Sequel Month - Mini Review - Captain America: Civil War

It's sequel month

Captain America: Civil War came out in May 2016 and did what Batman v Superman didn’t do, get critical acclaim whilst making over $1bn in the box office. So, here to analyse why, is me, about a year after everyone else.

I know I haven’t reviewed Winter Soldier but this is essentially an Avengers movie with Cap in a more leading role, so I’m counting it as a sequel to Age of Ultron which I reviewed last year.

This might be a little different to my other reviews in that contains no plot summary of such, it will bring up certain plot details so spoilers will still follow. 

So, let’s start out with the fact that Batman v. Superman and Civil War have a lot of similarities. They talk about accountability and the collateral damage that comes with superhero fights. They both feature a villain with a convoluted and, in hindsight, non-sensical plan to get the heroes to fight each other,  they both feature new characters introduced for minor roles and they both feature a hero being manipulated by knowledge about their mother.

But let’s talk about why I like Civil War and I hate Batman vs Superman. First, the subject of accountability of Superheroes. In Batman v. Superman, people talk about it a lot, it’s the subject of news interviews, congressional hearings etc. The thing is though, for all the talk about it, nothing is ever done about it. In Civil War, admittedly after what’s considered the 4^th incident, something is done about it in the Sokovia accords. 

In Batman v. Superman, Superman never really takes a side in the conflict, just sitting their moping and asking his mother or Lois what they think he should do and them giving vague generic answers that really don’t help him at all. Tony Stark and Steve Rogers are decisive in their approach and have good reasons backing them up.

Tony Stark believes, and he’s not wrong, that heroes need to accept limitations, else they’re no better than the bad guys. An argument conceived partially out of guilt after Ultron. Steve Rogers believes, and he’s not wrong, that being under government control leaves them open to manipulation towards the agendas of other people. There might be a great middle ground they could’ve reached if circumstances hadn’t been the way they were.

OK, Lex Luthor is a villain I hate with the very fibre of my being. Zemo, is certainly not like the HYDRA member his comic counterpart was, has a more clear-cut motivation, isn’t crazy, doesn’t drive me around the bend every time he talks and whilst his plan does rely on plenty of contrived co-incidences, his plan was more successful as well.

OK, so to supporting characters in Batman v. Superman, Wonder Woman, whilst a badass in her fight has a relatively light role which is kinda generic. Spider-man and Black Panther don’t fit that category. Spider-man’s introduction into the MCU is done brilliantly and we get a bonus in that Uncle Ben is already dead so we don’t have to go through that again. Black Panther is done differently but at least he has an arc, his quest for vengeance after the death of his father.

The characterisation is top in this, all the characters have their trademark personalities straight off the board, which is helped by all of them having had movies to build things up. I’m going to stop comparing it to Batman v. Superman at this point and start comparing it to Civil War the comic. There are not as many players as in the comics, which helps streamline it but some of the motivations are a little shaky. Hawkeye joined Cap because he called first, I guess, Ant-man is confusing, Spider-man has been manipulated by Tony when just about every part of his being would put him on Cap’s side and Black Widow changes sides because of course she does. Still, War Machine’s motivation is obvious, Falcon made his feelings clear, Vision's (who ironically was on Cap's side in the comic) reaction feels natural, Wanda got backed into a corner and Iron Man and Captain America’s motivations are clear cut.

But like I said, both sides might’ve come to a compromise under different circumstances, but then there was the matter of Bucky Barnes. Bucky is a central character in this movie as he’s main driver of the plot and cements the wedge between Cap and Iron Man. In the comic, the wedge between Cap and Iron Man is specifically down to the side they chose, ignoring years of continuity and friendship which makes both characters look like assholes and unbalanced, they do not seem this way here. 

Back to Batman v. Superman, the other thing this movie did better was with the action. Not only is there far more of it with no less than 5 major action set-pieces but it’s better handled, with better lighting and much better looking effects. The airport scene is done largely in CGI and it’s astounding, showing off every character’s moves and abilities, especially with Spider-man. The final fight features just Cap, Bucky and Iron Man and is lot more personal with no holds barred. Zemo does use Iron Man's mother to manipulate him, much as Luthor did, but here it's more personal, Zemo didn't do anything to Iron Man's mother, it was Bucky, so it makes more sense for pitting the two against each other

For the record, I do need to address this. People who say there are no stakes in this movie. People weren’t likely to die, and even maintained some friendly banter (which is a good thing, remember they’re not fighting because they disagree exactly, one side wants to bring them in before things escalate, the other wants to stop a villain potentially releasing an army of assassins) but there are definitely still stakes. A small miscalculation resulted in quite permanent damage to one of the characters and the ending has the team completely split. Whilst Cap does promise a reunion, it’s like I said, under different circumstances they may have been able to compromise.

Civil War is a great movie, it’s got snappy one-liners, looks good, has some great action and actually tries to deal with the conflict established.

Rating 85/100