$UCCESSFU! FILMS SERIES: "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" (2016)

The biggest problem with prequels, in my personal opinion, is they tell you what happens in their successors. In other words, franchises that release prequels to their successors years later give the latter a disadvantage when viewing said films chronologically.

This was the biggest disadvantage George Lucas had with his Star Wars prequels (Episode I--The Phantom Menace, 1999; Episode II--Attack of the Clones, 2002; Episode III--Revenge of the Sith, 2005), because, when viewing all six cumulative films chronologically, they ruin the experience of the original trilogy (particularly that of The Empire Strikes Back, 1980). The same goes for Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy (based on J.R.R. Tolkien's prequel to The Lord of the Rings), what with its overuse of extended action sequences and inclusion of later characters like Sauron and Legalos. The key is not to put emphasis (at least, too much of it) on these details so that they don't draw attention to themselves.

Band of rebels (l-r): Wen Jiang, Alan Tudyk, Diego Luna,
Felicity Jones, Donnie Yen, and Riz Ahmed

This is what makes Rogue One a worthy improvement, as well as a respective addition to the Star Wars canon and a solo film in its own right. Considered to be the first standalone movie in the franchise (a Han Solo film is currently in the works), Rogue One centers on a group of Rebel fighters, led by Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), on a mission to steal the plans for what would become the Death Star, thereby setting up the events of the 1977 original, A New Hope.

A Star Wars film for those who don't love Star Wars films, the story gets right into action (and without title cards!), briefly showing Jyn as a child whose conflicted and checkered, yet loving, father sends her on her own, Years later, she becomes involved with a band of rebel fighters (under the name "Rogue One") in a pursuit to steal the plans for what will become known as the Death Star, and of which Jyn's father, Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelsen) may be involved. Other new characters that fit into the Star Wars canon nicely including the scene-stealing "reprogrammed rebel droid" K2S0 (Alan Tudyk), extremist Saw Gerrera (Forest Whitaker), the determined yet conflicted Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), and the cold and menacing Imperial officer Orson Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn).

What makes this entry unique is its gritty tone and action. The aforementioned characters strike a thin line between good and evil at times, yet they (for all their flaws) illustrate what is/was lost and what's worth fighting for. The series' motif of the Force gets more in-depth here, particularly with blind Jedi fighter Chirrut Îmwe (Donnie Yen), who thoroughly exemplifies this belief system ("I am one with the Force, and the Force is with me").

As The Force Awakens did last year, the terrific action sequences and effects (in large part) hearken back to the practical effects of yesteryear while married to today's CGI effects when necessary. There's even the (now-controversial) CGI inclusion of character General Tarkin (played in the 1977 original by the late Peter Cushing, and whose estate was contacted and asked by the filmmakers for permission to use his image) and another famous character (no spoilers!), as well as subtle references to other iconic images and themes.

Unlike the aforementioned seventh episode, however, Rogue One is very much a gritty war story. Yet, both films carry a sense of nostalgia and excitement. Not to mention strong female leads. Even the score by Michael Giacchino (who also composed the John Williams-like score for Super 8, 2011) makes this story a different episode in the franchise. And while it ends unexpectedly, it illustrates hope for the future. The film's final images mirror real-life unexpected tragedy around the time of the its release, yet they illustrate hope for the world--and not just the future of movies.

REVIEW: "Lion" (2016)

The structure of film, particularly those based on true stories, can go one of two ways. The first way would be an obvious route, where the main character (in the present) shares his story in flashback. The second way would be to tell the characters story from past to present. The film Lion (based on the book "A Long Way Back" by Saroo Brierley) falls into this latter category.

It's an extraordinary true story of an Indian boy who goes missing, is adopted into an Australian family, and, as a young adult, searches for his family via Google Earth. Sounds like a ridiculous premise. (Well, so did the premise for Slumdog Millionaire initially.)

