"Civil War" isn't that awesome a film; am I alone in thinking this?

[Carabas]

Improvising doesn't preclude having Mission Impossible style masks with the face of the person he's looking for

It's technology that has been shown before in the MCU. Those masks don't require preparation to copy a face.

...bombing the UN and having a EMP device knock out a power station...

What's wrong with this? Is the special forces badass now not allowed to have resources and weapons?

...all that will lead to an elaborate chase, the capture of Bucky and his transport 4 hour drive away to a classified prison facility...

This doesn't need to happen. The ide behind framing Bucky was forcing Bucky into the open.

Which Zemo gained access to by knowing and killing the person who would be in charge of Bucky's interrogation (all presuming he was indeed captured) and sent to that specific facility...

Figuring out what facility he would be sent to is easy. Locating someone, anyone, who would have access to Bucky is easy. This guy has skills. He's noty some nobody.

[Agent Z]

So why was Wanda siccing the Hulk on a populated area not brought up once in this film? Cause that feels like a better argument for the Accords.

Also, I know everyone says the teams were pulling punches during the airport fight but really? We see Wanda dump a bunch of cars on Tony, Scott throwing a fuel tanker at Rhodes, him trying to bat Rhodes with an airplane wing and him messing around with Stark's suit which could have killed him.

And why does everyone act like Ross owns the U.N?

[JKtheMac]

It's my favorite superhero film of all time and the only people that I see complaining about the film'/ success and its critic/public acclaim are people like you - i.e. people that wish DCEU films had same fate as the Marvel Studios films. Take that as you will.

Probably best not to make grand assumptions. I was very outspoken about the problems in this movie from a storytelling perspective. Me and my wife walked out disaapointed and nonplussed by the whole thing. It is very low on my list of favourite Marvel Movies and rewatching only lowers my opinion. The movie doesn't hang together as a single story with a decent trough line because it gets itself distracted by side issues. But at no point have I ever defended DC movies, I try and avoid them.

I have noticed a real issue in fan debates especially over films. There is a need to defend the property from the negative opinions and the defenders latch onto the most outspoken criticism and base their defence entirely on those points. It especially happened with Star Wars VII which was continually defended in the same ways and whenever I pointed out my negatives the people arguing just heard versions of the preconceived arguments and fell back on script.

The same is happening here. The argument swings to Zemo over and over again, but if you analyse the film as a story that isn't really the problem. The issue was that this storyline wasn't balanced properly and got squeezed out by action. As soon as we get to the airport set piece the whole plot is put on pause and suddenly the flow gets refocused on a side issue that distracts and obfuscates the meaning of the movie. You end up asking questions that don't have easy answers and the reason isn't related to plot holes or character progression, but because the story got hijacked in favour of action.

I find it hard to understand how fans of Winter Soldier can think this was a good follow up. The genre touchstones of that movie were near perfect, this one just messy and unsatisfying.

[Carabas]

So why was Wanda siccing the Hulk on a populated area not brought up once in this film? Cause that feels like a better argument for the Accords.

I don't think anybody except the Avengers knows about that.

Also, I know everyone says the teams were pulling punches during the airport fight but really? We see Wanda dump a bunch of cars on Tony, Scott throwing a fuel tanker at Rhodes, him trying to bat Rhodes with an airplane wing and him messing around with Stark's suit which could have killed him.

I'm not seeing anything that is even remotely lethal for the relevant characters in that list.

[Agent Z]

I don't think anybody except the Avengers knows about that.

Probably. But then again that's just another strike against the Avengers and all the more reason they need oversight.

I'm not seeing anything that is even remotely lethal for the relevant characters in that list.

Pretty sure an exploding fuel tanker could kill a human. And Scott didn't have the Iron Man blueprints so he couldn't have known if what he was doing was or was not lethal to Tony.

[Star_Jammer]

So why was Wanda siccing the Hulk on a populated area not brought up once in this film? Cause that feels like a better argument for the Accords.

Just an aside: we don't know whether or not she intended for the Hulk to attack a populated area.

