User reviews

Here's why "The Avengers" fails so badly.

1. Wrong, wrong director - Joss Whedon is a TV Director. "Serenity" worked because it was essentially a TV movie. And he has here made "The Avengers" a TV movie. Bad move, this should have gone to J.J. Abrams, Bryan Singer or Brad Bird.

2. Dreadful miscasting - only Robert Downey Junior can hold his head high. Chris Evans is as wooden in this as the flat "Captain America" film. Those playing Thor, Hulk, Black Widow either phone in performances or look embarrassed.

3. Weak, weak villain - Tom Hiddleston plays a slight, camp character who offers little panache or interest and more closely resembles a spoiled teenager than anything else. This film needed a "General Zod".

4. Too much obvious CGI - come on, it's 2012, there's no excuse for the George Lucas-y effects like the flying Shield craft graphics.

5. No drama, tension and a script so obviously flat that Whedon inserts misplaced self conscious quips to lighten the tone.

For anyone growing up with Marvel comics in the 70's (chime with me on this), we deserved SO much more. For younger audiences, it will pass I'm sure.

Really can't understand though the positive reviews. Am I alone in this ?

This film is is an empty shell covered with dazzling lights. Sure, it does look pretty but that is as far as it goes.

Nothing interesting happens in this film (by interesting I mean plot wise, not a standard fight scene with new people copied and pasted into it) the 'plot' is horrific, to the point in which you wonder if there actually is a one. Hollywood seem to use the same script for every action film they make, only they replace a few of the more minor details so hopefully people won't notice.

In an attempt to keep at least some of the male (and select female) audience awake the director decides it is time for Scarlett Johansson to pop up on screen to show off her, lets say defining costume in such an obvious manner. It is just a cheap, cheap film full of filler material that you will enjoy if you have an inability to think for yourself.

I really have no idea how this film got into the top 100 of all time, there is really no reason for it to be there.

The only plus sides are that the acting and cast are superb, it is just a shame that they were not involved in something where their talents could have been used in more fulfilling roles.

First of all, let me just establish the follow IMDb film ratings as a reference:

• A Clockwork Orange: 8.5 - Aliens (1986): 8.5 - American Beauty: 8.5 - Full Metal Jacket: 8.4 - Chinatown: 8.4 - Fargo: 8.2 - Donnie Darko: 8.1 - A Scanner Darkly: 7

These are the kind of movies that get (and should get) 8+ ratings. They have real content. They're innovative, original, intelligent and thought-provoking. They're timeless classics.

But the comparison may not be too fair, being such different genres. How does it REALLY stand up to Batman Begins (8.3), Watchmen (7.6), or any of the X-Men series, none of which reached and 8? These are all meant to fascinate and woe the same kind of target: comic-book fans, adrenaline-pumped teenagers and action-yearning males. Yet they are aeons away in terms of originality, depth, story and execution from 2012's The Avengers.

I don't really have much of a gripe with "The Avengers" itself, as after seeing Captain America, I expected nothing more than another formulaic blockbuster. Even so, it's pretty bad even for a fill-in-the-villain/superhero/threat formula movie. A ridiculous super villain, flat characters, no excitement (as you know how things are going to turn out)…

My disappointment is mostly with IMDb. I'd trusted their rating in the past, but it seems as if that reliability is no longer. Either all the reviews are now being written by 10-year-olds, IMDb users are losing brain cells at an incredible pace, or something's pretty fishy….

How many reviews that are titled things like "Awesome! Blew my mind!", or "Coolest superhero movie ever!", that you'd expect to be full of teenage adulation, grammatical mistakes and tons of slang, are actually very articulately written, displaying profound knowledge of script, direction, acting, and character analysis? I thought our education system was going down the drain! Where are all these lucid, eloquent, youths hiding out? And, being so instructed and discerning as they are, why the hell are they giving such a poorly made, mediocre movie such high scores?

