Fully aware we’re wandering into a nest of vipers in a pair of shorts with only a torch for protection, we’re here today to discuss a topic that will make us even more popular among diehard DC fans — the many ways the latest Marvel film, “Captain America: Civil War” (read our review here) is better than “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” (read that review here) Look, neither is “Ikiru,” but the similarities in plot and theme are so striking that the gulf in quality between the two is all the more noticeable and comparison is more or less inevitable. It’s an unflattering one if you’re in the Zack Snyder camp for many reasons, 11 of which we’ve listed out below. And below that is our comments section/peanut gallery where we’ve chained an intern in stocks at whom you are invited to throw your decaying vegetables at your leisure. Obviously, *SPOILERS AHEAD*
1. It’s possible to “go dark” and introduce weighty themes without becoming simplistic, and still have some fun too.
There’s been a lot of talk about how “dark” a comic book superhero property should be allowed to go, and whether both comics giants have crossed that line: DC in their cinematic direction since the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy closed out, and Marvel with their Netflix TV shows, particularly season 2 of “Daredevil.” So it was something of a relief to find that for once, the right balance was struck in “Captain America: Civil War.” This is because — arguably like “Daredevil” season 1, and certainly like “Jessica Jones” — the distinctly darker (for the MCU) ‘Civil War’ feels like it has thematic substance. In contrast to ‘Batman Vs Superman’ it’s not just a superficial facade of grit and grimness to make the simplistic antics seem like they have Importance (here’s a piece we wrote about the problem of tone in superhero properties).
Both films represent their respective universes dealing with internal division amongst the “good guys” (and that seems overdue in the context of the wider popular culture, having passed saturation point with the repetitive good-guy-vs-bad-guy-with-all-humanity-at-stake narrative about four summers and 589 comic book movies ago). And that of course means a more nuanced approach to superheroics, because suddenly heroes are not unalloyed good, instead they’re pitted against one another in ideology. In both cases this happens extremely literally, but while in ‘Batman vs Superman,’ it amounts to a lot of philosophically muddled speechifying about Gods and False Idols, in ‘Civil War,’ the literalism doesn’t come at the expense of nuance, or at the expense of humor (though noticeably less than in other outings, and what jokes there are tend to be a little more pointed than just throwaway wisecracks).
In fact the Tony vs Cap schism remains pleasingly ambiguous throughout, with neither one entirely right or wholly wrong. They may have an advantage in that there is a pre-existing friendship there that adds a frisson to their encounters, which Batman and Superman do not have. But then again that could have been a huge disadvantage, as the Russo brothers therefore have to stage fights between the two in which it’s clearly understood that neither’s actually willing to kill the other (or anyone) because that would contravene everything we know about them both — so that fight at the airport is like a sports game rather than a to-the-death showdown. And so if anything, Zack Snyder et al had freer rein in how to interpret a tale of differing approaches to heroism, which makes it all the more disappointing that it ended with one blockish granite-jawed lug thumping away at another until a bigger, uglier lug showed up to, sigh, threaten mankind.
READ MORE: Discuss: How Much Is Too Much? 9 Major Superhero Movies Scheduled To Be Released In 2017
2. Care about your supporting characters.
‘Civil War,’ even with the notable no-shows of Thor, Nick Fury and our beloved Hulk, juggles a massive cast, adding new heroes into the mix that occupy those vacant slots and then some. But no one ever really feels extraneous (except arguably Jeremy Renner‘s Hawkeye again, but that’s been an issue with that character for a while, and even then he gets a couple of decent moments). Everyone gets their due and the new Spider-man (Tom Holland) gets such a stellar introduction that it’s achieved the impossible and actually made us kind of look forward to the re-re-reboot. However long or short their screen time, the smaller characters are coherent personalities, both in action and in character (and it’s very good at character-through-action).
‘Batman Vs Superman” reduces Lois Lane’s character to a baffling bath moment and “looking for a spear”; Superman’s Mom has two settings — “supportive” and “menaced”; while Pa Kent shows up in a dream for no reason. And let’s not even get into the pointless shoehorning of The Flash, and the cursory glimpses of the other heroes (though the news that “Aquaman” is running into problems perhaps adds a certain poignancy to his six seconds of fame). It’s no wonder we all embraced Gal Gadot‘s Wonder Woman as much as we did. She may have about three scenes but seeing her in both sexy evening wear and warrior-queen armor means she’s essentially the most rounded supporting character in the cast.