"I want the big one." Obviously she meant to antagonize him, but it's possible she intended for Hulk to attack the Avengers. Hulk, being the rage-fueled mean, green machine that he is...well, he didn't do that.

If we change the framework to her being responsible for it, regardless of intent, then yeah, that could have been brought up. But as Carabas said, it's likely only the Avengers know about that.

[Osvaldoeaf]

I think saying Civil War isn't that awesome a film just shows how spoiled a community we've become...

[Carabas]

Pretty sure an exploding fuel tanker could kill a human. And Scott didn't have the Iron Man blueprints so he couldn't have known if what he was doing was or was not lethal to Tony.

I don't think a human inside a Stark suit will get even a bruise from an exploding tanker. And Scott was probably more of a danger to himself than to Stark with that stunt.

[Supernature]

It was basic. I enjoyed the fight scenes though.

What bothers me about it is that they set up this promising conflict (should the Avengers be monitored?) and then they pretty much drop that for "Bucky killed my mom" and that whole Zemo mess. I was so annoyed.

The Winter Soldier is still the best Captain America movie.

[Carabas]

It was basic. I enjoyed the fight scenes though.

What bothers me about it is that they set up this promising conflict (should the Avengers be monitored?) and then they pretty much drop that for "Bucky killed my mom" and that whole Zemo mess. I was so annoyed.

It's not so much dropped as resolved halfway through the movie: yes, the Avengers should indeed be monitored, and they will be.

[Agent Z]

Just an aside: we don't know whether or not she intended for the Hulk to attack a populated area.

"I want the big one." Obviously she meant to antagonize him, but it's possible she intended for Hulk to attack the Avengers. Hulk, being the rage-fueled mean, green machine that he is...well, he didn't do that.

I've heard that defense brought up before but I don't buy it. Nothing about the film suggests she did not want that outcome and him attacking the Avengers wouldn't make any sense as they were already incapacitated. The only reason Banner was even in that conflict was due to the twins dragging him into it.

Although I wonder how fans would have felt if Banner ended up killing one of the Avengers because of her.

If we change the framework to her being responsible for it, regardless of intent, then yeah, that could have been brought up. But as Carabas said, it's likely only the Avengers know about that.

Which as I said, is further proof these guys should not be policing themselves. And the Avengers being the only ones who knew about it doesn't mean it shouldn't have come up.

[Star_Jammer]

I've heard that defense brought up before but I don't buy it. Nothing about the film suggests she did not want that outcome and him attacking the Avengers wouldn't make any sense as they were already incapacitated. The only reason Banner was even in that conflict was due to the twins dragging him into it.

Although I wonder how fans would have felt if Banner ended up killing one of the Avengers because of her.

Plenty suggests that.

SW and QS wanted revenge on the Avengers, specifically Tony (likely fueled by anything Ultron was telling them). They backpedaled on their support of Ultron when they realized he wanted to exterminate all life on Earth, and actively chose to begin fighting against him when Ultron and the Avengers were fighting over Vision's shell, when innocent lives were in danger. Neither of them wanted to hurt innocents (mind you, they deemed Stark and co. to be guilty).

Which as I said, is further proof these guys should not be policing themselves. And the Avengers being the only ones who knew about it doesn't mean it shouldn't have come up.

I'm not contesting this point. However, it is a potential explanation as to why Ross didn't bring it up.

[mr_crisp]

I felt like the fight scenes went on far too long.

[AndyBeau]

I hated the shaky cam in the first scene. Zemo wasn't much of an antagonist IMO. Other than that, I liked the film. One could say that the film was bad but Marvel/Disney is laughing all the way to the bank.

I always hate it when people that say that, but it's so damn true. Even if feelings get hurt they can wipe tears with hundred dollar bills.

[Carabas]

I felt like the fight scenes went on far too long.

The final fight between Stark and Cap could have been trimmed by a lot...

I'm okay with the other fights, and I'm the guy that thinks almost all fight scenes (that do not involve lightsabers) in any movie are too long.