Captain America: Civil War

  • New Zealand Captain America: Civil War (more)
Trailer 2
USA / Germany, 2016, 147 min

Plots(1)

Captain America: Civil War picks up where Avengers: Age of Ultron left off, as Steve Rogers leads the new team of Avengers in their continued efforts to safeguard humanity. After another international incident involving the Avengers results in collateral damage, political pressure mounts to install a system of accountability and a governing body to determine when to enlist the services of the team. The new status quo fractures the Avengers while they try to protect the world from a new and nefarious villain. (Walt Disney US)

(more)

Videos (34)

Trailer 2

Reviews (16)

Marigold 

all reviews of this user

English A new Marvel era begins with Civil War. Not only because the film introduces new players to the stage with unusual ease, but also because it definitely opens the door to a dimension left completely aside in the first, and partly also in the second Avengers. Civil War closes the gap between the "down-to-earth" series Daredevil and the escapist blockbusters, while at the same time showing DC and Warner quite indiscriminately what a careful character and story build-up is for. There may be cliché in the middle of the story, but Brühl, as a mysterious mover, is an unusually civil and believable (semi) villain. At the same time, Captain America is definitely finding his role as Captain of Inconsistency - a character so faithful to the original heroic idea of the comics that in the time of relativization, everything actually becomes a subversive element. His clash with Stark is much better motivated and, most importantly, much more meaningful than Batman v Superman. The intimate and unexpectedly impressive finale is an imaginary breakthrough. In this world, nothing will be as simple and clear as before. Marvel overwhelmingly won the battle with the competition and with itself. After Civil War, you may be wondering if you're more on the side of Team Captain America or Team Iron Man. But it's hard not to be on the side of Team Marvel. Who would have thought back in 2012? ()

Matty 

all reviews of this user

English This movie could just as well have been called Avengers 3 (if you forget about the Hulk and Thor). However, the misleading title is the least of its problems. Civil War is dragged down by the myriad characters between whom the brothers fail to ignite and sustain the same spark as Joss Whedon. With many of the actors, it is patently obvious that they are here only so that they can play a larger role in any of the future Marvel movies (WTF cameos from Marisa Tomei, Martin Freeman and William Hurt, each of which barely covers half a minute). The most important antagonism, nourished in each of their film encounters, i.e. the animosity between Stark and Rogers, is fully played out only at the end, albeit skilfully enough to make you at least hesitate for a moment about who to keep your fingers crossed for. The last act, when the various narrative formulas (teamwork, whodunit, political/espionage thriller) come together to form a relatively well-ordered whole, greatly improves the final impression, despite the significant idiocy of the villain’s reasoning (or why do things the easy way when you can base your plan on the assumption that a certain character will behave in a certain way after certain information has been revealed). Much more so than in the relationships between the superheroes, the brothers are sure-footed in the action scenes, which are satisfyingly varied and clearly constructed, and in the well-thought-out concealment and revelation of information (so something will still surprise you by the end of the movie, even if you’re familiar with the needlessly revealing trailer). On the other hand, the action scenes always last longer than is necessary and the most epic scene is inserted into the film solely as a reward for fans who have seen all of the previous movies from the Marvel Universe. After a while, it all becomes a tediously long superhero showreel (particularly Ant-Man and the new Spider-Man show off everything that they can do) that even the actors don’t take too seriously, as they apologise to their opponents for every hard blow just to be sure (only poor Rhodes ends up a little worse for wear than would have been appropriate for the overall concept of the scene). The main thing is that innocent civilians, whose existence the Avengers have finally taken into consideration, don’t die in the course of the scene. After the preceding films, this hint of humanity comes across as an insincere attempt to meet a demand that changes according to society’s mood. And Civil War is nothing more than an honest effort to fulfil that demand. Aside from the greater demands placed on viewers, who this time have to find their bearings among the motivations and goals of a truly LARGE number of characters, the Marvel Universe is enriched especially by the additional characters, but less so by unique sources of inspiration (and stylistic choices) and the unexpected organisation of the narrative (like Captain America: The Winter Soldier). 80% ()

