I. An Introduction
If there's one thing we can be sure of with the superhero genre, it's that using your current film primarily as set up to future films and/or expanding the universe will result in bad movies. If there's another thing we can be sure of, it's that Warner Brothers has no idea what it is doing in their efforts to create a cinematic universe to rival Marvel's. And if there is a third thing we should be sure of at this point, it's that Zack Snyder is not the person to lead that charge.
Snyder has made a name for himself by copying other creators. 300 succeeded largely by sticking closely to the visuals of the source material. If Watchmen was decent, it's because he deviated little from the graphic novel. Some of the things people have liked most about Batman v. Superman are the instances in which he straight up lifts the images from the comic. It's telling that Snyder's "best" works are things in which he is leaning heavily on other creators. Some of his worst works, though, have come where he is in complete creative control. Suckerpunch was awful and highlights why his style fits with Frank Miller comics - a shared teenage boy's sense of "cool" regardless of how hollow it actually is. And Man of Steel failed because Snyder tried particularly hard to put his own spin on the Superman character.
To be fair to Snyder's efforts here, it's a bit hard to tell where his shortcomings as a director start, and where the failings of the studio and its lack of direction end. Batman v. Superman is essentially four or five movies crammed into one. Bubbling under the surface are some interesting ideas for a Superman film. When his story begins, Clark Kent is struggling to figure out what his role should be. In the aftermath of the Kryptonian invasion, many in the world fear and hate Superman. There are even Congressional hearings about how the government should handle him.
Batman, on the other hand, has been hard at work defending Gotham City while scheming up ways to bring Superman down. The film opens up with flashbacks to the Kryptonian invasion, where Bruce Wayne was rushing to help the people at Wayne Enterprises. In more thematically shallow 9/11 imagery, he witnesses the building collapse and presumably hundreds of employees killed (if not more). All the while, he stares up and watches Zod and Superman fighting. This is the central root of Batman's grudge.
 |
| I hope that's the signal for a better director and writer! |
II. Character Issues
What we wind up with are two characters with distinct, clear motives for a showdown with one another. Clark wants to put a stop to Batman since he's playing fast and loose with vigilante justice. This is a man who plays judge, jury, and executioner. Bruce, meanwhile, wants to put a stop to Superman because he's extremely powerful and that power makes him inherently dangerous. Both men are full of hypocrisy, of course. It's strange that Clark hates Batman because he operates outside the law while he himself does the same as Superman. Similarly, it is inconsistent that Bruce has a problem with the public damage and danger created when Superman tried to stop Zod, all while he has no problem destroying cars, launching missiles, and spraying bullets throughout the city to stop some henchmen. These inconsistencies don't actually feel like a bad thing; rather, it makes them feel like actual people. We all have double standards and hypocrisies.
The main problem, though, is that they throw Lex Luthor into the mix. Luthor's weirdly convoluted, yet simultaneously stupid conspiracy plot to pit the two superheroes against one another not only disrupts the pacing of the film; it also undermines any and all thematic significance of their positions. The two don't ultimately come to blows because Clark doesn't like what Batman does and Bruce doesn't like that Superman even exists. Instead, they fight because Luthor has kidnapped Martha Kent and threatened to kill her if he does not kill the Caped Crusader.
This issue is ruined even more by the fact that neither Superman nor Batman seem to mind killing people. Yes, yes. The film makes it clear that these criminals are the worst of the worst. Batman kills a ton of anonymous henchmen involved with serious crimes like human trafficking. Superman, meanwhile, kills a terrorist. Snyder is careful to keep it black and white with the killing. We as an audience are not meant to feel at all uncomfortable with the idea of these heroes killing. That itself feels a bit disingenuous, but it also ignores another option for organic conflict between the two titular characters. If Snyder would ever let Superman actually be kind of like Superman for more than two minutes at a time, then there could have been a conflict wherein Superman refuses to kill again, sees Batman killing a bunch people, and sets out to stop him.
