Wally Pfister: "The Avengers was an appalling film"

News Simon Brew 17 Oct 2012 - 07:09

The Dark Knight Rises cinematographer doesn't have much love for Joss Whedon's The Avengers...

Cinematography Wally Pfister has rightly earned significant plaudits for his extensive work with director Christopher Nolan. Across the three Dark Knight films, as well as the likes of Inception (for which Pfister won an Oscar) and The Prestige, Pfister has shot to the top tier of cinema's finest modern day cinematographers.

His next project will see him direct a feature himself, but ahead of that, he's given a really interesting interview to Arts Sarasota. We suspect we've done him few favours with the headline to this piece, but do consider clicking the link at the bottom: Pfister talks, for instance, about just how much he enjoyed shooting the likes of Inception and The Prestige, as well as his dislike for superhero movies.

One that he saves his ire for in particular is Joss Whedon's The Avengers. Arguing that storytelling is pivotal when shooting a film, Pfister said that "I thought The Avengers was an appalling film". He added that "They’d shoot from some odd angle and I’d think, why is the camera there? Oh, I see, because they spent half a million on the set and they have to show it off. It took me completely out of the movie. I was driven bonkers by that illogical form of storytelling."

We're not really sure we agree with him, but then when it's someone of Pfister's standing talking, then it's hard to not at least consider what he has to say. As we pointed out on Twitter earlier in the year, though, a special geek by-law was passed that means you're allowed to like both The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises, and it's not compulsory to pick one over the other...

You can find the full interview here.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

I was driven bonkers by The Dark Knight Rises's form of storytelling. Seriously, that movie sucked.

Sour apples? Avengers was a full blown tip top action film in the ranks of goonies and raiders of the lost arc. You just dont get that type of film often.

He is right, there were some odd camera angels.That being said, it wasn't appalling and it certainly didn't take me out of the film. Seems like he's making remarks to simply promote his work. Which is fine, since sites like Den of Geek react to this type of 'news'.

Hear, hear!
I suppose Pfister is kinda right about the angles, but "appalling"? Seriously?
Way to lose my respect.
On the other hand, the aspect ratio of Avengers actually bothered me a bit.

Personally i enjoyed 'The Avengers' much more and it has a higher rewatch value. I was actually disappointed by what they gave us in 'The Dark Knight Rises' given that the entire film felt like just a drama filled monologue.

Sure there are a few problems with 'The Avengers' mostly due to simply having plot elements at the end mirroring a scene in Star Wars - given that once the mothership is destroyed the remaining aliens are not dealt with and simply disappear - however they did the same with Transformers; Dark of the Moon.

However i must say that 'The Avengers' is an amazing film compared to the trashy drama filled 'The Dark Knight Rises' which felt drawn out and had very predictable plot twists such as the classic 'is he alive or dead?' and 'i'm the main villain... oh wait i`m not' scenario.

While 'The Dark Knight Rises left me bored and disappointed the Avengers handled story telling perfectly and i cannot actually note a really terrible camera angle (other than possibly a shot with the CGI leviathan - however that would be expected considering they had to film the shot first.

In terms of story telling though 'The Dark Knight Rises' sucked. He practically smashed a fusion bomb into a bridge and dragged it along the ground when he took it out of the city. Bane was handled badly and might aswell have just been a hired thug. Talia was predictable to anyone who read the comics... i really could go on however for the sake of everyone i'll end it with - The Avengers was better than The Dark Knight Rises in terms of storytelling, character interaction, fullfilling fan desires and visuals

Yep, I agree with Shanks and Mac's comments here. I think some of the shots in Avengers were definitely designed to show off the set, but that doesn't make the film appalling. Unless Pfister judges a film on nothing more than it's camera angles.

This is a case of looking at something from a particular angle or through a particular paradigm - in Pfister's case, from a technical standpoint as a cinematographer. Everyone watches films and has points where they say "I'd do that differently" or "why've they done that?" and that's even more true if you have some kind of expertise or knowledge of film making. Anyway, it doesn't matter and there's a bigger picture beyond soundbite snipe moments. Both films are very different and excellent in their own wonderful way.