Abhishek Bharate (Guddu) and Sunny Pawar (young Saroo)

The first half of the film focuses on young Saroo as a child, in a slum in India with his brother Guddu and mother Kamla. Waiting for his brother at a train station one night, Saroo gets lost and soon winds up on another train and falls asleep, only to wake up the next morning miles and miles from home. This segment of the film chronicles Saroo as he goes from city to city (including Calcutta), from one shelter to the next, on the streets, to an orphanage, and finally to a new home in Tasmania with adoptive parents (David Wenham and Nicole Kidman).

The second half shows Saroo as an adult (Dev Patel), going to school for hotel management. He starts to remember things from his past, and learns from friends and colleagues about a new online service called "Google Earth," which allows anyone to track various locations on earth using a "search radius," including previous railway stations and villages. With on-and-off support from his worried girlfriend Lucy (Rooney Mara), Saroo gets to the point of obsession over looking for his biological family, and even, at times, grows apart from the family that took him in, as well as the rebellious adopted brother he'd grown angst-ridden towards ("Where are you," they ask. "What home are you talking about? Where you're in one room and I'm in another?").

Dev Patel and Rooney Mara

Nicole Kidman and Sunny Pawar

This choice of the aforementioned structure works because it eliminates any conventions or cliches that are often associated with films that are "based on true stories" and it allows the audience to grow with the main character(s) rather than meet him later on and learn about his (their) past. The film also features two of the year's best performances. Patel transforms himself physically and emotionally as the adult Saroo, and as a lost and determined individual. Kidman adds great depth and raw emotion as Saroo's adoptive mother Sue, as a woman who has chosen to help those who are suffering.

The film is heartbreaking and hard to watch at times, considering the real Saroo Brierley was away from home for twenty-five years. "What if you do find home and they're never there," asks Lucy at a crucial moment. "I don't have a choice," Saroo responds, with determination. "They need to know I'm okay." Even Sue agrees, "I really hope your mother's there. She needs to see how beautiful you are." And with that determination, the film does have hope and inspiration in its message of family and caring for those that are lost or broken.

Dev Patel and Saroo Brierley

REVIEW: "La La Land" (2016)

Hollywood has certainly had a long history since the golden era of MGM in adapting successful stage and Broadway musicals into feature films (including recent hits Chicago, 2002; Into the Woods, 2014; and Les Miserables, 2012). But what director Damien Chazelle does in La La Land is different. Sure, it is an homage to the films of the aforementioned era (including, also, Casablanca and Singin' in the Rain), and it encompasses more than a century of various music genres. But this is perhaps the first real musical of the 21st century that is original. More than that, Chazelle (who recently directed Whiplash, 2014) has stated this is a musical for those who don't love musicals.

Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone play a jazz musician (Sebastian) and an aspiring actress (Mia), both struggling to make it big in Los Angeles. Being a movie musical, they both express themselves through song, through dance, and through jazz. The 50s/60s-inspired setting--with modern day tweaks, of course--adds to the thrill. The opening segment, for one, begins with classic-style studio logos, including the CinemaScope title card (and screen ratio span), while showing a time span of over a century of music via radio-station-skimming.

Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone

This fusion of fantasy and reality works brilliantly, as Sebastian and Mia try to make their dreams a reality, and are challenged by the notions of what is behind and what is ahead, especially in the case of jazz music. (One character tells Sebastian, "You're holding onto the past, but jazz is about the future.") These characters even try going their own directions, hoping for the best. And still, they do try to remind each other if what they do is what they're passionate about, or if it's just work for somebody else's dreams. The same goes for, in spite of many disappointments and not feeling good enough, seizing opportunity while it's there and giving everything your all.

La La Land is thoroughly irresistible. Every number, from the opening segment on a freeway to Gosling and Stone tap-dancing on a hill to the phenomenal climax, is a showstopper. The same goes for the wonderful costume design, terrific score, and Gosling and Stone's winning performances. What a rarity to see a film like this being made in our current franchise-heavy culture.

Love is in the air.

