"The Avengers" is done well by Joss Whedon, with style and energy. It provides its fans with exactly what they desire.
Have been waiting for Ebert's review. Glad he liked it!
May 3 - 03:51 AM
3/4. There you go, not the greatest movie ever.
May 3 - 04:31 AM
Why are you saying that based on this? Plently of critics have given this a 5/5.
May 3 - 04:59 AM
I'm saying that this does not deserve to be #30 on the top 250 and it's not the best movie ever like lots of users on IMDb are saying. But I'm not trying to say that Roger Ebert determines exactly how good the movie is.
May 3 - 10:51 AM
I don't know why people always go on about the IMDb top 250. It is an opinion poll. All it does is measure the favourite movies of the IMDb users- it's doesn't claim to be the best movies made or anything.
You should take any rating on that sight with a grain of salt- to illustrate my point, go into any movie, but particularly ones that are hyped or get a lot of press, then look at how skewed they are toward ratings of 10 and 1. The Godfather for example- it has roughly 6000 votes of 5, then about 3000 each for 4, 3 and 2... then it has over 26000 votes of 1. It has more votes of 1 than of 2 to 6 combined
People vote just to bring averages down or up, or they are contrary or spiteful, or they don't bother to put any thought into a films qualities and flaws and they think everything is either a classic or terrible.
I wouldn't put any stock into what they say in the comments either- that site is full of idiots.
May 3 - 02:39 PM
I agree with Peter K. Allot of people will give a movie a 1 star just to bring the average down. Avengers may be far from perfect but a 1 star movie it is not. There is a small group of haters who are saying that its a mess of a movie and sucks, but if they were being honest they would say its just "ok".
May 3 - 04:51 PM
Are youguys serious? this movie has a 93% what more can you can ask for? its a friggen super hero movie aka garbage aka far from a classic or great film, i'm honestly surprised it's doing so good
May 4 - 07:26 AM
And this sight isn't full of idiots? lol
May 5 - 08:26 AM
Well, yes it is, but that site has a much larger message board community so it's idiocy on a much larger and stronger scale.
On the other hand, the comments on this site tend to be a lot more negative because most of the time, unless it's for someone like Ebert, people only care enough to comment when they strongly disagree.
Although my point was more that it goes both ways. In the same way that people tend to give films 1s, when if they evaluated more objectively they would deserve higher, they also give films 10s (and call them the greatest ever) rather than thinking about or acknowledging flaws.
While, to a certain degree, films can only be judged on a subjective basis, people on IMDb tend to vote with emotion rather than reason. As such, any ratings on the site (and, by extension, the top 250) can only really be used to measure the public's general feeling towards a film rather than quality.
And, like I said before, the site is full of idiots, as should be obvious to anyone who spends a significant amount of time on their message boards.
May 6 - 04:17 AM
Because of you, I am going to submit a score of 10 on IMDB to hopefully help push the Avengers even higher on this list. Then I'm going to give a score of 1 to every other movie ranked above it. All in honor of you.
May 13 - 10:02 PM
Ebert gave Salt 4/4
May 3 - 06:26 AM
Yes but he has admitted that the star rating is flawed, and he pretty much said in his review that it's been such a long time since a solid, classically tailored thriller had been released that he gave it four stars. Notice how Salt didn't appear on his top ten list that year?
May 3 - 08:14 AM
That doesn't take away any of his credibility, if thats what you are saying. It's kind of weird, but I like how he sometimes has an unexpected rating.
May 3 - 10:54 AM
Still, Ebert is not the person who determines which films are the greatest. No one does.
May 3 - 02:14 PM
No one said that Ebert determines which films are the greatest. But the way you gain notoriety as a film critic is by having an opinion of films that a large enough mass of people agree with.
Jun 3 - 12:00 AM
@Jared A "But the way you gain notoriety as a film critic is by having an opinion of films that a large enough mass of people agree with."
Well that's just plain wrong.
Jun 12 - 02:46 AM
He gave it three out of four, which it deserves.
Oct 10 - 08:18 AM
and if he did give it 4/4 it would be somehow, oh this movie is going to be good and most likely one of the best films of the year, count on it.
May 3 - 06:20 PM
Maybe not the greatest movie ever, but it might be the most fun movie ever.
Glad Roger liked it. Didn't read his full review yet, but he usually has good taste.
May 3 - 04:33 AM
Yes but It will be close, The Dark Knight isn't the best but people tout it as such.
May 3 - 06:17 PM
The Dark Knight is the best
May 4 - 06:31 AM
The best at being overrated
May 6 - 02:54 PM
What Lenny said .
May 8 - 03:41 PM
The Dark Knight was overrated because if it weren't for Heath Ledger's incredible performance, people would have viewed it as a well shot action movie. I wasn't enamored by any of Bruce Wayne's or Batman's scenes by himself. I'm worried that the final Batman film won't live up to the high expectations that Ledger left for it.
