Well, this isn't the first time I've seen a Marvel movie for the second time, but it's probably the first where I've left it for two weeks between initial viewings. That wasn't completely intentional, but I'd definitely made a point of not rushing back within 48 hours of the original midnight screening. As much as I'd loved Civil War (and after a second-pass, I still do), I have to admit that the spark of urgency to go straight back just wasn't there. Maybe I'd essentially 'got everything' the first time? Maybe I'd been (uncharacteristically) fatigued after an eight-hour cinema marathon? Or maybe I just know that the film will almost certainly be screened as part of future double/triple bills, and I've finally realised that this cinema-run won't be my only chance to see the movie*1. To a greater or lesser degree, it was all of these things which led to the delay; so what would I make of Cap's third solo-outing once the dust had settled..?
Well, first and foremost I stand by my previous assertion that Civil War is too damned long. more to the point, it's too long with not enough downtime in the pacing and is trying to cover too many in-universe story-threads, like some spandex-wielding soap-opera. As great as both characters are, Black Panther and Spider-Man don't need to be part of the 'Sokovia Accords' storyline, and their inclusion creates detours which offer no breathing space from the main narrative. I'm very much looking forward to their respective standalone movies, but I think making these before their induction into the Avengers would have benefitted Civil War greatly.
One thing which tickled me was that Steve Rogers writes Tony Stark a letter toward the end of the film; an actual handwritten letter. Not only is this a subtle callback to Roosevelt's pen from earlier, it also shows that after everything which has happened since he awoke in the present-day, either a) Rogers still doesn't quite get digital communication, so doesn't trust it, or b) Rogers understands digital communication only too well, so doesn't trust it. It's a lovely bit of character building that takes less than a minute and says more than any amount of explosions and broken glass.
It also occurred to me that Scarlet Witch and Vision seem to be getting short shrift in terms of screen-time. The seeds of the relationship which were planted towards the end of Age of Ultron are barely even watered here, never mind nurtured. Let me get this straight, Marvel, you've got an emotionally conflicted young woman who can use magic (actual magic, mind), forming an emotional and spiritual bond with a naive, space-gem-powered robot… and you made a two and a half hour movie about a contract dispute? Hey, I love admin more than the average cinema-goer, but even I want to see more of Wanda and Vision's development, thanks.
But all this says more about me than the film, I think. I seem to have reached the point where, much like Star Wars, I can love each MCU installment almost unconditionally, while still picking holes in the overall thing. And 'overall' probably describes my approach to enjoying Civil War. The film adds progression and detail to the ongoing saga, but the largely unresolved tensions within the Avengers and amount of storyline plate-spinning mean that I enjoy this as a background piece, rather than a standout feature (and that's never been the MCU's style, so far).
I wouldn't class Captain America: Civil War as 'filler' by any means, but it's certainly a sort of continuity-admin. And like I said, I love admin…
The MCU, to be fair. This film is not a starting point for the new inductee.
If you can, do.
It sets out to do slightly too much, but largely achieves what it can, yes.
Jury's still out on that one.
Probably not..
Fairly sure I heard half a Wilhelm buried in there, but that could be projection on my part.
Level 2: Well, pretty much all of the Avengers here who've been in previous movies in the timeline did so alongside Sam 'Windu' Jackson, but let's go for Black Panther himself, Chadwick Boseman who appears in the upcoming Gods of Egypt, as does Bruce 'Tion Medon' Spence.
And while I'm on the subject, I studied the poster for Gods of Egypt for about a minute whilst standing in a cinema foyer yesterday, and I think I've already written the review of the film in my head…
*1 Although don't bother trying to remind me of that when Rogue One lands this December and I'm putting in more hours at my local cinema than some of the staff...
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Okay folks, first-pass rules apply. I'll be keeping this brief because a) it's late (actually early) and I have to be up in the morning but still want to commit my thoughts to the aether before grabbing not-enough-sleep, and b) as is so often the case with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, this movie is far too much to take in on the first go; not least because Civil War is two and a half hours of superhero goodness with basically no downtime. Although this review is free of spoilers, it does assume you've watched the trailers and know at least who is going to be in the movie.
So, with Joe and Anthony Russo back on directing duty, it's safe to say that this is a spiritual successor to The Winter Soldier as well as a chronological one. Furrowed brows and earnest exhortations are the order of the day once more, and the occasional quips that surface through the script might ease the tension, but they certainly don't break it. The larger thread about the Infinity Stones takes a back seat as the world's governments become increasingly nervous as to the accountability of the Avengers. This film manages to be a direct sequel to both TWS and Age of Ultron at the same time. Steve Rogers' ongoing quest to redeem Bucky continues, but characters introduced in the last movie(s) also come into play. And there are also the new faces, of course.