Totally agreed! I thought the aspect ratio should have been standard 2:35:1. Even though I didn't warm up too much to the movie like most people, I thought it should have been shot on a more epic scale in this preffered format. I could see where Wally was coming from with the camera angles. I think they tried too hard in some parts. Like in the scene where The Avengers are arguing with one another and the camera angle turns upside down onto Loki's scepter and stayed there for a long time. I wouldn't say the film was appalling, but it certainly didn't have a captivating story for my liking. I have to give credit though to Joss Whedon for penning the screenplay with all the characters screen times and their motives.

Ultimately The Avengers may indeed have had some odd camera angels but they worked! Compare the last act of each film, both set in New York, both featuring ground and aerial battles but Avengers has pace and a tremendous feeling of space and excitement. Dark Knight Rises was, and of course this is just my opinion, very slow and even boring at times with none of the needed energy. Hell, Tim Burton's Batman did a better job at the Batplane!

Well, for me "Avengers" was the best and most enjoyable action film I have seen for many years, streets ahead of Dark Knight. The super-characters WERE characters, with human prejudices against each other which you could see being overcome by a grudging respect which had to be earned by each one, even the Hulk. Believe me, the camera-angles were not something I noticed. What I noticed was a masterful corporate storyteller's blend of epic spectacle, character-driven performances and realistically flawed people overcoming their own faults and prejudices to achieve a lean-mean-fighting-machine. Tony Stark's casual civilised conversation with the villain Loki before being flug out of a penthouse window was probably the best bit of screen writing in the last 10 years - "Like a drink? I'm going to have one." With respect, I think Wally Pfister has got his nose too close to the grindstone and should take several steps back to understand the full picture. A good film is a working blend of many different talents and skills, and nobody needs a prima donna stamping their foot!

Yeah, there were no way near enough close-up shots of Scarlett Johansson's arse compared to Anne Hathaway's. Poor show.

He is enitled to his opinion just as I am entitled to enjoy watching the DVD again and again, yet will probably not watch DKR again unless the hubby happens to buy it and put it on

TDKR was terrible too, and I love Batman. It was just a mess, but more from the script angle. Hopefully Paul Dini and his Animated Batman colleagues will take over and show everyone how Batman should be done. This year I preferred Dredd.

He certainly has a point. While The Avengers was an incredibly fun film, the camera angles were rather strange at moments. A particular exchange of dialogue between Black Widow and Loki sticks in my mind.

Dini is the modern master of Batman and you could argue that it's his work in animation that will leave the lasting legacy more than any of the films have. If nothing else he created the interpretations of characters and villains that the comics and movies have relied on for so long as well as bringing in new elements, not the least of which was Harley Quinn.

DC need to give him the reins, for storytelling at least, on any future Batman movies rather than giving them to, admittedly, talented people like Burton and Nolan, but ultimately ones who don't really get comics and have openly said so.

No disrespect to David Goyer either who has his own style and is a comic adaptation veteran but he is far from consistent and I think Nolan kind of constrained him with his vision for Batman.

I think the camera angles were just an expression of the exuberance and adventure that typified the Avengers movie, just like the kinds of liberties a comic book artist would take in making their panel layouts more interesting.

But, yeah slow and boring is exactly how I would describe TDKR. It really sucked the imagination and the life out of the Batman mythos with its 'realistic' approach.

I get what he's talking about, but also, I'm guessing Pfister is very much old skool in how he approaches storytelling (if his directing is at all like his cinematography). TDKR is very classically shot, Avengers goes a bit more poppy and less composed, does anyone give more than two shits?

I can appreciate the technical skill that went into TDKR and the undoubted talent of everyone involved but the result just left a lot to be desired. I literally had to force myself to watch it the first time just so that I could say I'd seen it (and secretly hoping that it wouldn't be as bad as I feared) then when my girlfriend announced a couple of weeks later that she wanted to see it too (she's non-plussed on the series) I tried persuading her that perhaps she wanted to see something else instead with no luck and it didn't improve on second viewing (although I did enjoy JGL's character a lot more knowing that he was Robin/Nightwing/NuBatman/whatever).

At the end of the day this was more like a re-imagined Inspector Gadget movie, than Batman for me. I really want WB to bring out a palette cleanser as quickly as possible with a new Batman or maybe I'll just go back to rewatching the animated stuff instead.

Obviously, characters like Batman are flexible enough to allow different interpretations and I used to love the Elseworlds tales that used to be published, but the movies just pushed it too far and broke it so that this just felt like a Batman with no soul. Not a broken Bat. Not a vengeful Bat. Not a Dark Knight. A soulless shadow who looked like Batman but was not Batman.

Wow! I really don't like these films do I?

[/geekrant]

Quite odd that he criticises the amount of shots highlighting the high-budget sets of the Avengers when Dark Knight/DKR had so many shots designed to show off the use off imax cameras. Not really criticising, those shots were great. But I thought the Avengers ones were very cool as well.

"tip top action film in the ranks of goonies and raiders of the lost arc."

you dont watch too many films now do you? what a crazy claim!

Avengers wasa PROPER adventure kids flick and that is all. Comparing it to such all time classics is a serious crime!

Avengers had lots of stage sets that were later aletered with CGI and thus many weird shots were needed to create the sense of space while there was no space at all. But yes, it was poor camera job, that is all.

Wow, just running someone elses work down like that. Sounds like someone getting a little too big for their boots.

Rather ironic given one of the biggest critiques of the Nolan Batman films was the ' disorienting impossible to follow' camera work in the action sequences. (And of course the way The Dark Knight's major Car Chase broke most basic continuity rules)

If this was from someone who hadn't worked on a film that actually cost more money to make than Avengers then I'd see where he was coming from. And as far as I can remember they definitely had some shots in TDKR that looked like they were just showing off their set/effects too.

Avengers is an all time classic though, or at least it will be in a couple of decades

Cinematographer* Wally Pfister. Just saying :P

That scene was better than any part of TDKR

The shot you're referring to was intentional, focussing on the scepter as the camera turned upside down.. I thought that was terrific storytelling, showing instead of telling how the scepter of Loki affected the Avengers and was responsible for the emotions running high and putting them on edge. It was a bit slow but effective IMO.

Goonies is the all time adventure kids flick period! but despite it been a "kids" film its engaging enough to appeal to all. I thought Avengers fell into this bracket. You dont get that often, its generaly all out kids kibble or dark and mature fun free pap.

I thought both films were very good.

I enjoyed both films. The camera angles were not distracting and I had no problem following the story in either release. Sounds like sour grapes over which film won at this summer's box office to me.

Cue onomatopoeic caption-inserts (kapow! Thwack! etc. )

lol that really perked my husband up

It's fine he feels that way. He's obviously entitled to his opinion, but my issue with this is just how incredibly unprofessional it is.
Making public statements like this is beneath someone of Pfister's talent.

Well said!

as a real life superhero I can say both films are flawed as real super heroes don't behave like that.. see what I did there?

That's quite odd to me. I loved both films, but the cinematography in Avengers stood out far more to me than in TDKR. When we get to the fight in New York and a single shot takes us through the whole of the battle, moving from Avenger to Avenger, it's my favourite part of the film. Pfister's grumbles just sound like snobbery, and even resentment, to me. I enjoy subtlety, sure, but you can't really say the Dark Knight trilogy was known for its subtlety. Plenty of showing off of CGI and practical sets just for the sake of showing them off.
I like deliberate camera work just as much as subtle stuff, anyway. Wes Anderson's camera work is some of my favourite stuff in cinema and I'm a big admirer of Whedon as a TV director. I like how it transferred to film in Avengers and Serenity. Pfister just sounds incredible bitter and curmudgeonly to me here...

2.35:1 doesnt equal better. For one thing in the Avengers I think it would have been a lot harder to emphasise the heights scaled in the final battle, and the size of the Hulk compared to everyone else.

'I was driven bonkers by that illogical form of storytelling' TDKR and, yes, TDK were well shot and acted, but their stories were NOT well told. Both were overlong, rushed, and tried to cram too much in. I'd take The Avengers over both.

