Avengers: Age Of Ultron - Official Thread *Spoilers*

[Brandeezy]

I don't have it.I saw somebody watching it earlier.

 

[Black White Sox Hat]

Dead ass.I saw a little of it.

 

[Rigby.]

Yo someone on my snapchat watching this shyt right now

come through nikkas

 

[Rigby.]

nikkas watching this from a Camcorder

NOPE :lupehah:

 

[TheGodling]

It's so strange seeing you go all in for this movie @TheGodling
Not to put you in a box but this doesn't seem like the kinda of movie you'd like and I feel you might be giving more slack then other movies.

Now, let me answer this as shortly as I can without becoming too self-indulged (it will still be a long post regardless).

You definitely should not put me in a box, because you can't, because I'm willing to bet that I, by far, have the most expansive (broad) taste on this board. That's not a brag or a boast, it's just a simple statement to emphasize that I am a man of many, many interests, and there really is no extent to the things you might find me liking (or disliking).

Onward to this movie,

let's start by saying it's a movie that knows what it is. It is a superhero team-up blockbuster and all of it reflects it. Whedon, for what it's worth, understands the core principle of what makes a superhero a superhero, and in case it isn't clear, let me give a hint, it ain't the powers. Superheroes were created as our imaginary protectors in a world in which nothing will protect us, people who accomplish and live out the ideals that we strive for and give us something we can look up to. In short, it's the person that makes the hero. There's many things you can fault the Avengers movies for (or Marvel movies in general), but they never lose sight of that, and always make the movies about the hero(es). So much even that often (too often I'd say, but that's a different discussion) the villain is just a placeholder, a stone for the hero to step over in his journey. Then again, Indiana Jones gave us three classic blockbuster movies without a single memorable villain, unless you want to count the guy from the second movie even though the only noteworthy thing he did was rip a heart out (probably the sole reason you're thinking of him now), or the hot Nazi chick from the third who you damn well know you only remember because she's a hot Nazi chick (if you google "nazi chick i" it automatically suggests "hot nazi chick from indiana jones and the last crusade" for a reason).

Anyway, in this case we get (for the most part) spot-on characterizations of multiple superheroes, each with their own character arc (no matter how small) to explain why they're fighting and what for. Cap is simply a good guy who will always fight for what's right (while searching for a place called home in a world still strange to him), whereas Tony went from self-protection to feeling the need to shoulder the weight of the world (to a fault). Widow tries to atone for her past sins, whereas Thor has the power and thus feels the responsibility to protect the entire realm. Banner doesn't want to fight but knows the Hulk is a necessity (much to his own dismay), and Hawkeye is a dedicated soldier just trying to protect his home. No, they're not baffling groundbreaking motivations, but in both Avengers movies Whedon finds ways to expand on each and every one of them, make it seem like they actually add something to the movie (compare that to say the arbitrary named and colored Autobots/Decepticons in the Transformers movies) and bring them to life in ways even some of the solo movies can't pull off (looking at you Thor movies, as well as what a generic motivation-less wise-cracking hero they made Star-Lord into, and what a generic motivation-less wise-cracking hero Scott Lang is looking to be shaping up as right now).

Then there's the action, which delivers tenfold. The action builds naturally, each set piece consistently has stand-out moments and utilizes every character's unique abilities in different ways. All in all, to keep this thing short, as far as action goes Whedon knows what he's doing. And luckily for us, he actually stepped his game up as a director as well (thank the heavens for that btw) so this movie for a change doesn't have the aesthetic look of a tv-production. Seeing as that was my biggest issue with the original movie (which already got the things right that I talked above), huge improvement.

So we got a superhero team-up blockbuster that delivers on all aspects of a superhero team-up blockbuster, so I should dislike it why? Because it can be a bit too jokey, to the point where it seems as Whedon wrote this he put in little in-jokes for fun, and because nobody bothered to check his ass he actually ended up putting all of them in the movie? Because the soundtrack is so lackluster you only ever notice it when there's a scene that really feels like it could've used a better soundtrack? Because I don't like the idea of Banner/Romanoff hooking up, even though you really can't fault the way it's written (and I'm a writer at heart). Because the story is so chock full of developments (mostly to push upcoming movies) that sometimes they dedicate a single line of dialogue to a development and expect you to roll with it? Because the good guys win without too much sacrifice, and the villain's six-hundred deep army couldn't touch them, like they do in all these movies? Because it doesn't try to be more than what it is? All of that is minor stuff in the face of what it does right, and therefore, forgiveable.

