Captain America: Civil War · 9:33am May 12th, 2016
I actually got a couple requests for this and, since I've been a little bogged down working on the final story in Savage Skies, mainly because I keep getting sidetracked by other projects...
Once again, this is a visual approximation of how my muse operates.
...I figured I'd give it a whirl.
I just got back from seeing the film for a second time since I caught one of the Thursday preview showings last week. TLDR: It's great (hence why I've seen it twice already and will probably jump on every subsequent chance I can get to see it again). It's easily one of the best movies of the year so far and definitely the best superhero movie this year (sorry, Deadpool, but you're a close second...Wade, put the gun down...He agrees with me, don't worry...No! Seriously, put it down). It completely blows Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice out of the water from just about every angle. So, for fun and because I am a completely shameless Marvel fanboy, I'll frame this review as a comparison between Civil War and Dawn of Justice.
To start things off, Civil War wins because of some of the most basic merits, namely that the Russo Brothers and their cinematographer know when to hold the damn camera steady. The shaky cam is still there, but it's saved for the shots when it's actually called for; no bobbing the camera up and down in the middle of a slow-build poignant scene and, dear God, do these people know how to frame a shot. Seriously, the cinematography in this film is spectacular. Whether it's the shot of the two sides of assembled heroes facing off and clashing at the airport or recreating that scene from the Civil War covers in the comics during the final fight between Cap and Iron Man, there is some clear visual expertise at work in every minute of this film. Seriously, Zach Snyder should be begging the Russos for some pointers on his future projects.
When it comes to comparing the films, it's actually amazing how the differences and similarities between them highlight the sheer difference in quality. Both films are about the heroes of their respective franchises coming into conflict with one another and said conflict resulting in them coming to blows in a spectacular manner, thanks to the machinations of a villain who is playing both ends against the middle.
However, this is where things diverge. Where Dawn of Justice (DoJ) is an early entry in its franchise, only the second movie, Civil War (CW) is a a later entry, coming twelve films down the line since the original Iron Man film hit theaters. This gives CW a serious advantage right out of the gate as it's starting with the biggest bit of mileage the MCU has over the DCEU, history. CW is the thirteenth film in its franchise. By this point, we've been introduced to most of the characters in this movie. We've gotten to know them, seen their quirks and conflicts. We know the events that have been building up to the things that happened in this movie. It's all been laid out neatly for us and, more importantly, it has attached us and invested us in these characters.
When DoJ hit theaters, we were hit with yet another Batman, who, because he was dropped into the storyline with no movie of his own (in the DCEU, at least) to introduce him to audiences, we have very little attachment and investment in him as a character. However good Affleck's acting was, because of the writing, Batman comes off more as a vindictive douche because we know from the word "go" that he's in the wrong about Superman. We don't get to see the factors that led to him becoming the character he is in the movie, we don't get to become emotionally invested in his feelings. The story is literally built up saying "Look, Batman has logical reasons to be acting this way, just take our word for it." Even if the logic technically works, we can't become emotionally invested with it because we aren't invested in Batman as a character. He's a plot device, like almost everyone else in the film.
By this point, the MCU has no such issues. Over the course of the past twelve films, we've seen Tony Stark's character arc pull a complete 180 as he goes from the guy who mouthed off to the US government in a senate hearing and boldly claimed to have "privatized world peace," to the guy who is completely gung-ho about government oversight for the Avengers and going all the way with it. The change in his character isn't front-loaded to us in the movie, but fed to us over the course of a series and we're allowed to feel Tony's conflict as we watch it and understand implicitly how he, as a character, came to this point. The ultimate point of this is that Marvel has taken its time, laid the groundwork carefully across multiple films, and is now reaping the rewards.
Speaking of characters, the most direct compare and contrast between these two films would naturally be how the introduce new names into their respective franchises. In DoJ's case, we got Batman, Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor, Doomsday, and easter eggs teasing Aquaman, the Flash, Cyborg, and Darkseid. In CW, we got Spider-Man, Black Panther, and Helmut Zemo. Considering CW already had ten heroes already cluttering up the screen, it's absolutely amazing that they had the balls to introduce two more into the mix, and not just as easter eggs teased on a video file. It's even more ballsy that CW not only serves as the current conclusion to Cap's story, but partially as an origin story for Black Panther as well. It's absolutely amazing how these two characters are woven organically into the narrative and, thanks both to their skills as actors and the writers, we manage to become incredibly invested in them as characters, despite the relatively short time we've known them.
In contrast, of all the characters introduced in DoJ, the only ones who were actually a part of the film's story were Batman, Luthor, and Wonder Woman and, somehow, the film still managed to feel overstuffed and bloated from all the exposition about these characters that it tried to throw at us. Part of it is the folks at Marvel knowing to pick and choose what exposition to give us in this movie and what to allude to for the sake of these characters' individual movies. Instead of exposition, Spider-Man and Black Panther show up on screen as fully-formed characters who let their actions and behaviors show who they are as characters. We don't have to be told how these characters are, they live it up on the screen.
Speaking of Spider-Man...After watching this movie twice, I can say without reservation that...he's home. Spider-Man is finally back where he belongs and he has never looked or sounded better. Tom Holland is a spectacular Peter Parker and a truly sensational Spider-Man, to say nothing of the fact that it's refreshing to see an actor who's actually decently close to the character's stated age and not a thirty-year old pretending to be a teenager. In Peter's first appearance, I just about cried with joy after seeing him and Tony Stark interact, to say nothing of the fact that it opens up a whole new frontier of Tony's character as we see him taking on something of a mentor role for Peter in the brief time that they share the screen.