Instead, we get the Luthor plot, which ruins the idea of these two diametrically opposed characters, with two fundamentally opposite philosophies on their vigilantism, going at it organically.
III. The Lex Luthor Problem
Actually, about Lex Luthor. From the trailers, Jesse Eisenberg's take on Luthor has been a source of concern. The guy commits to his performance, and he actually is entertaining to watch as a result. Purists will hate it because it's a dramatically unique take. Casuals, though, may be split on the matter. His performance is interesting to watch, but the character of Lex Luthor is a mixed bag. As mentioned, it throws a wrench into the gears of an otherwise organically moving conflict. It strips the film of its central themes and concepts, instead tossing them out mid-film for your typical "villain has to do villainous thing." (Of all the changes Snyder has made to the Superman character and the genre itself, you'd think he could have avoided that trope to some praise, at least.)
But Luthor's motivation is never particularly clear. In fact, it's kind of all over the place. He hates Superman, but why? In one line of dialogue, he even explains that Superman's destruction of Metropolis was good for his business! So why would he be hellbent on destroying him? Even more, if he knew Batman felt similarly, why did he need to do anything at all to get them to fight when they would have done it eventually on their own? More still, why did he need to create Doomsday, a theoretically invincible monster that would destroy pretty much all life on Earth apart from just Superman and/or Batman? (That element gets virtually no explanation.)
So we're meant to assume that Lex hates Superman for the same reason Batman does; a sense of uneasiness with a being powerful enough to destroy the planet. It doesn't get explicitly clarified, but that would make sense. And yet, he rambles incessantly about "gods" and "angels" and "demons." At some point it stops sounding like he has a reasonable concern over Superman's existence, and instead just that he has some weird religious hangups, that he wants himself to be seen as a god. (I'm also pretty sure that the whole thing might be an ad for the video game Injustice: Gods Among Us. Lex uses that phrase about half a dozen times out of nowhere.) At other times, though, it seems like he's just this weirdly deranged maniac. It almost seems as though the Joker were supposed to be in the film with Luthor, but they just combined the two instead.
By the end, he is reduced to a sniveling prophet. Like Batman in the film, he has evidently had a vision of something horrible occurring in the future. It's certainly Darkseid, but this still doesn't really explain the motivation behind Luthor's schemes. And again, Doomsday comes out of nowhere. The action is mostly fine in the film, with some of the best Batman sequences on screen yet, but the finale feels super strange, rushed, and - despite having some moments (like Wonder Woman's smirk as she recovers from being hit) - there isn't ultimately much to it other than to be this weird visual light show.
 |
| Eisenberg goes all in. An...interesting...take on the character. Unfortunately, he gets no help from the writer or director. |
IV. Wait, Why Is Doomsday In This?
The whole final act with Doomsday feels rushed. It comes out of nowhere with no real explanation, and then it moves too quickly for its own good. You get these weird things like the military randomly knowing that Doomsday is "unkillable" and that every attack makes him stronger, or Wonder Woman observing after a few hits that "Doomsday feeds off of energy." (Not totally sure how she determined that.) Just the unveiling of Doomsday is rushed, as it's in there just so there can be a battle featuring DC's holy trinity.
*THE ONE BIG SPOILER THAT ISN'T SPOILED IN THE TRAILER, SO SKIP TO THE NEXT MARKER IF YOU DON'T WANT IT SPOILED*
I have to address the Doomsday stuff in general. It makes no sense in any capacity. Here's the thing: As much as I love Superman, he doesn't exactly have a great rogues gallery. Doomsday is not a compelling or interesting villain. The sole purpose of his creation was to give Supes an enemy that he could really throw down with. The Death of Superman story is one of the most overhyped in all of comics history (maybe just ahead of, or just behind the other inspiration for the film, The Dark Knight Returns), but that final issue was awesome. Each page was a splash panel featuring a hard hitting battle between the two fighters.
