This review is non-spoiler, but if you haven't seen the final trailer for this shit movie, do not read.
In all seriousness!
Bryan Singer is 4 for 4: X-Men: Apocalypse is yet again, a great Bryan Singer X-Men film. His fourth X-Men film and he still has it in him. He didn't top Days of Future Past, which is still the best X-Men film, but nearly met the standard set by Days of Future Past with this film.
People will disagree with me, but as a huge fan of Days of Future Past, this movie satisfied me. From an emotional standpoint, this film had it in spades. In fact, Days of Future Past is my favourite superhero film, partially because of emotion, and this film had a moment which I won't spoil, that was the most powerful scene in all X-Men films.
There are moments in this film where I forget I was watching a superhero film. From a sheer filmmaking standpoint? Bryan Singer wowed me. I had fears about the cinematography from the trailers, but it proved to be beautifully shot (with the exception of some shoddy CGI).
The action sequences: wow.
I praise this movie for the same thing I praised Civil War for: Mystique, Jean Grey, Cyclops, Magneto, X, Psylocke, Apocalpyse, Wolverine, Nightcrawler, Quicksilver, Storm, Angel, Beast and hell, Moira, all had their moments to shine. I cared for every single character in less then 2 1/2 hours. There were multiple characters in this film, and I respected all of them. Hell, there was a mother and a daughter in this film that I cared for. Hell, I cared for Storm here more then when she was shoved her under our throats in the OT.
Jean Grey, Cyclops and Nightcrawler were MVPs. Jean Grey was badass and humane, Cyclops was an apology for the tragedy that was James Mardsen's version of the character, and Nightcrawler was to this movie, what Ant-Man to Civil War, comic relief: and I loved every single moment of his character. Believe me when I say he surpassed X2's Nightcrawler. Don't get me wrong, X2's opening is still a highlight of superhero films, but they skimmed over the more levity aspects of the character.
In this movie, he kicked ass in action, AND was an antidote for the film's seriousness.
There were so many fantastic moments in this film. This movie could be gritty or heroic. It was sad, and pleasing. It was entertaining, and touching. I had my doubts that they would top Quicksilver's kitchen scene in DoFP, but holy shit. This was 10x the scene that was. There are bombastic, yet heroic, scenes in this movie that remind you why you watch superhero movies, and other moments that make you forget you are watching a superhero movie. Wolverine's sequence was insane.
The first 1 hour and 30 minutes of this film are fantastic. The final 50 or so minutes dropped in quality... but it was entertaining from beginning to end. That said, there are things in this film that prevent it from being an A+. They smothered the 80s settings, and smothered a potentially powerful Quicksilver story line. There was an overabundance of action, too.
That said, the characters felt humane. They respectively brought different spirits to the film, and I felt & understood why most of them were there.
In my Top 2 X-Men films.
Top 3 superhero movies: DoFP > Civil War > Apocalypse
Out of excitement for X-Men: Apocalypse, which is out in my country but I had to sit it out for a while & will be watching it in less then 12 hours, I rewatched a majority of the X-Men films in preparation.
Some of them, I was too busy to re watch. But I've seen them enough to form a decisive opinion on all of them. Some are better then others: but if that wasn't the case, this post wouldn't exist.
I might edit this blog after I watch the new X-Men, but I needed to get this out now. Worst to best.
8. X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Should've been called X-Men Borigins: Wolverine. Y'know, after seeing this movie, I'm glad they didn't make a Magneto Origins. Because anything associated to this title might just burn in a cease pool of acid. That's how it should be. Fassbender retains his solid track record, this way. Boring, dull, drub, Deadpool's character massacred. The best part of the film is probably the war montage.
7. X-Men: The Last Stand
Bad CGI, the lack of Singer felt, and "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" are all problems that persist in X-Men: The Last Stand. But all these missteps could be forgiven if not for the most fatal flaw in this film In my opinion? The story. Famke Janssen was horrible as Jean Grey from the get go - from me, at least, I've always hated Jean Grey in these movies. The story is her's, which makes it difficult for me to do the very simple act of caring.
Halle Berry, too.
You're probably thinking "Deadpool next to the tragedy that was the abysmal The Last Stand!? WHAT... IS THIS GIRL ON LSD." Well, you'd be partially right, but bear in mind that the space between The Last Stand and this movie is practically a behemoth. Deadpool is a fun movie. Ryan Reynolds as the lead is fantastic, his performance oozing with passion. The action is hard-hitting. Colossus is great. Negasonic is a character I'm hoping to see more of in the future. Why does Deadpool wind up so low, then?
