Civil War is, in other words, the point at which this comic book franchise really comes into its birthright: it has finally started to edge into something of the decadence that makes reading actual comic books from Marvel (and let us be fair: from DC also) more of a chore than a pleasure. There's no real point in pretending that these are movies any more: this is a gigantic movie serial writ large, stretched over eight years (and counting! They've got these things scheduled through 2019 and planned out even farther), and not so much designed to be consumed as two-hour objects, but as two-hour chunks of a narrative that will ultimately outlive all of us. To the internet's Comics Faithful, this is heaven itself; for me, I get a little bit tired just thinking about the fact that I'm going to be writing some variant on this same intro for Avengers: Infinity War, Part II three years and nine movies in the future.
On the other hand, since it's better to be optimistic rather than not, that's much less of an annoyance when the individual components of that gigantic multi-film object are this good. Civil War is not without its problems, and one of the biggest is a direct result of the fact that it's laying seed for at least three different follow-up movies, but this is much closer to the best that Marvel Studios can do than it is to the opposite. If it suffers from the obvious shortcomings of the serial format, it also benefits from its most obvious strength: the characters and their interactions are established enough that the film doesn't really need to establish anything, It can hit the ground at speed and does so to its advantage, moving quickly enough that despite a laughably indulgent 147-minute running time, Civil War never really flags or feels like it's spinning its wheels. Mind you, it's not always telling its story terribly well (parts of it are actively confusing, parts of it are blatant digressions), but it sure as hell never slows down.
I have not read all of the kajillion issues that make up the divisive 2006 comic book crossover event that gives Civil War its title and not much else, but as far as I can tell, screenwriters Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely did a good job of completely re-working the plot hook to fit with the tenor of the MCU as it has come into being. Following the events of Age of Ultron, the world has decided that these "superheroes" are more of a danger than a benefit, and the UN has accordingly drafted the Sokovia Accords to limit the Avengers' ability to act without proper authority. Plagued with guilt over his role in precipitating the disaster that made up AoU's third act, Tony "Iron Man" Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) is entirely ready to sign up for the Accords, while Steve "Captain America" Rogers (Chris Evans), probably still smarting from the discovery that governments and politicians can be corrupt, lying bastards in The Winter Soldier, is a lot less certain that this will work out the way it's meant to. And that would be enough to put a tense kink in the Avengers' HQ, except that with surprisingly good timing, Rogers's old WWII body James Buchanan "Bucky" "The Winter Soldier" Barnes (Sebastian Stan) shows up after two years in hiding, to do some generally horrible mischief - namely, blowing up the UN meeting in Vienna where the Accords were to have been ratified. Now Rogers really isn't interested in signing, since he'd rather track down Bucky on his own than let the Proper Authorities gun him down, and that puts him and Stark on opposites sides of a potentially violent conflict... a Civil War, if you will. But you shouldn't, because the situation here absolutely doesn't earn that phrase the way the comic book event did, although the movie makes up for it by presenting a situation that mostly makes sense and seems consistent with the personalities of everybody involved.
All of this is better the less you try to work out the exact reasoning behind everybody's choices, and for God's sake stay away from the political theories underpinning all of this. It's infinitely more satisfying as a clash of personalities, which is probably part of why Civil War doesn't real feel overstuffed despite the fact that by any objective measure, it is. There are too many ways to potentially diagram the narrative, but one of the most appealing is to think of the film in terms of the relationships it pokes at: Rogers vs. Stark, two self-confident leader types in conflict; Vision (Paul Bettany) vs. Wanda "Scarlet Witch" Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen), two beings who are rather too overpowered to comfortably fit in these movies, and both fear for their ability to be morally good; Scott "Ant-Man" Lang (Paul Rudd) and Peter "Spider-Man" Parker (Tom Holland), two bug-themed superheroes who really just shouldn't be in this movie. I mean, come on. Obviously, Civil War is going to serve as a trailer for the next few moves in the franchise, and Holland's breathless adolescent enthusiasm makes him a great foil for Downey's crusty sarcasm, but the Spider-Man interlude is just wrong. It is bad screenwriting and bad storytelling and it exists solely so Kevin Feige can show off that he has the rights to Spider-Man now. Congrats, and I'm sure you'll make a much better movie than The Amazing Spider-Man. It's still pointless dead weight to introduce the character here.
