Captain America: Civil War (2016)

[The Panda]

It was a good movie that could have been great, overall I found that it scratched the surface of strong themes but didn't fully develop them and I think it played it too heavy handed forward the end.

 

What I Disliked

1.The villain was incredibly weak, his motivation and how he was able to achieve was unclear and he was simply there to put all of the pieces in play for the fight to happen.  I also think they could have caused the conflict without him.

 

2.The ending felt fairly forced, they did a fairly decent job throughout it keeping the story evenhanded, but it just kind of turned into "boy scout and his buddy beat up bad guy Tony."

 

3.I understand it being Captain America's movie that he is the protagonist, but I hated his overall logic in the movie and the direction pandered to it.  I think we were supposed to see him as a patriot trying to do what was right, but he came across as an egotistical self-righteous boyscout who doesn't believe his actions have consequences.

 

4.The entire philosophical divide between the characters was rather dumb.  The Russo Bros were trying to tie a more grounded approach, but given that the film takes the Cap philosophy, I don't believe the grounding succeeded.  They turned the government official into cartoonish loafs, the character logic often felt fairly hollow and rushed, and if they wanted to ground these superhero stories the Cap logic doesn't work.  In reality theres a point to be made that the superheroes would be vigilantes and Cap seemed like an utterly whiny, self-righteous brat to assume that he gets to ignore laws.  Now I understand it's a superhero movie, but the Russos brought the argument into the movie's core and they never gave sufficient reason to justify the side the movie was pushing, it ended up feeling like BvS to an extent in that by trying to ground itself it just exposed the logical holes in its own message.

 

5.It felt rather inconsequential.  It was pushing the divided we fall thing, but there were little actual consequences.  It just left Stark in somewhat sour relations with other characters.

 

6.There were so many characters that parts felt rushed, and it could often feel jumpy.  The character arcs weren't smooth at all.

 

Now I didn't hate or even dislike the movie, as there's a lot of really good moments and parts so what I liked

 

1.Boseman and Holland are really great in the movie, they were both my favorite parts.  I also like Holland and Downey's relationship. 

 

2.The action scenes were a blast and the best part of the movie.  If you stop thinking about the lack of depth in the film trying to portray depth, it's a blast to watch.

 

3.Despite my complaints, the movie is never dull and is continually entertaining, especially from the second act onward.

 

4.The casting continues to be great, and everyone sells their characters.

 

5.The actual filming is some of Marvel's best, a great visual direction for the movie.

 

6.I liked the ideas behind the themes of the movie, it was most the little details that were skipped over that made the script overall miss for me.

 

It's overall a fun blockbuster that tries at points to be more than it really is.

 

B-

Edited May 6, 2016 by The Panda Knight

[Sam]

19 minutes ago, The Panda Knight said:

 

1.Ejiofer and Holland are really great in the movie, they were both my favorite parts.  I also like Holland and Downey's relationship. 

 

 

Oh boy....

[Blankments]

Kevin Feige has recently stated that Marvel's "phases" will work in a trilogy aspect, with Phase Three serving as a grand finale to the first batch of heroes. Thus, Captain America: Civil War appropriately feels like the beginning of the end for Steve Rogers and Tony Stark, two relatively unknown superheroes who became icons thanks to this franchise. It's appropriate that this film introduces Black Panther and Spider-Man to the MCU, the latter already being an icon and the former well on his way to becoming one after his outstanding debut in this film. Other recently introduced Avengers, such as Vision and Ant-Man, prove their worth by being used even better here than in their respective origin outings.

 

Not only does this movie start the fantastic endgame for the MCU, it kicks off more reasons to keep watching after Infinity War, along with proving why we keep watching as the Universe gets bigger and bigger. Captain America: Civil War proves the longevity of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and justifies yet again the concept of the cinematic universe. A

 

More detailed analysis whenever I rewatch this within the next few weeks.

[rukaio101]

57 minutes ago, The Panda Knight said:

1.The villain was incredibly weak, his motivation and how he was able to achieve was unclear and he was simply there to put all of the pieces in play for the fight to happen.  I also think they could have caused the conflict without him.

