I thought it was...okay. It's definitely not as horrendous as some critics are making it out to be, but it is by no means any sort of epic cinematic masterpiece either. To it's credit, it has lots of great individual scenes, character moments, action, and visuals, but when you look at Batman v Superman as an actual
story, one with a clear beginning, middle, and end
, it's chaotic, confusing, and just downright sloppy. It has all the ingredients to make an exciting, gripping, and thought-provoking Batman and Superman story, but barely holds together under any scrutiny whatsoever. It's as if Zack Synder cut out several panels from five or six different graphic novels, pasted them all on individual sheets of different colored binder paper with some Elmer's School Paste, drew whatever panels he thought were missing with some crayons, stapled all the sheets together, took one cursory glance at the gooey, crumpled, haphazard patchwork of a comic book he created, and said, Well, it gooks good to me--let's start filming everybody!
And some of what made the final cut should have stayed on the cutting room floor. As cool as that whole post-apocalyptic nightmare or premonition Bruce has about Superman turning evil, it really has jack-all to do with what actually happens in the movie. Same for the following dream within a dream of the Flash coming to warn Bruce. It's obvious the only reason these scenes even exit at all is to set up Justice League, but it could've been taken out the final cut entirely and you wouldn't have lost a thing. Not to mention, it really doesn't make a lick of sense. So Bruce has a vivid dream about a possible future, and somehow a time-traveling Flash can enter it, too? WTF?! Same goes for the teaser trailers for upcoming movies within the movie. Oh, excuse me, I mean the encrypted LexCorp metahuman files, complete with designer logos to clue the audience in as who they are. Once again, there's no reason for them to be commercials for upcoming DC movies. It could've just ended on the Wonder Woman photograph from 1917 and that's it.
As far as the performances go, I agree with the consensus that Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman is the best thing in the film, bar none. Maybe it had to do with the fact that he's one of the few characters who has a genuine story arc. Or maybe it had something to do those rumors of Affleck rewriting parts of the script pertaining to Batman. Or maybe it's because the filmmakers clearly loved the Dark Knight Returns. Or maybe Affleck has matured as an actor. Whatever the reason, the movie was able to bring to life Frank Miller's take on the Caped Crusader to the big screen. Yes, I realize this Batman is brutal, vicious, and does break his one rule, but in the context of the film, it at tries to justify it. In his conversations with Jeremy Iron's Alfredalso very good, by the wayit's Bruce's sense of powerlessness after the attack on Metropolis which has made him become more violent and ruthless. It's revealed Batman has only started branding criminals after the attack on Metropolis, and the sex trafficker is only the second one. This, along with the loss of Robin at the hands of the Joker, and whatever suffering he's endured over the last 20 years, had turned Bruce, as Alfred implies, into someonecruel. Oh, and that fight scene where rescues Ma Kent (which was shown in the third trailer)? Pure, unadulterated badass! That's the kind of fight choreography I wish we had gotten in Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy but never did.
Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman was also pretty good...for the few scenes she was actually in the movie. The moment she finally appears in full costume and helps fight Doomsday was a definite high point. Yes, she seemed a bit tacked on as far as the story goes, but based on what we're given here, I was impressed.
As for Henry Cavill as Clark Kent/Superman, you might as well have called him the Man of Wood instead of the Man of Steel, because he just looks so stiff, rigid, and just plain bored. I get the film wants to get across the idea that Superman wants people to see him as a regular guy just trying to help, that he feels uncomfortable being labeled a god, that he's getting more discouraged over being blamed for things which are not his fault. But at no time did I find Cavill convincing. Rather, impression was Cavill was barely keeping himself awake and just wished he could be anywhere else than being in this movie. And it wasn't just that Senate scene either. He was that way in every. single. scene! Cavill may look like Superman, but he doesn't inspire any scene of wonder or inspiration that Superman should, even though this film oh so desperately keeps telling us this but never really shows it. It's also why I did not feel a single thing when it came to Superman deciding to make the ultimate sacrifice in stopping Doomsday (not that it makes much difference, since the last shot telegraphs the fact he's going to come back to life). I can't believe I'm saying this, but Cavill actually did a much better job in playing Superman in Man of Steel than he does in this movie. And ss for the chemistry between him and Amy Adam's Lois Lane? There really wasn't any. Well...except for the bathtub scene, maybe.