I think he meant appallingly shot film ? as he really didnt say the core story was bad, if i'm being the devils advocate here.
And I dont get why people are saying he is bitter, I mean why would he be, as he is not judged on how much money a movie makes as long as it looked amazing and was shot well.
But we're all entitled to our opinions i suppose :D

I'm not going to say that Pfister is right, but having watched the Avengers recently I wasn't as impressed as I expected to be. In fact I found the story underwhelming. The characters were great though, which is unsurprising because that is Joss Whedon's greatest strength.

Absolutely, it was little coincidence she spent most of the film bent over a Batpod... Pfister's a pretentious douche

because The Avengers "didn't" utilise johansson's clevage in the same way lol
Dont get me wrong loved the avengers but hollywood knows sex sells!

what a complete dork , DKR is the most generic bland action movies of recent times.

It's the way he watches movies that is the problem. Obviously if you're a cinematographer you're going to be looking at the shots of a movie and let's be honest, The Avengers wasn't outstanding in that aspect. Of course it was amazing in just about everything else. The Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers are two completely different films and it baffles me that people even try to compare them.

With all due respect, I'm not really sure what his point is. This is not new - spectacle cinema has been showing off it's... erm... assets for years. It comes with the territory. Filmmakers like to show us their shiny toys and audiences like to ooh and aah at them. Nothing wrong with that in the right context, which The Avengers was.

Clearly he meant the 1998 'The Avengers' film

Hehheheh...I quite liked the Avengers, HOWEVER I dont get all this love for the HULK / Bruce Banner. The actor playing Bruce B played it weird...he reminded me of a cross between a creepy paedophile and Ben Linus the leader of the others from Lost. It was just so different to what I imagined he would be like. That and the fact that the HULK monster hardly appeared in the film. How many times was it? Twice I think..I will have to watch it again.
Anyway Avengers lovers, dont hate me / flame me. I did enjoy it, I just thought after all the hype about the Bruce Banner / Hulk that the actor / character was played up a bit to much.

I am glad I'm not the only one who thought the avengers was confusing to watch. I'm very glad to see someone with clout call that out.

The multi-use platform that kept rising out of the water always confused me. Once he's landed the Batwing on it where did it go after that?

Isn't showing the expensive set part of what goes in to storytelling with movies? Doesn't it help bring you in to the movie world so you feel like you're there with them? I'm not sure what he's trying to say here. If you're going to tear down a movie that just destroyed the box-office can we get a few examples to support your argument? I'm not a cinematographer but I wish he'd at least tell us what he had a problem with exactly.

You only have to look at films like transformers where they seriously miss the mark in potentially having an all-ages adventure epic and turning it instead into the worst form of puerile and juvenile 'entertainment' with cardboard cutout characters with forced, banal banter providing slight interruptions to the parade of SFX.. Avengers could well have fallen foul of that but it didn't.

Perhaps you've forgotten how cartoonish the villains were in Raiders and Goonies whilst still delivering a great performance. The same goes for the heroes and their gang in each with the sparks that fly off the interactions between them. it those elements which, to me, are reminiscent of those classics and which some filmmakers have forgotten about in recent years as they get carried away with technology and market demands.

Avengers blended them all with great skill to deliver a fun film that doesn't ask to be taken seriously, just enjoyed for what it is.

As Indiana Jones was inspired by the pulp fiction and movie reels of 50 years before, so Avengers captured the spirit of the best of comics books and what made them so popular 50 years before it's release.

This guy is out of touch, a superhero movie about the Avengers By Joss who has had input on the Ultimates! come on it is The Superhero movie so much so that they include those weird angles to emulate the near impossible angles that comics are often written in. Read a Comic book sometime old man.

Well Wally if you are going to go there. TDKR was an extremely tedious & underwhelming end to Nolan's Batman trilogy.

The Hulk was another reason for the aspect ratio change, to emphasise his enormousness.

I think he might have a point on Cinematography but on storytelling I think he is being over critical. The Avengers isn't high drama but what it was is probably the most exciting popcorn flicks for a long time.

