Avengers!

[billroper]

We got a babysitter and headed out to see The Avengers yesterday with samwinolj and Bonnie. Overall, it's a good movie, but felt to me like it was less than the sum of its parts.

Let's discuss things in a reasonably spoiler-free fashion. You have to consider that the only film in this canon that I've seen was Iron Man, which I liked quite a bit. Then little girls arrived, so I haven't seen any of the other films (although DVDs of Captain America and Thor lurk downstairs somewhere). Thus, to the extent that we're relying on plot elements introduced elsewhere, I'm adrift.

That was mostly ok. Apparently, the main McGuffin comes from one of the other films, but I can get by that. And I know enough of the history of the comic-book Marvel Universe that I can pretty easily follow what's going on and spot the changes and the resonances.

I miss Hank and Jan from the original team, but I can understand why you'd end up replacing them with Hawkeye and the Black Widow, especially given that Bruce Banner seems to be filling in as the resident biochemist here. And I really enjoyed most of the character bits. I especially enjoyed it when the Hulk met Loki. (This may reflect how things are going at work. It's hard to say. :) )

But I have a problem with the fact that Loki seems to be an idiot while Nick Fury seems to be playing a much deeper game than I would ever give him credit for.

It was great fun to watch. It just feels a little empty somehow.

And that's a shame.

Comments

[robin-june.livejournal.com]

Yes, without the Thor movie under your belt, the Avengers won't work so well for you.

You don't need so much the Hulk movie, or even Iron Man 2. Captain America's movie would be sorta-kinda helpful, but not as crucial as Thor, or even Iron Man 1.

Loki seems like an idiot because (innate nature aside), he's a powerful being who was recently deprived of much of his power, and is desperate and coping badly as a result.

Nick Fury is Samuel L Jackson, coming into his own.

Did you get to stay through the credits for both Easter Eggs?

[demoneyes.livejournal.com]

Agree entirely. The Thor movie would have given a far better idea why both Thor and Loki are acting the way they are (I really liked the Thor movie, probably more than any of the others except Iron Man). I'm not sure Loki's actions in Avengers make any kind of *sense* but then I'm not entirely sure he's actually sane after his little excursion into the interdimensional voids between films!

Think Bill gives Fury a bit too much credit too. He basically screwed-up big time in his "hero management", and his recovery from this owed more to brilliant improvisation and sneakiness than to deep thinking or planning. And at the end it's only Stark's heroism that avoids consequences from another screw-up on Fury's part in blithely assuming he'll be allowed to merrily ignore orders without being bypassed.

There are rumours that Ant Man may be in the next film, or indeed have his own movie, but for now AFAIK rumours is all they are.

[weirdquark]

You should read Thrud's review of the Thor movie wherein she discusses Loki's motivations; it is excellent, totally unbiased, and actually kind of plausible. For Loki that is, not for the makers of the movie.

[mneme]

I think the Thor movie is a good prequel to Loki, yes.

But also, I think that Loki's playing the cards he's dealt. He's got dice to roll, and not a bad hand (although the fact that the humans have nukes might, or might not put a crimp in his plans even if the Avengers didn't get in the way). And he does escape the primary punishment for his plans going awry (wouldn't you rather be imprisoned by your family than by a bunch of vicious aliens?)

He comes off as crazily arrogant and underestimates humans and the human world in half a dozen ways, but his performance on Shield headquarters is actually quite impressive. (even if he does set the stage for bringing the team together).