Pages

Friday, May 27, 2016

Review- X-MEN: APOCALYPSE

X-MEN: APOCALYPSE
(ACTION/SCI-FI)
2 out of 4 stars
Directed by Bryan Singer
Starring: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Oscar Isaac, Nicholas Hoult, Rose Byrne, Tye Sheridan, Sophie Turner, Olivia Munn, Lucas Till, Evan Peters, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Alexandra Shipp, Josh Hellman, Ben Hardy
Rated PG-13 for sequences of violence, action and destruction, brief strong language and some suggestive images.
144 minutes
Verdict: Squandering its potential with a pointless and generic super-villain, an overstuffed plot and disregard for the improvements made by its recent predecessors, X-MEN: APOCALYPSE is a disappointing devolution in the long-running superhero series.
YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN X-MEN: APOCALYPSE IF YOU LIKED:
X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST  (2014)
X-MEN: FIRST CLASS  (2011)
X-MEN: THE LAST STAND  (2006)
X2: X-MEN UNITED  (2003)
X-MEN  (2000)
16 years running, the venerable X-Men film franchise has seen its share of ups and downs, but for the past five years, it's been on the rise thanks to fun and matured installments like Matthew Vaughn's peppy FIRST CLASS, James Mangold's superhero noir THE WOLVERINE and Bryan Singer's return to the series with the time-traveling epic DAYS OF FUTURE PAST.  Like the series' eponymous characters, the movies have evolved.  Continuing the loosely defined trilogy started with FIRST CLASS then DAYS OF FUTURE PAST, X-MEN: APOCALYPSE is the fourth X-Men movie to be directed by Bryan Singer, and in an incredibly disappointing turn of events, a significant devolution for the series.  Following the sprawling size and scope of the previous installment, APOCALYPSE struggles in vain to up the ante as it spirals out of control in weirdly grotesque fashion, unlearning what earlier films brought to the series and squandering promising themes and excellent performances from its great cast.
APOCALYPSE is set in 1983, one decade after the primary events in DAYS OF FUTURE PAST, in a world where the existence of mutants is common knowledge, but their position in society remains tenuous.  Telepathic Professor Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) has reopened the School for Gifted Youngsters in New York where young mutants like the telekinetic/telepathic Jean Grey (Sophie Turner) and Scott Summers (Tye Sheridan), whose eyes emit violently destructive beams, learn to hone and use their powers for good, with Hank McCoy (Nicholas Hoult), aka Beast, helping teach the students and inventing technologies for the theoretical mutant superhero team, the X-Men.  On the other side of the globe in Egypt, En Sabah Nur (Oscar Isaac), aka "Apocalypse", the world's first and most powerful mutant, is accidentally awakened from a millennia-long hibernation and is disappointed to find the world inherited by the weak.  Intent on reclaiming dominance over human civilization, Apocalypse recruits four lieutenants, his "Four Horsemen", which include Xavier's occasional ally and enemy, the metal-manipulating Erik Lehnsherr/Magneto (Michael Fassbender), who has been trying to start a new life in Poland.  Following her intervention of Magneto's attack on the White House in DAYS OF FUTURE PAST, Raven Darkholme (Jennifer Lawrence), better known as Mystique, has become a hero and role model to young mutants across the world, a role that she's reluctant to accept, but continues to fight as an insurgent for mutant rights when she learns what's become of Magneto and turns to Xavier and their old ally, CIA mutant specialist Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne), to help her free him from Apocalypse before it becomes an all-out war for civilization.
The screenplay by Simon Kinberg, who also DAYS OF FUTURE PAST and co-wrote THE LAST STAND and FIRST CLASS, struggles to find a focal point or balance between the numerous plot strands and huge ensemble of characters which also include sort-of-substantial roles for a young Kurt Wagner/Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee), Psylocke (Olivia Munn), Angel (Ben Hardy), Ororo Munroe/Storm (Alexandra Shipp), the mutant-hating Colonel William Stryker (Josh Helman), and the return of DAYS OF FUTURE PAST's stand-out, Quicksilver (Evan Peters), who's still terribly likable and gets more screen time this round, but in a part that's less meaningful while finding time to recycle his wonderful showcase sequence from the previous movie but in a way that's cynically exploitative and sub-par.  The most interesting character story is Magneto's, who finds his hope broken by misfortune in the manner of the biblical Job and curses God, only to be approached by Apocalypse, who considers himself a god, and Fassbender's performance is fantastic, weirdly superior above the story it's serving, but he never receives due consideration.