May 13 - 10:08 PM
A well-shot, plodding-at-times, action movie.
May 13 - 10:10 PM
Jim, I agree with you completely.
"Dark Knight" did for comic book movies what "2001: A Space Odyssey" did for science-fiction movies.
It raised a completely different set of thought-provoking issue, told a different kind of story in a completely different way, and raised the bar for the entire genre.
Nolan gave us a masterpiece with that one.
The haters who think it was just Heath Ledger's performance and that's it are in serious need of a clue.
May 14 - 11:51 AM
Either that, or they're just hopeless Marvel Zombies.
May 14 - 12:00 PM
The Dark Knight has joined the ranks of movies which left such an impression that cynics looking back are certain it must have been overblown, in turn creating a backlash which is truly overblown.
When it comes to movies, the term overrated almost always translates to "just forget everyone else and listen to me!", and in the Dark Knight's case, the lauded stuff is so well known that now people take it lightly, as though it's all a cliche. Congratulations, you can find flaws most saw as inconsequential in The Dark Knight. It's your choice not to like it/not to like it as much. But the praise came because it delivered enough for people to like it as much as they did, not because they didn't have you there to point out your qualms.
May 28 - 10:24 PM
the dark knight is the best
May 15 - 10:25 AM
Personally, I believe that anyone who considers the Dark Knight to be overrated is hiding behind their own ambiguous insecurities with the film. Regardless of how you felt after seeing it or how much you enjoyed it, The Dark Knight's quality as a film is undeniable.
Jun 3 - 12:03 AM
This review reads more like a synopsis then a review.
May 3 - 04:50 AM
When David Edelstein said "Comic-Con nerds will have multiple orgasms", I don't he meant it literally. lol
May 3 - 05:13 AM
I love it when critics actually get what this movie is supposed to be. Good on him. Very funny review, too.
May 3 - 05:39 AM
But, generally speaking, just because a movie is what it's supposed to be, that doesn't automatically mean that it's good. And, in addition, many movies fall short of what they're trying to be. Even a movie that aims low can miss their mark. If we judged all movies based simply on what they're trying to be, there would be no negative reviews... ever.
May 3 - 11:31 AM
that isn't true, there are movies that try to do it's purpose but fails miserably.
May 3 - 09:55 PM
Welp, looks like Iron Man 1 will probably be Ebert's one and only A review over an Avenger movie.
May 3 - 05:59 AM
Tweet from Ebert:
My three-star review of "The Avengers." Huh. Reads more like 2.5 stars to me...
May 3 - 06:58 AM
I think I'll take Ebert's rating over your interpretation of said rating
May 3 - 10:47 AM
...that was Ebert's interpretation of his own review. How about actually following the link.
May 3 - 12:00 PM
I actually agree with you Hasan...reading his review, it didn't sound like he liked it all too much. Remember, he hated Thor, giving it a one and a half star. I've always respected his opinion, though.
May 3 - 03:05 PM
It didn't sound like he cared for it at all. But Ebert generally doesn't care for comic films. Just like he doesn't care for almost all horror films, no matter how good they are. Some types of films he simply doesn't like and those reviews generally have little to no value.
May 4 - 06:33 AM
In Your Dreams
Except that he has given plenty of horror and coloring-book films positive reviews. It sounds like you're mistaking "has no value" with "hurt my precious fanboy feelings so I disregarded them". Sorry, but Ebert simply has more credence than you.
May 4 - 05:24 PM
I couldn't agree more, Jim. He has ZERO credibility when it comes to critiquing this genre. As I posted elsewhere in this thread.
May 7 - 04:18 PM
I love how RT took the last para and yet ignored the very last sentence (and put the 2nd last sentence in the review qoute)
"The Avengers" is done well by Joss Whedon, with style and energy. It provides its fans with exactly what they desire. Whether it is exactly what they deserve is arguable.
May 3 - 07:05 AM
Talk about determined to see the glass half-empty...
May 3 - 10:52 AM
The Avengers is the movie we need, The Dark Knight Rises is the one we deserve....or is it the other way around?
May 3 - 01:33 PM
In reference to your full review....
Beat Takeshi, in an interview during his pre-production of "Kikujiro," said something to this effect: It's okay to do the same thing that everyone else is doing, as long as you do it better than everyone else. He compared it to 19 pianists at a recital who all play Beethoven, but one is clearly the best.
Do you think Avengers succeeds in this regard?
May 3 - 07:17 AM
Phew! Roger Ebert gave it 3stars out of 4. Well, I was hoping he would give it 4 stars out of 4. But at the same time, I was afraid he would give it 2 stars or less.
Hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Okay, so John Campea (Movieblogtv), Peter Travers, Richard Roeper, AND Roger Ebert gave this movie a positive review! Well, it's settled then. AVENGERS ASSEMBLE!!!!
