Week 74: Captain America: Civil War

Week of May 28, 2023:

Captain America: Civil War released May 6, 2016 (where to watch)

Scott Hardie | September 13, 2023

In hindsight, either Marvel got lucky that this movie was so good, or Team Russo-Markus-McFeely really did have a magic touch. Over the years, Marvel's movies have tended to feel bogged down with the weight of supporting other titles in the franchise, especially in recent years, which dilutes the story and drains the fun out of them. This movie is one of Marvel's most heavily interconnected to others, and yet it remains entertaining from start to finish, albeit depending on your tolerance for the bleak finale. Their good luck making this probably persuaded them that the trick could be replicated elsewhere, and that was not always true. But this is a blast, with one of the all-time most satisfying action set-pieces in Marvel's history at its center, and a story of real emotional stakes lurking underneath until it cannot be ignored any longer. I liked this on initial release, and I loved it on re-watch. (8/10)

Scattered thoughts:

• The catastrophe in Sokovia can and should be blamed on the Avengers, although I would argue that it's really just the fault of Tony Stark, and to some extent Bruce Banner who Tony browbeat into helping. But the attack on New York? Why would anyone blame the Avengers for that? It was S.H.I.E.L.D. that dug up the Tesseract and experimented on it and kicked off Loki's invasion. Thor being a dick to his baby brother is the most blame that you could put on the Avengers for that, unless I missed something.

• Watching this the first time, I generally didn't trust government authority with significant power, so I was "Team Cap" as they say. But today, after watching three seasons of the unethical Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. abuse their power and report to no one, I'm firmly Team Iron Man, despite the shit job that the movie does at explaining Tony's side. I'm of the opinion that while government officials are often corrupted by their power, there's at least *some* accountability in having publicly elected officials dictate the Avengers' actions, which is preferable to the *no* accountability that Steve proposes. It's wonderful that Steve Rogers and Vision have such flawless moral compasses, but even they can make mistakes by not seeing the whole picture sometimes (as Baron Zemo demonstrates), and if they thus shouldn't be trusted with so much power, then how can any of the rest of the team? The Sokovia Accords are too heavy and broad as a framework, a fire hose when a Waterpik would have been appropriate, but I think they're definitely the right thing for the Avengers. What do you think?

• If this movie has any major flaw, it's that it feels rushed, hurrying to get from one plot development to the next because it has so very much ground to cover. I was kind of surprised at how little time passes between its big action sequences. Almost nothing could be cut for time, with the possible exception of that Sharon Carter kiss scene, which just felt creepy and out of left field; have Steve and Sharon even had one conversation that wasn't work-related?

• I love the bleak final battle, because for once it's about personal conflict instead of giant 'splosions, and because you can really feel the intensity of these men trying to kill each other. (The tonal difference from the airport battle is palpable.) And yet, I would have been tempted to write the scene a little differently: Instead of Steve fighting to save his friend Bucky Barnes from death, I'd have written Steve fighting to save Tony from himself. Tony becoming a murderer (not counting terrorists and such) would have permanently broken him and the Avengers. Bucky's murders can be forgiven because he didn't have a choice, but Tony's murder of Bucky would not be forgivable. There's a moment in Spider-Man: No Way Home when one Peter Parker is about to become a murderer and another Peter Parker risks his life to stop him, and that's the tone that I would have (slightly) preferred in the Steve-Bucky-Tony fight.

• My least favorite line in the movie might be when Bucky says, "I did not kill your father!" and T'Challa asks, "Then why did you run?" Well fucking *duh*, he ran because there were armed forces trying to kill him, and so were you T'Challa, so what did you expect? You're literally asking him that question with your clawed glove around his throat.

• This movie is the closest that the Netflix Defenders characters ever got to appearing in other MCU productions during their original runs. Both Daredevil and Jessica Jones were involved in the airport battle at one stage of development. They were cut because the filmmakers felt like each one would have to be reintroduced for a wider audience, which would have meant more scenes and more subplots in a film already overstuffed with too much going on. As a fan of each, I would have loved for them to participate, and I'm curious what sides they would have taken. I assume that Daredevil would have been Team Cap due to his preference for anonymous vigilantism, while Jessica would have been Team Fuck Off until one of them (probably Tony) persuaded her to put down the whiskey because it was for a good cause. What sides do you see them taking?

• Peter fighting alongside Tony makes a lot of sense, except for the part about how it would mean registering his secret identity. That was a huge plot point in the "Civil War" comic-book story: Tony talked Peter into going public, Peter did, it ruined his life, Peter changed sides to fight with Steve, and eventually Peter made a life-altering and marriage-ending deal with Mephisto to make the world magically forget his identity, a story later adapted as No Way Home. It's not really addressed here what the ramifications of Peter's alliance with Tony would be, which is probably for the best, since it lets us focus on the emotional bond between Tony and Peter, which became an MCU highlight.

