Captain America: Civil War
I saw Captain America: Civil War! I enjoyed it very much, although I think it's less morally sophisticated than perhaps the Russos were hoping for and mostly I am on Team Talk to Each Other, Dumbasses.
Actually I saw it a few days ago, but I have been letting it percolate through my brain before writing about it. I think that everyone in the entire universe saw this movie before I did, but just in case I'm putting
Although it's technically a Cap movie, Civil War has such a vast cast of characters that it really feels like Avengers 3, which I think benefits it very much. As a sequel to The Winter Soldier, it's not quite as good; as a sequel to Age of Ultron, it's a breath of fresh air and an enormous relief.
The Russos repair many of the missteps in that film. They juggle their vast cast of characters well and manage to introduce new ones (T'Challa is a particular standout. So looking forward to his movie now!) without shortchanging the old. They understand Natasha and ignore the hell out of Brutasha. They do have their own romantic misstep in Steve/Sharon, but they're also not trying to force that down our throats the way Age of Ultron was with Brutasha, so that's a pacing blip halfway through the movie rather than a fatal flaw.
Also, it turns out that when it's not connected to Brutasha, I actually kind of like Clint Barton, Family Man. It just felt weirdly mean-spirited in AoU, as if Whedon were torpedoing Clintasha in favor of his own preferred ship. (No one else prefers this ship, Whedon. No one.)
However, although they did handle all those characters well, I think the movie would have been better - more tightly focused, with more time to explore the ethical questions in its premise - if it hadn't had so many. In particular, as adorable as Peter Parker was, his lengthy introductory scene could have been better spent on almost anything else.
And with no Peter, then Tony isn't recruiting a high school student for his little private army. In a regular superhero movie, this wouldn't bother me as much - I remember how much I loved Rogue when I saw the first X-Men movie as a teenager; I sure wasn't fretting about child soldiers - but Civil War has some pretensions about exploring superhero ethics, and once they've brought the topic up, well. Tony! Why are you recruiting a child soldier?
I think there are some ethical questions that superhero stories are well-equipped to deal with: redemption, agency, the distinction between vengeance and justice (I think this is one of the reasons why T'Challa's story is so moving). But the ethics of superheroing itself is sort of a third rail: touch it and you kill the genre dead.
If you look at superheroes too hard, then you have to admit that they're super-powered vigilantes and probably they should be regulated in some way... except the whole point of superheroes is that they don't suffer from the same limitations as the rest of us. They're fantasies of empowerment and trammeling them in red tape destroys that.
Civil War attempts to square this circle by admitting the theoretical advantages of regulation - even Steve is sort of on the fence till Tony tries to convince him to go for it, and with his inimitable Tony powers of persuasion turns Steve totally against it instead - while making the people behind the regulations the kind of people you wouldn't want regulating a potato. Skeevy Martin Freeman literally laughs in Steve's face when Steve wants Bucky to have a lawyer and a trial after he's arrested.
In the end, I think writing a superhero movie about whether superheroes should keep up their untrammeled superheroing is sort of like writing a romance with the thematic premise "Is romantic love truly the best foundation for marriage?" Both the creators and the consumers want more superhero movies and romance novels; you can't answer either question fairly when you have such a vested interest in the answer being "yes."
Actually I saw it a few days ago, but I have been letting it percolate through my brain before writing about it. I think that everyone in the entire universe saw this movie before I did, but just in case I'm putting
Although it's technically a Cap movie, Civil War has such a vast cast of characters that it really feels like Avengers 3, which I think benefits it very much. As a sequel to The Winter Soldier, it's not quite as good; as a sequel to Age of Ultron, it's a breath of fresh air and an enormous relief.
The Russos repair many of the missteps in that film. They juggle their vast cast of characters well and manage to introduce new ones (T'Challa is a particular standout. So looking forward to his movie now!) without shortchanging the old. They understand Natasha and ignore the hell out of Brutasha. They do have their own romantic misstep in Steve/Sharon, but they're also not trying to force that down our throats the way Age of Ultron was with Brutasha, so that's a pacing blip halfway through the movie rather than a fatal flaw.
Also, it turns out that when it's not connected to Brutasha, I actually kind of like Clint Barton, Family Man. It just felt weirdly mean-spirited in AoU, as if Whedon were torpedoing Clintasha in favor of his own preferred ship. (No one else prefers this ship, Whedon. No one.)
However, although they did handle all those characters well, I think the movie would have been better - more tightly focused, with more time to explore the ethical questions in its premise - if it hadn't had so many. In particular, as adorable as Peter Parker was, his lengthy introductory scene could have been better spent on almost anything else.
And with no Peter, then Tony isn't recruiting a high school student for his little private army. In a regular superhero movie, this wouldn't bother me as much - I remember how much I loved Rogue when I saw the first X-Men movie as a teenager; I sure wasn't fretting about child soldiers - but Civil War has some pretensions about exploring superhero ethics, and once they've brought the topic up, well. Tony! Why are you recruiting a child soldier?
I think there are some ethical questions that superhero stories are well-equipped to deal with: redemption, agency, the distinction between vengeance and justice (I think this is one of the reasons why T'Challa's story is so moving). But the ethics of superheroing itself is sort of a third rail: touch it and you kill the genre dead.
If you look at superheroes too hard, then you have to admit that they're super-powered vigilantes and probably they should be regulated in some way... except the whole point of superheroes is that they don't suffer from the same limitations as the rest of us. They're fantasies of empowerment and trammeling them in red tape destroys that.
Civil War attempts to square this circle by admitting the theoretical advantages of regulation - even Steve is sort of on the fence till Tony tries to convince him to go for it, and with his inimitable Tony powers of persuasion turns Steve totally against it instead - while making the people behind the regulations the kind of people you wouldn't want regulating a potato. Skeevy Martin Freeman literally laughs in Steve's face when Steve wants Bucky to have a lawyer and a trial after he's arrested.
In the end, I think writing a superhero movie about whether superheroes should keep up their untrammeled superheroing is sort of like writing a romance with the thematic premise "Is romantic love truly the best foundation for marriage?" Both the creators and the consumers want more superhero movies and romance novels; you can't answer either question fairly when you have such a vested interest in the answer being "yes."