Captain America: Civil War

It's no secret that Superhero mash-ups are a big thing. Ever since six of Marvel's greatest had to band together to fight villains from another world in The Avengers, audiences have been craving more alliances between Superheroes. This year, it seems, Superheroes aren't getting along so well. We've had Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice which pitted two of DC's best known heroes against one another. Now Marvel's heroes, The Avengers, are being split down the middle and are fighting amongst each other in Captain America: Civil War (2016). The result is a highly enjoyable and, holding true to Captain America form, makes some interesting political commentary.

With many people fearing the actions of super heroes, the government decides to push for the Hero Registration Act, a law that limits a hero's actions. This results in a division in The Avengers. Iron Man stands with this Act, claiming that their actions must be kept in check otherwise cities will continue to be destroyed, but Captain America feels that saving the world is daring enough and that they cannot rely on the government to protect the world. This escalates into an all-out war between Team Iron Man; Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), Vision (Paul Bettany), Black Widow Scarlett Johansson), War Machine (Don Cheadle), and Spider-Man (Tom Holland); and Team Captain America: Captain America (Chris Evans), Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), Falcon (Anthony Mackie), Sharon Carter (Emily VanCamp), Scarlett Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) while a new villain emerges (Daniel Brühl).

While overall I liked The Avengers: Age of Ultron, it could have been better. Civil War was much more along the lines of what I had hoped for. Tons of Superhero action, incredible fight scenes, intermingling between super powered characters, clashes of personalities, interesting themes, etc. Civil War is first and foremost a sequel to Captian America: The Winter Soldier. It's a continuation of the story of Captain America and his old friend who was brainwashed and controlled by Hydra. The second story is the governments of the world putting a system of accountability on the Superheroes and the resulting conflict between our heroes. This second story is a natural side effect of the Captain America/Bucky Barnes story, so they are intertwined in very logical ways.

The hard part is to know who to cheer for. In The Avengers there was a really great, but short, fight scene early on between Thor and Iron-Man. It was amazing because these were both characters I loved and the fight was incredible, and I simply did not know who to root for. It wasn't until Captain America intervenes to breaks up the fight, which itself was amazing, that the two lowered their arms. The fight was creative, took advantage of and displayed each hero's respective powers and abilities, and was edge-of-your-seat exciting. You wanted to see them really lay into each other, but you didn't want either one to lose because you already like these characters. Civil War is pretty much a whole movie with fight scenes like that one. But it's so well written that you still don't know which team to side with. The conflict that arises from the Hero Registration Act makes a lot of sense. Neither side is wholly wrong, and if you, yourself, aren't flip-flopping between which team you'd be aligned with, you're just being unreasonably stubborn. Civil War is that well written. The major fight between sides is absolutely amazing, and again you don't want anyone to really get hurt, but you just can't help but get caught up in the action and see the very different personalities and superpowers clash in the most epic ways. Most of the heroes are in it for a short while, but they are just so fantastic. I love how Ant-Man keeps forgetting less super powered hero's names; he refers to Hawkeye as "arrow guy."

Holding true to Captain America tradition, Civil War makes some social and political commentary. It explores topics of the morality and justification of revenge, how much control the government should have over its citizens, the idea that law is not an indicator of morality and how many horrible things have been done to people that were perfectly legal, and the traumatic effects that war has on innocent bystanders and those who get caught in the crossfire. There were lots of people who died in the epic fight scenes we love so much in previous Marvel movies, and the natural consequences of those fight scenes are coming to fruition here. Normal people are becoming fearful of superheroes and what they are able to do, so a Hero Registration Act makes sense. But at the same time, Civil War explores the idea that while war is absolutely a terrible reality, it is sometimes necessary. Having people who are able to stop the evil actions of others is good. They save as many people as possible but often are not able to save everyone, which is truly regrettable. But are the rescuers at fault for not saving everyone? Would it have been better to let the enemy have its way and save no one at all? The human cost of "Collateral Damage" is explored respectfully here. It's a complicated set of topics that can be touchy issues. Civil War explores these topics without getting preachy or telling you what you should think, and does it with a safe Superhero metaphor over the top so as not to potentially offend. The themes explored in this movie are fascinating and make for a rich story.

