The "I just saw a movie that doesn't warrant its own thread" (Version 2.0)

[NYDCYankee]

January Jones was in it. It can't have better acting. (I also thought the writing was excellent in Avengers. Campy, but effectively so)

She also on Mad Men and no one will say that show is not well-acted.

[BobLoblaw]

She also on Mad Men and no one will say that show is not well-acted.

No, but everyone says she is the weakest one on the show.

I think people are a bit too hard on her, she's not great but she's not that bad either.

[NYDCYankee]

She is the worst on the show but she has had some very good moments like when Don finally told her who he really is.

[Yankeesfan924]

Watching The House of Steinbrenner onDemand, all about the opening of the new Stadium. It's good so far.

[RhodyYanksFan]

No, but everyone says she is the weakest one on the show.

I think people are a bit too hard on her, she's not great but she's not that bad either.

I think she's good in that role because based on everything I've read about her, January Jones is pretty much just like Betty Draper.

[xenadanielle]

I watched "Paul" last night, it was fun.

I was totally played by Jason Bateman secretly being in cahoots with Paul!!!! Did not see that coming...nor did I recognize Sigourney Weaver's voice.

[Big_E]

I watched "Paul" last night, it was fun. I was totally played by Jason Bateman secretly being in cahoots with Paul!!!! Did not see that coming...nor did I recognize Sigourney Weaver's voice.

[RenoHightower]

Did anyone else see The Raid: Redemption?

[pleasepassthesoup]

She also on Mad Men and no one will say that show is not well-acted.

It's a fairly well acted show, but Jon Hamm is the only stand out IMO. Beyond that, it's all on the writing, not the acting. None of the main cast are particularly bad, but outside of Hamm, none are anything special either.

[RenoHightower]

It's a fairly well acted show, but Jon Hamm is the only stand out IMO. Beyond that, it's all on the writing, not the acting. None of the main cast are particularly bad, but outside of Hamm, none are anything special either.

Disagree 100%. John Slattery is fantastic. Roger Sterling is one of the greatest TV characters ever.

[xenadanielle]

Ha ha oops...well in my defense it's not a new movie.

[pleasepassthesoup]

Disagree 100%. John Slattery is fantastic. Roger Sterling is one of the greatest TV characters ever.

The character is very well written, but I don't think Slattery is all that great in the role. Not bad, either. He does a solid job.

[Soriambi]

I saw The Avengers and was pretty pleasantly surprised. When a comic book/superhero movie has people going nuts over it, I tend to be skeptical, as several of those movies have been just okay or even pretty poor (Captain America) for me. I tend to try to keep my expectations tempered when hype is high as it is, but that's even more the case with superhero movies.

With that being said, I don't think the hype was far off on this one. I think the people calling it one of the best movies ever are going way overboard, but I think that it's the best Marvel superhero based movie I've seen to date, and when it comes to pure entertainment/popcorn flicks, you can't do too much better than this one. I think that given the possible pitfalls of a movie like this (too much going on, too many significant characters), it was about as good as a movie of this nature could be, which, it turns out, is pretty damn good.

As I said, I think the biggest challenges for a movie like this (other than just living up to the hype) are balancing the characters and keeping action sequences coherent. On the first point, what I mean is that when you have so many main characters (in this case, Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Thor, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Loki, and Nick Fury all need significant screen time and stuff to do), it can be easily to make several of the characters useless or concentrate too heavily on one and make it seem like it's just a movie about that character with the other characters around. I think this can especially be the case in big ensemble action movies. I think The Avengers did a pretty inspired job in that regard, as you didn't have characters disappearing for extended periods, and it seemed like everyone was always doing something important and was critical to the success of the group.

When it comes to coherence, again, I think this was a great success. On the surface, the final battle has a lot of similarities to the city battle scenes in a movie like Transformers, but the difference here is that you can tell who's doing what, why, who's winning, when they're having troubles and what those troubles are, etc. Allowing you to effortlessly keep track of what six different heroes and a villain are all during an extended scene where stuff is flying all over the place and exploding and stuff is far more difficult than Whedon makes it look in this movie, I'd imagine.

The movie feels a lot shorter than it is, and it doesn't really feel like any time is wasted. In addition, I ended up seeing it in IMAX 3D, and while I can't compare it to the 2D or to non-IMAX (when it comes to the sound or whatever), I'm pretty glad I did both. I don't think it would have lost that much visually in 2D, but I think it was definitely enhanced at times in 3D, and having not ever seen a real movie in IMAX before, I was pretty impressed by the surround sound, which was noticeably better than on other screens. That definitely added to it.

I didn't see Thor, but of the others, the only movie in the recent Avengers series that is even in the same league as this one is the first Iron Man, and I definitely preferred this. Definite recommendation if you've ever liked a superhero movie.

[philleotardo]

Disagree 100%. John Slattery is fantastic. Roger Sterling is one of the greatest TV characters ever.

I think Peggy is well acted also.

[NYDCYankee]

I think Peggy is well acted also.

The acting on Mad Men is all top notch, except for January Jones and she is barely even on anymore.

[Eldee5]

RE: January Jones. Look, no one's ever going to confuse her acting ability with Meryl Streep's, but I thought she was just perfect as Emma Frost in X-Men First Class. Very good casting.

I pretty much love anything that Joss Whedon touches but I heard that they basically trash Grand Central Station in The
Avengers. I can't handle the destruction of NY landmarks. I'm pretty
disappointed that Whedon opted for that. I figure I'm going to spend the last
half hour of The Avengers staring at my shoes, waiting for the heroes to win the
day.

I meant to comment on this yesterday. What you mention in the spoilered part of your post is unfortunately true in Avengers and it bothers me also. I think it happens too often and in too many films.

I didn't see Thor, but of the others, the only movie in the recent Avengers series that is even in the same league as this one is the first Iron Man, and I definitely preferred this. Definite recommendation if you've ever liked a superhero movie.

Rent Thor when you get the chance. I liked it a lot; much better than Captain America. A friend of mine who has never seen a superhero movie was intrigued by the fact that no one seems to have a bad word to say about Avengers and wanted to know which of the Marvel movies she should see in anticipation of seeing Avengers. I suggested Thor because it sets up the Loki storyline well giving info that helps understand his power quest a little better. IMO, he's a more interesting villain when you've got his full backstory.

[Big_E]

Ha ha oops...well in my defense it's not a new movie.

Well...it was new to you.

And it gave me a chance to throw a Doctor Who reference into the thread.

[Eldee5]

Well, Disney certainly didn't waste any time confirming an Avengers sequel:
http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-...224900761.html

Disney's Bob Iger has answered every fanboy and fangirl's biggest wish, today confirming plans for an "Avengers" sequel.
And if that wasn't enough, the Disney CEO had even more exciting news. Here's what he had to say (during a conference call with analysts, mind you):
"Marvel's The Avengers" shattered U.S. box office records with $207.1 million in its opening weekend.
It has brought in more than $702 million globally to date.
Some Disney theme parks are making room for "Avengers"-based attractions.

Iger also repeated previous anouncemnts made by Marvel Studios:
The third "Iron Man" is scheduled for 2013.
"Thor" numero dos is also on the slate for 2013.
A "Captain America" sequel should happen in 2014.

While we now know there is, in fact, an "Avengers" sequel in the works, Iger did not disclose a date for it. (Though Reelz.com has speculated it could very well be May 16, 2014, as the studio has already reserved that release date.)

[Mr Coffee]

I think Peggy is well acted also.

[Big_E]

Avengers now at #86 all-time for US box office receipts.

http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross

Including world-wide box office receipts, the film is now #46 all-time

http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltim...ion=world-wide

[RenoHightower]

Well, Disney certainly didn't waste any time confirming an Avengers sequel:
http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-...224900761.html

I heard from a "cast member" (obviously low on the totem pole, but interesting nonetheless) that, when Universals contract with Marvel ends, Disney World is planning on building an entire Marvel theme park. Which would be awesome, obviously.

[RhodyYanksFan]

I saw The Avengers and was pretty pleasantly surprised. When a comic book/superhero movie has people going nuts over it, I tend to be skeptical, as several of those movies have been just okay or even pretty poor (Captain America) for me. I tend to try to keep my expectations tempered when hype is high as it is, but that's even more the case with superhero movies.