While the story is overstuffed and distracted by unnecessary and extended subplots (such as an encounter with one "Weapon X"), the true weak link at its core is Apocalypse himself, a totally useless villain.  It's not the fault of Oscar Isaac, who gives a better performance than should be expected, and even while height-wise, maybe it they ought to have added a couple feet to his not terribly intimidating stature, the makeup and costuming is fine.  He just so generic and vaguely defined, bent on world domination for goodness knows what purpose, with superpowers that seem to include but are not limited to accelerated healing, the ability to make people sink into walls or floors (presumably ceilings too, but no confirmation on that), to turn things into sand and sand into things, telekinesis, super strength, the ability to augment other mutants powers and to absorb other mutant powers or even transfer his consciousness and abilities into another body.  He's also ancient, introduced in a prologue set in Ancient Egypt, which is sort of confusing in the context of the series, where mutants are established as a recent leap in evolution.  This inconsistency is brought up briefly and dismissed, but Apocalypse isn't even the only mutant in the ancient world, and he out-powers anyone with the benefit of about 4,000 more years of evolution on their side.  Vaguely defined and altogether uninteresting, Apocalypse enters into the story, rounds up a few cohorts (each of whom supposedly represents one of "Death", "Famine", "Pestilence" or "Death", but by whatever rhyme or reason is unclear), and then for the majority of the story until climactic battle, Apocalypse and his Four Horsemen actually spend their time hanging out on some rocks.
The climactic action is confusing and bombastically destructive, and the suspension of disbelief that the world is still goes on afterward as in the other movies in the series is stretched too thin.  Presumably entire cities full of people are reduced to rubble, without a proper sense of impact or consequence, MAN OF STEEL-style.  It's supposed to be a global event, but the scope feels constrained, and while Singer's action in other X-Men movies has been solid, if not stellar, I wonder if he has a different, less competent director this time, because other than some more heavily planned out CGI scenes, the action is confusing and choppy.
Aesthetically and stylistically, the movie is weirdly grotesque, upping the gore ante to surprising levels for a PG-13-rated blockbuster (the X-Men series has always aimed for more edge and maturity than other popular superhero franchises) and occasionally seems to revel in an ickiness.  Continuity is almost a non-issue in the series, with abundant inconsistencies between films including recasting and disregard for previously established plot points in favor of what works, which isn't exactly a bad thing and fans have learned to live with it.  DAYS OF FUTURE PAST's time travel plot line largely disregarded movies that came before, and then reset the majority of the series' timeline, so efforts to start aligning things in this film with things in the original X-Men trilogy is a waste of time and worse, unlearns improvements made by recent installments.  Although no longer that lovely post-Matrix pleather, Singer's reverts to the less comic booky black X-Men uniforms and the more hopeful conclusion of DAYS OF FUTURE PAST is twisted back into the same place it was before.
APOCALYPSE is a significant step back and a tremendous disappointment.
Images via 20th Century Fox

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Review: ALICE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS

ALICE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS
(FANTASY/ADVENTURE)
1.5 out of 4 stars 
Directed by James Bobin
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, Rhys Ifans, Lindsay Duncan, Ed Speelers, Matt Lucas, Stephen Fry (voice), Michael Sheen (voice), Timothy Spall (voice), Barbara Windsor (voice), Matt Vogel (voice)
Rated PG for fantasy action/peril and some language.
113 minutes
Verdict: Alice loses her muchness and filmmakers their nerve in this featherweight and thoroughly diluted cash-grab of a sequel.
YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN ALICE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS IF YOU LIKED:
ALICE IN WONDERLAND  (2010)
OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL  (2013)
MALEFICENT  (2014)
INTO THE WOODS  (2014)
RETURN TO OZ  (1985)
It appears as though Alice has lost her muchness again.
ALICE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS weirdly feels like a sequel that no one asked for, and yet, the first movie grossed a billion dollars worldwide, so of course it was inevitable.  In a way, it's like a mini test run for one of those Avatar sequels James Cameron keeps talking about; a sequel for a visual effects-driven movie that was explosively successful in the brief 3D boom, but one that doesn't exactly draw glowing opinions in the aftermath.  When Tim Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND opened in theaters six years ago, I was still in high school, and I was wholeheartedly excited for it.  It was at the height of my Disney mania, Johnny Depp was my favorite actor (THE TOURIST was certainly disappointing in 2009, but that must have been an isolated misstep) and Tim Burton was around the top of the list of my favorite filmmakers.  ALICE was the movie was shattered the illusion for me.  The visual effects were splendid, but even as I actively tried to convince myself that I liked it, the characters were so thinly drawn, the plot was a formulaic Chronicles of Narnia rehash, and then there was Depp.  The man who had created one of the all-time great screen characters in Captain Jack Sparrow, in addition to numerous other wonderful, colorful characters, was up there in an aggressively over-designed costume and makeup, alternating between idiotic lisp and inexplicable Scottish brogue, and I began to have a really tough time justifying this with the creative genius I'd admired.  Near the end, when Depp's character of the Hatter finally performed the "Futterwacken", a computer-enhanced jig, the whole thing came crashing down, and I simply couldn't fool myself into liking what I was seeing.  THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS is not better.  In fact, it's a substantial step down.
Burton is producing this time, relinquishing the director's chair to MUPPETS MOST WANTED director James Bobin, and while some effort is made to replicate the first movie's distinctive, Oscar-winning aesthetic, the differences are palpable.  The film opens rather largely, with Alice (Mia Wasikowska) captaining her late father's ship in a tumultuous sea storm on the run from Chinese pirates in a weird scene that aims to present a boldly adventurous heroine but plays more than a little like a Pippi Longstocking story.  Returning from to London, Alice learns that her employer has died and the shipping company has passed on his boorish son (Ed Speelers), who intends to blackmail Alice into giving up her captaincy and taking a job as a clerk.  Faced with an impossible decision, Alice then re-encounters Absolem (voiced by the late, great Alan Rickman in his final role), the caterpillar-turned-butterfly who takes her through a mirror back into the absurd world of Underland, where her old friend Tarrant Hightopp (Johnny Depp), aka "The Mad Hatter", is not well.  Convinced that his family is still alive but missing, so Alice goes to see Time (Sacha Baron Cohen) to request the use of the time-traveling Chronosphere to go back and save the Hatter's family before they were killed, but another party has an interest in the Chronosphere, namely the badly-tempered Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), who wants to reclaim the throne from her sister, the benevolent White Queen (Anne Hathaway).
Even for all it's copious faults, the first movie at least had a boldness to it, the sort that resulted in a tiny Alice trying to cross a castle moat full of much larger severed heads in the middle of a massive Disney production, which I absolutely have to admire, but all of that has been heavily watered down to make a substantially more family-friendly product, but a far duller one.  I couldn't help but think of the Hatter's line from the first one, "You've lost your muchness."  Whatever made this world special is gone, replaced by a surprisingly slight, childish serving of CGI that amounts to meaningless fluff.  Every character except Alice seems to be constantly on the periphery, and despite noble attempts to craft a proper feminist heroine, she's simply too bland to draw any interest.  Depp's Hatter is barely a plot point, and almost everyone is giving their best impression of a toddler.  The only genuine and yet underserved point of interest is Cohen's Time, a character who maybe isn't quite as funny as he's meant to be, but who's undoubtedly the least irritating of the Underland characters and plays a slightly more nuanced role, if only slightly.
