I enjoyed it

I think Loki is a better character than Ultron, but he's had a couple films to develop. Ultron got introduced and started being a villain seconds later. No comparison to the character development we had with Loki coming out of the first Thor film. If the concept of Ultron had been introduced in an earlier film (Iron Man 3, most likely) and abandoned, it would make more sense to revive it here. Could have given Ultron some motivation if he had been created earlier and then cast aside, then revived with a grudge. But introducing him so quickly didn't give him enough time to develop as a character. Strucker and Klaue were the same. Introduced, underdeveloped, discarded, all within the space of a few minutes. Blink and you'll miss them. The first film simply focused on the established character of Loki, and it was stronger for it.

That was actually true of all the new characters. There was some excitement in the first one as we saw established heroes brought together for the first time. There was none of that this time around. Ultron, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch and Vision were all introduced in this film. Again, introducing these characters earlier in the MCU (outside of post credits stingers) would have added some excitement to their appearance here. That's the great thing about the MCU--you can set characters up and pay them off in a future film or take them to the next level. It will be great to see Ant-Man interact with the team in Civil War, because we will already know and love him after his solo film. We didn't previously know and love the new characters, which made it less thrilling to see them all team up compared to the first Avengers.

Plot wise, I felt like things kept moving forward in the first Avengers, whereas the momentum stopped here and there in Age of Ultron. They stopped and had a party. No urgency or forward momentum, just the characters sitting around being comfortable with each other. Later, they stopped the action and went to a farm for a while. Chopped some wood. The first Avengers never left me thinking, "Get on with it." It also didn't send characters off on separate side quests like Thor's trip to the pool. It was simply more focused.

The AoU climax was well done visually, but felt too similar to the first one. The Avengers unite to fight a swarm of CGI enemies attacking in a city. (Except this one didn't have the variety of foot soldiers, flying jet skis, giant space ships, etc.) It was just lots and lots of Ultron clones. The climax wasn't worse in AoU, it just didnt surpass the original and was too similar to avoid comparison.

It was a good movie, but not equal to the first. Its flaws were a little more obvious this time around. I can't agree that this matched or lived up to the first one.

Also have an enjoyable Halloween night!

Happy Halloween everyone! 






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gCBiJ3QJnk&feature=player_embedded

Marvel keeps putting out quality in waves but DC/Nolan fans have ONE movie to hang their hat on and that's TDK. EVERYTHING else the WB/DC has produced this century has been average (Batman Begins) or flat out crap (everything else) and since TDK blew up they feel the need to constantly defend and promote it. It's become a defacto defense and a paranoid one at this point. When others see new films and call it "better than TDK" it drives them crazy. This has led to trolling of unprecedented levels everywhere. Bashing Avengers and any Marvel effort now is just an extension of that paranoid delusion. Let them troll. It’s been seven years since these nutjobs had anything of which to be proud. All they have left is their bitter hatred.

Agree. Self-respect is the fruit of discipline; the sense of dignity grows with the ability to say no to oneself.










I accept your surrender.

Then you are going to like what you see in Civil War!