Marvel Vs. Marvel At The Movie Theater

Marvel has a civil war on its hands. The battle facing their own movie franchises is as complicated in the boardrooms of Hollywood as it is in the storied pages of their comics. Barely a decade ago, Paramount had the film rights to Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America; Universal had The Hulk; Sony had Spider-Man; and Fox had the X-Men, the Fantastic Four, and Daredevil. Today, Fox is the only stubborn holdout, relinquishing Daredevil to Netflix in serialized form but refusing to bow down like the rest to Marvel Studios (a.k.a. Disney) in the almighty arena of the movie theater. Never has this been more obvious than the mere weeks between the releases of Marvel's "Captain America: Civil War" and Fox's "X-Men: Apocalypse." Both movies are aiming for box-office gold with top-notch production values, solid acting, and storylines with catastrophic stakes. However, as they set out to prove themselves worthy of their studios' ongoing investment, their separate personalities start to meld into a collective worldview.

"Civil War," like its 2014 predecessor "The Winter Soldier," doubles as a crowd-pleasing superhero blockbuster and an insightful political thriller. Directly connected to the other Marvel films by picking up in the aftermath of the Avengers' previous world-saving efforts, "Civil War" asks us to consider the tangible cost of heroism -- in diplomacy, dollars, and even dead bodies. It pushes the characters to realistic breaking points and back again as they try and fail to reconcile a grim reality. Both sides of the argument are right, but they aren't built to handle that kind of ambiguity, especially in Captain America's patriotic, black-and-white mentality. As always, the character banter is impeccable, with an earned hint of resentment to prove that these heroes are still human behind their tireless, thankless deeds.

Meanwhile, the introductions of Black Panther as well as Spider-Man (Marvel's victory lap around Sony) establish promising future stories but threaten to overcrowd the present one. "Civil War" could have easily been 20 to 30 minutes shorter and still landed all of its plot points. Thankfully, the action sequences are gripping and raw enough to keep things moving. The absence of Steadicam takes us, admittedly off-kilter, right into the fight, and the visual effects aren't distractingly computerized. Oddly, though, the film climaxes twice, like an insecure lover trying to woo and impress impatient summer moviegoers. We get a big clash within the Avengers, then what feels like an eternity later, we get close-quarters combat between Captain America, Iron Man, and Cap's ultimate frenemy Bucky. The first fight is purely physical -- a frantic orgy of action for the masses -- but it's the second fight that packs a more intimate and psychological punch, baring the movie's mind and soul.

The weight of the soul in "X-Men: Apocalypse" is more heavily burdened and tested. The film does offer welcome moments of levity; once again, as with his scene-stealing turn in 2014's "Days Of Future Past," the snarky Quicksilver saves the day in a clever, effects-laden sequence that breaks the tension beautifully. Elsewhere, the movie's not afraid to get dark. I mean, REALLY dark -- nightmarish visions, children in danger, character deaths, and entire cities being laid to waste -- but that authenticity, set against the cultural growing pains of the 1980s, rings truer to the saga's complexities. I may be overly critical, having grown up reading the "X-Men" comics and watching the '90s animated series. But seeing a gargantuan story arc like "Apocalypse" squeezed into a single movie (when it took numerous issues/episodes of the source material) just seems wasteful. Even when minor liberties are taken with the canon and which characters appear when, it risks the continuity of any subsequent storytelling in the same universe. It would be a win-win for the producers to be more faithful to the origins and also trust open-minded audiences, fans and casual viewers alike, to follow their lead.

"Apocalypse" misses another opportunity to lead by being the latest in an increasingly weary trend of super-ensembles that are bursting at the seams. The film does manage to provide great service to existing characters by filling in some of their gaps, especially with Jean Grey, whose younger presence here is far more satisfying than her appearances as an adult in the first three installments. (If you're a fan of the franchise mythology, you'll really appreciate what she accomplishes and anticipate her next move.) Unfortunately, the movie ends up neglecting many of the characters that help this new entry exist in the first place. Apocalypse is treated more like an inciting incident than an overarching villain, while the youthful versions of commanding figures like Storm and Angel get just enough exposition to be recognized when they show up to fight. Olivia Munn, who plays henchwoman Psylocke, has remarked that she turned down the role of Vanessa in the recent smash "Deadpool" because she didn't want to be reduced to "the girlfriend." Yes, Psylocke is intimidating and even trades blows, but this version of her character -- potentially significant down the line depending on which direction the next films will take -- appears out of thin air and barely has any dialogue. At least Vanessa got some screen time and traded witty, on-par barbs with Deadpool!

Overall, you can't entirely blame director Bryan Singer for trying, since he did helm the franchise's strongest entries with "Past" and 2003's "X2: X-Men United." Despite all of the movie's quibbles, Singer possesses a latent power of his own for masterful details. He embraces the meta influence of the films when several students are shown leaving "Return Of The Jedi" at the mall. Their cheeky opinions on its place in that series form a sly, thinly veiled ranking of the previous X-Movies in this series. Singer also employs the opposite end of the spectrum, reclaiming a controversial scene involving Auschwitz with magnificent emotion and elegant action. "Apocalypse" cements him as the go-to director for framing the very real atrocities that birthed these fictional beings.

Here's where things get interesting; the tone and scale of each film cause them to diverge, but the shared message of the films makes them converge again. "Civil War" is more character-focused and straightforward in its parallels to current events, while "Apocalypse" is more content to allegorize a spiritual and societal construct like the end of the world and populate it with fantasy characters and scenarios. Yet at the same time, these movies find more in common when it comes to illustrating the foundations of Marvel's social philosophy. Where they see eye-to-eye is what happens to people -- whether or not they're members of the same team, whether or not they have special abilities -- when they don't work together for the greater good. These cornerstones of belief and humanity make both movies uniquely Marvel, regardless of who produced them. It also reminds us that DC's late-start task of rivaling their scope and interconnection is exponentially more daunting.

At the end of the day, Marvel needs to protect their creative integrity and do something that's been eight years in the making, back to when the first "Iron Man" movie laid the groundwork for their franchise as we know it. They're certainly not hurting for the cash! I'm no legal expert, but shouldn't it be as simple as paying Fox whatever it costs to bring the rights to their prodigal characters under the same production umbrella? Only then can the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its extended properties truly be unified in the way that these stories deserve to be told on the big screen.