• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Thursday Aug 14, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST. This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

BvS Batman v Superman - Reviews Thread [TAG SPOILERS] - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
yes, because God forbid any film maker should decide to think outside the box a little bit with a character that's been portrayed a certain way for the past 75 years. And the thing is, that even after Synder & company put a certain spin on it, at the end of the day we still got classic Superman. He just took a different route getting us there.

You're confusing outside the box with something that is so unrecognizably Superman since his inception that betrays all of his principles. For this movie, outside the box and fundamental changes and total disregard of the source material as to Superman's character are not mutually exclusive.
 
I don't know how asking a legitimate question about someone using the word "horror" in the same sentence to describe a Superman movie can possibly be rude. It's actually pretty reasonable if one actually thinks back on Superman as a character pre MOS. I'm asking because stuff like this needs perspective.

There we go again, the default, "it's my opinion" defense. It doesn't matter what someone's opinion is if the logic and rationale makes no goddamn sense for a Superman movie.


I meant framing the question in a way that questions whether or not I realized it was a Superman movie. YES. I GET THAT. But I can't deny there is more of a horror movie tone than any other and that IT WORKED for me. I've had my share of sunny Superman flying around and being majestic.
 
I meant framing the question in a way that questions whether or not I realized it was a Superman movie. YES. I GET THAT. But I can't deny there is more of a horror movie tone than any other and that IT WORKED for me. I've had my share of sunny Superman flying around and being majestic.

So those 77 years of Superman comics and his longevity being built on the exact opposite of who you state are just... totally meaningless.

Oh wait I forgot. This isn't 1938.
 
So those 77 years of Superman comics and his longevity being built on the exact opposite of who you state are just... totally meaningless.

Oh wait I forgot. This isn't 1938.


Come on man. He did Superman stuff. It was just presented to us in a haunting, eerie and beautiful way. The ocean liner drag, the Day of the Dead rescue.. Good God they were beautiful moments. Just unconventional.
 
You're confusing outside the box with something that is so unrecognizably Superman since his inception that betrays all of his principles. For this movie, outside the box and fundamental changes and total disregard of the source material as to Superman's character are not mutually exclusive.

Exactly where in this film was Superman fundamentally changed? (Accent on FUNDAMENTALLY)....
 
Come on man. He did Superman stuff. It was just presented to us in a haunting, eerie and beautiful way. The ocean liner drag, the Day of the Dead rescue.. Good God they were beautiful moments. Just unconventional.

THANK you. :yay:
 
Come on man. He did Superman stuff. It was just presented to us in a haunting, eerie and beautiful way. The ocean liner drag, the Day of the Dead rescue.. Good God they were beautiful moments. Just unconventional.

Exactly where in this film was Superman fundamentally changed? (Accent on FUNDAMENTALLY)....

THANK you. :yay:

Agreed. I loved MoS and I had no problem with the way Superman, or Batman for that matter, were portrayed in BvS. I have problems with BvS but characterization isn't among them.
 
As a casual and former comic book fan not steeped in comic Book Mythology & History, I have to say that the "Martha" revelation was a total and random "Holy S**t" moment that I never ever genuinely realized! Seriously, Martha Kent & Martha Wayne? A total forehead slap moment! Ha! I never put the 2 & 2 together ever! I actually feel like an idiot for never "realizing" this little tidbit. Wow. And Affleck really pulled it off too and made it a believable moment for me. As I could see how this revelation might seem corny and absolutely ridonkulous to the more hardcore fans. But it worked! Pretty clever, I think, IMO, to this "non-fan." And I don't think that moment would have resonated as much as it did for the audience, if Snyder did not include Bat's brief re-telling of origin in the very beginning of the film. Yes, the GA pretty much knows the origin of Bruce Wayne and his transformation to Batman, but without this pivotal scene in the movie to remind us, the whole "Martha Revelation" would have been rendered even more pointless & nonsensical, and quite frankly, stupid. My 2 cents.

