Just seen it. Now, I'll clarify for @Diacanu why I'm not a genre nerd despite his insistence that I am. I have never read a Marvel comic book as a kid and certainly not as an adult. This is the first of the MCU movies I have seen in the cinema. I have watched all of them but I have generally felt that were average popcorn fare and nothing more. I only own two of the entire MCU on disc. Quite simply I don't care a shit about Marvel's heroes. Winter Soldier movie? Okay, but nothing special. Age of Ultron? Garbage. Guardians of the Galaxy? Meh. And so on. Now, having said all that, I thought this movie was excellent. I felt it graduated from the template that the MCU has set out and actually offered up something more. It didn't rush into action and it was intelligent. Overall it gave me something extra than just more tedious superhero fare, and I was very grateful for that. Overall this is probably he first MCU film that made me feel I was actually watching a good movie, rather than a good nerd movie. Could've done without Spider-man, Ant-Man and Hawkeye, who were pretty much only in it for nerdgasm action scenes, but actions scenes are action scenes. I just pains me that the success is being had with the MCU and movies like this, and the hero I grew up with, Superman, is insulted by detestable faeces like B v S. Such a shame.
So you're saying that my parents showing me Superman films as a kid means I'm a nerd? Yet you've also given me shit for not being nerdy enough to let go of Chris Reeve. Make up your mind.
With a worldwide total of $738 million and only in its first week in the U.S., Captain America: Civil War seems likely to beat Batman v Superman ($868 million) in the box office race.
Yep. CA:CW just blew past BvS, racking up $940 million and still going. It should break a billion next weekend.
I know I'm swimming against the tide here but... Batman v Superman. I really enjoyed CA:CW, but I really want to see BvS again (and I saw it three times at the theater).
Batman vs Superman- I really hope Warners doesn't give in and revert these movies back to cheesy one liners and cheap laughs just because it's working for marvel. I like the serious tone and actual attempt to tell a story without being interupted by a fight scene every five minutes. CW is entertaining, but like most marvel movies not entertaining enough for me to see again.
CW and Batman V Superman are both good movies. I liked CW better,but the tones of those movies are completely different. Both work well as sequels and both deal with the same kind of themes, but in a way, they are completely different. I love the seriousness of DC, but I also love the jokiness of Marvel. I'd prefer each franchise to stick to their own formula and compete on a level playing ground. CW definitely benefits from years of build up and Captain America is the Marvel version of Superman as far as characteristics go, but Superman is my favorite comic book hero. CW is the better movie, but i think we may see a really good Superman in Justice League. It's really hard to compare the two because while the themes are similar, they're still verry different movies.
Civil War is pretty good, may be up there with Winter Soldier for best Marvel movie. I was worried it'd leave Iron Man's side to look stupid, but it was treated as having valid concerns and Iron Man himself was more concerned with keeping the team together than anything. I haven't seen any of the Spiderman movies, but the rawness of this take on the character surprised me. I think it worked out pretty well.
Finally saw it this weekend with the Mrs. & Youngest. All three of us enjoyed it quite a bit. Very well done flick! The fight at the airport was perhaps the coolest superhero fight I've ever seen!! I *loved* Spidey being there--his character was great! I liked him being younger and talkative, and yet still holding his own against the others. I thought Black Panther was pretty cool, and am looking forward to seeing more of him. Thought Ant Man going LARGE was excellent. Really, the only downsides I saw were: 1) a relatively weak Villain (although it probably was necessary to not draw away from the Civil War plotline), 2) the ridiculously quick rush to judgement of everyone against TWS, and 3) ultimately the ending--leaving Cap, Sam, Hawkeye, Ant Man, and Wanda as essentially Outlaws provides zero closure and seems problematic to me in the future of the MCU. Then again, they'll probably just whitewash it away in a future movie (Infinity War?) with a throwaway line of dialogue. After a small bit of consideration, I'm definitely on Cap's side of the debate. The Avengers are doing the best they can, and preventing wholesale loss of life on a whole 'nother magnitude than any collateral damage that occurs. Politicians and common folk are stupid if they can't see that.
