It was fanatastic. I would rank it right now as the best superhero movie. It's worth the hype. I got early to make the first showing at 9:40 a.m. and it was already sold out. I had to go for the next showing a hour later.
Take Iron Man for example. It had a plot with depth and a message , very good pacing, great technical shots, good strong character arcs, and then still found time to to have action that showed off the character. Ebert loved that. As a film Iron Man was better made than the Avengers, the Avengers just had a hell of alot more spectacle going for it. It's far from perfect. Don't be surprised if the sequal is better.
You don't have to take Ebert's opinion as gospel but the guy still has a far greater knowledge of cinema than the average guy on the streets. He's seen and analyzed it all. He can't tell you whether you'll personaly find a movie enjoyable, but he can tell you whether the film was made well or not.
Imo opinion I agree with him. Iron Man and The Dark Knight were good films in general. They were well made and could stand up to the same scrutiny you'd give to any film that opened that year. People seem to want him to lower his expectations for what the genre can be (as clearly illustrated by other films) and judge them on another scale. The Avengers wanted to be a spectacle of an action flick that had some decent dialogue and a script that kept it together. It did that. Doesn't mean it was a highly well made film with perfect technical craftsmanship. And you can do that.
And it's not like he gave The Avengers a bad review. He gave it 3 out of 4 stars!
I loved it, but I'd only give it 3 1/2 out of 4 stars.
The Avengers is great, but it's not without its problems.
Right, Ebert gave Captain America 3/4 stars, ending the review with the following: "If Marvel is wise, it will take this and "Iron Man" as its templates."
I think IM1 is the best Marvel film to date, but The Avengers is still a helluva lot of fun, and works way better than I expected.
(I'd only give Cap 2/4 stars, since the post-Serum part of the movie is underwhelming, i.e., not enough genuine Super Soldier moves or battlefield leadership. Cap is much better in The Avengers.)
"Everybody, sooner or later, sits down to a banquet of consequences." - Robert Louis Stevenson
Fair enough, I actually didn't look at the star rating, but the content of the his text, and actually reading what Ebert read I was like.... did this guy see the movie? He gave it 3 stars, perhaps, but it was full of digs and just lacking in respect of the genre as a whole. He respects films but disrespects the fictional genre of superheroes, and doesn't get where these movies draw its metaphors, so I don't think he's the best person as a go to reviewer for superhero movies. The whole review was just snarky and rubbed me the wrong way.
Last edited by Zagreus; 05-05-2012 at 06:13 PM.
In his defense, most of them said they cried when an undeveloped character got stabbed to death.
Nothing's gonna happen without a warning
I just read his review, and what? Is his issue with the way the plot progresses and that the aliens origins weren't expounded upon? Because that's all I'm getting. He doesn't really get into technical flaws, so all of this talk about his knowledge of films is pretty irrelevant to the actual review.
Or does he have another review somewhere?
Last edited by BrotherUnitNo_4; 05-05-2012 at 06:37 PM.
Why aren't you reading Winter Soldier? You should be!
So...who wants some schwarma?
Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)
Everybody seems to be an extremist these days...
I loved it Marvels best movie so far. But I still don't know who the hell those aliens are?
Favorites: Fearless Defenders* New Avengers* Bloodshot* Shadowman* Archer & Armstrong