BTW, Loved the Movie, A-
 
Agreed, and that's why Thomas Wayne says Martha's name when they're laying in the street dying. It was setup for later. Symbolically, Bruce gets to save a mom named Martha, and that feeling of powerlessness when he saw his parents die is what has fueled his entire life. Becoming Batman is a reaction to that feeling of powerlessness. Losing his friends and allies over the years has made him feel like he can't stop losing. Saving Martha is a victory that symbolically gives him back his control. That's why he doesn't brand Lex at the end. Batman is in control again. It's beautifully done, I don't for the life of me know why some people hate that aspect of the film.
 
It is warming my heart to come to the boards and find so many people that actually get this movie.
 
I saw BvS opening night, after getting ridiculously pumped following the initial positive Twitter reactions and early forum reviews... then, the morning of my screening the embargo was lifted and I woke to a colleague of mine sending the RT link via Google Hangouts followed by a cheeky smile emoji.

Immediately my excitement/buzz died a little - and I'm afraid my reaction to the movie was more negative then it would have been if I had gone into the screening without any negative feedback weighing heavily on my mind. Still... I remained hopeful it was another MoS style situation, where I seemed to enjoy it a lot more than others.

Overall, I came away a little disappointed and even more so in regards to the critic feedback, knowing that even though I enjoyed parts the movie It'll be one I'd be defending for years to come, at least in the idea that some parts were good. I was more deflated knowing that my YouTube home page will automatically show me BvS reviews by all the usual suspects picking it to bits for the next month or so.

As for how I felt about the movie? The performances by the actors were all fine, and I even enjoyed Eisenberg's Lex. I couldn't help but wince at the screen a number of times with the unneccessary action that littered the movie.
Superman tackling the terrorist/General through the wall at 1000mph
was one,
Batman shooting the grappling hook from the Batmobile to drag and ultimately demolish that other car
was another. Small things like this just made me wonder "why"... when you could immediately imagine the scene running smoother, cleaner and a lot less violent. As far as the action/fighting goes - as far as Batman's action scenes go, when he's on foot they are amazing. The scene
when he brands that sex-trafficker
was absolutely amazing and almost horror movie-esque. The batmobile scenes, well I think Synder went a little overboard with those. Too much focus on these scenes being all about explosions rather then really engaging in other ways. The Doomsday parts... I felt we missed any real interplay between the Trinity. It was mostly silent as far as dialogue was concerned and all about all-out explosions again.

At the end of the day, when I look back at the movie there was a lot I liked - but what I didn't like REALLY stood out. I can't help but feel like we should have had Man of Steel 2 first with small tie-ins to other characters. Deal entirely with the fallout of the Zod fight/Metropolis destruction and flesh out that story so we end up with the Superman we all wanted to see and defended based on the idea that Man of Steel was Superman-in-training. Perhaps at the end tie Bruce Wayne/Batman into it and lead into a third movie that pits them against each other. A BvS that takes place AFTER a second Man of Steel movie could have been a lot more focused and streamlined, and the end of BvS would have had a greater impact had we just spent a movie with the Superman we all wanted to see.
 
Last edited:
Overall I was surprised liked the film because I usually agree with critics when they hold a negative opinion of a film. I think Batman V Superman was a good film that had extra stuff that dragged it down from being a great film. It's a bit difficult to tell what this film is about since it has so much going on it but after I really thought about it, I learnt to really appreciate it. I've done a thematic analysis on what I believe this film was about. It's full of spoilers so I suggest you don't read it until after you've seen the film.

Batman V Superman Thematic Analysis Part 1

The main theme of this film is prejudice. This concept is explored primarily through the character of Batman.

Some people dislike the fact that the film showed Batman's origin again but I think it was important to emphasise it because it plays a large role in how Batman is characterised in this film. This is because it relates to what Alfred says in this trailer.

Alfred:
'That's how it starts. The fever. The rage. The feeling of powerlessness that turns good men cruel.'

daGO9Wd.png

Alfred is talking about Batman's birth here. When Batman was a kid he was powerless and that's why he could do nothing to protect his parents. That caused him to become frustrated and this is depicted by how young Bruce chooses to run through the forest right before his parents' funeral. After that we see symbolism that depicts young Bruce becoming Batman. This is what Alfred was referring to when he said 'The feeling of powerlessness that turns good men cruel.' It's young Bruce's feeling of powerlessness that turned him into the dark hero Batman.