But then, back to my point: Civil War is character driven, and there is, however pandering, pleasure to be seen in watching Parker and Stark banter, much as there is pleasure to be seen in watching Lang act like a teenybopper with a crush on Captain America. The movie is great at combining pairs and trios of characters who play off of each other well: the miniature caper film of Rogers, Sam "Falcon" Wilson (Anthony Mackie) and CIA Agent Sharon Carter (Emily VanCamp) is full of terrifically sharp writing and great rhythms that suggest they could have just made that the plot of the movie and had an actual Captain America picture. It's even better as a movie about people interacting than it is as a big summer action movie, despite having two terrific setpieces (and, for balance, two kind of awful ones: happily, the good ones come later and thus linger more). Directors Anthony & Joe Russo, lest we forget, came out of television: they have training in exploring the dynamics of people who already knew each other before this story began, and they use it to excellent effect. Nothing is as well-tuned as the interplay between Rogers and Natasha "Black Widow" Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) in The Winter Soldier, not even their interplay here. But there's still plenty that's going right.
The character interactions even end up giving the film surprising gravitas. The only Marvel film with fewer jokes than this has been The Winter Soldier, and seeing the film taking itself seriously is a pleasant, unexpected surprise; the way that the conflict keeps narrowing, until it's literally just Captain America and Iron Man, as people and ethical codes, squaring off in an abandoned military base, ends up making the conflict feel more real and consequential than "the whole planet is at stake, and it is being overrun by CGI!" and the usual fluff and nonsense. It's not worth thinking about it too hard: there are some screenwriting tricks that get us to that final one-on-one battle that are shamefully contrived. And as much fun as it is to hang out with the characters, there's not much to them. Nobody really learns anything or evolves, except for Prince T'Challa of Wakovia (Chadwick Boseman), driven by increasingly manic vengeance until he sees what manic vengeance can do. As a direct result, he's the most interesting character out of the massive cast in Civil War, and the most dynamically performed, and I for one have been fully sold on Black Panther, so huzzah for corporate synergy. Most of the performances are pretty good, though: Downey has never, ever been this interesting in the role, Bettany and Olsen are far more comfortable and given more nuanced material than in Age of Ultron, and so on, and so forth. Daniel Brühl is stellar as the barely-seen villain, and Alfre Woodard steals the whole movie with a one-scene cameo as a grieving mother. Still, these are largely one-note characterizations: there's no actual depth to the people, any more than there are actual philosophies at play in the superhero versus superhero showdown. Civil War is the Marvel machine doing things right, but the machine is still designed to make films with all of the corners rounded off and all of the themes simplistic enough for ten-year-olds to digest in a dozen different languages worldwide. God knows I hope we see more of these moving forward than Age of Ultrons, but this is still a good popcorn movie rather than a great one, and only 30 hours after I watched it, I'm stunned by how much of it has already evaporated from my memory.
7/10
Reviews in this series
Iron Man (Favreau, 2008)
The Incredible Hulk (Leterrier, 2008)
Iron Man 2 (Favreau, 2010)
Thor (Branagh, 2011)
Captain America: The First Avenger (Johnston, 2011)
The Avengers (Whedon, 2012)
Iron Man 3 (Black, 2013)
Thor: The Dark World (Taylor, 2013)
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (Russo Brothers, 2014)
Guardians of the Galaxy (Gunn, 2014)
Avengers: Age of Ultron (Whedon, 2015)
Ant-Man (Reed, 2015)
Captain America: Civil War (Russo Brothers, 2016)
I'd have to disagree about needing to see as many films as you list to understand the film--certainly the previous Captain America films and Age of Ultron are required, that's a given. But you get enough of Stark's background within Ultron that you don't really need any of the Iron Man films as a requisite, and Ant-Man is easily filed away as "random superhero joining the fight" that you don't need his film to watch as well (certainly I made it through fine without having seen it). You could argue needing the first Avengers, but apart from giving further background to the characters it's not really a necessity.
ReplyDeleteSure, having watched all the films mentioned probably betters Civil War and gives a better understanding/enjoyment of the characters/events portrayed, but I don't think it's really *necessary* to have seen all of them, in the same way it really wasn't necessary to see any of the previous Marvel films to understand the first Avengers film. For the most part, Civil War does a good enough job setting up everything you need to know within the film itself such that it's really only the background of Winter Soldier and Ultron you'll have needed to process going into it.