It wouldn't be surprising to hear that Bobin and screenwriter Linda Woolverton (who also wrote the first one) drew inspiration from Disney's 1985 box office flop-turned-cult classic RETURN TO OZ, with one character, Time's mechanical manservant Wilkins, even bearing more than a passing resemblance to that movie's Tik-Tok, but lacks its potency.  The time-traveling aspect reminded me of the Rankin/Bass holiday special Here Comes Peter Cottontail than anything else.  It's so diluted and slight, it might as well be a TV special.  Visually, regardless of what you thought about its aggressive design, the first was undoubtedly a visual marvel, and while it's true that six years have passed and effects technology has advanced accordingly, everything about THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS looks passe in comparison to its predecessor.  There's nothing here that you haven't seen before, design or tech-wise.  No boundaries are pushed except to see how much money can be milked from a classic work of literary wit using as little wit as possible.
Images via Disney

Friday, May 6, 2016

Review- CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR

CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR
(ACTION/SCI-FI)
4 out of 4 stars 
Directed by Anthony Russo & Joe Russo
Starring: Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Sebastian Stan, Scarlett Johansson, Anthony Mackie, Chadwick Boseman, Jeremy Renner, Elizabeth Olsen, Don Cheadle, Paul Bettany, Tom Holland, Daniel Bruhl, Paul Rudd, Frank Grillo, Emily VanCamp, William Hurt
Rated PG-13 for extended sequences of violence, action and mayhem.
147 minutes
Verdict: Marvel Studios' most emotionally-charged and morally complex movie to date is also their best since the first Avengers, bursting with fully realized characters, kinetic action spectacles and Marvel's signature humor.
YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR IF YOU LIKED:
CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER  (2014)
CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER  (2011)
AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON  (2015)
MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS  (2012)
IRON MAN 3  (2013)
Tony Stark/Iron Man: "I don't trust a guy without a dark side. Call me old-fashioned."
Steve Rogers/Captain America: "Well, let's just say you haven't seen it yet."
CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR, the third movie in Marvel Studios' Captain America series, but also thirteenth in the overarching "Marvel Cinematic Universe" (which ties together movies of Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, the Avengers and others), is a major lynch pin in the series, evolving the franchise and taking full advantage of Marvel's unique brand of long-form storytelling.  It's also Marvel's most morally and emotionally complex movie to date, and their best new movie since MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS in 2012.  Inspired by, but in no way tied down to, Marvel Comics' 2006 storyline Civil War, the movie explores the idea of superheroes' negative impact in relation to being forces for good, collective good in contrast to individual will, and retaliation as justice, all within a sprawling, globe-spanning, colorfully fantastical epic full of spectacular action, humor and at least a few emotional gut punches.
A year after the events of AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), better known as Captain America, is leading his team of Avengers in Nigeria to prevent the supervillain Crossbones (Frank Grillo) from obtaining and unleashing a biological weapon, when recent Avengers addition Wanda Maximoff, aka Scarlet Witch, accidentally causes a destruction to a nearby building, resulting in a number of bystander casualties.  This accident proves to be the final straw in a series of incidents of devastating collateral damage caused by Avengers and other superhero missions with world leaders now calling for registration and regulation.  The international legislation divides the Avengers between those in favor of oversight, led by a guilt-ridden Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), and those against it, led by Cap.  Further complicating things is Rogers' determination to redeem his friend James Buchanan "Bucky" Barnes (Sebastian Stan), who spent decades as a brainwashed assassin known as the Winter Soldier and is now wanted to answer for his crimes by nations around the world.
Written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (who previously wrote CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER), the movie brings in a number of other recognizable faces into the battle for superhero sovereignty versus responsibility, including Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Sam Wilson/Falcon (Anthony Mackie), James "Rhodey" Rhodes/War Machine (Don Cheadle), Clint Barton/Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Scott Lang/Ant-Man (Paul Ruidd) and the Vision (Paul Bettany).  Even William Hurt as General-turned-Secretary of State Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross from the mostly ignored bastard child of the MCU, THE INCREDIBLE HULK shows up.  Then there are the new faces, namely T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman), aka the Black Panther, and a familiar face made new in Peter Parker/Spider-Man (Tom Holland), making his MCU debut.  Spidey's entry into the story is a little unjustified, but once he gets going, this new iteration (resembling the character's design from 1994 limited series Marvels by Kurt Busiek and Alex Ross) is a fresh and distinctly young at 15 years old (Holland is actually 20, but he'd convince for 14), mixing in a humorous new element to the Avengers, but one that's more innocent than snarky.