REVIEWS: "Arrival" and "Midnight Special" Redefine the Science-Fiction Genre

 

There seems to be a trend growing in science-fiction so far this decade. Not only have several filmmakers from Alfonso Cauron (Gravity, 2013) to Christopher Nolan (Interstellar, 2014) to Ridley Scott (The Martian, 2015) resurrected interest in the space race, but this year alone seems to see a return to extra-terrestrial activity. And we're not talking about pot-bellied botanists or men in black. (Okay, maybe a little on that last one.)

Netflix's smash-hit series "Stranger Things" centers on the disappearance of a boy, as well as a mysterious girl and a malevolent creature, while police, government agents, and friends pursue them all. The series is a clever and engrossing homage to 1980s pop culture, particularly the sci-fi/horror films of Steven Spielberg and John Carpenter, the novels of Stephen King, and "Dungeons & Dragons". (You can read my post on the series here.) Now there's director Denis Villeneuve's Arrival, which stars Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner as a linguist and a theoretical physicist who make contact with aliens. And earlier this year, director Jeff Nichols' Midnight Special featured Michael Shannon as the father of a young boy with mysterious otherworldly powers, and who's being pursued by government agents and cult members.

Amy Adams in Arrival

THE ARRIVAL OF A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE-FICTION
The premise of Arrival involves mysterious spaceships that land in twelve different countries around the world. As the film opens, we glimpse moments in the life of linguistics professor Louise Banks (the always incredible Adams, in perhaps her best role to date), specifically her life from her young daughter's birth up until her unexpected death, leading to a life of loneliness and bleakness. (The accompanying string score is profound and emotional.) Even her lakehouse home is dark, bleak, and lifeless (a color scheme that seems to permeate most of the film).

The film jumps to a lecture hall Louise teaches at, with a clear lack of communication among her students--that is, until news spreads about twelve mysterious egg-shaped spaceships that land in different areas around the world. Military specialists soon arrive with a recording they need Louise's expertise on, and eventually she's shipped to a base in Montana, where one of the ships (known as "shells") hovers nearby. The military's objective (as any person or organization or government branch would want to know) includes finding out what these beings want, where they're from, and why they're here? Theoretical physicist Ian Donnelly (Renner, in an equally engaging role) wonders, "Are they scientists or tourists?" How do they communicate? How do they think?

Jeremy Renner in Arrival

This is a classic and engrossing storytelling devise of ordinary characters thrown in extraordinary situations. The transition and character development throughout the film is partly shown in the way Louise breathes as she initially approaches contact with the extra-terrestrial beings (whom she and a colleague name, amusingly, Abbott and Costello). And when Louise exposes herself physically and consistently to the aliens, she begins to see images (possibly or apparently memories of her daughter), leading her to wonder what they mean, as well as what the aliens' intentions are. They also soon provoke various questions: Are these things/memories that have happened? Or are they premonitions of what will happen? But when news spreads from other base sightings around the world of a possible war spreading, it creates fear amongst several countries. "We're in a world with no single leader," says one character.

All political controversy aside, the shot of the UFOs is one of the most unforgettable images on screen this year. The same for the crew's containment suits (rivaling what Ridley Scott did in The Martian and Prometheus). Even the sight of the aliens (called "heptapods") is a cross between squids and trees, with foggy, cloud-like symbols that represent their language. And the score by Johann Johannsson is haunting and mysterious, just as it is evocative.

Amy Adams makes contact in Arrival

Most surprising is that this film is not what you expect it to be. For some, they may be expecting a slam-bang sci-fi thriller with high-octane action and gripping drama a la District 9 (2009). For others, it may be an entertaining journey a la Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977). But Villeneuve (Prisoners, 2013; Sicario, 2015) is more interested in the human aspect of his first-contact story. His main objective (as well as unconventional approach) is the illustration of communication, language and understanding, as well as regret, memory, time, and learning to live again. As one character says, "There are days that define your story beyond your life, like the day they arrived." That same character later asks, "If you could see your whole life from start to finish, would you change things?"