Point being, Doomsday is someone that exists for Superman to physically punch. It makes little sense, then, why they would bring Doomsday into the fold and have it result in a number of ranged attacks. The most interesting part of the battle was a very Dragonball Z-like laser beam back and forth between the creature and Superman. A lot of Doomsday's attacks were energy waves. It runs counter to the point of the character, which may be expected in a Zack Snyder film, but still.
But the biggest problem is that yes, this film does conclude with Superman "dying" in a last ditch effort to stop Doomsday. That is the one big, unexpected thing. (I mean, maybe you were expecting it because it's pretty common knowledge that Doomsday was the villain that brought Superman down.) Here's why it's a weird decision.
The Death of Superman was a powerful moment in comics because Superman was the most firmly established, most inspirational hero in DC's toy box. His "death" had a huge impact on everyone else in the DC universe. Here, though, most of the world seems to hate Superman. Batman spent two hours of the film scheming up ways to kill him.
Now, on some level, the "death" makes sense. Given that the film spent a good deal of time showing why people aren't the worst for fearing Superman and his Kryptonian biology, sacrificing himself to stop Doomsday is a relatively solid way to turn the world around. People see that he is a hero, and do a complete 180 on him.
But it happens so quickly. Washington literally goes from holding hearings about how to regulate Superman, questioning his involvement in a terrorist attack, to throwing him a hero's funeral and building a new monument. It happens as quickly as Batman suddenly decides not to kill Superman because both of their mothers were named Martha. (Oh yeah, by the way, that's not hyperbolic. That's literally why Batman decides not to impale Superman with his Kryptonite spear.)
All of this culminates in an incredibly lackluster and dry scene that - I think - was trying to be very emotional, complete with bagpipe renditions of "Amazing Grace" and canon shot salutes. Except we're literally in the first real chapter of the DC cinematic universe. Killing one of your primary three superheroes in the first movie is not going to make anyone think that there's a chance Superman is dead. Sure, we already think that about superheroes anyway, in large part because of the source material. But we obviously know that Superman isn't just going to be gone from this universe right at the very beginning. It's a really weird decision for building a universe. It would be kind of like Fox setting up the future of X-Men movies by killing Wolverine in the first film.
Of course, the other issue here is that no one really even knows these characters. Their character writing is so inconsistent, and we've gotten so little time to actually connect with them on screen that any and all connections are built on prior knowledge of the character. If you're sad to see Superman lying there "dead," it isn't because of anything in Man of Steel or Batman v. Superman. It's that you already know who Superman is because of popular culture. It fails to stir an emotional response. (Seriously, not a single person in the theater flinched when Superman was impaled.)
*THE ONE THING NOT SPOILED FROM THE TRAILERS RANT OVER****
 |
| Yes, because this already bloated film needed the Abomination...er... I mean Doomsday |
V. They Spent So Long On This Script?
The dialogue is cheesy and poor. Ben Affleck is a pretty damn good Batman, but even he struggles at the end with the contrived dialogue he must have with Wonder Woman about starting the Justice League. All those cheesy lines in the trailers are present and stand out even more glaringly in the film than in the previews. Almost every line Lex Luthor says is corny, contrived, and illogical. It is only topped by his forcing comic book lingo in at the end when he awakens his monster before saying, "This is your Doomsday!" (I do admittedly have a soft spot for the crappy ways they try to work names into these movies. They're always terrible.) Even his fourth-wall breaking joke (also in the trailers) is poorly written. You know what I'm talking about. When meeting Clark and Bruce together at his party, he shakes Clark's hand and says that he has a good, strong grip. He then turns to Bruce and says, "I would not pick a fight with this guy!" HA HA! GET IT YOU GUYS!? BECAUSE THAT'S ACTUALLY SUPERMAN AND THE OTHER GUY IS ACTUALLY BATMAN AND THIS MOVIE IS CALLED BATMAN V. SUPERMAN SO WE KNOW THAT THEY ARE GOING TO FIGHT! (Seriously, how can Snyder even lack subtlety with the four jokes he lets into the movie?)