How was his motivation not clear? He wanted vengeance for the loss of his family. And, since he was confident he'd be unable to defeat the Avengers himself, he made a plan to turn them against each other. Did you miss that entire fantastic scene he had with Black Panther?
 

Quote

 

2.The ending felt fairly forced, they did a fairly decent job throughout it keeping the story evenhanded, but it just kind of turned into "boy scout and his buddy beat up bad guy Tony."

 

That's a serious oversimplification. While Tony is definitely kinda in the wrong in that fight, he's far from just a straight bad guy. His point of view is entirely understandable and sympathetic and makes it all the more heartbreaking because we realise he can't be stopped. Besides which, you're missing the point of that final battle. Unlike the Accords conflict, it's not supposed to be evenhanded because it's from a different place. The Accords so far have worked to tear our heroes apart on an ideological level, but they ultimately still like each other and don't want anything bad to happen to one another. The Siberia fight is Cap and Tony ripping apart on an emotional level, more than a simple disagreement of views. 
 

Quote

 

3.I understand it being Captain America's movie that he is the protagonist, but I hated his overall logic in the movie and the direction pandered to it.  I think we were supposed to see him as a patriot trying to do what was right, but he came across as an egotistical self-righteous boyscout who doesn't believe his actions have consequences.

 

I don't agree with this either. On the contrary, I think a decent part of Cap's opposition towards the Accords was because he knows that his actions have consequences. And that he feels he has to own up to them, no-one else. If he signs up for the Accords then the UN will dictate his actions and deal with the consequences. And he dislikes that because a) as mentioned, he feels he needs to take responsibility for his own actions, rather than try and shift the blame b ) the Accords would remove his ability to choose and make those important decisions for himself and c) he doesn't trust the government that much, partially because of that whole SHIELD/HYDRA business, but also because they're witholden to popular votes and ideals, which aren't always the right ones. (Trump's nomination is proof of that.) 

 

A lot of this stuff is pretty much spelt out in the movie when they're discussing the movie and perfectly fitting and understandable for his character. But, of course, Tony's side has a lot of good points and arguments as well. That's what makes it a compelling two-sided argument.

 

Quote

4.The entire philosophical divide between the characters was rather dumb.  The Russo Bros were trying to tie a more grounded approach, but given that the film takes the Cap philosophy, I don't believe the grounding succeeded.  They turned the government official into cartoonish loafs, the character logic often felt fairly hollow and rushed, and if they wanted to ground these superhero stories the Cap logic doesn't work.  In reality theres a point to be made that the superheroes would be vigilantes and Cap seemed like an utterly whiny, self-righteous brat to assume that he gets to ignore laws.  Now I understand it's a superhero movie, but the Russos brought the argument into the movie's core and they never gave sufficient reason to justify the side the movie was pushing, it ended up feeling like BvS to an extent in that by trying to ground itself it just exposed the logical holes in its own message.

 

I think you're really over-simplifying things again and missing a lot of the nuance and subtext in these debates. I've already explained Cap's reasoning but, even then, the movie isn't entirely on Cap's side. Indeed, I'm fairly confident we were supposed to be leaning more on Tony's side for most of the first act and after the Bucky/Panther chase (even ignoring some of his dumber moves like placing Wanda under house arrest). And, even when we start to see some of the uglier sides (such as the raft prison and some of the obstructive bureaucracy (things that would also very likely happen if this sort of situation happened in real life)) the movie still never outright says that Tony's side is wrong or evil or whatever. It leaves the audience to make up their mind. Maybe it could've used a little more resolution, admittedly, but there it is.

 

I'll admit, reading your comment, it does feel a little bit like your issue with the divide is that you're firmly on Team Iron Man and thus you didn't really pay much attention to the arguments in favour of Team Cap. So, for you, the debate feels one-sided and misguided. But, for me, it's made pretty clear in the movie that, no matter which side you ultimately take, both have very valid arguments both for and against. That's what really made that conflict for me.

 

Quote

 

5.It felt rather inconsequential.  It was pushing the divided we fall thing, but there were little actual consequences.  It just left Stark in somewhat sour relations with other characters.

