I would tend to agree, but that's a bad example, as Tony created Ultron, and there would have been nothing for the Avengers to save the people of Sokovia from if he hadn't.
But the woman wouldn't have known that Tony was responsible for the creation of Ultron, and for that matter Ultron's creation was an accident born from Tony's good-intentions. He didn't know the AI he was creating would be evil and go with the stereotypical notion of "in order to protect the world, all humans must die" notion. So blaming him isn't entirely fair, how much do we blame SHIELD (Hydra infection aside) for using the Tesseract to create WMDs, sending a message to "all the realms" Earth is ready for a higher form of war?
But the only people who'd know Tony was responsible for Ultron's creation would be The Avengers, Fury and maybe Culson's branch of SHIELD. The public would have no knowledge of it, otherwise everyone (like, literally everyone, would be calling for his head.)
But this woman's attack on Tony while unreasonable while at the same time makes perfect sense. Emotions aren't rational and even in our own world people irrationally attack those trying to help when there's collateral damage. It's foolish for this woman to criticize The Avengers for "just going home" when Ultron was defeated when they did all they could to save as many people as possible and I'm sure Tony sent the "Stark Relief Fund" in to aid the country in any relief and relocation efforts. But this woman lost her son, so she's not thinking rationally. Nor is our main antagonist who lost his family.
I would, however, expect the governments to think a little more rationally and realize that on the whole the Avengers still come out on top. I mean, is the military 100% guilt-free when it comes to their attacks and not leaving behind collateral damage? No they aren't. And they pay reparations to countries/people impacted by their actions which, hey, Tony does through his corporations and relief funds.
So, things did seem out-of-line here. I wonder if it wasn't more Ross and the UN using the whole thing as an excuse to get The Avengers under control. I wonder if those details will come out in future movies?
I went to see the movie again this afternoon and still really enjoyed it. Man, this version of Aunt May is really hard to really "feel" after past versions.
I did pick up a bit more on Tony being the "antagonist" here and his out-of-line douchey behavior. He kind-of goes full jack-ass when things heat up to max (when he calls in Spider-Man and the big fight starts), he nicely brings it back when he realizes Cap was "right" and what his goal(s) were then he -understandably- turns it back on again when he learns out Bucky is responsible for his parents' death. (Right in front of a conveniently placed security camera outside a power sub-station.... along an empty rural road somewhere in New York in a car that doesn't strike me as something billionaires would drive themselves in 1991.)
I wonder if in the aftermath of the truth of it all came to him in his clearer head and he realized Bucky's brainwashing and conditioning was more responsible for Bucky's actions than Bucky himself.
What happened to Black Widow in the end of it all? Was she allowed to stay on even though she let Cap escape?
Why didn't Cap use the Quinjet's cloaking device as he fled? (For that matter, why wasn't Black Panther using his single-occupant Quinjet's cloak?)
As good as the airport tarmac battle was, there was one thing in it that struck me as "hokey" that didn't fully work for me. When Ant-Man becomes Giant-Man we see his moving very slowly, his arms, his limbs, etc. I suspect there's a "degree" of "realism" to this when you take a person and make them 20-stories tall; normal movements may seem slower. But, I dunno, it looked goofy to me. Like something you'd see in a cheezy 1950s Sci-Fi B-Movie.
Anyway, still highly enjoyed the movie and think remains as one of the best of the MCU movies to date.