The Justice League "cameos," might have been the single laziest attempts at world building in any of these comic book movies. Quite literally, in some completely unnecessary plot in which Diana and Bruce are having this weird back and forth thing (also, every part of Diana's storyline is shrouded in mystery and unexplained - and unnecessary to this film), it results in Bruce sending her an e-mail with information about other metahumans. We see security footage of the Flash stopping a thief in a convenience store. There's an underwater camera that captures Aquaman just before he destroys it. And then there's a vlog entry from a scientist working on Cyborg. None of this means anything for this film. It's crammed in there. It feels like the film interrupts itself just so they can provided teaser trailers for future films.
There is also a strange kind of short-hand that becomes problematic for folks who aren't long-time comic book nerds. A lot of minor "Easter eggs" actually give a good amount of insight for the knowledgeable viewer. There's a moment when Bruce stares at his Batman costume, then pauses and looks at another costume in a case. The camera holds on it for a couple of beats, then moves on. This is actually in the trailers too. It shows a Robin costume with graffiti over it that says, "HA HA HA! JOKES ON YOU" (or something).
Here's the thing: for anyone familiar with comics, that has a ton of meaning - especially in context of this film. For those in the know, that costume is a clear nod to the "Death in the Family" story arc in which the Joker kidnaps and tortures Jason Todd, the second Robin, to death. The graffiti, with the "HA HA HA," is clearly the Joker. The costume is clearly Robin's. More importantly, this gives a surprising amount of detail about the world we're in and why Batman might have gone over the edge. See, most people who know Batman are familiar with the concept that Batman doesn't kill. This was even part of the Nolan movies, which Snyder borrows some imagery from. Yet he kills easily half a dozen people, at least, in this film. This is a world where Bruce Wayne not only lost a building full of employees in the Kryptonian invasion; he also lost his protege to a longtime villain. It's actually really telling about the state Bruce is in, and why Batman has gone over the edge.
But this only translates if you're "in the know." This goes beyond a mere "Easter egg," rewarding fans. This thing actually has substantial meaning and adds depth to the Batman character. When I left the cinema, I heard individuals explaining this significance to their groups of friends. To someone not familiar with comics history, that shot is completely meaningless. This isn't clearly a world established in which the Joker exists. Because Snyder hates color, that suit isn't even clearly Robin (it is if you know what to look for, but it's far from the iconic outfit even non-comic fans are familiar with). To the point, any and all meaning derived from that shot is completely lost on those people, and it's not nothing!
The end of the film makes no sense either. Batman refers to Superman as his "friend" when talking to Martha Kent, but he was literally all set to kill him just ten minutes earlier. At the end, he has some of the dumbest, most forced dialogue with Wonder Woman, essentially saying that the big memorial for Superman won't do the dude justice. What? Again, he just tried to kill him, went all racist on him ("You're not brave. Men are brave!"), and now he cares about doing right by him?
 |
| Why did this dream sequence need to be in here, again? |
VI. Batman's Origin Change
One more thing that most may disagree with me on is a seemingly minor change to Batman's origin story. First of all, can we just agree to stop depicting Thomas and Martha Wayne being gunned down on film? How many times have we seen it now? Like Spider-man's origin, do we really need it? Who that has lived in our current society, in the current pop-culture climate, does not know this origin story?
But there's one minor change that I'm not so sure is all that minor. In most versions of the origin story, Thomas Wayne is gunned down either trying to shield his family, or by trying to talk to the mugger in an effort to calm him down. In this way, Thomas is depicted as more than just an innocent victim. He's a hero, a strong moral compass. For all the trauma Bruce will experience as a result of seeing his parents gunned down, the last thing he sees his father do is either protect the innocent (him and his mother) or, better still, try to help a common criminal, trying to diffuse a potentially violent experience.
