Jump to content

Beginning on August 1, 2017 all free accounts will have the same avatar size as all paid accounts. This means you will be able to upload larger avatars on that day if you have a free account and this will no longer be a paid perk.

Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    27
  • comments
    24
  • views
    4,269

Ruk Reviews- Captain America: Civil War

Sign in to follow this  
rukaio101

1,296 views

So, Captain America: Civil War. The second movie about dueling superheroes this year. Or, as it's likely soon to be known, "the one that actually did it well."

 

102597285-Batman-vs-Superman.530x298.jpe

"What? You thought you were going to have to wait before I started shitting on BvS? You don't know me very well, do you?"

 

Okay, now I've got that customary (and entirely deserved) jab at BvS out of the way, let's talk how I felt about this movie. I'll try and avoid raving about the stuff everyone else has already mentioned (the airport scene, Spider-Man, the airport scene, Black Panther, the good development for characters like SW and Vision, the fucking airport scene holy shit that was good) and talk about some of the less appreciated stuff I can analyse in more detail. Be warned that I'll be going pretty heavily into spoilers for this. So if you haven't seen the movie yet, go out and watch it. It's very good. Got it? Okay, let's get started.

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

SPOILER WARNING

 

Out of all the standalone Marvel movies released so far, my favourites have easily been the two Captain America movies. Despite admittedly slipping a little in their third acts, they did an utterly outstanding job developing a character who I'd probably call one of the most difficult superheroes to write for. They managed to craft a fantastic persona for Steve Rogers while still keeping to the spirit of the comics (and, in some cases, surpassing them). So I was interested to see whether they'd be able to go three for three in creating great CA movies and possibly topple Nolan's Batman as my favourite Superhero trilogy. And the result was... yes and no. Yes, in that it's a fantastic movie. No, in that, despite the title, I can't really call it a Captain America movie. It is Avengers 2.5. I can understand the confusion because it's a different type of Avengers movie than Whedon's entries, but it is an Avengers movie. Whedon tried to balance screentime and story evenly between all of the Avengers, which worked fantastically for the first film and... not so much for the second (which is why we got shoehorned-in subplots like Thor's cave, just to give him something to do). The Russos, on the other hand, seemed to have decided on the 'Fox X-Men' method for this movie. Specifically, they chose to focus on a couple of key characters as protagonists, while giving the rest of the ensemble their own smaller moments to make it feel like a team movie. In this case, Cap and Tony both feel more like joint protagonists with their own stories. If this was a Cap movie, Cap would be the protagonist and Tony the antagonist, like I originally assumed they were going to go with (and no, antagonist does not automatically mean 'villain'). But that's not the case. As such, we don't really get as much exploration into Cap and the themes and ideas surrounding him specifically as we would if he were the sole protagonist. There are bits here and there, but not as much I was expecting. So, as a Captain America movie, it's a little disappointing.

 

With that said, as an Avengers movie, it's fucking fantastic. Despite AOU's best efforts, this the real 'Empire Strikes Back' of Marvel Movies. Darker, bleaker, willing to develop its characters more and add new dimensions to their interactions but, unlike BvS, this movie actually knows how to pull said dark moments off and make them feel satisfying. Plus it has a very bittersweet, bordering full-on downer ending. It may not be as direct a cliffhanger as Han being frozen in carbonite, but ends with a lot of characters in a dark place, emotionally or literally. Speaking of, despite the added focus on Cap and Tony, none of the team feels massively neglected (although some added Hawkeye and Ant-Man earlier on would've been nice). Plus SW and Vision got some much needed development that AOU really should've provided. Honestly, it's the sort of movie where I came out liking pretty much every side character even more than I did before. And that's the sign of a really great team-up movie. 

 

_1457721976.jpg

"Yes. Even Hawkeye. 

 

I will say though, the first act did feel kinda sluggish for me. It took me a while to work out why, but I honestly think it was maybe a little too serious. The main players in Act 1 (Cap, Tony, Winter Soldier, Black Panther) are all largely serious and brooding thoughout, since Tony had his wisecracking cut down (which completely works for the guilt-ridden mood his character is in through most of the movie). And while there's nothing inherently wrong with being serious and brooding, and this movie avoids the trap BvS fell into by actually having the characters and debates be complex, well-written and interesting, it did start to wear thin on me after a while. The more consistent comic-reliefs (like Ant-Man, Hawkeye or Spider-Man) aren't introduced until around halfway through and I don't think it was a coincidence that the movie seriously picked up around then.

