Ohjaus:
Joss WhedonKäsikirjoitus:
Joss WhedonKuvaus:
Seamus McGarveySävellys:
Alan SilvestriNäyttelijät:
Robert Downey Jr., Jeremy Renner, Scarlett Johansson, Chris Evans, Samuel L. Jackson, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Clark Gregg, Lou Ferrigno (lisää)Suoratoistopalvelut (5)
Juonikuvaukset(1)
Marvel Studios esittää elokuvan "Marvel's The Avengers", jonka kaikkien aikojen supersankarikaartissa ovat mukana Marvelin supersuositut sankarit Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America, Hawkeye ja Black Widow. Kun uusi, yllättävä vihollinen uhkaa koko maailman turvallisuutta, kansainvälisen turvajärjestön johtaja Nick Fury huomaa tarvitsevansa tiimin, joka kykenisi pelastamaan maailman katastrofin partaalta. Niin käynnistyy kiireen vilkkaa maailmanlaajuinen värväyshanke. Huikean supersankariseikkailun supertähtinä nähdään Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner ja Samuel L. Jackson sekä ohjaajana Joss Whedon. "Marvel's The Avengers" perustuu Marvelin ikisuosittuun "Kostajat" -sarjakuvaan, joka julkaistiin ensimmäisen kerran vuonna 1963 ja josta on sittemmin kehittynyt todellinen sarjakuvan kivijalka. Luvassa on siis superjännittävä supersankarielokuva, joka on täynnä toimintaa ja huikeita erikoistehosteita. (Walt Disney Nordic Fin.)
(lisää)Videot (53)
Arvostelut (20)
The idea that the film avoids the need to expose itself as a savage, because it will count on viewers familiar with previous films, is completely odd - firstly, a brief exposition of Hawkeye and Natasha is needed, secondly, guys need to compare their steel / divine cocks and find out who has the bigger one... we'll spend about half of the film doing that, and when everyone slaps each other and Captain America teaches us that there's only one God, there's finally a team event. As to how many minutes have passed, it cannot be said that we have complete information about who, what, why and for how much, but once Whedon starts to bend steel in tons and have one shot more spectacular than the last, it actually doesn’t matter. In addition, the characters start spewing one-liners (which unfortunately is a bit worse with the Czech dubbing), the Captain is a little annoying (a little so he can still appear as the good guy) and The Avengers offers exactly why people go and see "Marvel" films. A ballbusting hero party, legible, clear, polished and heavy on tone. You may miss the fact that the whole story is actually a tragically mechanical acceptance of "classical invasive awkwardness" without a fundamental contribution to the mythology of the heroes. The other half is simply pure pleasure from the enormously pompous spectacle. But I still can't shake the impression that nothing happened for half of the film and that we don't know anything more about the characters than before. I am inclined to think that Whedon did the work through careful maneuvering. The entertainment is decent, but as a separate fictional world, it doesn't make much sense - what the first Iron Man and partly Thor were able to do simply shrunk to an exhibition match of stars full of skills competitions. Edit: when I remember the meaty second half and how I also gave Battleship 3 ***, I capitulate and improve my rating :-) [75%]
()
This is war! Though the superheroes here are self-centred weirdos (like the Watchmen), they know what to do when the world needs them and they don’t spend a lot of time thinking it over (unlike Superman). The Nordic bruiser with a hammer and theatrical tendencies, the scientist who turns green from time to time, an action figure brought to life – perfect products of American war propaganda, otherwise known as heroes of the Marvel universe. In line with the target audience, all of them were placed in the nerdy world of Tony Stark (i.e. the protagonist of the franchise’s two commercially most successful titles). The exaggerated pop-culture lens through which Thor and Captain America are viewed protects the film from being too serious, without giving the impression that it’s actually about nothing. Getting the audience emotionally involved in the plot is the main objective of both Whedon, who needs to convince viewers, and Fury, who has to more firmly unite the heroes. This is actually a purely pragmatic goal, a work task, so to speak, so there is no needless sentimental blathering or crying. The death of one of the more important characters ends the self-destructive sizing-up of egos and the plot can then shift to the oft-mentioned war of “us” versus “them” (in the end, the Avengers are ultimately just more weapons of mass destruction, except for the emotions...). This doesn’t mean that the preceding hundred (or however many) minutes didn’t have anything to offer beyond the action scenes and Stark’s one-liners. It is a joy to see how consistently, and without annoying repetition for the thick-headed, the film’s creators use every piece of the provided information, thanks to which we don’t have to figure out for ourselves how any given character knows this and that. The first third of the film contains the gradual, cleverly connected