3. The world doesn’t have to be threatened with an apocalypse every single time.
The stakes are low in ‘Civil War,’ but they don’t feel low. There is no universe-collapsing extinction-level event in the offing, no ginormous troll thingie summoned up by Lex Luthor’s inexplicable juju out of the Kryptonian ooze. There isn’t even anything as obviously button-pushing as a character’s mother being placed in peril by a dastardly baddie. In fact the stakes here are almost all psychological or emotional, and it shows how invested we were (and we’re pretty disinterested viewers in this sort of thing as a rule) that our attention didn’t flag at all throughout. As opposed to ‘Batman vs Superman’ during which the ever-escalating potential casualty rate was background noise to mental laundry lists and a worry over whether the light jacket we’d worn out was going to be warm enough for the trip home.
READ MORE: Watch: PBS Investigates The Cost Of Superhero Movie Destruction
‘Civil War’ even has a little fun teasing the idea that that is where they’re going (Daniel Bruhl‘s bad guy is going to unleash the supersoldiers to wreak havoc on the world!) only to pull the rug out in an almost insolent manner (no he’s not! He’s shot them all in the head!) Here, investment in the psychology of the characters gives the story a climax that should really be anticlimactic if judged on the modern formula, but it isn’t (and to be fair, the overblown, CGI-heavy destruction climax was also one of the worst elements of the very inferior “Avengers: Age of Ultron“).
Sadly, I agree with every point on this post. Hope DC starts making better, more thoughtful, entertaining and emotionally satisfying films.
Am I the only one who thought Daniel Bruhl was a hopeless villain in Civil War? Strangely bland throughout and, when it’s revealed, his plot is spectacularly contrived… why did he have to lure the heroes to the bunker to show them the video that kickstarts their big scrap? And even though he duly gets them pulverising each other, a couple of scenes later Cap is writing a love letter to Tony. Let’s have Thanos already pulleeeease.
He wasn’t a real villain. Just a guy who wanted payback…. That made it great.
But why call him Zemo? They could have chosen any other name.
In the comics Baron Zemo is second only to Red Skull as a Nazi super badguy and the one who caused Bucky’s “death”.
Anyone who had seen “Sucker Punch” and “Watchmen” completely understood that “Batman Vs. Superman” was not going to be on par with Civil War in terms of quality. That being said, I still loved the hell out of it, imperfections and all. Is it the same quality as “Civil War? ” Far from it. But to tell you the truth there have been a lot of Marvel movies (Thor, Thor 2, Iron Man 2, the ending of Ant Man, the first Avengers movie) that were fun but not even close to the quality of Civil War.
I think its fair to say that the DC movies are going to get better. Ben Affleck and James Wan will see them through. In Affleck’s case he’s betting his career on it.
I’m not defending BvS but a couple things. First, its V., not Vs.. Second, I’m pretty sure its Batman who chooses not to kill Superman, not the other way around. Of course, I may be wrong since the whole movie may have been a fever dream.
Bravo. So you guys actually DID watch Batman v Superman in the Marvel Studio’s Private theatre.
But the seats are sooo comfy!
‘This is not a Christopher Nolan movie’ pretty much sums up Batman v Superman for me, despite how much it desperately wanted to be.
These Playlist bloggers (criticism takes actual in-depth analysis not thesaurus-dependant garbles
guided by the unnecessary Millennial-catering agenda of “It was the BEST/WORST movie ever”) sadly find themselves amused and content to be in the side of “popular opinion”. Reason is due to the website’s desperate attempt (as with EVERY review confidants out there) to legitimize their group’s general perspective and understanding of the artistry or overall industry that is film; or simply called Hollywood filmmaking –to ease these bloggers alike.
Having laid out that context, let the proper criticism begin. Both BvS and Civil War was a product of the larger money-making movie universes created by Warner Bros. and Disney respectively. This means these films were not made for film-sake but for profit. This is an important distinction as it clearly shows their “artistic” intent! So the disparity of reception from these bloggers between the two products is eye-opening as it highlights their true intent on criticism!
Shut up, no one cares about your opinion.
