Captain America: Civil War

  • Thread starter andrea
  • 420 comments
  • 20,232 views
...:odd:

Well that was unexpected. Advanced reviews of the movie are up already.

Here's IGN's take: http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/04/13/captain-america-civil-war-review?read

Apparently it's only "Good" but not great. Hmmm...

On RT, it's rated 100% so far. Time will tell by how far that will drop...

IGN's is a strange one. I get the argument that hero-vs-hero, moral-war type themes can be a little weighty, but that's no doubt brought on by how close this is to BvS, timing-wise. Calling for comic book movies to go back to the same old generic structure seems like a step back, to me.

Variety and Empire both have reviews (click here, or here), and both come off as more positive.
 
IGN's is a strange one. I get the argument that hero-vs-hero, moral-war type themes can be a little weighty, but that's no doubt brought on by how close this is to BvS, timing-wise. Calling for comic book movies to go back to the same old generic structure seems like a step back, to me.

Variety and Empire both have reviews (click here, or here), and both come off as more positive.

...I've read the Empire one before (thanks, RT!!) and yeah, the reviewer sounded happier with the film. I'm guessing IGN's doing some sort of pre-emptive fan pacification or something - trying to make sure those brain-dead fanboys can't accuse them of favoritism. Probably.
 
...:odd:

Well that was unexpected. Advanced reviews of the movie are up already.

Here's IGN's take: http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/04/13/captain-america-civil-war-review?read

Apparently it's only "Good" but not great. Hmmm...

On RT, it's rated 100% so far. Time will tell by how far that will drop...

Remember, the Tomatometer is binary. It doesn't matter if you sorta liked it, if you liked it, you're counted as a +. If you sorta didn't like it, even if you thought it was still worth watching, it's counted as a -.

It's the average rating that will count, in the end. Though reading that review, and looking at the current average rating, I don't doubt it'll stay above 70-80%. BvS reviews and average ratings tanked bad from the very beginning.

As long as it's better than AoU, I'm still watching it. I didn't for one minute believe such a character-heavy film would match the tight pacing and narrative focus of TWS.


-

Perhaps IGN is trying to curry fanboy favor by providing a "balanced" review, seeing the backlash many geek sites got from fans after the BvS brouhaha? Which is totally unnecessary pandering. Or perhaps the writer is simply soured by larger-than-life problems in comic book movies... there is a point to that... Guardians and Ant Man were certainly great watches... specifically because they shoved aside world-building and monumental cross-title doom-mongering (even if GOTG was a tip-in to Infinity War) to simply have fun.

But that doesn't mean you can't tackle big issues in movies. It's just CA:CW's mistfortune that BvS dropped the same sort of thing monumentally on movie-goers just two months ago.
 
Last edited:
BvS had an embargo on reviews until the Wednesday before release and even had limited critic screenings. All signs the studio didn't expect good reviews.

Civil War is still three weeks away and the studio is being very up front and open to reviews. That says that they think they have a hit on their hands.

While none of that reflects the ultimate end quality, the two different approaches says a lot about what the studio marketing teams think. Civil War will have trailers quoting positive reviews before opening weekend. They were confident enough in the quality to implement that plan. BvS's critical failure can even help. Grab all the "refreshing," "breath of fresh air," "action packed," and "fun" type quotes you can to contrast that this hero v hero film is completely different.

They were smart in sll the marketing. They show the team's facing off in bright and sunny weather. Releasing clips of Lang in a humorous conversation was perfect. Even the clips we've seen of Tony and Steve arguing look like normal people having a debate, not some brooding "do you bleed" stuff. There's even emotion that you can feel in the "He's my friend" exchange.

They have created a massive contrast. Either they knew there were BvS issues and played to that or they just have a genuinely good film that works well.
 
They have created a massive contrast. Either they knew there were BvS issues and played to that or they just have a genuinely good film that works well.

I think it's a little of both. It's not surprising the Russos can balance a "versus" film with far more characters than BvS managed: they've been deftly dealing with multi-character stuff for years with Arrested Development and Community. I think once BvS was moved closer to Civil War's date – and even more so once the first grim trailer showed up – Marvel's been able to adapt and play up the differences in their trailers.

I can't wait. Three weeks from today, I'll be sitting down to see it. With ads and trailers up front, it's going to be nearly three hours, though!

Oh, and a review or two have confirmed that Marisa Tomei will be in this. Schwing.
 
Three weeks from today

...Well, I suggest you move house to either Hong Kong or France 'cuz the film's opening on 27th April there - a mere two weeks from today. :lol:

My local cinema has also scheduled it to open on 29th. Hehehe... :P
 
As long as it's better than AoU, I'm still watching it.
I think that the problem with Age of Ultron is that everyone suddenly and inexplicably went sideways. The momentum was clearly developing towards the Infinity Gauntlet, but everyone was at a different point in their own narrative arc. The events of the film felt like an opportunity for everyone who was lagging behind to catch up so that the next narrative phase could begin. And so we wound up with Tony Stark making his peace with the events of The Avengers and resolving his obsessive need to create a suit of armour for every conceivable threat in Iron Man 3, only to have him do an about-face and create Ultron.
 
