Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Avengers: Age of Ultron Review


Jeremy Igo

Recommended Posts

Well, they did what I feared. They introduced new characters at such a pace there was almost zero character development therefore I didn't give a crap about them.

The movie just got too big and lost site of the most important part.... The story.

It isn't a bad movie, but it isn't a good movie either. I loved the first avengers and loved captain America 2 even more.

This movie wasn't up to those levels. I'd put it on the same level as the first Thor movie. Watchable for the action and effects which is fun for a summer movie, but not much else.

Spoilers

The Vision fell flat. Yawn.

It's hard not to picture James Spader when Ultron is talking.

X-men version of quicksilver was much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of my problem, I think, is that I just never really liked any of the Avengers... even in the comics... Hulk was okay, but:

Thor - some god from another realm with a dumb outfit and a magic hammer

Iron Man - a cocky rich prick

Captain America - kinda jingoistic tbqh

Hawkeye - okay, he is pretty cool but his outfit is stupid and the movie kinda made him irrelevant, plus his weaponry is a little dated

Black Widow - meh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of my problem, I think, is that I just never really liked any of the Avengers... even in the comics... Hulk was okay, but:

Thor - some god from another realm with a dumb outfit and a magic hammer

Iron Man - a cocky rich prick

Captain America - kinda jingoistic tbqh

Hawkeye - okay, he is pretty cool but his outfit is stupid and the movie kinda made him irrelevant, plus his weaponry is a little dated

Black Widow - meh

Hawkeye has a more prominent role in this movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always found Thor a strange choice for a super hero. He's a major figure in Norse religion. To me it's kind of like making a comic book super hero out of Jesus Christ, that walks on water, has a healing factor, can multiply food and turn water into wine. 

 

Wouldn't it be kind of sweet if they made a super hero that could kill bad guys by turning all of the water in their bodies to wine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always found Thor a strange choice for a super hero. He's a major figure in Norse religion. To me it's kind of like making a comic book super hero out of Jesus Christ, that walks on water, has a healing factor, can multiply food and turn water into wine. 

 

Wouldn't it be kind of sweet if they made a super hero that could kill bad guys by turning all of the water in their bodies to wine?

 

Sounds like my new best friend.

 

Just be glad they're not bringing Hercules to the screen. But way back when they announced they were making an Iron Man movie they released it before Hulk because they thought it wouldn't do as well. Oops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Teams do some super stupid stuff with mid-fairly good QBs. I think they are just absolutely terrified they will be stuck with a QB that is not the quality of the QB they have now, even if its someone like Daniel Jones. Lots of trash QBs go in the first round. I encourage you to take a look at the sad, sad list of first round QBs in the last 15 years.  
    • No, it will be a raw 6'7" 17-year-old European who just played basketball for the first time in March and who the idiot GM "had first on our board." He'll play the whole G-League season, get in 42 games for the Hornets and average 1.1 ppg on 35% shooting. Been there, seen that.
    • We missed on Burns at his peak value. That’s the problem with trading for picks 2-3 years away (which people were convinced the Rams would suck by now and these would be higher picks btw). Each year away the pick is the further in value it drops. Fitt was clearly hired based on turning us around quickly. It’s one of the many reasons tanking isn’t really a thing as our player JJ is telling you in this original article. It would take the whole organization from the owners down admitting they aren’t winning soon with Burns and picks 2-3 years away having more value because that’s when we are still rebuilding. It would only make sense if Fitt had a longer leash and would more than likely be the ones making these picks anyway which you wouldn’t want. The question is would you rather have those Rams picks with the strong possibility of Fitt still being here or would you rather Fitt try to “win now” like he did and expedite his firing? Altering the timeline would affect more than just the Rams picks. 
×
×
  • Create New...