The flaw I saw in the final battle was not that the Hulk or all the Avengers together were overpowered.  I didn't think it was realistic that they could defeat the Chitauri before the entire city was destroyed.  If they were facing the Chitauri in an open, unpopulated area, just the Hulk and Thor could probably defeat the army if they are allowed to be as powerful and destructive to their maximum potential as shown in the comics.  Thor smashes his hammer on the ground a few times, Hulk does a few of those sonic boom handclaps, rips up a mountain or two, and the army is toast.  The problem in the movie is that they were fighting in a city.  With the exception of some lightening strikes from Thor, the movie shows them taking out bad guys a few at a time.  I just didn't see how the entire city wasn't a pile rubble before they defeated the army.  With the Justice League, at least Superman and the Flash can use their speed to take out many enemies in rapid succession.

It would have worked better if the Chitauri on the ground had been machines remote-controlled from the mothership. Still a cop-out, but at least it wouldn't have us scratching our heads and wondering why these guys were so affected by the loss of their ship. (Maybe they were machines, in fact... but that's neither said nor hinted at in the film).

They could have been killed through feedback from an embedded control device that slaved them to their masters on the main ship... or any one of several alternate reasons which would have worked, if only they'd actually used one of them in the film, rather than just have them keel over for no reason. All it would have taken would have been one or two lines of dialogue between Thanos and his pet Chitauri leader, or a dead Chitauri soldier with his head split open and a load of electronics spilling out so that Stark or Banner sees it and says "wait! this means..." - but noooo!

Well, for one thing, if Avengers had been made in th 90s then Hasselhoff would be Nick Fury!

I laugh at most of this, though it is typical of these fantasy castings.  it's usually based on the actor's looks, rather than their style and personality fitting the character,.  Oldman as Loki is an interesting idea and Pearlman as Thanos would be fantastic, actually.

I remember fan casting of a JLA movie, from the comic's letters pages and it was usually Lee Majors as the Flash (um, okay...) and Nick Nolte as Aquaman (even then, that was weird) and Adam West as Batman (because he was Batman!).  To be fair, I always thought Cheryl Ladd as Black Canary was a pretty good idea, though that was more just picturing her in the costume.

Just saw it. That was the coolest movie I've ever seen. No contest. Wild ride from the start to the finish, but there is so much material in there that isn't just action you need to see it multiple times. So many questions now. I'm already jealous of the people that will be seeing it for the first time. That time for me has already passed, and it was glorious.

By the way, stay until the end credits. Seriously.

My reaction to the film is pretty much what my reaction was to cross-overs, like Infinity Gauntlet: lot of people punching things, a few interesting moments, not as satisfying as I expected. I much preferred Thanos in the earlier days and the Captain Marvel and Adam Warlock sagas played tighter than the bigger Infinity series of minis. The bigger thing is the films make me appreciate the storytelling mechanics of comics more. I like these plots better in the comics, where you absorb more of the story and moments can be suspended in time. When it is translated into film, everything has to keep moving and these end up feeling more like a video game, to me, than an epic saga, or a great adventure (to varying degrees, in the Marvel films). There are some great moments between characters in these; but, Found the quieter moments meant far more to me than the action scenes. Part of it is the artifice of CGI, as very little looks "real" to me on these, compared to in the comics. Something about line art just seems to give things more character and "life."

The film is what I expected, after viewing everything but Thor: Dark World, as far as how the MCU plays things. There is nothing I would say was bad; but, nothing I would say was classic or unforgettable. Really, the battle stuff just feels like a lot of random stuff flashing across my screen, with little resonating. I had the same reaction to modern comics, like Ultimates, which tends to go for the same kind of storytelling. I do think it brought some good character drama to play, in between people punching things; but, I don't feel like as much of it paid off as they hoped. The closest I can compare it to is Lord of the Rings and I felt Peter Jackson was better at making the battle sequences feel like real struggles to survive and stop the onslaught, from an emotional standpoint. He would have little human moments that I think have been missing from the Avengers films, as a whole. There are too many faceless soldiers in these things, which detracts from the drama, for me. That was there in LOTR; but, I felt Jackson captured the human drama more clearly, even when he was doing the "cool sequence" bit (like Legolas' arrow stunts). I do think the Russos handle the human element better than Joss Whedon; your mileage may vary.

I was surprised at Peter Dinklage's role in this. I haven't bothered with interviews for these things, after the first batch of films, as they seemed to be the same marketing copy repeated endlessly. So, I saw his name attached and figured he was going to play Pip the Troll, since we had Thanos. His actual role was unexpected; but, made me smile.

Again, good character stuff, some fun lines of dialogue, and a lot of video game action.

Still way better than Warner's batting average, in their attempt at a connected film series. DC is getting way better love on tv than at the theater.

I'll wait until next week to see it -- looks encouraging and my friends told me you gotta see it!