He's coming across as someone who's hard to work with. From the interview:

“Moneyball” was the last outpost of my battle for shooting on Kodak film. I said, “That’s no problem for me, you’ll just have to find another guy.” They finally said OK, but added “We need you to cut your salary.” I said, “If you didn’t get the (expletive) on the last call, get it now.”

I really liked all Nolan's Batman films, and Inception was great too. Nothing against him artistically, but he comes across as a bit of a prick.

I enjoyed the Batman cartoon as a kid but it wasn't until I re-watched them as an adult that I realised just how good they are. The story and animation were just fantastic.

for real though....avengers wasnt very good

Alright, I'm almost positive that he simply meant that the cinematography was appalling. Avengers isn't gonna rewrite filmmaking, but it was still a very fun and engaging adaptation. I haven't been excited about Marvel for a while, but this movie really did remind me a bit of what makes great superheroes. Anyone who says otherwise is just kidding themselves

Did people really like Dark Knight Rises really? Talk about a dogcrap movie. Go get Dark Knight Returns Part 1 and tell me Rises is 1/10th as good as that masterpiece.

Well he is entitled to his opinion, however in this particular instance he is just wrong, plain and simple.

His snap about the camera angles was a bit silly too considering that the dark night essentially had 3 different cities. Begins was made to look like a futuristic gotham, Dark Knight was Chicago and the Dark Night Rises was filmed in New York. As amazing as the dark knight films where i can't have been the only one to have spotted this......

The Goonies, a tip top action film! Jesus pal, you need to get out more.

I guess 'popcorn flicks' just isn't his type of film making.
And seriously guys, you're allowed to like both the movies. I feel people like The Avengers more because of it's bright visuals and was aimed at everyday audience; whereas The Dark Knight Rises was enjoyed by fans of the Nolanverse and the grittier Batman themes.
There's no saying that grittier themes are not enjoyable on film, and that popcorn flicks are dumb. It all depends on the storytelling and how much vested you are in the characters.

Dini's strength is that his best work on Batman has been bold and simple in its brilliance. It would make a wonderful change from the hectic, convoluted nature of Nolan's Batman films (and I'm saying that as someone who loved Batman Begins).

I'm not a fan of Avengers. But even less I'm a fan of Nolan's work. "Angles of the camera" weren't a problem in Avengers at all. However, Nolan's work always makes me wonder why can't he afford the better DoP, etc.? And I have to say that cinematography in Nolan's movies is plain bad. Plus, he uses truly terrible montage and practically all of his movies have absolutely awful job on the account of the lights department. There are may ways to create dark mood in a movie but the audience should actually SEE what's on screen, hello? The Dark Knight was pulled through by Heath Ledger's great work. He was amazing in it. I can't say the same about anything else in this movie. 2 other TDK movies were weak with no redemption qualities in my opinion.

Bang on there man! :)

"a special geek by-law was passed that means you're allowed to like both The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises, and it's not compulsory to pick one over the other..."
A wise decision. I've not seen either film yet, but I plan to. I really like the first two Batman films, whereas the only Marvel films I have seen so far that relate to Avengers are Iron Man 1 & 2, and the Incredible Hulk (I thought 1 was pretty good and 2 was pretty poor: that version of Hulk is pretty much ruled out now I guess). I'm really amazed that a lot of viewers are not so keen on the darker, serious, drama-laden slant of the Batman films, rather than a more colourful, comic book feel. It is precisely those qualities that appeal to me in the Nolan films. I agree with DoG that we can have both. I mean, I love A New Hope and Alien, both sci fi but you can't declare one better than the other, because they are different beasts.
As for the guy's comments, well he's an industry professional and probably can't switch off his training to watch film. Maybe he does see a lot of unsatisfactory elements, but only in the way that a wine buff might find fault with a perfectly drinkable bottle of cheap supermarket wine. I sincerely doubt he had a tantrum and publicly dissed Avengers just because it took more money. He has no reason to anyway; I couldn't name any other pair of Marvel films in the last decade or so that were better than Batman Begins or Dark Knight.

