I enjoyed Civil War. Watching Age of Ultron made me question how far these films could expand their scope, seeming as though this progression into comic book lore resulted in a general lack of narrative coherence and quality cinema.
There's a lot to praise the Russo Brothers & writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely for their efforts with the latest Marvel flick: writing characters with a believable insight to the argument, pacing the film so it isn't boring, embracing comic book aesthetic, directing well choreographed fights and above all, making a fun film. It restored any faith lost as a result of Age of Ultron, which wasn't a bad film, just forgettable (sorry the Internet hurt your feelings Joss Whedon we loved the 2012 Avengers). Also, the action sequences in AoU gave me a headache and had no regard for the epileptic.
Thoughts on Fanboys, and Superhero films:
It seems as though the internet likes "dark". I've read people compare the film to Mickie Mouse. For anyone that still thinks the film had no stakes, The Avengers now consist of an underaged Spidey, paralysed Rhodey, an omnipotent yet growing Vision, and an arrogant Tony all now operating under the UN's will and the rest of the team in hiding, supposedly retired or still imprisoned. All while Thanos is yet to pay a visit, so that's neat, no? The Russo brothers defended the lack of deaths in the film with the idea that pain would have more impact than anything of narrative finality and now that Marvel seems to have hit puberty, I kinda believe they'll take Rhodes' paralysis seriously.
People complain about these comic book adaptations being unfaithful to the source material and that they lack "dark". Isn't the whole point of adaptation to best shape a collection of stories to a new platform? Which is film, and immediately means they will be critiqued as films. So why is it so difficult to accept that some of these films could just be poorly made or plain boring? X-men DOFP is one of my favourite comic book films, and yet it's completely plausible that Apocalypse may suck (in terms of cinema). People have an entitlement attached to their opinions about these films as if they've a hand in making them. If you feel insulted because your creative interests have been 'attacked', that doesn't mean a film is any less, well, bad. For example, I enjoy watching a film Jumper by Doug Liman inspite of bad reviews and that it is for the most part, boring. It probably has something to do with the fact that I saw it when I was younger, but it doesn't mean it's not a bad film.
Then there's the audience that complains about films lacking "dark". What's the point of "dark" if there's a lack of depth? Like Zack Snyder implying Batman needs to be raped in prison. Why, you ask? Ah, you know. Just for the f*ck of it. That's why.