TV Shoutout: Continuum

Review: Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

I've never really admit it before but I've always loved kid-becomes-spy movies like Spy Kids (2001), Agent Cody Banks (2003), and Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker (2006), even if quality is sometimes secondary. For me they're the ultimate wish-fulfillment: to be young with a very cool secret, gadgets, weapons, the ability to kick ass and escape from our boring lives, and maybe even get a pretty girlfriend along the way. And in Kingsman: The Secret Service, we could be very, very British too—which is always a code for being damn classy.

Before we start, although I did mention the (family-friendly) movies above, I have to remind some audiences that Kingsman is in fact closer to Wanted (2008) and Kick-Ass (2010) (fun fact: all three were based on Mark Millar's graphic novels but I won't open that can of worms), with the latter also directed by Kingsman's and X-Men: First Class (2011)'s director, Matthew Vaughn. If you are not familiar with those films, basically what they have in common is that they all have genuinely fun, inventive—borderline wacky but definitely cathartic—action and violence. It's not overly bloody or anything (most of them consist of quick-cuts or scenes that are so stylized they're beautiful) but it does require you to at least crack a smile when people's heads are blown off, otherwise you're missing half the fun. But don't worry, they're the bad guys.

The kid in question is Gary or Eggsy (Taron Egerton), whose father trained to become Kingsman but died when he was little. Agent Galahad (Colin Firth) is grateful of Eggsy's father for saving his life and wanted to return the favor by taking Eggsy into Kingsman too. And hence began young Eggsy's training to become a proper British spy.

And when I say British, I really do mean British. I don't know what it is about England (maybe a leftover from the popularity of James Bond), but the best fictional spies are frequently from that side of the pond. With Kingsman it's easy to see why. There's something reassuring (and effortlessly cool) that our hidden saviors are good-mannered gentlemen in exquisite suits with respect for top-shelf bourbon and impeccable gunwork. They have Arthurian code-names and weapons disguised as umbrellas, it doesn't get much more British than that. Colin Firth, our resident dapper Englishman, is surprisingly badass as Agent Galahad. Egerton is also brilliant as a working class kid trying to survive in the streets of London—also quintessentially British, in another way. 

The movie (and Matthew Vaughn himself) states its love to "old" spy movies before the dark, grim, and gritty era: back when those movies actually had fun and less tortured, complete with its trademark crazy villains with crazier plans. The villain in this movie is Samuel L. Jackson with a lisp and name like Richmond Valentine, accompanied always by his false-legged killer butler/bodyguard. If that's not an old-Bond movie logic, I don't know what is. While expressing its love to old movies, Kingsman always felt new and shiny. It doesn't bow down to tropes and it really is a testament to the strength of the script that I never once felt like anyone is save, ever (and people do die in this movie). The action sequences are as exciting as they are beautiful, and they also have good use of music in action scenes, not unlike Kick-Ass whose soundtrack I loved.

TL;DR All in all, if you like good action movie, or just plain fun movie, you owe it to yourself to see this film. Just look at those gifs (or trailer). They're glorious.

Review: Beck (2010)

Rating: 7.5 of 10

Yukio "Koyuki" Tanaka's (Takeru Sato) was an ordinary—somewhat a loser — high school student but his life soon changed when he met Ryusuke Minami (Hiro Mizushima), a fellow teenager determined to build a band and make it in the rock world. Beck, also the name of the band (after Ryusuke's dog), follows the band’s story and their rise to fame.

Beck is a live action adaptation of a critically acclaimed and highly popular manga and anime series of the same name. In case you pay attention to the actor's name above, I won't lie that partly the reason I'm interested in it was because it also had Takeru Sato who I loved in Rurouni Kenshin. The other reason, was because my boyfriend recommended me the story many times but I had never made up my mind which version I'd go into first. The actor just tipped the scale a bit into the live action.

That said, while I thought Sato was cute as the shy Koyuki (and I definitely see proto-Kenshin in his character), I found the other actors inhabit their characters much more fully. Mizushima had his swagger dead-on as the charismatic but volatile guitarist Ryusuke (with almost perfect English, too), Osamu Mukai as the cool blooded bassist Taira, Aoi Nakamura as happy-go-lucky Saku, Kenta Kiritani as the unsheathed Chiba, and Shiori Kutsuna as the somewhat-annoyed-but-supportive sister Maho. And from the images I saw, they actually look a lot like their manga and anime counterparts too, which is always a big bonus. They also have incredible chemistry with each other, and immediately felt like brothers from the get go.