The movie didn't need Baron Whatever-I've-Already-Forgotten-His -Name in it at all. He should have been written out, with the ideological differences between the Avengers during their search for Bucky as the sole (and certainly sufficient) conflict to drive the film. That way, the movie could have ended with its highlight fight scene and sent us out of the theater on a high and at a reasonable time. Instead, it continued on for another 30 minutes that was so goddamned boring the only thing to jolt me awake was my visceral disgust at the "1991" plot twist, which was blatantly put there just to gin up conflict between the three supers merely minutes after they had literally declared truce. It's like whatever the opposite of a deus ex machina is, and it's bullshit anyway you put it (Stark acts completely out of character, for instance, and he has to, because otherwise there's no fight).
ReplyDeleteThere's also, like four different chase scenes involving Bucky, which I'm pretty sure is three too many and there's no screenwriting reason I can think of that they couldn't have been combined.
How are you getting 4? I can only count 2. One which introduces the panther and one in which Daniel Bruhl brainwashes Bucky. Both have their place in the story. What are the other 2?
DeleteWhy would Steve not know about Tony's loss? In Winter Soldier Computer Toby Jones boasts about it in his exposition slide show. Captain America would remember that. To compare it to the insanity of Dawn of Justice is inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteThoughts on the airport fight scene which is probably the greatest fight scene in a marvel film?
T. Hartwell- I don't know, I think Ant-Man is pretty obligatory, if only because there is not a millisecond of effort put into explaining how his powers work, and it kind of matters that we know that in the airport scene. You're probably right about Stark's background.
ReplyDeleteHayley- Yeah, the suddenness with which Stark decides to shift his motivations in the final fight is really upsetting, but the final fight is so, so good. And you're completely right about the number of chase scenes being way too much. It's shaggy as hell.
J.S.- I don't remember that even a tiny bit, but I haven't watched TWS since its opening weekend, so I'll take your word for it. I've changed it.
As for the airport fight, it's not even actually my favorite fight in this movie (motivations aside, the psychological ferocity of Tony vs Cap really impresses me - it's so damn vicious), and I still like the tracking shot in The Avengers best of all. That being said, there hasn't been a fight in the MCU that comes even close to showing off the characters' specific skill sets with such creativity, and the camera work is much better than it usually is in these films's action scenes. And it's a much, much better Spider-Man scene than the one in his bedroom.
This is probably now my #2 film in the MCU, behind The Winter Soldier but about on par with the original Avengers.
ReplyDeleteSPOILERS, I GUESS
It didn't sit altogether comfortably with me that the film sets itself up to start with as an ideological conflict between Steve and Tony, re: the accountability of the Avengers versus their efficacy, only for the thing that ultimately drives a wedge between them to be an issue of family history instead.
The way I look at it is, it's less a film about exploring political/philosophical issues of unilateralism and vigilantism in their own right than as a way of testing the premise audiences have been conditioned to accept over the last dozen films. The Avengers made us believe, back in 2012, that these disparate super-individuals could come together and act as a force for good - Civil War is about prodding and stretching the limits of that teamwork when different ideals and motivations come into conflict within the group. What those ideals and motivations are is essentially arbitrary - reading the film that way, I think it becomes a lot more satisfying.
As it is, it is shaggy and straining at the seams with characters, and the screenplay does feel beholden to too many masters. But the other side of that coin, if, like me, you're still on board with the concept of the MCU, is that there's such an embarrassment of geeky riches on display. The way I framed it talking with a friend after the film was over is that, 10 years ago, the opening sequence with Crossbones stealing a bio-weapon would have been considered premise enough for an entire superhero sequel, but here, that amount of action, character interaction and shared history is packed into 15 minutes. And that sort of density continues throughout the whole running time! Perhaps there's something, I dunno, gluttonous about enjoying a film in that way, but by the time I see a dozen superheros spend twenty minutes riccocheting off one another in so damn many funny, exciting, creative permutations, by that point I've surrendered to the gluttonous impulse.