 

Yeah, no, that's just outright wrong. Little actual consequences? Half the Avengers are on the fucking run. The team ends the movie still split apart and, while there are hints that Cap/Tony can reconcile, there's still a long path to go. There were a lot of consequences to this movie.

 

 

[ttr]

Yeah, no, that's just outright wrong. Little actual consequences? Half the Avengers are on the fucking run. The team ends the movie still split apart and, while there are hints that Cap/Tony can reconcile, there's still a long path to go. There were a lot of consequences to this movie.

 

 

I agree. It will also be interesting to see how the "normal population" (including military/agents) will react to "vigilante" heroes in coming movies.

[somebody85]

1 hour ago, rukaio101 said:

How was his motivation not clear? He wanted vengeance for the loss of his family. And, since he was confident he'd be unable to defeat the Avengers himself, he made a plan to turn them against each other. Did you miss that entire fantastic scene he had with Black Panther?
 

That's a serious oversimplification. While Tony is definitely kinda in the wrong in that fight, he's far from just a straight bad guy. His point of view is entirely understandable and sympathetic and makes it all the more heartbreaking because we realise he can't be stopped. Besides which, you're missing the point of that final battle. Unlike the Accords conflict, it's not supposed to be evenhanded because it's from a different place. The Accords so far have worked to tear our heroes apart on an ideological level, but they ultimately still like each other and don't want anything bad to happen to one another. The Siberia fight is Cap and Tony ripping apart on an emotional level, more than a simple disagreement of views. 
 

I don't agree with this either. On the contrary, I think a decent part of Cap's opposition towards the Accords was because he knows that his actions have consequences. And that he feels he has to own up to them, no-one else. If he signs up for the Accords then the UN will dictate his actions and deal with the consequences. And he dislikes that because a) as mentioned, he feels he needs to take responsibility for his own actions, rather than try and shift the blame b ) the Accords would remove his ability to choose and make those important decisions for himself and c) he doesn't trust the government that much, partially because of that whole SHIELD/HYDRA business, but also because they're witholden to popular votes and ideals, which aren't always the right ones. (Trump's nomination is proof of that.) 

 

A lot of this stuff is pretty much spelt out in the movie when they're discussing the movie and perfectly fitting and understandable for his character. But, of course, Tony's side has a lot of good points and arguments as well. That's what makes it a compelling two-sided argument.

 

 

I think you're really over-simplifying things again and missing a lot of the nuance and subtext in these debates. I've already explained Cap's reasoning but, even then, the movie isn't entirely on Cap's side. Indeed, I'm fairly confident we were supposed to be leaning more on Tony's side for most of the first act and after the Bucky/Panther chase (even ignoring some of his dumber moves like placing Wanda under house arrest). And, even when we start to see some of the uglier sides (such as the raft prison and some of the obstructive bureaucracy (things that would also very likely happen if this sort of situation happened in real life)) the movie still never outright says that Tony's side is wrong or evil or whatever. It leaves the audience to make up their mind. Maybe it could've used a little more resolution, admittedly, but there it is.

 

I'll admit, reading your comment, it does feel a little bit like your issue with the divide is that you're firmly on Team Iron Man and thus you didn't really pay much attention to the arguments in favour of Team Cap. So, for you, the debate feels one-sided and misguided. But, for me, it's made pretty clear in the movie that, no matter which side you ultimately take, both have very valid arguments both for and against. That's what really made that conflict for me.

 

Yeah, no, that's just outright wrong. Little actual consequences? Half the Avengers are on the fucking run. The team ends the movie still split apart and, while there are hints that Cap/Tony can reconcile, there's still a long path to go. There were a lot of consequences to this movie.

 

 

Nailed it.

Also they did a good job explaining 1) Zemo was able to achieve what he did thanks to the Shield online data dump at the end of Winter Soldier. He even states that he had to encrypt it in Civil War (kind of ironic that Steves actions to do good there ended up creating more chaos/kind of like if you cut off one head of a villain, another will form). Zemo wanted revenge because he watched his family die thanks to that end battle during AOU. That end scene perfectly explained that.
 