The first part of the film felt a little bit clunky as it tries to accommodate both Koyuki's and Ryusuke's sides of life, but immediately gelled after the band formed. It really was a delight to see the band coming and playing together, and it wasn't only because of their chemistry but also because their music was genuinely good (especially for movies). The storyline could be more focused as it tries to fit in various subplots, as is often the case with a lot of adaptation from serialized material, but that is pretty minor.

But the biggest mistake, in my opinion, is having KOYUKI NOT SING AT ALL. Koyuki was billed as the one with angelic voice, capable of silencing thousands of people with awe in their shows, but the movie actually muted him out focusing instead on the instruments. I understand the director's decision to make him not actually sing because whatever they showed might not be on par with what we imagine, but for me it was downright annoying. If you're not familiar with "Chekhov's gun" rule, it is basically a "rule" in storytelling in which, for example, if you introduce a gun in the first act, then by the third act you really should have made them go off. Don't make promises or teases something you can't keep. In my opinion Koyuki really is worse than Chekhov's gun! Especially once I found out that Sato actually did some singing in the past, but like that mattered anyway. They could've easily hire a proper singer to do the singing part if he were not up to par. The movie actually ended in a pretty satisfying climax with the band performing in front of a big crowd, but with Koyuki not singing it was quite hard to not feel at least a bit disappointed. This "little" detail is actually what brought the movie down from a possible 8.0 into a 7.5 for me.

TL;DR In conclusion, Beck is a pretty charming, pretty benign live adaptation —if you could get over from the absence of singing in Koyuki's part.

TV Shoutout: Marvel's Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D

What better way to start TV Shoutout other than with Marvel's Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D?

What it is about: S.H.I.E.L.D is a secret organization that exists to deal with superpowers, alien artefacts, and highly-advanced science that no other agency is prepared to deal with. In post-Avengers world, Agent Phil Coulson, one of the best agent of S.H.I.E.L.D, had just handpicked his new team. (Yes in case you're wondering, we're talking about that Marvel, that Avengers, that S.H.I.E.L.D, and that Coulson).

Despite its connection to Marvel, you don't have to like superhero movies to like this show. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D (AoS for short) is decidedly a different kind of beast, made to tell the other side of the fight involving ordinary humans namely the agents.

Why you should watch it: AoS was developed by Joss Whedon. For those uninitiated, he's famous for his trademark touch of funny one-liners balanced with great character development as evidenced in critically-acclaimed works like Buffy The Vampire Slayer series, Firefly series, and Marvel's The Avengers.

Now (I should emphasize the "now", more on that later), the series is one of the most riveting drama/action series out there. The funny things are there keeping things light while never shying away from the hard stuff. It has truly magnificent character development, heartbreaking relationships (romantic, almost romantic, or otherwise), and engaging villain. AoS season 2 is a must-see TV in every way.

Who should watch it: Those who wanted to know more about Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Those who love Joss Whedon. Those who love good action and drama in their series. Basically everyone who loves good TV with great characters.

Where you should start: Now is the part where I warn you that this show started out rough. By rough I mean it looked like the most mediocre, cookie-cutter procedural ever. Which is fine for the most part (A LOT of TV procedurals out there are mediocre), but not great. But somewhere in the middle of season 1 it found its footing, did a complete 180 degrees in its storytelling and started to pump up real punches. The characters became rounded human beings, humor started to set in, and sh*t started to get real. SEASON 2 IS AWESOME guys, so you don't want to miss it.

The series is now in season 2. Starting in the beginning of season 2 is okay, but season 2 "broke" most of its characters so you could only appreciate the subtleties if you've seen season 1. For those of you who don't want to watch first season in its entirety (because well, a lot of the early episodes were crap), there's a handy internet guide for a selection of episodes. Jumping in the middle of season 2 is okay too if you understand the gist of MCU (basically S.H.I.E.L.D = good, H.Y.D.R.A = bad) because you could always pick stuff along the way, but again, subtleties. Subtleties are what made this show excels above any other shows.

What you should remember is that since AoS is part of MCU, there will be some spoilers if you're not up to date with what happens in MCU (particularly The Avengers and Captain America 2). You don't have to watch the movies to understand AoS because it is pretty much self-contained, but some things will definitely carryover into the show due to its connected nature. If you're fine with being spoiled though (or don't necessarily care about the movies), it's completely okay to watch AoS without the movies.

Status: Season 2 ongoing

Introduction

Hi, my name is Inka Saraswati and this is my movie blog.

