The Conjuring 2

Directed by James Wan

Sequels, for the most part, are usually disappointing. Sure, there are examples where a sequel trumps the original - The Godfather Part 2, The Empire Strikes Back, and Toy Story 3 come to mind - but most can't hold a candle to their predecessor. 

When it comes to sequels to horror films, the ratio of good-to-bad is even worse. For every sequel as good as The Devil's Rejects or 28 Weeks Later there are countless abysmal examples. 

When I saw The Conjuring on DVD last fall, I was very pleasantly surprised. I hadn't expected much, mostly based on director James Wan's track record, but it was a terrific horror film. When I heard they were making a sequel, I was immediately apprehensive.

Once again, though, I was surprised. The Conjuring 2 is an excellent film and is the best horror film I've seen since, well, The Conjuring.

The plot, much like the first film, deals with a family terrorized by an evil spirit in their home.This time, the action takes place in London in the late 1970's and the family, the Hodgson's, is made up of a single mother and her four children. 

After trying to deal with the problem on her own and with the help of their neighbors and local police and paranormal experts, Peggy Hodgson (Frances O'Connor) gets set up with Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga, reprising their roles from the first installment), who are the superstars of the paranormal investigation world. With their help, Peggy learns what's causing all the torment and, maybe, how to stop it.

* Farmiga, O'Connor, McBurney, and Wilson *

While this all sounds rather trite and predictable, I've been purposely vague in describing the plot and haven't touched on either of the subplots involving Lorraine Warren or the Hodgson children. The less said, the better, as I don't want to spoil anything.

The main appeal of these Conjuring films, for me, have been that they're legitimately scary, but also feature well written characters you end up caring about. The writing team of Carey Hayes, Chad Hayes, James Wan, and David Johnson combined to come up with a fantastic group of new characters and continued to develop the Warrens. In most horror films, the characters are basically cardboard cutouts, completely devoid of any real personality and are incapable of generating any sort of emotion from the viewer. They exist purely as an object to advance the plot and to - depending on the type of horror movie - get hacked apart, terrorized, haunted, or possessed. The writers made sure to highlight each and every character, even the smaller roles.

The Conjuring 2 takes its time setting the mood and gives us a chance to get to know Peggy and her children - Margaret, Janet, Johnny, and Billy - a little bit before the spookiness kicks into high gear. This extra time spent with the characters pays dividends down the road, because you're able to relate to them and care for them. You get to know them and want them all to be safe, which is an emotion lacking in a lot of horror films. Because of this extra effort, The Conjuring 2 is a bit longer than most examples from the genre - it clocks in at 134 minutes - but it was so much better because of it. The time flew by for me, as well.

In the restroom after the movie ended, I overheard two guys talking and their conversation amused me:

Guy #1: "It was kinda long. There were too many parts where nothing scary happened."

Guy #2: "Yeah, I don't think horror movies should be longer than 90 minutes. They just get boring."

I didn't think it was a great idea to get into a debate with two strangers while standing at the urinals, so I let these comments slide, but it really made me sad as a film lover that all this wonderful character development and atmosphere building could get swept aside so easily. 

* O'Connor and the two Hodgson girls - Madison Wolfe and Lauren Esposito - having a rough night *

I don't mean to imply that The Conjuring 2 isn't a scary film, just that it takes its time. Straight out of the gate, there's a prologue of sorts that is very unsettling and then the film launches into the main story at the Hodgson home, which produces scares from a variety of sources - including jump scares, tension, and a general creepy atmosphere. I've written in the past about my disdain of cheap jump scares, and if that's all The Conjuring 2 had to offer, it wouldn't be a film for me. Thankfully, none of the moments that made me jump - and there were at least three or four which elicited an involuntary physical reaction - were cheap or thoughtless. They were almost all born from the tension the writers created and the wonderful set and production design. In addition to the fantastically done jump scares, the film is also scary thanks to the generally creepy atmosphere and score. Everything combines for a thoroughly frightening film.

