The cartoon physics of the first fight just didn’t seem any worse than the effects of the first movie, particularly the battle of NY.
Tony’s judgment had been affected by the Scarlet Witch. As for Banner, it was pretty obvious that he was desperate not to have to be the Hulk any more. He could control himself but he didn’t want to have to be that thing anymore and if something else could protect the planet he was all for it. Also, it was shown in the first movie that Tony is good at talking him into things.
His motivation was pretty obvious. He resented being “born” and wanted to destroy his creators because they weren’t worthy of him. He considered himself superior to humans and thought he would be doing the planet a favor by getting rid of them.
[QUOTE]
(4) The connection between Thor’s flashback, Heimdahl, the scientest, the hot tub, and the creation of Vision. (Oh, right, I missed out on all of that because I “wasn’t paying close attention”.) And even if you can explain that all closely, was it necessary? The creation-of-Vision plotline would have been just fine without Thor showing up.
[/QUOTE ]
Thor’s vision was there to establish that Loki’s sceptre contained an Infinity stone.
So after the first Avengers movie AND The Winter Soldier established Cap as feeling out of place anywhere but a military style situation you wanted them to waste time reiterating that? Why?
Yes, they did. But I’ve seen Jarvis, with his limited abilities, operate various Stark-bots easy as carry on conversations in general and offer tactical advice based on literary allusions in particular, and so on, and so on. Seemed adequate.
Nah. This is clearly a case of complaining because the movie did not match the expectations they’d built up for it in their heads.
All the complaints are about the CGI not meeting their high standards, wanting the plot to match whatever their favored plot would have been, and wanting their favorite characters to have been the focus of the story.
I saw it, it was OK. I didn’t find it to have those “moments” that the first one did (Thor beating Loki, schwarma, etc), but the best thing about the movie was my daughters reactions, especially her “I so want Thor’s hair” comment, which I found more entertaining than anything said on-screen.
I also drove her and her friends home after the movie where they each took the souvenir cup and then ranked to Avengers according to their Bae-ness. Not surprisingly, Captain America was #1 on the Bae-ometer for all the girls (they were 13yo), with Thor a strong #2. Hawkeye received some support - I didn’t have the heart to tell them that Hawkeye was as old as their dads, though they all thought his wife was beneath him - “she looks so old!” (the actress is actually 39 years old, five years younger than Renner.)
Sorry Mark Ruffalo - you don’t do anything for the teen set. At least for this teen set, who pretty much put you in the “Oooh, gross” category. I don’t even think Tony Stark was considered as he was obviously too old to be bae.
JohnT, did any of those 13-year-old girls have a reaction to Quicksilver’s fate? At the showing I was at there were audible reactions from several younger females when that happened.
OK, but how is he not getting hurt? He’s not invulnerable, as his fate in the movie showed. He was also hit by bullets when moving fast, so it’s not as though he’s invulnerable or even damage-resistant when he’s moving fast.
It’s also unclear, if he could kill robots like that but couldn’t kill the killable Avengers at the start of the movie. If you say, “He was just trying to draw them out so Scarlet Witch could work her magic on them,” then why were all the mooks firing upon the Avengers? That whole opening scene has lots of issues, though.
Yup. Especially with the shots of the resulting dustcloud shooting through the city streets, and the citizens trying to outrun it. I’m sure I could link to the real 2001 footage of that I remember seeing, but y’know, I’m trying to be grown-up and tasteful, so I wont.
Since always; it’s practically his defining character trait, doing the best he can with what’s on hand – while looking to make improvements, sure, but at any given moment shooting for “good enough right now.” Box of scraps in a cave? He’ll make do for now. The prototype hasn’t been tested yet? No time for that, let’s go. Here’s a glove and some Christmas decorations; fine, sure, whatever.
No, it is just that I don’t think it was a good movie.
I’ve mentioned the CGI and frankly it stood out more in this, was more than it did in Iron Man 3, where there was a similar “load of suits/robots” flying around. I’ve mentioned character moments, something that reviews have also mentioned, and I don’t really have a “favourite superhero” and frankly you sound like a bit of a dick for even implying it.
