"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man". Give it a read, if you don't agree with what I say, just quote 'The Dude' and move on, there's 100s of articles on the internet that adhere to gratification of your ideas. Please, do not start ovulating terrible facial expressions to show you are a loose cannon like Mark Ruffalo aka Bruce Banner in 'The Avengers' (coincidence? I guess not).
Now, I know a lot of Marvel fans would blatantly write me off, but what you have to understand is, there's a fine line of distinction between a good movie and a good adaptation. The Avengers is probably a good live action adaptation of the Marvel comics, incorporating all the superheroes and their small story arcs that had served as a buildup to it. But, its a bad movie, and rightfully one of the worst, because apart from being a 'dream come true' for fans, it barely offers anything at all (some people may argue it offers a start to an extended Marvel Cinematic Universe, but hey, read the title, we are just focusing on The Avengers). Even Wiseau's The Room is more structured than The Avengers' shambolic plotting!
My primary criticism of The Avengers is that the movie's whole existence is to serve as a buildup to the finale, where all the superheroes team up to fight the extra terrestial beings. Now, many films have followed a similar of style of structuring and writing with the ending in mind like 'La Haine', 'Se7en', 'American History X', 'Usual Suspects' to name a few. But what The Avengers fails to do in comparison is regard the first two acts (there aren't any but for the sake of understanding) as important. There's nothing such as an 'act' in the movie, by the way.
The primary intention of the creators while making the movie was to reach the other end (the finale), but in doing so they create something so fragile at the core, the damage's already done by the time The Battle of CGI and Spandex commences. Mind me, the damage Avengers does to itself is worse than that of New York after the battle, and the most dissapointing part is it doesn't succumb to ambition, but mediocrity. It's baffling how Marvel stuck to Zak Penn after his even after his floundering success with the original X men trilogy and a string of action movies that reek of the same shit : Mindless action, big stars and forced humor.
The characterization in The Avengers is very dumb.
- A god who falls for an illusion, and tries harder to hide his accent than help the cause.
- A superhero whose greatest weakness (and strength) is anger, PMSing over the slightest of verbal disagreements.
- The extravagantly cocky 'brains' of the group already trying to cause a civil war. But brownie points for craving for a shawarma after sending a WMD into a different dimension, I hope he had some humor(oops, hummus) with it later.
- A 'spandex flaunting fossil' (in the words of Stark, if the movie was a bit cheesier) preaching righteousness, days after his resurrection. This was very disappointing, because Cap is very resolute in upholding his equally important morals, but this was a pure mockery.
- A Green Arrow rip-off who's sole motive is to deliver preposterous double entendres and cheesy one liners, for the limited amount of time he's on screen. And, sorry, but talking about Budapest doesn't fuel chemistry.
- An agent who was probably told by Whedon (when he traveled back to the past) to collect Captain America cards, so that one day 4-5 full grown adults who've already lost important people in their lives, realize the importance of life and death.
- A black Nick Fury. How commercialized do you wanna make it? Samuel L Jackson's a badass for people who prefer watching Home Alone over Die Hard on Christmas. What's the point in even casting him when you are too sensitive about the Universal rating, you wont let him draw out his Motherf*cker. Nick Fury's rugged cigar chomping identity was indigenous to his character.
- A god being tossed around by The Hulk. The antagonist feels out of place, it's like the director mistook 'Tom Hiddlestone' for Bruce Campbell, because the treatment of Loki's character feels right out of Evil Dead II.
A big budget is a luxury to a director, and also an opportunity to showcase his creativity and flair without any constraints. With a humongous budget in excess of $200 million, you expect your superhero movie to be Sam Raimi's Spiderman 2 and not a whimsy macroscopic remake of Power Rangers. The burden of a big budget can only be eradicated by a humongous box office collection, and that is probably a big reason for its mediocrity. They play it really safe, so safe, they should've probably had a choking hazard for ages 15 to above.
Everything is tailor made for the audiences to spend 2 hours on the movie, 5 minutes to notify the world that they checked in and another 10 minutes to spend the equivalent of the ticket on nachos. Why don't the audience take it seriously? Because it doesn't want you to. Instead of spending the budget on a crew that could do justice to the budget and the genius of Stan Lee's creation, it falls flat playing fancy to satisfy non comic book reading sections, without lending much thought to the current timeframe.
It's the 2010s, Star Wars-esque filmmaking with simple plots and heavy graphics doesn't work anymore, even for the sake of amusement (taking nothing away from Star Wars, its a brilliant film). So primarily for the pathetic optimization of resources on top of plotting that's as awry as Trump's wig, this sinks down to the lowest opinion I hold of movies. And, to clarify, by Star Wars, I mean the original trilogy and not the one with Hayden Christensen, who on a second thought would have made a great Bruce Banner if he worked out a bit.
4. Awful Time Management
In the entirety of its 153 minute runtime, not once does it indulge in developing something humane in the characters, except the part where Agent Coulson dies, which I have already mentioned was more ridiculous than the scene where Hulk all of a sudden decides to spend some quality time with his bitch, during the battle. The themes or morals come out so forced, it would've been best to just leave them out and focus on the intensity and the pacing, solely from an action movie perspective. Unsurprisingly, the supeheroes find some solace in wasting time in the movie, but well, that's that.
Now, because of the huge cast and the multiple action sequences playing out at the same time, it's logical enough to edit them as collage of scenes edited together, but the flaw is the introduction of lines during those sequences. There's nothing such as continuity, and they hinder the flow to an extent, which eventually overshadows the good editing work. This is the part where the movie has to really apply its whole idea of diversity by taking inspiration from Korean and Chinese movies, and using its budget to shoot longer takes, which were a highlight in Winter Soldier.
A Deus Ex Machina Ending!
Okay. I've already discussed how the movie only cares about the ending. But, the part where you completely lose it (because your Sandglass of Disappointment has run out), is the end. A bloody ex machina ending. Seriously? After 2 hours of rummaging through shit, what we get is an unprecedented strike on New York City, is the S.H.I.E.L.D run by Ozymandias?
Marvel's actively been involved in showing solidarity against gender and race related constraints through their casting process lately. If they can afford to be so concerned to reflect the current state of affairs, how can they be ignorant as to completely undermine the existence of a government or an army. Does S.H.I.E.L.D preside over the affairs of the world and if it doesn't how can such a enormous body like it stay incognito (my porn stash is less secretive than it, and it hardly accounts to a gigabyte).
The introduction of the missile shows how fallible the story writing is. For the finale to be a successful act, they depend on the cheapest plot devices in the process of filmmaking. I am glad, Pepper Potts didn't appear out of nowhere to give Iron Man the Sword of Gryffindor to kill those beings.
Well, that's that, and pardon me for such informality and the cringeworthy vocabulary, but the aesthetic quality of the movie is negligible for me to quote Shakespeare on its grandeur or charm. Probably the only thing likeable about the movie was it's improvement of the portrayal of 'Hulk' after the underwhelming The Incredible Hulk, and the sizzling Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow.