THE AVENGERS - A Retro Review

Ed. Note - I meant to edit and publish this yesterday, but then Prince died, and his Royal Badness took up most of my attention the rest of the afternoon. If we get halos in the afterlife, I'm sure his will be purple and funky shaped. Also, I'm going to go back and revisit not only Burton's '89 'Batman', but Prince's kooky/genius addition to the finished product. Rest easy, Prince. 


The MCU's Phase Three is about to begin with 'Captain America: Civil War'. And so we're taking a look back at all the films that feed into this conflagration. Today, we review the end of Phase One, 'The Avengers'.

Disney made no attempts to hide which actors they favored.

Summer 2012. It all came down to this. This was the end result of four years of teasing end-credit stingers, cameo appearances, linked macguffins, and public knowledge that the team-up was coming. No studio had ever tried what Marvel/Paramount/Disney was trying to do. Aside from the Fantastic Four and the X-men, who were already established superhero "teams", no one had ever succeeded in bringing individual superheroes from their own solo movies into a team-up situation. And now it was about to happen. Anticipation was sky-high. Expectations? My own thoughts were along the lines of "just don't fuck it up, and I'll be happy."

Let me break for a moment to say that usually, when I think about/review a movie, I want to focus more on what was intended by both the director and the screenwriter more than what *I* expect and want from the story. Yes, my preference is for darker stories, with a more emotional impact than action for the sake of action. I'm not saying that lighthearted or fun or just plain action movies are bad - not at all. I'm just saying my preference is for something with more substance. And even though a movie might aim for just being a crowd pleaser, it still has to have a good story. And a good story should always have an answer for any moment where someone asks "why?"

Back to my expectations. When I saw 'The Avengers', I was happy. It is a very fun movie, that succeeds in doing what it sets out to do - entertain audiences. The acting was about what you'd expect, the visuals were colorful and vibrant. The superhero action was exciting. And the film's many money shots were satisfying.

But nobody was reinventing the wheel. It wasn't genre-breaking, or high art. It didn't really want you to have to think too hard. The characters weren't conflicted, or morally ambiguous. It was just a lark. That's all it wanted to be (and with a director like Joss Whedon, that's all it ever could be)

But this does not mean the movie is without it's fairly major flaws. Super fun, yes, but I wish that it had aspired to be more than just fun. Finally, Iron Man, Captain America, the Hulk, Thor, Black Widow and Hawkeye were on the screen together, taking on the best villain Phase One had to offer. Loki's Shakespearean arc from the first Thor is one of the strongest points of what I consider one of the strongest Marvel films to date, so I was quite happy he was going to be the big-bad who'd necessitate the assembly of The Avengers. While his goal of world domination seems like something that would require six superheroes to band together, his plan is pretty much nonsense.

And there are far too many moments where the "why?" just kinda gets ignored in favor of doing something that looks cool. Thor, Iron Man and Captain America having a fight in the woods. Why? Because Iron Man was mad that Thor kidnapped Loki? Ok, but when you stop and think about it, SHIELD already knows who Thor is, and Tony did his homework ("Am i the only one who did the reading?") so he should know who Thor is, too, and not be so eager to get into a fistfight with him. Maybe try something like asking "hey, who are you? what do you want?" So what's the real "why"? Because it looks cool to have three heroes fight.

Then, in a sequence that seems directly inspired by the Joker's arrest mid-way through 'The Dark Knight', Loki finds himself captured and held prisoner aboard the SHIELD helicarrier. But while the Joker had a reason to get himself locked up, Loki's desire for capture is explained away by "Loki means to unleash the Hulk". Ok. But again, let's think. How and why will he achieve this? What good will it do? Hulk flips out and wreaks havoc for about four minutes before jumping out of the ship. So what's the real "why"? Because it gives us an opportunity to see Hulk and Thor fight.

Why do the Avengers finally assemble? To avenge Coulson, and then to protect from an alien invasion. Except the audience has more of a connection to Coulson than any of the actual Avengers (save Widow and Hawkeye, who are SHIELD agents). Tony briefly interacts with him during 'Iron Man 2', and makes a point that he doesn't even know his first name. Thor briefly meets him during 'Thor'. Cap for a few moments early on in 'The Avengers'. So really, Coulson's death hits us* harder than the Avengers.

*This is one of my main beefs with Joss Whedon. He doesn't know how to elicit a genuine emotional response without killing off a character. Look at Buffy! Season one - Buffy dies. Two - Jenny and Angel die. Three - Angel leaves Buffy (which is a different sort of death), Five - Joyce dies, and Buffy dies again! Six - Tara dies. Seven - Anya and Spike die. Going into 'Age of Ultron' we all knew an Avenger would bite it, because that's what Whedon does. That's ALL he does! YOU CAN'T STOP HIM! HE'LL WADE THROUGH YOU, REACH DOWN YOUR THROAT AND PULL YOUR FUCKIN' HEART OUT!!

Yes, they must defend the Earth from alien domination, and yet, Loki's plan to take over the world is particularly foolhardy. He has an army that can essentially be kept in check by six people, and it only invades from a single bottleneck entry point. Normandy was bigger in scale than the Chituari's attempt to take over Earth. Iron Man's bullets and missiles deal out a pretty good amount of damage to the Chitauri, so military fighters would probably help as well.

The Avengers themselves do a pretty good job of keeping the invading army busy, and yet the World Security Council decides to nuke Manhattan. While this does allow for the great Nick Fury line (I recognize the council has made a decision, but seeing as it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected ignore it), it REALLY is a stupid-ass decision. The Chitauri are not advancing outside Manhattan, and really, they're not causing all that much damage either, so why the hell would they elect to obliterate a few million people?? Because it affords Iron Man an opportunity to be selfless and risk his own life to destroy the enemy.

I'm rambling a bit, but I'm also making a point - any movie, when you start dissecting a movie, you can discover that it's chock full of flaws, plot holes, silly story choices. Does that take away from the enjoyment of the movie? Sometimes. It depends on how well the movie achieves it's primary objective. And in the case of 'The Avengers', that was to bring all the heroes together in a way that created a sense of fun and wonder. And it did that very well. Not perfectly, but very well. Which is why it's still a movie that I quite enjoy.

FINAL SCORE 8/10


Most of the Avengers will next be seen in Captain America: Civil War, which is coming out in two weeks. Be there, or be square.