I thoroughly enjoyed the Avengers, it was great entertainment and whilst it may not have had a critically acclaimed plot it still worked. I am a huge fan of Batman and I really liked Chris Nolans real and gritty approach to the material and BB and TDK are awesome, however TDKR is not. Full of plot holes and way too many characters that were not given enough depth and added nothing to the plot. The plot was actually just a rehash from the previous 2, I mean out of all the stories in the Batman comics, why recycle the League of Shadows storyline from BB. And dont get me started on the ending, JGL character was pointless, he is just a normal cop who inherits the batcave, so is he supposed to become Batman now, without the years of extensive knowledge and training that Bruce Wayne had access to? And how the hell did Bruce survive that nuclear explosion?

TDKR - the most boring film I've ever seen and will NEVER watch again. Have resented wasting good money on that ever since.

I'm sure the filmmakers (I'm not talking about the studios) don't care about the actual box office race as much as the public. Let's face it - both films were well made in their own rights but were also made for quite different audiences. The fact that the horrific Dark Knight midnight shooting in my estimate lost WB's close to 20% of the domestic earnings - made the race even further apart.

Totally agree with ya. A lot of Nolan-haters here that wanting to make this little interview snippet into something more than it is.

Would you like a tissue? The man is a genius behind the lens but I don't care if he hates Popeye's chicken either - why does it bother you so much?

I've often mentioned the poor editorial standards of this site but this article takes the biscuit. How long did I have to read before I found the first mistake? The first word, that's how long. This really is shoddy stuff folks.

He can go Pfist himself

Seeing as how you removed my last post, I'd just like to point out that Wally Pfister is a cinematographer not a cinematography.

Piss off you pedantic perineum and set up your own typo-free website.

No tissue necessary. I agree Mr Pfister is great at his job which is why I'm curious why he called The Avengers "appauling" without any reasoning given. Just reading the article it seems like he is just jealous the DKR didnt do as well at the box-office. I don't assume that is true but without a supporting argument what other conclusion do you draw from this?

He's right. Avengers is junkfood for nerds that haven't developed past their Whedon obsession. And the guy that compared it to Raiders needs to get out of his mother's basement and watch more film. A more appropriate comparison would be to the Transformers films. Kiddie crap - plain and simple.

LOL at all the retarded nerds bitching at Pfister. Why dont you start talking when Avengers gets an Oscar for its cinematography.
Pfister knows his craft much more than you retards do. SWO I would rather go with his professional opinion than butthurt Avengers fans that are jealous of the fact that Dark Knight is the greatest comic-book based film ever made and will likely never be surpassed.

Since when is being honest a bad thing. He was asked about his opinon and he responded honestly. Its not his fault that nerds on the internet have narrow views

Really? Is that so? He has never had a problem working with Christopher Nolan. Labeled by most as one of the best directors alive. Infact #1 on numerous lists. And lets not forget, Dark Knight Rises is considered a much better film than the Avengers. So all I see are assholes talking about plot-holes in the film that are too stupid to connect the dots themselves. Perhaps Avengers is the better choice for them.

This is exactly why women belong in the kitchen.

Call me when the Avnegers cinematographer gets an Oscar numbnut.

Oh lets forget about Wayne's character arc. The explored themes of what it means to be a symbol, vigilante. How polictics can tear people apart inside. This is why pretentious douchebags nerds who are too stupid to use their brains anything other than whacking of to Princess Leia shouldn't be taken seriously.

I have a lot of respect for Nolan as a Director and Memento is one of my all time favourite films just because he knows how to make some great movies doesn't mean he always will. (cf Oliver Stone, Steven Spielberg, James Cameron et al).

I'd rather judge each of his films on their own merits rather than suspend my own judgement because some people say he is the best director and that must mean ALL of his films are the best,

Just take a look at the oscars. Just because something is lauded and critically acclaimed doesn't make it entertaining to watch.

ouch! you really got me pegged there didn't you?

I admit that the lead character had an arc of sorts, but I don't recognise that character as Batman. Wearing the mantle of the Bat requires a hero unfortunately the lead character of Nolan's movies left it all behind for a bit of nookie and the quiet life rather than devote his life to it and spent most of his time NOT being Batman, I guess the arc he had was when you've had enough of something, quit and live an easy life with no responsibility.