So if you wonder why I give this movie more slack than 'other' movies (blockbusters? 'prestige' movies?) it's because I look at every movie for what it is and aspires to be, and this movie knows what it is and accomplishes what it aspires to be. Whereas many, many movies, simply don't. Just because Nolan makes 'deeper', more grown up high-brow blockbusters (or at least, pretends to, because you know how I feel about that), doesn't mean they're automatically better blockbusters. And just because Innaritu can copy/paste twenty tracking shots of pretentious self-conscious monologues/dialogues together, doesn't mean it automatically makes better cinema than a movie where Keanu Reeves' dog is killed and as payback he murders the entire Russian mafia. Because if you look at the movie that John Wick wants to be, and the movie that Birdman wants to be, I can say without as much as a doubt in my mind that only John Wick succeeds, and as such, shyts all over Birdman. And just because Birdman sets its goals higher, doesn't mean it gets a pass. Because I don't judge movies for their aspirations, I judge them for what they end up being. And that's why you can replace John Wick with The Man With The Iron Fists 2, or even the WWE-studio DTV movie The Marine 4: Home Target, and Birdman would still lose. Because that movie simply doesn't work for what it is.

 

[Family Lives Matter]

Niccas that broke they can't afford cinema tickets

 

[joeychizzle]

BREHS
just saw this in Imax
:moshaq:




I won't spoil it for you though. Just waiting for some fakkitass DC stans to say it's mediocre

If it weren't for some annoying ass kid whose parents are sentient cumstains I would've enjoyed it even more

Spoiler

Vision and Thanos!!!!!

 

[MooseMouthMthafuga]

I don't understand. If this one has more action than the first one and it's longer how the hell is the first one still better?


U see this is why I never watched agents of shield or agent carter. I think if you watch too much you become immune

I was about everybody saying that, to


But then I saw the movie.I understand why now.




Just don't seem like a lot of care went into this movie.....got that " let's just get this over with" vibe from this movie.Like Joss Whedon just got burned out and said "fukk it...I'll just give em more action and half ass my way through this one"


That's just the feeling I got


Movie was like a 6.8/10 for me

 

[StraxStrax]

First off @TheGodling - great post

I'll break your comments down so I can handle them (pause)

it's just a simple statement to emphasize that I am a man of many, many interests, and there really is no extent to the things you might find me liking (or disliking).

Since you live in Rotterdam and say we can't put you in a box, which I agree with lol, do you enjoy football on any level? Are you a big Ed de Goey fan?

Then again, Indiana Jones gave us three classic blockbuster movies without a single memorable villain, unless you want to count the guy from the second movie even though the only noteworthy thing he did was rip a heart out (probably the sole reason you're thinking of him now), or the hot Nazi chick from the third who you damn well know you only remember because she's a hot Nazi chick (if you google "nazi chick i" it automatically suggests "hot nazi chick from indiana jones and the last crusade" for a reason)

We all know who is the best known Indiana Jones villain

Alfred Molina #2 simply because he's Alfred Molina

But I agree, Indy doesn't really have great villains

Anyway, in this case we get (for the most part) spot-on characterizations of multiple superheroes, each with their own character arc (no matter how small) to explain why they're fighting and what for. Cap is simply a good guy who will always fight for what's right (while searching for a place called home in a world still strange to him), whereas Tony went from self-protection to feeling the need to shoulder the weight of the world (to a fault). Widow tries to atone for her past sins, whereas Thor has the power and thus feels the responsibility to protect the entire realm. Banner doesn't want to fight but knows the Hulk is a necessity (much to his own dismay), and Hawkeye is a dedicated soldier just trying to protect his home.

Spoiler

It bugs me that we know most of their motivation because some mindcontrol stuff. I was under the impression that Banner was in full control of the Hulk after the first Avengers "That's my secret, I'm always angry" so having Widow calm him down and him not wanting to go in Hulkmode felt off

So if you wonder why I give this movie more slack than 'other' movies (blockbusters? 'prestige' movies?) it's because I look at every movie for what it is and aspires to be, and this movie knows what it is and accomplishes what it aspires to be. Whereas many, many movies, simply don't. Just because Nolan makes 'deeper', more grown up high-brow blockbusters (or at least, pretends to, because you know how I feel about that), doesn't mean they're automatically better blockbusters. And just because Innaritu can copy/paste twenty tracking shots of pretentious self-conscious monologues/dialogues together, doesn't mean it automatically makes better cinema than a movie where Keanu Reeves' dog is killed and as payback he murders the entire Russian mafia. Because if you look at the movie that John Wick wants to be, and the movie that Birdman wants to be, I can say without as much as a doubt in my mind that only John Wick succeeds, and as such, shyts all over Birdman. And just because Birdman sets its goals higher, doesn't mean it gets a pass. Because I don't judge movies for their aspirations, I judge them for what they end up being. And that's why you can replace John Wick with The Man With The Iron Fists 2, or even the WWE-studio DTV movie The Marine 4: Home Target, and Birdman would still lose. Because that movie simply doesn't work for what it is.