introductions of the individual superheroes (or, more precisely, their introduction to the scene, as most of them were previously introduced in separate films). This is followed by the confrontational second third, where Whedon is clearly in his element – as he did in Firefly, here he conducts a group of individualists onboard one ship). Thanks to their abilities and the film’s budget, only the conflicts that arise between them are significantly weightier. The necessity of suppressing individual idiosyncrasies in favour of the team forms the core of the narrative, as is pointedly illustrated by the last shot with the emblematic A. This involves putting together money (Stark), science (Banner), idealism (Rogers) and moral ethos (Thor), and getting all of the heroes with their different performance styles and the slightly different style of directing of “their” scenes (the Captain with his old-fashioned patriotism; the Hulk, unpredictable like a horror-movie monster; Thor and his theatrical sense of grand tragedy; the conversationally comedic Iron Man) in the same boat (both literally and figuratively). The Avengers’ primary objective is to coordinate these various styles due to the necessity of close combat. I thought that roughly the first two-thirds of the film were very good entertainment, but nothing extraordinary. The final action-packed bacchanalia of the final third, and especially the two indescribable and, for such a massive mainstream film, boldly self-ironic scenes with a pissed-off Hulk prompted me to give not just a satisfactory rating, but an enthusiastic rating. These are pretty shallow reasons, I know – I’ll leave the more sophisticated ones for films that don’t offer attractions like a one-eyed Samuel L. Jackson with a bazooka. Next time, I would like to see less techno-fetishism and more Scarlett Johansson playing the first-ever superheroine who can be taken seriously, because she only feigns fragility and emotional weakness for “work” purposes and has to tame her partner in order to get him back. 90%
()
(vähemmän)
(lisää)
What’s great about The Avengers is that they brought together the actors who actually play Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and Loki, which is pretty cool. I was pleasantly surprised to see Cobie Smulders in a role too—she’s awesome. Overall, I was excited going in, and for good reason. These comic book adaptations are always fun, even if we’ve seen this formula a million times. The twist here is that it’s not just one superhero, but a whole team. That said, it does feel a bit like Hollywood's running out of ideas. The story itself is pretty average, and if it weren’t for the humor, especially from Iron Man and Thor, I might’ve gotten a little bored. Sure, the effects were top-notch and the action scenes were great, but that’s about it. Looking back, I think my expectations were just too high. The Avengers tries to be a huge film, but when it comes to comic book movies, Watchmen is the one that really stands out as something different. The Avengers is more like a mashup of familiar characters with some great action but no real innovation. Still, it entertained me, which is exactly what it’s supposed to do. I just hope the sequel manages to keep that spark.
()
I went to the 9:30 pm screening, after a very physically exhausting day, and I told myself that if this film manages to entertain me enough to keep me awake, I will give it five stars, and here they are. Now seriously: Avengers is a perfect blockbuster with great sense of humour, incredible chemistry between the characters and amazing action. If you are not looking for the brooding of Batman or the ambition of the Wachowskis (or anything “more”), and you only want good fun at the cinema, you can’t do better than this, it has no competition among the light summer blockbusters. And I’m saying this as someone who didn’t like too much the previous Marvel films and is also not a member of Whedon’s fan club. But there’s one little quibble: Next to the other superheroes, Black Widow and Hawkeye look so out of place and meek. And it’s also weird to see Auntie Robin in SHIELD’s control centre. Hulk/Banner rulez.
()
In the weight class of superheroes who, instead of psychotherapy sessions where they spend two hours figuring out their superhero identity, manage everything by letting their powers speak, preferably in a pretty fierce, loud, and explosive way, the Avengers actually have no competition far and wide. For the first hour, they tease each other with humor, and they use it together against the alien invasion. Kudos to Whedon for dividing up the roles precisely and giving everyone exactly the space they need. Most importantly, it's all done inventively (camera tricks) and it’s imaginatively (funny inserts even into the serious scenes) shot. [My only criticism goes to Loki. Hiddleston isn't so bland anymore because now he’s a charismatic bastard whose character portrayal by the writers falls a little short. Edit: After the second screening, this criticism no longer applies either.]
()
Kuvagalleria (374)
Kuva © Marvel Studios
