REVIEW: "Captain America: Civil War" is Everything We Want in a Superhero Movie (and More)

[Holt]

This whole "critic conditioning" thing is nonsense.

We're talking about film critics many of whom have been reviewing movies for years and come from different parts of the world (many RT critics are in Europe). It's even more disturbing when said critics give good scores to non-Marvel movies but people ignore them.

Every single Civil War thread on here follows the exact same trajectory. You can set your watch to how it's gonna go down at this point. People say good things about the movie. Snide remarks implying it's not good and people are just giving it high marks because of Marvel. Theories about implied critical bias and snobbery against DC. Discussion of Iron Man 3 as the definitive proof the MCU isn't good and critics are being dishonest. Rinse and repeat.

On topic, glad to hear it's getting such great reception. Just one more week!

[Doctor Know]

This whole "critic conditioning" thing is nonsense.

We're talking about film critics many of whom have been reviewing movies for years and come from different parts of the world (many RT critics are in Europe). It's even more disturbing when said critics give good scores to non-Marvel movies but people ignore them.

I think people need to understand that just because we like something other people don't have to. BvS got its bad reviews because most people (outside the hardcore DC fan base) found the movie to not be very good. Civil War on the other hand is receiving stellar reviews (and good word of mouth to boot) because people like it. It doesn't have to do with conditioning, bribing or anything like that.

At the same time though, not all "fresh" rating on films makes sense.

Case in point.



Reading the criticisms of BvS (a good portion of which said they liked the film enough, but are recorded as rotten scores), the line between fault with the film and the critics disliking an aspect of the film (a personal snobbery if you will), I noticed a lot.

Point is, critic reviews are subjective. Because, at the end of the day that's what we are reading. Their opinions.

[super_posable_joe]

Captain America: Civil War is plain-and-simple an excellent movie.

I love how it ties up a lot of little loose ends (and the callbacks) from previous movies. It had some terrific character moments that I felt were quite moving (2 of my favorite scenes include one with Black Panther and another with Captain America and Black Widow - those are just 2, but there are quite a few); The entire cast was totally on point, and the dialogue felt real and natural. And the fight scenes weren't half bad, either ;-) Seriously, fight choreography was brilliant. An improvement over The Winter Soldier's (which I loved, too). Spider-Man was a joy to watch, and I really haven't enjoyed the character since OMD (but that's just personal bias). The story came to an organic, logical conclusion and sets up an intriguing status quo moving forward.

Right up there with The Winter Soldier and the The Avengers for me.

[Outside_85]

This whole "critic conditioning" thing is nonsense.

If you'd like to take a step outside of your bubble for a moment, do try and remember that Marvel has nearly had free reign of the whole superhero movie thing 5 years ahead of DC and has been pumping out 13 movies in their universe while DC has just 2. If you dont think that has an effect on people's perception of what a modern superhero movie is and isn't, when the casual viewer cant even get the owning company right half the time, then I have a badly made porrage I'd like to spoon feed you over the next two months.

[Holt]

Or a superhero movie made by a director with a very divisive critical track record ended up critically divisive again, and a movie made by the creative team that made a well reviewed superhero movie in the past turned out to be a good superhero movie.

I'm not really sure what is shocking or controversial about that.

[Rogue Star]

Well flubnuggets! Since it's been spoiled I might as well say that I can't wait to see Scott Lang become Giant Man! I'm going to bring plenty of duck tape to keep my head together through it all!

[Outside_85]

Or a superhero movie made by a director with a very divisive critical track record ended up critically divisive again, and a movie made by the creative team that made a well reviewed superhero movie in the past turned out to be a good superhero movie.

I'm not really sure what is shocking or controversial about that.

So according to you, they had already decided if they were going to like it or not before they went in.

[Holt]

So according to you, they had already decided if they were going to like it or not before they went in.

Er, no. I'm saying that I'm not sure why it's so inconceivable to some people that a lot of people just genuinely found it to be an underwhelming movie.

Look at it like this. Take away the warring fanboy drama and brand loyalty. You have two films. One is made by a writer-director team that made a solid, critically acclaimed film in the same genre before that you ended up enjoying. The other is made by a director with a very divisive track record, and whose previous two films in the same genre were both met with decidedly mixed reception, and you were mixed on both of those prior attempts. If you ended up enjoying the former and found the latter disappointing, would that be shocking to you or would it be a fairly logical conclusion?

Hell, not just films. If you went to eat at two restaurants, one of which has a good reputation and that you've like before, and the other of which is so so, would it be surprising that the your meal at the latter wasn't up to snuff?

That's what's so confusing about this whole silly debate to me. It's like the idea that the guys who made a really good Captain America movie in the past made another really good Captain America movie is a concept that cannot exist.

