Thunderbolts* just hit theaters and is already dividing Marvel fans right down the middle. Some say it's a refreshing, character-driven return to form; others say it's another hollow team-up with a forgettable villain and no real stakes. So be honest: is the MCU actually recovering, or are we just lowering our standards every year?
Join the debate to comment
Reading is free. Members pay to post — that's why it stays clean.
Add your commentI took my 14-year-old son to see it yesterday and he turned to me in the last 20 minutes and whispered 'dad this is actually really good' and that hit me harder than I expected. He grew up on these movies. Watching him reconnect with the MCU in real time was worth every penny of the ticket.
my therapist actually recommended i watch this because of the trauma themes lmao. my therapist. recommended. a marvel movie. we live in a society
At the end of the day if a two hour movie makes you feel something real then it did its job regardless of franchise fatigue discourse or box office numbers or reddit takes. I felt something. That counts.
Saw it opening night and I genuinely teared up at the end. Florence Pugh carries this entire movie on her back. Yelena is the most emotionally honest character Marvel has written in years. People who say the MCU is dead weren't paying attention.
the bar being 'I didn't hate it' is so bleak lmaooo we really are cooked as a society
i just think its funny how everyone was calling the MCU dead two weeks ago and now the same people are posting 'actually this one was great.' Marvel has trained their audience to forget every disappointment the moment the next thing releases. it's conditioning at this point.
I'm 54. I've watched every MCU film in theater since Iron Man 1. My wife says I have a problem. After Thunderbolts* she told me 'okay, that one was actually worth it.' That's the most meaningful film review I've ever received.
Dropped my MCU subscription to Disney+ after Ant-Man Quantumania. Watched Thunderbolts* at a friend's place last night fully expecting to hate it and I didn't. I actually didn't hate it. Which means now I have to reconsider my life choices apparently.
The problem is simple: no real villain. Valentina is wasted, the Void or whatever they called it is just a CGI blob with no personality. Marvel still cannot write a compelling antagonist post-Thanos and until they fix that, every movie will feel half-finished.
I cried three times. I don't want to talk about it. Okay I DO want to talk about it but I also don't want to spoil it. Just know that if you've ever felt like you were fundamentally broken and beyond fixing, this movie sees you. I don't care if that's cringe to say about a superhero film.
That's not cringe at all. Film is film. The superhero wrapper doesn't make the emotional truth any less real. Anyone who'd mock you for that reaction has a really impoverished relationship with cinema.
The real question nobody's asking is whether Marvel can sustain this IF it's genuinely good. Their track record for following up one good film with another is terrible. Remember how good Ragnarok was then Love and Thunder happened.
Lewis Pullman gave me actual chills. Most people are talking about Pugh and rightly so but please let's not sleep on his performance. The scene in the void where he confronts his own mind or whatever that was — that was serious acting in a superhero film.
Florence Pugh is undeniably great but can we stop acting like one good performance redeems a studio's entire infrastructure problem? Marvel's issue isn't talent. It's a production pipeline that chews up directors, overrides creative vision with committee notes, and treats every film as a trailer for the next one. Pugh deserves better than this system even when it occasionally works.
The Void being a CGI blob is literally the POINT. It's a manifestation of repressed psychological damage, it's not supposed to be a charming individual with a monologue and a motivation. The whole critique assumes every villain has to be Thanos. Sometimes the monster IS the metaphor.
ok but 'the monster is the metaphor' has been used to excuse weak third acts in superhero movies since 2013 and im tired of it. you can have metaphor AND a coherent physical antagonist. these are not mutually exclusive. see: No Way Home's use of the multiverse villains.
