I typically don’t start posts with a spoiler warning, but since Captain America: Brave New World (2025; Dir. Onah) is still new, I’ll note that while I’ll keep spoilers to a minimum, some are unavoidable.
Brave New World arrives at a time of peak superhero fatigue, with critics eager to dismiss it. Yet, while the film isn’t groundbreaking, I found it to be a solid entry in the Captain America franchise—blending espionage, international relations, and political commentary in ways that elevate it beyond simple escapism. Interestingly, the film probably has a near-equal claim to being called The Incredible Hulk 2 as it does Captain America 4, given how its plot connects back to the 2008 film.
At the heart of Brave New World is Sam Wilson’s Captain America (Anthony Mackie). Unlike Steve Rogers, he has no super soldier serum, no enhanced abilities, and no borrowed Mjolnir. What he shares with the original Captain America isn’t power—it’s his unwavering moral compass and his commitment to doing what’s right, even when the path forward is complicated. His approach to heroism is more explicitly tied to righting injustices, whereas Steve Rogers’ battles were often framed as fights for freedom from tyranny. While Roger’s struggles against tyranny are sadly more relevant today than when Captain Americas 1-3 debuted, his story has concluded. Meanwhile, Sam Wilson’s focus on righting injustices is, unfortunately, always timely in America.
A Hulk-Inspired Plot with Global Stakes
The film’s central conflict revolves around the aftermath of Eternals (2021; dir. Zhao) and the emergence of the Celestial in the Indian Ocean. The massive entity is discovered to be composed of Adamantium, a new element (for this version of the Marvel Cinematic Universe). This revelation sets off an international scramble for control, leading to geopolitical tensions.
This plot device works because the political elements of it are real, even if chemical element is fiction. The demand for rare earth metals is a growing global issue, and media coverage increasingly resembles the setup for an inevitable conflict (see America’s current treatment of Greenland / Denmark and Canada, as well as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine).
In the film, President Thaddeus Ross (Harrison Ford) attempts to broker an international treaty to ensure the Adamantium is distributed fairly among nations. On the surface, Ross’s intentions seem noble—preventing a global arms race. But his methods are far from justifiable. His arc is one of unchecked ambition, the culmination of years of pursuing his own vanity projects, now leading to the highest seat of power.
Notably, the partially emerged Celestial is in the Indian Ocean, and the nations involved in the treaty include Japan, India, France, and the United States. While India has a plausible territorial claim, France’s role suggests lingering colonial entitlement, Japan’s interest is left unexplained, and the U.S.’s involvement is presumably based on its longstanding role as a self-appointed “enforcer of global security.” Conspicuously absent from the negotiations are China, Russia, the U.K., and Australia—nations that, in reality, would undoubtedly make a claim to the element. From what I recall, the film never addresses any of these details, but it’s an interesting aside.
The film’s villain—whose motivations stem from the fallout of The Incredible Hulk—sees Ross as untrustworthy and orchestrates a scheme to undermine him. Through espionage, deception, and strategic manipulation, this antagonist sows international distrust in both the U.S. and Ross himself. In many ways, the villain wins—Ross’s legacy is irreparably tainted. Yet, paradoxically, his treaty is still accepted, and the Adamantium is shared globally, achieving what he set out to do.
A Means to an End
One of the film’s more thought-provoking elements is its exploration of whether good intentions can justify unethical actions. Ross, for all his faults, seems genuinely committed to preventing a new arms race. However, the pressing question becomes do noble goals justify secrecy, coercion, unchecked executive power, and human rights violations?
Brave New World makes a strong argument that they do not. One rationale for why this is the case is that regardless if the means work, eventually the truth comes to light. No matter how well-intentioned, leadership built on deception is inherently unstable. Ross’s downfall is inevitable because his leadership relies on control rather than trust. His attempt to shape history backfires, proving that even in a world of superheroes, real leadership requires more than just ambition—it requires a foundation of truth and principles—something that both Captain Americas understood thoroughly.
The Legacy of Captain America
Sam Wilson steps into the role of Captain America with confidence, proving himself a worthy heir to the title. He refuses to be defined by power or legacy—he is simply committed to doing what is right.
