The Avengers (Joss Whedon, 2012)

[Finch]

Saw my first 2012 release today, The Avengers Assemble as it's called over here (to avoid confusion with the Diana Rigg series). It was fun and well-paced (it takes a little while to get going but once you're past the intro sequence, the 144 mins or so flew by; I certainly wasn't bored). Whedon gets the team dynamic right and he packs the script with several good lines but I thought Loki's motivation was a bit murky (Hiddleston is excellent though). The action is okay: the scale is impressive but Whedon frames hand on hand combat a bit too tight. Funniest moment of the film definitely belongs to Bruce Banner/Hulk and provoked loud laughter among the audience, myself included. Not among the best ever superhero films made like some quarters have claimed but it entertained me alright. If we did star ratings out of five, this would rate a solid 3.

[Jeff]

Lost some respect for Samuel L. Jackson after he childishly tweeted this response to A.O. Scott's mild pan of The Avengers.

#Avengers fans,NY Times critic AO Scott needs a new job! Let's help him find one! One he can ACTUALLY do!

[mfunk9786]

That seems like pretty mild attention paid to a review in such a big publication, and some good-humored attention at that.

[hearthesilence]

Looks more childish than anything else to me. The movie's going to make a fortune, why the hell is he picking on a critic who gave an honest take on it? It's like Billy Joel when he tore up reviews during his concerts, it's just petty and sad.

[mfunk9786]

Y'all need to get a sense of humor

[matrixschmatrix]

Honestly, man, a celebrity trying to get hordes of fanboys to go after a critic is kind of crappy, though not really a big deal. Plus it's not like what he said is actually, you know, funny.

[Adam X]

Some people just don't deal well with criticism.

Having just seen The Avengers, I'd agree with pretty much all that was said in that review. Even Joss Whedon couldn't make something special within the Marvel machine.

Of course the film was competing for my attention with very average digital projection, and chatty kids walking in and out constantly. Superheroes beat high school any day of the week

[domino harvey]

Bashing critics is the celebrity-equivalent of invoking Hitler in an Internet argument

[mfunk9786]

I realize that it's not that funny, but it's also not an outrageous thing to rib the lead film critic for the New York Times about a negative review. The idea of 'losing respect for' someone is absurd. Now, I might lose respect for Jackson if he were ribbing some poor schmuck who was probationally employed with a small paper in Omaha or something, but this is the New York Times. Fanboys on Twitter calling you a douche or whatever shouldn't be much of problem when you wield that much tastemaking power (at least, among the film criticism community). It's not like A.O. Scott's boss is going to call him into his office and bang his fist and say "We're getting so many angry calls from our key demographic of readers, Scott - we just have to let you go." Overreacting to something like this strikes me as very very goofy, is all.

[wattsup32]

Joss Whedon couldn't make something special within the Marvel machine.

Perhaps I misread Scott's intent, but I took him to be saying that Whedon did make something, at least as special as anything that could be made, within the genre. I like Scott, but I part ways with him slightly here. I assume Dargis or anyone else at the Times could have reviewed the film. So, why did Scott even bother if he knows he doesn't like the genre?

This reminds me of the time my friend searched through my DVD shelves, picked out McCabe and Mrs. Miller, read the back, then asked if he could borrow it. When he returned it I asked him what he thought. He said he didn't like it. I asked why and he said he doesn't like Warren Beatty. I said, But you knew he was in it when you asked to borrow it. He said, yeah I know, but I don't like him, so I didn't like the movie. I said, well that means you suck--not the movie.

Watching something you know you won't like and then giving it a review is foolish at best. Scott isn't a foolish reviewer. My guess is that he was genuinely interested in what Whedon could do with the genre and so reviewed it with sincere curiosity. And, in the end, couldn't overcome his genre bias, though he seemed to admire what Whedon was able to do anyway.

All of that was rampant speculation--except the part about my friend. He really was just being a dumbass.

Of course the film was competing for my attention with very average digital projection, and chatty kids walking in and out constantly. Superheroes beat high school any day of the week

My 8 year-old daughter and I did the whole marathon. I could not agree more about the quality of theatre etiquette these days. It is as though everyone thinks they are watching the film in their living rooms, or that we are secretly filming an episode of MST3K and they need the best zinger. But, it wasn't just the high school kids. It was the adults, too. I'm proud to say, save for a tiny bladder that required bathroom trips during the 15 hours marathon, my little one didn't talk or text or otherwise disturb the audience. If she learns one thing from me, it will be theatre etiquette.

I really enjoyed the film. I could have done without the stupid transformery robot-alien snake thingies. And, I would have preferred more comprehensible action sequences. But, I also understand that these films demand that these days. And, it was a small price to pay to watch Whedon craft impeccable dialogue, dynamics, and character relationships. I laughed out loud more than a dozen times (which is more than I laugh out loud at most comedies these days). Scott is correct in that respect: it really is a tight little comedy about a dysfunctional family masquerading as an action film.