I think to me the reason this movie stands out and was so enjoyable was because of how organically it set up the conflict. It felt perfectly in-universe and in-character for the Accords to be introduced, Tony Stark to agree to them, and Steve Rogers to chafe. I am a fairly unmitigated fanboy, but how many times is the character v. character plot set up with this much synchronicity with the actual characters? Yeah, the politics don't work, but I don't feel that this is a very political movie (which is breaking in the tradition of the Cap franchise, so score another point for this being Avengers 3 as opposed to Cap 3). Instead, the inter-character interactions are the focus, and worked, as you note, shockingly well. And man do I have disagree with people who thought the military base showdown was an unnecessary coda - how many other Marvel movies end with a (relatively) quiet, personal-stakes showdown? It was one of the best decisions of the movie - in fact, the generally lower stakes made everything much more motivated and personal.
ReplyDeleteI honestly wasn't particularly convinced by Stark's motivation. He is pretty much always the guy thumbing his nose in the face of the government lackeys. It made the whole movie feel contrived to me. Rogers' motivations made a little more sense, but still Captain America was typically the goody goody.
ReplyDeleteDon't take my word for it. See for yourself at 2:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E486XjhYHh8
ReplyDeleteI can see why someone would miss it, especially as Zola doesn't name names and just makes a menacing remark about "accidents can happen." But it's in plain sight if you're high on the machine that is the MCU. Which I am.
@John: Stark's Motivation makes 100% sense. Stark’s entire character arc from the first Iron Man movie is how he changes after seeing people killed by his own weapons. He also gets very upset when Captain America implies the Avengers are soldiers in the first Avengers film. So hearing that story at the start of Civil War about that woman’s son who was killed in Sokovia because the Avengers were trying to stop Ultron there, this whole thing starts over again. Stark became Iron Man to keep people safe, not get them killed.
ReplyDeleteAnd to follow off what J.S. said, his general trend has been toward seeing accountability, specifically, as a way of keeping people safe. His Iron Man 3 arc was the realization that his unchecked armor building wasn't actually keeping people safer, and his Age of Ultron arc was realizing running off and doing his own thing gets people killed. He's constantly worried about him failing everyone who counts on him. I saw something on the internet that points out that MCU Tony Stark has a rampant and essentially undiagnosed case of PTSD, which shows up explicitly in Iron Man 3 but is a running undercurrent through Age of Ultron and Civil War too. Its main manifestation is his obsession with keeping people safe, and so the idea of an international governing body to keep the Avengers in check would perfectly fit with his evolution that's been happening since Avengers.
ReplyDeleteTo follow spectacularmaterials, Rogers arc is going the other way. 90% of the conflict in Civil War comes from one aspect: Everyone mentions how many civilians die when the Avengers are kicking ass, and Rogers dismisses it entirely as a natural cost of fighting. Rogers was in the Army. He was trained to ignore the fact that people die. And this natural heartlessness and extreme Libertarianism becomes more prevalent with each film, starting with taking down Project Insight using what is clearly 9/11-esque tactics and imagery and concluding with walking into somebody else’s country, imposing his own brand of vigilante justice and causing a huge amount of damage in the process in his latest adventure.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that the key to this movie is to not think through its political implications, but it's giving the movie an AWFULLY big pass to just say "okay, the writers obviously haven't thought very hard about them, so you the viewer thinking about them will ruin the movie, but THAT'S OKAY." I mean, I still liked it, kind of, but it's just SO DUMB. And that whole damn battle royale...I mean, yeah, it was well-made, and it was hard not to enjoy it as sheer spectacle. On the other hand--to repeat myself--it was just SO DUMB, a little kid bashing his action figures together. Keeping track of who was meant to be aligned with whom was difficult enough, and as for understanding WHY everyone's chosen the sides they've chosen--forget about it. Also, more to the point: are you people fucking CHILDREN? This is really the only way you could find to settle your differences? What the hell is this whole thing possibly meant to accomplish? I mean JEEZ, if there's an argument to be made that superheroes shouldn't run be allowed wild, it's that they're really THIS fantastically immature. The climactic fight just confirms that. I'll easily buy the idea that the filmmakers weren't really thinking about any of this; they just wanted an excuse to have their heroes go at each other. But while it doesn't work, I don't know that I can say they even did a notably BAD JOB of it, because I'm not convinced that there was any GOOD way.
ReplyDelete"Scott "Ant-Man" Lang (Paul Rudd) and Peter "Spider-Man" Parker (Tom Holland), two bug-themed superheroes who really just shouldn't be in this movie."