Being a symbol and a vigilante was just too much for him.

I suppose action films have to have some kind of beefcake with a catchphrase or signature move that gets repeated in numerous sequels to qualify? Sheesh! You need to broaden your criteria for defining what constitutes an action film outside of the narrow but overly populated niche of testosterone fueled, violence heavy flicks made for the abundant emotionally stunted, but macho-posturing male audience that helped it to thrive for so long.

So there! :P

This wasn't in an interview with Arts Sarasota; it was said during an off-the-record invitation-only Q&A session with a group of college filmmaking students, and some nosy people from the media wormed their way in and turned it into a much bigger deal than it actually was.

Considering the only Dark Knight film that worked was with Heath Ledger as the Joker and that the only good about it was Ledger's take on the villain role, he hasn't a leg to stand on! Inception was good, but it isn't a Superhero film! He doesn't like superhero movies anyway, so if he can't make a decent one, he's no right to criticise Joss Whedon's work! I was skeptical on the Avengers till I saw it! It was so brilliantly made, it's re-watchable! Unlike the Dark Knight series!!

Considering the only Dark Knight film that worked was with Heath Ledger
as the Joker and that the only good about it was Ledger's take on the
villain role, he hasn't a leg to stand on! Inception was good, but it
isn't a Superhero film! He doesn't like superhero movies anyway, so if
he can't make a decent one, he's no right to criticise Joss Whedon's work! I was skeptical on the Avengers till I saw it! It was so brilliantly made, it's re-watchable! Unlike the Dark Knight series!!

Considering the only Dark Knight film that worked was with Heath Ledger
as the Joker and that the only good about it was Ledger's take on the
villain role, he hasn't a leg to stand on! Inception was good, but it
isn't a Superhero film! He doesn't like superhero movies anyway, so if
he can't make a decent one, he's no right to criticise Joss Whedon's work! I was skeptical on the Avengers till I saw it! It was so brilliantly made, it's re-watchable! Unlike the Dark Knight series!!

Considering the only Dark Knight film that worked was with Heath Ledger
as the Joker and that the only good about it was Ledger's take on the
villain role, he hasn't a leg to stand on! Inception was good, but it
isn't a Superhero film! He doesn't like superhero movies anyway, so if
he can't make a decent one, he's no right to criticise Joss Whedon's work! I was skeptical on the Avengers till I saw it! It was so brilliantly written. And the performance by RDJ and the clever script makes it re-watchable! Unlike the Dark Knight series!!

Once again... where is Batman in that story? Sure the symbolism is a nice hint to the first Nolan film and the politics and vigilantism is very reminiscent of 'The Dark Knight Returns' yet this is not Batman - this is just Bruce Wayne getting depressed until he realizes that he should fear death... which has to be one of the most upsetting/depressing story lines in all of Batman history (other than the loss of Robin)

You are an asshole, plain and simple, i hope that no female is ever forced to even be associated with you.

A perfect review of the DKR, it was soulless and more than that it had a message, the aristocracy are better than the rest of us and only the rich can protect us. Nasty, nasty film.

I see nothing intellectual in Inception of the Batman movies. I enjoyed BB, but others I found somewhat pretentious. I did think the Joker was portrayed brilliantly. The plots, not so much. Smoke and mirrors maybe, The Godfather part I and II they were not, except to fanboys. I also preferred the new Spiderman movie. After Batman begins that francise lost its soul.

Well said Lindsay

You enjoyed the right wing indoctrination of rises then? How sad.

So true!

Exactly!

"Storytelling is pivotal when shooting a film". That's inarguable. But while the cinematography in the Batman trilogy is impeccable, that doesn't keep Nolan's movies from being bloated, overlong, with terrible pacing, plot holes big enough to fly a Batwing through, and sound levels that alternate between whisper/growls and booming Hans Zimmer set pieces. I had to force myself to keep watching the last one. At least the Avengers, for its faults, kept me awake and interested.

Sponsored Links