However the interesting thing about this film is that it takes this idea further by having Batman go through the process of becoming Batman all over again. What do I mean by this? I'm referring to the opening. Compare the opening of Bruce in Metropolis and then compare it with Alfred's quote again:

Alfred:
'That's how it starts. The fever. The rage. The feeling of powerlessness that turns good men cruel.'

It's true that in the present Bruce is an old and experienced Batman. This should normally mean that he should be capable of taking on any threat. However he was completely powerless to stop the destruction that Superman and Zod caused. The opening did a good job of showing us how weak Bruce was in comparison with them. He only managed to save one of his employees.

63sHI3d

However I think the most important part about the opening was the little girl. Batman rescues the little girl and then tells her that he's going to find her mother. Then he asks her where her mother is and then the girl points to the building that was destroyed by Zod's lasers. Then we see Bruce glare at Superman and Zod.

m7U4FTo.png

I think the reason people under appreciated the significance of the scene with the little girl because she didn't appear later in the film. However she didn't need to because the scene with her already served it's purpose : it mirrored the opening that showed Bruce losing his parents.

Bruce became Batman because he was powerless to stop his parents. That frustrated him. It angered him. All those negative emotions were channeled into giving birth to Batman; a figure which he could use to bring peace to his mind and to the rest of the people of Gotham. In the present, Batman has been around for 20 years and is probably famous and successful. He feels powerful and confident.

However all of this shatters during the opening scene in Metropolis. Batman was powerless to not only save his employees but also in saving the girl's mother. Once of the reasons why Bruce became Batman in the first place was so no other child had to go through what he did. However he failed to do that during Superman's battle with Zod. That little girl's mother was killed and that little girl was orphaned no different from how young Bruce was orphaned in the opening scene. It's true that Bruce wasn't there nor did he have his Batman gear when it happened but even if he did what could he have possibly done? Nothing that Batman had could compete with what Kryptonians had.

So for the first time in roughly 20+ years, Bruce felt powerless again. He felt exactly like how he felt when that criminal shot his parents dead. And as this scenario made Bruce feel like his young self when the criminal shot his parents dead, it also caused him to project the criminal's persona onto Superman and Zod. Zod was killed later but Superman survived so all of Bruce's projections fell onto him. Batman couldn't help but see the criminal who shot his parents in Superman. Why? Because just like the criminal, Superman was almighty compared to Bruce. There was nothing that Bruce could possibly do to stop Superman's destruction in Metropolis. Superman's battle with Zod had caused the little girl to lose her mother so he had was in a way responsible for the separation of a mother and their child. Bruce hates mighty people who separate mothers with their children so he can't help but feel animosity towards Superman. He can't help but feel that Superman is no better than the criminal who killed his parents.

cBwtsYq.png

Anyway this feeling of powerlessness made Bruce frustrated. It enraged him. It angered him. So Bruce began to evolve again. But Bruce is already Batman at this point so he undergoes a different metamorphosis. Instead of his transition being from normal person to Batman, this time he evolves from Batman into a more cruel and dark Batman.

A big question that many people have about this film is why is Batman going out killing people when traditionally Batman has followed a strict no-kill policy. Well I think it's because the Batman that we see in this film isn't the 'real Batman' but rather a Batman that has evolved in response to the sense of powerlessness he felt when he saw how outclassed he was with Superman and Zod. There is evidence in the film to suggest that Batman wasn't always as cruel as we see him today. It's not just Alfred's shock with his actions but also with how Batman is reported in the newspapers.

After Batman brands the criminal (which is practically a death sentence), it's reported that this is the second time that he branded someone with the Bat symbol. So cruel things like branding are something Batman has only recently started doing. What caused him to start doing them? What caused him to change? Well considering that this film is set shortly after Man of Steel, I think it's fair to say that it was his experiences in the battle between Superman and Zod.

Anyway take a closer look at Alfred's quote:

Alfred:
'That's how it starts. The fever. The rage. The feeling of powerlessness that turns good men cruel.'

I think the last line explains why the Batman we see in the film is okay with murder. When Bruce saw how outclassed he was against Superman and Zod, I think he tried to catch up. He probably trained really hard but at the end of the day he was just a human so his abilities just couldn't compete with a Kryptonian. That angered him but Batman isn't a guy who would like to admit defeat so he just kept trying and trying. That resulted him in going overboard with what he was trying to do and this culminated in him abandoning his no-kill rule.

