Who else think Avengers 2 was mediocre at best?

[Earth 2 Chris]

I enjoyed it. That initial, visceral thrill of seeing the characters together was gone, but in a lot of ways, I feel this one had more "meat" on it. The first film gives everyone what they want for a good chunk of the film; the heroes in action together against a common foe. It's incredibly well done and exciting, but not very deep.

The second film set up some conflict (Cap and Iron Man) fleshed out Black Widow and especially Hawkeye, and introduced the Vision, who was indeed, great.

I think fans are suffering from a bit of fatigue, because it seems everyone wants to dump on this one, and I don't personally see much of a dip in quality. The first one is better, but this one isn't too far behind it, for me.

Chris

[Hedji]

Well said, Chris. I'm not sure what expectations were for this one? I was just pleased that it wasn't as grim as the trailer was hinting. It was a great time at the movies with some really great money shots.

[Nostalgiabuff]

I enjoyed the movie. only saw it once so I am looking forward to the bluray release to watch it again

[Brue]

This movie was great in every regard. The only reason to find it less than spectacular, is because we have been spoiled with a sea of Superhero films for more than a decade and we can become complacent.

[Hedji]

Can't wait to watch the blu ray in 3D.

[boss]

I was entertained. My boys loved it. That's good enough for me.

[MIB41]

I really liked it initially but I have to admit it has paled relatively fast. I think I was hoping for a better look from the Vision. I think he looked too human. I always felt he should have had dark eyes with a small piercing light shooting out to give him that other worldly look he had in comics. To me, his eyes are as iconic as Spider-man's and they completely missed that. The story was okay but nothing worth a repeat viewing. It entertained me, but it didn't really move the narrative along by any great stretch. And with Civil War looking like another Avenger film, they really shouldn't make anymore of these unless the story warrants big changes in the Marvel universe. if anything that should have been Avengers 2. You can't have anymore pedestrian installments. They need to be grander in scale to warrant the title... my opinion.

[plaztekman]

I thought it was mediocre, at best. They tried to cram too much into it. So many scenes we could have done without. Maybe that's why Marvel movies are now under Disney instead of Marvel Entertainment.

[Hector]

I haven't seen it yet but I plan to at the end of the month.
I wasn't on the hype train for the first Avengers . I thought it was just ok, nothing special. But if I was 10 or 12 again perhaps I would have loved it.

For my money the best Marvel movies have been Guardians of the Galaxy and the first Ironman.

I adore and love Guardians of the Galaxy, could be my favorite Marvel movie to date.

My other Marvel based fave, this one via Fox...is X-Men: First Class.

The first Iron Man was really good too...

[daz71]

Well said, Chris. I'm not sure what expectations were for this one? I was just pleased that it wasn't as grim as the trailer was hinting. It was a great time at the movies with some really great money shots.

money shots that was the porn parody version

[madmarva]

I didn't care for Spader's syrupy line delivery. It took me out of most of his scenes. The film suffered from being asked to tell its story and also set up other films. Marvel should probably rethink doing that in the meat of a movie. Possibly save it for mid- or end-credit scenes. Maybe a 10- or 15-minute epilogue would be better instead of a short scene. Not sure. As others have said it's just less special overall from the fact we've seen so many super hero films. I do think Whedon was able to squeeze in some good character bits. I haven't gotten tired of Downy and Evans in their roles. Even if they are coasting, there remains a nice dynamic to me. But as Scott mentioned movie was more like a collection vignettes than a complete work. Very comic booky in that sense. Ruffalo's performance was the best. I would like to see Whedon direct Ruffalo in a Hulk film just to see what they would do, but it seems that boat has sailed.

So, yeah, from a post-mortem standpoint, AOU wasn't a masterpiece of coherent filmmaking. Average is about right. But if you want to ruin the fun in anything, dissect it. I enjoyed it enough while watching it. Only upon reflection did it totally unravel. Some works really are supposed to be consumed for the pleasure of the moment.

But the more candy bars you eat the less fulfilling they become. That's the hurdle Marvel Studios has created for itself, and it's the hurdle that WB/DC likely won't be able to get over with its ramp up to a Justice League film.

Batman v. Superman will have to be better than the first Avengers movie to do close to that business, and I'm not sure that's possible.

[RickD]

It was a fun movie and can't wait to see it again. I don't need an Oscar winning script for a comic book movie

[The Bat]

I loved it! I'll be buying the Bluray the day it goes on sale. Was it the best Superhero movie? No, Captain America:TWS blows it away...but AOU was still pretty damned good in my book.

[palitoy]

I found it highly entertaining and fun. Not as good as the first granted but like someone said the "wow" factor is hard to replicate.

Saw it twice, I rarely do such things.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^Same here. I saw the first Avengers film twice as well. So that goes to show, in my mind, it was a very worthy sequel.

Chris