ReplyDeleteThis is the best line in your review, and I agree so much with it. Seeing Ant-Man and Spider-Man just felt stupid and out of place with the rest of the movie. And oh my God Spider-Man, what did they do to you?! Have him as a rookie? Okay, fine. Having him weaker than Captain America even though in the comics he can easily trash him? No, just no, there are established hierarchies you just can't break. Having him talk and behave like a stupid, moronic teenager? *Even worse*.
And seriously, Holland doesn't look like Spider-Man, he looks like a fricking dweeb. Yes, Peter Parker is supposed to be a dork, but this is excessive. No single incarnation of Spider-Man that I know of has such an undignified portrayal of him. And by God is Peter's portrayal in this film much more undignified than just that. Just look at the way Aunt May is treated like a desperate sex-starved housewife who can be easily seduced by Tony Stark. Aunt May is one of the most important characters in the Spider-Man mythos, and seeing her get treated in such a disrespectful manner is just insulting.
In fact, it seems as if the screenwriters don't understand Spider-Man at all except in a very vague way. What makes him the best of Marvel's superheroes is that he is the very definition of good. He is just a plain good ol' nice guy who goes through the greatest of efforts in order to help others and not kill even the worst of villains. The writers of this film, however, reduce Spider-Man's nobility of heart to just "Yeah, I want to stand up for the small guy". To make it worse, Holland delivers that line so half-bakedly that you're not even convinced he means it.
In general, the superheroes of the MCU are hardly superheroes at all. It's hard to sympathize with them since they kill left and right as if they had the seven Dragon Balls to wish people back to life. And I'm not talking about collateral damage. Iron Man willfully kills people in all of his solo films with absolutely no remorse, and so does Captain America. Heck, they even joke about it. They're not superheroes, they're killing machines.
Tim, if you like small stakes in your superhero stories, you definitely should check out Jessica Jones on Netflix. It's largely psychological in nature and, while it has its moments where it feels like they're going into overt comic book territory, the conflict is strictly a personal matter of cat and mouse. I'm sure you'd like it.
ReplyDeleteAlso Robin Weigert is in it, so there's that. Not a big big role, but one that has weight in some scenes.
[SPOILER ALERT]
ReplyDeleteBetween the two superhero movies that have a plot centered around the responsibility superheroes hold for causing massive swathes of collateral damage to civilians and feature a title fight between the two main workhorses of their given studio pitted against each other by a jealous third party who stands to profit from their mutual antipathy released this year, I would have to say I think Marvel did it better.
If only because they know how to come up with a better fake African city than "Nairomi."
Lagos is a real place. Not fake.
DeleteIn Marvel's defence, Tim (and goodness knows an entire movie industry solely devoted to one genre doesn't deserve it) the serialised cinema tumour had already metasticised thanks to the popularity in the 2000s of Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and the viewing habit of pigging out on entire television boxsets. I guess they just figured out a way to compete. It is rather ugly for those of us who are a bit old fashioned and feel they paid their 10 quid to see a story with a beginning, a middle and an end.
ReplyDeleteAs for this film, I did like it. Bit solemn and protracted in the first half (relative to Marvel standards - not that sour-faced BvS rubbish) and had a lot of fun with the Avengers 2.5 jolly japes in the second. And you dismissed it but I did really responded not only to the central political dilemma of 'Do you sign the accords?' but also the nice role reversal of establishment-protecting Stark, and maverick Rogers. Wasn't keen on First Avenger, loved Winter Soldier, so this is just fine between those two. 6/10 by my reading.
Last point - cut them some slack on those cameos cos I just watched the Entourage movie or the most unsightly crowbarring I've ever seen committed to celluloid.
Tim, you mentioned the comic books... Did you read the Civil War event totally, and did you like it? Because I found it the same way I find most other big comic book crossover extravaganzas- some good tie ins, but a mediocre main story that falls apart by the end. It was written by Mark Millar (note the spelling, you've made that mistake before) and as you might imagine it bears a lot of his hallmarks: deliberate misunderstanding/simplification of character motivations, a lot of yelling and insults in place of debate, and of course, mistaking grimdark edginess for "maturity" Really, I think the way the movie handles it is a lot better, more understandable and, as spectacularmaterials said, organic... and Tony's confrontation with a grieving mother so much better done.
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, good movie. Good job all around, and while I share your concern about the abruptness of just tossing Spider-Man in there to round things out (you can have some heroes just appear as a result ofthe proceedings as long as you can establish what's driving them [see Black Panther in this very movie], but that wasn't sufficiently done with Spidey and he in particular needs a good origin), I think Tom Holland was fine overall.