Batman kept thinking, 'What can I do better? What can I possibly do to compete with super powered aliens?' Well what was the one thing that Batman didn't do that Kryptonians could do easily? Kill people. So Batman gradually became accepting of murder over time. The convenient thing about murder is that it has no limits. If you're trying to stop a criminal and you want to ensure that they're not killed then you have to keep a level head. You have to be careful enough to ensure that what you do won't cost them their life. However this Batman couldn't keep a level head because he was frustrated that he couldn't compete with Superman despite all his years of experience. He took out his frustrations on his enemies and since he grew to accept murder because murder presented the easiest means for him to funnel all his anger out.

This is similar to how some people may not be strong enough to become a wrestler but they're too stubborn to admit it so they just keep training and training until they burn themselves out and get all agitated.

BQkrYZk

To me, this explanation makes a lot of sense because it really fits how Batman and Superman are characterised. Batman is old and experienced but Superman is young and is still new to the scene. When Batman sees a young guy like Superman outperform him in pretty much everything, it's only natural that he'll feel flustered. He'll feel it's unfair that someone so young and so inexperienced is so above him in everything that he wouldn't stand a chance if they ever duke it out. It also works because Superman is a guy who's always in the spotlight of everyone's attention unlike Batman who's always in the shadows. Batman can't help but notice Superman where ever he goes so it's only natural that he can't help noticing him and thinking about him.

So overall I think the opening is close to perfect. The only flaw I'd say it has is that it depicts Bruce Wayne's feeling of powerlessness while in reality Batman, and not Bruce Wayne, is supposed to be the fighting/active/powerful form he takes in battle. I think this scene may have been more powerful if Bruce Wayne had donned his Batman outfit and gear and had found himself so outclassed by the Kryptonians. However I can understand why they didn't do that. Batman is a hero who operates by night rather than day and the battle was set in the day. However the film does compensate for this by later showing us how powerless Bruce as Batman is against Superman during the end of that chase scene. Superman easily kicks the Batmobile aside, rips open the cover and warns Batman to discontinue his efforts. Batman is powerless in that scene. All he can do is give some tough talk.

eoEpUMm

Anyway I think this idea of powerlessness leading to cruelty ties into the primary theme of prejudice. Another common question about this film is why does Batman believe that Superman should be killed? I think the answer is not because Batman has any solid evidence that Superman is bad or anything. It's just that Batman wants Superman killed because he wants to believe that Superman is evil.

What do I mean by this?

Well the Batman we see in the film is a really insecure Batman. He knows how outclassed he is by Superman and he knows that if Superman were to ever become Zod then none of his gadgets would be able to stop him. Not to mention he does have a personal vendetta against Superman as he blames Superman for recklessly engaging with Zod in Metropolis that resulted into the death of his employees and the little girl's mother. Above all this there are a lot of people who don't trust Superman and that reassures Batman that he's not just paranoid when actually he kind of is. So Batman is falling for the bandwagon effect.

All of this causes Batman to suffer from information confirmation bias. Luthor notices all of this and adds to it by putting provocative statements on Wallace' checks and using that bomb plot in court to kill everyone but Superman. So Batman is largely being influenced by his biases in this film. Batman is even in denial about it. He first tells Alfred that he's tracking some criminals because they have a dirt bomb but Alfred figures out that's not telling the truth. When Alfred confronts him, Batman replies that what he's actually tracking is kryptonium. He's not tracking it because he wants to keep it out of Luthor's hands. He's tracking it because he wants to use it to reach and a level in which he can compete with Superman. He wants to use it to remove his insecurities. He wants it to assure himself that he can defeat Superman if Superman were to ever become Zod.

I know that none of this is solid evidence that Superman is going to do anything wrong but that's kind of the point. Batman is still depicted to be a great detective in this film. I mean we see him investigate kryptonite. However Batman refuses to use his detective skills to investigate Superman. Batman lets his emotions get the better of him and that causes him put his objective mind aside. Batman knows this. This is why Batman initially lies to Alfred that he's tracking a dirt bomb rather than kryptonite. Batman is conflicted. Deep down his objective detective mind tells him that he's being unfair to Superman but Batman's insecure emotional side shoves those desires away. He also knows that a more mature person like Alfred will be able to identify that he's making bad decisions so he decides to hide his true intent from him.

EYo8htU

So what we have here is a more insecure Batman, a more emotional Batman and a more flawed Batman. This film's version of Batman brings a level of humanity to the character that most Batman media don't. There aren't many stories in which Batman allows his biases and emotions to get the better of him. Normally Batman is very level headed and objective so it's difficult to buy a scenario in which he really would lose his composure. I think Batman V Superman does present a plausible scenario, however. Batman strongly feels he has to do something because if he doesn't then Superman may be able to orphan as many children as possible if he wants. Batman has a very strong personal connection to not wanting to see kids become orphans so I can really buy him getting frustrated enough to become more darker and sadistic for that very reason. That's why I like how psychological this film is for Batman. There are dream sequences for Batman and they do a good job of depicting his insecurities, fears and frustrations of not being strong, fear of Superman etc.

VwlWUjj

So in the end Batman just deceives himself into thinking that Superman is evil. He deceives himself into thinking that Superman is somehow responsible for the death of people in court, the people in Africa etc. He has no evidence for this but he can't help himself. He's only doing what any human who has been indoctrinated by their prejudice would do.

P0iiJ5g

Some people thought that the ending of the battle between Batman and Superman was cheesey but I thought it was quite clever and very relevant to the main theme of prejudice. There were several layers of meaning to the scene in which Superman told Batman to save his mother 'Martha'. It humanised Superman by showing that he had a mother who he cared for as well. This made Superman look more like young Bruce Wayne who couldn't save his mother rather than the criminal who killed his mother. This also made Batman think that now he had become the criminal who had killed his parents. After all Batman was about to kill Superman, thus separating a mother and her son which is exactly what the criminal did to him when he was young. When Batman comes to his senses and tells Superman 'I'll save Martha' he just doesn't mean he'll save Superman's mom. Rather Batman sees this as another chance save his own mother. Sure Superman's mom isn't actually Batman's mom but their common name is used symbolically here. Batman sees this as a chance to go back in time and prevent the criminal from separating the mother and child. He was powerless to do this before but he's more than capable of doing it now.

I think it's appropriate to bring up Alfred's quote again:

Alfred:
'That's how it starts. The fever. The rage. The feeling of powerlessness that turns good men cruel.'

It was Bruce's feeling of powerlessness that made him cruel. The powerlessness that he felt when he couldn't save his parents. The powerlessness he felt when he couldn't save the little girl's mother. The powerlessness he felt was when he failed to prevent a separation between a parent and child. He was very personally invested in all this. It created a void in his heart.

However the opportunity to rescue Martha gave him a chance to at least partially fill in that void (Martha Kent is not really his mom so he can't fully fill in the void). That's why the Batman we see post-battle seems a lot more human than the one we saw earlier in the film. He doesn't use the Batwing's guns to take down all his opponents. He just beats them up and just indirectly resorts to possible murder when he has no other way to save Martha. After he saves Martha he talks to her and this is a big difference compared to how he saved those girls at the start of the film. It didn't look like Batman even talked to the latter. It even looked like the girls were scared of him because they refused to leave their cell and referred to Batman as a 'devil'.

6z74XrQ

Batman is also depicted less brutal at the end of film when he confronts Luthor in his cell. Instead of branding Luthor on his skin like he did with the other criminals when he started his branding process, Batman just brands the cell wall. I'm pretty sure that this is done to show that Batman has overcome his insecurities with Superman so is no longer as cruel as he was post-Metropolis battle. He accepts that people like Superman can be heroes like Batman and not just the criminals who separate children from their mothers.
 
Batman V Superman Thematic Analysis Part 2

Despite being a great Batman story, Batman V Superman does have a number of issues and most of them result from it trying to be more than just a great Batman story. I'll just address those issues now.

I honestly think most of the Justice League set-up stuff was irrelevant to the primary theme of prejudice and should have been cut or minimised. The Flash time travel scene was incomprehensible and should have been cut. I like the Knigtmare scene but I don't think they should have had Superman start accusing Batman of taking Lois away from him. That just makes Superman sound reasonable and what that scene should be focused on is showing us an evil unreasonable Superman because that's how Batman perceived him.

dmQMVW0

I understand that in these cinematic universes you need to do at least some set up for the following films. I think the set-up for the other Justice League members could have been done in a more organic fashion in this film. I think Bruce's discovery of them could have easily fit into the theme of prejudice. Basically when Bruce is searching through Luthor's database, he finds out that Luthor has been doing research on metahumans (human or human-like beings with super powers like Superman, Wonder Woman etc).