Young Mr Parker makes his MCU debut here, and while his introduction feels a little offbeat, he soon fits in like a natural once things heat up. Of course the character is in very safe hands, and I'm feeling a lot more assured about his Homecoming standalone. We also meet T'Challa for the first time in Civil War, in a more subtle callback to Age of Ultron's Vibranium subplot. As his super-alter-ego isn't quite as mainstream as Parker's, T'Challa's backstory feels a little more crammed. He pans out well, and if the intention is to pique the audience's interest (rather than just not having enough time to get to know him), then it succeeds admirably.
On more familiar territory, it's great to see War Machine back in the thick of it, and Ant-Man is a welcome (if seriously under-used) inclusion. William Hurt's (ex-general, now Secretary of State) Thaddeus Ross makes a relatively low-key return, and a couple of 'slightly-more-incidental' players from Winter Soldier are given a bit more fleshing out. But if Civil War has a major stumbling block, it's just too many characters. In its defence, at least all those characters are pulling in the same direction, but this really feels like a cinematic geek soap-opera. Any viewers new to the franchise (and statistically, there will be some) will have no idea what's going on, such is the narrative price of entry.
One for the fans? Absolutely. But Civil War is a fantastic ongoing installment in its own right, rather than just an extended trailer for the next movie. The actions in this film have consequences which will be felt throughout the MCU, which is precisely how it should be...
The business-end:
• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? See below.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? Yes.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? Yes.
• Is there a post-credits scene?Yes.
…previous Captain America films?
For maximum effect, absolutely.
It does.
The Russo brothers can be proud, as can the expansive cast.
No, because I know that this won't be the carefree movie a lot of audiences want.
…I didn't hear one. Although sleep-deprivation could have been kicking in by that point. If you caught one in there, let me know.
Level 2: …I think this is the first MCU movie to not have a member of the Star Wars cast on-screen, somewhere. Plenty of behind-the-scenes folks, but let's level-2 it by going for Don Cheadle, reprising his role as War Machine here, and he turned up very recently in Miles Ahead alongside Ewan 'Kenobi' McGregor.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
You've got to feel a bit sorry for ol' Cap. After a cinematic debut in which he was centre-stage, it almost feels like he's been told to stop showing off and play nicely with the other kids. While The Winter Soldier directly references and continues Steve Rogers' story, the inclusion and heavy usage of Black Widow and Nick Fury (characters both introduced elsewhere in the MCU) makes the Captain America sequel feel more like a S.H.I.E.L.D. movie. And given that Civil War seems to be an extension of the Avengers internal-politics, you almost wonder if he'll manage to get that spotlight back again.
But this struggle is also reflected within the story of his second installment. Captain America is no longer the idolised poster-boy of the free; he's a government agent with a shield instead of a briefcase, and has a job to do. Like it or not. Gone are the sepia-infused tales of bravado and derring-do, replaced by retinal scans and a desaturated paranoia. The culture-shock of Steve's rude awakening in the digital age is heightened by new threats which were inconceivable when he first battled a crazed Nazi scientist over the Atlantic ocean (ah, that was a simpler time). Lines are getting blurrier with each mission and danger now comes from within.
And I think it's this tonal-shift that singles out The Winter Soldier unfairly as 'the one which wasn't as good' in general conversation. Not quite as sure of itself as the previous films in the timeline, yet it relies heavily on the audience having watched them. Each victory is more hard-won and painful than the last, raising questions that the characters don't really want answered (because when you can't trust Robert Redford, you're really in trouble). The film also begins and ends in uncertainty, which is anathema for a blockbuster (even one with sequels to follow) and Henry Jackman's Dark Ominous Tones™ contrast sharply with the occasional refrain of Silvestri's soundtrack from the previous outing.
But each corner that's turned and truth revealed brings Steve Rogers nearer to closure; not of his future, but the past which has followed him here. If Rogers can just fix everything, maybe he can start to feel at home. We're not here to watch Captain America win, because the world no longer works that way; we're here to watch him not giving up, and there's a lesson in there for us all.
The Temple of Doom of the MCU, The Winter Soldier is more fun than you remember. It just leaves you exhausted rather than than exhilarated.
Well, Marvel movies, really…
If you can.
It struggles more than most in the canon, but it manages in the end.
The Russo brothers are in charge of Civil War, so we'll find out…
Probably not.
Yep.