 

Speaking of serious and brooding, I also think another problem I had with Act 1 here is the heavy focus on Bucky/Winter Soldier, whose subplot was easily probably the weakest because the character himself isn't really all that compelling. He kinda worked as the silent, unstoppable muscle in TWS, but as a heroic character, he's fairly bland and uninteresting. That said, despite what I've heard others complain, Sebastian Stan is not a bad actor. If there's anything I got from rewatching CA1 before this movie, it's that Stan can be a very charming mofo if he's allowed to be. The problem is that the Winter Soldier's character is a literal emotionless assassin-turned brooding emo loner. And that's difficult for any actor to make charming. Hell, Stan gets to show some his charm towards the end of this movie when he and Cap are working together and banter some. I'd like to see much much more of that sort of Bucky going forward, personally.

 

Civil-War-640x360.jpg

"Either that or give him his own 'Odd Couples' sitcom with Falcon.

 

On the more positive side, despite many others understandably dismissing him as 'typical lousy Marvel villain', I actually really liked Zemo as an antagonist. Admittedly, I didn't like him until the final act where we a) get to learn the full scope/aim of his true plan and b ) he gets that fantastic scene explaining his motivations to Black Panther which both actors blew away (seriously, one of the best character scenes in the entire Marvel movie canon, imo). In the first two acts though, he really did seem like an extra generic Marvel villain. But the second he blindsided me by revealing that he killed the other Winter Soldiers (who were seemingly his entire goal up until then), he began to evolve into something new, interesting and more complex that I only wish we'd been able to see earlier and hope we see more of in later films. Also, while I've been trying to avoid too many BvS comparisons up until now, there's just one scene I really need to compare to show why Zemo really grew on me. It's after the main villain (Luthor for BvS, Zemo for CW) has been incarcerated and is being visited (by Batman for BvS and a severely underutilised Martin Freeman for CW). Luthor goes on this big silly rant that is supposed to seem intimidating but comes off as silly, especially when he ends it by going 'Ding ding ding'. Zemo on the other hand, only says two words in his scene. Martin Freeman taunts him from outside his cell and tells him that he lost. All Zemo says is "Did I?" And God damn did that line speak more than any of Luthor's ramblings. Especially when it's immediately followed by a montage of the remaining Avengers looking largely miserable. Because Zemo did win. He got exactly what he wanted. The Avengers crumbled from within and they it did by their own hands. He created a rift that cannot be fixed easily and the ending of the movie shows it. The bad guy won. How's that for the 'Marvel always plays it safe story-wise' crowd?

 

Speaking of, despite the airport battle being unambiguously the best action set piece of the movie, I was surprised by how much I liked the actual final Siberia battle. I'd heard people say it was a bit of letdown after the airport but, for me, it was the perfect companion piece and contrasted it perfectly. To elaborate, in my opinion, the airport battle embodied the 'fun' side of superhero vs superhero conflicts. All the characters got to let loose and bounce off each other, ability-wise, in interesting ways. There was a lot of joking and carnage and, while there certainly were stakes at hand, it definitely felt like there was an air of fun pervading the whole thing. The Siberia battle, on the other hand, embodied the 'serious' side of superhero conflicts. Anger and emotions run high. There are no witty one-liners. It is brutal and bloody for each side involved and comes from not just one movie, but an entire cinematic universe's worth of build-up of emotion on each side. There is no misunderstanding they can solve. There is no magic 'Martha' quick fix to make them drop their grudges. There isn't even a common enemy to force them together. It's just Cap, Bucky and Tony fighting until the other side simply can't get up any more. It's personal and dark in a way that the airport battle wasn't and in a way BvS wishes it could've been. And the contrast between the tones of the airport battle and the Siberia battle manage to emphasis and improve them both. I've always been on the opinion that darkness works best when you have light to balance it out and I think this movie showed that really very well with these two fights.

 

Okay, I think that's most of the more major stuff I wanted to talk about and probably a good time to start tapering off. I do have a list of the smaller little stuff wanted to mention.