Writing a script basically comes down to three major components - the plot, the characters, and the dialogue. The writing team here does a great job with 2/3 of these components, but their one area of weakness is plotting. There's nothing very original, plot-wise, with The Conjuring 2 and the film suffers from some very basic plot contrivances. Now, these issues didn't effect my enjoyment of the film much while watching it - it's ridiculously easy to get swept up in the story - but it is something that becomes noticeable when thinking about it afterwards and holds The Conjuring 2 back from reaching the level of a "great" film.

With all this talk in regards to characters, it shouldn't be surprising the performers inhabiting those characters are excellent, as well. Even a superbly written character can be sunk by a shoddy performance, but thankfully that's not the case here.

Patrick Wilson has been an actor I've greatly admired for quite a long time - going back to 2003's HBO mini-series Angels in America - and he does some of his best work as Ed Warren. Wilson conveys a depth and breadth of character not often found in horror movies. Ed is a loving and supportive husband, who understands that it's his wife with the real "gift", but without him, she'd be unable to take advantage of it. When things get rough, Wilson is more than up to the task and is capable of delivering an action hero type performance when needed.

* The redecorating hasn't helped subdue the evil spirit, but Wilson likes it anyhow *

My favorite moment of the film, though, and one that keeps coming back to me is when Ed sits down to cheer up the Hodgson family with a song. He picks up a guitar and launches into a rendition of the Elvis classic Can't Help Falling in Love. Ed starts out funny - doing an Elvis impersonation - but soon settles into a beautiful performance. It comes at a perfect point in the film - after so much nastiness and heartache, but with even more to come, you know - and was an emotional moment not just for the characters, but for me, as well. It actually brought tears to my eyes, a reaction I never expected going into the movie. On a side note, Wilson is a much better singer than I ever expected, too!

As Lorraine Warren, Vera Farmiga has some of the best moments in The Conjuring 2. Her "gift" of psychic premonitions forces her to confront an evil demon - taking the form of a nun, just to mock her religious beliefs - and to see her beloved husband die in a most gruesome way, but Lorraine soldiers on, despite her initial protests. She knows the Hodgson family needs her help and can't stand to let innocent people suffer, even if it means further torment and possible death for her and her husband. Farmiga, like Wilson, has long been a welcome sight in films, and almost always delivers a fine performance. She does it again in The Conjuring 2, conveying Lorraine's fear and sympathy in equal measure, often times just through a look from her extremely expressive eyes. 

* Farmiga with the evil nun/demon lurking behind her *

The Hodgson family is even more important to the story than the Warrens are, so the casting and performances were critical, if the film was going to work. With weak performances, the characters would suffer and the audience might not care one way or the other what happens to them. O'Connor was a great choice for the role of Peggy - she hits all the right notes and was completely believable as a scared, angry, and vengeful mother caught up in this nightmare of a situation.

Madison Wolfe has the largest child role as Janet and doesn't disappoint, turning in a far ranging performance. She is equally believable as a regular kid as she is as a girl possessed by an evil spirit, and everything in between. A lot of the early creepy moments are seen from Janet's point of view and a lesser actress could have spoiled the tension and suspense. Wolfe plays them very well and doesn't go over the top, like a lot of young actors have a tendency to do. 

The other three Hodgson children are less developed as characters, but they are still well acted by Lauren Esposito, Patrick McAuley, and Benjamin Haigh. With this many young actors in the cast, you'd think at least one would be distracting or annoying, but that wasn't the case. Plus, they all seemed to have great chemistry with each other and O'Connor and Wolfe. The Hodgson's seemed like a real family to me and I was left wondering if the actors had a lot of rehearsal time to get to know each other. 

* Wolfe, having a very bad night *

I'm sure a lot of the credit for these good performances should go to the writing staff, who created well balanced characters, and to director James Wan, who evidently gave the actors the time and space needed to capture the performances. Like I said earlier, I'm no fan of Wan's work, for the most part. The Conjuring was the first film of his I even remotely liked - after the failure of Saw (an interesting idea made into a terrible film), the embarrassment of Dead Silence (which I couldn't even finish), and the disappointment of Insidious (a creepy looking movie with a good cast, but another bad result). His failure with Saw can be traced back to some shoddy writing and the lack of time/budget to create the type of film he was going for. With those elements in place, he's obviously capable of making better movies. I can't say that Wan has won me over, and I'm certainly not in the position to actively anticipate any film just because he's directing it, but he's moving in the right direction, at least.

