A Great Film. But....

Rating: 8/10 (15 May 2012)

A valiant effort. I liked it. It hit a lot of great notes.
But something was missing.
I agree, movies can (and should be) about fun.
I'm having fun when I'm swept away by a compelling story--not when I'm bombarded with visuals and the former is lacking.
So MUCH of The Avengers is done well--casting, performances, dialog, certainly visuals.
The only thing that might have done more for me is (once again) a plot that is executed a little better. I had a hard time feeling the stakes. Loki is a great character--I felt his rage, angst and bitterness in Thor driving the antagonism thus the story.
A story has to *sell* the villain's goal, or we don't feel the stakes and thus don't really care about what's going on...unless we're so excited to see characters in live action, we'd be just as thrilled with seeing a 2 hr slide show of stills.
I'll give you a perfect example: Batman (1989) and Dark Knight, are essentially the same plot. Joker causing mayhem for kicks. No specific goal, no dollar amount he wants to make, no prize he wants to acquire.
But unlike many, I did *not* like Batman in '89. I don't like or appreciate visuals apart from a well-executed story, I'm sorry. It's not snobbery, or failure to lighten up and have fun, I just *don't have fun* when I'm not watching a well-executed story. Dark Knight sells it, Batman didn't. How? *Execution*--
--Compare Alfred's searing line, "Some men aren't looking for anything logical. They can't be bought, bargained or reasoned with. Some men...just want to watch the world burn."
--With the Joker in '89: "So gentleman, that's how it is. Until Vinnie resurfaces, I'm the acting President. And I say that starting with this 200 year festival, we run the city into the ground." --ZZzzzzzzzzzzz.........
There's more to it than this...the whole film (Dark Knight) is presented in a way that *sells* The Joker's goal(s).
But in Avengers? 'Bow, yield, kneel.' Loki's speech, 'You Were Meant To Be Ruled' was good...I almost bought it.
--Superman II sold this type of antagonism. A) Dick Donner treated Zod and the villains with an almost Shakespearian reverence. It sold. And B), by the end, we felt the stakes as people were actually seen getting *hurt*. Remember the woman holding her arm? "Superman...help us!"
By the end of Avengers, my adrenaline should have been pumping as the city was being destroyed and I just wasn't feeling it. Even with it's PG13 rating, Avengers could have gotten away with a woman cradling her husband killed by debris. Imagine what someone of Downey Jr.'s talent could have done with a scene like that: the rage building in his face as he looks up at the onslaught, the mask closes, and he rockets up toward the heavens to take on Loki's assault force.
--Too stereotypical? In the hands of a good director, I think not. Nothing that you and I see is wholly new anymore--it's all in the execution. Excellence is more important than imagined originality.
An example of a superhero ensemble piece that did it just a little better: X-Men. Magneto's reasons for his war on humanity were solid, sold, and *felt* from the opening scenes, up through his chilling line to Professor X: "And I will bring (you hope) my old friend. I only ask one thing in return. Don't get in my way."
Joss Whedon is to be commended. It's hard to make a superhero piece, much less an ensemble superhero piece, much less one that's any good. Hollywood has wholly botched a good number of superhero films and with all the resources at its disposal, there is really no excuse.
Avengers was really, really good and I liked it. It missed some opportunities for me.
Just a few.