 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| This is a comments thread about Blog Post: Aisle Seat 5-5: May Arrival Edition by Andy Dursin |
| |
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 5, 2015 - 7:49 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
musicfan1
(Member)
|
Concerning The Avengers -- uh -- it's about a bunch of costumed comic book characters who have super powers. What were you expecting?
Mr. Turner was much less satisfying in terms of coherent plot -- it's just an episodic series of events in a very one-note life of an eccentric. Great pictures, and a wonderful performance by Spall, but a little too dependent on tics and grunts and rodent-like facial expressions. Interesting and visually sumptuous -- yes. "Entertaining" -- not quite the right descriptor.
The Avengers that Joss Whedon made was big, dumb fun, and entertaining. The movie he didn't make, but your review somehow expected, doesn't exist. Why critique what isn't there, when you can talk about the movie that IS there? The movie actually on the screen was a pretty good sequel, and I think Hitchcock would have killed to have the technical resources on display in just the first five minutes. And yes, there is a story that does sustain over two hours with more than a dozen characters -- it's not Shakespeare, but it does function and is coherent. Mr. Turner meanders until the character dies and the movie ends -- how is this even close to the same challenge Whedon faced?
Movies like The Godfather are not green-lit anymore (see Godfather 3 for proof -- the original script was soooo much better), and Marvel/Disney are not in the "art" business. They want to sell tickets, so they make entertainments, and on that level The Avengers works. Nobody really cares what movie you, or I, might make, so I wonder if we can stick to the movie on the screen. Nothing up there was an accident, and the reasons behind your considered flaws will never be completely known, which just reinforces the need to stick to the film as it exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
