Captain America: Civil War

  • Australia Captain America: Civil War (more)
Trailer 1
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 1

Reviews (16)

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% ()

3DD!3 

all reviews of this user

English Excellently filmed, almost as good as Winter Soldier, just with a whole load of extra frills. Perfectly balanced characters, clever story and a villain who...wins? Civil War is probably the most ambitious comic movie at the finale, but the most important thing is that it doesn’t disappoint. It doesn’t fall apart and it manages to stick to the skeleton of the original storyline (in the first version it planned just a small role for Iron Man, no huge battle of superheroes) which it then wraps in nutritious action. ()

Ads

Isherwood 

all reviews of this user

English Marvel filled the hero cloning device and then turned on the uniformity generator. When these heroes, profiled long ago, spend the first hour verbally tapping each other to find out how much they prefer diplomacy over muscle, you somehow end up buying it, even though we know their motives and have an inkling of how and why they make their choices. Yet the action at Leipzig airport perfectly defines what's wrong with the MCU. The protagonists, who have stood together until recently, are suddenly about to face a massive battle and... nothing. Where's the personal drama when they manage to tell each other they're still friends between their fists landing on each other? Every move is predictable, every action guessable. The Siberian anabasis also misses a second chance in the same vein. True, in the individual aspects - the partial action moments, though none of them reach the Winter Soldier's momentum, the Black Panther, the Bourne-esque feel of the first half - it is strong and proves that the Russo brothers got it right, but as a whole, it’s absolutely draining, unsurprising, and you forget about it in a few days. Given what the film earned, there’s no reason for them to change anything for years to come. ()

Kaka 

all reviews of this user

English Marvel was almost a write-off after their sterile, same old superhero movies, Civil War is a hit and a significant step forward. It plays on a dark emotional chord within reason, opens up interesting questions of international security and laws, goes against itself, and introduces the viewer to new fighters in a very elegant and unobtrusive way. It's almost similarly entertaining to the first Avengers, it just took that tiny little half-step forward, because after all, in those four years we've seen at least five major comic book movies that were all still on the same page. There is of course the traditional stuff like riveting action – it has the clarity from the second, but even better – and the chemistry of the main characters, and even though it's still as simple and without digressions, it's very entertaining because you just don't see that many parametrically interesting and diverse characters on screen. However, by far the only most interesting and emotionally truly fleshed out character remains Bucky, the Winter Soldier. ()

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)