The Hulk, who I normally could take or leave, was the real standout here. He is the funniest and the scariest all at once. He also kicks the most ass. There is one 10 second sequence that is as violent as anything I've seen.

[swo17]

I assume Dargis or anyone else at the Times could have reviewed the film. So, why did Scott even bother if he knows he doesn't like the genre?

This reminds me of the time my friend searched through my DVD shelves, picked out McCabe and Mrs. Miller, read the back, then asked if he could borrow it. When he returned it I asked him what he thought. He said he didn't like it. I asked why and he said he doesn't like Warren Beatty. I said, But you knew he was in it when you asked to borrow it. He said, yeah I know, but I don't like him, so I didn't like the movie. I said, well that means you suck--not the movie.

Watching something you know you won't like and then giving it a review is foolish at best.

In the grand scheme of things, I'm not sure that I can think of anything less important than which critic some newspaper sends to review a superhero movie.

[Jeff]

I can't imagine why a paper should only ask critics to review movies they think they're likely to enjoy or review positively.

I don't get how Jackson is "ribbing" Scott. He sounded thoroughly serious to me. No, I don't believe he genuinely was trying to get him fired or thought that he possibly could. He just sounded genuinely angry that Scott had the gall not to love his film, which has been critically acclaimed overall.

Scott's job is to give his honest assessment of the film, not to promote it. He obviously did that, and laid forth his arguments thoroughly. Jackson responded that Scott couldn't "do his job" correctly. It makes me wonder if he's ever read any of Scott's other reviews. It undermines the idea of art criticism in the same way that Uwe Boll offering to fight his critics does. It's bad enough when you have moronic fanboys on Rotten Tomatoes lambasting anyone who dares to disturb the critical consensus of their beloved superheroes, it's another thing altogether when you have one of the film's actors, who should be above the fray, encouraging them to do the same.

When you put a piece of work before the public, criticism is part of the bargain; take it like a man. That should be especially easy to do when the work is widely loved overall and going to make a billion dollars. He didn't even bother to address his quibbles with the review, just dismissing it out of hand. His comment was childish, petty, and unprofessional. That's why I said I lost some respect for him.

[Michael Kerpan]

I can't imagine why a paper should only ask critics to review movies they think they're likely to enjoy or review positively.

A sports editor does not ordinarily send a sports reporter who hates a particular sport to provide coverage of that sport. Film critics who detest a certain genre (or other category of movie) are generally not going to provide the most useful review for readers who are interested in finding out whether a film is a good or bad example of the type.

(Not saying whether this applies in the case of Scott and the movie in question).

[Jeff]

A sports editor does not ordinarily send a sports reporter who hates a particular sport to provide coverage of that sport. Film critics who detest a certain genre (or other category of movie) are generally not going to provide the most useful review for readers who are interested in finding out whether a film is a good or bad example of the type.

Sports and cinema are two very different things though, and covering what transpires at a game is very different than offering a critical assessment. Scott's play-by-play coverage of what happened in The Avengers was certainly fine.

That said, I get what you're saying about critics who have an aversion to a genre not being able to say if it's a good example of the genre or not. The opposite problem also holds true of course. You can't send a Harry Knowles to review a picture like this, because he'll say that it is themostawesomestmovieofalltime, no matter what. What I expect is a a critic who is largely indifferent to genre, and can tell me if they believe the film transcends its genre trappings or not. I can't see anything in his review that indicates that Scott isn't just such an individual. His review is barely a pan, is largely complimentary, and doesn't indicate he detests the genre. He simply didn't feel this film was a superlative example of it, and he explained why.

Despite all this, I've enjoyed the recent Marvel pictures leading up to this one to varying degrees, and I full expect to enjoy The Avengers at least as much. My only interest in the Jackson-Scott kerfuffle was as a fan of honest, thoughtful film criticism.

[wattsup32]

In the grand scheme of things, I'm not sure that I can think of anything less important than which critic some newspaper sends to review a superhero movie.

My mistake. I didn't realize we were talking grand scheme of things. If that is the context, then I retract my entire post, as it is truly unimportant in every way.

[Adam X]

Joss Whedon couldn't make something special within the Marvel machine.

Perhaps I misread Scott's intent, but I took him to be saying that Whedon did make something, at least as special as anything that could be made, within the genre.

That was more my take on the film than Scott's. I agree that the dialogue and character interaction tended to be the best thing about The Avengers, though that's largely true of anything by Whedon.
Personally I found it, for what was generally your standard 21st century splashy Hollywood action film, to be strangely muted. In performance and, weirdly, the sound design - though the latter could again have been due to the quality of the cinema's sound system.

Really, though, I just shouldn't have seen the film, I think. For the same reason that's maybe behind swo's comment. I'm not sure I care much for any Hollywood action cinema - and specifically in this case superhero films. Of those I've seen, they all seem to follow the same generic template, with only a rare exception or two. A lot of the time, I find it's a frustrating compulsion I have to check out these films occasionally, in the hope of finding something that really is as exciting as my memory of films I saw growing up. But I think that's honestly never going to happen. Age has a way of changing the way you view and experience things.

