第1个回答 2012-11-07
Joss Whedon tells a story, which, though classic, is developed in a really great way. First of all, an enviable and satirical script defines the pace of the work, which remains strong throughout its duration, accumulating tension to lead to a powerful final act, this is achieved in part thanks to the great characterization of the characters, very well defined in their dialogues and by the performances of the actors, who easily draw the different personalities of heroes and villain, as well as making the viewer vibrate with the clash of egos when they appear on screen.
A Special Mention goes Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner and Tom Hiddleston as Loki, the Norse god and Thor's brother. The latter is a successful incentive for the film, the fun of seeing him interact on screen is matched only by his great performance (specialy the scenes with Stark, Natasha and Thor) demonstrating a complex villain, even tragic, (although sometimes scary) whose motivation, while simple at first glance, proves to be a multi-layered one in an attentive viewing (pay attention to his dialogues and facial expressions, especially in encounters with Thor, Agent Coulson and his scenes in the outcome).
Robert Downey Jr. keeps the level as Tony Stark, and continues to develop his character. As we saw in the first Iron Man, Stark demonstrates that, despite having matured as a person, he's someone who does not know how to be a team player. He learns, in this film, that a hero is more than a cocky playboy, even if said playboy has superpowers.
The last, but not least, is Bruce Banner. Probably the most more grayest character that has the privilege of appearing on 'The Avengers'. Ruffalo's Banner is a sad, depressed man, who is ashamed of himself and is considered a monster by the one surrounding him, he has to learn to accept himself. A great success, by the director, is to outline his relationship with Tony Stark, as the contrast between the two is one of the delights of the film.
It doesn't my criticism, however, the fact that the final conflict may not appeal (to a greater or lesser extent) to those who 'do not tolerate CGI', which are really plentiful (though visually spectacular in themselves) during the last act.
However, I must say that such scenes are well maintained not only in effects, but also in style (special mention to an amazing a scene where the camera follows the protagonists, an artistically impressive oner which captures the might of the heroes with the sound-image combo).
Also, Whedon doesn't rely on "Eye Candy", and gives to the outcome a decent plot-structure, remarkably finishing the relationships between the characters, all of this seasoned, successfully, with good dialogue and some epic moments to make it more palatable. Paraprasing Roger Ebert, like many recent films in their third acts, The Avengers goes for wall-to-wall action, essentially, but the director has invested well in establishing his characters so that it matters what they do in battle and how they do it. There are personal issues at stake greater than simply which side wins.
Another negative point, in my opinion, is the following, although the premise is developed in a great way, giving shape to a somewhat simplistic plot, as I said the film does not redefine any way a plot that we have not already seen before, despite the fact that represents such concepts much better than any other film in its genre. However, although imperfect, the film satisfies at all times, and the scale between hits and misses is good enough to make this an excellent movie.本回答被网友采纳
A Special Mention goes Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner and Tom Hiddleston as Loki, the Norse god and Thor's brother. The latter is a successful incentive for the film, the fun of seeing him interact on screen is matched only by his great performance (specialy the scenes with Stark, Natasha and Thor) demonstrating a complex villain, even tragic, (although sometimes scary) whose motivation, while simple at first glance, proves to be a multi-layered one in an attentive viewing (pay attention to his dialogues and facial expressions, especially in encounters with Thor, Agent Coulson and his scenes in the outcome).
Robert Downey Jr. keeps the level as Tony Stark, and continues to develop his character. As we saw in the first Iron Man, Stark demonstrates that, despite having matured as a person, he's someone who does not know how to be a team player. He learns, in this film, that a hero is more than a cocky playboy, even if said playboy has superpowers.
The last, but not least, is Bruce Banner. Probably the most more grayest character that has the privilege of appearing on 'The Avengers'. Ruffalo's Banner is a sad, depressed man, who is ashamed of himself and is considered a monster by the one surrounding him, he has to learn to accept himself. A great success, by the director, is to outline his relationship with Tony Stark, as the contrast between the two is one of the delights of the film.
It doesn't my criticism, however, the fact that the final conflict may not appeal (to a greater or lesser extent) to those who 'do not tolerate CGI', which are really plentiful (though visually spectacular in themselves) during the last act.
However, I must say that such scenes are well maintained not only in effects, but also in style (special mention to an amazing a scene where the camera follows the protagonists, an artistically impressive oner which captures the might of the heroes with the sound-image combo).
Also, Whedon doesn't rely on "Eye Candy", and gives to the outcome a decent plot-structure, remarkably finishing the relationships between the characters, all of this seasoned, successfully, with good dialogue and some epic moments to make it more palatable. Paraprasing Roger Ebert, like many recent films in their third acts, The Avengers goes for wall-to-wall action, essentially, but the director has invested well in establishing his characters so that it matters what they do in battle and how they do it. There are personal issues at stake greater than simply which side wins.
Another negative point, in my opinion, is the following, although the premise is developed in a great way, giving shape to a somewhat simplistic plot, as I said the film does not redefine any way a plot that we have not already seen before, despite the fact that represents such concepts much better than any other film in its genre. However, although imperfect, the film satisfies at all times, and the scale between hits and misses is good enough to make this an excellent movie.本回答被网友采纳
相似回答