May 3 - 07:29 AM
Ebert could have gone either way. After his tirade on "Thor," I didn't really know what to expect from him on this.
May 3 - 07:32 AM
Love this review. Particularly the last sentence. Pretty sure he is just placating the fanboys here though. Must be annoying to get constantly flamed for having an opinion.
May 3 - 08:07 AM
I agree. And I think that's a big reason why the majority of critics are giving it positive reviews. They and their employers would rather just not have to deal with the rabid, orgasmic Avengers fanboys.
May 3 - 11:34 AM
Or it's actually a good movie??
May 4 - 06:38 AM
You give fanboys too much credit . if you didn't like it , just say so .
May 8 - 03:45 PM
I had a feeling he would only give it a 3/4
May 3 - 08:10 AM
The last part of this review was hilarious; I highly recommend you give it a read if you haven't already.
May 3 - 08:29 AM
Ever notice Ebert gushes like a little kid when he writes reviews for stuff like Indiana Jones or Sky Captain? It's clear that he has the capacity to love pulp entertainment, but he gets especially snarky when it comes to the superhero corner of that genre. He only gives really high marks (sans snark) to things that "deconstruct" or "re-imagine" them. Did a comic book reader steal his bike as a child or something?
May 3 - 09:17 AM
You do have a point there. With pulp adventure films, he seems to prefer that they stay traditional, while with superheroes he prefers that they reinvent or transend the genre. Interestingly, despite it being regarded as one of the weaker superhero movies, Ebert gave 3 1/2 stars to The Phantom, which is higher than what he's given to most other superheroes, and I think it's 1930's pulp type setting had a lot to do with that.
I guess he was just never really that into superheroes. Then again, it's not like he denies that there are some genres he perfers over others. For example, he's made it no secret that sword and sandal epics is his list favorite genere (only such type of film that I can recall he liked in the last 15 years would be Kingdom of Heaven).
May 3 - 02:00 PM
Pulp/ noir is his favorite genre, who cares? Also he gave the first Iron Man film a 4/4 so your argument is invalid.
May 3 - 04:01 PM
Absolutely. Just like how he hates most horror films, but he enjoyed the awful New Nightmare because it "deconstructed" horror films. He can get pretty whiny when he doesn't like a film.
May 4 - 06:40 AM
Absolutely. You seem to get pretty whiny when Ebert doesn't fellatio your latest cos-play fantasy.
May 4 - 05:28 PM
Get LOST, wavelength!
May 6 - 04:42 PM
Seriously? New Nightmare was great! What horror movies are you trying to stand up for? The carbon copies of the Friday the 13th formula?
May 5 - 02:43 PM
I couldn't agree more, JT.
It sure does seem EXACTLY like that.
May 6 - 04:33 PM
I have a great respect for Roger Ebert and tend to agree with him more often than not. However, and this isn't a knock against him, he just doesn't get superheroes or their appeal. He never has. Just go read any of his reviews of other films in the genre.
And that's OK. Like I said, I'm not knocking him for it. It's a niche crowd to be sure. I just wish he'd omit some of his snark and at least try to understand what makes these characters tick. There's a great deal more depth to the genre than he gives credit.
May 3 - 10:33 AM
I could only wish that more people took your approach to the matter. Your perspective really applies to all critics (well, except for the contrarian or trollish ones), regardless of how their own personal tastes may differ. So, there's currently 11 critics who didn't like Avengers and gave it a negative review. They're being bashed mercilessly by the fanboys. Now, on one hand, that crazed behavior by fanboys doesn't surprise me. We're talking about an overly emotional, irrational group of immature individuals. But that cover can only go so far in excusing their rude behavior that go beyond matters of opinion into personal attacks. Seeing that the great majority of critics like the Avengers, it's still overly insane how these fanatics spend their time attacking the small handful of critics who didn't like it. I don't think they'll ever understand that the same defenses they use to represent their own opinions also serve those who disagree with them. They often say they hate the power that critics wield and yet by focusing so much of their energy on the critics who disagree with them, rather than spreading the word of those critics who agree, they give them that much power and exposure. The fanboys truly are a cult, living in some distant compound somewhere, tied together by their crazed beliefs.
May 3 - 11:44 AM
I agree 100%. He didnt care for the first 2 X-Men Movies, but gave X-Men the Last Stand a good review. The only X-Men movie that he gave a proper review to was the Wolverine movie
May 6 - 02:59 PM
I find this review a little enigmatic. The 3 stars at the top tell me he liked it, but...? He's not really saying a whole lot aside from rehashing the plot.
May 3 - 10:36 AM
Hes just afraid of the rabid fan boys, for all we know, he could have hated the film.
May 3 - 04:02 PM
ebert still doubts the whole thing
May 3 - 10:38 AM
ebert still have doubts.. well its not a surprise though
May 3 - 10:44 AM