A strong subplot involves the new Falcon, Joaquin Torres (Danny Ramirez), who sees Sam as a mentor. After making what could have been a sacrificial choice, Torres explains that he’s always admired Sam—not for his Avengers status, but for the way he carries himself. Sam confesses that he has always felt pressure to “be on point” because he represents more than just himself. He carries the weight of proving that people like him deserve an equal shot at leadership positions. Sam reassures Torres that by stepping up, he’s doing the same work—ensuring that the door remains open for others who follow.
The Politics of Representation and Patriotism
Brave New World does not dwell on race in overt ways, but the presence of a Black Captain America remains a powerful statement. We exist in a time when many viewers will project their own expectations and biases onto Sam Wilson’s Captain America. Historically, the U.S. has celebrated heroism in theory while resisting change when those heroes don’t fit a certain mold. The film nods to this reality through Isaiah Bradley (Carl Lumbly), whose tragic history is a stark contrast to Steve Rogers’s reception.
Like Rogers, Bradley was given the super soldier serum and served his country with distinction. Unlike Rogers, who was lauded as a national hero, Bradley was imprisoned for 30 years and subjected to cruel experimentation after the Korean War. The contrast between these two super soldiers is stark but unsurprising, given America’s long history of treating Black service members as disposable—relying on their sacrifices while denying them full citizenship and dignity at home.
One of the film’s greatest strengths is that it doesn’t reduce Sam’s Captain America to a simple “America is good” narrative. Instead, it grapples with the tension between what America aspires to be and what it often fails to achieve. The film raises an essential question—is patriotism loyalty to a country’s leadership, or to its ideals? Sam’s Captain America clearly embodies the latter.
In the end, Brave New World acknowledges that America is a flawed nation, but also one capable of producing leaders like Sam Wilson—people who fight not for what the country is, but for what it could be. His patriotism is more complex than flag-waving nationalism; it requires confronting injustices while holding onto the hope that change is possible. His struggle is not just against external enemies but against the institutions and individuals who resist progress.
This type of patriotism is more difficult because it demands accountability. It means fighting not just against obvious threats but also against those who claim to share the same ideals yet actively oppose their realization. It’s an exhausting fight, but a principled one—far more honest than blind loyalty, which picks and chooses when and how those ideals should apply.
The Film’s Unlikely Optimism
Perhaps the film’s most surprising moment is Ross’s decision to step down, face imprisonment, and accept the consequences of his actions so the country can move forward. Given today’s political climate, this may be the most unrealistic part of the film. And yet, it was refreshing. In superhero films, we expect our heroes to make sacrifices—but in Brave New World, even the villain is forced to choose the greater good over personal gain.
This echoes a recurring theme in the Marvel universe (not just the MCU and extended Marvel films), villains often find redemption in their final moments. Whether it’s Loki in Infinity War, Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2, or Venom going from Spider-man’s greatest nemesis to a full fledged hero of his own in the comics, Brave New World continues this tradition with Ross’s fate.
The Criticism: What Do People Want
The film has been met with lukewarm critical reception, but I’m not sure what some viewers expect. Superhero movies are inherently fantastical and superficial, but at least Brave New World makes an effort to engage with political and moral dilemmas. It’s a story about responsibility, sacrifice, and the challenges of leadership—concepts that have always been central to the Captain America franchise.
It may not be as flashy as some other MCU entries, but its focus on character, ethics, and international power dynamics makes it a thoughtful addition to the franchise.
Conclusion
Captain America: Brave New World presents a version of Captain America defined not by strength, but by integrity. Sam Wilson’s Cap isn’t about being the most powerful person in the room—he’s about being the person who stands for what’s right, even when it’s hard.
The film may not win over every critic, but for those who appreciate Captain America stories that wrestle with politics, power, and morality, it’s a worthy addition to the MCU. If nothing else, it serves as a reminder that superheroes don’t need to be invincible—they just need to be willing to carry the weight of their choices, no matter the cost.
The Curated Life Worth Reading 
Leave a comment