A MIDNIGHT SPECIAL PUTS A NEW SPIN ON THE CHASE ADVENTURE

Jaeden Lieberher in Midnight Special

Midnight Special opens in a hotel room, with tape and cardboard covering the windows. A boy hides under a blanket, wearing blue goggles and reading a Superman comic book. Two adult guardians (Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton) get ready to go late at night and hit the highway, in a sequence that set the stage for the gripping, intense, and engrossing events on the way.

This science-fiction drama about a father (Roy Tomlan) and son (Alton Meyer) on the run from government agents as well as cult members has the elements that make up a worthy chase movie, as Alton shows he has extra-terrestrial powers (light beaming from his eyes and hands, hence the goggles, and catching radio signals), and Roy's objective is to get him to a specific place at a specific time on a Friday ahead.

Michael Shannon, Jaeden Lieberher, and
Joel Edgerton in Midnight Special

Other characters besides Alton (Jaeden Lieberher) and Roy (Shannon, in a riveting and devoted performance) include his friend and former officer Lucas (Edgerton), the ranch leader (Sam Shephard), NSA agent Paul Sevier (Adam Driver), and Alton's mother (Kirsten Dunst). This is a terrific, impeccable cast in a provocative story of faith, fatherhood, and pursuit of the unknown. In fact, as Arrival is, at its center, a mother-daughter story, Midnight Special is very much a father-son story, with real human drama and mystery that is perhaps stronger than the equally brilliant dialogue and script.

The motif of light is prevalent throughout, and suggests many different meanings, such as how it tells of people's places in the world, as well as what man-made religions (like the cult/ranch) make of it. (In fact, one interrogator in a scene makes an accusation that the ranch's "sermons" contain mysterious encryptions and/or coordinances to the aforementioned time and place.) The way Alton reveals light in his eyes and hands illustrates the intense phenomena that occurs, as it does when meteors crash at a totally unexpected moment, and the way he reacts to the sun. It's also interesting the way Nichols (who also directed Shannon in Take Shelter, 2011, and Mud, 2013) incorporates Superman comics into this story and raises all kinds of questions. Is the sun Alton's "kryptonite"? What is the significance of the date and time they are heading towards? Is there a place beyond our own where there are others like Alton? Perhaps guardian angels? What will happen when Roy lets his son go?

Michael Shannon and Jaeden Lieberher in Midnight Special

This theme of new life and a world beyond our own (and perhaps facing fears) recalls the type of world Gandalf describes to Pippin during a moment of doubt in The Return of the King. Furthermore, it exemplifies the question of what doesn't last long and what does (this world or our own?). There are certain elements from E.T. and Close Encounters that Nichols pays subtle homage to, yet he makes them completely his own, especially during what many may perceive as a pretentious moment. Yet, said moment illustrates this aforementioned theme very well. It's as if M83's track (and accompanied music video) "Midnight City" were made into a feature film. And a very restrained and mysterious one, at that.

WRITER'S NOTE: A featurette for this film can be found on YouTube titled, "Shine a Light" (watch here) while a track over the credits, titled "Midnight Special," contains the lyrics, "Shine a light on me."

REVIEWING CLASSICS: "Die Hard" (1988)

Ebenezer Scrooge. The Grinch. Ralphie Parker. Buddy the Elf. These are just a few characters we often think of when it comes to the holidays.

And then there's John McClane. Okay, maybe not the first name that immediately comes to mind for yuletide splendor and cheer, but definitely with cinematic action and mayhem. Nevertheless, and interestingly, many film buffs consider the 1988 action movie Die Hard a "Christmas classic." Sure, it's set around Christmas time (other movies that have done so include Lethal Weapon, Gremlins, and Batman Returns), as our hero (an NYPD cop) goes to visit his family in Los Angeles on Christmas Eve. The real plot, however, gets going when McClane's estranged wife's office building is suddenly taken hostage by a group of German terrorists, while McClane himself slips out unnoticed and becomes the only hope they have.