The funny thing is that Batman doesn't seem to express any frustration when he discovers metahumans. He just seems to be confused or surprised by them when it would probably make more sense for him to be shocked. I mean metahumans are just like Superman which means that there might be more people out there he could pose a threat to humanity like Superman could. I think it would have made sense for Batman to get really frustrated when he discovers the metahumans and say something like 'There are more like him (Superman) out there. I have to start taking them out one by one or they might band together and be too much for me to handle.' Strangely, Batman never expresses any kind of hostility to the other metahumans like Wonder Woman. He even tells Superman that he thought him and Wonder Woman were on the same side but Batman never shows the same contempt that he has for Superman towards Wonder Woman. If he did then it would have fit in better with the theme of prejudice.

I also think all the stuff with Doomsday and the Death of Superman was lacked substance because it had nothing to do with the main theme of prejudice. This took up about 45 minutes which I honestly think could have been better spent. I think it should have been cut and the ending of the film should have just been Batman teaming up with Superman (and maybe Wonder Woman) to rescue Superman's mom. Since the film starts with Batman falling to his prejudices then I think it would be fitting for it to end with Batman conquering his biases.

As for Luthor, I thought he was okay. I can kind of see what they were going for with him. Batman is supposed to be the character struggling with prejudice while Luthor is supposed to be the guy who has already been indoctrinated by his prejudices. He has this huge grudge against Superman and he just can't get over it. He wants to do everything to defame Superman and get him killed. I thought that court bomb plot he did was ingenius. In personality, Luthor's similar to Batman and that's why I think that's why they opted to give him a more whimsical Joker-esque personality. If they gave him a personality that was all serious then Luthor would be too similar to Batman. We already spend a lot of time with Batman in this film so the other characters have to feel different from him.

DbyCbzr

It should be noted that I did find Luthor to be a bit incomprehensible. He talks like a character from a Shakesperean play. He uses way too much imagery and symbolism when speaking. It's difficult to follow along with what he's saying. I think the writers should have toned down the amount of figurative language that Luthor used. This movie has a lot of stuff going on it already so making dialogue unnecessarily complex is a no no. I'm not entirely sure why Luthor seems to be prejudiced against Superman. It has something to do with his father, god, angels etc.

As for Superman, he did serve his purpose in the film. The primary difference between him and Batman (and Luthor) is that he doesn't let his biases get to him. A lot of bad stuff happens to Superman in this film but he's still able to stay level-headed and doesn't start lashing out in anger like Batman. Even when Batman wants to fight him, Superman first tries to reason with him. I think that's an interesting way of portraying Superman in this film. The thing that really makes Superman powerful, that really makes him super aren't all his superhuman abilities but rather his ability to stay calm and collected even in high pressure scenarios. Superman's ability to stay reasonable and not let his emotions get the better of him are what really make him powerful. Even when Batman is about to kill him, Superman doesn't start insulting him or anything. He humbly asks Batman to save his mother. It's Superman's level headedness, his ability to look for the best in even the worst people that allows him to achieve difficult goals like rescuing his mother.

ETp7ElM

Some people dislike the fact that we get so little of Superman and the fact that he doesn't develop as a character in this film. I can kind of understand that but this film isn't really about Superman. This isn't a Batman and Superman film. It's a Batman film with Superman in it. Superman isn't really a major character. He doesn't need an arc in this film and his main purpose is just to push Batman's story further. Even things like the anti-Superman protests aren't really about Superman. Rather they're supposed to be a part of Batman's story. When Batman sees these anti-Superman protests, it reinforces his bias. It makes him think that his pre-concieved biases about Superman are correct because a lot of people hold similar views to him.