Sooo for a little background story, I signed up for this new tumblr account because I wanted a new house for my movie reviews. You see, I've been writing and posting reviews in Rotten Tomatoes for quite a while, but they recently changed their layout and user flow and basically I didn't like it. So I decided to leave and make my own site instead.

For reasons above, I'll slowly roll out my existing reviews from RT into here and of course I'll add new ones along the way. I, at its core, am a sci-fi fan so it couldn't be helped if my coverage skew towards that particular genre but I'll definitely cover various films from various genre, including older and odder films.

Also I might occasionally write about TV, music, poetry, pop culture news, or even post some tumblr-iffic stuff, but the backbone of my site will always be movie reviews.

So enjoy!

You can also find me in deviantArt for photography and whyd for music collection. 

Review: Nocturnal Animals (2016)

Rating: 7.0 of 10

Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) is a rich, successful gallery owner who is unhappy with her life and marriage, who suddenly receives an unpublished manuscript dedicated to her from her writer ex-husband, Edward (Jake Gyllenhaal). Nocturnal Animals tells the paralelling naratives between Susan and the lead character Tony Hastings (also played by Jake Gyllenhaal) in the novel.

Visually, Nocturnal Animals is achingly beautiful. Everything is minimalist but decadent, and at times shot not unlike a perfume commercial. At least, the parts with Amy Adams, because she does live in “that” world. The parts with Jake Gyllenhaal, however, is more grounded and mostly set in the desert or in a police station, and is more traditionally shot but not without its visual moments.

But story-wise, things are less... good. What is the movie trying to say? Honestly, I don't know. What purpose does the book storyline hold for the main story? What is Edward trying to say by sending Susan the book? During the movie we're left grasping at straws to figure out what it all means, and then the answer never comes. Don't get me wrong, a good movie does not have to spell out everything for its viewer, but it has to give us something to hold on to, and Nocturnal Animals give us nothing.

Amy Adams' character is cold and the environment is sterile, making it hard for us to relate. Jake Gyllenhaal’s performance is absolutely magnetic and his storyline affecting, but his character is rendered moot because he is only a character in a book. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is chillingly scary and is also a standout in this film, but he is a bad guy and does not help us to relate to our protagonists.

But the main thing that makes it so hard for us to relate for the characters is that because there's also no arc to speak of of the characters. Amy Adams' character stays constant throughout the whole movie (seriously, if 80% her scenes consist of her laying in bed or taking a bath, how much character growth do you expect) with maaaaybe a hint of change at the last 5 minutes, but then-cut to black! Due to the nature of his story, a lot of things happen to Jake Gyllenhaal's character as Tony but he has absolutely no agency in the story. 

To sum it up simply, in Nocturnal Animals there's no overarching theme, no character arc, there's not even an ending. Honestly, why should we care?

Okay, I lied, I could think of a couple themes about the movie, but none of it is well developed. One possible running theme is about loss, regret, and revenge, but it's not framed cohesively enough. Another possible theme is about wealth and decadence versus suffering for integrity, but then again, is woefully lacking in execution.

One nice thing I could say is that Tom Fords direction is exquisite, and I don't mean that just visually. He is able to build emotional moments and suspense, and bring out everything from Jake Gyllenhaal and Aaron Taylor-Johnson's performance (and they give a lot in their performances).

TL;DR But like I said, everything else in Nocturnal Animals is just... there. Even with its emotional moments, somehow all of it doesn't mean anything.

Music Shoutout: Mark Ronson - Uptown Special

No one could escape the popularity of Uptown Funk. No one. Hand delivered to us by featuring artist Bruno Mars, it was one of those popular singles that came out of left field--entirely unexpected in today's music climate, but devoured by all.

English musician, DJ, and record producer Mark Ronson is the man behind the album, Uptown Special. And Uptown Special is nothing if not a groovy work of art.

In actuality, Uptown Funk is my least favorite song of the album (I know, right?). Not because it’s a bad song--it’s an excellent song--but because for me, that particular song aims for “flashy” in the ways that the other songs from the album don’t try to be. The rest are less flashy (but in absolutely no way are less funky) and they show how meticulous the actual production were.

A smoothie of R&B, funk, and soul with contemporary touch, Uptown Special is filled with guest stars of famous and lesser names alike: Bruno Mars, Stevie Wonder, Mystikal, Kevin Parker of Tame Impala, Andrew Wyatt of Miike Snow, Keyone Starr, Jeff Bhasker, and Ronson treated each of them as crucial ingredients in each of their songs--but never outshines the song itself. 