Two new heroes are introduced in Civil War, we were teased with these new characters in the trailer. The first of which was Black Panther. Wow, this character was fantastic. He was complicated, compelling, interesting, and a fun addition to the movie. I truly have limited knowledge of this character from the Marvel comics, but I couldn't help but love him. He's scheduled to have his own movie early in 2018 and I am psyched about it now that I've seen Black Panther in action. The other is my all time personal favorite superhero, Spider-Man. This is the third actor to play Spider-Man and he's quite possibly my favorite. That's saying something because Tobey Maguire was pretty great and Andrew Garfield did a solid job as well. We don't get an origin story for Spider-Man this time, which is good. It would have taken too much time and we've already had the origin of Spider-Man, possibly one of the best known original stories in the Marvel universe depicted on the big screen twice in a relatively short amount of time between two Spider-Man film series. This Spider-Man is still in high school, is reluctant to join the fray because he's got a big math test to study for, he's a hilariously talkative and cracks jokes during fights (a signature component of the character), he's not yet confident in himself and is still mastering his newfound abilities, acts like a fanboy in front of all the established heroes, and comes up with ideas for taking down opponents from "old movies" like Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. Sony owned the movie rights to Spider-Man and since the character was an important component to Marvel's Civil War storyline, Disney had to negotiate rights to the character back from Sony so Spidey could be in the Civil War movie. I don't know that we'll have another Spider-Man movie from Sony (probably not), but Disney has one starring Tom Holland as the infamous web-slinger due out in summer of 2017, and I'm looking forward to seeing more of this Spider-Man in action as well. We came to Civil War to watch Captain America and Iron-Man throw down, but frankly Black Panther and Spider-Man pretty much stole the show in every scene they were in.

So, we've got this new villain that gets much of the two storylines rolling. Helmut Zemo plays such a small role in everything that I often forgot he was there orchestrating events so far behind the scenes that he was often overlooked. He's not powerful, he has no superhuman abilities, he's working alone, he was dangerous only because of knowledge and convictions he held. He wasn't even much of a villain, but more of a weasel who would sneak around and push buttons in just the right way to get a small reaction that would escalate exponentially into big conflicts while almost entirely avoiding attention. I'm not even familiar enough with Marvel comics to know if this was ever a major villain; I've never heard of him before. He's a pretty good weasel, and his subtlety is a refreshing change of pace from the over-the-top flashy villains we've had in the past.

Captain America: Civil War begins the next wave of Marvel movies with an action-packed blockbuster boasting a decidedly non-cartoonish plot and the courage to explore some thought-provoking themes. It's thematically heavy, and indeed doesn't end on as positive a note as we usually get from Superhero movies. The writing is excellent, the large cast of heroes all get their due screen time and moments to shine, and their clashing personalities are positively delightful. The action is creative and riveting to say the least. Civil War is fun, smart, and coherent. Most importantly, it allows its heart to beat strongly amid the chaos, with character moments and set pieces working together to create one of Marvel's best films so far. I loved Captain America: Civil War. It is worth the ticket price to see in theaters, and worth getting a copy of when it's available on home video. Just make sure you're all caught up on previous Marvel movies before you see it; like The Avengers movies, it's important to know where each character is before they all come together again.

So, which side were you on while seeing this movie, Team Captain America or Team Iron Man? Comment below and tell me why, but please be careful to avoid spoilers.

The Avengers: Age of Ultron Review

As I understand it, Marvel/Disney was originally considering doing only one superhero team up movie, but after The Avengers broke box office records and became the third highest grossing film, they changed their minds. Following The Avengers we got to keep up with some of our heroes in Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Finally, with much anticipation, The Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) was released. While it's an exciting and fun ride, it's not nearly as satisfying as the first Avengers movie.

Now officially fighting as allies, The Avengers - Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), and Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner) - raid a Hydra outpost where Hydra has been experimenting on humans using the scepter previously wielded by Loki. The Avengers encounter two of the experiments; twins Pietro (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) who possess powers of superhuman speed and psychic powers respectively. Once the scepter is retrieved, Stark and Banner discover an artificial intelligence within the scepter's gem and secretly use it to complete Stark's Ultron global defense program. Unexpectedly, Ultron (James Spader) believes he must eradicate humanity to save Earth. The Ultron A.I. eliminates Stark's A.I, J.A.R.V.I.S. (Paul Bettany), takes control of Starks global defense program, and attacks The Avengers in their headquarters. Building newer mechanical bodies to house himself in, Ultron soon has an army of robots under his control as well as the Maximoff twins. Ultron puts his complex plan into action, but as he systematically exploits the weaknesses of each of The Avengers, the six of them may not be enough to save the world again.