I get it, some people here disagree with me, but what I am saying is also covered by several critics. I’m so, so sorry that I don’t adore a film that some other people here do, but that has nothing to do with paying attention, intelligence or whatnot. It is just that I find it to be a flawed film and I am not alone in that view.
Thor’s vision wasn’t explained adequately within the movie. My guess is that it was a set-up for the next Thor movie.
There was an interesting concept here that could have been more fully explored. Captain America has always defined himself as a soldier. So what would he do if there wasn’t a war that needed to be fought? Cap is intelligent enough that he wants peace but he also has to wonder if there would be any place for him in peace. When Tony Stark talked about their goal being to make a world where the Avengers weren’t needed, it had to hit Cap pretty hard. Stark could go back to being a genius/billionaire/playboy/philanthropist, Thor could return to Asgard, Barton could retire to his farm, Banner wanted to just be a scientist, and Romanov could go off with Banner. But Steve Rodgers didn’t have a place to go if the war ended.
Just saw it. Enjoyed it overall, probably not as much as the first, but definitely better than Thor 2 and Iron Man 3.
Of course, I have quibbles, but my quibbles didn’t break my suspension of disbelief. Some of them:
Why does Ultron’s mouth move? That was closest to breaking my suspension of disbelief of everything.
Some of the CGI was simply too CGI-ey.
I’ve gotten so used to the equalization of power (when necessary) in both animated and live action comic book adaptations that my eyes barely roll anymore when Hawkeye is taking down Ultron-bots with arrows, BW with her glow sticks, or CA is going one-on-one with Ultron and holding his own.
My biggest quibble, though, is that the movie didn’t differentiate itself from the first. I understand why it doesn’t; studio money guys tell producers and directors ‘just do what you did before that made us a billion dollars’. Modern Blockbuster 101 says you need set action sequences every x minutes, so storytelling always gets the back seat. So while I’m not expecting it to be different, I would really have liked it.
I loved the focus on avoiding casualties, and while they might not have been giving the finger to Man of Steel, they were cognizant of it. I read an interview that stated it was a conscious choice. I liked the focus on the characters who don’t get their own trilogies. Overall thumbs up, just not as high as the first Avengers movie.
It’s unclear what Scarlet Witch’s goal is with the mind-fucking. Is she trying to help Hydra? How? It’s also not clear how the mind-fucking would lead Stark to such a serious lapse in judgment. It’s not as though the SW is trying to get him to create
Based on our current scientific knowledge, it’s really dumb. If the extinction-level event was designed to wipe out humans, then it would definitely wipe out all higher animals with any hope of evolving into a higher intelligence. Selectively wiping out only humans so that apes or cetaceans or something could evolve could make sense, perhaps.
The whole “humanity is a disease on the planet” has been done much more effectively before with a better setup. E.g., Agent Smith in The Matrix. This really felt tired in this movie.
Yes, one detail I remember in the blur of stupid is Captain America whipping the motorcycle he is riding at the mooks ahead to take them out.
It’s one thing for the CGI to be bad and make physics look wrong, but that’s just physically impossible no matter how strong you are. You simply can’t throw an object heavier than you are with leverage against a stationary or sufficiently heavy object. I can’t make it sound as ridiculous as it actually looked.
I thought the whole idea was that humanity (and all other life on the planet) would be replaced by him. That he, Ultron, the Singularity, was the next step in the planet’s evolution.
Ha! That was actually one of my favorite bits!
Aside: Is no one else going to address the fact that Cap just said “Language!”
(I loved the way they milked the running joke from this.)
I think we get it. You didn’t like it. Most people did. Holding the minority opinion doesn’t make you right. And hyperbolic criticisms don’t make you insightful.
It was a fine film. It was, in my opinion, one of the best action films of all time. It was scripted tight and not a scene was wasted. It told a story, and it told well and internally consistently. That doesn’t make it perfect, but it’s far from the chucklefuck disaster you’re asserting.