Highlights of the album, excluding Uptown Funk. for me are I Can’t Lose (ft. Keyone Starr), In Case of Fire (ft. Jeff Bhasker), and the many versions of Crack In The Pearl. While the album was definitely derived from aforementioned genres, it’s amazing how versatile and ageless the album is, but I definitely think the album is best consumed in its entirety. Basically if Mark Ronson is a curator of talents, then Uptown Special is a museum that you can dance into. Weird analogy, I know, but I’m perfectly okay with that.

Review: Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

First and foremost, I might be the only person in the world who were torn between Pitch Perfect 2 and Mad Max: Fury Road. You see, I loved Pitch Perfect. I had been waiting for the sequel for a while and Anna Kendrick is kind of my spirit animal. I have never even seen any of the Mad Max movies and know practically nothing about it except the broadest overview (I know, I'm a bad geek) and the trailers for Mad Max: Fury Road didn't quite move me. BUT then everyone and their grandfather started raving about Fury Road up to the point where I can't ignore it. As you might have guessed, after a brief moment of soul searching, I decided on Fury Road.

And really, I basically dropped my jaw to floor for the whole 2 hours, it was insane. In a world where action movies (or even non action movies) are frequently big and loud, Fury Road was BIG and LOUD. Fury Road was non-stop—it was basically 2 hours of Max's (Tom Hardy) life, and that life ain't quiet. But most importantly, it was also beautiful. A lot of movies are beautifully shot (heck, if nothing else, even the Transformers movies are beautifully shot) but Fury Road brought everything to the next level. Every scene is like a painting. The movie didn't even have proper script for its shooting, it had a mountain of storyboards instead, and it shows. Basically, Fury Road was an artwork. It wasn't just pretty, it was poetry—if poetry can be made of gasoline, greased wheels, and dirt, that can only brought upon by George Miller, the original creator of Mad Max.

In Mad Max's world, the world had ended and the ones left were living under tyrant named Immortan Joe. I honestly don't know if he were supposed to have backstory in the previous movies or not, but I know jackshit about him and the War Boys, and I loved it. Fury Road has this enormous, enormously rich world where everything is crazy and nothing is explained, and actually I love that about the movie. It made me feel like we literally have only seen one second worth of glimpse at its madness—and looking at the amount of creativity in it, we definitely only have seen so little of its world. Every inch of its character designs told a story, and there were plenty of story to tell: Citadel, War Boys and War Pups, Breeders, Gas Town, Bullet Farm, Many Mothers, we really are just scratching the surface.

But the main spectacle were definitely the fights and chases, and boy, what a spectacle it was. Almost everything were done with practical effects instead of CGI and you just can see the effort and detail that went into it. The cars were rigged with spikes, poles, and grenades, and you have never seen anything more beautiful than them. The chases were batshit crazy and complicated, that it made Fast & Furious 7's scenes looked like they were made with your niece's toy LEGO cars. But honestly, as R-rated and artful as it is, we can't really deny that Fury Road is basically a 13 year old's wet dream in which cars explode randomly on contact, and rock music during battle is the pinnacle of coolness. In short, it was nothing but full-on gloriousness.

One thing, though: Charlize Theron was a capital-B, bold letter Badass. With a buzzcut and a warpaint, Charlizes Theron's Imperator Furiosa was a heroine worthy of Sigourney Weavers's Ripley status. Tom Hardy, who played the titular character, has always had enormous presence and he was perfect as the wild-but-strangely-rarely-speaking Max. But it was Imperator Furiosa who moved the story forward. Trapped within action sequence after sequences, Theron was able to bring depth to her character, just enough to make we love her and want her to succeed. I also need to have a little shoutout for Nicholas Hoult who played Nux. Being a fan from his Skins days, I was always delighted to see him taking on a new, interesting character and he did a marvellous job. We witness you, Nicholas Hoult, and we welcome you.

It was really hard for me to remind myself that the original Mad Max, a cult favorite, is a 36-year-old property. TL;DR Somehow, Mad Max: Fury Road felt so fresh, so breathtaking, and had eased itself to the cracks of today's filmmaking so completely that you know it wasn't a miracle, it wasn't luck; it was the work of a seasoned filmmaker who knew exactly what he's doing, doing what he does best.

Review: Deadpool (2016)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

I've been meaning to write a review for Deadpool weeks ago, but life took over... Anyhow, here's my review.