As long as it's better than AoU

Low-Bar-e1354568692305.jpg
 
The big challenge that the film faces is in the way other franchises have tried it, and failed miserably. Not just Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice but also X-Men: The Last Stand. And while Captain America: Civil War dodged the twin bullets of hiring Brett Ratner and Zack Snyder, it's more the concept of the heroes dividing into factions that gives me cause for concern. Dawn of Justice had the heroes squaring off in what was little more than a passing distraction while the primary villain moved all of the pieces in his master plan into position; The Last Stand went in the opppsite direction and suffered from a lack of any unifying villain.

The Winter Soldier is arguably the best Marvel film because it treated the superhero genre as a framing device. It was a modern take on a 1970s political conspiracy theory whose characters happened to be superheroes. From what I have seen of Civil War, I think that it will struggle to recreate that.
 
Just realised that they picked the weirdest release date for this - the film releases on the 28th, but school goes back on the 27th.
 
@niky

After watching Age of Ultron again, I have reconsidered my position and come to the conclusion that there's not really that much wrong with it - the real problem was Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 and the way Marvel haven't really understood the way audiences respond to Iron Man.

All of the characters within the Marvel Universe came into a world where the extraordinary is normal. Captain America was frozen for seventy years and wakes up in a radically different world, while Thor is the crown prince of a race of supernatural demi-gods, and Peter Quinn was raised by aloen salvagers. Even characters like Jane Foster and Erik Selvig are open to the possibility of something more than the reality that we know. But Tony Stark is the only person who exists in our world and crosses over into the expanded universe. His growing awareness of a universe full of mystical, extra-terrestrial and extra-dimensional threats parallels the audience's understanding. He is an increasingly posthuman character, augmenting his body with the armour (particularly vatiations like Bleeding Edge), while the likes of Ultron and Vision are realisations of his posthuman existence. Likewise, Aldrich Killian is very posthuman.

But Marvel didn't really tap into that. Captain America exists to fight earthly threats. Thor fights the mystical. The Guardians of the Galaxy deal with extra-terrestrial. Doctor Strange will address the extra-dimensional. So there's not really any role for Tony Stark to play. He's limited to dealing with an array of earthly villains who are completely underwhelming; Justin Hammer is a cheesy version of Obadiah Stane, Ivan Vanko doesn't do anything interesting, and Aldrich Killian breathes fire for absolutely no reason at all. If Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 were necessary, they should have dealt with Stark's increasing awareness of threats beyond earth.

Having said that, if you disregard Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 and instead focus on Iron Man, The Avengers and Age of Ultron, Stark's character arc is scaled back to the same point as everyone else's undoing the problem of his being over-developed.
 
And that's why doing what they did to the Mandarin was horrible. The "real" Mandarin would have lead into taking on those issues you mention. Stark/Iron Man has no nemesis. Ultron was also "killed off".

They took The Red Skull away from Cap. So, in steps S.H.I.E.L.D./HYDRA sleepers.

I was disappointed with how they handled IM2. I thought we were going to see Omega Red(even though there was an Omega Red file in XMEN 2).
 
The "real" Mandarin would have lead into taking on those issues you mention.
Killian did start to address it - Extremis did bring up posthumanism with its regenerative qualities, but it was too little, too late.

I think the real appeal of Tony Stark lies in the irony that as he becomes less physically human, he becomes more relatable to the audience as a person. He goes from being a billionaire playboy who is callous and unsympathetic to the suffering he inflicts on the world, to being dependent on technology to survive and inspired to make something more of himself. It's an interesting paradox because at the same time he needs to balance out his dependence on technology lest he lose touch with his humanity altogether. And unlike other heroes, he is very, very vulnerable to these flaws, and there are serious consequences to his actions; Age of Ultron is a realisation of this lapse.

But when it comes to Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3, I think Marvel just saw the audience responding to an action hero with a happy-go-lucky streak at a time when the genre was taking itself far too seriously, and just moved to recreate that.

Ultron was also "killed off".
He kind of had to be. I know that he's a recurring villain, but if he was only thwarted and came back later, I think the over-arching story would lose momentum because it would feel like there was no tangible progress. Especially since the Avengers only prevented the invasion in The Avengers rather than completely destroying the threat; if they stopped Ultron without destroying him, they would be zero for two.

I was disappointed with how they handled IM2.
I think a lot of people were. The film did have a couple of interesting ideas, like the stress and unitended consequences of being a superhero, but I think the problem was that Jon Favreau only really tried to replicate the original film's success. Mickey Rourke was wasted, and Justin Hammer was a cheesy version of Obadiah Stane (but full credit to Sam Rockwell for running with it without resorting to hamming it up).

