The Avengers

The Logical Conclusion...Not the Best Conclusion.

written by

abe

_The Avengers_, the end point of Phase One. After watching all of Phase One for the first time and essentially blind (outside of 2008's _Iron Man_), I was quite excited to see how the first proper team-up would look. The previous movies would be tongue-in-cheek with a few references to other heroes, such as _Iron Man 2_ with the appearance of Captain's shield. In _Captain America: The First Avenger_, there were several instances where the movie highlights fun references or pieces of world-building that were relevant to past movies. Despite that, it doesn't feel like I needed to have watched those previous movies to get enjoyment out of the general movie. This all comes ahead then in _The Avengers_, No longer are characters off-handedly mentioned or small easter eggs that appear in a movie for fans of the character. Instead, the characters must team together to help defend humanity from utter destruction. A direct sequel to all the previous MCU movies. With the exception of _Iron Man_, which had received a direct sequel following the first story, the movies were essentially standalone. They would tease something larger at play with certain plot points, or the now infamous "post-credit scene" they would put after the credits to show what you could expect next from Marvel. However, the knowledge of the previous movies is essentially required for _The Avengers_. That is quite novel, a certain charm that isn't typically found in a Hollywood franchise. It is aided by how each release was spread apart, making it easy for consumers not to feel overwhelmed by needing to watch so much. If they were keeping up, it was just a movie or two a year. I wish I could say the movie itself was worth the buildup. I understand how the movie was created and marketed, likely to be watched in a theater, where certain moments are highlighted to draw crowd reactions. Moments like the sweeping shot of all the Avengers assembled (eh, eh?), the epic moments where characters clash, and some witty comments made to one another. That, I would assume, would create a great experience for those who were able to attend. This doesn't excuse or give a free pass to the movie. The movie itself felt long, moments dragging, and uninteresting plot points after uninteresting plot points. Assembling the team was pretty alright, but the characters felt strangely written, as if they were all turned up to eleven. For example, Steve Rogers, aka Captain America, is a strict Boy Scout archetype. He did come off like that in _Captain America: The First Avenger_, but not to that extreme. He wanted to do right, was a bit naive about achieving that, but was also willing to compromise and listen to see what could be done. In this movie, it was quite the opposite: a boy soldier who just took orders and did not listen to anyone. Little depth outside of the death of a character affecting him...somewhat. It isn't illustrated well, as no matter what, Captain would have done right. That sounds backward, but the "little push" that Fury talks about as we mount towards the final battle doesn't really feel like a proper motivation I would expect to work on all those characters. The writing itself is quite poor. Outside of the characters acting more like poor copies of themselves, the one-liners and quips don't land. It's either pointing out something, a quirky trait of a character, or sarcasm. One gag I keep groaning in disgust at is the "joke" Tony Stark makes on the bridge around an SHIELD agent playing Galaga on his work machine. I would have expected it to cut to it when Stark mentions it, but instead it saves the punchline to the end of the scene. The impact of the gag is lost at that point, instead feeling drawn out and poorly paced. The editing is horrific. Characters sometimes blip into place for action sequences, shots aren't held long enough quite often to absorb a character's emotion or reaction to something, and moments of intrigue are lost. A good example is when the team is fighting in the room with Loki's stick. Tensions are rising, and cutting is used to showcase how chaotic the atmosphere becomes as the argument becomes more heated. A sweeping shot between the different characters begins, which would've been a great shot if the movie hadn't randomly cut to continue the sweep awkwardly. Was there no way to have that shot be in one sequence? It felt strange, took me out of the moment. That is found all over the movie due to either poor sequencing or poor editing, or even both. It leads to a frustrating experience, as it makes it feel like when the camera isn't on the character, time itself freezes. The audience must see everything, even if it leads to a bloated Act 2. Camerawork and lighting are quite flat. Many have compared it to a high-budget TV Movie, which I can understand the comparison point. The composition of many shots isn't interesting, leading to a very samey experience in watching the movie. Action sequences are essentially composed and directed all the same, so once you know how it'll usually go, it becomes quite an uninteresting thing to see. Scenes lack depth, scope, challenge, and a lack of purpose in why a certain shot was picked to be filmed that way. Locations that the characters engage in aren't shown off, only revealed when it's convenient or would've been in the shot anyway. For example, the climax. In it, the viewer is never shown anything related to the opposition. We are left in the dark on how large of a team the enemy has against our heroes. Assumptions can be made on how much the enemy army may have had with a carrier shown in the movie. Yet...it was kept afar, destroyed, and quickly resolved. No shots of interiors, of what the enemies saw of when Stark did what he did. It leads to another resolution, with little struggle, and to little satisfaction. This can all be chalked up to "you had to be there". That I can understand why one may enjoy it. However, on its own merits and craft, it simply isn't, to me, a good movie.