Deadpool has a tricky history in the big screen. He is a Marvel character who’s mainly characterized as a foul-mouthed mercenary/anti-hero, with accelerated healing power and a habit of breaking the fourth wall. He was once thought as an unfilmable character (considering his ultra-violence and less-than-morally-acceptable commentaries) that when he showed up in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, not only he was unrecognizable, he was exactly the opposite of what he supposed to be. The 'Merc with a Mouth' had become literally mouthless (pictured below). It took 7 years and a climate chance in the superhero film industry, for Deadpool to become Deadpool in the movies.

Ryan Reynolds is Deadpool (again, as he also played him in Wolverine), and surprisingly to me, he completely inhabit his role. Deadpool, in the hands of a wrong actor, would become a completely insufferable character, but Reynolds nailed everything on the head. The tone, the comedic timing, the look--everything.

Basically what makes Deadpool such a good a movie is the tone. For me, its action is almost unquestionable. Marvel has always had good action sequences, so it's almost a, "Yeah duh, of course it will have great action." Plot is good 'though true and tested (although it does a new spin with flashbacks). Characters are fun; Colossus is a perfect antidote to Deadpool, and Negasonic Teenage Warhead doesn't have much to do but is very memorable. BUT the tone is amazing. I'm not talking about it being R-rated, but I'm talking about it being purely a Deadpool movie. Self-deprecation, fourth-wall breaking, and its refusal to not knock down everything and anything in its sight (including a diss about Green Lantern's awful CGI suit and X-Men's messed-up timeline), makes a tonally unique movie.

Deadpool isn't the best movie Marvel ever created, it’s not the most daring (Guardians of the Galaxy still wins that crown), and it's definitely not the best movie ever. Honestly, Deadpool isn't even the best R-rated superhero film. 2010′s Kick-Ass still excelled Deadpool for me (primarily because Kick-Ass' soundtrack really elevated the whole movie). TL;DR However, Deadpool was a lot of fun and if you're looking for a faithful Deadpool movie, you can't go better than this one.

Review: Predestination (2015)

Rating: 8.8/10

Sometimes science fiction delves deep into what it means to be human, sometimes it's just a healthy mindfuck, and that's okay. Predestination is a time-travel tale based on Robert A. Heinlein's story "All You Zombies." I quite lament the fact that they dropped the book's title because I like how tangential it is but I understand that the title is kind of vague for a movie. It did, however, got referenced the film. (FYI I've never actually read the book but I fully intend to after this.)

This movie was directed by Spierig Brothers who also made post-human, vampire-society movie Daybreakers with Ethan Hawke. With Predestination, I came for Ethan Hawke (he never really stood out for me in his acting, but he does make interesting choices in his acting career in the likes of Daybreakers and Gattacca) but I stayed for newcomer Sarah Snook. Snook was ah-ma-zing. She played a central character called Jane, and also the male version of the character. She was the hook of the movie and the reason the movie worked at all. The big premise of the movie is about a time-travelling agent sent to investigate a terrorist, but in its heart Predestination truly is about a heartbroken little girl. Snook completely sold this emotional part of the film, telling stories of her insane life experiences to a random bartender. She had this silent rage as a man, and dejecting brilliance as a girl. Everything the first act of the movie was, worked because of Sarah Snook.

That's not to say Ethan Hawke was bad, he did brilliant job with an understated and underrated character. Maybe that's why he never stood out for me, he tends to be understated and grounded in all of his characters. I need to pay more attention to Ethan Hawke in the future.

It's hard to explain anything about this movie without resorting into spoilers, because everything that's special about it came from the plot (aside from Sarah Snook, but we've covered that). With a brief 97 minutes, Predestination is basically a plot machine (Heinlein actually wrote All You Zombies in a single day as a proof-of-concept that he can write the closed-est closed-loop time-travel story of them all), but TL;DR it is a brilliant plot machine with a very strong emotional core. Right now, you just have to take my word that this is an awesome movie. I might also have to add that that does not mean Predestination is empty or devoid of meaning. Far from it, it provides a study of how home, a sense of purpose and belonging, and gender identity tend to define us all.

That said, Predestination is not perfect. I called out the major plot twist early on, up to the point where I was surprised when I realized they were still treating it as a mystery. But it didn't matter because the movie handled everything very smoothly. And anyway, with time-travelling stories some things just came with the territory. But strangely, with all of its mindfuckery, Predestination didn't feel particularly groundbreaking and there's an interesting theory of why: the fact that the movie was fitted into a thriller mold to make it more contemporary and audience-friendly, in the way that the book wasn't. It certainly broaden its appeal to a wider audience, but for me that's what makes Predestination is still one step away from reaching a cult status. But that's okay, I can live with it. Not every movie had to be Primer.