It's a pretty straightforward and simple story, but in retrospect, Die Hard has a surprisingly strong narrative, along with cast of archetype characters from the hero McClane (Bruce Willis' most iconic role) to the villain Hans Gruber (the late Alan Rickman, in his unforgettable film debut) to the "bride" Holly (Bonnie Bedelia, now also famous for NBC's "Parenthood") to the supportive cop Al (a pre-"Family Matters" Reginald VelJohnson). It also happens to be one of the best structured movies ever written, with excellent examples of a setup, confrontation, and resolution (read Syd Field's book "Screenplay").

Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman)

Holly Gennero McClane (Bonnie Bedelia)

Sgt. Al Powell (Reginald VelJohnson)

Lest we forget, other films that weren't initially or ever intended as "holiday" films (including It's a Wonderful Life) are now regarded as such today. Watchmojo.com ranks Die Hard as the best "alternative Christmas movie" ever made. A few years ago, Christian media discernment site PluggedIn, in a way, commented that this film ranked better than others that are regarded as "holiday" movies (such as Jingle All the Way, Fred Claus, and even The Polar Express). Cinemagogue creator and pastor James Harleman even had an interesting sermon and theological discussion on the film earlier this year (read here).

What makes John McClane an engrossing and interesting (yet flawed) character is not just the way Bruce Willis portrayed him--as a cocky, smart-alecky everyman in a situation he didn't ask for--but also the fact that this character is a direct contrast to the macho characters of the 1980s (from Arnold Schwarzenegger's Predator hunter to Sylvester Stallone's Rambo to Peter Weller's Robocop). All McClane has are the clothes on his back (pants, undershirt), his gun, and (surprise!) his bare feet. In fact, director John McTiernan insisted that McClane be portrayed as "an everyday, flawed man that rises to the occasion in dire circumstances" (IMDb), even over the holidays. In the series' sequels, however, the character would become more unbelievable and cartoony. Nevertheless, McClane represents the modern-day cowboy, as well as the unconventional hero (or antihero, if you prefer), who does what nobody else will do. Hans Gruber even says to McClane, "So you're just another American who thinks he's John Wayne? Rambo? Marshal Dillon?" McClane responds by comparing himself to classic western star Roy Rogers.

To be sure, as exhilarating of a movie as it is, Die Hard is also a very violent and profane one (obviously not for everybody), what with it's many pre-9/11 set pieces "with enough explosives and gunfire to orbit Arnold Schwarzenegger" (remember the scene with McClane's bare feet and the broken glass?), very brief images of nudity, and, of course, Willis' infamous one-liner. On the other hand, those who are wise and discerning when and if they choose to see/watch it will arguably find some strong narrative and thematic components that counter the typical consumerism of the holidays, and may instead find a flawed character who's more determined than anybody else and tries to restore things, including his relationship with own family. Yippee ki-yay, indeed.

A Cine-Thematic Retrospect of the Dark Knight: The Caped Crusader "Returns" to A New Franchise or, What Wouldn't Keep "Forever"

One of the interesting things in looking back on the history of comic book characters making their leap to the silver screen is learning about (and learning from) their periods of highs and lows, as well as the notion of creative control or lack of it, whether from Hollywood's end or the filmmakers behind said films. I've written in previous months (and, to a degree, extensively) about Batman and his big-screen interpretations from 1989 to present. In fact, it was the 1989 feature that gave new life to the character after a two-decade absence, not to mention my first recollections of the character while growing up (read my review of the film here). Since then, I've had two other fond childhood memories of the character and the franchise: the award-winning animated series that premiered on Fox in 1992 (which was influenced by Burton's films), and the 1995 third feature, Batman Forever. (I even did chores one time to save up money to buy the videocassette when it came out.) 