I'm not saying that all of these ideas were executed perfectly. Overall I think the concept of this film was good but it's the execution which holds it back. I think Bruce's biases taking control of his mind could have been better portrayed. Like maybe he could visit that little girl in an orphanage later in the film. Bruce also didn't physically interact with Wallace ever since the opening. If he did then then Wallace's death could have been more tragic and it would have made more sense for Bruce to blame what happened to Wallace on Superman. There are also heaps of editing and pacing issues. If they cut out all the Doomsday stuff (which was about 45 minutes) and just stretched out the substance of some of the other scenes then I think it would have resulted in a better film overall.

I also think some of the marketing of the film was misleading. The trailers made the film look like there was going to be some strong ideological conflict between Batman and Superman when it was basically just a misunderstanding on Batman's part. I don't know if they did this to get as many viewers as possible or if they just didn't want to give what the film was actually about away. What I can say is that I do think they achieved the latter. Yes it's true that almost every scene had a clip extracted from it that was later placed in a trailer but the way I see it the substance of a film isn't in its scenes alone. The substance of a film relies on the themes, the kind of message it wants to convey. Batman V Superman was a story about Batman falling for his prejudices due to his character and the manipulations of Luthor. Batman is saved indirectly in the end by Superman, a man who refuses to let his prejudices get the better of him. I don't think anyone could have discerned that by just watching the trailers.

As for future films like the Justice League, well I think Snyder shouldn't be the only one to direct. I think Snyder doesn't seem to get Superman. I mean he said in an interview that the reason he killed Superman off is because he wanted to get him out of the way so Batman is the one to assemble the Justice League. This implies that Snyder isn't interested in doing Superman justice (pun intended) and instead wants to put the spotlight on Batman which has been done to death for the last decade.

Final Score - 7.5/10
 
You're confusing outside the box with something that is so unrecognizably Superman since his inception that betrays all of his principles. For this movie, outside the box and fundamental changes and total disregard of the source material as to Superman's character are not mutually exclusive.

Betrays all his principles?

Talk about exaggeration. This is Snyder's Superman, but he still shares more than enough qualities with the mainstream Superman (At this point, that will be the new 52 Superman).
 
Finally back from my viewing. Saw it today with my sister (her boyfriend decided to back out) at an AMC reserve seat dine-in theater. My sister told me she checked out after the first hour, but that's neither here nor there.

So many thoughts percolating through my head right now on both sides of the spectrum though. There are essentially two movies in here. The first is something so structurally amateur it belonged in my high school film class and in dire need of a combo bloating relief/ADHD medication. The second is a film that delicately weaves together visuals, score, and earned experience.

What Didn't Work

I love non-linear storytelling, but it was abused in this movie early on and the lack of transition/establishing shots at one point started getting a chuckle out of the crowd I watched with.

Jesse Eisenberg as Lex. They attempted to dress him up with a lot of talk about Gods and religion. However, it was lost in the caricature he inevitably became from all the mustache twirling and weird ticks. His motivations were also paper thin - especially his reason for creating Doomsday.

The ominous tone and religious/philosophical themes are too heavy handed. They practically beat you over the head with them.

Lois Lane. She's not a fully functioning, organic character. She's cheap a plot device throughout two films now. It's a joke watching her so-called "investigative reporting". She inadvertently received laughs from the audience I was with, especially when she showed up to the fight.

Superman is still such a stone-faced bore. Snyder doubled down on his persona from MoS and showed zero development into the man we should aspire to be. Sure, they scattered in a montage of good deeds, but it was obstructed by the political backdrop and his permanently unsettled looking mannerisms.

What Worked

Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne. I'm not a purist, so I didn't have to wrestle with some of the issues others have.

The Batman/Superman fight. Glorious to look at and Hans Zimmer's score was really humming at that point.

Once we got to the Lex/Supes meetup the movie finally finds life and the nuances it has to offer for this genre can be appreciated. Hell, I never thought I'd say this but I liked the Doomsday sequence - which was amazing considering the sentiment after the final trailer was released.

The Overrated

Many have been praising the hell out of Gal Gadot, but when her scenes were dialogue-focused it was painful. Her delivery was stiff as a board. Action-wise she looked the part.

Final Word

You never go full-blown Watchmen! That's where Snyder went with this. Watchmen is one of my CBM favorites, but it's its own thing. BvS is a very "adult" film that sometimes gets away from the fact that its foundation is in comic books. Snyder needs to learn not to indulge in excess. That is what prevents this movie from really being something memorable. Balance and light needs to be periodically injected to break up the overall depressing tone. I can't even begin to comment on how many confused, joyless faces I saw walk out of my theater.

