Classic Movie Review: 'Captain America: The First Avenger'
How does a quite good movie that came out in 2011 feel like it came out a century ago?
Captain America The First Avenger (2011)
Directed by Joe Johnston
Written by Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely
Starring Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Stanley Tucci, Dominic Cooper, Tommy Lee Jones, Hayley Atwell
Release Date July 22nd, 2011
Published February 10th, 2025
Captain America is returning to the big screen on Valentine’s Day, February 14th, 2025, with Captain America: Brave New World. Anthony Mackie’s Sam Wilson is taking over the mantle of Captain America in the continuation of the franchise that, after Iron Man, solidified the start of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. 2011’s Captain America: The First Avenger was a terrific introduction of the Captain America character and remains, all these years later, a high point in the MCU. Let’s look back.
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) was a 98-pound weakling with a heart twice the size of his tiny frame. In 1942, all Steve wanted was to defend his country in the 2nd World War. Steve didn't have bloodlust or a death wish, rather, he saw Hitler as just the kind of bully that he'd spent his young life fighting against and he was eager to strike a blow on behalf of those being harmed by Hitler's evil.
Steve wasn't likely to get a chance to fight in the war, given his size, until he met a German scientist, Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci) who managed to escape Hitler's Germany with some of his extraordinary research intact. After meeting Steve Rogers, Dr. Erskine was quickly convinced that Steve was just the kind of good man who could handle the responsibility that would come with being made into a super-soldier via Erskine’s incredible serum.
Indeed, Steve was the perfect candidate and after undergoing the remarkable procedure Steve develops the type of body to match his guts, heart and determination. Soon, Steve Rogers is transformed into the symbolic hero Captain America but before he can fight the Nazis, he has to endure being a marketing gimmick for the war machine, a device he sees through very quickly before finally forcing his way into the war, and the chance to face off against the Axis of Evil.
Captain America: The First Avenger is first and foremost an action spectacle. The film is teeming with a vast array of incredible special effects that still look great more than a decade later. The action set pieces in Captain America The First Avenger are spectacular and fun and Chris Evans fits into this world with seamless physical presence and a sneaky, earnest charm that makes the character more than just a pawn pushed from position to position by a mechanical script and a series of CGI effects. Evans brings a much needed sense of humanity amid the spectacle.
Most eye-catching and remarkable among the special effects in Captain America: The First Avenger is the remarkably seamless transformation of star Chris Evan from the scrawny Steve Rogers to the muscled-up Captain. Early on in the making of Captain America: The First Avenger, director Joe Johnston attempted to merely paste star Chris Evans's face digitally onto that of another actor but the director quickly determined that it didn't look right. Then, employing techniques like those used to help Brad Pitt age backwards in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Johnston and his special effects team shrank the real Chris Evans spectacularly down to size.
But it’s not just special effects that set this film apart from the increasingly dull modern heroes, Captain America: The First Avenger indulged in comic book nostalgia well before it became a tiresome cliche. In 2011, the reveal of Hugo Weaving as the classic villain, The Red Skull, was genuinely exciting for anyone who loved the classic comic book. And the film made smart use of the now overdone Marvel Easter Egg. The best of these early MCU story seeds is Dominic Cooper in the role of Howard Stark, the father of Tony Stark. Cooper’s cheeky, charming, and heroic Howard is a wonderful way to weave the Stark’s story into that of Captain America, thus creating deep ties in the long term of the MCU.
Chris Evans, for me, was a real surprise as Captain America. There was never any doubt that Evans had the physicality to play Captain America but based on his past performances I was shocked at Evans's ability to deliver Steve Rogers as a compelling, sensitive and well-rounded character; it really is a terrific performance. Evans is aided greatly by Stanly Tucci and Tommy Lee Jones in support and Hayley Atwell sparks tremendous chemistry with Evans as Captain America's plucky English tomboy love interest Peggy.
In 2011, and today, Captain America: The First Avenger is refreshing. It’s such a smartly crafted blockbuster. It never feels like a product forced into existence to satisfy the gaping maw of a capitalist economic system. In a day and age when the next MCU movie feels as if it were willed into existence at the behest of Wall Street investors who could care less for the storytelling or quality of the product, Captain America: The First Avenger feels like a plucky indie Superhero movie, bucking the corporate system to punch Nazis and charm us all into wanting more and more superheroes with such uncomplicated goodness.
2011 is not all that long ago and yet it feels like a more innocent, far-off past. Superhero movies were born, thrived, and declined so quickly that enjoying Captain America: The First Avengers feels like I am being nostalgic, a feeling that should be reserved for something far older than 2011. If we’re being nostalgic for something from 2011 it speaks to something quite strange about the times we are living in right now. Or perhaps, it merely means that Superhero movies were just like any other fad, one that begins with a cool idea and evolves into something corporatized into oblivion until we’re all ragingly bored of it.
Find my archive of more than 24 years and more than 2000 movie reviews at SeanattheMovies.blogspot.com. Find my modern review archive on my Vocal Profile, linked here. Follow me on Twitter at PodcastSean. Follow the archive blog on Twitter at SeanattheMovies. And join me on BlueSky. Listen to me talk about movies on the I Hate Critics Movie Review Podcast. If you have enjoyed what you have read, consider subscribing to my writing on Vocal. If you’d like to support my writing, you can do so by making a monthly pledge or by leaving a one time tip. Thanks!