My main complaint with the film is probably the climatic battle with the demon, which has a tremendous amount of fantastic buildup, but fizzles out rather quickly. I'm not sure what could have been done differently, but I would have liked more. More of a confrontation, more suspense, more action. The ending isn't bad, but it was a rather average way to end an otherwise excellent movie. 

The Conjuring 2 was the first horror film I've seen in the theater in almost five years - since the disappointing Paranormal Activity 3 - and it'll probably be a while until I see another one there. Most entries in the genre simply aren't worth the money (tickets, popcorn, sodas) or energy (finding a babysitter, driving there, standing in line) it takes to have a night out at the cinema. 

Of course, if The Conjuring 3 gets made - which, given the financial success of both films, seems very likely - I'll be there, sitting in the darkened theater, waiting to be scared again. 

Lawrence of Arabia

Directed by David Lean

When I created the list of my Top 10 Most Beautiful Films, several people noted the absence of Lawrence of Arabia, David Lean's Oscar winning epic which is widely considered one of the most beautiful films ever made. While it had been on my list of classic films to see, I simply hadn't gotten around to it back in April. Now that I have, I can safely say it would easily make my list. 

Lawrence of Arabia is a stunning film - truly a visual treat from beginning to end, especially on the big screen in 70mm - but that only explains part of its appeal. It is also a masterfully crafted film in nearly every regard, from the performances and writing to the direction, score, and editing. 

The film starts with a motorcycle roaring down a winding countryside road. The sensation of speed is terrific - it felt like I was riding alongside the nameless stranger, taking the curves at 70 or 80MPH with him. The stranger takes one too many risks and careens out of control. We don't see the crash occur, but we don't need to in order to understand the rider couldn't survive. 

* The lone survivor of the traumatic motorcycle crash *

In the next scene, it's revealed the speed enthusiast was T.E. Lawrence (Peter O'Toole, in one of his first major roles) and his extravagant funeral is well attended by political and military dignitaries. A newspaper reporter tries to get quotes from those "who knew the man best" but finds that no one really knew Lawrence. 

Cutting immediately from the funeral, we're thrown back in time twenty years to Egypt during World War 1, where Lawrence is a young, brash, and intelligent officer with the British army. Due to his experience with Arab culture, he is given an assignment to find Prince Faisal (Alec Guinness) and assess his troops in their revolt against the Turks.

Perhaps the most famous image from Lawrence of Arabia is found early on in the film - the iconic "match" cut which transports the viewer from inside a small room on the Army base to the vast desert. I had seen the cut several times in various retrospectives on television or online, but seeing it on the big screen was a sight to behold. 

* The moment before one of the greatest "match" cuts in film history *

* And the moment after - from flame to sunrise *

It doesn't take Lawrence long to endear himself to the Prince and soon he's leading a daring expedition across the blistering Nefud Desert to launch a surprise attack against the important port city of Aqaba. Accompanying him are fifty of the Prince's soldiers, led by Sherif Ali (Omar Sharif) who is wary of the pasty skinned Englishman. The rest of the film is a series of battles - both physical and political - with Lawrence undergoing some serious character changes. Even though the film is more than 50 years old, I have no intention of spoiling anything.

Film is often called a "director's medium" and if you ever need an example of what a director can accomplish, look no further than Lawrence of Arabia. Right from the start, with that exciting motorcycle race, the film shows how talented and detail orientated David Lean was. Each scene, each camera setup, and each frame was meticulously planned and executed. Lean was known to be a bit of a taskmaster on his sets and would require take after take until he got exactly what he wanted. Like with some of my favorite directors - I'm thinking specifically of Stanley Kubrick and David Fincher - you can't argue with the results. They may be difficult to work with and the cast and crew may end up exhausted, but the final product speaks for itself. Lawrence of Arabia is a beautiful, exciting, well developed, and emotional film with wonderful performances throughout. It is one of the best epic films I've seen and a lot of the credit can and should go to Lean, who won the Academy Award for Best Director for his efforts - his second, after winning previously for The Bridge on the River Kwai. 