To put it simply, BvS was a darker, more-at-stakes kind of superhero product that fills the void of the other side of the genre spectrum. In contrast, Civil War was a lighter, cartoony, toys-in-a-sandbox kind of superhero fare that has become the standard of how these genre products should be presented to the general public. The biggest revelation however from having viewed both commercial movies is the unrelenting fact that they are MEDIOCRE at best! Both of these products’ elements (story, characters, tone) all REVOLVE around the action set-pieces and that is very much how these things are made. That being said, the story then becomes nothing but a contrived plausibility that leads to those big trademark CGI-reliant scenes. And really, how “deep” can you criticize character motivations when knowing that those motivations are rooted not by an organic story but by the ACTION scenes – my answer, not deep, not even shallow, but these bloggers would agree otherwise. And how do these
bloggers review the films? “BEST movie ever/WORST movie ever!” notice the ALL CAPS? Yes, nuance (ironic, how it is the MAIN element they aggressively and amusingly look for in every type of movie regardless of genre or medium intent) is what these “reviews” lack; going for that top adjective until the message has lost its meaning (really, how many reviewers are going to use the “Best Marvel movie to date” line? How about engaging in proper criticism and give us an in-depth piece of why that is or more responsibly a piece that highlights how it affects the genre it is in.
MEDIOCRE
at best! Starting with BvS, it proves to be an extremely disjointed product in
terms of story. Case in point: The product ultimately has 3 narratives that director
Zack Snyder failed to nurture into fruition with one another– a Batman
redemption story, Man of Steel 2, and a Justice League prequel. The juggling
and how Zack chooses to nurture them proved to be ineffectual showing his
limitations as a director who’s comfortable with many moving pieces. What he
ultimately does to nurture these narratives is simply through the score (AND
what a great OST – so fitting for the epic intent they were going for – sadly
it’s the only thing the movie got right). The main gripe the general public had
was how “messy” scenes were put together. My solution to understanding BvS
more? Pay attention to the soundtrack in the background! Those tourette-like sequencing
of scenes are driven by the OST – which features exclusive character themes to
make it more comprehensible yet that proved to be ineffectual to audiences who
chose not to engage. For example, those “messy” sequencing of scenes early on
between Batman in his cave, Superman in the Planet and Luthor’s business
activities with Finch’s cabinet all have Luthor’s theme in the background…
meaning he is controlling those scenes even if it’s not made clear to the
audience (Oh bloggers how could you have not picked up on this rhythm? How many
actual films have you watched to not understand EVERY film has its own rhythm
created by editing, soundtrack, and dialogue… smh). Results: messy story due
to Snyder’s inability to direct a clear picture out of 3 large narratives and
sadly directs them through the soundtrack (clearer narrative composition
through actual dramatic direction instead of soundtrack-guided scenes would
have made the movie more comprehensible and engaging)
Now with Civil War. This product proved to be extremely
disjointed in terms of characters and specifically character motivations
resulting in one of the most tone deaf commercial products in recent years. The
biggest problem this movie has is its inability to direct a solid tone
throughout. Director duo Russo brothers (better known as the Dark Knight-cover
band- using Crossbones as an intro level set-piece since he’s been established
previously like how Scarecrow was used in Dark Knight intro – and a whole
wellspring of imitations an observant might notice) prove they are well versed
in juggling characters around a larger story, only if that story doesn’t require actual dramatic investment. How
can you be immersed in this world and believe in someone like Iron Man who in
the beginning of the movie gets humiliated by Alfre Woodard for being involved
in the death of her YOUNG son and then a couple of scenes later after Iron Man pushes
the Sokovia agenda because of it (in an amusingly “wow they are not going to
take me out of this movie right now”) they have Iron man proposing to recruit Spiderman…….. Who by the way is a YOUNG KID in this movie. So, where does
Iron Man draw the line? If you have superpowers or not? So the prospects of
Spiderman getting seriously injured (i.e. Iron Patriot) does not concern Iron Man
a bit? Yes that disparity of tone (and shoehorned characters for future-sake) is
the biggest sin Civil War makes that prevents it from passing mediocre. Case in
point: The juggling of jokes-drama hurts the movie overall – When Iron Man
introduces Spiderman in the climax the camera locks on his face and he makes a
joke AND THEN without cutting he turns back front and delivers a serious line to
Cap’s team…. LMAO that is
Martha-Level cringe. It’s like watching a bunch of community college (pun?) students
on a stage in costumes delivering lines as if not looking silly. Sorry one
more: when Cap and Bucky are running for the quinjet I finally felt the
epicness and seriousness of their mission and then it cuts to Ant Man to
deliver…. “does anyone have any orange slices”?? It baffles me how any of
this is not in the same league as that embarrassing Martha scene? The
tourettes-like direction of tone in Civil War proves to be an equivalent to BvS’
tourettes-like editing of its story
********So where does this leads us? Well, if you’ve read this far or simply scrolled down to read my point, it is that both of these commercial products are MEDIOCRE at best! They are NOT the BEST/WORST movie this world has ever seen. AND NO, one is not simply better than the other as they are both completely different products in terms of intent. The intent of these bloggers is to generate website traffic which places their group’s perspective on Hollywood filmmaking at the very top – as in an objective perspective; even though the bloggers on this website likely have never engaged in any creative projects in the entirety of their lives – sorely missing the evident of appreciation of filmmaking in any of their pieces by simply conducting themselves like Millennials with a “this movie OWED me this and I didn’t get it” attitude to films. It’s like a movie review website by Chris Stuckman but in written from – which is the only redeeming quality that puts it a hair tad above its close counterpart.