The problem with Deadpool is that for a movie which parodies superhero movies, for a movie built with the intent of "breaking the mold in the superhero genre", Deadpool is weirdly... conventional. The most exciting parts are the comedic bits of the movie (which is 90% of the movie), but the movie as a story... it fell flat. I try not to put stock in comedy stories, but seeing as this is a movie's goal is to be different from other superhero movies, it felt very same-y.
Still a fun, and funny movie.
*may or may not be a part of the X-Men franchise. What do I know?
5. The Wolverine
The Wolverine is a movie I've personally found a bit underrated since it first hit theatres in 2013. It is not a very original film, it is predictable, and became formulaic towards the end of the film, a complaint you probably've heard repeated multiple times. But The Wolverine finds it's strength in placing Jackman at the centre of the film. He could carry this film on his own. I do believe this is the film where he peaked, and he shines in this film. This is his movie. The Japan setting set this movie apart from most other superhero movies.
Perhaps that is why I've a thing for this movie. It is not a conventional superhero movie. I enjoy the feel and setting of this film. The thematic value of this film elevates it from "mediocre blockbuster" to quite enjoyable, and re watchable territory. Forgettable? A bit. Bad? Not at all. Enjoyable? Yeah.
I might put The Wolverine a hair's length across X-Men, but for the meanwhile, X-Men sits as the most superior of the two. Why? It is not an understatement to say that X-Men is one of THE most important blockbusters. Sorry Sam Raimi, but you were not THE comic book director of your time. And you are not responsible for reviving the genre, regardless of what people might tell you.
That belongs to Bryan Singer.
Putting aside the impact this film made on the sub genre aside, and looking at it 16 years from then, X-Men is still a wonderfully entertaining piece of action film. Not a profound film from a storytelling standpoint, as the sequels expanded on that. But regardless, an enjoyable action film.
I rewatched this before writing up this list. It felt like 40 minutes. It's immensely fun. This movie brought us Wolverine, Xavier, Magneto, Mystique, Rogue, Ice Man, and, well... those are the only decent ones that stuck around. But you get the idea! Sabertooth* is an entertaining villain.
*don't know if I spelt the name right. Probably didn't. Can't bother.
3. X2: United
The most controversial placing on this blog? Possibly. I'll explain why X2: United is placed at third spot as opposed to second, or first. But for the meanwhile, why don't we look at X2: United as a film, and not as an item on a list.
That said, X2: United is a great film, expanding on it's predecessor in the same way that a good sequel, not a sequel, should. Retaining what made the first movie such as a resound success, but also raising the stakes, introducing a more complex story, and more thrilling set-pieces. X2 ticks all of the above, while still managing to be an entertaining film. The balance between all the characters is mostly what makes X2 such a success. Wolverine, Magneto, Professor X, Mystique, Rogue, Iceman, Nightcrawler, Pyro and Stryker all have a moment to shine, or develop in some form.
That said, there are two films in this franchise that exceed this film for me. #2 is not necessarily than this film from a filmmaking standpoint, but let's just say art should be looked at subjectively, not objectively. #1, on the other hand, stomps the rest in preference, and filmmaking.
Here we go.
2. X-Men: First Class
X2: United might be the more perfect film from a technical standpoint, but X-Men: First Class is the film that resonated with me the most so far. Before you start on #1, and find out it's Days of Future Past, I'd like to remember X-Men: First Class. Singer's X-Men films are great, entertaining, but they felt, what's the right terminology? Less personal. First Class on the other stand, is humane. The characters felt humane, and relatable. Jennifer Lawrence is, believe it or not (you probably believe it) one of my favourite X-Men's. I like her being a focus of the franchise.
There. I said it.
But where the film prospers is the friendship between Xavier and Magneto. McVoy and Fassbender are in my Top 8, if not Top 5, comic book castings. I understood the motivations of Xavier and Magneto. Singer's X-Men films could be thought provoking, but they were colder and impersonal. First Class, I related to more, which helped the themes resonate more.
... J-Law xD <3
1. X-Men: Days of Future Past
This here might be my favourite blockbuster. I'm a bit of a movie fan, and this film reminds me of why I watch movies in the first place. In particular, superhero movies. Sympathetic characters, badass set-pieces, Mystique being a badass mofo, an inspiring score, an extended, show-stealing cameo, and memorable dialogue. This film expands on the relationship between Erik and Xavier, Mystique and Xavier / Erik. Charles hoping again. This film is entertaining, AND resonating.