This is something I'm not on board with. This is a similar mindset I didn't understand in film school with teachers talking about how The Passion of Joan of Arc is a top 10 movie and others like that. Yeah I can see the influence it had on filmmaking and it was mindblowing in 1928 but it doesn't mean it's a good movie almost 100 years later. The same goes with the underlined part. After I watch a blockbuster movie I'm not thinking "Well it was good for a blockbuster movie" because then I'm giving filmmakers too much pass for not trying to do better.

 

[MooseMouthMthafuga]

Without spoliers....was it the typical "the good guys always win" type of film?

Also...was ultron bodying nikkas? I hate when they say these villains are a threat but they never show what makes them threatening (guardians of the galaxy and spiderman 2)

Straight up p*ssy IMO.

Other than blacking out on Klaw, I don't remember him catching a body.I think he may have killed one other scientist or some shyt.


The shyt that really had mecame towards the end of the movie.This dude can fly and shoot laser beams, but he's sitting in a cockpit, firing off shots from a jet


I've had enough of Joss Whedon.I said it before.I think he's a frustrated homosexual who lives vicariously through his female characters.

A ll these "forced romances" are his lil gay fantasies


Gone and get mad at me

 

[TheGodling]

First off @TheGodling - great post

I'll break your comments down so I can handle them (pause)



Since you live in Rotterdam and say we can't put you in a box, which I agree with lol, do you enjoy football on any level? Are you a big Ed de Goey fan?

No, I don't care about sports at all (except for pro wrestling). Probably because I'm a fiction guy and real life is boring as fukk (which explains the pro wrestling thing). Why Ed de Goeij though?

We all know who is the best known Indiana Jones villain

Alfred Molina #2 simply because he's Alfred Molina

But I agree, Indy doesn't really have great villains

Damn, it's that one time of the year again where I remember that Alfred Molina was in an Indiana Jones movie.

Spoiler

It bugs me that we know most of their motivation because some mindcontrol stuff. I was under the impression that Banner was in full control of the Hulk after the first Avengers "That's my secret, I'm always angry" so having Widow calm him down and him not wanting to go in Hulkmode felt off

Well, it just helps visualize their motivations. Maybe a bit too blatant but outside of Hawkeye and Banner/Widow they don't really get other scenes that focus on that, just stray lines of dialogue in conversations about plot-related stuff. And regarding the Hulk, I don't think he's ever in full control. I always think back to that line from The Incredible Hulk movie, where it's described as a guided missile. If you control the transformation, you control part of the anger and only target those that form a threat to the Hulk.

Spoiler

For instance, once Iron Man collapses that building onto the Hulk, the dazed Hulk looks around, sees the damage he's causing and calms down. When police start coming near with guns raised, he fires back up, forcing Tony to put him down with a final punch.

Plus even if Banner had full control, you'd still want a way to control the Hulk if Banner were to lose it.

This is something I'm not on board with. This is a similar mindset I didn't understand in film school with teachers talking about how The Passion of Joan of Arc is a top 10 movie and others like that. Yeah I can see the influence it had on filmmaking and it was mindblowing in 1928 but it doesn't mean it's a good movie almost 100 years later. The same goes with the underlined part. After I watch a blockbuster movie I'm not thinking "Well it was good for a blockbuster movie" because then I'm giving filmmakers too much pass for not trying to do better.

But I don't think "Well, it was good for a blockbuster movie". I think "Well, that was a good movie". I think you misunderstand that I don't give the movie a pass for its mistakes because it aspires less, I give it a pass for its mistakes because for the most part it's very good. But if a movie doesn't attempt to be more than just a piece of entertainment, should I penalize it for not trying to incorporate social commentary? No. Now what if a movie attempts to incorporate social commentary, but fails, should I give it pass for at least trying? No. If you make a movie, make it good. That's the core of film making. You make an action movie, you gotta deliver good action. You make a comedy, you gotta deliver big laughs. You make a movie into a socio-political statement, you better deliver a strong enough statement to make me see your point. And once that is settled, then you can look into all the tidbits and details and in-depth analyses and push a movie further to the sky or deeper into the ground.