[hearthesilence]

A sports editor does not ordinarily send a sports reporter who hates a particular sport to provide coverage of that sport. Film critics who detest a certain genre (or other category of movie) are generally not going to provide the most useful review for readers who are interested in finding out whether a film is a good or bad example of the type.

(Not saying whether this applies in the case of Scott and the movie in question).

Not a good comparison. Reviewing different films (or film genres) is nothing like reporting on different sports. The analogy would be more accurate if it was, say, a critic reviewing different arts (jumping between theater, film and pop music for example) or a sportswriter who refuses to cover the White Sox AND the Cubs (or the Giants AND the Jets, etc.) because of an incredible bias for one side over the other, but even then, the comparison would still remain seriously flawed, as Jeff has pointed out.

[starmanof51]

So, why did Scott even bother if he knows he doesn't like the genre?

Because he was assigned to it by the Arts desk? That would be my first guess. Which, by the way, is how American sports reporters often find themselves covering sports they don't much care for once they get past the big three team sports. They may not end up specializing in NASCAR or tennis or what have you, but they do find themselves having to deal with such things from time to time even if it's not their cup of tea. As long as they (movie critics/sportswriters) attempt to engage with the assignment fairly and can craft a sentence (strikes one and two, Armond) then I have no complaints.

This was pretty bush league on Sam J's part. He really should know better. I won't be surprised if he ends up walking it back with some "everybody's entitled to their opinion" followup.

[hearthesilence]

Really, though, I just shouldn't have seen the film, I think. For the same reason that's maybe behind swo's comment. I'm not sure I care much for any Hollywood action cinema - and specifically in this case superhero films. Of those I've seen, they all seem to follow the same generic template, with only a rare exception or two. A lot of the time, I find it's a frustrating compulsion I have to check out these films occasionally, in the hope of finding something that really is as exciting as my memory of films I saw growing up. But I think that's honestly never going to happen. Age has a way of changing the way you view and experience things.

My interest in comic books (and anything in that direction) pretty much died out by the time I finished high school, but it's not impossible to make a comic book movie that's just generally a good film as well. They may not be my favorites, but I did like Iron Man and The Dark Knight. The Incredibles, The Empire Strikes Back and The Lord of the Rings trilogy fall under the same category, and I thought they were all good films.

On the other hand, I'm really not a fan of movies aimed at people who just want their favorite comic books re-created scene for scene on the screen, it feels like movies for people who don't care about cinema, or worse, who don't care about art. I'm not crazy about casting decisions in some movies either, but after a while, petitions and internet campaigns feel less like a protest against bad creative decisions and more about pushing filmmakers into pandering, which completely defeats the purpose of art. You're not really listening to what someone else has to say, you're just demanding they spit out what you already know. Maybe that's a problem inherent in comic book adaptations - it's more constricting than other commercial projects, with even less room for making something personal and less freedom in interpreting a work.

[knives]

My interest in comic books (and anything in that direction)

You're probably just referring to a certain kind of comic book or what not, but it is a bit silly to dismiss an entire medium just because two companies soap operas are trash.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

#Avengers fans,NY Times critic AO Scott needs a new job! Let's help him find one! One he can ACTUALLY do!

I think Jackson is playfully fomenting the kind of impotent rage equivalent to what is directed toward the tactless blunderer who tells the gamers that they are throwing dice, not casting spells. If Scott had questioned the ability of Captain America's shield to withstand a blow from Thor's hammer, then comic fans might scratch their thinly-bearded chins, engage the question, and attempt to quantify strength values, debating the materials, properties, and powers involved; this is what amounts to fair criticism in San Diego every July. Which, of course, seems silly to those who don't seek shelter in an alternate universe. But Jackson is an agent provocateur, not Elijah Prince; I think neither he nor Scott give a damn about the liturgy of character and story arc prized by genre fans. Fanboys may likely view Scott in the same way that the stand-up comic views the audience member who shouts, "Why would a duck walk into a bar?"

[hearthesilence]

My interest in comic books (and anything in that direction)

You're probably just referring to a certain kind of comic book or what not, but it is a bit silly to dismiss an entire medium just because two companies soap operas are trash.

I respect indie comics, but with a few exceptions like Scott Pilgim, they don't have much of a presence in films. I do like American Splendor and Ghost World quite a bit, not to mention Crumb if that counts...

[knives]

Okay, so it's just adaptation in which case I do agree. It just came off as if you were referring to the whole of the medium itself which would be a bit silly.

[domino harvey]

With $200 million dollars, this was officially the biggest opening weekend of all time (for now...)

[dx23]

Saw it on Friday and The Avengers is a very good, fun movie. It's not a great action film or anything like that, but I think its appeal lies on the fact that many of us grew up seeing this heroes in comics, TV shows or toys and wanted someday that a movie like this came along. Ruffalo and Hulk stole the show in this one although I was really surprised that Whedon manage to use everyone in a proper manner.