[Coal Tiger]

If you'd like to take a step outside of your bubble for a moment, do try and remember that Marvel has nearly had free reign of the whole superhero movie thing 5 years ahead of DC and has been pumping out 13 movies in their universe while DC has just 2. If you dont think that has an effect on people's perception of what a modern superhero movie is and isn't, when the casual viewer cant even get the owning company right half the time, then I have a badly made porrage I'd like to spoon feed you over the next two months.

And the other superhero movies that happened before 2008 have had no effect on this "conditioning"? The Dark Knight has never colored a critics perceptions of what a superhero movie should be? Superman the movie hasn't? Batman 89 hasn't? You're saying that the entirety of what a movie critic believes a good superhero movie is, is shaped only by 12 movies that have been released since 2008? The same movie critics who see nearly every movie - thats how limited you think their scope is?

It's a good thing you've got a lot of that porridge to eat.

[Drz]

My review on Civil War movie:

The First Avenger gave us the origin story of Captain America with a naive take on Nazi super villains, the organisation Hydra.

The Winter Soldier told us the story of surveillance vs. individual freedom, but ruins the theme by having Hydra literally take the role of a scapegoat.

Civil War takes on Information warfare & Psychological warfare. How easily peoples’ perception regarding facts can be altered, when you mold the story. After all, you don’t need to search far in the internet, to see how news can have drastically altered viewpoints, because we influence facts into what we want to believe, and make them real for us.

With information warfare already screwing our viewpoints, it doesn’t take much to affect our psychology and have people in a circle of cynical violence. This cycle can never be broken, until the people part of the chain themselves, will finally leave it all behind and end the escalation.

This is why Civil War is the best out of the three because we can all relate into this screwed perception of information and the way people act around this, it’s what makes the villain all too real.

Now I’m not sure whatever I am onto something or simply being overanalysing, but has it been a deliberate and chosen decision to make Iron Man the successful sympathetic villain in Marvel’s movies?

Or has it been a happy accident that began with Iron Man 3, continued with Age of Ultron and now culminated with Civil War that makes it look like such a genius story to tell?

We don’t know has this been done on purpose and we possibly will never learn that either, but to me, it was one of the best decisions they took when making Civil War and what makes this the cherry on top, the crown jewel accomplishment of the Captain America trilogy.

I want to believe this is the case. Robert Downey Jr. ensured a bigger role in the movie, this would also mean the screenwriters and directors had to come up with a lengthier story involving Iron Man, which would mean they definitely had the time to see what would be the next step for Tony Stark after the Age of Ultron.

Again it doesn’t truly matter whatever it was a stroke of pure genius or a happy accident, I’m just happy about it.

[Outside_85]

Er, no. I'm saying that I'm not sure why it's so inconceivable to some people that a lot of people just genuinely found it to be an underwhelming movie.

Because we disagree with that notion?

Look at it like this. Take away the warring fanboy drama and brand loyalty. You have two films. One is made by a writer-director team that made a solid, critically acclaimed film in the same genre before that you ended up enjoying. The other is made by a director with a very divisive track record, and whose previous two films in the same genre were both met with decidedly mixed reception, and you were mixed on both of those prior attempts. If you ended up enjoying the former and found the latter disappointing, would that be shocking to you or would it be a fairly logical conclusion?

Well, let me wind it back to my own stance on this:
Russo Bros: I liked Winter Soldier and I agree with much of the praise it gets and it's attempt at bringing something different to the MCU. What I dont agree with is that Civil War has managed to recapture what the movie did so well, simply because it's wandered a little back towards what the Avengers was. Which is a shame, because Avengers is not a very good movie once you move past the admittedly awesome spectacle of seeing the Avengers actually assemble on screen and beat up a bad guy.
Snyder: He has more xp with bringing comics to the big screen than most, and yes perhaps his style is not for everyone... just like Frank Miller is not a writer everyone enjoys, but most can atleast respect. I very much liked MoS because I felt it was a modern take on Superman that wasn't enslaved to source material or the several decades old movies that we knew from Superman Returns was going to be crap in this day and age. As such yes, I am perhaps more positively biased towards BvS. But does that somehow make it irrelevant that I thought it was more interesting, had better music and a better title fight than Civil War if other can say they disliked BvS for other reason along with it being Snyder?

Hell, not just films. If you went to eat at two restaurants, one of which has a good reputation and that you've like before, and the other of which is so so, would it be surprising that the your meal at the latter wasn't up to snuff?

I am not sure I'd use food comparisons since what one likes and dislikes in those terms are highly individual.

That's what's so confusing about this whole silly debate to me. It's like the idea that the guys who made a really good Captain America movie in the past made another really good Captain America movie is a concept that cannot exist.

It can exist, definitely, but what I am getting at that the followup is not automatically as good as the last one. And in this case, it just isn't.