The pacing critique is legitimate but I'd argue the slow second act is intentional — it's replicating the feeling of being stuck, which mirrors what the characters are experiencing. Whether that's genius or a convenient excuse for loose editing is genuinely debatable. I land on 'intentional but not entirely successful.'
the studio 'treating films as trailers for the next one' complaint is so real and what's actually interesting about Thunderbolts* is it mostly doesn't do that until the very end. it earns its connective tissue instead of drowning in it. that's the difference
From a filmmaking standpoint the pacing in the second act is noticeably off — about 25 minutes could be cut without losing anything. But the script has real wit and the ensemble chemistry is there. Jake Schreier directed it competently. It's a B+. People calling it the MCU's salvation or its funeral are both being dramatic.
it was fine. like it was FINE. but fine is not good enough for a studio that once gave us Civil War and Infinity War. we deserve better than fine
Florence Pugh has more screen presence in a single raised eyebrow than most A-listers have in a full monologue. I genuinely do not care about franchise discourse when a performer like that is in the room. Just let me watch her work.
I'll push back hard on the villain criticism because Thunderbolts* is explicitly not a villain movie — it's an ensemble character study where the antagonist is internal. Judging it for lacking a Thanos-level external threat is like criticizing a chamber play for not having enough explosions. You're marking it against criteria it deliberately rejected.
That's a generous reframe but it doesn't fully land for me. A film can be character-driven AND have a compelling external force pushing against the characters. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Claiming the absence of a good villain is 'intentional' risks excusing genuine writing gaps as artistic choices.
I think what Thunderbolts* does that most Phase 4 and 5 films refused to do is acknowledge that these are damaged people who aren't automatically heroic. The MCU spent years treating trauma as backstory flavor. This film treats it as load-bearing architecture. That's a meaningful shift whether or not you personally enjoyed the execution.
The therapy session complaint is so funny because when Marvel was lighter people complained it was too shallow. When it goes deeper people complain it's too serious. Some fans just want to be unhappy.
Here's what I actually think is happening: Marvel made one competent movie and everyone's so starved for quality that they're mistaking competence for brilliance. Thunderbolts* is good. It is not great. And we should be able to say that without being accused of being haters or without being recruited into 'the MCU is saved' narrative. Good is good. Let it be good.
I've been saying this for two years and I'll say it again: the MCU's real problem is they have no Kevin Feige equivalent anymore. The man used to be in the room for every major creative decision. Now he's spread so thin across Disney properties that nobody's actually steering the ship. Thunderbolts* feeling good is probably an accident of having a smaller, more focused production.
That is factually incorrect. Avengers (2012) alone has better character work than anything in Phase 4 or 5. The shawarma scene tells you more about those characters than three seasons of Marvel Disney+ shows combined.
asked my flatmate what he thought after the film. he said 'it was the first Marvel movie where I didn't check my phone once.' that's the whole review right there isn't it
I work in a cinema. The applause at the end during our Friday evening showing was genuinely spontaneous — not just polite clapping, actual cheering. Haven't heard that in one of our screens for a Marvel film since Endgame. Make of that what you will.
my mum who has never watched a single superhero movie sat through the whole thing without complaining which is literally impossible. take that as the review you want
Hot take and I'll die on this hill: the MCU 'dying' discourse was always massively overstated by Twitter Film Guys who projected their own burnout onto general audience behavior. Casual moviegoers never stopped going. The enthusiast class checked out and confused that for the whole market collapsing.
the enthusiast class checking out DOES matter though because those are the people who build word of mouth, who bring their less-interested friends, who post the reactions. when you lose that layer you lose the cultural momentum even if the box office holds steady for a while. it caught up eventually.
Every single comment here is proof that Marvel discourse has become completely untethered from the actual experience of watching movies. Some of you clearly enjoy the argument more than cinema. Which is fine. But own it.
I'm sorry but 'treated trauma as load-bearing architecture' is the most film-school sentence I've read this month. It either means something profound or absolutely nothing and I can't decide which.
It means something profound AND it's a little annoying and both of those things can be true simultaneously.
Counterpoint — the villain WAS the characters' own trauma. That was the whole point. Not every story needs a cackling bad guy. Some of you genuinely need to watch different movies to expand your palette.
The MCU died with Tony Stark. Every conversation about any Marvel film after Endgame is just people arguing about which phase of grief they're in.
