Eight years into Marvel Studios' multi-property film franchise and its increasingly convoluted continuity, a movie as good as "Captain America: Civil War" (2016) is truly and delightfully surprising. While I doubt it could stand alone, and is guilty of a few shoe- horned cameos and more than a few plot contrivances, the second instalment from Joe and Anthony Russo (directors of the previous and similarly impressive Captain America: The Winter Solider {2014}) is a success. As an action spectacle it is above par; as a springboard for future franchise films it is reinvigorating; and as a meditation on the problem of superheroes' power and sovereignty it is the best since Zack Snyder's "Watchmen" (2009). We are not likely to see critical reception that puts it in league with Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" (2008), rather condescendingly hailed by non- superhero fans as something "more than a comic book movie" (Roger Ebert). But "Civil War" is every bit as engaged with themes of authority and morality as Nolan's seminal work, and borrows much credence from the Marvel Cinematic Universe's well-established lore and cast of characters. It is as close to the true, transcendent experience of comic book fandom as we have yet to see on the big screen.
Following the events of the sadly inferior "Avengers: Age of Ultron" (2015), Steve Rogers as Captain America (Chris Evans) leads a new team of superheroes in pursuit of a minor villain leftover from "The Winter Soldier", only to sustain a large number of civilian casualties. It's the final straw for the governments of the world, says long-absent Marvel player General "Thunderbolt" Ross (William Hurt, last seen in 2008's "The Incredible Hulk"). Now a superhero registration act is in order, rendering all enhanced individuals legally beholden to the United Nations and impotent to act without democratic approval. Humbled by the weight of failure from previous films, Tony Stark as Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) is in favour of the proposal. Rogers, ruffled by his intimate experience of governmental corruption from previous films, is suspicious, but might have agreed to compromise if not for the involvement of his life-long friend turned Soviet sleeper assassin, Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Staan - the aforementioned Winter Soldier). Barnes has been framed for a terrorist bombing in South Africa and Rogers is alone in defending his innocence. With the help of a mystery malefactor (Daniel Bruhl), the rift between heroes grows into civil war...
The basic premise of this film was adapted from a cross-over Marvel comics event of the same name (published 2006-7), and represented a major paradigm shift in post-9/11 superhero narratives. This arose from the undeniable fact that it was becoming impossible to appreciate large-scale urban destruction without qualms, and that superheroes have always left large-scale urban destruction in their wake. It is something that has been addressed in previous films, particularly "The Avengers" (2012) and "Age of Ultron", in which writer-director Joss Whedon made a point of conflict containment and showed Rogers doing everything possible to clear the battleground of bystanders – maybe that way we could cathartically enjoy New York's decimation again. But the Avengers are making one hell of an omelette here. "You try to save as many people as you can," Rogers confesses. "Sometimes that doesn't mean everyone".
This is Captain America's polite way of using the phrase "collateral damage", a theme that has wormed its way into the heart of superhero culture over the last ten years, and to great effect. That "Civil War" takes an issue like collateral damage so seriously is its finest quality: we have here a film that does adhere to a fairly formulaic script wherein a villain turns the heroes against each other (seen in both Avengers movies), but not one that lets the heroes off that easily. While much of the story is somewhat contrived - utilizing the classic trope of villain-as-impossibly- prescient-mastermind-who-knows-what-every-character-will-do-every- step-of-the-way - the conflict at its heart is not. It is a very real ideological difference that exists between Rogers and Stark, and not a misunderstanding used to justify a series of fight scenes. "You're wrong, you think you're right, and that makes you dangerous," claims the film's most exciting cameo character. It doesn't matter who he's talking to.
