Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice/Captain America: Civil War Review(s) - Superhero Showdown Showdown
Super Serious v Super Fun
BvS and Civil War have what is essentially the exact same premise. You've got BvS, in which two superheroes fight each other (reluctantly), because they disagree politically and have been manipulated by an obsessive villain and then you have Civil War, in which two superheroes fight each other (reluctantly), because they disagree politically and have been manipulated by an obsessive villain. Yet the films you see on the screen are incredibly different from each other.
These differences are very prominent in the tone of the films. Batman v Superman has followed very clearly in Man of Steel’s footsteps (which makes sense, considering Zack Snyder returns from that film to direct) and therefore takes itself very seriously. You could argue it takes itself a little too seriously, which was certainly true of Man of Steel, which took itself so seriously it just became lifeless and dull. Fortunately BvS doesn't full into the same trap, thanks mostly to a load of great performances that give the film a burst of life that the monotonous acting in MoS failed to deliver. Zack Snyder has also decided to return to a much flashier directing style, compared to the incredibly depressing and undersaturated (sorry, ‘dark’) aesthetic of the previous film.
The problem is that you can't really take a film about an alien from outer space who shoots lasers out of his eye’s seriously. The Dark Knight could take itself seriously and work because, whilst unlikely, the idea of Batman is realistic enough that it doesn't just come off as ridiculous. Plus, The Dark Knight is closer to a crime thriller than a superhero film, meaning the serious tone works. Superman, however, is not realistic in the slightest. He is about as superhero as you can get and any film with him in is very much a superhero film. Therefore, it’s nearly impossible to take BvS seriously, no matter how much it wants you to
Civil War, on the other hand, doesn’t take itself seriously. At least, not when it knows it can't. In the big, silly actions sequences filled with ridiculous superheroes in bright costumes, jokes are flying about everywhere, from Star Wars references to self aware gags about the scientific implausibility of Captain America’s shield. It knows that Superheroes are ridiculous and doesn't try to hide it and so it all works. Yet it also does take a turn for the serious side when it knows it can get away with it. The Russo brothers brought a level of maturity to the Marvel Cinematic Universe with Captain America: The Winter Soldier that hadn't been seen before and they've continued it here. The main debate, about who has control over the superheroes, is explored in surprising depth and shows that the Russos are taking the MCU in a very interesting direction, by making it more politically aware and relevant. It only slips into its more serious side when what you're seeing on-screen isn't utterly ridiculous, because when that happens, the film knows it has no choice other than to have fun.
Superheroes are silly and cannot be taken seriously. Unfortunately, BvS tries to make you do that and fails. Civl War, however, understands when to be serious and when to not be. It knows to be crazy and fun when the screen is filled with insane costumes and general ridiculousness, but keeps a straight face when tackling the more mature (as well as the more emotional) scenes.
Hard to Follow v Hard to Get Bored
Both films handle the telling of their stories very differently as well. They're both way too long, at around two and a half hours, but you notice that a lot more in one than you do in the other.
BvS could take on both Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in a fight between who is the most overstuffed with plots and characters. Warner Bros. were clearly desperate at this point to get the DC Universe up and running and therefore spent the whole of BvS rushing through at least three films worth of plots. It's not messy, everything is well organised, the problem is that there's simply too much to fit into a sensible running time, or even a silly two and a half hour running time.
The film starts off with a focus on Batman and goes through his origin story (again) in what is admittedly a very visually fascinating sequence, but as soon as that's finished we cut over to Superman for a bit, until flipping over to Lex Luthor and then going back to Batman, except this time he's in a dream for character development and then we find ourselves back with Superman who’s now at his mum's house and none of it is given any breathing space. Just as you get into following one plot and one character, the film rushes over to another, because otherwise the DC Universe is going to be lagging behind the MCU for another few years.
The issue we have now is that DC are lagging behind the MCU in terms of quality. We've had two entries into the DC Universe and none of them have been particularly inspiring and BvS needed to be inspiring to keep up the excitement within the DC Universe, but it isn't. It also doesn't help that Civil War is one of the best entries into the MCU we've ever had. It is still overlong, but it isn't overstuffed, like BvS, because it knows where to keep its focus: on Captain America and Iron Man.