Peter O'Toole used Lawrence of Arabia as a springboard and launched his career, wherein he built a reputation as one of cinema's greatest actors. For me, though, I had only seen him in two films he probably regretted doing - King Ralph and Troy - and then as a voice actor in the Pixar masterpiece, Ratatouille. After experiencing his beautiful, haunting turn as T.E. Lawrence, I'm eager to see more of his work. Lawrence is a bit of an enigma - he's quiet and reserved, but can be shrill and emotional, as well. He blends into the background, but also stands in front, leading his men into battle. He seeks out publicity and adoration, but can't seem to handle it all that well. O'Toole is completely believable on an emotional and physical level. He uses his physicality - his height, his lankiness, his practically glowing white skin, and his piercing blue eyes - as a way to stand out from the crowd. He seems like a born leader of these men and quickly proves himself capable of that enormous charge. Near the end of the film, Lawrence undergoes a radical personality change and O'Toole handles it with ease. It's just one more indicator of a great character and performance and O'Toole was deservedly nominated for the Best Actor Academy Award, but lost to Gregory Peck's also iconic role in To Kill a Mockingbird. In addition to numerous accolades at the time and over the years, the American Film Institute named Lawrence as the 10th greatest Hero in all of cinema, and it's easy to see why.

Considering it's the lead role in a huge production, it's not surprising the young, mostly unknown O'Toole wasn't the first choice for Lawrence. Albert Finney was Lean's initial choice, but he didn't think the film would be a hit and turned it down. Marlon Brando refused the role, as well, and Anthony Perkins and Montgomery Clift were each considered for the part before Lean and producer Sam Spiegel decided on O'Toole. I can't imagine any of them turning in a performance anywhere near as wonderful or layered as O'Toole did and I shudder at the thought of Brando prancing and mumbling through the film. It seems like one of those instances where the chosen actor was destined to play the part.

Omar Sharif, an Egyptian born actor, is excellent as Ali - he has a quick wit, endearing smile, and imposing glare and uses all these features and more to create a well rounded and interesting character. Ali is a proud, strong, and determined man and has one of the best introductory scenes that I've ever seen. We first see him from a great distance, riding towards Lawrence and his guide as they drink from a well. He rides directly at the camera - it's a long take with a long lens and the buildup is fantastic - wearing dark robes and brandishing a firearm. From the first moment Ali is onscreen, you just know he's going to be a captivating character. Sharif embodies him with so much heart and fire and humor and was rewarded with a nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Like O'Toole, Sharif went home from the Academy Awards empty handed, which is a shame. 

* A mysterious rider approaches from the distance *

* Sharif, O'Toole, and a bunch of camels *

Going into the film, Alec Guinness was by far the actor I knew best from Lawrence of Arabia's cast, but I was somewhat worried about how he - a white British man - would play an Arab prince. I didn't want it to be a situation like John Wayne in The Conqueror, where he played Genghis Khan. Of course, Guinness is a much better actor and the makeup used was convincing enough to make him look like the real life Prince Faisal, so much so that people who actually knew Faisal were taken aback. The last hurdle in creating a believable foreign character is the accent and Guinness nailed it here. He reportedly based his accent on Sharif's, which was a good choice. 

As a character, Faisal goes in and out of the story, and is always a welcome treat. I don't think any of his scenes last longer than five minutes, but Guinness makes the most of his screen time. Just like Lawrence and Ali, Faisal is an interesting, funny, and well written character. Due to the lack of screen time, Faisal doesn't have as much character development as Lawrence or Ali, but he's still a fully developed person, which says a lot about the quality of the writing. 