At the same time, the movie remains a solid melodrama, such that we feel the personal stakes which all stories require to function at an emotional level. Stark and Rogers take their sides on principle that is not abstract, but informed by personal tragedy. Bolstered by thematic ties to the story's two main antagonists, "Civil War" works as drama as well as dissertation. This is all especially impressive given the studio mandates which must have been weighing upon it, to consolidate the plots and characters of Marvel's eleven preceding films and set up the seven films slated for release by 2019. This is a juggling act of economic, thematic and storytelling responsibility that is rarely executed with such aplomb in the arena of Hollywood blockbusters. It will make money and please fans, an increasingly difficult double threat for superhero cinema. And while it requires a baseline of fandom to operate as a good film, it does do it. It is a story about power; it is a story about people. After all, every story is.
Following the events of the sadly inferior "Avengers: Age of Ultron" (2015), Steve Rogers as Captain America (Chris Evans) leads a new team of superheroes in pursuit of a minor villain leftover from "The Winter Soldier", only to sustain a large number of civilian casualties. It's the final straw for the governments of the world, says long-absent Marvel player General "Thunderbolt" Ross (William Hurt, last seen in 2008's "The Incredible Hulk"). Now a superhero registration act is in order, rendering all enhanced individuals legally beholden to the United Nations and impotent to act without democratic approval. Humbled by the weight of failure from previous films, Tony Stark as Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) is in favour of the proposal. Rogers, ruffled by his intimate experience of governmental corruption from previous films, is suspicious, but might have agreed to compromise if not for the involvement of his life-long friend turned Soviet sleeper assassin, Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Staan - the aforementioned Winter Soldier). Barnes has been framed for a terrorist bombing in South Africa and Rogers is alone in defending his innocence. With the help of a mystery malefactor (Daniel Bruhl), the rift between heroes grows into civil war...
The basic premise of this film was adapted from a cross-over Marvel comics event of the same name (published 2006-7), and represented a major paradigm shift in post-9/11 superhero narratives. This arose from the undeniable fact that it was becoming impossible to appreciate large-scale urban destruction without qualms, and that superheroes have always left large-scale urban destruction in their wake. It is something that has been addressed in previous films, particularly "The Avengers" (2012) and "Age of Ultron", in which writer-director Joss Whedon made a point of conflict containment and showed Rogers doing everything possible to clear the battleground of bystanders – maybe that way we could cathartically enjoy New York's decimation again. But the Avengers are making one hell of an omelette here. "You try to save as many people as you can," Rogers confesses. "Sometimes that doesn't mean everyone".
This is Captain America's polite way of using the phrase "collateral damage", a theme that has wormed its way into the heart of superhero culture over the last ten years, and to great effect. That "Civil War" takes an issue like collateral damage so seriously is its finest quality: we have here a film that does adhere to a fairly formulaic script wherein a villain turns the heroes against each other (seen in both Avengers movies), but not one that lets the heroes off that easily. While much of the story is somewhat contrived - utilizing the classic trope of villain-as-impossibly- prescient-mastermind-who-knows-what-every-character-will-do-every- step-of-the-way - the conflict at its heart is not. It is a very real ideological difference that exists between Rogers and Stark, and not a misunderstanding used to justify a series of fight scenes. "You're wrong, you think you're right, and that makes you dangerous," claims the film's most exciting cameo character. It doesn't matter who he's talking to.
At the same time, the movie remains a solid melodrama, such that we feel the personal stakes which all stories require to function at an emotional level. Stark and Rogers take their sides on principle that is not abstract, but informed by personal tragedy. Bolstered by thematic ties to the story's two main antagonists, "Civil War" works as drama as well as dissertation. This is all especially impressive given the studio mandates which must have been weighing upon it, to consolidate the plots and characters of Marvel's eleven preceding films and set up the seven films slated for release by 2019. This is a juggling act of economic, thematic and storytelling responsibility that is rarely executed with such aplomb in the arena of Hollywood blockbusters. It will make money and please fans, an increasingly difficult double threat for superhero cinema. And while it requires a baseline of fandom to operate as a good film, it does do it. It is a story about power; it is a story about people. After all, every story is.