The original movies from the late 80s to the late 90s have generally been regarded and often criticized for their style over substance, action over story, and villains over heroes. The first movie had an artful and dark tone, for sure, while the second film, Batman Returns, initially upset critics (and especially soccer moms) with its grim and nightmarish atmosphere. This led Warner Brothers to aim for a lighter, blockbuster action-packed, and more family-friendly approach to the next installment (despite the fact that the previous big screen outing, the 1993 animated feature/spin-off Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, was PG-rated.) Having rewatched Forever recently, I stand heavily divided on it, as far as I'm concerned. 

Val Kilmer and Nicole Kidman in Batman Forever

Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones in Batman Forever

On the positive side, first of all, Val Kilmer is an effecting Bruce Wayne and an interesting and distinct Batman. (The actor has a hypnotic and mesmerizing voice to begin with.) The motif of duality and split personalities is prevalent not just in Kilmer's rendition, but also in the supporting cast of characters from Harvey Dent/Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones), abnormal psychiatrist Dr. Chase Meridian (Nicole Kidman), acrobat-turned-sidekick Dick Grayson/Robin (Chris O'Donnell), and scene-stealing mad scientist Edward Nygma/The Riddler (Jim Carrey). Carrey's scenes, in fact, give the film a physically comedic aspect similar to Jack Nicholson's scene-stealing role as the Joker in the original film and Michelle Pheiffer's mischievous role as Catwoman in the first sequel. And Robin's origin story is well told in this version. 

But despite a brilliant flashback sequence showing Bruce Wayne's past, the two disadvantages of Kilmer's rendition (despite his evident complexity) are his character's lack of mystery and terror, and his sex appeal. Moments of sexual references and sensuality between Kilmer's Caped Crusader and Kidman's Meridian are unnecessary, especially when trying to appeal to a broader audience. Plus, the now-infamous rubber Batsuit nipples personally bother me, as they did many viewers. 

The newly-styled Batmobile in Batman Forever

Val Kilmer and Chris O'Donnell in Batman Forever

George Clooney and Chris O'Donnell in Batman & Robin
Clooney has stated that doing this film was one of his biggest career regrets,
while O'Donnell confessed, "When I made Batman Forever, I felt like I was making a
movie. When I made [this one], I felt like I was making a toy commercial."

And while the complexity of the Caped Crusader does surface at times, all of that really takes a backseat to the pop entertainment and action that permeates this film. The filmmakers have stated that the look of Gotham City here was inspired by the comics of the 1950s, and even paid homages to the first appearances of Robin and the Riddler at the time. On the other hand, one reviewer compared Gotham City in this film to Las Vegas, while one of the film's producers described it as "Saturday Night Fever on acid." And some of the action sequences (including the stylish Batmobile driving up the side of a building) are pretty cool and spectacular. But that's also, perhaps, the film's biggest disadvantage in terms of over-the-top style (Jones' Two-Face is extremely overkill, for one). And this would dominate the critical and commercial disappointment that was 1997's Batman & Robin, and to a fault that many feared killed the franchise then. 

When interviewed years later on the aforementioned response to both films from director Joel Schumacher, executive producer Michael E. Uslan described it as follows: 

The best way I can answer that is probably to talk generally about the industry, as opposed to talking specifically about Batman. There are times when you need to step back and realize that movie studios today are not necessarily the same things that they were many years ago. Many movie studios are international conglomerates now. They own everything from theme parks to toy companies to T-shirt companies to video companies. There's a lot of different wheels to be greased. Sometimes, over the decades, the tail started wagging the dog. In some cases, decisions were being guided more by toys and Happy Meals than by creative filmmaking. The danger there is that the entertainment you're making starts to feel like an infomercial for toys, as opposed to great film. Rather than being in a position where a studio dictates that a movie should be light, bright, and kiddie-friendly and family-friendly, with three or four heroes and three or four villains, and each one having two costume changes and two vehicles, to satisfy the toy and merchandising requirement, I think just letting filmmakers-great filmmakers-just go out and make great films, with a belief that if they make great films, you're going to sell merchandising and video games and things anyway, is the best way to do it. (IMDb) 