Edited May 6, 2016 by somebody85

[Kalo]

4 hours ago, somebody85 said:

Nailed it.

Also they did a good job explaining 1) Zemo was able to achieve what he did thanks to the Shield online data dump at the end of Winter Soldier. He even states that he had to encrypt it in Civil War (kind of ironic that Steves actions to do good there ended up creating more chaos/kind of like if you cut off one head of a villain, another will form). Zemo wanted revenge because he watched his family die thanks to that end battle during AOU. That end scene perfectly explained that.
 

 

Yeah, I was surprised with Zemo, Jon Campea in his review said how weak he was as a villain and how is motivations didn't make since, and I felt the complete opposite, he was one of the best MCU villains yet imo, that final scene with Blank Panther was Daniel Bruhl, gave an excellent performance.

 

and shame on anyone who didn't think Ant-Man should be in it, who cares if his reasons for joining the fight were a little vague, he was responsible for one of the best action scenes in movie history! 

Edited May 6, 2016 by Kalo

[The Panda]

9 hours ago, rukaio101 said:

How was his motivation not clear? He wanted vengeance for the loss of his family. And, since he was confident he'd be unable to defeat the Avengers himself, he made a plan to turn them against each other. Did you miss that entire fantastic scene he had with Black Panther?
 

That's a serious oversimplification. While Tony is definitely kinda in the wrong in that fight, he's far from just a straight bad guy. His point of view is entirely understandable and sympathetic and makes it all the more heartbreaking because we realise he can't be stopped. Besides which, you're missing the point of that final battle. Unlike the Accords conflict, it's not supposed to be evenhanded because it's from a different place. The Accords so far have worked to tear our heroes apart on an ideological level, but they ultimately still like each other and don't want anything bad to happen to one another. The Siberia fight is Cap and Tony ripping apart on an emotional level, more than a simple disagreement of views. 
 

I don't agree with this either. On the contrary, I think a decent part of Cap's opposition towards the Accords was because he knows that his actions have consequences. And that he feels he has to own up to them, no-one else. If he signs up for the Accords then the UN will dictate his actions and deal with the consequences. And he dislikes that because a) as mentioned, he feels he needs to take responsibility for his own actions, rather than try and shift the blame b ) the Accords would remove his ability to choose and make those important decisions for himself and c) he doesn't trust the government that much, partially because of that whole SHIELD/HYDRA business, but also because they're witholden to popular votes and ideals, which aren't always the right ones. (Trump's nomination is proof of that.) 

 

A lot of this stuff is pretty much spelt out in the movie when they're discussing the movie and perfectly fitting and understandable for his character. But, of course, Tony's side has a lot of good points and arguments as well. That's what makes it a compelling two-sided argument.

 

 

I think you're really over-simplifying things again and missing a lot of the nuance and subtext in these debates. I've already explained Cap's reasoning but, even then, the movie isn't entirely on Cap's side. Indeed, I'm fairly confident we were supposed to be leaning more on Tony's side for most of the first act and after the Bucky/Panther chase (even ignoring some of his dumber moves like placing Wanda under house arrest). And, even when we start to see some of the uglier sides (such as the raft prison and some of the obstructive bureaucracy (things that would also very likely happen if this sort of situation happened in real life)) the movie still never outright says that Tony's side is wrong or evil or whatever. It leaves the audience to make up their mind. Maybe it could've used a little more resolution, admittedly, but there it is.

 

I'll admit, reading your comment, it does feel a little bit like your issue with the divide is that you're firmly on Team Iron Man and thus you didn't really pay much attention to the arguments in favour of Team Cap. So, for you, the debate feels one-sided and misguided. But, for me, it's made pretty clear in the movie that, no matter which side you ultimately take, both have very valid arguments both for and against. That's what really made that conflict for me.

 

Yeah, no, that's just outright wrong. Little actual consequences? Half the Avengers are on the fucking run. The team ends the movie still split apart and, while there are hints that Cap/Tony can reconcile, there's still a long path to go. There were a lot of consequences to this movie.

 

 

 

This was my initial reaction after viewing, I already stated I liked the movie, I just didn't love it. You're free to love the movie.