 

  • Peggy Carter's funeral hit me with all the feels. It says something about how great a character Peggy was that Sharon managed to become a more interesting character solely through her relation to her aunt. Speaking of, if God ever smiles down upon me enough to renew Agent Carter, I want an entire season of Peggy just being a badass Aunt to kid Sharon.
  • Speaking of Sharon, she kinda disappeared halfway through the movie, didn't she? Sure there was enough going on elsewhere that I didn't miss her, but it felt a bit weird considering how much she was in the first half.
  • Also the Sharon/Steve kiss didn't feel nearly as icky as I feared it would be, considering the... 'implications' of that relationship normally. I think a large part of it is that they developed their relationship before Steve found out she was related to Peggy and it really doesn't feel the two are only interested in each other because of Peggy. They're just two grown adults engaging in a romantic gesture, who happen to share an important figure in their lives.
  • I liked the little character moments between T'Challa and Black Widow. The two only had a few scenes, but they had surprisingly good chemistry.
  • I also liked that the Widow/Bruce relationship was barely brought up. And I would be perfectly happy if it never got brought up again.
  • I wasn't actually all that fussed about Martin Freeman being underutilised, if only because it really feels like he's being saved for something in a later film. Also, I found his attempted American accent hilarious. 
  • I was kinda irritated that they killed off Crossbones though. He seemed like he'd make an interesting recurring villain. That said, did we ever find out who he was trying to sell that infectious disease thing to? 
  • Falcon's new bulletproof wingsuit is awesome.
  • Despite my dig at him earlier, Hawkeye continues to be the most underrated Avenger, character-wise.
  • Spider-Man was handled pretty much like Wonder Woman should've been in BvS. He didn't feel like a glorified cameo nor a shoe-horned trailer for his own movie. He helped add to the movie, both by helping Tony develop and, like Ant-Man, by bringing some much needed levity to the airport fight. Also actually having some kind of personality helped.
  • If you're complaining about all the BvS comparisons I've made so far, believe me when I say that compared to all the comparisons I could've made, this is pigeon feed. There's a fairly high number of similarities between the two, if you really look. Not to say either is ripping off the other (despite my point below joking about it), just that there are a lot of points to compare. Of course, I avoided most of those because they would inevitably cause me to go on another rant about how incompetent BvS was and, considering I've already written a 5 part blog series on that, I don't need that distraction again.
  • Really though, at this point, I can't help but feel Marvel is deliberately trying to show up DC by doing everything the latter does but actually doing it well. DC releases a movie attempting a darker taker on a commonly light, idealistic character and creates one of the most divisive SH movies ever. One year later, Marvel does the same with Winter Soldier and it's one of their most acclaimed films. DC attempts to build a reputation for telling 'dark, serious' stories. Marvel releases several dark-as-hell Netflix series to massive acclaim. DC attempts to have two of its biggest heroes in an epic fight and, well, you know the rest. I almost feel sorry for them. Then I remember that Snyder is still doing Justice League and all pity washes away like tears in the rain...

 

So yeah, to sum up, it was a very good movie. Maybe not the Captain America sequel I would've liked, but still a very strong movie in its own right. Admittedly, I'm not entirely certain whether the Russo's will be able to pull off Infinity Wars (since an epic space saga is a lot different from what we've seen in TWS and CW), but after this I feel confident they have a good chance. Unlike a certain other director helming a certain other superhero movie.

 

tatum14f-1-web.jpg

"What? Rupert Wyatt was a poor choice. Who did you think I was talking about?"

 

 

Sign in to follow this  


7 Comments


Recommended Comments

Agree with some points, disagree strongly with others.

 

"The bad guy won. How's that for the 'Marvel always plays it safe story-wise' crowd"

 

It is still safe, no risks whatsoever were taken. First because there was zero resolution, second we just know they will make amends and get together to fight Thanos in IW.

 

Risky would be killing one of the major players (they didn't even the balls to kill War Machine), risky would be one of the sides actually breaking with the whole moral conflict, risky would breaking the Marvel mold of doing movies.

 

Civil War ended with Cap rescusing the whole gang and Stark in the middle of the process of making peace with Cap. How did the bad guy won?

Edited by Goffe
  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
10 hours ago, Goffe said:

Agree with some points, disagree strongly with others.

 

"The bad guy won. How's that for the 'Marvel always plays it safe story-wise' crowd"

 

It is still safe, no risks whatsoever were taken. First because there was zero resolution, second we just know they will make amends and get together to fight Thanos in IW.