* Guinness as Prince Faisal, with O'Toole looking on *

Speaking of the writing, I was very surprised to learn the production had several delays due to Lean and company starting filming without a finished script. Usually, in these types of instances, you can tell while watching the film that there were difficulties, but that's not the case with Lawrence of Arabia. The writing - from the basic plot to the characters and dialogue - is very good for the most part and excellent at times. Considering it's a film set in an exotic location (with exotic sounding places and character names) and deals with a lot of politics of the area, it could have ended up confusing to someone watching it for the first time, like me. The screenplay is structured in such a way, however, that it was never a problem. After hearing the names a few times, it was very easy to keep everything straight and I give the screenwriters, Michael Wilson and Robert Bolt, a lot of credit. Wilson wrote the first draft, which was centered more on the politics and history of the area, and Lean and Spiegel weren't entirely pleased and brought in Bolt to rewrite as more of a character study of Lawrence. In the end, Wilson's contributions amounted to the characters created and the majority of the scenes, while Bolt wrote all the dialogue and changed the focus of the story. Again, the final product just doesn't seem like it went through these issues - it appears seamless. The Academy Awards thought so, too, as it was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay, but lost to To Kill a Mockingbird, just like O'Toole did.

One of the most surprising things about Lawrence of Arabia, for me at least, was how humorous the film was. I didn't know a whole lot about the plot or characters going into the screening - which is probably the best way to view any film - but I just assumed it wouldn't be particularly funny. I was very wrong. All the characters are amusing at different times, but Lawrence is easily the funniest. O'Toole delivers dry, sarcastic jabs at everyone from his superior officers to the Arab soldiers to the Prince and everyone in between. These quick, and inherently British, retorts come at any and all times, whether Lawrence is at ease or in mortal danger. This was a masterful way to break up the tension and I'm sure the film would have been much less enjoyable without the influx of humor. 

If you're a regular reader of this blog, you know I'm a listaholic. I'll make lists for just about anything movie related, but one such topic I haven't covered (yet) is my Favorite Film Scores. When I get around to compiling and publishing that list, you can bet Lawrence of Arabia will be featured, possibly near the top. Composed by Maurice Jarre over the span of six shorts weeks, the score does what the best scores aim to do - it evokes an emotional response, highlights the action on screen without overpowering it, and helps to create atmosphere. At times, Jarre's score is bombastic and powerful, but it works just as well during its quieter and more subtle moments. In addition to Jarre's original music, which earned him the first of three career Academy Awards for Best Original Score, Lawrence of Arabia also features the march The Voice of the Guns, composed by Kenneth Alford in 1917. This piece is used several times throughout the film to denote the power and breadth of the British army. It's a stirring piece, but I think it pales in comparison to the beautiful music Jarre brought to life, which is used throughout the film - including during the overture and intermission. The American Film Institute listed the score as the third best of all-time, just behind Star Wars (hard to argue against that selection) and Gone with the Wind. 

With the following YouTube link, you can watch the opening credits and hear a medley of Jarre's terrific score. It features snippets of music used throughout the film, including the rousing flourish of the "main theme" at about the one minute mark. Note that Sir Adrian Boult is credited with conducting the orchestra, but he actually couldn't adapt to the intricate timing cues, so Jarre ended up replacing him.

The main reason I wanted to see Lawrence of Arabia on the big screen was because I knew its reputation as such a stunningly photographed film. I had seen clips and a handful of still frames, but those can't compete with viewing the whole thing, from beginning to end on a screen that engulfs your entire field of vision. Even though the print I saw was heavily damaged in parts and mildly damaged throughout, the majesty of Freddie Young's cinematography shone through. The shot composition and the length of the shots - credit to the superb editing work of Anne Coates, who is still active after 50+ years in the business - combined to make some of the most breathtaking visuals I've ever had the pleasure to see. Young and Coates both won Academy Awards for their work - the first of three career wins for Young - which shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has seen this masterful film.

I don't think I could pick a favorite shot from Lawrence of Arabia, but I've tried to include some of the best here in this blog. Here are a few more, just for good measure.

* One of the film's most famous moments, Lawrence leading the charge into battle *

* Landscape shots like this are very impressive, thanks to the "Super-Panavision 70" photography *

* The world's hottest sledding hill *

One of my few complaints about the film is the poorly timed intermission, which occurs very late in the film. Since the film runs almost 3.5 hours, you'd expect the intermission to happen close to halfway through. Instead, the intermission - which lasted an ungodly twenty five minutes at my screening - occurred after 2.5 hours. The timing interrupted the flow of the film in such a way that the narrative suffered. The first 2.5 hours practically flew by for me - so much so that I was shocked to see what time it was when I got up to stretch and refill my popcorn and soda - but the final act seemed to drag. I blame this in part due to being so completely removed - literally! - from the film. I understand the point of intermissions in longer films like Lawrence of Arab, but the timing here really hurt my overall enjoyment. With less than an hour to go, I would have much preferred not having the break at all. When I eventually buy the Blu-ray disc, I will watch it straight through and see how I feel.