 

To clear up some of my initial negative reactions

1.Yes, I found, and still find, the villain to be unmemorable and poorly motivated.  He was a cookie cutter plot device, cartoonish, and rather unbelievable for a superhero movie attempting to ground itself in reality. That's my opinion, you're free to disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that I found him to be a weak villain.  I liked the scene with Black Panther, but that was more because of Boseman playing off the moment very well.  Again, I found Boseman to be one of the better parts of the movie and that scene was a reason why.

 

2.I get Stark's motivations during the final fight, I just felt like that specific plot point was weak.  That this random guy who was upset that his family died became a master schemer able to dig up things on the heros and entire goal was to have Stark, Tony, and Bucky to end up in this one place (which is rather far fetched to plan out) in order to play a video in hopes to make Tony go berserk on Bucky.  For a movie trying to ground itself from the fantastical world it places itself in, I found that to be a weaker storytelling part of the film.  The actual plot point of Bucky killing Stark's parents was properly built up, but how it was revealed just felt lazy to me.  It simply seemed like a way for the Russos to turn Stark into the clear villain (but keep your sympathy for him) in order for the audience to feel satisfied when Cap and Bucky win the final fight.  I'm not even going to touch on the fact that I don't buy how they even won that fight, Iron Man seemed majorly nerfed in this movie compared to the Avengers and previous Iron Man movies.

 

3.I get the idea of the philosophical differences, but if they were trying to go for a grounded reality (which it seemed like they were) Cap's philosophy is wrong.  There's no perfect system, but it honestly isn't his place to make national security decisions for the world because he feels like it.  It's a fascist/ego-centric like philosophy to think it's your right to make decisions that should have been up to elected officials.  If they're going to bring this issue up in the movie they should have at least acknowledged how ironically Un-American Cap's intervention philosophy was.  

 

4.I also realize the movie doesn't entirely support either or, but it most definitely skews Cap's side and I don't think it does enough to make that side feel in the right.  Cap finding out about the villain by happenstance and the end scene seemed like simple ways to try and justify his philosophy, and it seemed forced.

 

5.Yes, I did find the movie to have little consequences.  There's some temporary problems caused, and it doesn't end on as happy of a note that most of the Marvel movies end on, but I hardly got the idea that the Avengers were destroyed.  Maybe it's just because it all feels rather orchestrated and you know where the plot is going after this.  The ending felt more like set up for future movies (like nearly every Marvel movie feels like) more than an, "Oh crap how do the Avengers rebuild after this?"  Maybe because it seemed more like a family feud than a civil war.

 

Again this is all my opinion, and I doubt I'll answer much more after this.  I don't feel like debating so much just because I liked the movie but had problems with it instead of loved it.  To me this just felt like a case of a good blockbuster that wanted to be more than it really was or should have been.  It felt like it overstretched itself.

 

It wasn't a bad movie, I just don't seem to love it as much as everyone else did.  I'm not saying others can't love the movie or that they're wrong for it, but this seems like a case where I'm one of the people a well-liked movie didn't click for as much.  It happens. (This could also be because of my superhero fatigue, I've gotten more and more critical of them lately)

Edited May 6, 2016 by The Panda Knight

[Thrylos 7]

Some of the lines and dialog were so great . The ending conversation between black panther and zemo , the "I don't care, he killed my mom" line so simple and so effective in its delivery at the same time (we love our mothers so much ) such a contradiction with the "Martha" shit....I really have to watch it again (and will possibly in Tuesday) . This really has the best screenplay of any marvel movie, IMO .

[TalismanRing]

Quote

4.I also realize the movie doesn't entirely support either or, but it most definitely skews Cap's side and I don't think it does enough to make that side feel in the right.  Cap finding out about the villain by happenstance and the end scene seemed like simple ways to try and justify his philosophy, and it seemed forced.