 

Risky would be killing one of the major players (they didn't even the balls to kill War Machine), risky would be one of the sides actually breaking with the whole moral conflict, risky would breaking the Marvel mold of doing movies.

 

Civil War ended with Cap rescusing the whole gang and Stark in the middle of the process of making peace with Cap. How did the bad guy won?

Bit of a Catch-22 you've got going on there. If they have a happy ending, it's 'too safe', if they have don't have a happy ending then it's 'zero resolution'. Both are completely incorrect, mind. This movie has a resolution. It's not a happy one and it deliberately leaves some things ambiguous, but it's still a resolution.

 

Also, just because the movie isn't catering to the specific risks you want, doesn't mean it's still not taking risks. It's still a Bittersweet/Downer ending which ends with half the team on the run and, despite hints that they might be able to reform, Cap and Tony are still pretty estranged. And that's something that should, and I suspect will, carry over to the next movies and get more exploration there (and if it doesn't, that's a problem with that movie, not this one.)

 

Also, killing off a character doesn't necessarily make a movie more 'risky' or, more importantly, better. All it means is that you can no longer tell stories with that character. And, quite frankly, there are plenty of interesting stories yet to tell with almost all of the Avengers cast, so I don't particularly want them to be killed off just to satisfy some misguided bloodlust that it's the only way to make a movie 'deep' or 'risky'. I'd rather they be kept around and more interesting stories be told with them. Honestly, that's part of the reason I was a bit annoyed they killed off Crossbones.

 

Also, if you don't understand how the bad guy won, you weren't paying attention. Yes, the gang was rescued and yes there are hints that Cap and Tony might be able to make up, but Zemo succeeded in creating an internal rift between the Avengers and, by the end of the movie, that rift is still there. Half the team is still on the run and reconciliation for many of them is not going to be easy. Things are not going to be able to go back to the way they were. 

Edited by rukaio101
  • Like 3

Share this comment


Link to comment

"If they have a happy ending, it's 'too safe', if they have don't have a happy ending then it's 'zero resolution." Nope, didn't say that.

 

Thousands of people die, governments around the world proposes regulations to ease the tensions, superheroes fight over personal problems, the end. Civil War ends in the same way it started on that issue. No resolution. It even leaves Tony and Steve reconciliation to the next episode. No resolution about that either. Now, I might reevaluate Civil War if Stark and Rogers don't become buddies again in the next chapter.

 

"Half of the team on the run" until Earth needs their help to fight Thanos in the next installment, then they will be championed. How risk. Anyway, I didn't find CW risky based on my own parameters, that's what matters to me, why should I care if it's risky for whatever reason that I don't consider risky?
 
"Also, killing off a character doesn't necessarily make a movie more 'risky' or, more importantly, better... only way to make a movie 'deep"  way to go... if your objective was to completely miss my point about killing characters. I want them to be killable, so that way I can feel some urgency in the action, I want to fear for them, I want to feel they are in danger. That's the reason of action scenes, isn't it? I mean, at some point a hero says to another hero, in the middle of a fight scene, "we are still friends, right?". 


Far from being bloodlust guy you implied me to be, I don't actually want characters who I care about to die.

 

"Internal rift between the Avengers" just like in the first Avengers.... and the second?

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, Goffe said:

"If they have a happy ending, it's 'too safe', if they have don't have a happy ending then it's 'zero resolution." Nope, didn't say that.

 

Thousands of people die, governments around the world proposes regulations to ease the tensions, superheroes fight over personal problems, the end. Civil War ends in the same way it started on that issue. No resolution. It even leaves Tony and Steve reconciliation to the next episode. No resolution about that either. Now, I might reevaluate Civil War if Stark and Rogers don't become buddies again in the next chapter.

Except the fact that Steve and Tony haven't reconciled is the resolution for that plot thread in this movie. If you strip it down to the bone, there are ultimately only two ways that plot thread could've ended here. Either Steve and Tony reconcile or they don't. They didn't. That's the resolution. It may not be the ultimate resolution for plot in the MCU as a whole, if they reconcile in later stories, but that is the resolution for this movie. That's a fact. You claiming 'Oh they might reconcile more in later movies' doesn't stop it from being the resolution in this movie.

 

 

Quote

"Half of the team on the run" until Earth needs their help to fight Thanos in the next installment, then they will be championed. How risk.