@J.S.: I meant "Wakanda" as Black Panther's home.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely have to give Marvel the victory for cameo introductions of characters. BvS had Wonderwoman watching Youtube clips for no reason whatsoever. Parker may have been shoehorned in, but there's a general consensus that he led to some of the most fun bits in the whole movie.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'd have to say I loved this. Everything in it, despite being ridiculously overstuffed in principle, just *worked.* All the characters made sense, even in paradoxical ways. The misfits sided with Cap, the do-gooders with Iron Man, and while the politics aren't super-deep--surely most of us would agree with Stark in the real world, right? we wouldn't want a group like the Avengers to have no government oversight at all, right?--they are also somewhat redeemed by having Steve Rogers' position on this particular issue be the right one, and having all the conflict focus on the rift between characters on a team, and not on nation- or worldwide political debates played out on talk shows, as so many movies like this do. The movie gets away with some genuine ambivalence on the issue--more than the comics storyline had, since that was made to clearly parallel Bush-era domestic spying, and of course a comic book audience was always going to side with letting superheroes be superheroes rather than government agents. We get to hear both Cap and Rhodey make speeches justifying their actions at the end, and we can respect both positions as honest character beats, whether we agree with either one.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, while this is clearly, clearly better on a basic character and plot basis than Batman v Superman, the latter film managed to put a whole lot more thought into its imagery and iconography in a way that made the film far more troubling in its implications than Marvel would ever dare to do. Civil War is a terrific story about friendships breaking down because of politics and personal betrayal, but Batman v Superman is about the terror modern threats of mass destruction can inspire and the peculiar psychological power that heroes can hold for a public, and while those themes were not explored very well plot-wise, they were expressed quite profoundly, it seems to me, visually.
Strangely enough, I suspect Batman v Superman will stay with me longer than Civil War will, because it opened up my emotions deeper and opened possibilities and fears far wider without every closing that abyss off. I don't really think that makes it "better." But it's interesting.
I'm rather shocked by the vitriol in some of the comments; I've yet to meet a single person who hasn't absolutely loved the film. I have seen it twice, once in 2D and once in '4DX' (which ought to have been awful and distracting but was actually ridiculously immersive, with rain falling on you, wind blasting at you, chairs gently tilting to track the camera movement, the smell of coffee when Wanda had one, the smell of exhaust during the car tunnel chase scene - fully worth the extra money). I found the characters' motivations to make sense and be consistent with their previous depictions and thought the two new characters were well drawn out and integrated. Am I the only one pleased that we do have to sit through another spider man origin story? The character was quickly introduced and played off the others beautifully in that frankly incredible airport brawl. The long format of the MCU is really starting to pay off I feel. Characters like Sharon Carter really demonstrate how expansive the world of these films can be. Maybe, you do have to see the previous films to fully understand the newest one, but when they're this exciting, funny and (in this one) deeply character driven, why wouldn't you want to? This film ought to have been awful, the thirteenth film, as many main characters, functioning as introductions to new characters, a sequel to winter soldier and to age of ultron and still be its own thing. But I felt it completely delivered.
ReplyDeleteIt's not as relentlessly quippy as age of ultron was either, which made the humour in the film all the better, whereas before it had become tiresome, here it served as earned comic relief and helped to remind why these films are so much more fun than other contributions to the genre.
I will say that I am not particularly happy about the hinted, tentative romance between Vision and Wanda. It was much more natural than the Hulk/Natasha romance of Ultron and were it not for that films romance I'd be all for it. They were cute together, she, all upset about what she'd done in Lagos and his adorable attempts to try and make her feel better. But did we really need to have the only two female members of the Avengers in relationships? I know nothing official began but still. With Sharon Carter sharing that kiss with Cap, aunt May not bothering to hide her attraction to a very receptive Tony Stark and Agent Maria Hill bizarrely absent, I'm struggling to think of a single female character that wasn't in a relationship. There was the woman talking about Pepper at the MIT event. The woman who lost her son. The aide of T'challa in the black dress. There was at least one female deceased other winter soldier. Note how none of these women have names. I'm not against love as a plot line, but come on. There must be more interesting places you can take female characters.
*we don't have to sit through
ReplyDeleteSorry. I'm tired.
I never got a "relationship" vibe between Wanda and Vision. I don't think Vision is interested that way, but that he knew Wanda was worried about herself and wanted to make her feel better.