... oh, and Jennifer Lawrence again xD
... thank you for reading. I hope you enjoyed this blog and that you'll be encouraged to post your [best] to [worst] of the franchise below. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go sleep so I can watch Apocalypse in the morning.
[My review will go up on the movie after I watch it. That is if you care xD]
Yesterday, after a long and boring day of 90% study, I decided I'd treat myself by re watching what I like to call my favourite Marvel Cinematic Universe film: Marvel's The Avengers. The movie that brought full circle the long-form storytelling Marvel built up in the previous 5 films. Marvel's The Avengers was an event, an achievement. Something special in the genre. I watched this at a time when I was young & naive to filmmaking aspects of a movie, so this film blew me away.
That's not to say you need to think Marvel's The Avengers is not a great movie, and that if you do think it is a great movie, that you are not a cinephile. I'm just personally saying that was the turning point for me. And I'm not the kind of girl who will tell you that the "superhero genre is awful" and "superhero movies are cash grabs." Matter of fact, as someone who is a movie fan in general, this genre is still probably my favourite.
That said, when I sat to watch Marvel's The Avengers after exposing myself to a wide range of cinema... it felt like a weird experience. Something felt off. I felt like I was watching a different movie then what I saw in 2012. This isn't the first time I've watched it since then, but you get the point. I realised flaws in the film that weren't present to me in my earlier viewings of it, that made it feel like a different film.
Admittedly, it was hard for me to come to terms with the fact, and I tried convincing myself otherwise... that Marvel's The Avengers is not a great movie.
Not a bad movie. Not a mediocre movie. In fact, it's a good one. But it isn't great. If I had to rate it, and I did on my IMdB account, I rate it a 7. In the 6 range is the lowest it might drop, but for the meanwhile, let's just say 7. This is not a blog intended to make you feel bad for loving Marvel's The Avengers. In a more shallow and personal level, I love it to. Just to exact and share why I don't believe Marvel's The Avengers holds up as a great film.
To sum it up shortly:
Marvel's The Avengers relies excessively, and I mean heavily, on the novelty of The Avengers assembling on the big screen for the first time. Narrative, character, cinematography, dialogue and originality are ignored.
I hate writing this, BTW.
The first glaring flaw that caught my naked eye was the cinematography. When I watch a movie, I want to watch a movie. Put in simple terms: Marvel's The Avengers is shot like a TV movie. There is barely cinematic element in this movie. Nearly everything is shot in the simplest form.
The cinematographer and directer evidently cared more about just getting a shot, as opposed to getting it in an interesting way. This is likely due to the fact that Joss Whedon started his career filming shows: Buffy and Angel, but it still hurts the quality of THIS movie. There is not much to chew on from a cinematography standpoint.
This applies, to some extent, to the action sequences. The one shot in the climax is still fascinating and entertaining to see come together, but a majority of the action in the film is, when removed from the novelty of "The Avengers are battling it out", filmed blandly. Just look at Loki vs. Cap, or Iron Man vs. Thor. These fights are shot in such simple forms.
Which brings me to my next point: ensemble. This problem sticks out like a sore thumb more then ever in hindsight. Anthony and Joe Russo proved to be masters of the ensemble in Captain America: Civil War, which is why it was all the more jarring to see that characters in this film are not given nearly as much time to shine as they need, which is odd considering Civil War had twice the amount of cast.
Hawkeye is the worst offender. He spends a lot of the film as Loki's lackey. By the time he is zapped into sanity again, only the third act of the film remains. Not allowing Renner an opportunity to shine where it matters most: character and acting prowess. Thor is another Avenger that, on re watch, I felt was sidelined. He doesn't do much. Doesn't interact much. He barely has character.
Tony Stark is a focus of the film, but this might be his weakest performance (excluding Iron Man 2). Iron Man's script lent Robert Downey Jr. a lot of time to shine, Age of Ultron allowed him to shine as we got to see him facing scolding for creating Ultron. Hell, say what you will about Iron Man 3, but in that film, Downey Jr. acted many emotional and vulnerable moments. Most recently, Civil War was a reminder of Downey's talent, in his best performance since Iron Man.
In Marvel's The Avengers, he's just kind of a dick. With the exception of a brief moment after the death of Coulson, Robert Downey Jr. has next to nothing resembling depth.
Loki is a charismatic villain, but I can't forgive the way they degraded him into a gag in the final act.