Joss Whedon returns to direct Age of Ultron. He's proved his writing and directing skills many times over. He is particularly proficient in telling stories with multiple characters; it's tricky to tell a good story about more than one or two characters and still give them their own compelling story arch. That was expertly done in the previous Avengers movie. Here, Whedon again allows the very distinct characters their own screen time, lets them have their moment to shine, and lets them bounce off of each other wonderfully.

There are problems with the movie, though, and I'm not confident that it is Whedon's fault. I can tell studio executives got their hands on things a lot, effectively limiting and constraining Whedon's creative liberties. It's as if they tinkered with what was probably a much better script to maximize what they thought would make money and draw in audiences, at the expense of what would be a solid, satisfying movie. Iron Man, The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier were phenomenal successes because they were left in the hands of competent directors and writers. If future Marvel movies are manipulated by the studio and executives as much as this one is, I can't see the franchise doing as well further down the road.

The movie becomes practically bloated with his huge cast of characters with new allies, enemies, and cameos making appearances. Maria Hill, Nick Fury, War Machine, Peggy Carter, Prof. Selvig, Heimdall, and Falcon all return from previous movies to make appearances to varying degrees. There are even some overt hints at future characters whom we know will be getting their own movies if you know what to look for. Don't get me wrong, it's incredibly exciting to see more Marvel characters make it to the big screen, but it effectively gets to the point that there are too many characters to keep track of. Age of Ultron doesn't rely on previous films to develop the returning characters; they still develop and have their own story arches, but there are so many story arches to keep track of.

Age of Ultron is a long movie with a run time just shy of two and a half hours. As I understand it, it was originally closer to three hours long. You can tell that there were chunks of the movie omitted. After having his mind toyed with by Wanda, Thor decides that he must leave briefly go on a vision quest. We see very little of this quest, none of the actual vision, and are left confused by Thor's sudden change in perspective. This was not a small change as Thor suddenly takes actions against his fellow Avengers, insisting that they trust him. We don't understand Thor's motives here, and it is caused by important scenes being cut from the movie. There are a couple of other times where scenes left on the cutting room floor make the story hard to follow. It's no less exciting and fun to watch, but certainly gets harder to follow and a bit confusing.

One of my favorite scenes was the party following the retrieval of Loki's scepter. Our heroes are socializing, relaxing, and sharing their victory. Thor and Stark quibble about who has the better girlfriend, Romanoff and Banner flirt with one another in a charmingly awkward way, Rhodes/War Machine tries to find an audience to tell his victory stories to, Steve gives relationship advice about waiting too long, and it culminates with various characters trying to lift Thor's hammer. This developed the characters various histories, interests, and personalities wonderfully. But the tone changes drastically when Ultron interrupts, appearing for the first time in a battered mechanical body. He's weak and just learning how to make a body for himself; he resembles a broken, creepy marionette and delivers a disturbing and beautifully written dialogue about how The Avengers are all killers, and he has a mission to bring peace to the world. In spite of its flaws, what the movie does well, it does very well. It may be bloated with many characters, but they are, for the most part, good characters. Even Ultron is an intimidating and menacing villain.

The previous Avengers movie was incredible, and was greater than the sum of its parts. The Avengers: Age of Ultron, frankly, is not. But it still boasts some pretty incredible parts and is one heck of a fun superhero party. There's more superhero action, the story is influenced by the various storylines from all the previous Marvel Cinematic Universe movies all the way back to Iron Man, and boasts some amazing visual effects. It is abundantly clear that the movie suffers from creative constraints imposed by the studio and scenes that were left on the cutting room floor. But there is going to be a three-hour extended cut with an alternate ending available once it hits blue-ray, so maybe that will improve the overall quality by having few scenes left out. This is absolutely worth seeing in the theaters; it may not be as satisfying as the previous film, but it's not one to miss. I also advise watching the phase two Marvel movies I mentioned at the top of this review again to remember where our heroes were before this movie started.

Joss Whedon won't be returning for the third Avengers movie. Do you think another director will do as good a job? Comment below and tell me what you think!

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters Movie Review

I suppose that Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters came about in wake of other dark fairy tale revisions such as Red Riding Hood, Snow White and the Huntsman, and Jack the Giant Slayer. Unlike the others Hansel & Gretel was not meant to be taken very seriously, and indeed it is hard to do so. But even for a fantasy/action/comedy/horror movie that aims for campy fun, it's still not very impressive.