But mostly, I can't take the film seriously because it would have us believe that the quickest way from Casino Square to Tabac is to go backwards around the circuit.
 
And that's why doing what they did to the Mandarin was horrible. The "real" Mandarin would have lead into taking on those issues you mention
See the One Shot "All Hail The King".
 
See the One Shot "All Hail The King".
I missed that one. Okay, just watched it.

If I'm hearing right with the CW reviews. Seem like all the characters have time to shine. I wonder if it can be done with the villains.
 
I wonder if it can be done with the villains.
They kind of need to - I have to agree with the guy who played Yellowjacket in Ant-Man; Marvel don't seem terribly intetested in villains outside Loki. No doubt they have a lot invested in Thanos, but otherwise everyone is under-developed and driven by a lust for power.
 
It would be an interesting take. It's like writers are scared to make villains retreat and regroup. There's nothing wrong with that. The Vision burned Ultron out of the internet. Vision didn't want to "kill" Ultron. Ultron was in a sorry state(forgive me for preaching to the choir) by the end of the movie. He could have been left to wander the wilderness for a return later.

A note, in regards to those reviews about (Baron)Zemo. What I've looked at, it seems he has a minor role but, is the catalyst for the goings on. If his demise is open ended, I'm okay with that.
 
It would be an interesting take. It's like writers are scared to make villains retreat and regroup.
I don't think that they're scared of a regroup. Rather, killing Ultron was a necessity - at the end of The Avengers, Loki was imprisoned and the invasion of earth stopped for the time being. But Loki was able to escape Asgardian custody, and the Chitauri leader was still at large. For Ultron to escape makes the Avengers look completely ineffective.

I also have to wonder if they are concerned that a villain will stand out while things move towards Infinity War, only for them to be a hanging thread because they're incompatible with Infinity War. Marvel is still doing a lot of leg work to set things up; I'm most interested in the second Infinity Gauntlet, who might have it, and why two were created in the first place. I also can't believe that it's going to be as straightforward as Thanos sticking the Gems in the Gauntlet and hoping for the best. I wonder if the Mandarin is going to appear after all - the Ten Rings could be artefacts derived from the Gems and gifted to the Mandarin to test their limitations and to provide a distraction to the Avengers while Thanos acquires the last Gem.
 
Consider it a hundred million dollar screen test. Like Wolverine: Origins was for Deadpool. :D
Luckily for Deadpool fans his solo movie didn't depend on the success of his appearance as the Merc With No Mouth in the Wolverine movie otherwise it probably wouldn't've been made lol.
 
I don't think that they're scared of a regroup. Rather, killing Ultron was a necessity - at the end of The Avengers, Loki was imprisoned and the invasion of earth stopped for the time being. But Loki was able to escape Asgardian custody, and the Chitauri leader was still at large. For Ultron to escape makes the Avengers look completely ineffective.

I also have to wonder if they are concerned that a villain will stand out while things move towards Infinity War, only for them to be a hanging thread because they're incompatible with Infinity War. Marvel is still doing a lot of leg work to set things up; I'm most interested in the second Infinity Gauntlet, who might have it, and why two were created in the first place. I also can't believe that it's going to be as straightforward as Thanos sticking the Gems in the Gauntlet and hoping for the best. I wonder if the Mandarin is going to appear after all - the Ten Rings could be artefacts derived from the Gems and gifted to the Mandarin to test their limitations and to provide a distraction to the Avengers while Thanos acquires the last Gem.
We'll see what Thor:Ragnorak and Dr. Strange bring to the table. Those stories together, will have to set up Infinity War.
 
We'll see what Thor:Ragnorak and Dr. Strange bring to the table. Those stories together, will have to set up Infinity War.
Don't forget Guardians Vol. 2. They say that important new characters will be introduced. I expect Adam Warlock and possibly a few cosmic entities, like The Celestials.

I also suspect Nebula to play a role that sets up her part of the Infinity War as well.

All guesses though. Adam Warlock is the only one that feels necessary, but even he could be reserved for Infinity War part 1.
 
I'm reasonably sure Omega Red is off limits. Fox has him.

GotG Vol. 2 should be interesting. Gunn has said it won't feature Thanos, but I hope that's a lie to throw people off. It seems incredibly strange to not include him the year before Infinity War, in the one series he's actually had a part in outside of post-credit stingers.

Reviews are maintaining a high level for Civil War. There's just one negative review so far on RT, and it reads very much like click-bait.
 
The only negative review I've looked at, was one person"s opinion of a new character. Even that wasn't a complete negative. It was more of a was the character needed in this movie.

I don't care. I'm happy Spidey and Black Panther are in. Can't wait for next week.
 
Back