By Troy-Jeffrey Allen
May 7, 2012 - 19:28
In anticipation of The Avengers, I’m revisiting the Marvel films
that lead up to the May 5th release. Ill be examining why certain
films captivated the zeitgeist, why certain films failed to
impress critics, what each film meant for Marvel Studios’ end
game, why The Avengers film could be a bigger sales boost for
comic books than the New 52, and how Marvel has augmented
Hollywood’s game plan.
Okay, so I pretty much experienced mental collapse after the
Avengers marathon. I think that much geeking out blew out my hole.
Regardless, here is the final verdict...
don't think so. It's charming (sure), exciting (absolutely), and
hilarious (more often than not) --- but what it isn't is just a
Films like 1979's Superman: The Movie (my personal #1), 1997's
Blade, and even 2008's Iron Man were films with traditional
three-act structures --- the bread and butter of any motion
picture. Avengers is also assembled as such, but this particular
presentation is informed more by the numerous obligations to its
Director-writer Joss Whedon had an unenviable task. He had to dot
a lot of Is and cross a lot of Ts. Technically, this is the sixth
film in a series and not simply the first Avengers movie. Whedon
makes it appear easy, but it also feels more like a giddy third
act to Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, The Incredible Hulk, and
Captain America: The First Avenger. Basically, it doesn't spin on
its own axis.
Should he be criticized for it? Nah.
It is more important to focus on the fact that the filmmakers
have changed what the expectations are for a major Hollywood
blockbuster. Avengers isn't so much a movie as it is the
culmination of a four-year passion project spear-headed by
Marvel, seconded by Disney and Paramount, politely escorted by a
posse of filmmakers and effects wizards, and finally --- securely ---
cast off into popular culture by writer-director Joss Whedon.
Basically, Marvel's The Avengers isn't just a movie, but a new
cinematic feat of superhero proportions.
Rating: 9 /10