• Speaking of unaddressed plot holes, it's kind of amazing that Steve and Bucky can fly from Germany to Siberia only slightly faster than Tony can fly from Germany to New York to Siberia, isn't it? And Zemo's plan has a lot of problems; Honest Trailers did a funny and thorough breakdown of them.

This comment contains spoilers for Spider-Man: No Way Home. Reveal it.

Scott Hardie | September 19, 2023

Corridor Digital had fun playing with the opening action scene in this movie by upgrading it to have very gory violence, equivalent to an R rating.

Erik Bates | November 4, 2023

Because I've watched so many of these movies now in all different orders, and again now in chronological order, I have a hard time remembering what I'm supposed to know going into each one.

Peter Parker shows up... I had to think back to whether we've seen him yet. Answer: No.

Vision and Wanda. Are they in love? Answer: Kinda?

Have we met Scott Lang yet? Answer: Yes.

Anyway, to the movie...

I like Marvel when they can keep things light despite the heavy plot aspects. Bucky asking Sam to move his seat up a bit as they are crammed into the VW Beetle, for example. And I have always appreciated the snarky banter from Stark.

Did Don Cheadle just have something going on while this film was being made? He was hidden behind the suit for the vast majority of the film. Maybe he was busy filming episodes of House of Lies.

I don't fully understand the motives behind why each side took the stance they did. In my head, All-American Captain America would have been on the side of law and order, and Tony Stark would have been on the "You can't control me. I'm a private citizen!" camp. Much like he has been in the past when the government wanted to take ownership of all of his suits and technology.

To the fight between Cap and Stark -- damn that was brutal and emotional. You could tell that neither wanted to hurt the other, and each punch was filled with sorrow and regret, yet also with necessity. That final swing with the shield that hit Stark's power supply instead of his head was a satisfying conclusion to the fight. Even though I knew what was coming, the tension as the final blow came down still had me on edge. These were two good friends who were brutally and savagely beating on one another, and in the end, I don't blame either of them for their motivations in the fight. Cap was trying to save his truly (and literally) oldest friend from being killed for something that he had no control over, and Tony was driven by rage by the reveal of how his parents died. Or, more importantly, how his mom died.

Side note: Is Iron Man's power supply being so clearly visible and vulnerable a design flaw, or a (subconscious?) sign of arrogance on the part of Stark?

Knowing that the defenders may have had a role in the airport battle makes me sad that it didn't come to fruition, but yes, I can definitely understand the logic of trying to explain it to the movie-only fans. My wife, for example, would have been pretty confused by their appearance.

I'm sad we didn't get a Hulk or Thor. They would have been fun additions.

In all, this was a good movie! I haven't seen it in a while, so it was a fun reprieve from the television series marathon I've been on in my attempt to catch up!

Scott Hardie | November 4, 2023

I hear you about the importance of levity, with all of the little jokes sprinkled throughout. It doesn't always work (Sam's "I hate you" lands with a thud for me after Bucky complains about him not taking out Spider-Man sooner), but it felt like a critical part of the formula at this stage of the MCU, whereas today in 2023, jokes feel more like an afterthought.

I also agree with your assessment that Tony and Steve feel mismatched in their positions given their basic personalities, but by this point in the film series, I think they've arrived at their uncharacteristic opinions fairly. Steve has seen Hydra corrupt S.H.I.E.L.D. and no longer trusts institutional power, although he might possibly have been more trusting of American government oversight than the global arrangement here. Tony is wracked with well-deserved guilt over creating Ultron (albeit not enough guilt not to have tried a second time), and he's willing to cede control in desperation to clear his conscience, or perhaps he's just ceding responsibility for his actions, since he's clearly always going to act however he wants. It reminds me of him making Pepper Potts the CEO of Stark Enterprises back in Iron Man 2, which he framed as "you're better at running this company than me" but which soon turned into "I want to party and misbehave, so I'm making you be the adult here." For what it's worth, Steve and Tony had the same positions in the comic book story.

That's a good question about the power supply in Iron Man's chest. I'm not enough of a scholar of the character to know, but I've wondered the same. He doesn't typically face enemies strong enough to do with their bare hands what Steve and Bucky could, at least not in the movies, so maybe it just hasn't been a concern until now?

Fyi, I didn't cite a source on that Defenders information because I couldn't find one again. I read multiple articles about it when the movie came out, quoting people at Marvel Studios, but they're beyond my ability to find now. I promise I didn't make it up. :-\

Want to join the discussion? Log in or create an account to comment.

Return to the main menu of The MCU Project.