Ads

MrHlad 

all reviews of this user

English I'll say right off the bat that I liked the second Captain America better, but fortunately the Russos carried a lot of things over from that into Civil War. The action is still just as gritty and full of clever moments, and there's plenty of room for the other heroes, both newcomers and those from the other films, to show off their abilities. When the action starts, fans of Cap, Iron Man, Ant-Man, Hawkeye and the newcomers will come into their own – Spidey and Black Pather are excellent. The problem, however, comes when the action stops. The Russos are still great at handling characters and defining their perspective on the whole situation in one sentence, making you understand why Black Widow doesn't go with Captain and why Scarlet Witch is on his side. But it's too much. There are simply too many heroes, so while the shorthand works, few get the space to impress. In the end, this is a film in which Tony Stark and Bucky are at the center of the action and the others are more or less extras. Everyone has a chance to make an impact, but if half of the supporting characters were cut out, it wouldn't matter at all. They don't hurt, they don't step over each other, but there's just no time to resolve the conflicts of these secondary characters in a way that makes one really care. On the other hand, even two sentences tossed off by Vision in a silly sweater are still more interesting than the ramblings of Batman and Superman discovering that their moms have the same name. The third Captain is good, but the thing we feared was a bit of a factor. The Marvel Universe has swelled so much that the even best filmmakers simply can't make a movie out of the pile of characters and motives in a way they all get adequate space in. And it's a bit of a shame. The solos suit this franchise better than the team-ups. On the other hand, if the team-ups look like Civil War, I'll always be happy to be there. ()

novoten 

all reviews of this user

English So many themes and subplots that I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually three movies edited into one. Nonetheless, even such a flood of information and plot twists doesn't hurt and makes Captain America: Civil War a dense 147 minutes. I am feeling a dizzyingly blissful feeling that it will be Anthony Russo and Joe Russo who will be orbiting around Avengers: Infinity War. Because here, so many characters are gathered that even Avengers: Age of Ultron seems almost intimate. But I love Steve Rogers' stories precisely because they are... well, simply, about Steve Rogers. Promoting Iron Man's participation to the second main character is a perfect idea, because Robert Downey, Jr. has never given such an amazing performance before, but the detour to Spider-Man, though perfectly functional and enticing, is too obvious a backdoor restart to not disrupt the pace. Something like that would fit wonderfully into an Avengers film, theoretically even into an Iron Man film, but here I felt a slight disappointment that this particular excursion takes away space from more important things. Fortunately, the rest of the newcomers (Baron Zemo, Black Panther, or at last larger roles for Sharon) and familiar faces, led by the perfect Ant-Man, fit into the stories wonderfully, and the incorporation of Wanda or Hawkeye into the plot brings me immense joy. Based on the reviews, I feel like writing that this is Cap's weakest solo film, but considering how much fun I had and the fact that even at its greatest ease, it simply isn't a solo film, it's not necessary to do so. It just seems that this time it enters the genre boundaries perhaps a bit too broadly. ()

Malarkey 

all reviews of this user

English Where are the times when I approached every new superhero movie with humbleness and I respected Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man. Then I waited half a year for X-Men to appear and in between some B-rated superhero movies appeared here and there, like Daredevil and Elektra,that didn’t play at anything because they knew perfectly well what stories they were telling. However, modern time is different and movies based on comic books are experiencing a boom. The boom is so big that the producers let the Russo brothers spend so much money on a movie that combines something that was incompatible until recently; they offered the role of Spider-Man to a third actor and wrapped it all into a typical, wannabe funny and digitally advanced package that pretends to be very expensive and cool but unfortunately is also reflecting todayʼs time. In reality, it is a mix of nonsense that combines The Avengers, Spider-Man, Captain America, Ant-Man, and Iron Man and there is nothing good about it. I find rather sad what is perceived to be the pinnacle of cinematographic pop culture. A cheap combination of comic book heroes with uninteresting characters and a mediocre story. ()

Gallery (240)