Entry 8: RE: "Avengers" - He's a menace!

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

While I am a huge fan of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies, they are quite different from The Avengers. I'll also agree that Spider-Man 2 is an incredible film, and definitely one of the greatest comic book movies ever made.

The Spider-Man films are fun, especially if you enjoy all the campy humor. Before you freak out -- I don't think this is a bad thing. The approach Raimi took was to play into the expectation of the audience. He gave the audience exactly what they think of when Spider-Man comes to mind.

All those sequences of people looking up and shouting Spider-Man's name, or those times Spider-Man stops for a second in front of an American flag -- It's camp! It's all fairly cheesy, but that's what those films were about. The Spider-Man films embrace super hero cliches, and they aren't ashamed to admit it.

The Avengers takes a completely different approach. While The Avengers is also very entertaining, the tone it goes for is much different. The Avengers wants re-design superheroes into the Hollywood action movie formula. Whedon wants these heroes to be cool, slick, and absolutely badass.

While both approaches are perfectly acceptable and work for their respected films, comparing the two is rather difficult. It's true that Whedon doesn't put in all the family death, quotes about heroism, and puberty that we get in the Spider-Man films. Again, just because it doesn't contain those elements doesn't mean the film is lacking them. You need to explain why Avengers needs these elements -- it seems to work fine without them.

If The Avengers focused too much on one character, one person's growth, then it wouldn't be about The Avengers. This movie is about all the heroes -- all the team members -- and how they came to work together. It doesn't need all the campy drama -- tug at you heart -- moments of Spider-Man 2. In fact, the result of that may have been disastrous.

And the Galaga joke...Yeah, that seemed to bother you a whole lot. My issue with the scene was that it didn't cut together correctly. My initial reaction was to think that Captain America was the one playing Galaga. This would have been much funnier, since he was frozen in ice and didn't get to experience video games. The scene was rather confusing, and it still didn't make sense to me the second time I saw the movie.

So, I agree that it isn't the funniest joke. Since you already admitted that most of the humor worked for you -- let's try and move past it. Together, if necessary. I'm here for you if you need me. I'm really sorry you have to experience it. To be fair, it was just one mediocre joke.

One more thing I have to point out, as evidenced for just how well-crafted this movie is on a technical level, is the continual shot that covers all the heroes as they battle in New York City. Granted, it's not a "real" camera shot -- definitely a digitally created shot. However, it's still quite an amazing sequence.

In one continuous shot the camera is able to move through New York and capture each of the Avengers doing battle. It's moments like this that solidify the purpose of this film -- to give the Avengers an origin story. To bring the team together, and to sell them to an audience as a single package that audiences will love. The Avengers moves the inherent "nerdyness" of a super hero team-up into the realm of something cool that  movie fans won't be ashamed to embrace. 

Entry 5: RE: "Avengers" - It's all in the shawarma.

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Let's go back to this being a really fun movie, Brad. Did you stay until after the credits finished rolling? If you did, you would have seen our heroes eating delicious Middle Eastern sandwich pockets called shawarma.

In my opinion, it's a very clever scene. There is no dialogue whatsoever; our heroes just eat their mediocre food in silence. I read that the scene was filmed after the premiere, and was added just before distribution. It really made me laugh; it's an excellent way to close out the good time I had with The Avengers.

I really had no point to make here; I just now have an urge to try shawarma. 

Anyway, I think that's exactly what The Avengers was about -- entertainment. Where you're able to go see a James Bond movie and not be angered by the lack of an intricate plot, the same applies here. Where comic book heroes are a thing for nerds, this movie morphs them into something the general public will love to enjoy. 

May I add that I also disagree completely on the film lacking character development. What about Bruce Banner's acceptance of his green alter ego? Oh, and Iron Man's self sacrifice to save all of mankind. I'd consider that some significant character development. If the laughter didn't make me love the characters, these moments certainly did.

Is it an entire movie's worth of character growth? No. Again, that's what the individual films are for.

I want to point out that I don't feel the film has a central protagonist, and there doesn't seem to be a traditional flow to the plot and story. Again, that's really ok with me. The Avengers is all about the ride, and it's a damn fun one.

Still, I agree that we need some point of reference to latch our brains onto when we talk about the story in The Avengers. If you ask me what it's all about, I'd say the Avengers themselves. This film is about the creation of the team. It's an origin story, and should largely be viewed as such.

I stated in my review that I felt this film was a conclusion to the first chapter of the Marvel film saga. I stand by that statement. The origin of the team is the grand finale -- at least for now. If that isn't enough for you, I hope you at least had a good time. The Avengers sends good vibes from beginning to end. 

Entry 3: RE: "Avengers" - The resemblance is uncanny.

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Separated at birth?

    

I now officially concede that the Chitauri look exactly like Goldar from Power Rangers. I guess I will have to try my very best to argue against your other equally well thought out positions.

At first I assumed you were just writing crazy, baseless, statements in order to make your review more entertaining to read. After doing my Mighty Morphin Power Rangers research, I now understand your position completely.

I will also agree with your point that Whedon uses humor to re-aquaint the audience with the characters. Yes, a lot of this is quite funny and entertaining. I can see how being entertained and laughing at this re-introduction would deserve your criticism.

Another tally for you, good sir!

