Avengers: Age Of Ultron - Official Thread *Spoilers*

[detroitwalt]

Well, I caved and watched the cam. Still going to see it in IMAX Friday tho. It cut off before the post credit scene but I liked it and I'm sure it'll be even better in that IMAX goodness.

 

[joeychizzle]

Spoiler

it's a 7/10 for me, good watch but nowhere near the hype

Spoiler

I'm just glad that the comics I read as a kid are hitting the big screen. I'm not from the States, so the exposure I had to Marvel and to an extent DC was much lower than many on here, therefore seeing these guys in big budget films is just awesome to me. Obviously if we're looking at the films from a critical point of view there are some flaws, but special effects and CGI and epic superheroes
I see where you're coming from about the hype though
I built up my expectations so much they were within a mile of falling short.
Bale's Batmans are the only films for me that COMPLETELY lived up to the hype
GOAT trilogy imo

 

[-DMP-]

Well, I caved and watched the cam. Still going to see it in IMAX Friday tho. It cut off before the post credit scene but I liked it and I'm sure it'll be even better in that IMAX goodness.

better than Winter Soldier?

-DMP-

 

[Black White Sox Hat]

dark knight rises status

 

[detroitwalt]

better than Winter Soldier?

-DMP-

It didn't have my full attention because it's a damn cam but I'd say no it isn't. That answer is subject to change after Friday though.

 

[Mowgli]

Movie was whatever.

Ultron didnt do anything really ILL

Really, none of the characters really did anything ill.

Scarlett witch was more of a plot device then anything else, her powers were trash after that

the new avengers addition was trash. His power didnt really showcase anything ILL.

Overally just a very average film. No after credits for thanos. They didnt really setup the 3rd movie that well outside of that one scene with captain americans shield.

 

[winb83]

Is the cam watchable?

 

[hex]

Like when thors mom died it raised the stakes lol.

But in movies...I hate when no one gets bodied and they make it a big deal.

In avengers 1 Phil got bodied and it was sad and shyt



Like in days of future past....we saw how crazy it would have been if the xmen didn't prevail

In the first xmen....we saw Kevin bacon merkin the fukk out if nikkas and then kill a mutant

Cats was complaining when Kevin Bacon killed Darwin though, so

And there was no chance of all the X-Men dying.

I guess I don't get the whole "someone needs to die" angle. It's not as if Tony Soprano was ever in any danger of dying. Did it impact the quality of "The Sopranos"?

The same goes for these movies. They ain't killing off the entire X-Men roster. They ain't killing off multiple Avengers. They ain't killing off Batman, or Superman permanently, either.

Hell, like I said Ronan killed more people in 10 minutes of "GOTG" than Bane did during the entirety of "TDKR", but Bane is seen as better because he had better lines. I think as long as the villain is entertaining whether or not he's killing people is besides the point. The only exception to this is Thanos, because his arc is about killing half the universe. So some people have to die when he shows up.

Fred.

 

[hex]

Yeah but in the beginning we didn't see it.

They just kept saying he did it

Huh? Nah breh I mean when he was attacking the planet at the end. He killed the fukk out of their entire fleet basically. All told Ronan probably killed like 500+ people during the movie, not counting any discussed but not seen.

Fred.

 

[Sad Bunny]

Cats was complaining when Kevin Bacon killed Darwin though, so

And there was no chance of all the X-Men dying.

I guess I don't get the whole "someone needs to die" angle. It's not as if Tony Soprano was ever in any danger of dying. Did it impact the quality of "The Sopranos"?

The same goes for these movies. They ain't killing off the entire X-Men roster. They ain't killing off multiple Avengers. They ain't killing off Batman, or Superman permanently, either.

Hell, like I said Ronan killed more people in 10 minutes of "GOTG" than Bane did during the entirety of "TDKR", but Bane is seen as better because he had better lines. I think as long as the villain is entertaining whether or not he's killing people is besides the point. The only exception to this is Thanos, because his arc is about killing half the universe. So some people have to die when he shows up.

Fred.

But they actually showed Bane and Joker putting in work. We saw the result if their choas.

We didn't see Ronan murk but one person. We just "heard" he killed this and that person.

I don't want any main characters to die or anything.

 

[Sad Bunny]

Huh? Nah breh I mean when he was attacking the planet at the end. He killed the fukk out of their entire fleet basically. All told Ronan probably killed like 500+ people during the movie, not counting any discussed but not seen.

Fred.

Oh yeah he did catch a buncha bodies at the end lol

 

[FlyRy]

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.

Just booked plane tickets. Coming to defecate on your porch for those Nolan and inarritu shots

 

[TheGodling]

Just booked plane tickets. Coming to defecate on your porch for those Nolan and inarritu shots

 

[hex]

But they actually showed Bane and Joker putting in work. We saw the result if their choas.

We didn't see Ronan murk but one person. We just "heard" he killed this and that person.

I don't want any main characters to die or anything.

I feel you but the argument is all over the place now. Cats want death in a movie....ok, Ronan killed like 500 people. Nah, we gotta see them physically killing people. Son caved a guy's head in, the very first scene he's in. People still said he was a wack, nonthreatening villain.

The reason Joker and Bane are better than Ronan is because they're better. They got better lines, they got better scenes. You get what I'm saying? I ain't seen this movie, no idea how Ultron is but if the baseline for a villain is "how many people did he kill" a gang of all time great villains would be considered wack.

This is especially confusing in a comic book movie thread. Cats ain't ever read comics? Who permanently stays dead, in a comic book?

Fred.

 

[AkaDemiK]

Yo someone on my snapchat watching this shyt right now

come through nikkas

nikka....