The Avengers by Joss Whedon (Not Necessary A Proper Movie Review) #SLIGHT SPOILERS*
Let it be known, that prior to The Avengers, I was a Joss Whedon-fan primarily due to his work on the short-lived FIREFLY television series (oh but for the wonders of DVD boxed-sets) and the subsequent movie, SERENITY (which I actually saw first, then made me track down the tv-series). I never had the chance to get my mind around Buffy The Vampire Slayer, so unlike a legion of longtime-fans, I can be considered a relatively "noob"-fan of The Whedon.
The sheer fact that Whedon had gotten the opportunity to helm The Avengers first on-screen appearance, is somewhat of a coup for me. Sure, Firefly had the notions of the group-dynamic down phat, but to helm a Marvel blockbuster movie? Surely, somewhere someone must have been a huge fan in the first place!
And mind you, this is not to disparage the skills of The Whedon, but you must admit, nobody saw it coming, and heck, would you dare claim anyone would have lobbied to have him make The Avengers if ever they knew he was in contention? Being the indie-darling he had become, one might even argue he "sold out" and took on a commercial film! The sheer fact of The Avengers being the mind-blowing success it has become, simply shielded that notion and enveloped it in the dank darkness - but imagine if the movie had flopped? What would the pundits have said?
But that is all heresy now, as The Avengers steamrolled past the 1-Billion dollar mark, and frankly is the most fun of superhero movies I have witnessed for an extremely long time now!
It was GREAT, but it was not necessarily the GREATEST on-screen outing ever for a comicbook-movie, IMHO. Folks might argue the advent of Christopher Nolan's BATMAN brought gravitas and a seriousness to the comicbook-lore everybody had wanted to see on the silver screen, and I might even give KICK-ASS a thumbs-up for "dangerous-fun", and can you deny the glory of SUPERMAN? (Christopher Reeve, mind you) ... But in reality, everyone just lumped all "superhero/comicbook-flicks" together in a single category and decided that was that, and in this current day, might not be enough to justify their existence, nor "greatness". My personal list for GREAT Films are short ("The Avengers" is hitting the top tier pretty easily), while GREATEST Films are even much shorter.
SMARTKID69 commented on a previous post; "… I think the important thing is that the film is very funny and entertaining and the characters and plot work well on the big screen. I personally believe is the best adaptation of a comic book to film. It's a movie that is not pretentious like Nolan's Batman or the X men of Singer that can be good cinema but in my opinion are not the authentic characters from the comics." = for which I do not deny the validity of, but at the same time points out the obvious difference between differing films.
Best Comicbook Adaptation.
Best Comicbook Character Adaptation.
Best Movie Adapted from a Comic Book.
Oops. Forgot to label the word "Superhero" in front of the words "comicbook".
"Authenticity" is in the eye (and therefore "reading acceptance and understanding") of the beholder, and different people might have different reactions to their favorite comicbook-character being portrayed in the silver screen - specifically superhero comicbooks based. Much less the difference to a non-comicbook reading person/s. I had always felt the Punisher movies were crud and pandering to the masses, but what of it does the "masses" made of it?
As much as the X-men series was a teetering heap of mutant-bile waiting to implode (I have the trilogy on DVD and teared when Phoenix got covered underwater, okay!), so too was Raimi's Spiderman about to run out of webs as he flitted thru the skyscrapers (1 & 2 was the world to me, 3 was sewage-crud), and Green Lantern getting a ring off a dead purple alien might have seemed to be a fluke of the galaxy. And would you prefer TV's Lou Ferrigno-in-green-body-paint, or a CG-Hulk? Their seriousness might have become too much to bear, but truth be told, folks ate them all up, as there was not an alternative in sight!
The fact that Thor cracked a joke in The Avengers ("He's adopted"), and the Hulk slammed Loki around like a ragdoll, somehow made the huge difference to the enjoyment of the film covers up the negatives - which included the extremely draggy beginning and "recruitment" of the members (but what I felt was necessary to have to feature everyone in the cast) and by the alien battle on the streets (which we had seen via online trailers for the umpteenth time) I personally was pretty wiped out and basically lost interest (until of course when Hulk slammed Loki). But there can be no fault of the characters' dialog in The Avengers. Spot-On (like the jokes above) and frankly pretty geek-ish if you listen carefully, and mirroring the joy of reading comics, IMHO.