About the Creator
Sean Patrick
Hello, my name is Sean Patrick He/Him, and I am a film critic and podcast host for the I Hate Critics Movie Review Podcast I am a voting member of the Critics Choice Association, the group behind the annual Critics Choice Awards.
Keep reading
More stories from Sean Patrick and writers in Geeks and other communities.
Silver Screen Magic with Mae West
American actress and singer Mae West became a popular film actress during the Great Depression. She started entertaining in vaudeville, then performed on Broadway, and finally went to Hollywood. She signed up with Paramount Pictures and made her debut in the 1932 film “Night After Night.” She also starred in musicals, comedies, and crime dramas. The American Film Institute named her one of the best classic Hollywood actresses.
By Rasma Raisters6 days ago in Geeks
Trump’s Attacks on Iran
Tensions between the United States and Iran have once again drawn global attention, fueled by renewed political rhetoric from former U.S. President Donald Trump and an increasingly fragile Middle East landscape. While Trump is no longer in office, his influence on American foreign policy discourse remains strong, especially regarding Iran. His recent statements and past actions continue to shape how the situation is discussed, both domestically and internationally. The ongoing Iran situation cannot be understood without revisiting Trump’s long-standing approach to Tehran—one defined by pressure, confrontation, and a belief that economic and political force could reshape Iran’s behavior. As events unfold in the region, Trump’s attacks on Iran, primarily through rhetoric and policy advocacy, have reentered the conversation at a time when stability is already uncertain. A History of Confrontation During his presidency, Donald Trump positioned Iran as one of the primary adversaries of U.S. foreign policy. His decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, marked a turning point. Trump argued that the agreement was flawed, claiming it failed to permanently prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and did not address Iran’s regional influence or missile program. Following the withdrawal, the U.S. imposed sweeping economic sanctions under what the administration called a “maximum pressure” campaign. These measures significantly affected Iran’s economy, targeting oil exports, banking systems, and international trade relationships. Trump consistently framed these actions as necessary to protect U.S. interests and global security. That confrontational posture remains central to Trump’s public messaging today. Rhetoric That Resonates Trump’s attacks on Iran in recent speeches and interviews have focused less on diplomacy and more on strength. He often portrays Iran as a destabilizing force in the Middle East, accusing its leadership of funding proxy conflicts, threatening U.S. allies, and undermining regional peace. This language resonates with segments of the American public who favor a hardline approach to foreign policy. At the same time, critics argue that such rhetoric escalates tensions rather than easing them. Words from influential political figures carry weight, especially when they echo previous policies that brought the two nations close to direct confrontation. Even without immediate military action, strong language can affect markets, diplomatic relations, and public perception across the region. The Current Iran Situation Iran today faces a complex set of challenges. Economic pressure from sanctions continues to strain daily life for many citizens, while internal political dynamics remain tense. Regionally, Iran is involved in multiple theaters through alliances and influence, making it a central player in broader Middle Eastern conflicts. Against this backdrop, Trump’s renewed focus on Iran adds another layer of uncertainty. While the current U.S. administration may pursue different strategies, Trump’s voice amplifies debates about whether negotiation or force is the more effective path forward. Supporters of Trump argue that his tough stance kept Iran in check, claiming that pressure limited its resources and influence. Opponents counter that the approach isolated the U.S. from allies and reduced opportunities for diplomatic solutions, leaving the region more volatile. Global Reactions and Diplomatic Concerns International responses to Trump’s attacks on Iran have been mixed. Some U.S. allies in the Middle East view his rhetoric favorably, seeing Iran as a shared threat. Others, particularly in Europe, remain cautious, emphasizing the importance of dialogue and multilateral agreements. Diplomats warn that escalating language can undermine ongoing efforts to stabilize the region. Even symbolic threats or aggressive statements may provoke responses that spiral beyond control. In a region already marked by conflict, restraint is often seen as a necessary component of effective diplomacy. Political Strategy at Home Trump’s focus on Iran is also tied to domestic politics. Foreign policy strength has long been a cornerstone of his political identity. By highlighting Iran as an adversary, Trump reinforces his image as a leader unwilling to compromise with perceived threats. This strategy plays well among voters who believe the U.S. should project power globally. However, it also raises questions about long-term consequences. Critics argue that consistent confrontation without clear diplomatic off-ramps risks entrenching hostility rather than resolving underlying issues. What Comes Next? The future of U.S.-Iran relations remains uncertain. While Trump’s attacks on Iran currently take the form of rhetoric and policy advocacy rather than direct action, their impact should not be underestimated. Political language can shape expectations, influence decision-makers, and affect the behavior of nations. For Iran, continued pressure may harden positions within its leadership, reducing incentives for compromise. For the United States, balancing strength with diplomacy remains a delicate challenge—one that will define its role in the Middle East for years to come. Conclusion Trump’s attacks on Iran reflect a broader debate about how powerful nations should handle long-standing adversaries. Is pressure the path to peace, or does it deepen divisions? As the Iran situation continues to evolve, the consequences of words spoken today may shape realities tomorrow. In a world already facing uncertainty, the need for measured dialogue, strategic thinking, and global cooperation has never been greater. Whether confrontation or communication ultimately prevails will depend not just on leaders, but on the choices they make in moments of tension.
By Saboor Brohi 7 days ago in Geeks
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.