 

Hulk, Avengers and TWS are background enough for Steve's argument that the gov't agencies and those in power cant be trusted.  The World Secirity Counsel not only messed with the tesserect to create weapons - lighting a signal flare for Thanos but they ordered a nuke on NYC to try and clean up the mess.  Then they implemented Project Insight to execute people before they committed a crime by way of an algorithm.   The only thing that separated them from HYDRA were the targets and how many.  Which is why HYDRA was able to infiltrate SHIELD and the WSC so effectively and so long.   If it wasn't for the Avengers NYC would have nuked by the WSC and 20m people would have been executed by HYDRA

 

Rhodey has the throw away line to Steve's objections - the UN aren't the WSC and SHIELD but how true is that when they have the Secretary of State Ross as their point man - the main who created the Hulk and Abomination trying to create an army of super soldiers. 

 

Meanwhile Wanda is under house arrest because supposedly she has no rights, there no attempt to bring in The Winter Soldier just an order to shoot to kill, and when he is brought in alive - thanks to Steve - he's brushed off when he asks about a lawyer and they've built this big old Raft under the water where they later lock them up.  When new information comes up that proves they were wrong about the UN bombing Ross doesn't seem to care except that the Avengers broke the Accords.

 

How would a UN over look actually work the way they want to implement it?  Would they have a committee meeting and vote before they send the Avengers out every time?  What about exigent circumstances?  Police and firemen don't have committees telling them when they can chase a suspect, stop a crime or put out a fire.  There are rules and codes but there isn't that level of control pre action.  Or does Ross become to defacto leader of The Avengers n those circumstances which is what it looks like in the film when he's ordering around Tony.  If so YIKES.

[Sam]

1 hour ago, The Panda Knight said:

 

This was my initial reaction after viewing, I already stated I liked the movie, I just didn't love it. You're free to love the movie.

 

To clear up some of my initial negative reactions

1.Yes, I found, and still find, the villain to be unmemorable and poorly motivated.  He was a cookie cutter plot device, cartoonish, and rather unbelievable for a superhero movie attempting to ground itself in reality. That's my opinion, you're free to disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that I found him to be a weak villain.  I liked the scene with Black Panther, but that was more because of Ejiofer playing off the moment very well.  Again, I found Ejiofer to be one of the better parts of the movie and that scene was a reason why.

 

2.I get Stark's motivations during the final fight, I just felt like that specific plot point was weak.  That this random guy who was upset that his family died became a master schemer able to dig up things on the heros and entire goal was to have Stark, Tony, and Bucky to end up in this one place (which is rather far fetched to plan out) in order to play a video in hopes to make Tony go berserk on Bucky.  For a movie trying to ground itself from the fantastical world it places itself in, I found that to be a weaker storytelling part of the film.  The actual plot point of Bucky killing Stark's parents was properly built up, but how it was revealed just felt lazy to me.  It simply seemed like a way for the Russos to turn Stark into the clear villain (but keep your sympathy for him) in order for the audience to feel satisfied when Cap and Bucky win the final fight.  I'm not even going to touch on the fact that I don't buy how they even won that fight, Iron Man seemed majorly nerfed in this movie compared to the Avengers and previous Iron Man movies.

 

3.I get the idea of the philosophical differences, but if they were trying to go for a grounded reality (which it seemed like they were) Cap's philosophy is wrong.  There's no perfect system, but it honestly isn't his place to make national security decisions for the world because he feels like it.  It's a fascist/ego-centric like philosophy to think it's your right to make decisions that should have been up to elected officials.  If they're going to bring this issue up in the movie they should have at least acknowledged how ironically Un-American Cap's intervention philosophy was.  

 

4.I also realize the movie doesn't entirely support either or, but it most definitely skews Cap's side and I don't think it does enough to make that side feel in the right.  Cap finding out about the villain by happenstance and the end scene seemed like simple ways to try and justify his philosophy, and it seemed forced.

 

5.Yes, I did find the movie to have little consequences.  There's some temporary problems caused, and it doesn't end on as happy of a note that most of the Marvel movies end on, but I hardly got the idea that the Avengers were destroyed.  Maybe it's just because it all feels rather orchestrated and you know where the plot is going after this.  The ending felt more like set up for future movies (like nearly every Marvel movie feels like) more than an, "Oh crap how do the Avengers rebuild after this?"  Maybe because it seemed more like a family feud than a civil war.