But seriously, a ray shoots into the sky and reveals a wondrous color of whatever covering the sky? How many movies of tis particular fantasy-genre have used that device to represent "Terror From Above" over and over again? LOL
In essence, I felt like the tone was pretty "television" (the "good type", not the bad soaps ;p), with the pacing and micro-analysis of personalities and character's personal motivations, but you know what? It worked. It made the viewers more "invested" in the characters (well, most of them), and not necessarily a souped-up condensed version of celluloid-emotion packaged within an hour and a half (well, The Avengers clocked in at 144 minutes anyways ;p), and all I can add to this, was that perhaps we rediscovered the "joy" of comicbooks again? What have we been missing all this time?
It could literally and/or literary been a decent read of a graphic novel - one where you could take your own time to breathe thru it, but for the life of you could not put the book down because it was THAT exciting to read, the story helped you move forward, even when you feel yourself dragging your heels slightly. And the movie moves. There were quite a number of foreshadowing (some cliched and some wholly unpredictable) which makes for a more enriching viewing, IMHO.
Frankly, I enjoyed the pace. I did not feel I was not sprinting across the finishing line, although most times I was chugging along like it was a marathon, and not necessarily a leisurely run. Fantastic Four would have been a "fall into quicksand", while Spiderman did leave me breathless ever so often, but again, these might well be peculiar to individual tastes...
To be fair, the ebb and tide of movie-making in the public consciousness and subconsciousness has changed (I dare not say "evolved" tho) and now a movie like The Avengers is GOLD, not forgetting the groundwork set by previous outings such as IRON MAN - and kudos for Robert Downey Jr and director Jon Favreau for seeding the notion, that comicbook movies can both be not too serious about itself, and yet be absolutely and dangerously-"serious" - just like in the comicbooks!
Has The Whedon created a "formula" for a successful comicbook-themed movie? I cannot deny nor dare I condone that happenstance, but I dare say he has indeed left his "mark" in the annuals of geek-film-history, and the fact remains that this particular film has become representative of THIS time, of THIS generation of fanboy-loving-filmmaking, and the fact that people around the world is embracing this notion, of a comicbook-adapted unto-reality-film, is a coup by itself, IMHO.
I can patiently wait for The Avengers 2, and relish in the one we have now. And also let all other movies flourish by themselves, and give us - the community - a geek-culture in celluloid that we can all be proud of, and by the time Thanos rears his purple-face on that silver-screen, the 'world" is going to be ready for him, ready to space-roundhouse-kick his alien butt across the moons of Titan! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA
ASSEMBLE!
The sheer fact that Whedon had gotten the opportunity to helm The Avengers first on-screen appearance, is somewhat of a coup for me. Sure, Firefly had the notions of the group-dynamic down phat, but to helm a Marvel blockbuster movie? Surely, somewhere someone must have been a huge fan in the first place!
And mind you, this is not to disparage the skills of The Whedon, but you must admit, nobody saw it coming, and heck, would you dare claim anyone would have lobbied to have him make The Avengers if ever they knew he was in contention? Being the indie-darling he had become, one might even argue he "sold out" and took on a commercial film! The sheer fact of The Avengers being the mind-blowing success it has become, simply shielded that notion and enveloped it in the dank darkness - but imagine if the movie had flopped? What would the pundits have said?
But that is all heresy now, as The Avengers steamrolled past the 1-Billion dollar mark, and frankly is the most fun of superhero movies I have witnessed for an extremely long time now!
It was GREAT, but it was not necessarily the GREATEST on-screen outing ever for a comicbook-movie, IMHO. Folks might argue the advent of Christopher Nolan's BATMAN brought gravitas and a seriousness to the comicbook-lore everybody had wanted to see on the silver screen, and I might even give KICK-ASS a thumbs-up for "dangerous-fun", and can you deny the glory of SUPERMAN? (Christopher Reeve, mind you) ... But in reality, everyone just lumped all "superhero/comicbook-flicks" together in a single category and decided that was that, and in this current day, might not be enough to justify their existence, nor "greatness". My personal list for GREAT Films are short ("The Avengers" is hitting the top tier pretty easily), while GREATEST Films are even much shorter.
SMARTKID69 commented on a previous post; "… I think the important thing is that the film is very funny and entertaining and the characters and plot work well on the big screen. I personally believe is the best adaptation of a comic book to film. It's a movie that is not pretentious like Nolan's Batman or the X men of Singer that can be good cinema but in my opinion are not the authentic characters from the comics." = for which I do not deny the validity of, but at the same time points out the obvious difference between differing films.
