After having its review embargo lifted nearly a month(!!) before its release date, said reviews are beginning to trickle onto Rotten Tomatoes. While it is obviously early going here, with only 14 reviews in so far, they are all Fresh reviews, with an average score of 8.8. Here are some highlights from the summaries so far:
Tear away the powers, abilities and egos, though, and the third Captain America movie is at its core a deep exploration of friendship and family and what sacrifices should be made to hold onto both.
Finally, a big budget superhero sequel that manages to be both effortlessly entertaining and utterly sobering, instead of just one of those things-or, as we've endured too frequently in the past, neither of them.
If there's a risk of the Marvel 'formula' becoming stale, there isn't any evidence of that here. Civil War isn't just a damn-near-perfect popcorn crowd-pleaser; it doesn't offer any easy answers for its combatants, or the world going forward.
I'm not surprised, honestly, and I doubt anyone else would be either.
However, a thought - Does anyone think BvS may have affected the scores? Could it have been so bad, and the critics hated it so much, that Civil War did get a ratings bump just because it wasn't Dawn of Justice?
However, a thought - Does anyone think BvS may have affected the scores? Could it have been so bad, and the critics hated it so much, that Civil War did get a ratings bump just because it wasn't Dawn of Justice?
Yes actually, but not in the way you think. Some reviewers commented that the "superheroes need to pay the consequences of their actions" thing is getting old, indicating they might have appreciated the plot more if BvS hadn't come along.
OT: I have only read one review, from IGN, and in a spectacular change of pace, they gave it a 7.8. Which isnt bad, no, but they gave it as much cons as pros, and its a lower score than what they gave Ant-man. But hey, I'm gonna watch it anyway and I'm gonna enjoy it anyway.
I'm not surprised, honestly, and I doubt anyone else would be either.
However, a thought - Does anyone think BvS may have affected the scores? Could it have been so bad, and the critics hated it so much, that Civil War did get a ratings bump just because it wasn't Dawn of Justice?
Well I know we'll be seeing a lot of people spouting the sentiments of those hashtags, but I guess that's the other thing everyone sees coming, eh?
I don't think that Civil War will necessarily get a bump from the fact that Batman v Superman was so unliked, if anything I imagine that would happen with Suicide Squad if it turns out to be decent as everyone gives out a collective "finally". What I can see being a factor though, is that since there's a certain similarity in the plot of superheroes fighting over differing ideology, having seen it go so bad before, critics will get a feeling of [this] is how it's done right. There were some review summaries that actually said that full out, but I chose not to include then as I felt no need to fan the inevitable flame war.
OT: I have only read one review, from IGN, and in a spectacular change of pace, they gave it a 7.8. Which isnt bad, no, but they gave it as much cons as pros, and its a lower score than what they gave Ant-man. But hey, I'm gonna watch it anyway and I'm gonna enjoy it anyway.
That would be worrying, if it wasn't a review by IGN.
Bob_McMillan said:
AccursedTheory said:
.
However, a thought - Does anyone think BvS may have affected the scores? Could it have been so bad, and the critics hated it so much, that Civil War did get a ratings bump just because it wasn't Dawn of Justice?
Yes actually, but not in the way you think. Some reviewers commented that the "superheroes need to pay the consequences of their actions" thing is getting old, indicating they might have appreciated the plot more if BvS hadn't come along.
I'm not surprised, honestly, and I doubt anyone else would be either.
However, a thought - Does anyone thing BvS may have affected the scores? Could it have been so bad, and the critics hated it so much, that Civil War did get a ratings bump just because it wasn't Dawn of Justice?
No, I find that really unlikely, because BvS was reviewed just as badly as it came off it was going to be when I saw its trailers, and so far, CW is getting reviewed just as good as I thought it would be based off the trailers. That it is said to offer no easy answers to the conflicts of either side make me even more excited for it, because it suggests that both sides are dealing with a shit load of grey and neither is necessarily right or wrong, and the movie doesn't make a point to actually take a side.
In other words, it seems like the movie is conflicted in all the right ways that make for actually compelling storytelling, whereas BvS was conflicted in all the wrong ways. And that's what's defining the difference in reviews between the two. Marvel can make a compelling movie of superheroes in conflict with each other, because they set the stage for something meaningful and epic that people are invested in. DC was too eager to blow its load by wanting to do the same thing in the second movie they made in their universe, and it was just as disappointing and embarrassing as premature ejaculation for it.