Zack Synder's version is a bit different. Instead of Thomas trying to do either of those things, his last action is taking a swing at the mugger. This idea might not seem like a big deal to anyone else, but to me, it actually changes the meaning of the origin. We don't see Thomas Wayne as heroic because he tried to help people. The idea presented here is that Thomas Wayne is heroic because he tried to fight the criminal. Apart from just oversimplifying criminals and crime in general, it does distract from the tragedy a little bit. Yes, he's still a victim, but on the other hand, no crap he got gunned down. He tried to punch a guy who was pointing a gun at him.
The reason this changes the origin is that it alters the ideal form of heroics. Thomas Wayne isn't seen shielding his family. He isn't seen possibly even trying to help the criminal at the same time, showing him as a mature and intelligent adult who understands that many of these types of criminals are probably desperate rather than simply evil. Rather, Snyder's brand of heroism is violence. Thomas "protects" his family by trying to beat up the mugger. He is depicted as "inspirational" because he went down swinging. Essentially, the message here is that the best defense is an aggressive, violent offense. You don't fight crime by treating criminals as humans, showing some form of compassion and education. You fight crime by literally trying to rough them up. Certainly, it speaks to those who maybe think that pretending many crimes are committed for reasons beyond simply "they're bad people," who view anything other than the harshest punishments as "weak on crime," even if it's not effective policy. But it's a bit telling about Snyder's understanding of justice, crime fighting, and the point of these superheroes.
Maybe that's digging a bit deeper than most people go, and maybe I'm reading too much into it. Still, I can't help but see that as the subtext to that scene and its imagery.
 |
| We get it, Zack, you are obsessed with forcing a Superman/God connection. |
VII. Snyder's Middle Finger to Critics
I have to address all of the meta-commentary which comes off as if Zack Snyder and David Goyer want to give fans of these characters the middle finger for criticizing their works. It's never been a big secret that Snyder especially has had some trouble understanding what about these characters - Superman especially - are appealing, or what makes them distinct and compelling characters. Many criticized Man of Steel for the changes they made to the fundamental core of the Superman character.
Throughout Batman v. Superman, there are these in-your-face responses (because Snyder also doesn't understand subtlety). These come largely from Perry White in response to Clark Kent. First, it's strange that Clark is much more of the "boy scout" than his Superman persona, but that's the issue of not understanding the character.
At one point in the film, Clark gets into an argument with Perry about the Batman. The Daily Planet has been ignoring the story, which Clark sees as wrong. His argument is essentially that since law enforcement isn't doing anything about him, it's their obligation to write about him and try to stop him. The first meta-comment from Perry is pretty straightforward: "You don't get to decide what's right."
Taken on its own, it might sound like a stretch to interpret that as anything deeper or more meaningful. Given the amount of criticism Snyder has taken for his (extremely flawed) take on Superman, it felt a bit more like they were trying to shout down fans of the character. It reads like Snyder and Goyer trying to say that no one gets to decide who these characters are except the creators. If Snyder wants to have a Superman who snaps necks and slams people through brick walls, then that's who Superman is. "You don't get to decide what's right" comes off a lot more like, "You don't get to decide who our Superman is, and whether our Superman is Superman or not."
There's some validity in that argument, to be sure. Yet it also shows a complete lack of understanding of how the comic and movie industry have otherwise worked, and feels like a giant middle finger to long time fans of the character who actually have been a big part of why Superman has remained relevant and special throughout the decades.
The other thing Perry White shouts is what - in my opinion - solidifies the idea that these are meant as barbs towards critics and fans more than Clark Kent, young reporter. Snyder, again having no concept of the subtle, has Perry saying along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing here): "It's not 1938 anymore! Newspapers don't cost a penny. And stop being so damn idealistic."