Level 1: Like I said, Mace Windu's in it.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Ah, a chance to separate the hardcore filmgoers from the opportunists, a test of theatrical endurance, that rarest of treats in this modern age: the triple-bill. To usher in 2016's blockbuster season*1 and Marvel's Captain America: Civil War, a back-to-back screening of Super-Soldier adrenaline kicked off tonight at 18:30. The First Avenger, followed by The Winter Soldier, leading into a midnight screening of the newest installment. For a viewer who's resolutely Team Iron Man*2, I'm unaccountably happy with this ;)
Now I've written about Steve Rogers' first outing on several occasions in the past. It's a film I absolutely adore, therefore it's one that I have no problem watching again. One of those movies I'm always in the mood for, in fact. A lot has changed since I started reviewing here, and I find I watch films differently now. In fact, that was very much the point. I didn't want to be using my Unlimited card several times a month and just letting each screening wash over me, leaving no impression as I sat glazed in the cinema*3. Writing about each film I see, including repeat viewings, helps me build a framework by which I can appreciate and enjoy them more. And generally speaking, by the time I've picked apart what I did and didn't like about the thing I've just watched, I arrive at a conclusion I'm happy to commit to the blog.
Now people's tastes change over the years, which is entirely as it should be. Watching a bunch of old movies for the first time, I know that I wouldn't have enjoyed many of them had I seen them when I was younger (and likewise there are a few entries which young-me might have enthused about, but which I now realise are dreadful). But I do find that my opinion on a specific movie doesn't really change once I've watched it. I'll find new details to love (or new bugbears to hate), but the work as a whole will sit in pretty much the same slot.
And it's with that in mind that I'm going to do something I wouldn't normally do. Because I read back my previous mutterings on The First Avenger and I appear to have repeatedly scored it six out of sevenwhen it's clearly a bloody seven. So I'm changing that from this point onward. I also make a point (okay, occasionally) of saying that the number attached to a film doesn't necessarily make it comparable to another one with the same score. My final ratings are more a measure of the film's potential versus its actuality. But y'know what? The First Avenger actually can be compared directly with The Winter Soldier, even though the former is a far more enjoyable movie (although more on the second shortly). In short, Cap gets ramped up to full-marks, this outing.
Against the collective stories which have followed it (and that I still love, remember), I genuinely believe that this might be the perfect Marvel Cinematic Universe film. Bolstered by Alan Silvestri's score, director Joe Johnston captures the uncynical spirit of adventure which made the Indiana Jones movies so much fun. This is a science-fiction tale which is relatively light on the unexplainable 'magic' it needs to fuel the plot. A classic underdog origins story, Steve Rogers is the archetypal hero, empowered by science and morality, but completely unbound by ego and with an innate understanding of everything he's fighting to protect, pitted against a supernatural villain who feels like a genuine threat because he's a complete psychopath and a macguffin which could destroy everything. And from the sure-footed roller-coaster of a movie comes a victorious ending laced with an agoraphobic melancholy which hasn't been matched before or since. The 1940s setting separates the film both chronologically and tonally, and sets up (and ret-cons) events to come, while owing nothing to them. With the exception of the final five minutes, this is a true standalone feature and it still encapsulates the essence of Marvel.
So yeah, I've changed my mind. The First Avenger isn't a great film, after all.
It's a brilliant one.
Indiana Jones, The Rocketeer.
If you can.
Absolutely.
It may well be.
I very well might.
There absolutely is.
Level 1: Mace Windu's in it. And Richard Armitage from off of The Phantom Menace.
*1 Sorry Clark and Bruce, you don't count. I wish you did, but there we go.
*2 Yup. Style over righteousness, I'm afraid. Every time.
*3 Although some movies just have that effect anyway, to be fair. But I try.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Now, I love Iron Man. It's no secret, and I've never tried to make it one. It's fair to say I have a slight obsession with ol' shell-head, and not just the Robert Downey Jr incarnation. Although I have a moderate grounding in Marvel lore, I'm by no means an expert, which is what makes reading/watching the vintage and retro stories so exciting. But back to the present day and MCU iteration. Sorry to spring this on you, but take a seat. We need to talk about Tony…
Why is Iron Man in Age Of Ultron?
He really doesn't need to be there at all. Tony Stark sure, but the actual Iron Man super-ego*1 himself? Over the course of the three standalone movies (plus Avengers, which feeds his neuroses for the third film), Tony Stark is challenged physically, intellectually and psychologically, and emerges triumphant - and crucially, wiser. Backed by Brian Tyler's gorgeous score, Tony stands among the clifftop ruins of Stark Mansion and throws his now-obsolete chest-mounted arc-reactor into the Pacific ocean. Never a one for undue sentiment, he knows that this is the closing of a chapter, and even though his final words to us are "I am Iron Man", the card at the end of the credits reads 'Tony Stark will return'...