One of the repeated complaints I've read about the film is that we don't get to know Lawrence very well, but I think this was done on purpose. Lawrence was a mystery to the people who knew him best in real life, so why should we - as viewers of his bio pic - get any additional first hand knowledge? Or, an even better question, how would we get that information, unless the filmmakers simply made it up? In the end, it didn't bother me since it didn't impact the story we were watching unfold.

Immediately following my showing, my main complaint was the drastic character change that Lawrence undergoes - in the final act, after the intermission - didn't make much sense to me. But, after thinking about it more and using a little inductive reasoning, that wasn't really the case. After clearing that hurdle, my appreciation of the film increased and I raised my rating a whole point. Lawrence of Arabia isn't a film that spoon feeds everything to you, but instead relies on your ability to pay attention and think through some parts. In my mind, this is an extremely positive aspect.

* Another favorite shot - Lawrence back in uniform, standing in the shadows *

In addition to all the accolades I've mentioned so far, Lawrence of Arabia won the Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Art Direction, and Best Sound. All combined, it was nominated for ten Oscars and won seven of them. A bit of trivia - at 222 minutes, Lawrence of Arabia is the longest film to ever win Best Picture, narrowly edging out Gone with the Wind, which I was surprised to find didn't run twelve hours, despite how it felt.

In 1991, the Library of Congress deemed the film "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" and enshrined it in the National Film Registry. If any film meets all three of those criteria, it's Lawrence of Arabia.

The American Film Institute named Lawrence of Arabia the greatest "epic" and 5th greatest film - in any category - of all-time. While I don't value it that highly, it's hard to argue their choice. It is a classic in every sense of the word and one I hope to revisit very soon.

Captain America: Civil War

Directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo

By now, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU, for short) is either for you or not - there's little middle ground. If you're a fan, you're going to be pleased a couple times each year. If you're one of the many who bemoan a new addition to this ever expanding series, you've got something fresh to complain about on a regular basis. 

For me, the MCU contains films I love (Captain America: The First Avenger, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Iron Man, Guardians of the Galaxy), films I like (The Avengers, The Incredible Hulk), films I have no interest in ever seeing again (Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Thor, Avengers: Age of Ultron), and even a couple I haven't seen yet (Thor: The Dark World and Ant-Man). I'm by no means a fanboy, but even the worst of these films (Iron Man 2) isn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination. For a series stretching 13 films (and counting), it's shown a fair amount of consistency.

The newest addition to the MCU is Captain America: Civil War, the third installment of the Captain America series. Before watching it, I was a bit worried it would be more in line with The Avengers films rather than the Captain America films, which is why it took me nearly a month to get around to seeing it. 

I needn't have worried. 

Civil War is a tad more bloated than The First Avenger and The Winter Soldier, primarily due to the influx of The Avengers (minus Thor and Hulk, who were apparently off gallivanting across the universe and couldn't be bothered to make an appearance) and several other new characters, but it still felt like a Captain America movie to me, which is definitely a good thing.

The film starts with a very well done action scene. It's not only exciting and intense, but sets up the plot perfectly. After an incident occurs in a foreign country where innocent people are hurt and killed, the United Nations wants The Avengers subjected to a strict and binding set of guidelines and government oversight. Captain America (AKA Steve Rogers, played by Chris Evans) doesn't like the sound of that, knowing first hand how government agencies and people in general can develop their own agendas. He clashes with Iron Man (AKA Tony Stark, played by Robert Downey, Jr.), who feels guilty about the destruction, even though he knows it was done for the greater good. 