Rating: The thought of a 7.0 crossed my mind at one point, but the imperfections leave me with a 6.0.
 
Last edited:
You're confusing outside the box with something that is so unrecognizably Superman since his inception that betrays all of his principles. For this movie, outside the box and fundamental changes and total disregard of the source material as to Superman's character are not mutually exclusive.

So, Superman has never doubted his methods? He has never acted in anger? He has never failed?
I have issues with this films handling of the character. He was distant, reactive, and barely there. He was a tool for exploring other characters most of the time. He was talked at, debated over, made into a god, and made into a villain by other people. He never really got a chance to speak for himself though. Half his rescues were off screen.
They did not get his character wrong though. He wanted to save people. He wanted to make the world a better place. He cared about people's lives, even the villains.
 
I'll be short because I'm so annoyed with the, IMO, highly exaggerated criticisms...

I've seen it twice now and it's great. Glad it wasn't tonally inconsistent with MOS and that it dealt with the serious themes while still being fun to watch.

Bravo Snyder.
 
So, Superman has never doubted his methods? He has never acted in anger? He has never failed?
I have issues with this films handling of the character. He was distant, reactive, and barely there. He was a tool for exploring other characters most of the time. He was talked at, debated over, made into a god, and made into a villain by other people. He never really got a chance to speak for himself though. Half his rescues were off screen.
They did not get his character wrong though. He wanted to save people. He wanted to make the world a better place. He cared about people's lives, even the villains.

Well said. I hope that the Ultimate Edition will do something about that, though I know there isn't much more Superman material out there. But I agree that this is a fine representation of Superman as far as characterization goes. I do feel as though he never said anything. And to be fair, I get that: Jesus was largely silent when he was put on trial, scourged, and crucified. And there was certainly an element of that here. Also, I think for Superman there is very little to say. If they don't trust his actions they certainly won't trust his words. He seems to have decided that he will do what is necessary and bear the burden of suspicion because he can't argue his way into the public trust. He can only earn it.

I think that's fine, if the movie acknowledges for the audience in some way that this is what is happening. And in its current state at least, I don't think it does. Like most of the film's subtext, it's somewhat understated. That's one of Snyder's trademarks.
 
This was a dull, very uneven, poorly executed "film". I can't say I hate it, I do dislike it however. I can't believe I'm about to say this, but, I respect the conviction of the director for what was attempted. However, this junk just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve all of the hate or negativity directed at it (not to that extent), but I can't in my good conscious call that a good movie. The material and characters deserved much better handling. You can't mash together 2 big storylines (or at least elements from them) together and expect that to be an acceptable film.

MOS is actually a notch better, in my opinion. Snyder took a step backwards. At times I wanted to like this, but, just.....no, I can't. From the very beginning it's hitting you like a blunt object, sucking any nuance or subtlety out of the material (this has never been a strong suit of Snyder's, and it continues to plague his work). It's obvious, and it's insulting. It ticks me off. Snyder has got to go, in my opinion. I haven't liked any of his films, and unfortunately, this one is no different.
 
The weird thing about this movie is that it feels too long, but at the same time feels like its missing a bunch of stuff. The ultimate edition ought to be interesting.
 
The weird thing about this movie is that it feels too long, but at the same time feels like its missing a bunch of stuff. The ultimate edition ought to be interesting.
I agree with that, and was wondering in the last 10 minutes, "When the heck is this thing going to end?". It bored me.
 
This is certainly one of the most bizzare superhero films I've ever seen.
 
It could stand to be 15 mins shorter. Or just have everything in at 3 hours. Im betting that full cut could change my rating from a 7 to an 8-8.5 imo.
 
It could stand to be 15 mins shorter. Or just have everything in at 3 hours. Im betting that full cut could change my rating from a 7 to an 8-8.5 imo.

For starters almost everything involving Lois' investigative reporting could have been nixed. The dream sequence with Bruce getting [BLACKOUT]bitten by a bat[/BLACKOUT] was also needless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,960
Messages
22,042,941
Members
45,842
Latest member
JoeSoap
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"