I figure as much, to be honest. I'm not talking about the movie going from a C to an A or anything, just wondering if maybe reviewers thought it was slightly better due to BvS.
Kind of like air - You never really think about it, until you can't breath it for a bit. And then once you can breath again, it's the greatest god damn thing in the universe.
OT: I have only read one review, from IGN, and in a spectacular change of pace, they gave it a 7.8. Which isnt bad, no, but they gave it as much cons as pros, and its a lower score than what they gave Ant-man. But hey, I'm gonna watch it anyway and I'm gonna enjoy it anyway.
That would be worrying, if it wasn't a review by IGN.
Bob_McMillan said:
AccursedTheory said:
.
However, a thought - Does anyone think BvS may have affected the scores? Could it have been so bad, and the critics hated it so much, that Civil War did get a ratings bump just because it wasn't Dawn of Justice?
Yes actually, but not in the way you think. Some reviewers commented that the "superheroes need to pay the consequences of their actions" thing is getting old, indicating they might have appreciated the plot more if BvS hadn't come along.
I'm not surprised, honestly, and I doubt anyone else would be either.
However, a thought - Does anyone thing BvS may have affected the scores? Could it have been so bad, and the critics hated it so much, that Civil War did get a ratings bump just because it wasn't Dawn of Justice?
No, I find that really unlikely, because BvS was reviewed just as badly as it came off it was going to be when I saw its trailers, and so far, CW is getting reviewed just as good as I thought it would be based off the trailers. That it is said to offer no easy answers to the conflicts of either side make me even more excited for it, because it suggests that both sides are dealing with a shit load of grey and neither is necessarily right or wrong, and the movie doesn't make a point to actually take a side.
In other words, it seems like the movie is conflicted in all the right ways that make for actually compelling storytelling, whereas BvS was conflicted in all the wrong ways. And that's what's defining the difference in reviews between the two. Marvel can make a compelling movie of superheroes in conflict with each other, because they set the stage for something meaningful and epic that people are invested in. DC was too eager to blow its load by wanting to do the same thing in the second movie they made in their universe, and it was just as disappointing and embarrassing as premature ejaculation for it.
I figure as much, to be honest. I'm not talking about the movie going from a C to an A or anything, just wondering if maybe reviewers thought it was slightly better due to BvS.
Kind of like air - You never really think about it, until you can't breath it for a bit. And then once you can breath again, it's the greatest god damn thing in the universe.
I am not overhyping it when I say that the airport battle in Civil War is the best I have ever seen in a superhero movie. The scale is big, with a dozen heroes facing off, but what?s more it all works - this doesn?t feel like someone threw the characters up in the air and saw where they landed but rather like every beat and every interaction was carefully put together. Heroes pair off in ways that make sense, and the Russos are careful to make sure that some of the funnier, lighter characters - those will lower emotional stakes in the story - interact in just the right ways with the characters whose stakes are heavy. There is humor and tragedy in the course of the battle, and every character fights and behaves in a way consistent with who they are. It?s remarkable, especially in the way the Russos manage to use the action as a way to advance the story. The airport battle is great not just because the action is exciting, imaginative and well-designed but because of the way the characters themselves interact and bounce off each other. It?s a perfect action sequence.
Yeah that totally doesn't sound like someone who was either paid or should be fired at aaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllll.
Then again, out of context, so who knows what's going on there.
And honestly, I'm not surprised. As cookie cutter advertisements for each other as marvel movies have been, when they're not Thor, they're quite enjoyable. Even when they are copy/pasta like Avengers 2. They're the beginning of the bubble that will eventually burst and kill comic book movies just like the comic industry in the 90's, but for right now, they're quite good. Excepting anything Zach Snyder touches. He makes the same movie every time.
I don't understand your issue with the quote, or why you would assume that someone was paid by Disney to write it. (Of course there are already claims of that in the comments every review that's been posted so far because people can't separate themselves from their hobbies.) If you'd like more context, in the review they state that basically because we have spent so much time with these characters and we have seen their transformations over nearly a decade, that every time we see them throw a punch at each other it means that much more, and that when they react to things that are happening we have a deeper well of understanding why they do so.
