The first two Marvel films from the Russo Brothers have been movies that electrify out the gate only to fade a bit on repeat viewings. The diminishing returns are particularly apparent in Captain America: Civil War, a movie that tries to do a lot, but its ambitions are always questionable, aiming for a bigger stage but not necessarily a better one. It takes two marquee heroes, swaps their viewpoints, puts them both in the wrong, and yet it still carries the emotional impact necessary because we’ve spent so much time with them. If Civil War was our first introduction to Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) and Captain America (b), it would fall completely flat, but because we care about both Tony Stark and Steve Rogers, their conflict has weight. Unfortunately, Civil War is a film that also has to carry a lot of Marvel burden in setting up future movies while still telling its own story.

And that story is one that isn’t completely free from problems. The idea to adapt the Civil War comics isn’t necessarily a bad one, but it has to give into impulses that don’t necessarily make a lot of sense. Perhaps with one more movie to see Tony and Steve moving to opposite viewpoints, Civil War would be a bit more coherent, but really we just have their conflict scene on the farm in Avengers: Age of Ultron. From there, Tony continues to act like Tony—overreacting and going about things in the completely wrong way with his ever-present desire for control.

robert-downey-jr-chris-evans-captain-america-civil-war.
Image via Marvel

It’s remarkable that Marvel has never lost the thread of Tony Stark, and has continued to build on it to show him as both desperate for control and yet hopelessly irresponsible. Tony’s response to an American teenager dying in Sokovia is to unilaterally force his will upon his friends rather than negotiate and find common ground, and then, when things become more complicated, recruits another random teenager out of Queens to come fight a bunch of superheroes.

You could argue that Spider-Man (Tom Holland) represents the middle ground between Steve and Tony, someone who wants to do the right thing but also understand the need for responsibility, but a far better player in this conflict is Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) and his relationship to a need for vengeance. Both characters are present because they have solo movies coming out in the future, but T’Challah is better placed while Spider-Man was always kind of on the edge. He couldn’t be too crucial to the plot in the even that Marvel and Sony couldn’t work out a deal, so it’s more like a really fun, extended cameo. And while Holland is outstanding in the role, his relationship with Tony Stark works far better in Spider-Man: Homecoming.

captain-america-civil-war-new-spider-man
Image via Marvel

But the character Captain America: Civil War really struggles with is Cap. For starters, you have to reposition Steve from a soldier to a libertarian idealist. The script tries to thread the needle by having Steve argue that his desire to do good can’t be obstructed by any regulations whatsoever. But this kind of unilateral thinking is at odds with Cap’s collaborative spirit in the previous movies. In Captain America: The Winter Soldier, he didn’t go it alone in his fight against Hydra. He rallied people to his cause at the climax of the movie. Steve goes it alone when he has to, not because he wants to, and his rejection of the Sokovia Accords feels not like an organic viewpoint of the character but where he needs to be in relation to Tony. Tony’s view makes total sense for him (“suit of armor around the world” and all that), but it’s a lot fuzzier for Steve.

It’s tough to see scenes like Tony and Steve talking about the lend-lease and Steve arguing that it brought America closer to war. Steve Rogers isn’t a pacifist or an isolationist. Yes, the scene in question is more about the subtext of Tony and Steve coming closer to “war”, but Steve Rogers has to say things that make sense for his character and his history. I understand that it’s tough to write a character who doesn’t seek out war but is a warrior, but the first two Captain America movies manage this fairly well while Civil War has to move Cap to a reckless, self-centered place to make him take certain positions, and it’s the biggest failing of the overall script.

captain-america-civil-war-chris-evans
Image via Marvel

The plot is on far more solid footing when it leans into the Steve-Bucky relationship. If you set aside the ideological stuff, you have a far more compelling reason for Steve to act, and one that would create more inner conflict within the character. He doesn’t want to fight, but he feels it’s his duty to save Bucky (Sebastian Stan). That relationship is far more human and immediate than Captain America suddenly becoming a libertarian isolationist who feels that BIG GOVERNMENT shouldn’t tell him who he can and cannot save. Perhaps in the comics you can make that argument, but the Steve Rogers we’ve seen over the course of four movies wouldn’t make the calls we see here.

The question we have to wrestle with in Captain America: Civil War is “Does the shaky setup earn the excellent payoff?” A lot of the set up in Civil War is questionable. Zemo’s (Daniel Bruhl) plan is bonkers and rests heavily on coincidence and perfect timing beyond anyone’s capability, but his motives are sympathetic and worthwhile. He’s a good villain because he knows his limitations and he doesn’t have some grandiose desire to blow up the world; he just wants revenge for losing his family and his home. Spider-Man has a flimsy reason for being introduced, but it’s wonderful watching him bounce off other characters. The entire airport sequence feels kind of random and with low stakes (we know these heroes aren’t going to try and kill each other), but aside from the ugly color palette (I don’t know why this movie hates colors), it’s a lot of fun to watch.  When Cap and Iron Man finally duke it out, the road that took them there wasn’t ideal, but the smackdown itself is powerful and worthwhile.

captain-america-civil-war-team-cap
Image via Marvel Studios

When you see Civil War as a movie with shaky set-ups but powerhouse payoffs, it makes sense why it works so well on a first viewing but starts to crack under closer scrutiny. The movie leaves you with delirious highs, but once you start providing a closer analysis as to what’s happening, the seams start to show. And I’m sympathetic to the struggle of trying to make this movie under the conditions of “Introduce Spider-Man and Black Panther, create a massive conflict between Iron Man and Captain America, bring in almost every character from the MCU, but also keep things from Steve’s perspective, and also have a compelling villain who’s not really the villain,” and I’m amazed the screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely as well as the Russo Brothers didn’t go insane.

What’s laudable about Captain America: Civil War is that despite all of its superhero trappings and need to service other parts of the MCU, the film’s ultimate direction is somewhere drastically different than any other movie in the series.  The world isn’t at stake, but the relationship between superheroes is. And the movie ends with the Avengers divided, and while Cap offers an olive branch to Tony Stark, there’s still the fracturing of friendships. You can argue that this fracture is somewhat unearned and that more should have gone into defining every character’s viewpoint, but I’d counter that the relationships get to where they needs to be, albeit barely. I’m not going into Infinity War thinking the reality of this universe has been shattered; it’s just been strained a bit. But at least that straining pays off by taking the characters someplace interesting. Unfortunately, the next Marvel movie would feel like a retread mixed with magic powers.

Tomorrow: Doctor Strange

Previous Entries:

captain-america-civil-war-final-poster