Whedon spends a lot of time getting the audience acquainted with the characters -- helping them to love each character -- for a number of reasons, including to benefit those brand new to the series. While Avengers is connected to previous Marvel films, it's still a stand-alone experience.

I'll agree that most people who see The Avengers have probably seen all the preceding films. However, what if someone didn't like a particular film? What if someone really hated Thor, or thought Captain America was a terrible movie?

Some audience members could have a jaded view of the characters walking in; in which case it's Whedon's job to sell those characters to the audience. There's really no better way to do that than with laughter. The bickering between the heroes is quite entertaining, and it makes you love them all over again.

I understand your position that there is no real full story arc present here. There's also not a whole lot of growth for each hero emotionally. Again, I don't think that's a problem. The character study is for the individual films to take on. The purpose of The Avengers is to appeal to audience's sense of fun by making a really entertaining movie. The Avengers is not a place for all the drama of comic books; this is a place for the fun in comic books.

That sense of adventure I had as a kid -- loving superheroes because they seem so epic -- was brought back to me. I think that's Whedon's goal entirely; he wanted to create a film that focused the fun factor of superheroes. I think he accomplished his mission.

Entry 1: RE: "Avengers" - You have got to be kidding me.

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Well, I don't know where to begin. I guess I'm not surprised by your rating; however, I am a little surprised by the way you tear the movie apart. It's actually a little bit difficult to take you seriously when you compare the villains in The Avengers to Power Rangers concept art -- really? Do you really believe they are that silly looking?

The Power Rangers featured terrible actors in terrible rubber suits. Even for its era it looked like total crap. While I may agree that the Chitauri are not the coolest looking alien race, it's hard for me to take your hyperbolic statement seriously. It's ridiculous.

I'm also baffled by your following comment: "Whedon wants these characters to be his, to belong to his film, yet he doesn't develop them in any way, instead relying on what five other films have done, and using funny dialogue as an instant character developer"

What does that mean? Whedon definitely wanted The Avengers film to have its own unique look -- his look -- but I don't find any basis for saying he wants to 'claim the characters as his own.' Each actor brings to the screen the character they played in the previous films. That's completely fine with me. Where the other films served to help develop the characters, this movie serves to bring them all together. 

I actually really respect that. The director of each individual film got to keep the character they wanted -- Whedon just brings it all together into a perfect package that he designed. Like it or not The Avengers is a product of a lot of other movies, it's not just Whedon's baby. Yet, he's able to give this film a distinct visual style and tone -- that's incredible! It's an incredible achievement. 

One area we can agree upon is that Tom Hiddleston does an excellent job playing Loki. It's his creditably as a villain that really helps sell the story for me. I'm glad we can find common ground there.

Entry 4: RE: "Cabin" - Chill Out.

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Settle down, Brad. There's no reason to be that upset over a film that doesn't present itself as anything more than mere entertainment. I don't see there being a buildup to anything beyond a promise that Cabin in the Woods will be a really strange movie -- and that promise was kept, even if I didn't always like it.

With a film like this, the fact that I laughed isn't enough to earn it a perfect rating, but it counts for something. This isn't on the same level as films like Scream or Drag Me To Hell, both of which are done with a sophisticated level of filmmaking not seen here.

This isn't to say that Cabin is poorly made -- that wouldn't be a fair statement. I just think that Cabin went for some cheap laughs, and other films in the genre take a much darker approach. Black comedy is present in Cabin in the Woods, but certainly not to the degree of the Evil Dead or Scream series.

I suppose your point about classifying this as "horror" is correct, but I don't think that's really important. I'm not a huge fan of genre classifications in general, and I use the 'horror-comedy' label only to set a point of reference. 

A film like Army of Darkness doesn't contain any scares, but most people will still classify it as a horror film. This is probably largely due to the supernatural subject matter. I follow suit only to give a point of reference, though I agree that most people won't find Cabin in the Woods to evoke any emotions normally associated with horror. Unless of course they are really made uneasy by gore, since Cabin has a ton of that.

Entry 2: RE: "Cabin" - We're all on the same side.

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

I think you and I agree more thank you think, Brad. I'm just more willing to interpret my laughter as meaning I was entertained by the film -- I think you should do the same. Look, this is far from a perfect movie, but I really had enough fun to justify my 3 Star rating.

It's true that I love horror-comedy films. I am a huge fan of the Evil Dead series, and I think Cabin in the Woods has some of that charm. So, yes, I praise the film for its finer moments, but I do take issue with the total anarchy in the second half.

Your criticism of the final act is correct; I just didn't find it funny either. I think we are in agreement there.  The humor started moving in a direction more befitting of an episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force. The laughs certainly slowed down for me when the gore and clever dialogue was replaced with  "dude, that's so random" stoner laughs.

For me the moment where I felt the movie really went downhill was the sequence where we find the characters riding in a magic elevator, heading to the HQ of their puppet masters. This sequence, and the scenes that follow, are what I was referring to when I said that I felt the writers wrote themselves into a corner.

What the hell was all of that about? It's after the elevator ride that all the random chaos started happening. It just feels like they had no idea how to tie the stories together, and really didn't have a clue how to end the film. It was all rather unnecessary and annoying.

So, let me be clear: my praise of the film comes packaged with complaints. There's a whole lot wrong with Cabin, but I still had fun while the good times lasted. I can't recall another movie this year that had me laughing in the theater.

My rating reflects my level of enjoyment -- I had fun watching this movie.