Epic finale makes it worth watching, but disappointing overall.

Rating: 6/10 (29 April 2012)

There are many movies that are hotly anticipated and there's a huge buzz on Twitter for months before they are released. Usually, I go to watch them with some trepidation—like in the case of 'Inception'—because I don't expect them to live up to the hype. That wasn't the case with 'The Avengers'. I went in fully expecting to love the movie. I didn't, for the most part.
THE PLOT
There's perhaps no better way to describe my disappointment with it than to say that even though the whole movie revolved around an object called the Tasseract, by the time it was done, I had no idea what it was. It's surprising how a movie with so many characters and so little time for character and plot development still managed to squander the minutes.
Any book or movie has a basic plot, which has only a handful of major variations, and you go in expecting to see a particular writer's take on that basic premise. You expect them to build on it and give it an elaborate new shape.
In 'The Avengers', however, the basic plot is all you get—a team of heroes are initially uncooperative with each other, they fail against the villain, regroup and then beat him in a final showdown. What little attempts 'The Avengers' makes to dress that plot are so utterly reliant on other movies that have come before that to someone who hasn't seen them, it makes no sense whatsoever.
'The Avengers' assumes that you have watched the Iron Man movies, 'Thor', 'Captain America' and 'The Incredible Hulk' before you set foot in the theater and does not feel the need to explain so many of the incomprehensible things that happen on the screen. A lot of people disagree with me on this point but I think it is nonsensical to expect me to watch five movies before I sit down to watch one. It's the responsibility of the scriptwriter to make sure that the movie stands on its own.
THE HEROES
Mark Ruffalo in the role of Bruce Banner was fantastic in this movie and I think the funniest character overall. Tony Stark had the best punchlines but Banner's humor was more nuanced, in my opinion. But he did not get nearly as much screen time as he deserved. I'd like to see that guy get a Hulk movie of his own.
Captain America, on the other hand, who was damn near useless in a war that involved hordes of flying drones, was a constant presence in the movie. The utter Americanness of Captain America makes me very indifferent towards the character and I thought the movie would've been better without him.
Same goes for the Black Widow, who had little to do during the final battle. Hawkeye's storyline in the movie made no sense either, and Samuel Jackson just did not work as Nick Fury. He wasn't aggressive enough for the part.
My favorite character is Iron Man, but he was a shadow of what he was in his own movies. He's supposed to be the funniest of the bunch but I could not really appreciate the punchline-heavy dialog he spouted. I think he's more genuinely funny in the Iron Man movies and, in fact, I'd love to see Jov Favreau direct 'The Avengers 2'. Still, after the Hulk, Iron Man was pretty much the only Avenger who had a significant role to play in the proceedings.
THE VILLAIN
As for the villain, Loki, the less said the better. He was an embarrassingly underpowered villain and didn't seem imposing for a second. Take away the drones, which themselves weren't very threatening, and he's almost impotent. He got blasted with a gun-like thing from a man in a suit, for crying out loud. Watching the final battle, it was clear that Iron Man could have taken on him alone—six superheroes was beyond overkill to counter this guy.
MISCELLANEOUS COMPLAINTS
I also took issue with the fact that ordinary humans had no role to play in this movie. There are only two scenes in which they even have a speaking part and they're both used for comic effect (and one of them is also used to try to justify Captain America's presence in this movie) and are inconsequential. It makes you feel detached from the movie; the action might be happening on Mars, for all anyone cares.
The people who liked the movie, which is nearly everyone who saw it, are saying that the action was awesome and that's all anyone really wanted from this movie. Maybe you did, but that doesn't work for me. While the action at the end is of an epic scale that is rarely matched even in Hollywood, the dialog and plot are far more essential for me.
THE ACTION
I'll say this about the action though: it was involving. In plenty of movies, epic battle scenes are filmed in such a way that you feel like you are watching the action from the outside. It's a jumbled mess of explosions and flying debris. In 'The Avengers', despite its six heroes and an army of flying drones, you could see the individual participants and feel like you were in the middle of the action. It was very satisfying, particularly in 3D.
CONCLUSION
When you watch truly horrible movies, you exit the theater hoping that they never make a sequel (or at least resolving that you won't watch it if it were to be made), but that's not the case here. The potential for a great movie is clearly there, and I am glad that there will be a sequel to this movie—I just hope someone does a better job of making it. A story is about more than just its climax.