REVIEW: THE AVENGERS

A good writer must always be willing to realize he made a mistake, and I've realized one has occurred.  In my review of "The Hunger Games" I stated that it was the most buzzed about movie of the year.  I was wrong.  It is obviously "The Avengers."

Realistically it'll probably be "The Dark Knight Rises" coming out in a few months, but at the moment, "The Avengers" is the only thing people want to talk about, the only thing they want to see, the only thing they want to think about.  I haven't seen my peers, fellow critics, and others more excited about a superhero movie since the original "Dark Knight."  To say my hopes weren't at an all time high for this is an insult to my hopes.

That said, (I feel terrible, writing about the film this late, but I was told people were sitting on theater steps during it's gargantuan opening weekend, so I didn't even attempt) the buzz is 100% accurate, but I can't call it the greatest superhero movie ever made.  I still have to hand that distinction to "The Dark Knight."  Is it the best superhero movie of the year?  Probably not.  "TDKR" pretty much is going to have that on lock.  The only way it isn't going to get a Best Picture nomination like the other one was so crassly robbed of is if  the movie was 30 seconds long with Nolan's face on it reading: "LOL JK, there is no third Batman movie."

I'll have plenty to write about that movie later, right now, all the spotlight is directly on "Avengers."  The movie starts out by refreshing our memories on the Avenger's head leader, Nick Fury, played by the constantly, aggressively, fantastic Samuel L. Jackson.  At times you just wanna rip off that eye-patch just to see what's underneath it, but with the way that Jackson portrays Fury as a kind but brutal man, you know you'd just get beaten to a pulp.  We're reintroduced to Loki, Thor's evil brother, who wasn't quite killed off in last year's film. On a scale of villains, Loki is probably closer to "Iron Man 2"'s Ivan Vanko than "Superman's" Lex Luther.  He's a genius, got the right initiatives, but Tom Hiddleston is so scrawny as a super-villain, at times it's hard to take him seriously when he's fighting these massive heroes.  (Fun fact: Hiddleston was in two Best Picture nominees last year, "War Horse" and "Midnight in Paris." He's been having a good few years.)

The real star of "The Avengers"

Director Joss Whedon, fresh off producing his hit "The Cabin in the Woods" brings the superheroes together just as they should: bickering and insulting each other's abilities.  As the majority of them aren't human, or transformed humans, he should be commended on bringing out the mortal side of them; the argumentative, bickering side of them.  Filmmakers have attempted to do this in the past, but let's be honest: if you're saving lives, the city, the world, you're going to start developing a big head about it.  (And all the buzz you hear about the Hulk is legit, one of the fights between him and Loki brought cheers and applause from the packed theater I was in. Mark Ruffalo is the best incarnation of Dr. Banner yet)

Believe everything that's said about "The Avengers," unless it's something negative.  The only bone I had to pick with it is the talky, somewhat unnecessary points that easily could've been left on the cutting room floor, although it sounds like much was already.  It was reported the movie was originally 3 hours, so that leaves superhero geeks like myself something to look forward to after "The Dark Knight Rises" is released.  "The Avengers" is the best summer movie not released in the summertime.

Rating: 3/4 stars