Exactly. I would have pat Viola Davis on the head, and gone "awww, I'm sowwy, next time, I'll let the bad guys blow up the whole world, and your ghost can wrap itself in a blanket of tears and self-righteousness". Cuz I'm a dick like that. I'd be the dick superhero.
How about you don't build Ultron in the first place, nor experiment with the Tesseract until it spews forth an alien invasion? The salient point here is exactly that our heroes don't feel as you do. They feel that they are responsible, and that they have fucked up. They deal with it in different ways, but they do know, and eventually realize that they know, that they have fucked up, especially because there was no realistic way to avoid fucking up. It's as Bucky says right there in the middle of the movie: 'But I still did those things.' It's a full blown Bloody Attic Tragedy, where everything has already been lost before the play starts, by unavoidable guilt with which the hero is saddled, and the play is about him finding out that this is so. It rocks.
Captain America. A far better movie. I think the main problem with the DC movies is that they leak pessimism.
Ehh, you can't really properly compare Civil War to BvS IMO. Civil War is movie #13. It rests on 8 years of character development and story. BvS is movie #2. It's like saying "season 5 of Breaking Bad is better than season 1 of Better Call Saul". Well, yeah, no shit, but it's a dumb comparison. As for the tone of the DCEU, again, we're only 2 movies deep. With only one filmmaker adding to it so far. Zack Snyder has a distinctive style, he's a weird guy, and I'm betting he has the sense of humor of a Vulcan. His films work for you, or they don't. But, we're getting other flavors with Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman. We'll see how that goes.
Agreed, that, and any idea of "fun" seems forgotten or omitted - or they try to replace it with "grit" or "realism". Which is cool - I can watch those great batman movies once, but for me viewing these movies is for good popcorn fun, and not melodrama or sober/somber reflection of man's evil; why so serious? I know, dystopic is vogue (hunger games, maze runner, divergent). Don't need fellgood- loved kickass and watchmen, e.g.
Let me clarify, that I think WB execs WANTED their number 2 movie to compete with Marvel's movie number 13, I do think they were that ambitious and naive.
That's a weak argument. The Dark Knight is superior to all those movies and was just the second in its series. Universe building doesn't create good movies.
o that Civil War movie sure washed the bad after taste of Granny’s sweet tea out huh? They should make a movie about that Spider-Guy, seems it would be successful. First hour of that movie I was literally pining “When are they going to get to the Fireworks Factory!” Then 2 hours plus in they got there, had the greatest super hero fight of all time and made the boredom of the first hour worth it. And thank god Stark’s mom wasn’t named Martha. That scene really rips me up. “I don’t care. He killed my mom.” In that one moment there’s more emotion and heart wrenching drama than in the entire 5 hour run of Batman V Superman.
So, are they going to go with Ant Man going crazy after he spends too much time switching between really small and really big in a later movie? Or are they just going to ignore that plotline since in the comics it was Henry Pym who did that, and not the current Ant Man?
Who knows? The people who make the movies can adapt the material very freely. Look at the film X-Men: Days of Future Past. In very, very broad strokes, it follows the plot of the comic, but, in detail, it's completely different. The Wolverine broadly follows the Claremont/Miller comic mini-series (Wolverine's in Japan, the woman he's involved with is Mariko, the Silver Samurai shows up), but so, so much is different that it's maybe more accurate to say the film was inspired by the comic and not adapted from it. Sheesh, they're making a version of Old Man Logan now, but won't be able to use Hawkeye or characters associated with the Hulk (because not owned by Fox), so it will have to be very different from the comic. If the producers want to take a Hank Pym plot from the book and re-map it onto Scott Lang for a film, then that's what they'll do. (By the way, I'm generally good with this. I have friends who are more die-hard comic fans than I am, and they object to the material being adapted loosely. I don't have any problem seeing that the comics and the films are separate entities, and that changes are often necessary to make the material more suitable for general audiences.)
Beauty of it is, they can change as much as they want to get mainstream audiences to follow along with it, then, in phase 4, they can just use the reality gem to enter the comics Earth, and bam, there's the traditional incarnations, and they can rattle off the timeline differences in some throwaway dialog.