Tony Stark will return
…so why did Iron Man return? Do the focus groups at Marvel really think audiences won't bond with an Avengers movie unless it stars the character who started the ball rolling back in 2008? Don't get me wrong, it's always a pleasure to spend time in his company, but it seems Age Of Ultron has been used as a kind of buffer to get War Machine to pick up the mantle left by the departing Iron Man. This, in itself, is great as we finally get a little more diversity within the team, but also because I want to see how Stark's armour fares when it's got a different pilot inside. James Rhodes' fighting style and team ethic will (should) be noticeably different for a start. But should it really take a whole movie just to swap out the characters, given that Stark doesn't come to any earth-shattering conclusion after the battle of Sokovia? Rather than go out on a high (as he already has done), this fifth starring role seems like a muted coda for him, as he decides he needs a bit of downtime and pootles off to be with the missus, making War Machine feel even more like a reserve-choice.
There was a period in the 1970s/80s comic chronology when Stark battled with alcoholism, in a kind of socially-aware, if not socially-conscious move by Marvel. During this period, Stark went off to rehab and trusted the armour to Rhodes. In Secret Wars in particular, Rhodes wore the Iron Man armour itself (rather than the guise of War Machine), and even the other Marvel heroes/villains weren't aware at first who was behind the mask. A retooling of the booze problem has been all but nixed for the MCU, although I still think it could be handled with enough tact for a 12A audience. Importantly, this could have given the perfect opening for Tony Stark to be on the bench for the film, as Rhodey steps in to help his partner. It would also give Tony something to actually go off and work on at the end of the film, too; explaining his resulting absence from the next few movies.
How Do You Solve A Problem Like A.I.?
The other elephant in the room is Stark's apparent reason for being in the film: Ultron. I, of all people, am acutely aware of the reasons that the MCU movies don't follow the established and classic stories from the comics. Notwithstanding that writing styles and social conventions change, Marvel need to be able to produce something that's new for all fans. So while familiar names, relationships and places are used (with a plethora of easter eggs to sweep up a lot of the others), the stories are indeed a new continuity, leaving the writers free to introduce and dispatch characters as required (well…).
But I know damned well that I'm not the only one who's noticed that Tony Stark didn't create Ultron before. Ultron, the self-replicating, self-upgrading metal bastard that he is, was created by professor Hank Pym, the scientist who was also the first incarnation of Ant-Man. Now normally, a switch of this kind would hint at the sort of film-rights-issue which sees Quicksilver appear in AoU as the result of genetic experimentation, not as a mutant. If Hank Pym fell under the remit of a Marvel property currently under license to Sony or 20th Century Fox, then it would be understandable to substitute his efforts for Stark's (being that he's technologically advanced enough to pull it off). This would also give Stark his crucial reason for being in the film. So why this significant alteration to the lore? Who owns the cinematic rights to Hank Pym?
Marvel Studios do, of course. Pym is due to debut this July in Ant-Man, and will be played by none other than Michael Douglas. They've got the character, they've got the situation, they'd rather not use it thank you very much. Age Of Ultron could have been a great opportunity to introduce Pym, even if he was only assisting Stark in Ultron's creation. With a little contrition and guilt he could still have been redeemed (Stark was, apparently) in time for this Ant-Man appearance.
Again, it's not that I didn't absolutely adore Age Of Ultron, but a different movie, where Hank Pym and Tony Stark create Ultron, the failure of which sends Stark deeper into his unresolved issues whilst James Rhodes proves himself as a full-time Avenger, leaving Tony to go and battle his demons as Hank swears himself off robotics? That would have been much better for the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a whole than The Tony Stark Show…
…feel free to disagree, obviously.
Course it bladdy is.
For fans, it'll be a buy-er.
Some yes, some no.
It does.
Oh, I wouldn't put it like that, exactly…
Course there bladdy is.
Again? Really? You know that Mace W-… okay, Scarlett Johannson starred in 2005's The Island alongside Ewan 'Obi-Wan' McGregor.
*1 I use 'super-ego' in the psychoanalytical sense, I'm not saying that Tony Stark is like, super egotistical. Although he also is. Which is why I think I identify with him so much. We've got a lot in common, Tony and I, once you take out the looks, money, intellect and bravery. Oh, and the driving licence. I don't have one of those, either. Still a lot in common, though.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