ReplyDeleteI find the radical difference in my ranking of the MCU films and yours amazing.
ReplyDelete13. Incredible Hulk
12. Iron Man 2
11. Thor
10. Thor: The Dark World
09. Iron Man 3
08. Ant-man
07. Iron Man
06. Guardians of the Galaxy
05. Avengers: Age of Ultron
04. Captain America: Civil War
03. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
02. Captain America: The First Avenger
01. The Avengers
Anyway, my favorite thing about this movie was definitely Vision's crush on Wanda.
The source comic is one of the worst comics Marvel has ever published, by the way. Do not read it.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, in the comics the Vision and Wanda get married. So there was definitely supposed to be some romantic vibes going on.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Black Widow wasn't really involved in a romance at all in this movie, though of course she was probably still missing Hulk. But again, in the comics, she has been romantically involved with everybody from Daredevil to Bucky to Hawkeye to whoever, so it's not like they're violating characterization or anything. Actually, it occurs to me that Marvel heroes seem to date each other all the time, while DC heroes only rarely do, seeming to prefer non-powered SOs. (And to be fair, all the male Avengers in the movies have romances of their own going on, except for War Machine and Falcon, I guess, who are just sidekicks anyway, as much as they may protest the designation.)
I know, the comics don't really matter when we're talking about the movies, just thought I'd toss that out there.
And currently, I feel like my MCU ranking goes something like: 1. Iron Man 3. 2. Guardians of the Galaxy. 3. Captain America: Civil War. 4. The Avengers. 5. Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
But I want to re-watch some stuff, so don't quote me everywhere.
I liked it, but, after the excellent and focused Winter Soldier it was a bit of a letdown. Just never truly felt like anything was at stake because I didn't buy that Cap'n or Stark would ever actually kill one another over signing an accord. Disagree about Ant Man and Spidey, though. They provided much needed levity and the only applause-worthy moments, at least in my screening.
ReplyDeleteI have a question for you, Tim, and for anyone really. And this is coming from someone not versed in the comics--
Do you think Marvel will or should go off the reservation completely and come up with some totally original plots and broader story arcs for The Avengers instead of following the comics? And by this I mean devising different fates and destinies for beloved characters.
catinthebrain- I think they won't, and I really wish they would. Though there's precious damn little overlap between Civil War in comic and movie form - I've read the core series only, it sucks, and I'm not very interested in hunting down the what is it, 107 individual issues that made up the whole thing - beyond "Cap and Iron Man disagree, line up other superheroes to defend their argument".
ReplyDeleteStephenM- I also think BvS is going to live in my head a lot longer. It's the difference between "fail to live up to great ambition" versus "succeeding at doing something not very complex".
So many comments, apologies for not replying to virtually any of you. But the school year is done! So hopefully I can be a bit more present going forward. Also, if we're doing Marvel rankings:
1. Guardians of the Galaxy
2. Captain America: The First Avenger
3. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
4. Iron Man
5. Captain America: Civil War
6. Iron Man 3
7. The Avengers
8. Ant-Man
9. Iron Man 2
10. Avengers: Age of Ultron
11. Thor: The Dark World
12. The Incredible Hulk
13. Thor
Feels good to have that down officially somewhere.
Rankings!
ReplyDelete1. The Avengers
2. Civil War
3. The Incredible Hulk (its a masterpiece everyone. See here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FLClNy8jk1U)
4. Guardians of the Galaxy
5. Age of Ultron
6. Iron Man 3
7. Iron Man
8. Thor: The Dark World
9. Thor
10. Winter Soldier
11. Antman
12. First Avenger
13. Iron Man 2 (in what universe is this not the worst. Its as loose and sloppy as The Amazing Spider- man 2 and not in a good way).
I also heard, Tim, that youd done a ranking list for all comic book superhero films or all comic book films and that said list was on your computer. Is this true and can you publish it here?
It is true, though I am not presently near that computer and won't be for awhile. I'll probably want to tweak that before it's ready for public consumption (and catch up with some important titles I've missed), but maybe by the end of summer!
ReplyDeleteI think it's probably not a coincidence that the five films that prominently featured Captain America top my list.
ReplyDeleteI find Age of Ultron to be wildly underrated. If only just for the perfect Hulk/Iron Man "best fight scene in a comic movie ever" fight and the creepy sadistically humorous villain.