I'm not surprised. Even the worst of the Marvel films are still better than the DC attempt at a shared universe. Note that I don't consider Sony's work or Fox's work in that.
Marvel just seems to know how they wish to approach their IPs, DC is flailing about with no clue how to make their characters work and blowing their loads on things that probably would have been best used later on in the shared stories. Doomsday for example should have been a Justice League/Superman crossover, not a hamfisted shoehorn into the BvS movie. And dear God Man of Steel and BvS both suffer most from the worst movie editing I've ever seen in a high budget film. I'd honestly like those movies a lot better if they had been competently edited. But they weren't.
Anyway, Marvel just takes the time to craft their work with love and care and it shows. DC/WB is pumping out their works in response to Marvel without forethought. Bad idea.
Come on now guys, no need for that. There's going to be enough fanboy rage as it is, no need to feed it. Let's just hope that DC/WB takes the right messages from this (be true to the characters and make us care about them, you can be intense, fun, and adult at the same time) rather than just thinking "Oh, so we needed more characters." Honestly nothing would make me happier than having both companies with healthy movie franchises. Can you imagine a DC vs Marvel movie? That would make so much money that the world would go into debt.
Come on now guys, no need for that. There's going to be enough fanboy rage as it is, no need to feed it. Let's just hope that DC/WB takes the right messages from this (be true to the characters and make us care about them, you can be intense, fun, and adult at the same time) rather than just thinking "Oh, so we needed more characters." Honestly nothing would make me happier than having both companies with healthy movie franchises. Can you imagine a DC vs Marvel movie? That would make so much money that the world would go into debt.
I may have needed to put the caveat of "I didn't hate Man of Steel or BvS" into my statement. I don't. I enjoyed them, but they were horribly flawed and there are parts of them that really hurt to watch, mostly the editing and narrative pacing. None of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films have had that problem. Even the worst had clarity in their stories.
I just don't trust WB/DC right now to treat their IPs with enough respect because they're seemingly trying to do what Marvel is doing but don't have the grasp on why Marvel is successful and they aren't.
I don't know about the bias angle, the movie is from the same brothers who brought us The Winter Soldier, the so far best Marvel comic book movie and one of the three best comic book movies of all time. The reviews quoted are ones I honestly could believe came from honest reviews of the movie given everything it has going for it and that unlike the first two Avengers movies Avengers 2.5 has directors who aren't all hype and no substance behind it.
Glad to hear its doing well. This was actually the first Marvel movie I really thought would flop. I was afraid they wouldn't be able to pull off that many heroes or have the story make sense in between the hero-on-hero action. The addition of Spiderman, Hawkeye, and others felt like gimmicks meant to draw big crowds rather than actually thoughtful storytelling. Maybe they are, but if they work, they work. Now excited for this one.
mduncan50 said:
Honestly nothing would make me happier than having both companies with healthy movie franchises. Can you imagine a DC vs Marvel movie? That would make so much money that the world would go into debt.
Honestly, that's what I never understand about the whole "fanboi" debate. Just because I like Marvel, I must want DC to fail? Definitely not. I would much rather have two great superhero fanchises than one. Besides, competition is good; it forces both sides to improve and diversify.
Honestly, that's what I never understand about the whole "fanboi" debate. Just because I like Marvel, I must want DC to fail? Definitely not. I would much rather have two great superhero fanchises than one. Besides, competition is good; it forces both sides to improve and diversify.
I think it's less "if you like one than you must hate the other" and more "if don't think that every movie that DC/Marvel made is the best movie ever, then it can only be because you are a fanboy and shill of Marvel/DC". I think some people just invest so much of themselves into their fandoms of things that if at any time the thing they love is seen as less than perfect, or seen as not being as good as something else, that it becomes very personal to them, and they find a need to come up with a reason that other people say those things because they know that it's not true. And to be clear, when it comes to comic book movies there are plenty of these people on both sides.
People are saying there's a conspiracy going on here? Sure, that's the rational explanation. Couldn't possibly be the fact that Marvel has proven numerous times already that they know how to make a good - and fun, which is the important part - superhero movie. DC has yet to make one. Suicide Squad looks like it could indeed be a fun movie, but we'll see.
..........I still don't like the Joker that they're giving us, though.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