- Even superheroes have to attend meetings -

In addition to this strife, the two also clash over how to handle The Winter Soldier (AKA Bucky Barnes, Rogers childhood friend, played by Sebastian Stan), who was brainwashed by the evil Hydra organization and has resurfaced again, leaving a slew of bodies in his wake. Captain America wants to get to his friend and save him while Iron Man wants to find and arrest him. Since you've seen the previews and commercials, you know that eventually the two come to a head and end up splintering The Avengers. Some side with Cap, some with Iron Man. 

Evans and Downey, Jr. are both very good in their roles, which isn't surprising given the amount of times they've played these characters. Evans isn't a particularly great actor, but he's perfectly suited to the role of Captain America. RDJ, on the other hand, is a fantastic actor and turns in another wonderful performance as Iron Man/Tony Stark. Stark started off as a cocky, boisterous playboy, but has grown (over the course of six films) to be a more mature and compassionate person. RDJ now plays the character with a weariness and slight exhaustion balancing out his sarcasm and wit. He's not as much fun as he used to be, but Stark feels like a much more real character now.

- Team Cap -

The film handles the divide in a really well done way. Neither side is inherently right or wrong. As an audience member, you can see the argument each character makes and they both make sense. Captain America knows Bucky is a guy with a messed up head who doesn't have any choice over his behavior at times and just wants to save him and help him. As always, Cap behaves in an honorable and dignified way. He has a code of honor and can't stray from it, even if it means alienating some of his new friends.

- Team Iron Man -

Iron Man tends to look at things more practically and understands that world politics have to be handled gently, otherwise things could turn very ugly for The Avengers. Part of Stark's character changes can be directly linked to his former career as a weapons designer.  Those weapons killed too many people and he just wants to handle things diplomatically, when possible from now on. The Stark from the original Iron Man probably would have scoffed at signing off on any of these guidelines.

Each "team" leader is joined by a cadre superheroes, but most of them are friends and respect each other immensely. It makes the eventual skirmishes and outright brawls difficult for the characters. These aren't villains they're fighting, after all. Just friends who have come down on opposite sides of a very important issue.

One of the best things about Civil War are the newly added characters, who range from heroes to villains to politicians - who, like in real life, can be both heroic and villainous. On the hero side, Spider-Man, one of the most popular comic book characters of all-time, makes his MCU debut. Tom Holland plays Peter Parker and his web slinging alter ego with boyish charm, gushing at the chance to meet and fight alongside (and against) his heroes. Holland impressed me mightily in the 2012 drama, The Impossible, and while his role here isn't anywhere near as layered or emotional, you can just tell that the young man has a bright future in Hollywood. He exudes charisma, even when his face is completely covered by red spandex.

- One of several new characters -

Joining Spider-Man is The Black Panther, and while I don't want to disclose his alter ego or the actor portraying him, I can say that he is one of the highlights of the film. The character is completely new to me - I haven't read any of the comics - so I didn't know what to expect and was very impressed. His costume, fighting style, and story-line are all very well done. It's a character I look forward to see a lot more of in future films. 

Ant-Man, star of his own film that I've yet to see, has about as much screen-time as Spider-Man and manages to upstage nearly everyone in one pivotal, awesome, and explosive action scene set at an airport. Paul Rudd (who has consistently entertained me for over two decades)  embodies the occasionally miniature hero with oversized charm and sarcasm. After seeing the character here, I'm very excited to finally see Ant-Man, which I've put off for far too long.

Leading the charge against The Avengers from the political spectrum is Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) and Everett Ross (Martin Freeman). While neither character is given all that much time onscreen, both actors deliver fine performances, which shouldn't be surprising given their talent and track record. Hurt has long since been one of my favorite actors and Freeman is quickly rising through the ranks. Both get a moment or two to shine in Civil War and they seize those moments with gusto.

And from the outright villain side of things is the immensely talented Daniel Bruhl, who was magnificent in Rush and Inglourious Basterds. He plays Zemo, a man with a very personal grudge against The Avengers, who will do just about anything to see them come to blows with each other. Zemo, as a character, is pretty well developed and Bruhl hits all the right notes with his performance. My problem is that his evil plan, like most evil plans in these types of movies, just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. At the end, I was left thinking "There are a lot of better ways to go about that". The villains in the MCU films are always a bit lackluster, either due to the writing, performances, or both. Zemo is one of the better ones, but he still could use some work. It seems to me this part of the screenplay might have been rushed.