"13. Iron Man 2 (in what universe is this not the worst. Its as loose and sloppy as The Amazing Spider- man 2 and not in a good way)." In the one that awful Ed Norton Hulk exists in instead of whatever movie you watched. ;)
ReplyDeleteAlmost identical ranking, Tim.
ReplyDelete1. Guardians of the Galaxy
2. Captain America: The First Avenger
3. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
4. Iron Man
5. Iron Man 3
6. Captain America: Civil War
7. Avengers
8. Ant-Man
9. Avengers: Age of Ultron
10. Thor: The Dark World
11. Iron Man 2
12. The Incredible Hulk
13. Thor
the last act or so was quite good but if only had actually been earned
Since we're weighing in, let me have a bash. (A few I can barely recall and I'm broadly dispassionate about most of them.)
ReplyDelete13. Iron Man 2
12. Thor : The Dark World
11. Captain America : The First Avenger
10. Avengers : Age of Ultron
9. Ant-Man
8. Iron Man
7. Iron Man 3
6. Thor
5. The Incredible Hulk
4. The Avengers
3. Captain America : Civil War
2. Captain America : The Winter Soldier
1. Guardians of the Galaxy
Damn, that was hard be because so many of them are… the same film with the same strengths and weaknesses!
Hell, why not?
ReplyDelete1: Captain America: The Winter Soldier
2: The Avengers
3: Captain America: Civil War
4: Iron Man 3
5: Captain America: The First Avenger
6: Guardians of the Galaxy
7: Avengers: Age of Ultron
8: Iron Man
9: Thor: The Dark World
10: Thor
11: Ant-Man
12: Iron Man 2
13: The Incredible Hulk
(Enthusiastically a fan of 1-5; basically OK with 6-10; moderately dislike 11-13)
I'm in the minority, but I love "Thor". It has the right mix of humor, spectacle and pathos for me, and the feel of it reminds very much of "Superman" and "Superman II". And I like all the main performances.
ReplyDeleteMy ranking:
-1: Captain America: the firsr avenger
-2: Captain America: the winter soldier
-3: Thor
-4: Iron Man 3
-5: Guardians of the Galaxy
-6: The Avengers
-7: Ant-Man
-8: Avengers: age of Ultron
-9: Captain America: civil war
-10: Iron Man
-11: Thor: the dark world
-12: Iron Man 2
-13: The incredible Hulk
Since everyone is giving the old ranking a go:
ReplyDelete1) Captain America: the First Avenger
2) Guardians of the Galaxy
3) The Avengers
4) Captain America: Civil War
5) Captain America: Winter Soldier
6) Ant-Man
7) Iron Man
8) Thor
9) The Avengers: Age of Ultron
10) Iron Man 3
11) Thor: the Dark World
12) Iron Man 2
Iron Man 3 gets a low ranking simply because, apart from the ending, I can't really remember a single thing about it. And I haven't seen the Incredible Hulk.
@Merrick, I'm with you man. Thor is a film I do remember for perfectly balancing mythology with the X-Files agency men running around in suits. I thought Kenneth Brannagh did a really good job there. Unfortunately The Dark World just bored me to sleep.
ReplyDelete@Merrick: Yes! Thor rules. Ant-Man also rules.
ReplyDeleteBut then, I'm also the only person who'd put Winter Soldier at the bottom of my list. (Considering how much I enjoyed Civil War, though, I think I need to give it another chance.)
This movie felt like an Avengers film had been shoved into a Captain America movie, allowing certain plot points and character development to be shoved to the sideline.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, I found myself feeling angry with a belief that Steve Roger's story arc had nearly been sacrificed by the movie's obsession with Tony Stark's man pain and the Sokovia arc from "ULTRON" . . . all because Marvel wanted an excuse to get Robert Downey Jr. into another film. The studio could have wrapped up the Captain America/HYDRA arc in this film and saved the Civil War/Sokovia arc for a future Avengers film, . . . "after" releasing the Black Panther and Spider-Man solo movies. Alas . . . I had to face this mess. And considering that the other two Captain America movies are among my favorite from Marvel/Disney, I ended up feeling very disappointed, as well.
By the way, Steve knew that HYDRA had killed Tony's parents. He didn't know that Bucky was the assassin. Unfortunately, the movie failed to point this out . . . among its many other failures.
ReplyDelete