The whole film is about the conflict between the two leads, Steve Rogers and Tony Stark. Civil War actually has more characters than BvS, but the Russo brothers know to keep the focus on only those two characters. Plus, unlike BvS, those two characters are on screen together a lot of the time and are usually a part of the same plot, whereas the characters in BvS spend most of the time apart, in separate plots. This means that the film is not only easier to follow, but more compelling as it is always focusing on the two leads and their direct conflict with each other and not mucking about with a billion other plots.
You can really feel the panic in BvS. Warner Bros. are desperate to catch up with with the MCU and so BvS is awfully rushed and underdeveloped. Marvel have been doing this for a long time, however, and are in no hurry. As a result, Civil War works; it doesn't have to get loads done and can just focus on one, single plot, meaning it's far more compelling.
Completely Nonsensical v Completely Clear
One of the big things both of these films liked to boast about was their political focus. Many people who defended BvS would cite its politics as a reason for its superiority over other superhero films, especially Marvel ones. Unfortunately, not only did Civil War then also have a political focus, it had a political focus that actually made sense.
The problem with BvS’s politics is that nobody seems to have any clear side. Batman wants to kill Superman, but he never properly explores why and just kind of rambles at Alfred a bit about it. Meanwhile Superman, as Clark Kent, seems to be obsessed with taking down Batman for no reason, seeing as Batman does basically the same job as he does. By the time we get to the actual fight, Superman doesn't even want to fight him, so the brief ten or so minutes of them actually fighting is really underwhelming, because no one is genuinely motivated.
Then we've got Lex Luthor who, despite a performance by Jesse Eisenberg that I thoroughly enjoyed, has no motivation whatsoever. He just seems to be completely insane, which would be fine if he was the Joker, but he's not. Nothing he ever does really makes much sense and it just gets rid of any of the tension and replaces it with confusion.
Meanwhile, over in the MCU, the politics are very well dealt with. Both Iron Man and Captain America are given clear sides with logical motivations. You would expect Iron Man to go with the government and you would expect Captain America to do what he thinks is right, despite everyone, including the UN, saying he's wrong. Each side is looked at in a lot of detail with snappy, well written dialogue and you constantly find yourself flip flopping from one side to the other, because the issue, quite like real life, isn't so clear cut.
Both of the character’s motivations are given an emotional edge to them as well, which I won't reveal here because of spoilers, but they give the viewer another reason to get behind the characters and get invested in them. Plus, it means that by the final fight between Cap, Iron Man and Bucky Barnes, all three of them have genuine motivation to beat the living daylights out of each other, so the fight can reach genuine levels of emotional tension. The villain, Zemo, who orchestrates all of the chaos, also has a genuine emotional motivation and whilst I didn’t enjoy Daniel Brühl’s performance as much as Eisenberg’s, his character is much more three dimensional.
Admittedly not all of the characters have much of a motivation. Hawkeye comes in halfway through the film and joins Captain America for some reason, but given the amount of characters here, it would be very difficult to have them all be as in depth as Cap and Iron Man and I think that the Russo brothers made a good decision in keeping the main focus on just those two characters, otherwise the film would just be way too overstuffed. Kind of like BvS.
Verdict
To be fair on BvS, I didn't hate it. I actually kind of enjoyed it at times, I liked all of the performances, Ben Affleck’s action sequences were phenomenal and I'm really excited for the upcoming standalone Batman film. The problem is, Civil War is just so much better. I can't say anymore that, unlike Marvel, at least BvS tried to cover more serious stuff, because Civil War not only tried, it succeeded, without sacrificing any of the enjoyment of the previous Marvel installments either. It appears Marvel have already delivered the winning blow in the 2016 fight for superhero supremacy, leaving DC on the floor once more, desperately trying to get back up.
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice: 6.3/10
Captain America: Civil War: 8/10
Comments
Post a Comment