To bring this blog to a close, what I've been meaning to say throughout this article is that The Avengers proved to be a simple, unoriginal blockbuster down the line. I still appreciate it's contribution to the genre. But as something to watch years down the line, it doesn't lend itself... extensively.The plot is uninspired, the characters are thin with not nearly enough time to shine for a majority of them, and action sequences are blandly shot.
That's my $0.02c.
I hope I don't come across as a girl that hates this movie. I like it for nostalgia alone.
But a great movie? I don't think so? If not for the achievement of uniting the Avengers, I'd easily bump it down to a 6 out of 10.
Tony Stark. Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist. When Tony Stark is assigned to give a weapons presentation to an Iraqi unit led by Lt. Col. James Rhodes, he's given a ride on enemy lines. That ride ends badly when Stark's Humvee that he's riding in is attacked by enemy combatants. He survives - barely - with a chest full of shrapnel and a car battery attached to his heart. In order to survive he comes up with a way to miniaturize the battery and figures out that the battery can power something else. Thus Iron Man is born. He uses the primitive device to escape from the cave in Iraq. Once back home, he then begins work on perfecting the Iron Man suit. But the man who was put in charge of Stark Industries has plans of his own to take over Tony's technology for other matters.
Iron Man is the father of The Avengers.
And I don't mean that Robert Downey Jr. is the biological father of all the Avengers. That'd imply that they're all related... and it'd imply incest.
Actually, two occasions of incest.
That's besides the point. To speak strictly, and taking into account that Kevin Fiege is the one and only true father of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Iron Man  is the first entry in the Marvel Movies Cinematic Universe. Fairly enough, Iron Man will automatically receive bonus points for that.
Is the movie still good? Is it deserving of the praise [hint: many consider this to be the greatest of all Marvel movies]? Separating the fact this is the first in the franchise: how good is the movie? The kind of conundrums that keep you up late at night, and the reason I revisited this movie (and because I'm silly. The marathon generally comes before the new release).
Iron Man would not be the resounding success that it is, critically and financially, if for for Robert Downey Jr.'s performance. He deserves all the praise he attracted for this performance: taking a character that you should hate, and making him one of the bloody most likeable protagonists in comic book movie history. The script offers a sufficient amount of depth for the character of Mr. Tony Stark. Depth that would account to nothing if Robert Downey Jr. didn't invest himself into the character as he did.
Thank god they didn't cast Tom Cruise.
This movie ranks amongst the most difficult to re watch of the Marvel movies. For me at least. I don't know about you, but I'd rather re watch every single Marvel movie (except my two least favourite's, which I'll refrain from disclosing), over this one. That's not an insult to the quality of the film: Iron Man is still really good. But there are factors of the film that hurt the re watchability of the movie.
Maybe it's the formulaic plot. IM is carried by a great beginning, great end, great performance, well-put together action sequences, but a majority of the movie is formulaic.
Iron Man is one of the more realistic films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe: THE most realistic. We've grown accustomed to action-packed, "exciting" superhero movies, that a less fantastical one such as Iron Man can be, by comparison, mundane to re watch.
Now, to look at those two points separately:
The formulaic plot. Let's be honest: a portion of this film is Tony Stark trial-and-error'ing. Which is not necessarily boring to watch. Those scenes rest on the shoulders of Tony Stark - which make those scenes exciting, and often rewarding, to watch. For example: Tony Stark's Mark II Test Flight, a highlight of the film. Though this emphasis on Tony Stark building suits can be explained by Iron Man being an origin film, but it's probably down to the fact that no script existed for this movie, and they had to improvise a lot in the studio. Taking that into account, they did a commendable job.
The realistic tone and themes. Which is not a bad thing at all. As a matter of fact: it's GREAT. The movie is not a commentary on terrorism, but it is partially a movie about terrorism, which sets a tone different to most Marvel movies. This makes for a less easier viewing, as the movie is more dense in subject matter, but does NOT weight down the storytelling quality of the film. If I do say so myself, it improves it by a few notches.
Don't forget that a lot of what is common place in today's Marvel movies was first invented here. As mentioned multiple times, Robert Downey Jr.'s performance. But also Paul Bettany as Jarvis, who is now a great addition to the Marvel universe: as someone other then Jarvis. Clark Gregg / Phil Coulson; a fan favourite. And above all, Samuel L. Jackson's cameo, which is the reason we sit and wait past the credits of every blockbuster, waiting for the after credits. Jeff Bridges is no The Dude here, but he did an enjoyable job as Iron Monger.