Sounds familiar? Well, you can consult your resident Radiohead enthusiast Mr. Jagernaut as he is versed in the concept of burning the witch, especially in the 21st century. The following weeks after BvS’ release the website’s bloggers specifically Mr. Jagernaut had pieces that were essentially condemning EVERYTHING about the product such as wording facts like reaching certain global numbers as failures or any creative news about that universe as a dire situation. He has and technically the website has succeeded in burning the witch and therefore was able to make their criticism intent as objective truth! Congratulations are at hand! This is why Ebert and major groups like Rolling Stone or AFI are heads and above (in your narrative context they are the Civil War while you guys are BvS) sites like these; there’s just an air or professionalism in their reviews that don’t show any signs of burning any witches; as that activity is reserved for an individual’s intent and should not be from a group
To comment readers out there, you may have already known, but review groups such as this try to be guided by the philosophy of objectivity meaning their true opinions on things are neutered by their constant need to be in the side of “popular opinion”, which not only helps validate their
perspective but also to generate that traffic this kind of thing needs to be kept alive. To get a bigger picture of the degree of pretentiousness these bloggers can demonstrate one just needs to look at their reception of Inherent Vice a movie that more than well deserves to be in the same place with BvS in the battle for the most incomprehensible narrative ever put on the silver screen. That movie however, was praised and even laughably placed in their best films of the 2010s. Or one can look at their 100 most anticipated films of 2015 which went to the bore-fest and pretentious Knight of Cups (Yes, out of 100
that movie was their MOST anticipated). And yes, Ms. Jessica “King of Thesaurus” Kiang it is possible for movies to have different intents and not cater to that ONE audience these bloggers think is the only ones who exist
BTW I’m not a cynic as that position has already been comfortably taken by the internet and these bloggers alike. With that said, I like what you’ve done with the website 🙂 …. those BvS articles definitely got you the traffic needed for the upgrade didn’t they 🙂 ?
Nice article! You nailed all the points that made BvS weak. Civil War may have some flaws (like what motivated Tony Stark to bring a kid into the fight) but overall it gives a much more satisfaction – why, because we care.
BvS tries to introduces so much in a single movie but falls flat everywhere. Watchmen is a far better movie made by Zach Snyder – although it had far more characters in it and all of them totally unknown yet Watchmen seems so coherent and the characters seem deep, multi-layered each with his own motive but none of them is a villain. All of them have their own way to save the world. Maybe it was Alan Moore’s writing that gave Watchmen such an appeal. Everytime you watch it, you’d find something new – visually as well as emotionally.
Tony saw that Spider-Man was a powerhouse (we know he saw him catch a car) and he didn’t intend for Spidey to get involved in the fight – He told him to keep his “distance and web ’em up”. Tony also didn’t expect the fight to get as out of control as it did, so I think it’s believable that he recruited Spidey.
Tony saw that Spider-Man was a powerhouse (we know he saw him catch a car) and he didn’t intend for Spidey to get involved in the fight – He told him to keep his “distance” and “web ’em up”. Tony also didn’t expect the fight to get as out of control as it did, so I think it’s believable that he recruited Spidey.
Both BvS and Civil War have received disproportionate hate/love and coverage for what are two generic uninspiring blockbusters. Civil War was good but not good enough for a three page treatise. BvS was bad, but not bad enough to keep talking about months after the release.
Are there no good movies being made in Hollywood that are not based on comic books or are sequels? Shouldn’t your focus be on movies that need it (The Nice Guys perhaps)?
I loved 11 lol Im a big Marvel and DC guy, probably 60/40 in Marvel’s favor. But I do get the sense that Disney will all of its power is paying critics to bash the DCEU at this point!