And then there's Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Zuckerberg. No, I refuse to call this ADHD, spastic, mop-headed, snot-nosed, hipster-doofus of a character Lex Luthor. Yes, Lex is supposed to be a self-important, intelligent sociopath, but who in their right mind would ever be intimidated, fear, or have any ounce of respect for this buffoon? Sure, Eisenberg was having fun, but somebody needed to tell to him to dial it back or take some Ritalin. He was chewing the scenery so much, the grips probably had to perform the
Heimlich maneuver on him between takes just to stop him from choking on the cardboard (or would that be cherry-flavored jolly ranchers?). He also tried so hard to be as comical as Gene Hackman or Kevin Spacy's Luthors could be, but instead of being funny, he just came off as annoying. Worse, Lex Zuckerberg has no clear motive for wanting to kill Superman. Does he want him dead because of what Superman represents? Because he's jealous of Superman? Does he want to kill him just for kicks? All we get are these heavy-handed, pedantic tangents about Gods, devils, his father, and the oldest lie in America, but none of it gives you a concrete idea as to
why he's going to such absurd lengths to see Superman disgraced or dead. Or Batman, for that matter. It doesn't matter if he's not like the Lex Luthor of the comics, or if supposed to be the original Lex Luthor's son or whatever...he was horribly miscast. Or given terrible direction and dialogue, take your pick.
And his so-called scheme to frame Superman and tricking Batman into fight him also doesn't make any sense, either. Why, for instance, would anyone believe Superman was responsible for killing bunch of African villagers when everybody knows he doesn't use guns and doesn't need to use guns? I mean Lois is going around showing off the experimental bullet to that General from Man of Steel, talking about cover-ups, and I'm thinking For crying out loud, does everybody except Lois Lane think Superman looks and acts like this guy?
Which also makes wonder why Lois wasn't asked to testify at the Senate hearing, considering how she witnessed everything that happened and was the reason why Superman was even there. It's just as absurd once people also accuse Superman of being cahoots with the guy in the wheelchair blowing up the Senate hearing, especially since that person publicly blames Superman for the loss of his legs. ? Why would he go through all the trouble in smuggling in the Kryptonite rock when he counted on Batman stealing it anyway? How did he know Batman would even steal the Kryptonite? And isn't it kind of weird that, in spite of not working together, Lex Zuckerberg kidnaps Superman's mom right at the moment Batman just so happens to have come up with his plan to trap and destroy Superman? Hell, why even trick Superman and Batman to fight each other at all when he's already in the middle of creating Doomsday? Even though he says he wants the whole world to see Superman humbled by a mere man, no one is actually watching their fight because everyone's paying attention to all the strange electrical energy coming out the place Lex is keeping the Kryptonian scout ship.
And speaking of the actual Batman v Superman fight (which delivered the goods, I'll give you that), why would Superman, right as Batman is about to impale him with the Kryptonite spear, call his adoptive mom by her first name when he had never done so at any time during this movie or Man of Steel? I guess we're supposed to conclude that since he knows Batman is Bruce Wayne he also figured out Bruce's mother was also named Martha? Accept why would he think that would get Batman to hesitate? Sure, it's a nice way to connect both Superman and Batman by pointing out their mothers had the same name, until you realize this being the thing to make Batman stop his hatred against Superman is not only contrived but a huge plot hole.
I know I'm starting to get nitpicky, and I'm not suggesting the movie is flat-out terrible (though I can understand why some would think so), but it suffers from almost the same problems The Amazing Spider-Man 2 did in that it's trying to juggle too many things at once while setting up a future cinematic universe. If they had cut out the dream sequences and hallucinations, all the blatant Justice League set-ups, rewrote the script to tighten things up, and speed up the pacing, Batman v Superman would've been a kick-ass comic book movie; the makings of one are all there, and you can see those bits and pieces of it, but as it stands, it just doesn't make it. I'd give this about a 2 ½ out of 4 stars, or a 5 out of 10.
