Follow Us

Film Freak Central's Bookstore

March's Most-Read

  1. Noah
  2. The Grand Budapest Hotel
  3. Nympho-maniac
  1. Hannibal Season 1
  2. Game of Thrones Season 3
  3. Saturn 3

E-Mail Us


« Shut Up and Play the Hits (ds. Will Lovelace and Dylan Southern) | Main | ¡Vivan Las Antipodas! (d. Victor Kossakovsky) »

May 3, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I spent the whole second half waiting for Thor to power up Ironman with lightning like when they were dueling but it never happened :(


This new set up is confusing. Why did it change?

The Avengers Assemble

Your work has always been a great source of inspiration for me. I refer you blog to many of my friends as well.
Thanks for sharing knowledge..


My only problem with this review is that J.J. Abrams is not listed among the adolescents currently running Hollywood.


"For me, the problem isn't that the geek crowd has conquered the multiplex, but that the passive-aggressive pose of fandom has so thoroughly saturated the public discourse."--agreed, you summed up my thoughts exactly. I blame Big Bang.

Dan C.

Things look less dire when filmmakers such as Guillermo del Toro, Brad Bird, Sam Raimi, and Johnnie To become the standard-bearers for the genre cinema in the geek era. There are other names of course (Neil Marshall for horror, Alfonso Cuaron for his Potter sequel) but each of these guys has made a super-hero film with creative integrity and emotional stakes (if one accepts To's "Running on Karma" as a hybrid of kung-fu and super-heroism in the vein of Spider-Man -- leaving aside his less distinguished work in the more straight-forwardly comic-booky Heroic Trio).

For me, the problem isn't that the geek crowd has conquered the multiplex, but that the passive-aggressive pose of fandom has so thoroughly saturated the public discourse. Instead of asking genre material to be taken seriously for its artistic merit (the goal of the auteurist criticism that enthroned John Ford and the comic-book revisionism that canonized Alan Moore), most of the writing I've seen from self-described fans repeats the demand only the concerns of the cult should touch the precious text.

Whedon has his moments; his followers are insufferable.


Tarantino and Anderson (Paul Thomas and Wes) are two that come to mind that show our culture is not dead. 90% of everything has always been shit. Fortunately it's even easier to find the gems nowadays thanks to the internet.


i feel we need a Kurosawa of our generation...but alas, there's none to be found. Pop culture is like a black hole from which there's no escape.


I'm with Mike. Culture is dead.


I felt that the film captured the characters quite well – though they do not change through the movie –, and I'd give the film 3 stars. Probably as good as can possibly expected from such a studio behemoth.

There need to be sequels and new spin-offs, the continuity cannot be challenged, there must not be a vulnerable hero*, it must all be inoffensive and marketable, ...

*Black Widow, of course, lets herself be outfoxed by the men she interrogates, a tactic no male superhero would get away with in the eyes of the rump of comic book geeks, so full of sexism and entitlement. Also, it says a lot that just the presence of one more slightly competent female character surprised me, whereas Nick Fury is apparently the only black – non-white, even – person in the whole of SHIELD.

(And our first shot of Widow is her being bound to a chair and hit in the face)

Love the new site format!

Justin B-H

Now a John Milius take on the Avengers-that would have been interesting!!!! I'm sure the pendulum will swing away from comic book properties eventually...

Good to see the comments back...hope a fanboy blowback doesn't send them away again.


The irony, in theory, with middle-aged manchild geek-directors making films aimed squarely at the nerdy teen-boy demographic is that when these teen nerds grow up and become the next generation of filmmakers, they will imitate the films of their youth, thus making them even more immature and adolescence-stunted by comparison. While Whedon and Apatow were undoubtedly raised on a steady diet of 'adult red-blooded-male directors' (i.e. hard-drinking bar-fighting macho assholes who'd seen world war firsthand), now they get to make male-nerd-fantasy cartoons for the comic-book-masturbationist subsect...and those directors will make watered-down versions of those movies for the next generation who will make watered-down versions for the next, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.

In summation...we're doomed.


there's nothing wrong, per se with geeky filmmakers--i think Walter's just demanding more substance from said geeky filmmakers. they are certainly capable of much more, or at least they appear to be.


Is it so wrong that geeky filmmakers have inherited the multiplexes? I'm sure it'll be another personality type's turn in 15-20 years.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Please Support Film Freak Central

Please note that "RECENT POSTS" also lists archival content that's just been imported from the old site.

Letterboxd - Bill Chambers's Screening Log