The MCU has so far emphasized fun, feel-good "popcorn entertainment" that could be accused of lacking substance, but CIVIL WAR is as much an intelligent moral debate as it is fast, funny blockbuster action.  Somewhat similarly to DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES a couple of years ago, CIVIL WAR presents a fantastical conflict that is real as can be at its roots, because both sides are understandably right from where they're standing.  Perhaps it helps that Marvel doesn't have to deal with its typical pitfall of weak villains, because there isn't a clear-cut villain in this story; the conflict is between heroes, ones that we've been able to get to know over the course of several previous movies.  Actually, there's Crossbones, who is a blast during his relatively brief screen time, but he's not this story's villain.
Both sides are given legitimate cause and credibility; the Vision, the "purest" of the Avengers, advocates oversight in order to stem the escalation of cataclysmic events that has accompanied the emergence of superheroes (a meta-comment on the nature of this sub-genre), but Captain America is not wrong in his concern for the changing agendas of this proposed oversight, and certainly past experiences have taught to suspect authority.  Iron Man is devastated by the knowledge of human casualties that result in the course of their missions, some indirectly caused by their own doing, such as Stark's security program Ultron going rogue, and notes that a lack of regulation makes them insufficiently different from the people they fight.  There are more personal motivations too, as well as personal conflicts, that all tie into this stew of philosophies and emotions now boiling over.  Captain America and Iron Man have always been at each others throats, ever since they first met in THE AVENGERS, with Stark resenting Rogers for having been friends with his emotionally distant father, and Rogers put off by Stark's recklessness and irreverence, but above it all, they respect and trust one another.  CIVIL WAR is the culmination of their relationship and of their multi-film individual arcs.  Where they were when each was introduced, they would have likely been on swapped sides of this conflict; Captain America, the "soldier", idealistic and thoroughly unselfish, and Iron Man, the narcissistic solo act, defiant and cynical.  But over the course of Iron Man's five movie appearances (not including his cameo in THE INCREDIBLE HULK), the self-assured playboy has gone from flagrantly thumbing his nose at a Senate committee and proclaiming that he'd "privatized world peace" to a more cautious man who has a hard time with the idea that he can't save everyone, shaped by the trauma of delivering a nuclear payload into deep space in the Battle of New York and the realization of his own follies.  Once a morally unaccountable weapons manufacturer, he's now haunted by the effects of his life that allowed innocent people to be hurt while he profited from war and under-the-table deals because he didn't care enough.  As Peter Parker explains his own choices to Stark, if he has the power to prevent bad things from happening, but he doesn't, and then those bad things happen, it's his fault; another variation on the well known "with great power comes great responsibility" speech.  Over the course of Cap's four movie appearances, he's gone from a perfect soldier, the man who follows every order according to his conscience and lays down on the proverbial wire to let the other men crawl over, the man who literally threw himself down on a grenade, to rogue who answers to his ever-potent moral compass but who doesn't trust the authority of a bureaucracy that may attempt to use him on behalf of hidden agendas in the name of security and order.  As a company man, Cap carried out missions for S.H.I.E.L.D., but the agency meant to make the world safer proved to be compromised at its core by the beating heart of 20th-century fascism.  After that, he's no longer the kind of man to readily take orders.  But even at this irreconcilable philosophical divide, they're both still heroes, so there's no easy answer whose side to root for in the conflict that inevitably results in a spectacular superhero battle royale.  It's no clear answer for the audience or the characters, and in the fight that pits friend against friend, most of them are still not trying to seriously hurt the other, so when inadvertent but severe consequences do rear their ugly head, it's a shock.
It's no spoiler either that eventually Cap and Iron Man comes to blows directly, and the fight is surprisingly brutal, physically and emotionally, in comparison to what has come before in the MCU.  Both sides come from powerfully emotionally charged perspectives, and you feel for both, but each blow is harder than the next, and fracturing of the bond between characters is palpable.