Best Comicbook Adaptation.
Best Comicbook Character Adaptation.
Best Movie Adapted from a Comic Book.
Oops. Forgot to label the word "Superhero" in front of the words "comicbook".
"Authenticity" is in the eye (and therefore "reading acceptance and understanding") of the beholder, and different people might have different reactions to their favorite comicbook-character being portrayed in the silver screen - specifically superhero comicbooks based. Much less the difference to a non-comicbook reading person/s. I had always felt the Punisher movies were crud and pandering to the masses, but what of it does the "masses" made of it?
As much as the X-men series was a teetering heap of mutant-bile waiting to implode (I have the trilogy on DVD and teared when Phoenix got covered underwater, okay!), so too was Raimi's Spiderman about to run out of webs as he flitted thru the skyscrapers (1 & 2 was the world to me, 3 was sewage-crud), and Green Lantern getting a ring off a dead purple alien might have seemed to be a fluke of the galaxy. And would you prefer TV's Lou Ferrigno-in-green-body-paint, or a CG-Hulk? Their seriousness might have become too much to bear, but truth be told, folks ate them all up, as there was not an alternative in sight!
The fact that Thor cracked a joke in The Avengers ("He's adopted"), and the Hulk slammed Loki around like a ragdoll, somehow made the huge difference to the enjoyment of the film covers up the negatives - which included the extremely draggy beginning and "recruitment" of the members (but what I felt was necessary to have to feature everyone in the cast) and by the alien battle on the streets (which we had seen via online trailers for the umpteenth time) I personally was pretty wiped out and basically lost interest (until of course when Hulk slammed Loki). But there can be no fault of the characters' dialog in The Avengers. Spot-On (like the jokes above) and frankly pretty geek-ish if you listen carefully, and mirroring the joy of reading comics, IMHO.
But seriously, a ray shoots into the sky and reveals a wondrous color of whatever covering the sky? How many movies of tis particular fantasy-genre have used that device to represent "Terror From Above" over and over again? LOL
In essence, I felt like the tone was pretty "television" (the "good type", not the bad soaps ;p), with the pacing and micro-analysis of personalities and character's personal motivations, but you know what? It worked. It made the viewers more "invested" in the characters (well, most of them), and not necessarily a souped-up condensed version of celluloid-emotion packaged within an hour and a half (well, The Avengers clocked in at 144 minutes anyways ;p), and all I can add to this, was that perhaps we rediscovered the "joy" of comicbooks again? What have we been missing all this time?
It could literally and/or literary been a decent read of a graphic novel - one where you could take your own time to breathe thru it, but for the life of you could not put the book down because it was THAT exciting to read, the story helped you move forward, even when you feel yourself dragging your heels slightly. And the movie moves. There were quite a number of foreshadowing (some cliched and some wholly unpredictable) which makes for a more enriching viewing, IMHO.
Frankly, I enjoyed the pace. I did not feel I was not sprinting across the finishing line, although most times I was chugging along like it was a marathon, and not necessarily a leisurely run. Fantastic Four would have been a "fall into quicksand", while Spiderman did leave me breathless ever so often, but again, these might well be peculiar to individual tastes...
To be fair, the ebb and tide of movie-making in the public consciousness and subconsciousness has changed (I dare not say "evolved" tho) and now a movie like The Avengers is GOLD, not forgetting the groundwork set by previous outings such as IRON MAN - and kudos for Robert Downey Jr and director Jon Favreau for seeding the notion, that comicbook movies can both be not too serious about itself, and yet be absolutely and dangerously-"serious" - just like in the comicbooks!
Has The Whedon created a "formula" for a successful comicbook-themed movie? I cannot deny nor dare I condone that happenstance, but I dare say he has indeed left his "mark" in the annuals of geek-film-history, and the fact remains that this particular film has become representative of THIS time, of THIS generation of fanboy-loving-filmmaking, and the fact that people around the world is embracing this notion, of a comicbook-adapted unto-reality-film, is a coup by itself, IMHO.
I can patiently wait for The Avengers 2, and relish in the one we have now. And also let all other movies flourish by themselves, and give us - the community - a geek-culture in celluloid that we can all be proud of, and by the time Thanos rears his purple-face on that silver-screen, the 'world" is going to be ready for him, ready to space-roundhouse-kick his alien butt across the moons of Titan! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA
ASSEMBLE!