Review: Captain America: Civil War (2016)

Rating: 9.5 out of 10

2016 is indeed the year of superhero battles. So I can’t really do this review without first mentioning Batman v. Superman: Dawn Of Justice (reviewed here), which was previously released this year, because one is a masterclass of what not to do, while the other is a prime example of how to do it right. While BvS shat all over the characters in an overwrought and boring plot, Captain America: Civil War let all 12 of the characters shine and treated them with the utmost respect.

Respect is one thing that jumped to me the most. While having major disagreement in their opinion, Steve Rogers (a.k.a Captain America, played by Chris Evans) respects Tony Stark (a.k.a. Iron Man, played by Robert Downey Jr.) so much, and vice versa. Differences aside, they and the rest of their team genuinely considers each other as friends, and it pains them that they’re not on the same side. It’s a difficult situation to be in, and as unlikely as it may sound, Civil War succeeded not just as pandering of epic fight sequences; it’s also a character-based drama.

Civil War does have its trademark Marvel quick quips and fun moments, but for the most part, it’s an emotionally heavy film. I was almost emotionally exhausted after the end of the film–but for good reason, it was something you only feel after a really good film. Avengers movies (let’s be honest, Civil War is practically an Avengers movie) have always had big stakes, but they always had lighter feel to it, primarily because they usually have clear-cut victories. Civil War, though, typical for these “versus” kind of films, have a largely Pyrrhic victory that leaves both sides kinda broken. I repeat, which is a good thing, because that means the filmmakers treated the story with the gravity it deserves. Hat-tip to Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely as writers, and Russo Brothers as directors (all also worked in Captain America: The Winter Soldier), my favorite MCU film.

If I made it sound like it was an excruciating movie, I’m sorry, it really is not! It was still a really fun film that made me laughed out loud quite a few times. Spider-Man especially was one of the highlight of the movie. While I was initially unsure with the decision to de-age Peter Parker and the casting of Tom Holland, eventually it worked so well within the movie. The amateurish vibe of Spider-Man contrasted so well against our veteran heroes who carry the weight of the world on their shoulder. Also, the comments that come out to and from Spider-Man are just gold (”Remember that really old movie Empire Strikes Back?”). Black Panther also made memorable first appearance. In the limited screentime that he has, Chadwick Boseman played the character with such grace, dignity, and power definitely fit for a prince and a superhero–with enough glimpse of his backstory to get us excited for his upcoming solo movie.

The fight scenes are downright amazing. Its street fights are as amazing and as inventive as the ones in The Winter Soldier, but the superhero fights are on another level. Remember the ballet-like final fight in The Avengers? Civil War definitely rival that with 100% more excitement because they’re not fighting faceless minions, they’re fighting each other with each of their own “gimmick” and style.

But as much as Marvel tries to make each movie accessible to new filmgoers, Civil War is definitely more geared towards the people who’ve followed Marvel Cinematic Universe (particularly the Captain America and The Avengers movies) for a while. New viewers definitely would understand the plot, but they wouldn’t necessarily understand the gravity and details of the whole situation.

The plot is as simple and as difficult as you make it to be. The backbone of the story is simple: after the destruction of the town Sokovia (in The Avengers: Age of Ultron), United Nations wants to take lead of The Avengers because they deem the heroes dangerous if they go unchecked. Some of The Avengers agrees, some don’t. Even now, I’m not sure who I’m siding with, and the movie itself does not tell you which side is right one. Honestly, as much as I love Steve Rogers as a character, I’m more inclined to siding Stark (though I’m sure it’ll backfire one way or another in the future), and it pains me so much that Rogers couldn’t agree with him. Also, I’ve been wanting to tell you about a specific scene, I might as well put it here: In a scene that mirrors his first appearance in Captain America: The First Avenger, with the last of his strength, Rogers stood up from the ground against Iron Man–all in his Captain America glory–and says, “I could do this all day.” (If you’ve watched the first Captain America, you’d understand the significance.) It was a heartbreaking scene that floored me, but that’s a testament of how much the filmmakers understand the characters that they created.

TL;DR Not your run-of-the-mill superhero movie, Captain America: Civil War is a dense character-based drama with a whole lot of action. Heads up though, while this is a Captain America film, due to the nature of the story it really has an equal screentime between Rogers and Tony Stark, in case you have different expectations about it.