The Ragnarok to Love and Thunder pipeline will never stop haunting me. Never. I have trust issues because of Taika Waititi specifically.
I genuinely think the MCU lowering expectations through years of mediocrity is a structural advantage now. Thunderbolts* would have been considered mid in 2017. In 2025 it feels like a masterpiece because the bar is underground. This isn't praise. This is a warning.
The bar is underground comment is a bit much when the film has genuinely good writing, good performances, and takes real creative risks with its format. You don't have to qualify your enjoyment of something by constantly reminding everyone you're a sophisticated viewer. Just say you liked it.
Bob Reynolds aka Sentry has been my favourite Marvel character since I was reading comics in 2005. They absolutely butchered him. He deserved a solo film with proper buildup, not a rushed introduction shoved into a team movie. Genuinely upset.
I'm so tired of Marvel movies being therapy sessions. Can we have one film where people just punch things and have fun without everyone crying about their childhood? Not every blockbuster needs to be prestige drama.
Went in knowing nothing. Came out researching the comics. That's the best possible outcome for one of these movies and it hasn't happened to me since the original Guardians.
The 'Marvel can't sustain a good film with a follow-up' argument is worth taking seriously but also — maybe the answer isn't another Thunderbolts movie? Maybe it's using this as a launching pad for ensemble dynamics in a broader Avengers context rather than trying to recreate the magic in a sequel. Not everything needs to be a franchise within a franchise.
Hard disagree with the people saying the villain problem is MCU-wide. Killmonger, Zemo, Vulture, even Wenwu — all excellent. The problem is SPECIFIC films not doing the work, not some universal Marvel inability to write antagonists. Stop generalizing from your most recent disappointment.
The problem with Marvel 'recovering' is the same problem as every other Hollywood comeback narrative. Studios don't actually change. They have a good quarter, declare victory, then immediately revert to the exact behavior that caused the problem. I'll believe the MCU is back when I see three good films in a row. Not two. Not one. Three.
Three in a row is an insane bar you wouldn't apply to literally any other filmmaker or studio. Even Christopher Nolan doesn't bat a thousand. You're setting requirements that ensure you'll never have to admit something is working.
nobody's talking about the score?? the score in the void sequences was genuinely unsettling in the best way. felt like something from a completely different genre. whoever made that call deserves recognition
That Avengers 2012 shawarma comment is absolutely wild revisionism. Those characters had SOLO FILMS setting them up beforehand. Of course the shawarma scene feels efficient — you already knew everyone. Compare Thunderbolts doing that same character work from scratch in one runtime and suddenly it looks more impressive, not less.
The 'Marvel has trained its audience to forget disappointments' take is genuinely one of the most condescending things I read on the internet regularly. People are allowed to be disappointed by some films and pleased by others. That's called having individual reactions, not being brainwashed. Grow up.
My 14-year-old nephew has been obsessed with Marvel since he was about six. He stopped caring around Secret Invasion. After this one he texted me unprompted 'uncle this actually went crazy' which is the highest praise a teenager can give anything. Anecdotal yes. But it means something.
Florence Pugh aside — and she IS extraordinary — I want to talk about how underrated David Harbour has been throughout his entire MCU tenure. Red Guardian is comedic relief that somehow makes you feel real pathos. He's been doing this quietly for years and never gets the credit.
The asterisk in the title is actually explained in the film in a clever way and I don't want to spoil it but when I understood it I audibly laughed. Small detail but it shows someone at Marvel is still being creative.
Genuinely curious — for people who say this film proves the MCU is back, what specifically are you pointing to? The script? The direction? The performances? Because if it's primarily the performances then the MCU isn't 'back,' it just hired better actors this time. Those are different problems with different solutions.
All of the above for me personally. The script has real specificity in the dialogue — characters sound distinct. The direction makes interesting choices in the confined spaces. The performances are great BUT they're great because the material respects them. It's a systems thing. Everything lifted everything else.