Again, this is Snyder not only berating Superman for being Superman; he's almost telling fans of Superman to shut up. He's essentially doubling down on his gritty, dark, brooding, murderous version of the character by saying that Superman shouldn't be idealistic and the big, blue boy scout of the comics. Given that a central theme for the first hour of the film tries to tackle the question of whether the world needs Superman, it could even be argued that this is Snyder suggesting that if the world does need Superman, it doesn't need the purely good and upstanding version of the comics. "It's not 1938 anymore," a direct reference to the year Superman was first published, suggests a pretty dreary way in which Snyder sees the world. And all this serves as a giant, "Shut up" to fans and critics who have been frustrated at his lack of understanding of the character and why having him is still significant, even in an age where grown 17-year old boys are still making comics and making Hollywood blockbusters.
It, frankly, highlights the maturity level that one might expect from his testosterone-simplified film resume to date.
 |
| Probably the face Zack Snyder makes when reading critical responses to his films. |
VIII. The Good
For all of that, if you've made it this far, there are some good things in the film. The biggest frustration for me is that there are a couple of halfway decent films bubbling below the surface here. Batman's story is intriguing. Almost across the board, people have praised Ben Affleck's portrayal. The action scene in the warehouse has been touted as one of the best Batman sequences ever shot. "That is Batman," many have said.
That is, of course, unless you don't mind Batman breaking his number one rule of never murdering. It's the most "Batman" we've seen Batman, unless you like your Batman not being much like Batman in that Batman straight up murders dudes without a second thought. Ultimately, it's poorly executed within the film, but there is an interesting and compelling story in there somewhere. Between losing his employees in the Kryptonian attack, and with the presumed loss of a protege (with the Robin suit I referred to earlier), there's definitely the groundwork for a good Batman story there. This is a man who has lost so much in his crusade on crime that he's now a man who has finally crossed the line. He's finally gone over the edge. Alfred even hints that this is happening.
It doesn't work here because it doesn't get the attention, but there's a good Batman movie hiding in there somewhere. Similarly, Superman also gets a fairly interesting sub-story somewhere. Look, a brooding, mopey Superman is not what any fan of the character is looking for, but we're also just two movies in. Having him deal with the aftermath of Man of Steel and trying to find his place in this world would be compelling. Given what his crappy father said in the first film, it's not even that hard to see why he might not be sure what his responsibility even is.
Within the first hour, there's a storyline about government figuring it all out too. How should they go about dealing with Superman? How do they hold him accountable for his actions, if they need to? Should they build super weapons to destroy him just in case? Is that ethical? Should Superman work more closely with the government? Even more, given that they still haven't figured out how to use Lois Lane in these movies, the question of whether he can be Superman and be Clark Kent, a normal person working a normal job and is in love with someone? Yeah, that's still very much something to explore.
Like Batman's story, there's a halfway decent Superman movie hiding in here too. These things don't get anywhere near the amount of attention to be legitimately good in this film. After all, they had to cram in Lex Luthor, Darkseid premonitions, Justice League set up, The Death of Superman, The Dark Knight Returns, and Wonder Woman. They barely had time for anything. But to discredit the film entirely when there are some solid nuggets laid throughout the film is a bit unfair to it too.
Additionally, Jeremy Irons kills it as the snarky, grounding Alfred. All due respect to Michael Caine and Michael Gough, but Irons is the best, most entertaining Alfred we've seen on screen. Though he doesn't get to do too much, and he practically disappears after the 90-minute mark, he definitely leaves a positive impression. While tales of Affleck's greatness as the World's Greatest Detective may be a tad exaggerated, if the Batman solo feature coming out of this stars Affleck as Bruce Wayne and Jeremy Irons as Alfred, then the foundation is pretty strong.
The action sequences are pretty cool, even if Snyder spends a bit too much energy on recreating panels from The Dark Knight Returns. It's hard to give it a complete backing though when there are about four action scenes total in a film that runs over two and a half hours, features Batman murdering dudes, and features one of the most generic and obscured finales of any comic book movie, but everything outside the final Doomsday fight is fun and good action. And while the Doomsday fight was tedious, boring, predictable, rushed, and hard to follow due to the bright flashing lights, the generic overuse of CGI, and tons of smoke used, there were aspects of it that were cool. The moment that stood out for me was a quick one where Doomsday knocks Wonder Woman flying. As she recovers, she wipes her mouth and smirks. It's a little thing, but it was cool to see that she was enjoying the battle, as she is an Amazon.
Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL worked together on the score, and it's definitely memorable. It might just be one of the best original scores in any superhero movie. Zimmer has been one of the greatest composers in cinema history. Mixing his sensibilities with Junkie XL works to spectacular results. If you're not familiar with Junkie XL, watch Mad Max: Fury Road. Though application of some tracks might be hit or miss, the songs themselves are great. Really, the only one that might stand out as strange is the electric guitar riffs over Wonder Woman's appearance. I personally liked the track and its application, but many I've spoken to about it feel differently. Either way, the score itself is great and tonally connects to Christopher Nolan's Batman movies, which Snyder borrows several visual and audio cues from.
IX. Conclusion
Look, the film is disjointed, incoherent, nonsensical, idiotic at times, and inconsistent. The writing is generally bad. The pacing is choppy. The editing is poor. It's overstuffed, with Warner Brothers trying to do in one movie what Marvel specifically spread out over the course of five. It suffers for that. Being that it's the super serious and moody Snyder-verse, it's also quite joyless and bleak. By no means is it a "good movie," but it's also not a particularly great comic book movie either. It is far from the worst (especially given Fantastic Four came out not even a year ago).
On the one hand, it's certainly admirable that Zack Snyder has tried with his two films to make a different kind of superhero film. You can hardly blame them for wanting to stand out from the Marvel crowd, to distinguish themselves as a different experience. Unfortunately, in a movie titled, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, you need some camp and silliness. In a movie like this, especially with all the poor and contrived writing, you have to make it somewhat pleasurable.
On the other hand, like Man of Steel, Snyder lacks any clear focus for his film. He forgoes substantial allegory for shallow imagery. He's obsessed with concept of Superman being a god and will not let it go. He still hasn't figured out what it is people like about Superman, and hasn't quite grasped fully the character of Batman either. Stylistically, the lack of color is still making it a chore to watch, and his inconsistent display of dream sequences and hallucinations can get a tad confusing and definitely disruptive at times.
It's almost like Batman v. Superman is one of those crappy essays you get in English class where your homework assignment is to go through and make all of the corrections that the original author failed to notice. Snyder's film has so many holes, problems, and flaws that it's almost more entertaining to watch the film so that you can figure out what they should of done than it is to watch it and enjoy what they did do.
Again, there's stuff there that is solid. It's a terrible movie, but I didn't hate it. I'm sure the years and years of anticipation and hyping didn't help the film either. Unlike Man of Steel, I actually don't regret seeing it in theaters. It's probably worth it to see it on the big screen. Maybe go on one of those discount days. But it's painfully obvious that Warner Brothers has no idea what they're doing in trying to create a cinematic universe, and it's even more obvious that Snyder is not the person to give the reins.
Many people do seem to be enjoying it, though. And if you do, that's great! I wish I could have enjoyed it myself, but it's just so bloated and broken that I couldn't.
But either way, maybe it's about time to stop letting Zack Snyder take control of popular, beloved characters. Sure, he's great at causing controversy and discussion, but I'm not so sure you want your movies to be so split if you're Warner Brothers. (Man of Steel has a current rating of 56% on Rotten Tomatoes while Batman v. Superman has a rating of 29%. In contrast, the lowest rated Marvel film is Thor: The Dark World at 66%. Marvel has produced thirteen movies, and not a single "rotten" film. Warner Brothers, in contrast, has just two films in their cinematic universe, and neither has broken 60%. Their only "fresh" films are outside this universe are the Christopher Nolan Batman films.)
There's no way this movie is as bad as Green Lantern, despite having similar ratings on Rotten Tomatoes, but it is still bad. If you're able to overlook the countless flaws and problems, then great! It's hard to blame people who couldn't, though. They were as numerous as parademons in that random Batman premonition dream sequence.
No comments:
Post a Comment