It's definitely Marvel's most emotional movie.  That's not to say it's particularly sad, although it often is, but it's more intimate and emotionally driven than what they've done before.  It's deeply rooted in its characters, so each divide and longing between friends is substantive.  The movie benefits greatly from the groundwork previously laid by other movies in the franchise, but is ruthlessly efficient in laying its own ground from the moment the movie starts, introducing each character and the background to their motivations early on while in the midst of ongoing action, never feeling like exposition.
For all its emotional punch, it's never less funny than we've come to expect from Marvel's movies, and some moments are full-blown hilarious, especially in the aforementioned superhero battle royale where Ant-Man and Spidey in particular bring a lot of goofy mirth to melee.  It's really weird that the Russo brothers, Joe and Anthony, who directed this and WINTER SOLDIER (and who will direct the next two Avengers movies), have overseen a lot of the best action in the MCU, in spite of their sitcom backgrounds (fans of the cult favorite Community, which the Russos co-created with Dan Harmon, will be delighted by another cameo/easter egg) and in comparison to a stable of filmmakers who would presumably be more qualified.  The action is another step up from WINTER SOLDIER and is fast and kinetic with great chases and character interplay, well-placed sped-up footage and impact, and though more emotionally/psychologically than physically, has some pretty rough moments.
I've never felt the argument that Marvel's movies looked like "glorified TV" as opposed to "cinematic" holds much water, even if they have had such problems in terms of narrative, but CIVIL WAR, shot by WINTER SOLDIER cinematographer and Neill Blomkamp's collaborator Trent Opaloch, does significantly shake up the MCU visually, even if they haven't gone "experimental" yet.
It's great, but that doesn't mean there isn't room to improve.  Composer Henry Jackman's orchestral score is grandiose, but a more melodramatic score to accompany the onscreen melodrama would be preferable, and even as the movie gives the staling franchise a good, hard jolt of freshness, Marvel still has a couple of bad habits left over from comic books that need to be upended, and this might not have been such a bad place to try that.
Regardless, CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR is a landmark in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and a great blockbuster film in its own right.  It's unfortunate and little awkward that this comes little over a month after Warner Brothers/DC's BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (which itself was vying for this release date before capitulating to Marvel), because the silly old DC vs. Marvel rivalry factors into a lot of fans perspectives on the films, and some DC fans even suggesting that Marvel bribed (real) critics who panned BATMAN V SUPERMAN.  Thematically, both movies tremendously similar, on the basic conceit of superheroes fighting superheroes, but also addressing issues of oversight and regulation, collateral damage as a result of protecting humanity at large, disillusionment in the light of a seemingly never-ending fight, and so on.  So why does CIVIL WAR triumph so spectacularly while BATMAN V SUPERMAN fails with equal fervor?  It's nothing inherent to the characters, and both sides have delivered their share of howlers and masterpieces, but Marvel has the advantage of a handsomely established background for their characters and the world the live in thanks to a dozen earlier installments.  Even more importantly though, Marvel shows a great deal of affection and sympathy for their characters, and it's contagious.  With BATMAN V SUPERMAN, there's actually a sense of disdain, or at the very least, detachment, from the character of Superman, the motivations are muddled and the result is one of negative emotions all around.  There are many other problems with that movie, but that, I feel, is the core of the problem.  CIVIL WAR doesn't make it easy to pick a side.  Your favorite character might very well be fighting for a side you disagree with, but you feel for them and understand them, and while you can't really pick one to cheer for, you certainly don't want either to lose.  It's a world where evil exists, but not in a conventional comic book form, and still can be vanquished.  It's also full of joy and fantastical, escapist thrills that could be pulled straight from the pages of a comic book, while its strength lies in its emotional authenticity.  I absolutely love MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS.  I think it's the studio's peak film so far, but to be fair, I've had six years to live it since it first opened in theaters.  Suffice it to say then that CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR is Marvel's best movie since that.
Images via Marvel