Captain America: Civil War is out and you know what that means. No, not comic book nerds flexing their comic book knowledge and pages of feuds of Team Captain America or Team Iron Man all over forums and Twitter. Review time! Instead of doing a typical review like I always do I'll do a compare and contrast putting Civil War up against another superhero movie that was similar to it: Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice. Civil War was suppose to be Marvel's answer to Batman vs Superman with the plot being almost identical: Superheroes fighting each other and the world being pissed at them. With both movies having the same story and theme, which one did it better?
Both movies touched on a similar subject: Should the government keep superheroes in check? In both cases you had issues where superheroes while trying to save the day cause accidents where casualties are taken.
Civil War only touched on the subject a couple of times. It was talked about a couple of times, but completely took a back seat to fill the movie with more action and Bucky's story. The whole let's keep the Avengers in check felt more like a ploy or excuse to have everyone fight for the last leg of the movie. It wasn't very coherent as it went to can we trust the Avengers to handle thing properly to a basic story of revenge.
BvS did a much better job dealing with this issue. It was more of the plot behind the movie. It was better handled as it was a common issue throughout the whole movie. The issue affected almost every character. You got a idea of how it affected Superman, Batman, and the people proposing the idea of if we can trust Superman and should we regulate him.
Piggybacking off of the topic of story, Civil War's pretty fluid. Aside, again, from the issue of regulating superheroes and just trying to make that issue a catalyst for a revenge story, nothing felt out of place or weird. For the most part the plot was woven well compared to BvS where its director, Zack Snyder, was for the most part tried to fit concepts in that weren't executed as well. Especially using the movie as the introduction to a vast DC universe, where Civil War and Marvel did exactly right (no shock).
The introductions of new characters, Spider-Man and Black Panther and old ones like Ant-Man were done well, especially how the introduced Spider-Man without the long origin story, at least not yet. BvS didn't do that well as they just did a "five minute oh, here are the guys we're putting in the next Justice League movie at around the end of the movie, fun times lol?"
So who did it better? Civil War was a cookie cutter superhero movie and there is nothing wrong with that as a lot of them are good and they know what the fans want. A lot of action, testosterone, and a little bit of comedy in the mix. I do respect BvS more as it was trying to be a bit different. It didn't work out like Snyder hoped it did, but I can see what he tried to do. It probably was trying to be the Manturian Candidate of superhero films. I did like the fact that BvS had a theme of can we really trust these superheroes and it kept if throughout most of them movie, which Civil War didn't really do that much of and it got messy a bit.
What are your thoughts?
BvS did a much better job dealing with this issue. It was more of the plot behind the movie. It was better handled as it was a common issue throughout the whole movie. The issue affected almost every character. You got a idea of how it affected Superman, Batman, and the people proposing the idea of if we can trust Superman and should we regulate him.
Piggybacking off of the topic of story, Civil War's pretty fluid. Aside, again, from the issue of regulating superheroes and just trying to make that issue a catalyst for a revenge story, nothing felt out of place or weird. For the most part the plot was woven well compared to BvS where its director, Zack Snyder, was for the most part tried to fit concepts in that weren't executed as well. Especially using the movie as the introduction to a vast DC universe, where Civil War and Marvel did exactly right (no shock).
The introductions of new characters, Spider-Man and Black Panther and old ones like Ant-Man were done well, especially how the introduced Spider-Man without the long origin story, at least not yet. BvS didn't do that well as they just did a "five minute oh, here are the guys we're putting in the next Justice League movie at around the end of the movie, fun times lol?"
So who did it better? Civil War was a cookie cutter superhero movie and there is nothing wrong with that as a lot of them are good and they know what the fans want. A lot of action, testosterone, and a little bit of comedy in the mix. I do respect BvS more as it was trying to be a bit different. It didn't work out like Snyder hoped it did, but I can see what he tried to do. It probably was trying to be the Manturian Candidate of superhero films. I did like the fact that BvS had a theme of can we really trust these superheroes and it kept if throughout most of them movie, which Civil War didn't really do that much of and it got messy a bit.
What are your thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment