Avengers: Age of Ultron.

[Velorath]

I'm in the small camp that says: If the story works better at 3:30 than 2:30, make it a 3:30 movie.  Add back an intermission if you need to do so... tell stories in the length that is good for the story and the quality of the product will give long term value worth the inconvenience.

It's not just a matter of inconvenience and people not wanting to sit through longer movies. A 3 1/2 hour show with an intermission isn't going to fit as many showtimes on one screen (depending on a theater's business hours, at least one showing per screen is going to be lost and in some situations more).

[HaemishM]

I'm not a comic or super hero movie aficionado though, so maybe that's what the audience wants? For me it felt really flat as a stand-alone experience.

It is. You probably shouldn't watch them as you aren't a super hero movie fan and you don't appear to like big spectacle action either. I thought it handled a whole lot of shit pretty well in a short time frame, which means it probably could have used a few more minutes to really not feel quite as breakneck.

[jgsugden]

...
It's not just a matter of inconvenience and people not wanting to sit through longer movies. A 3 1/2 hour show with an intermission isn't going to fit as many showtimes on one screen (depending on a theater's business hours, at least one showing per screen is going to be lost and in some situations more).

Agreed - but I see that being an overstated problem.  Again, I know I'm in the minority in my view here, but I think they're missing something.

I see a lot of empty seats at theaters.  If you take 5 showings of a movie over a day and reduce it to 4, most of the people that would have seen it over those 5 shows will cram into the 4 showings and reduce the number of empty seats.  You lose some viewers that can't find an ideal showtime (although having it on more screens allows for a greater diversity of show times - Avengers was on 6 screens at my local suburban theater on opening weekend and there were shows starting roughly every 30 minutes), but if the quality of the movie is increased you can counter that loss with more repeat viewing and more people being drawn to watch it after hearing more praise - and for the theater, with an intermission especially, increased revenue from food sales (which is where theaters make most of their money, anyways) from the longer time in the theaters is key. 

Plus, theater experiences are not the end of the movie - TV revenue is increased for a longer film with more commercial breaks and a higher quality film gets a better legacy, resulting in more value to services like Netflix, Amazon, etc...

Clearly, Hollywood thinks I'm missing something because they've gone the other direction. 

[Velorath]

There's a lot of behind the scenes stuff between theater chain film bookers and movie studios as far as putting together deals for number of screeens, and rental fees and such. Studios generally get a bigger cut of ticket sales early on with theaters taking a larger percentage as the movie has been out longer. I imagine this is partly what causes studios to want to front load the opening weekend as much as possible, as well as for all the potential headlines of breaking records. There are other factors as well. Depending on how many big movies are following in the weeks after, a movie can lose screens pretty rapidly. Less shows per screen also limits the amount of shows you're getting for premium shows (Imax, XD, Dbox, etc...). Theaters in smaller towns that have maybe 2-6 screens, and maybe are open shorter hours also get hit harder. There's just a ton of stuff to take into account.

[Threash]

Iron Man 1 remains the only MCU movie that I feel really holds up to rewatching as a "classic" movie.  The rest have all been fine, but even the first Avengers movie, which many people cite as their favorite, felt just "okay" to me on a second viewing.

I've enjoyed a rewatch of Thor, Captain America, & GotG. Might watch IM again on a slow day. Don't imagine I'd bother with any of the others.

Ah, I enjoyed GotG and Thor was ok, so maybe my bar was misadjusted. I thought from all the chat in f13 that most of these new marvel movies were worth a watch.

Well, worth a watch if you like this type of movie would be more accurate.  Also not really a stand alone kinda experience.

[Setanta]

I actually think GotG is the stand out film of the lot with IM and Thor as runners up. Cap series left me bored, the IM and T sequels were meh and the Avengers were fun but nothing to write home about outside of Loki and Banner.