The siblings Hansel and Gretel are left alone in the woods by their father and captured by a dark witch in a candy house. However, they kill the witch and escape. Years later the orphans Hansel (Jeremy Renner) and Gretel (Gemma Arterton) have become famous witch hunters. When eleven children go missing in a small village, the Mayor summons Hansel and Gretel to rescue them. Upon arrival, the siblings save the red haired Mina (Pihla Viitala) from the local sheriff (Peter Stormare) who is accusing Mina of Witchcraft. Soon they discover that the Blood Moon will approach in three days and the powerful dark witch Muriel (Famke Janssen) is responsible for the abduction of the children. She intends to use the children together with a secret ingredient in a Sabbath to make the coven of witches protected against fire. As Hansel and Gretel race against time and fight off powerful witches, they begin to learn some mysterious secrets about their parents.

I have to give this movie a little bit of credit. They took what is ordinarily a short and simple fairy tale and did practically nothing to change it. The whole classic fairy tale is done during the prologue of the movie before the opening credits start rolling. This movie is about what happened afterwards and hints at creative underlying motives of the characters. The fairy tale is not corrupted or reinterpreted; just expanded. I liked that, and it gave Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters some potential to be an interesting and fun movie.

Of course, they didn't actually make it interesting or very fun. The movie starts out with some exciting action scenes chasing and killing witches with ridiculous weapons that would seem at home in a Final Fantasy video game, but then it slows down a whole lot. Hansel develops a romantic interest with Mina and Gretel meets up with a troll. Most of these scenes don't seem to do much for the story overall. I realize a movie like this isn't going to be profound by any means, but during these scenes it's almost like it's flailing around to achieve some deep character development. That's respectable, but seems so perfunctory and not well thought out.

The movie is very predictable. With each character that is introduced, you can pretty accurately predict how each one was going to play out. I was never wrong. I did, however, appreciate that there wasn't an insipid teenage love triangle forced into the story. We have too much of that rubbish already. One inconsequential detail about Hansel's character that I liked a whole lot was the fact that because he was force fed candy as a kid in the candy cottage, he now has diabetes and has to take regular insulin shots. That makes sense, and is not something I had ever considered. It really has no meaningful role in the movie, but it was kind of a neat detail.

The special effects were kind of hit or miss. The CGI lacked refinement and looked very much like it was computer-generated imagery; the blood and gore looked almost silly, but was better than that of Sharknado. The practical effects were decent, though. The aforementioned troll was all animatronics and looked pretty good. Exploding heads and other such nastiness looked good for what it was. It's not exactly my cup of tea, but that's appealing to some viewers.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is an interesting genre mash up. The fantasy isn't half bad, the action is ridiculous and hard to take seriously, the comedy usually falls flat, and the horror is more like "somewhat gross" than it is actually scary. There's several F-bombs and other profanity which I didn't really feel was necessary; the profanity and gore gives it an R rating. The story slows in the middle, but the beginning and end is pretty exciting. In the end it's not a very good movie and isn't as much fun as it tries to be. It's little bit better than Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter; it doesn't quite achieve what it's trying to be. It's okay if you just want to watch some senseless violence that doesn't require much thought, and even then it's barely worth the price to rent. Otherwise, don't bother.

I know I've asked before, but what other dark fairy tale revisions would you like to see?

The Avengers Movie Review

Ever since the post credits scene at the end of Iron Man (2008) where Nick Fury discusses “The Avengers Initiative”, Marvel fans have been anticipating an Avengers movie. There was a five-movie build up to this event, including two Iron Man movies (2008, 2010), The Incredible Hulk (2008), Thor (2010) and Captain America: The First Avenger (2011). Having already built a fandom around these characters, we have high expectations for Joss Whedon’s Superhero mash-up, The Avengers (2012). Even with our expectations set so high, they are still exceeded by this movie.