It looks like the industry's eye has finally set on IMDb's viewer-decanting power, and is corrupting it's authenticity beyond recognition. From now on, I guess I'll have to look elsewhere for real, trustworthy reviews.

What a disappointment, although really not surprised at how bad it was. A totally boring, endless and mostly witless movie aimed at brain-deadened people who think that special effects, explosions and fantasy but definitely not fantastic characters make for a great movie. The cinematography was gray and cloudy, the editing incomprehensible, and the acting unsurprising and depressingly familiar. Simple, human emotions, which used to be integral to a movie are now so rare. Noise and all-too-familiar mayhem have been substituted. The attention span of the audience, when not being bombarded by yet another special effect, shifts quickly to their cell phone when things slow down even a bit. To think that more-of-the-same will be the order of the day is depressing. Count me out.

Storytelling as an art? What's that? And, who cares, anyway? When Hollywood makes tons of money off of bad movies, then where's the financial incentive to make decent films? 2012 is turning out to the worst year in decades (and I have been going to the movies for over 40 years, so that's saying something) for really bad blockbusters: first, Hunger Games; next,Dark Shadows; and now The Avengers!

I am so sick and tired of New York City, specifically the island of Manhattan, being attacked in the movies. Hello! It was attacked in real life only a little over 10 years ago costing the lives of over 3,000+ real people, including my brother's co-worker, wife and unborn child! But what is really despicable is that at the very end of the The Avengers you briefly get to see a real-life news photo from 9/11 mourning the dead. That's just plain, disgusting exploitation!

But lets not stop there! At the end of the film we get to briefly hear a local New York State Senator rant about how our Avenger heroes "wrecked Manhattan." That our heroes who just risked their lives in a 1,000+ ways are to "blame" for all the destruction! Fine! I agree many politicians are real jerks, but to put the letter "D" next to this Senator's name speaks volumes about the films real message: Democrats holding elective office are nothing more than ungrateful, winy creeps! That's real cute! I thought Hollywood was sooooooo liberal! If you going to interject politics into a film then why not put a "R" after the Senator's name? After all, the Republicans in Congress fought tooth and nail to prevent the establishment of a Federally funded medical fund for First Responders whose health was permanently impaired by breathing in all the toxic waste that was released into the air!

The Avengers is also plain boring with the most two-dimensional characters in the history of film making! Sure I wanted the good guys to win! Sure the guys have cute muscles and the gals are all pretty! But, really now, who cares when there is zero character development and the storyline is about as exciting as watching Frosty The Snowman for the tenth time!

The last third of the Avengers is nothing more than war porn! I will never watch another super hero movie that has a character from The Avengers as long as I live! Even for free, or if Hollywood offers me a million dollars! Overall, Hollywood has done a decent job with the X-men and the Fanatic Four, but for some reason the right-wing kooks who control the Avenger characters have turned them into nothing more than an exploitative moneymaking machine. No wonder why Stan Lee was so happy in his cameo appearance at the end of the film! It's just too bad he and the rest of Hollywood has to stoop so low to make a buck!

The movie was absolute trash. Horrible scripts, least menacing villain ever, no chemistry between the actors, and mundane story line. The movie was immensely over hyped and definitely does not deserve anything near a 8.5 rating. Its alright as a kids movie. It does not come anywhere near the unprecedented standards set by the dark knight or for that matter does not even come close to spiderman 2. The movie is often commended for its humor. In my opinion the humor is extremely dry and futile. Nothing special at all, despite its box office success it would have been better off as an animated movie. So if you want watch at least a decent super hero flick you might as well pick up Watchmen, X-men first class, Spider man 1 or 2 and of course the batman trilogy.