BUT, allow me to break down Iron Monger's character for a moment. Business partner of Tony, & an old friend of Howard Stark. Iron Monger is motivated by his jealousy against Tony Stark, and following a failed attempt by the Ten Rings to murder him, an assassination which Obadiah had arranged, Stane manufactures an own super suit of his own, and attempts to finish off the job.
Which all makes sense...
... If you don't take into account that Obadiah had Iron Man at his mercy, where he could've killed him right there, right now. But instead, for some reason of which I don't understand, he feels the need to paralyse Tony, steal the arc-reactor right out of his chest to power up his super suit, and THEN murder Tony Stark.
Why? This bogs the movie down for me. And is an example of an overlooked flaw in this movie.
But if you can look past the illogical driving force behind the climax: the action itself is pretty well-put together, especially for a movie of it's scale. The action sequences carry weight - there are stakes all amidst the action sequences. It is thrilling. The choreography of the climax is really solid.
I'm a huge fan of the final moments of the film. Something about Tony Stark disclosing his identity to the world always carries heft no matter how much I watch the movie, and the AC/DC soundtrack (I think it's AC/DC) that kicks in as the credits roll are badass.
Another aspect which heightened my appreciation of IM is the way they approached the romance. There is no "final kiss" between Pepper and Tony. Nowadays, superhero films, feel the need to seed a romance where no seed exists. Hell, I won't disclose who, but Captain America: Civil War is example of a recent superhero movie guilty of this. I will mention it again, down the line if I get to reviewing the rest of the MCU, as a couple of the MCU films are victim of an unauthentic romance, or worst, a kiss that doesn't belong in the film, but for the meanwhile, I'll cite Captain America: Civil War as an example of a superhero film with a kiss where no romance exists, and for no foreseeable reason, and Man of Steel as an example of a rushed romance merely to set up Batman v. Superman.
But in an attempt at not straying away from the point father then I already have, I admire Iron Man for maturely handling the tension between Tony Stark and Pepper.
This blog is extensive enough. I've said enough. Iron Man is a movie that I believe to be a good film, if slightly overrated. It should not be forgotten that Iron Man  was the first MCU movie, but any other one of the standalone movies could've been the first Marvel Cinematic Universe. The movie rests on Robert Downey Jr. who performed fantastically, but a movie needs more. Iron Man is at it's best exploring the concepts of: is he man or machine? And exploring the cost of Tony Stark's weapons of mass-destruction. These themes would not be as effective if the viewer did not invest in Tony Stark as much as Jon Favreau, the writers and most of all, Robert Downey Jr. didn't make us care. But they did.
I'm rating this a:
Thank you for reading <3 what do you think about Iron Man? Were you on board with the MCU at film .1, or did you begin watching later on?
Yeah, there is absolutely no reason for you to stick around and read a review about a movie from a random viner with 0 subscribers and a distasteful sense of humour that makes 2 Broke Girls sound funny (which in itself is a huge feat). But stick around for reasons.
But why don't we use the fact that I'm a random person with 0 subscribers on this site, and you're reading my review for some reason (which most people probably aren't), and use it as an advantage. Let's get to the business: no more wasting your time.
Captain America: Civil War is a great movie. I don't say that lightly. I struggle to call many comic-book movies great, but Captain America: Civil War is great. If you took a hit of trauma from Batman v. Superman disappointing you, and you in your mind know that Civil War will be better, I'd recommend you call for a restraining order from this movie. And if you suffer from PTSD after watching it, then you might just be Iron Man.
Oh, and a letter grading system is the most you're getting from me because I'm of the firm belief that numerical rating can get you killed if you rate a movie too high. But Chris Stuckmann has rated 2 superhero movies an A+ and got away with it. Which is totally fair, because superhero movies did a 2 by 3 this year.
We need more movies that put their first goal as entertainment. No, scratch that, what we need is more movies that's no. 1 goal is entertainment. For every Citizen Bane or Godfather that is great for their major influence and impact, it's nice to see a movie like Civil War that entertains & pleases more then most other films I've seen in my life time. Do not be mistaken, Civil War is an achievement: an impressive achievement in long form storytelling at that. But this is a people pleasing, fan service film first, which nothing bad.