For instance, Interstellar is a good movie (@FlyRy will probably print screen that shyt instantly). It has many moments of greatness, in every way imaginable relating to the art of cinema. it also has moments where it fails, and it fails so spectacularly, that my sense of enjoyment overall is diminished as it pulls me out of the movie completely. And that's why despite all those moments of greatness, it simply does not deserve that title. But it's still a good movie at its core.

Avengers Of Ultron is a great movie. It's consistently great enough for me that the parts that are less than great, are a non-issue. Because they're not terrible enough to detract from my enjoyment. In fact, I can name exactly two scenes in the movie that bother with my pure enjoyment of the movie:

Spoiler

Banner and Widow having their second conversation (or third even) about their fling in Barton's house. We've seen it already, the only new information we get is that Widow is sterilized (not the most fascinating revelation) and it just feels like a waste of time. Having seen the movie three times now, I felt myself physically forcing my brain to just pay attention to how subtle and yet incredible an actor Mark Ruffalo is, to not let it annoy me. And Ruffalo is always an absolute pleasure to watch.

The other scene is at the end after Quicksilver's death, when Hawkeye enters the rescue pod, and we get an overhead shot of how he, tired and broken, lays down on the couch, and the lifeless body of Quicksilver lays on the floor next to him. For the life of me I can't understand what Whedon was trying to convey with that shyt, and I know he's trying to convey something because he lingers on that shot longer than he has to. It bothers the fukk out of me.

Okay, and maybe the poor way in which Whedon shot that scene where Ultron says that ol' "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger" line, but midway through is ripped apart by his new form. For some reason he shoots the ripping part in a close-up which means it doesn't really sell how much bigger and more threatening Ultron's ultimate form looks (because you don't see them side to side/behind one another for comparison).

So outside of those two-but-really-three moments (and maybe four if you count that awful, awful joke of the one guy on the Helicarrier who can't find the word for describing that the lifeboat is full, only joke in the movie I truly detest), no part of the movie gets in the way of my fun. And I'd say that's pretty damn great (although I'm not sure If sold it well going from two to four moments as I was writing it, but alas).

 

[OG_StankBrefs]

Yes, it's definitely a "good guys always win" flick. Nope, Ultron really didn't throw hands at all, he is mostly talk.

See dat's why more n more I'm leanin towards DC. Disney/Marvel be on dat cornball shyt.

 

[StraxStrax]

@TheGodling

Just picked a football player I knew played for Feyenoord.

Spoiler

Yeah Ruffalo is the only reason the scene "works". I had forgotten how good Ruffalo is when I saw Foxcatcher. I wondered the same with the Quicksilver shot.

I'm kinda puzzled why Quicksilver died

1. He's a new character in these films and his death couldn't had many people emotional because we don't really know him outside of his 3 min monologue to Ultron on why he hates Tony Stark. His motivation is also a big part of Iron Man 1 that had been resolved imo - selling bombs and shyt.

2. They built a healing machine that had a giant deus ex machina sign on it - it would've been awful writing and maybe the doctor was dead but just felt strange.

Speaking of deus ex machina

Nick Fury pulling a helicarrier out of his ass just when they needed a way to get people to safety

 

[Conz]

i let this digest overnight, and here are my criticisms - that im sure have been said before...

Spoiler

This movie is essentially pointless. To be fair, I've been following the Marvel cinematic universe like one of my favorite sports teams for years now, so it's probably not the case to Average Joe Movie goer, but it's pointless. All it was was a long commercial for Thanos. We met a few new characters - ok, cool... but it was just random mid season episode of the massive Marvel TV show. We know Ultron isn't gonna destroy the world. We know no one major was gonna die (im not considering Quicksilver major b/c he didn't leave a mark on me whatsoever in this movie. Neither did his sister to be honest. Hope they do when i see it on the big screen.) etc etc. We learned a little more about the infinity stones from Thor - who was only there to set up his next movie. This movie just planeted seed to the point I don't think i ultimately gave a rat's ass about Ultron or his plans.

and with that said... i liked it a ton. fukk it, it's a bunch of comic book heroes doing cool shyt for 2.5 hours. That's what I wanted, that's what I got. That's a Marvel movie. good shyt. 8.25/10.

... but yea - it was just a roadblock in the grand scheme of things, I'm much more excited about all the movies to come now. Civil War is a different kind of conflict, and then we just get new character origin movies and Asgard on the brink of extinction, sounds good to me. When all is said and done

Spoiler

Age of Ultron

might just be the most pointless Marvel movie ever made, but it's still awesome

 

[South Paw]

Is this worth watching in 3d brehs?