With that being said, I don't think the hype was far off on this one. I think the people calling it one of the best movies ever are going way overboard, but I think that it's the best Marvel superhero based movie I've seen to date, and when it comes to pure entertainment/popcorn flicks, you can't do too much better than this one. I think that given the possible pitfalls of a movie like this (too much going on, too many significant characters), it was about as good as a movie of this nature could be, which, it turns out, is pretty damn good.

As I said, I think the biggest challenges for a movie like this (other than just living up to the hype) are balancing the characters and keeping action sequences coherent. On the first point, what I mean is that when you have so many main characters (in this case, Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Thor, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Loki, and Nick Fury all need significant screen time and stuff to do), it can be easily to make several of the characters useless or concentrate too heavily on one and make it seem like it's just a movie about that character with the other characters around. I think this can especially be the case in big ensemble action movies. I think The Avengers did a pretty inspired job in that regard, as you didn't have characters disappearing for extended periods, and it seemed like everyone was always doing something important and was critical to the success of the group.

When it comes to coherence, again, I think this was a great success. On the surface, the final battle has a lot of similarities to the city battle scenes in a movie like Transformers, but the difference here is that you can tell who's doing what, why, who's winning, when they're having troubles and what those troubles are, etc. Allowing you to effortlessly keep track of what six different heroes and a villain are all during an extended scene where stuff is flying all over the place and exploding and stuff is far more difficult than Whedon makes it look in this movie, I'd imagine.

The movie feels a lot shorter than it is, and it doesn't really feel like any time is wasted. In addition, I ended up seeing it in IMAX 3D, and while I can't compare it to the 2D or to non-IMAX (when it comes to the sound or whatever), I'm pretty glad I did both. I don't think it would have lost that much visually in 2D, but I think it was definitely enhanced at times in 3D, and having not ever seen a real movie in IMAX before, I was pretty impressed by the surround sound, which was noticeably better than on other screens. That definitely added to it.

I didn't see Thor, but of the others, the only movie in the recent Avengers series that is even in the same league as this one is the first Iron Man, and I definitely preferred this. Definite recommendation if you've ever liked a superhero movie.

I went last night as well, but in regular 2D screen. I may go back to see it in Imax. Your review hit all the high notes for me and you wrote much better than I would have trying to say the same thing.

The film was wonderfully shot - with the highlight being the single shot that panned the entire battle showing all 6 Avengers and Loki. Great direction there by Wheadon.

The only complaint I have, and maybe someone can explain it is when Bruce turns to the Hulk on the ship it's pandemonium and chaos, but when he turns in NY suddenly he's "tame" and can be reasoned with (CA telling him to "smash")? I don't get that

The two standouts were Robert Downy Jr. who once again owned the part of Tony Stark, and Mark Ruffalo who I felt was far and away the best Bruce Banner yet. The scenes of him talking about "the other guy" were awesome. This film really showed the best Hulk stuff ever. I didn't like the previous Hulk movies mainly because I don't want to see the Hulk, a "hero" always fighting our military. Makes no sense to me. Plus, he's just not that compelling a character to build an entire movie around.

[pleasepassthesoup]

The two standouts were Robert Downy Jr. who once again owned the part of Tony Stark, and Mark Ruffalo who I felt was far and away the best Bruce Banner yet. The scenes of him talking about "the other guy" were awesome. This film really showed the best Hulk stuff ever. I didn't like the previous Hulk movies mainly because I don't want to see the Hulk, a "hero" always fighting our military. Makes no sense to me. Plus, he's just not that compelling a character to build an entire movie around.

I thought Tom Hiddleston was great as Loki, too.

[RhodyYanksFan]

I thought Tom Hiddleston was great as Loki, too.

He was definetly better here than in the Thor movie, but really it's not difficult to play a comic movie god like super villain.

[Soriambi]

The only complaint I have, and maybe someone can explain it is when Bruce turns to the Hulk on the ship it's pandemonium and chaos, but when he turns in NY suddenly he's "tame" and can be reasoned with (CA telling him to "smash")? I don't get that

I had the same confusion. Someone explained to me that on the ship he could control himself, too, but he was extremely pissed about it being used to create weapons, so he kind of lost control in the way that a normal person with anger management issues might lose control when they get pissed. I think that's essentially what they were telling me, anyway, and I suppose it's as good an explanation as any.

I also agree with you about Ruffalo as Banner. Much better than Ed Norton in the most recent Hulk movie.