What made the film so great is that it succeeds on multiple levels. Captain America: Civil War is a masterpiece of a people pleasing, entertaining action film, but is also a tremendous drama that boosts an effective screenplay, especially by blockbuster standards. They made it impossible to select a side. Captain America believes that signing the contract will be surrendering freedom, & that the government could restrict their potential. Iron Man, on the other hand, is personally effected by the war. This builds on the already established PTSD arc, as we've seen before that Tony is just a man of can, and that the war could effect him just as much as the next man. If not more so, considering the events of Iron Man 1.
The Russo Brothers are not big comic book readers, but Markus and McFeely understand all of the heroes so well to a ridiculous-ly good extent. Steve is motivated by the right to freedom, & Tony Stark is driven by the personal destruction he has caused in the past, which essentially is why he became Iron Man in the first place.
We already couldn't fathom all of our favourite heroes sharing the screen, but best of all: all of the characters stole scenes of the film. Steve and Tony are the focus, but Vision was also getting accustomed to humanity, Black Widow, Sam Wilson and The Winter Soldier are, as usual, the MVP's. Black Panther is badass. They got me to care for Scarlett Witch, who was also a badass mofo. Giant-Man was tremendous.
... and Spider-Man. THE best Spider-Man by far.
Zemo is the best Marvel villain. To be fair, they don't exactly have a track record for great villains in their movies, but Zemo is a character I grew to enjoy more and more as the film progressed. Zero superhero powers, but a clear and understandable motivation, and brain over brawns.
The Airport Sequence is the single best stretch of the film. I've spoken to many people who, like me, fell in love with it. There are two separate criticisms of which the film has collated which I would like to take a moment and speak about:
The Airport Sequence is too humorous: The Airport Sequence would not be the same minus the humour. Picture that stretch of the film cutting between multiple heroes battling before all the filmmakers and actors go home. Picture it without the "I hate you so much", "it's your consciousness, Tony", "remember that old movie, The Empire Strikes Back?"
The fight would not be the same minus the humour. People underestimate the power of humour. It helps form an attachment between the audience and the humour. Not every film needs to be consistently quippy as Civil War, but a viewer's time span is only so long. Watching 15 minutes of Avengers vs. Avengers w/ nearly no dialogue could cause the audience to zone out. Audience engagement made this scene so great.
The movie forgets about the "Civil War" aspect in the third act of the film: From therefore, Marvel could not throw anything bigger on the screen. Every single Avenger in that film fought against each other. There was no way to escalate in scale from thereon. Which is why the Russo's, and the writers, opted to send the movie off with a climax of small scale, and intimate, narrative scope. Minus the final 5 minutes of the film, which I'll get onto later in the review.
Now, for my three main criticisms. Captain America: Civil War is a great film, but there are flaws in the film that some people or overlooking. The great outmatches the bad by a far margin, and frankly, a lot of the bad in the film isn't very bad. Well, most of it, at least. My three main criticisms of the movie are as follows:
Black Panther: T'Challa is badass. A force to be reckoned with. His action sequences were top-notch in cinematography and choreography. But as a character, I struggled to care for T'Challa, much less enjoy him outside of the suit. T'Challa spends a portion of the film in the suit, and anytime outside of the suit, he was a bit of a bore. I appreciate the attempt to build a character arc for his character, but toward the end of the film, when he declared he did not want to follow the path of vengeance, I didn't care much.
Spider-Man's abrupt exit: I expected a "goodbye" scene, a brief one at that, but the fact that the movie pretends like Spider-Man doesn't exist for the entirety of the movie after the Airport Sequence caused the character to come off as being shoehorned in. They should've had the second after credits scene occur shortly after the airport sequence. Or at least go to the Fox Studios school of stitching two post credits scenes together. Because for christ's sake, I cannot convince my family to sit through separate credits. I missed the after, after post-credits as a result of this. And because of this, all of my friends are acting as if I prosecuted Jesus.
The final seven minutes: This issue of the film is the one that bothers me the most. And seven mins is just a rough estimate. Every once in a while, you're nearing the end of a piece of story telling, be it a book, game, or movie. You know you're nearing the end, but you're still thinking "huh, I'm curious to see how they intend on wrapping this up on such short time." Soon, and before you realise it, the credits roll, or you find that you've reached of the book.
Captain America: Civil War suffers from this syndrome. I was curiously pondering on how they will manage to reconcile Steve and Tony in such short time, and execute it convincingly. Instead, we get something sappy, rushed, and completely out of left field. Maybe I missed something, but it was utterly unconvincing and cheesy; out of tone with the rest of the film.
BUT, my fundament is to not rate films on a positive vs. negative practice. That is not my basis.