I wonder when people will understand that they are watching the same movies over and over again with only different heroes... Even without watching the movie an 8 year old can write a summary of it and it would be 90% accurate. Bla bla bla good guys come together bla bla bla they start up pretty good bla bla bla they argue bla bla bla they reunite and kick the villain's ass. How original(!) And this thing applies for 99% of the Marvel movies and about 80% for DC. And there are major logic mistakes also like captain America can protect himself from enemies with a shield not bigger than a large plate. I know it's a super hero movie but, really?It's like bad guys are not even trying. No need to talk about Black Widow... Use your minds people!

If you know the story, the only things that will matter will be the special effects. If you don't know the story, the only things that will matter will be the special effects. Why? Well... there is no story, just special effects - lots of them. There is no plot. Nothing makes sense, unless you know the characters' backgrounds ...and if you do, you will think this movie should be at least an hour longer, so the screenwriter could squeeze some actual dialogues in between all the action. If you take away all the eye-candy, this movie would be less than 15 minutes long - major flunk, imo. This is a movie to forget about. After you leave the theater, and talk about some of the scenes people might have enjoyed, it goes into utter oblivion - I'm sure I won't be looking forward to buying this for my DVD/BR collection.

this movie is pure garbage, Scarlet J is a really bad actress, you can take this movie, and leave only the battle scene, and delete the other and it will be OK. you have the same argument that transformers movie.. a cube with powers to control the universe... two sides fighting the good and the evil... the good wins...no surprises... i prefer watchmen. Capitan America is a really weak super hero, boring boring boring, i felt asleep all the first hour of the movie. I want my money back. Also the aliens(soldiers) are not so good... Iron man was OK. Nick fury, regular. The air battleship was useless i really did not understand why they don't sent that huge battleship to fight the aliens...

How I would love to have championed Joss Whedon for this. But alas, no.

The Avengers is not a great movie. Avengers is a boring movie.

OK, I saw it in 3D. The only other film I've seen in 3D was Avatar and - this may also indicate to you I'm not a movie snoot - I rather thought Avatar was OK, unlike many who say it's awful. You would be right therefore, to infer that the novelty of 3D hasn't exactly had a chance to wear thin on me yet.

Let's just get the 3D out of the way: for me, it was like watching a holographic projection, very unreal. Often there were only 2, maybe just 3 planes of focus and sometimes this made the focus too oddly focused!, e.g. a wobbling briefcase in the foreground that looked like something out of Toy Story. Also, some of the action with Johanssen is frantic CGI cartoony acrobatics, and in 3D this just looks even more of a mess, anything but exciting! I was cautioned not to see in 3D - that person was right. The print isn't compensated for by the darkening effect of the glasses. I think it affected me too. Eye-fatigue, plus the combination of how those glasses make the film so dark, plus a major major flaw in the film, caused me to give up on consciousness and spare my eyeballs more than once.

Yes, in 3D at least, this film is too dark to see what's going on. Detail becomes elusive and the 3D focus only allows you to see one or two parts of the screen - everything else is often deliberately way out-of-focus. This makes the film visually uninteresting (especially for us 'autistic' background viewers ;-).

And the major major flaw.. Oh, I might have already let that slip: this movie is boring! Surely I can't be so bored that easily by a film I've never seen before! It's impossible! Avengers: yes, there's some showy effects that may impress those that can get off on over 2 hours of blam blam blam but me: yaaaawwn! Honestly, I was expecting to enjoy The Avengers, especially since I kinda liked the Thor movie (nothing to do with Portman, who does very little for me). And also, my total non-appreciation for The Avengers goes against what I'd hoped... that I could say something great about this film, and be able to champion Joss Whedon for a new era of Sci-Fi movies. Serenity was good, very good - albeit with forgivably TV-movie quality. Unfortunately, it seems, budget wasn't the limiting factor and I've now lost interest.

Duncan Jones, do you hear?

I was not prepared to sit and watch past the first five minutes with all the jerky shakycam going on... Gave me a headache trying to watch it. It seems all you need these days to make a movie, just shake the camera for a couple of hours... Not.