The shawarma scene. PLEASE. That scene is literally six seconds of people eating quietly. The reason it works is fifteen years of nostalgia and goodwill doing all the heavy lifting. Strip that away and it's nothing. I say this as someone who loves the original Avengers.
Absolute nonsense. The shawarma scene works because it's earned rest after genuine stakes. The silence communicates exhaustion, victory, and personality simultaneously without a single line of dialogue. That's sophisticated filmmaking. You're confusing 'simple' with 'hollow.' They are not the same thing.
I keep seeing people say the mid-credits scene changes everything. Saw the movie twice already and I think people are WAY overhyping what it sets up. It's fine. It's connective tissue. Stop letting one scene rewrite your opinion of the whole landscape.
I've been a comics reader since 1987. The version of these characters on screen is barely recognizable to the source material and usually I'd be annoyed by that. But honestly? The film is confident enough in its own interpretation that I stopped caring about fidelity about twenty minutes in. That's rare. Usually the divergences irritate me the whole runtime.
okay hot take but Thunderbolts* is better than any of the Avengers films if you actually care about CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT over spectacle. downvote me all you want
I took my 9-year-old nephew. He cried at the end. He also cried when we ran out of popcorn so maybe don't weigh his opinion too heavily. Still, he asked to watch it again. Kids don't fake that.
okay but why does every good MCU thing have to be a sign of either 'recovery' or 'false hope'? can it just be a good movie? do we have to write the franchise's obituary or resurrection story every single time? genuinely exhausting discourse
respectfully disagree about the pacing criticism. that so-called 'slow' second act is doing essential emotional groundwork. if you cut 25 minutes you gut the payoff. people want everything faster faster faster and then complain movies have no heart. you can't have both.
Lewis Pullman is going to be in everything for the next decade. Screenshot this. The industry is going to eat that man alive with offers.
Can we please stop using Ragnarok as the gold standard and then Love and Thunder as the disaster comparison? We've had this exact conversation about fifty MCU films now. Every 'great' Marvel movie gets weaponized against the next thing. It's exhausting discourse that never evolves.
What I want to know is whether the actual box office legs hold. Opening weekend discourse always feels disconnected from whether a movie genuinely found an audience or just front-loaded on brand loyalty. Come back to me in three weeks with the multiplier.
Okay I need someone to genuinely explain to me how this is 'character driven' when half these characters had like 45 minutes of screen time across multiple other projects before this. I like Yelena. I know Yelena. But Ghost? John Walker? I don't feel like the film did that work for the ones I didn't already know.
Ghost absolutely gets short-changed you're right and it's annoying because her whole deal is fascinating if they'd actually explored it. But Walker gets more than you'd think if you track his arc from the show. The film rewards homework while pretending you don't need to do it.
The asterisk thing genuinely made me smile and I went in ready to be cynical about it. Cynicism defeated, at least for one scene.
can someone explain to me what the asterisk actually means because i saw it and loved it but didn't clock the explanation and now i feel like an idiot reading all these comments about it
not to be that person but nobody is talking about the score?? the music in this film does SO much heavy lifting in the quiet scenes. whoever made those choices understood the assignment when the script was being cautious
Hot take that will age badly or age perfectly: Thunderbolts* will be remembered as the film that saved the MCU the same way Casino Royale saved Bond after Die Another Day. A franchise hitting rock bottom then making one brutally honest creative choice that resets everything. Screenshot this.
lol bro Casino Royale was a hard reboot with a new actor. Thunderbolts* is a sequel to Black Widow, She-Hulk, Falcon and the Winter Soldier, and like three other things. The comparison doesn't hold structurally at all
Is it wrong to choose not to have children just because you don't want to?
110 comments
Would you still eat meat if you had to kill the animal yourself?
109 comments
Netflix's 'Adolescence' shows a teenage boy becoming a killer — did the show actually get modern boyhood right, or did it miss the point entirely?
109 comments
Would you tell your closest friends exactly how much money you make?
108 comments