 

Again this is all my opinion, and I doubt I'll answer much more after this.  I don't feel like debating so much just because I liked the movie but had problems with it instead of loved it.  To me this just felt like a case of a good blockbuster that wanted to be more than it really was or should have been.  It felt like it overstretched itself.

 

It wasn't a bad movie, I just don't seem to love it as much as everyone else did.  I'm not saying others can't love the movie or that they're wrong for it, but this seems like a case where I'm one of the people a well-liked movie didn't click for as much.  It happens. (This could also be because of my superhero fatigue, I've gotten more and more critical of them lately)

 

Dude, seriously? On top of being ignorant about the actor playing the role (like wow, all black actors must look the same, huh?), you can't even spell the name of the actor you confused him with right. 

[The Panda]

39 minutes ago, Sam said:

 

Dude, seriously? On top of being ignorant about the actor playing the role (like wow, all black actors must look the same, huh?), you can't even spell the name of the actor you confused him with right. 

 

Okay, I am sorry I mixed up Ejiofor and Boseman who are both playing roles in upcoming Marvel movies.  I'll go and edit my posts.

 

But please don't imply that I am racist because I happened to mix up two actors.  This hasn't been the first time I have mixed up actors, and I'm willing to be everyone on this forum has done it at some point.  Especially when I am just giving my initial reactions in an opinion thread.

 

You have the right to disagree with me, and that's fine.  But being a dick because somebody made a written mistake on a forum speaks more about yourself than the person you're criticizing.

[Sam]

3 minutes ago, The Panda Knight said:

 

Okay, I am sorry I mixed up Ejiofor and Boseman who are both playing roles in upcoming Marvel movies.  I'll go and edit my posts.

 

But please don't imply that I am racist because I happened to mix up two actors.  This hasn't been the first time I have mixed up actors, and I'm willing to be everyone on this forum has done it at some point.  Especially when I am just giving my initial reactions in an opinion thread.

 

You have the right to disagree with me, and that's fine.  But being a dick because somebody made a written mistake on a forum speaks more about yourself than the person you're criticizing.

 

It's cool that you apologize.

 

I also apologize for coming strong about it  I don't begrudge you for writing the name wrongly, it's more of the matter being sensitive and ignorant in nature, and seeing it repeated across posts got to me. 

[The Panda]

2 minutes ago, Sam said:

 

It's cool that you apologize.

 

I also apologize for coming strong about it  I don't begrudge you for writing the name wrongly, it's more of the matter being sensitive and ignorant in nature, and seeing it repeated across posts got to me. 

 

It was an honest mistake on my part, I'm not very familiar with Boseman and I knew Ejiofor was in a Marvel movie coming up.  I don't tend to follow these types of things that closely so I went with Ejiofor (especially given the cast size of the movie is insanely large).  I probably should have checked, but I was typing out my response/review spur of the moment.  If it was a more formal thing I would have pulled up sources to check.

[Goffe]

6 hours ago, Kalo said:

who cares if his reasons for joining the fight were a little vague, he was responsible for one of the best action scenes in movie history! 

[Kalo]

4 hours ago, Sam said:

 

Dude, seriously? On top of being ignorant about the actor playing the role (like wow, all black actors must look the same, huh?), you can't even spell the name of the actor you confused him with right. 

 

No one looks like Chadwick Boseman, he is beautiful. Not saying anyone is racist. but I mean look at him.

 

[Kalo]

1 hour ago, Goffe said:

 

[filmlover]

A solidly well-crafted and entertaining yarn that also poses questions about the damage superheroes leave behind after saving the day and the accountability they should take. While it feels like it doesn't have as much meat on its bones as it should have and a number of characters can't help but feel short-changed (although that's when you have over a dozen mouths that need to be fed) despite everyone getting their moment to stand out, this is still worlds better than the recent, similarly-themed Batman v Superman and washes out that movie's bad taste. The action scenes are impeccably-done, while the tone is heavy but offers enough moments of humor to provide levity, and the performances are good across the board from our mainstay heroes (Paul Rudd is clearly going to be RDJ's successor in this universe) to the returning players with very much increased roles (Sebastian Stan) to the new faces (Tom Holland, Chadwick Boseman) that I look forward to seeing more of. Daniel Bruhl's bad guy was somewhat of a lame villain though. Consider me very much intrigued by the new Spider-Man reboot next year, although it was more than a bit odd seeing Marisa Tomei as Aunt May at first. I'd place this one right between The Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron. B+