Tim Burton behind the scenes of Batman Returns

Michelle Pheiffer, Danny DeVito and Michael Keaton in Batman Returns

Uslan makes a great point in starting with films first, and then having toys and merchandising spin off from that. I think one of the reasons Batman Forever and its mind-numbing follow-up don't hold up today is because, at the time, they seemed to fulfill the supposed expectations of what Hollywood thought a conventional comic-book movie should be (with hip and pop soundtrack music thrown in), instead of allowing filmmakers to bring their own creative and unconventional visions to life. (The same thing happened with the Superman franchise in the late-70s to the late-80s.) The former runs contrary to why Burton's respective films in the series stand out, what with their artful, intriguing and provocative undertones. (To be fair, Returns is more episodic.) On the other hand, all of the films here (preceding Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy) showcase Batman's adaptability to both art house-style filmmaking and summer blockbuster entertainment (for better or worse), as well as to comic books and animation and other mediums.

REVIEW: "Captain America: Civil War" a.k.a. Avengers 2.5: Clashes and Downfalls

This year's slate of comic-book films has shown an ever-growing (and sometimes unconventional) trend in how superheroes and other related characters are viewed in today's culture and world. Are they heroes or vigilantes? Good or bad? Perfect or flawed? Necessary or destructive?

The debatable Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice finds the two most iconic characters in DC history clashing over opposing worldviews following the events of 2013's Man of Steel, which featured a climactic showdown in Metropolis that resulted in polarizing 9/11-like imagery. Even the main characters are made bleak and broken, implying they've fallen from their idealism and are viewed as examples of misguided heroism. X-Men: Apocalypse finds Marvel's mutant team against an adversary team of mutants, headed by the ageless enemy Apocalypse. Suicide Squad finds a rogue's gallery of DC villains (including Deadshot, Harley Quinn, and Captain Boomerang) tasked with a deadly mission in exchange for clemency, and who find themselves against other villains such as the Joker. Marvel's Deadpool doesn't exactly count, although it does satirize the superhero craze of the 21st century thus far, what with the titular antihero's fourth wall breaks and unapologetic attitude.

(l-r) Tony Stark, Lt. James "Rhode" Rhodes, Natasha Romanoff, Steve Rogers,
Sam Wilson, Vision, Wanda Maximoff

In Captain America: Civil War (reportedly the beginning of "Phase 3" in the ever-growing and popular Marvel Cinematic Universe), government leaders propose a new act to keep the Avengers and company in check, following global events that have left devastating results both socially and economically. One scene, in particular, finds the character Vision discussing a theory related to similar events that have occurred even before the Avengers assembled (in the 2012 film).

Vision: In the 8 years since Mr. [Tony] Stark announced himself as Iron Man, the number of known enhanced persons has grown exponentially. And during the same period, a number of potentially world-ending events has risen at a commensurable rate.
Steve Rogers/Captain America: Are you saying it's our fault?
Vision: I'm saying there may be a causality. Our very strength invites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe. Oversight... Oversight is not an idea that can be dismissed out of hand.

The story pits and challenges various and specific themes against each other, such as heroes vs. government, submission vs. independence, protection vs. imprisonment and/or control, and also the consequences of war and the aforementioned casualties involved. At the center of this story is a clash in worldviews between "heroic" characters (particularly Captain America/Steve Rogers and Iron Man/Tony Stark), and not so much them against real-world figures and organizations.

What's great about Civil War is that it doesn't go the route of "the world is ending again," but instead focuses on the character developments and conflicts regarding said characters' roles and their motivations. And it equally works as an engrossing and deservedly-praised blockbuster full of impressive action set pieces (including a centerpiece standoff at an airport, complete with constant wit and surprises), as well as developing and engaging characters (Black Panther and Spider-Man steal the show, while Scarlet Witch and Vision are given better depth). By this point, we'll arguably never look at these characters the same way again, and (just maybe) hope that the best is still yet to come.