S.H.I.E.L.D. is a global peacekeeping espionage organization, with  Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) as its director. Exiled Norse god Loki (Tom Hiddleston) infiltrates S.H.I.E.L.D. and steals The Tesseract, and item of immense power that S.H.I.E.L.D. has been protecting. Loki has formed an alien army and will use the limitless power of the Tesseract to open a portal across the galaxy to bring them here and destroy Earth. Fury instigates The Avengers Initiative to gather the superheroes he has contacted over the past several years to help S.H.I.E.L.D.  protect Earth should the world stand in dire need. These heroes include Dr. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) who can transform into The Hulk; genius billionaire playboy Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) and his mechanical battle suit he which dons to become Iron Man; Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), who is the iconic World War II symbol Captain America; the Norse god Thor (Chris Hemsworth) returns to Earth to aid in stopping his adoptive brother Loki; and two S.H.I.E.L.D. operatives Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) codenamed Black Widow and Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner) codenamed Hawkeye.  But The Avengers are divided over how to approach Loki and the revelation that S.H.I.E.L.D. plans to harness the Tesseract to develop weapons. The team of superpowers must overcome their differences and combine forces to stop the immanent global threat.

Traditionally, the term “Epic Film” meant that a movie had a large scale, huge cast, sweeping scope, high budget, and often a run time that exceeds two hours. Some examples include Schindler's List (1993), Ben-Hur (1959), and Saving Private Ryan (1998). Recently, movie studios decided that dividing up an Epic into multiple shorter films makes the franchise last longer and earns the studios more money. That’s part of the reason for The Lord of the Rings to have been divided up into three movies, and the whole reason Quentin Tarantino’s epic Kill Bill (2003, 2004) was divided into two films. The five movies leading up to The Avengers were overlapping stories culminating in this one movie. With the dramatic combination of superpowers and a huge scale, I think it’s arguable that The Avengers and its related films could be considered an Epic by the traditional meaning of the term.

There were a few things I was worried would happen with The Avengers. I was concerned that the movie would rely on the assumption that the viewer has seen the five movies leading up to it and throw our heroes at us without bothering to develop them as characters. I was worried each of these characters were simply going to accept each other and rush off to fight the villain without question. I was also worried that only one or two of our heroes were going to get a bulk of the screen time. That would have been some seriously sloppy writing. I am deliriously happy to say that none of that happened! Joss Whedon co-wrote and directed The Avengers, and he is well known for his multi-character driven stories.

Each of our heroes has dynamic personalities and values; they don’t always see eye to eye, and they don’t trust each other. There’s a three-way fight early on between Iron Man and Thor. Each one exhibits some amazing feats, and even when Captain America tries intervene, you can’t decide who to root for most. Seeing these superheroes fight and their personalities clash makes them all the more interesting. Each character is developed enough for us to be emotionally invested in them; we know what they are capable of, we know what their strengths and weaknesses are, and we want to see them pushed to their limits! We are not left disappointed.

Every good hero needs a good villain; the nastier and more devious the villain, the more interesting the conflict. Loki returns after his defeat in Thor. He wants revenge and he wants to strike Thor where it would hurt the most: by enslaving Earth which Thor has come to love. Once the manipulative Loki sets his plan in motion, you can’t imagine how he could possibly be stopped. He is an outstanding villain who uses power and leverage to get what he wants. When he kills, he makes it meaningful and personal. He lies, manipulates, and is positively cruel to others. You just love to hate this villain, and you want to see him get it in the end.

The Avengers doesn’t shy away from showing us the kind of high end superhero action we want to see. We’re given gorgeously clear action that is over the top and amazing. We are held at the edge of our seat for a lot of the movie. Every character gets some great dialogue and humorous lines. The visual effects are brilliant. There is one scene later on that has a long, sweeping shot where the camera snakes around and over buildings showing us our heroes smack down enemies in their own distinct style in one dynamic swoop. There is so much energy and excitement packed into the camera work, the script, and the characters you can’t help but get caught up in the movie.

To summarize this movie in one word, it is “satisfying.” It shows us what we were expecting to see, and then goes several steps beyond that. You will applaud and cheer for your favorite heroes. You will be captivated by the action. You will be highly satisfied with this movie. There are a couple of minor parts of the story that seemed a bit too easily resolved; but you can forgive it because it pales in comparison to the good qualities in the film. The Avengers is fun, funny, exciting, and so satisfying. You really must see this in the theaters if you’ve ever liked Marvel superheroes or superhero movies at all. It’s an epic movie that you really should be a part of. You don’t necessarily need to see the five movies that built up to The Avengers, but you’d be doing yourself a disservice by missing them. Go see it in theaters as soon as you can, and then buy a copy of it on Blu-ray when it’s available. You can bet I will.

If The Avengers were to assemble again for another movie, what Marvel villain would you love to see them pitted against? Comment below and tell me why!