And the other superhero movies that happened before 2008 have had no effect on this "conditioning"?
The Dark Knight has never colored a critics perceptions of what a superhero movie should be?
Superman the movie hasn't?
Batman 89 hasn't?
You're saying that the entirety of what a movie critic believes a good superhero movie is, is shaped only by 12 movies that have been released since 2008?
The same movie critics who see nearly every movie - thats how limited you think their scope is?

It's a good thing you've got a lot of that porridge to eat.

They are different because they came scattered, like you had perhaps Spiderman and X-Men in the same year if you were lucky, now you have an average of 4-5 movies a year.
I wouldn't say so because Nolan didn't really make his Batman as a superhero movie, they were a action thrillers that just happened to feature a guy in a cape. Blade did something along the same lines; forget it came from a comicbook meant for kids and teens, use the material to make a 'normal' movie.
Ofc... and Superman Returns kinda proved why that approach to the character is not going to work with a modern audience.
Yes, and it ended definitively with Batman & Robin where all the darkness of Burtons had been replaced with cheese and silly that was always present.
When you bombard people with a type of movie and the viewers almost automatically praise each effort... yes, you are going to get a different reaction when something else is served up. Like going to a concert and the band is going through all the greats and then suddenly something else is being played... like say Metallica going through a bunch of their material from the first 5 albums and then all of a sudden play a track from Lulu.
Having to see a lot of movies doesn't make them immune from becomming either jaded or biased one way or the other, they are human beings after all.

Well I'll reseve the good one for myself. the poorly one was to demonstrate how to make someone like something thats not very good.

[Coal Tiger]

They are different because they came scattered, like you had perhaps Spiderman and X-Men in the same year if you were lucky, now you have an average of 4-5 movies a year.
I wouldn't say so because Nolan didn't really make his Batman as a superhero movie, they were a action thrillers that just happened to feature a guy in a cape. Blade did something along the same lines; forget it came from a comicbook meant for kids and teens, use the material to make a 'normal' movie.
Ofc... and Superman Returns kinda proved why that approach to the character is not going to work with a modern audience.
Yes, and it ended definitively with Batman & Robin where all the darkness of Burtons had been replaced with cheese and silly that was always present.
When you bombard people with a type of movie and the viewers almost automatically praise each effort... yes, you are going to get a different reaction when something else is served up. Like going to a concert and the band is going through all the greats and then suddenly something else is being played... like say Metallica going through a bunch of their material from the first 5 albums and then all of a sudden play a track from Lulu.
Having to see a lot of movies doesn't make them immune from becomming either jaded or biased one way or the other, they are human beings after all.

Well I'll reseve the good one for myself. the poorly one was to demonstrate how to make someone like something thats not very good.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Avengers and Dark Knight Rises came out the same year and both were met with critical praise. No one was "conditioned" to like one over the other. Both critics and audiences were primed and ready for gritty, grounded takes on superhero movies from 3 incredibly well received Nolan Batman movies and both Man of Steel and BvS landed like a wet fart. It's not Marvel's fault they were received so poorly. Your conspiracy theory is absurd.

[Coin Biter]

Literally the only evidence behind the "critic conditioning" theory is the fact that a couple of Zack Snyder/Goyer films get mixed to poor reviews. Say hello to Sucker Punch and Blade 3, fellas

Anyway, to sidle back crab-wise to the topic, good to hear that the film has had decent reviews. When a comic book film is received positively, it's good news for comic book films in general. 2016 is certainly going to be a busy movie year for the superhero franchises - roll on X-Men: Apocalypse.

[Username taken]

If you'd like to take a step outside of your bubble for a moment, do try and remember that Marvel has nearly had free reign of the whole superhero movie thing 5 years ahead of DC and has been pumping out 13 movies in their universe while DC has just 2. If you dont think that has an effect on people's perception of what a modern superhero movie is and isn't, when the casual viewer cant even get the owning company right half the time, then I have a badly made porrage I'd like to spoon feed you over the next two months.

Comments like these frustrate me to no end.

WB has been making DC superhero movies for decades, why are we ignoring this?

It's absolutely absurd to even suggest the modern day superhero boom begun with Marvel when Fox X-men and Sony's Spider-man and even Superman Returns pre-date the MCU. All of the aforementioned movies got very good reviews and even in between the MCU, the X-men movies are still getting good reviews.

Like I said, folks didn't like BvS because it wasn't very good. Sometimes, the simple answer is the correct answer.

[Username taken]

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Avengers and Dark Knight Rises came out the same year and both were met with critical praise. No one was "conditioned" to like one over the other. Both critics and audiences were primed and ready for gritty, grounded takes on superhero movies from 3 incredibly well received Nolan Batman movies and both Man of Steel and BvS landed like a wet fart. It's not Marvel's fault they were received so poorly. Your conspiracy theory is absurd.

Quoted for truth.

The argument is even more grating when people are completely ignoring glaring facts when Thor, Captain America and X-men First Class all came out the same year and got good reviews. Same with the Avengers and Dark Knight Rises.