is fueled by clichés of every kind. It feels like a used, third hand piece of writing.

--There are some good actors in this film (and some not so good) but they aren't given enough space to spread their wings. The script is also a heavy yoke these actors must try to preform under the restriction of.

--I felt nothing watching this film other than mild irritation. I don't expect a huge emotional impact watching this type of film. That's not why I see this type of movie. Still, I found it strangely empty. It is basically as if the filmmakers have put their focus on all the wrong aspects of their craft. The film quickly ceases to be fun for me, in part because it is so empty.

--I think it also feels empty because it has a 'going through the motions' type feel to it. The plot is one of unsubtle inevitability. 2 hours and 22 minutes is a long film, but it feels much longer if there are few if any surprises, and the basic arc of the plot is so polished that it feels like a one hump roller coaster.

--A blockbuster superhero action film isn't really about subtlety, nor should it be. But this film lacks any moral gray, or tense emotion fueled by uncertainty. It replaces any emotion with bald faced sentiment. And while it is filled with tiny details and references, its themes are mind numbing, characters thin (even if you've seen all the Marvel films) and storytelling cluttered, but full of unimaginative sequences.

--This film is slick. It is a formula that is well greased and polished to a blinding shine. And it is tough to make a film that is presented in this smooth, flashy, yet non-stylistic sort of way. But this confidence of the filmmakers wears on me. It feels like the polish of the film makes it feel more plastic than it needs to, and guts any chance of the film having a soul. And the immense machine that is this film and this series has become so smooth and over confidant that it really does not feel the need to be interesting in any way... like in a way a lot of cheap, low budget and unambitious movies are. It is a plague of our age of filmmaking.

--Remember when a blockbuster used to be something like Jaws?

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

I liked it. I've seen it like three times

9/10
Author: ttrabue-106-208742 from United States
30 July 2013

I just keep renting it. And I watch my favorite scenes over and over again each time I do. It's delightfully funny. I like these people. I like this story. I love with that Romanoff girl. Mark Ruffalo is great. He is just great. It's balanced. It cannot be easy to portray superheroes but they pull it off. You know they must be up against green screens but I believed it. The writing is fantastic. I can quote lines. My friends can quote lines. Everyone has a favorite scene. I have second third and fourth favorites. It's fast paced but you get to know the characters. I want Hollywood to know if I don't care about the characters I don't care what happens to them. I have almost no memory of "The Grifters", because yuck. I like movies with nice characters. And it's colorful. Did you see "The Ledge" it is so drab they could have saved money and filmed it in black and white. You're stuck in Baton Rouge, dude just jump, gees. Did you see "Cloud Atlas" visually spectacular. That's all it's got and still I'd give it about a six.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

A Huge Budget Flop

2/10
Author: nickcoppola000-722-714530 from Australia
26 June 2013

This is one movie that i went into with really low standards, but i was sadly still disappointed. There's no story line, a terrible script, Annoying Characters and Pointless endless hoards of enemies who what to kill everyone like usual (for some reason). The Special effects are alright, but that's to be expected as they have the budget for it. But to be honest, the only thing that kept me watching this major disappointment was Scarlett Johansson in that tight costume. That's IT! That's simply not enough for a huge blockbuster that was supposed to unite all of these massive superhero movies of late. Don't waste your time with this movie. (I will just add that this movie isn't as bad as Captain America or Thor both of which i walked out of)

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Cheap plot, but good action scenes though

1/10
Author: kris_zack23 from Indonesia
5 May 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The plot is very bad and very predictable, this is just a regular comic book movie with a great action scenes and CGI. But the story messed it all. Loki as the main villain is very bad. He didn't look as great as Heath Ledger's Joker from The Dark Knight The Avengers kinda focused only on Iron Man. It should be called Iron Man and Friends. Hawkeye and Black Widow need a bigger role. The Hulk pants doesn't really logical isn't it? Joss Whedon screw this movie. It doesn't come up to my expectations even though everybody calling it a very good movie. Captain America and Thor fight should be won easily by Thor, it doesn't really make sense how Cap could be evenly strong as Thor. The ending is bad too. Are you serious right now, Joss Whedon? Waking Iron Man up with a scream from The hulk?

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Terrible, worthless, piece of trash

1/10
Author: melssnailshop
2 May 2013

Why are critics digging this movie for everything good in it, because it's vice versa for every other movie out there. Usually, critics bash movies for their mistakes a blind spots that ruin the movies, why not here? I can name over ten things that make this movie so bad! Comedy, in the end of the world, are you kidding me? Loki, a villain, for six people, are you kidding me?! Iron Man is way too perfect, as he is in every movie there is! Black Widow is a pathetic excuse for heroine. Along with Hawkeye, who even Jenner said wasn't good at all, was the worst character of 2012, and yes, I did see most of the movies from the 2012 area. This movies is nothing but a generic version of Batman Begins, and I say that one rather than Nolan's other two because, frankly, in my opinion, saying this a generic version of The Dark Knight or The Dark Knight Rises would make me go to hell for bad respect towards some of the best movies ever. Why can't Marvel fix their villain problems, Mandarin was terrible in Iron Man 3, especially that terrible twist. Anyways, I could continue, but you get my point. Hulk had no veins, this movie was cut from 3 to 2 hours, and if it would have been 3 hours, it would have gotten me to give it a ten out of ten stars. Sorry if you take this as a lecture, I'm just listing why I did not like this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

The most overrated film of all time. It's just not good.

4/10
Author: Matt Cipolla (CipollaM926@gmail.com) from Michigan, United States
26 April 2013

It may be mildly entertaining, but it's still just other very long and slow mix of tired battle scenes and some wooden, masturbatory, borderline cringe-worthy dialogue, all leading to a predictable ending. There were a couple good laughs but that doesn't really make up for the fact that this was over two hours and twenty minutes. Robert Downey, Jr. was the best part because his sarcasm is great. It's too bad I can't really say much about the rest. And keep in mind, I genuinely like the Iron Man movies and Captain America.

Here, everyone's already established and undefeatable. What's the point of having characters that you can't root for, and therefore you don't care about the outcome? They never hit rock bottom, therefore there's no end to the second act, therefore the whole film is completely unsatisfying. And again, it's boring. Two and a half hours leading to an obligatorily happy and sequel-welcoming ending. Dear Lord, change it up.

Why was The Dark Knight Trilogy good? Because it had human characters that had legitimate weaknesses, therefore carrying on the plot that had the characters grow, and if they died, we felt sad. Why? Because we cared for them. Why did we feel bad for James Bond in Casino Royale? We believed he loved Vesper and the third act was made with an emotional punch. Why did we care for Silva in Skyfall? He was a great villain because he was funny, menacing, fantastically portrayed by Javier Bardem, and his motives had a believable character background. M captivated our interest, and it was a well-developed, terrifically-acted character that had great mother-son chemistry with Bond. The Avengers has none of that, just pretty cities that go boom, slapstick humor and throwaway lines, all on repeat. The characters interact with each other like annoying small children, and the same dialogue constantly put on repeat made me so bored.

4/10, bad, below average, horrifically overrated, two thumbs down, etc.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 9 of 168: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history