[Kvikk Lunsj]

Captain America: Civil War is a movie feature two teams of heroes fighting against each other and each side has is fighting for their cause. One side is featuring Captain America who does not want government involvement and the other side is Iron Man who wants the government to oversea the Avengers. The idea is a good one and lets the view decide and who is right but the problem is each side has very thing arguments. A second problem is Captain America is stubborn and never grows as a character in the film. Iron Man in the end switch his views but Captain America refuse since it is Bucky is endanger and refuse to acknowledge that Bucky is dangerous. He doesn't see any of the damage the Avengers has caused. The movie also tries to bring an emotion into the fight but in the end there is no emotions in fight between Captain America side and Iron Man side.  It reminds me of Batman V. Superman two side are just fighting to fight but Captain America does it slightly better. Theses action scenes were well handled and probably the best action scenes in any Marvel movie.  When the two sides clash at the airport it is very enjoyable and a spectacle to watch. The fight eventually ends because Captain America and Bucky escape. Captain army is arrest off screen. Iron Man see the clip that Captain America saw and release that Bucky is innocent. Iron Man goes to help but Zemo Baron the villain shows the clip of how death of Iron Man parents were because of Bucky. Iron Man gets engaged and the two sides start fighting again.  To me this seemed like a waste since as the audience there is no emotion attached to Iron Man's mother. Zemo Baron escape but runs into the Black Panther. Zemo tells the Black Panther his grand plan. Black Panther decided not seek revenge of Zemo for killing his father. Instead does the noble thing and arrest Zemo. Zemo as a villain was  weak since his motivation was the Avengers killed my family and now I want to kill them.  He could had a reason to hate Iron Man since he created Ultron who was responsible for the destruction of the city. Could have used this as a plan just to kill Tony Stark but instead decides to blame the Avengers for the death of his family.  This film features two new comers who steal the show both Spider Man and Black Panther prove to be great characters. But I question if they were need especially Spider Man who felt like he was forced on the film the last minute. I would have liked to seen Black Panther get more screen time out side of the suit and see him interact with Tony Stark more. The actors in the film help carry this film and make some of terrible dialog espcailly in the snow base passable on the other hand Ant Man, Hawkeye, Black Panther, and Spider Man all have good dialog so in the end it balance out.  In the end there some questions that can be raised like how come Hawkeye is able to get into Germany without any problems. How come Nick Furry is never mentioned even though he has been leading the Avengers.  I know his contract only has two films left but they could have mention Nick Furry is privately discussing the manner at a private manner. Why does nobody mention that the Security of State is reasonable for the battle against the TIH? He created a second Hulk.  Nobody blames him for all the destruction he caused and yet he is leading this causes?  I know this sounds negative but improving a few things could have really turned this into a great film.  I did enjoy this film 

3/5

[WrathOfHan]

Really liked this a lot and I have no problem calling it a great movie. The stakes at hand were compelling and while I see how some are criticizing the first hour, it's a chess game that puts the pieces in motion. In a lot of ways this was the thinking man's superhero movie. You're presented with the facts and you really are torn between the two sides.

 

Everyone is given their moment to shine, and not to sound like a broken record, but Spider-Man and Black Panther really did steal the show. I was going in expecting to love Ant-Man the most (and I did love him), but people weren't joking around on that hype. A minor nitpick is that War Machine was pretty much lost in the shuffle until the airport fight. He never really felt like and Avenger, instead it just felt like we were back to the solo movies and he was Tony's wingman. 

 

Zemo was a really good villain that fit the movie, I don't know where the complaints are coming from. Not every villain needs to wear a suit. 

 

My only big gripe with the movie was the forced romance with Sharon Carter. Quite a few people let out "No!"s in the theater when she and Steve kissed  

 

I'm giving this an A- | 90. It's easily up there with TWS and GOTG but I don't know where to rank it.