I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this, but the Marvel films would be much better off if they could borrow some villains from the DC comics. It seems like Marvel has the better heroes (Batman is the only DC hero I really like), but DC has much better villains. Wouldn't it be awesome to see The Avengers battle The Joker? Or Lex Luthor? Or Scarecrow? All of my favorite MCU movies suffer from having less than stellar villains. Note to Disney/Marvel: work on this and you might be able to make even more money!

- Just for my wife, who is in love with Chris Evans in these movies -

The bread and butter of all the MCU films has always been the action set pieces, and Civil War doesn't disappoint. Besides the aforementioned opening and airport scenes, which would be enough for most films, there are a number of other extended and exciting scenes. I do have a couple complaints with the action in Civil War, though. First, they are so heavily edited, almost to the point of being confusing. There seems to be a cut every second or two, so my eyes and brain had trouble keeping up. Second, there didn't seem to be much at stake during the numerous fight scenes. At no point did I seriously worry for any of the major characters. This didn't "ruin" the action for me, but with no real consequences at stake, it's hard to get emotionally invested in the scenes.

If the movie was just one action scene after another for 145 minutes, it would get very tiring very quickly, so it's good that Civil War excels at the quieter moments, too. The 'talky' moments don't feel like filler just wasting time in between battles, they are just as important to the overall film as any punch thrown or rocket launched or building toppled. The main conflict, essentially an ideological debate on how to govern superheroes, never felt forced or staged to me. I enjoyed the talks, sometimes heated and always heartfelt, between Captain America and Iron Man and Black Widow (the beautiful Scarlett Johansson) and War Machine (the always welcome Don Cheadle) and Hawkeye (a surprisingly effective Jeremy Renner). The comic moments, usually a staple of the MCU films, are a little lacking in Civil War. I suppose that's a consequence of the more serious nature of the plot and of Iron Man (generally the funniest character) being more morose than he was in earlier installments, but I would have liked more jokes. Most of the laughs come from Spider-Man and Ant-Man, and they're only in the one scene, for the most part.

A nice aspect of the film is the intense friendship between Captain America and Bucky. Cap won't let anything bad happen to his oldest friend, even when it means alienating his Avenger buddies. Evans and Stan have a lot of chemistry with each other and it translates well on screen. There aren't many films, especially big blockbusters like this, that highlight male friendships and it's always something I respond very favorably to.

Civil War's directors, Anthony and Joe Russo also helmed The Winter Soldier and are already in pre-production on Avengers: Infinity War. They have their particular style - which, thanks to Disney's heavy involvement, is in line with all the other films in the series - and it works well for these movies. I think they have a chance to improve on the previous Avengers movies, as they seem better suited to this style compared to Joss Whedon. The action scenes, despite the editing issue, are well staged and exciting and they have a good feel of the characters. To make things even better, the Russo brothers directed 15 episodes of the greatest television series ever - the criminally under seen Arrested Development - and included an "easter egg" in Civil War for us AD fans: during the airport sequence, a staircar exactly like the one the Bluth Company owned (sans logo, due to copyright purposes, I'm sure) is parked near the action. I knew about this going into the movie and was able to spot it quite easily!

- Watch out for hop ons -

Writers don't get a lot of credit in general, and that's especially true for films like Civil War, so I'd like to acknowledge the fine work of Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. Like the Russo brothers, Markus and Feely have a lot of experience with the MCU - they wrote the screenplays for all three Captain America films and Thor: The Dark World, plus they're writing Avengers: Infinity Wars - and it shows in Civil War. There's nothing flashy about their writing, but it's solid. Besides my one sticking point with Zemo's character, I can't really think of anything related to the script that was lacking. It's just a well constructed, entertaining, and thoughtful piece of writing.

Civil War is the official start to Phase Three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and nine more films - most of them intrigue me, besides Doctor Strange and Thor 3 - are planned for the next four years. It's a highly ambitious plan, but a seemingly safe one considering their track record so far.

With a start as wonderful as Civil War, I welcome the continuing adventures.