Again, you're basing that entirely on your predictions of a completely different movie that none of us really know anything about. And yes, them being on the run is going to change things. I severely doubt they're going to drop all their grudges and conflict carried over from here like a hot potato to deal with Thanos and, if they do, that's a problem with that movie, not this one.

 

Quote

Anyway, I didn't find CW risky based on my own parameters, that's what matters to me, why should I care if it's risky for whatever reason that I don't consider risky?

If you're going to play the 'it's just my opinion and that's that matters' card, maybe don't get into a reasoned debate with other people revolving around actual facts and themes of the story. It's fine if you don't like a movie or a certain aspect as much as I do, but you're going to try and tell me I'm incorrect about something, the 'it's just my opinion' card isn't exactly going to cut it. 
 
 

Quote

"Also, killing off a character doesn't necessarily make a movie more 'risky' or, more importantly, better... only way to make a movie 'deep"  way to go... if your objective was to completely miss my point about killing characters. I want them to be killable, so that way I can feel some urgency in the action, I want to fear for them, I want to feel they are in danger. That's the reason of action scenes, isn't it? I mean, at some point a hero says to another hero, in the middle of a fight scene, "we are still friends, right?".

Well, unless all the characters have been injected with immortality juice while I wasn't looking, you still have that. The characters can still die. It may be narratively unlikely, but they're not immortal. Besides which, for the vast majority of blockbusters out there, it's already obvious most of the MC's won't die, but there's still tension in the fight scenes. Because it's not about whether they will make it out, but how they will make it out.

 

Plus, there are other methods to create tension and stakes in a fight other than death. It's utterly silly that you're bringing up the 'we are still friends, right?' comment in the airport because a large point of that fight scene is that neither side is actually trying to kill the other. None of them want anyone dead in this (except maybe Black Panther and Bucky), they're aiming for different goals. Team Iron Man wants to capture them alive so the government won't send out another team to outright kill them. Team Cap wants to get past them so they can get to Siberia and stop Zemo. There are still stakes in play for both teams and reasons it would  be bad if either lost, yet all without the need for anyone to die or even be at serious threat of dying. And even then, things still get out of hand and there is still permanent damage to a character when Rhodey is crippled and neary died. And personally, I'm glad they didn't kill off Rhodey there because that would've changed the rest of the movie. If Rhodey did die, then Tony going berserk over his parents's murder would've lost a lot of its impact because he'd just lost a current friend and that would've/should've weighed on him more.

 

 

Quote

"Internal rift between the Avengers" just like in the first Avengers.... and the second?

Oh come on. That's willfully missing the point. The rifts in the first two movies were personality rifts designed to create drama and tension. Neither of those ended with outright fighting breaking out, the team completely broken and half of them on the run from the other half. (The brief Thor/Iron Man scuffle in TA1 doesn't count because that was before they'd properly teamed up or even met). Trying to seriously compare them to the rift in this movie is just silly.

  • Like 3

Share this comment


Link to comment

go back and read my first post, I was obviously talking about the comment you made about other people's opinion, so of course I would use 'it's my opinion' card.

 

Anyway, I think I have made my points clear.

Edited by Goffe
  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 4/29/2016 at 7:22 AM, Goffe said:

Risky would be killing one of the major players (they didn't even the balls to kill War Machine), risky would be one of the sides actually breaking with the whole moral conflict, risky would breaking the Marvel mold of doing movies.

 

AoU took that risk and because of that we don't see Quicksilver joining Team Iron Man leading to a literal fight between a brother and sister in the airport battle. I'd say War Machine becoming paralyzed and needing Stark's technology only opens more avenues for the character for future entries and is smart.

 

If "risky" is only defined as killing off major players, you are right Civil War isn't risky. Which is probably a good thing.

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, Water Bottle said:

If "risky" is only defined as killing off major players

It's not, I never said it was. BvS is not risky because it kills Superman, Age of Ultron is not risky because it kills Quicksilver.

 

It's a sum of various factors, it's about consequences.

 

QS was introduced in AOU, getting a half-assed backstory and never being, not even close, that movie's focus, then at the end he was killed off. No one gave a flying fuck. It was like killing an extra. 

 

One movie later, Wanda doesn't even acknowledge him.

 

About War Machine, sure, you have the right for an opinion.

Share this comment


Link to comment
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.