Very good, but not the greatest.

Rating: 7/10 (26 April 2012)

Hey guys. I've written a HUGE review of this. Here is the first few paragraphs. Head over to www.thecrat.com to read my full review.
Disclaimer: if you're anything like me, you want to go into The Avengers as blind as possible. I will try to avoid addressing the majority of the plot, but when I have to clearly address plot points I will mark them as spoilers.
2012 is gearing up to be the biggest year in film ever. With new entries into some of the most beloved franchises of all time (Lord of the Rings, Alien, James Bond and Batman) it is a good year to be a film geek. The first of the year's massive releases arrives in the form of The Avengers (sorry, Hunger Games, you have the box office, but not the scope to join the heavy hitters). The question everyone (or just geeks) is asking: is this the best comic book film ever? I would have to answer with an emphatic no. This film is big, huge in fact, and it gets a lot of things right. But I also think, considering the pedigree and lead-up to this film, The Avengers should have been a game-changer. Unfortunately, it is not.
The Avengers is the culmination of the 'Marvel Studios' Cinematic Universe'. Marvel has created a series of films starring their heroes (Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and The Incredible Hulk) that all coincide in the same reality (just like the comic books). This connectivity has been planned from the start so that when Marvel was ready, they could join these characters into a single film. That moment has arrived with The Avengers. The Avengers is primarily made for fans of these films: if you have skipped the previous films and missed the back-story, you may find that your enjoyment of this new entry is limited.
The plot of The Avengers sees the demigod Loki (the great, snarling Tom Hiddleston) planning to enslave the entirety of the human race. Minor spoilers: after his exile in Thor, Loki finds himself in a strange portion of the universe, one controlled by an alien race known as the Chitauri (the identity of this race is inconsequential, and it is revealed within the first few moments of The Avengers). Loki plans to use the Chitauri's numbers to achieve his goal of world domination. Once Loki makes his presence known on earth, it is up to Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) to unite earth's mightiest heroes into a force capable of combating Loki and the Chitauri.
The man primarily responsible for this cinematic interpretation of the comic is Joss Whedon. Whedon acts as the writer and director of The Avengers and it is far and away his biggest undertaking yet. Mainly known for his television work (Buffy and Firefly), Whedon has only ever directed one other film: the low-scale (compared to The Avengers) Serenity. Marvel Studios has a reputation of hiring risky or untested (in big budget films) actors and directors to make their films (the recovering addict Robert Downey Jnr as Iron Man, the relatively unknown Chris Hemsworth as Thor) and the majority of these decisions have paid off gloriously. Unfortunately, Whedon isn't exactly one of them. Despite being an authority on geek culture, Whedon's pacing, plot and cinematic eye are good, but they still leave a lot to be desired. This is a quantum leap in terms of his career and Whedon (mostly) steps up to the plate. The Avengers would be a daunting prospect for any director, let alone one with a single film under their belt. Whedon is largely regarded for his writing and in The Avengers it is very much hit and miss. He nails the characters' voices and his dialogue is mostly fantastic (except for a few Downey Jnr quips – but knowing him, I'd imagine they are improvised).However, his basic plot framework is quite muddled. A film of this calibre should function like a well-oiled machine, not feel like it is made out of spare parts. To read the rest head to www.thecrat.com