The action is glorious. The battle at the airport completely blows the punch-up between Batman and Superman in DoJ out of the water. Each character is given plenty of opportunities to strut their stuff and the money shot of the two sides charging each other before clashing together is easily one of the best shots in recent cinematic history. It's made all the better by the fact that these are characters that we've grown to love and care about and it's as heart-wrenching to see them fighting each other as it is awesome.
Finally, the conflict and themes are where this movie really shines. In DoJ, the conflict and plot basically overshadows everything else and everything the characters do, from the beliefs they hold to the actions they take is ultimately in the service of furthering that conflict. In contrast CW is a perfect example of character-driven conflict. The characters are acting on the belief of doing what's right and are coming into conflict because of their differing views on that. No one feels twisted or in the wrong place or made into a complete idiot in service of the plot.
As for the themes, in my review of DoJ, I pointed out how the themes were mainly there for wallpaper, present to give the movie impression of depth, but quickly shelved so that the flashy fight scenes could take center-stage. CW, however, has a major theme that is built right into its DNA. But it's probably not the theme you expected. The central theme of the film isn't justice, accountability, or oversight versus the individual mandate to do right. The true central theme of the film is catharsis.
Catharsis drives nearly everything in this film. Heck, it's practically Tony's middle name by now. Why is Tony supporting the Sokovia Accords? He's using it as an outlet for the grief and guilt he feels over what happened in Age of Ultron. Why is Steve so dead set on saving Bucky, he's using it as an outlet to help get over his grief at losing Peggy, which makes Bucky the sole living link to the world Steve knew before he went into the ice, which makes Steve want to hold onto him at all costs. Why did Zemo go to such lengths to study the Avengers and concoct such a convoluted plan just to lure Tony into watching a few minutes of video? It's a way to relieve the pain and grief caused by the death of his family. It's the same with Black Panther, who's hunting Bucky because he believed Bucky was behind the bomb that killed his father. It's the reason the final battle happens at all. Tony goes on the warpath to get Bucky for killing his parents. It doesn't matter that, as Cap points out, that Bucky wasn't in control of himself at the time, that he was just Hydra's brainwashed puppet. It doesn't matter that killing Bucky won't bring Tony's parents back or magically change what happened. Tony doesn't care, because all that matters to him at the moment is that cathartic relief.
Heck, the Accords themselves are a sort of global catharsis, a way of alleviating the pain that results from the conflicts the Avengers get involved in, mainly because the Avengers serve as the most convenient target. Crossbones conveniently blew himself up in the first act. Alien empires don't answer subpoenas. Ultron got himself smashed. The circumstances highlighted by Ross when he introduces the Accords are born from complex situations with numerous factors in play when it comes to cause and effect, but, for simplicity's sake, are been foisted off onto the Avengers because it's easier for people to latch onto visible, present targets and seeing said targets get a leash slapped on them brings a form of emotional relief. It's the factor of this movie that truly speaks to the way things work in the real world. Whenever something terrible happens, whether it's a terrorist attack or a school shooting or some other manmade catastrophe, our very first instinct is to search for something to blame, to latch onto one thing or person or group of persons to serve as a sink for our feelings and an outlet for those feelings. This is one of CW's greatest strengths, as it draws upon real world conflicts for the root of its own conflict.
CW does have its weak moments though. Zemo's plan is ridiculously convoluted and operates on Zemo having nearly prescient knowledge of how and when things would go down, sometimes to the very minute. At times, because the movie has so many plates spinning at once, the pace can feel a bit rushed as we jump from one international location to another, sometimes with jarring abruptness. Those are the only real flaws I found, though.
In conclusion, Captain America: Civil War is a truly brilliant cinematic achievement and worth every minute of its running time. It's easily one of the best MCU films yet and it makes me really excited to see the rest of Phase 3.
Yeah, gotta agree with you on Zemo. If there was a weakness in the movie, it was his character's actions ahead of his motivation (which was that old time-honored tradition of sweet, sweet revenge).
One of the strongest movies I've seen in the past five years, bar none.
Another thing to keep in mind about the guilt thing:
Most of the things the Avengers have been fighting has been either in reaction to some form of alien invasion, or HYDRA plots. Sokovia? That was entirely their fault. Tony is the one who built Ultron in the first place. Sokovia wasn't the Avengers riding in to save the day, that was them cleaning up a mess they made themselves. A less-than-nice wakeup call for the world that these are people with a lot of power and no one keeping an eye on how they use it. No wonder the Accords come when they do at this point in the series. No wonder Tony is feeling guilty, Sokovia was pretty much entirely his fault.
And I shan't read a word more to avoid spoilers. Hopefully I can see it this weekend.
For the most part, I agree; the movie was great, as expected from the Russo Brothers and how meticulously the groundwork was laid. However, I didn't like that Zemo ultimately succeeded in dividing the Avengers and, ultimately, shattering several friendships in the process. I know that it made sense, given the themes and tone of the movie, but I don't really like it when bad guys win, at least not conclusively. Now, I'm not against villains winning at all; heck, much of the second act of the first Avengers movie was Loki screwing with the Avengers, escaping, and killing Coulson (even if he got better.) I just don't like it when, at the end, the bad guy ultimately achieves what they were aiming for.
Also, on a side note, I really, REALLY wanted one of the Avengers to get fed up with Ross's crap and toss him out a window or something...