The I expect from a film is for it to be coherent, this isn't. 6 hours worth of footage? Yeah it plays like a film that's been clumsily pieced together to condense the 6 hours to 2.5.
There's some really cool stuff in there, Batman and WW, as a big Superman fan it didn't deliver from that perspective.
I cried when Superman essentially sacrificed himself, that was great, but it was basically his only good moment in the film and for me that is pathetic. Even the day of the dead rescue, we saw NO RESCUE, just him flying down, how disappointing was that? A total anti-climax, there's still practically no hopeful Superman, just frowning unsure of his place and responsibilities Superman, yeah I had enough of that in MOS so thanks for dropping a whole load more of it on us Dave/Zack
Doomsday CGI wasn't very good, I don't like to complain to much about CGI, sometimes we need it, but I refuse to believe they couldn't have done better than that.
Hated Ezra Miller's little Flash cameo, I'll be shocked if I like his take on the character, never fancied him in the part.
The way that knightmare sequence crops up typifies the film to be honest, it was out of nowhere, it didn't make any real sense, it was just there to serve one purpose and that was it.
The highlight is Batman and Alfred, please please please give Affleck his solo Batman, he deserves it.
This all sounds really harsh, honestly it's not as bad as many are implying, but when you get things like structure and pacing wrong you won't win many fans, that's schoolboy stuff. There's a some great stuff in there but what's the point of it all when it doesn't flow properly as a film?
Hopefully WB see's sense and gets Snyder away from this whole DCEU.
For those who are still claiming Snyder could be taken off the film.
"While doing the press rounds for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Snyder spoke with Yahoo and teased how big the Justice League movie is going to be, plus he also confirmed that the Caped Crusader will indeed be the one who will assemble the team:
“I’m getting ready to start ‘Justice League’ on the 11th of April, so in like two weeks we start shooting,” Synder told Yahoo Movies, “and it’s an intense, awesome, and gigantic undertaking because Bruce [Wayne] is having to go out and sort of ‘Seven Samurai’ the Justice League together, which is fun. It’s slightly monumental, and at the same time they’re starting to grapple with this coming threat.”
Yeah, I think that was my biggest issue with it. Everyone is talking about and thinking about Superman. But Superman himself feels far too distant from everything going on. His part is basically, "HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAY! ...and I'm out."
I understand they were going for the Superman is a god narrative to pitch the man vs god angle, but my issue is with the framing of it and how whenever Superman saves people, he comes across as deigning to help, with nary a smile except for the brief one with the little girl from the burning building. It ends up justifying Luthor's fears of him to an extent. A far far superior being burdened and obliged to help out a much weaker species.
I understand they were going for the Superman is a god narrative to pitch the man vs god angle, but my issue is with the framing of it and how whenever Superman saves people, he comes across as deigning to help, with nary a smile except for the brief one with the little girl from the burning building. It ends up justifying Luthor's fears of him to an extent. A far far superior being burdened and obliged to help out a much weaker species.
Let me say that I wish I had gone into Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice unaware of the RT score and all the bad reviews. Although I didn't read any of them to avoid spoilers, I can't deny that I walked into the film yesterday expecting to find a lot of problems. Maybe if I hadn't seen it in that frame of mind, I would have wholeheartedly enjoyed it. I honestly don't know. But it's a bit like trying to find a completely impartial jury for a heavily publicized court case; unless you're living in a bubble, you're already at least somewhat aware of the situation.
That said, did I like the film? I would say... I enjoyed it, and maybe even liked it, but I definitely didn't love it. The first act is a mess, but it eventually evens out and becomes enjoyable. But I think it's a problem that I didn't love it. Because shouldn't I? For all its problems, I loved Man of Steel. Superman and Batman are my favorite superheroes, and Lex Luthor is my favorite supervillain. Lois Lane is the best superhero love interest. Wonder Woman is awesome and a feminist icon. Hell, I joined this forum in 2002 (as That-Guy back then) because a Batman vs. Superman film was announced and I spent a lot of time back then making joke posts about what the movie would be like if [INSERT DIRECTOR HERE] made the film.
But now we finally have our BvS movie and... it feels like a missed opportunity. I feel like there are some great scenes here that really work and they belong in a less convoluted movie. There are great actors giving great performances, yet it's hard to feel invested in them because there's so much going on. And yet, despite the fact that the movie seems to have 10 different subplots, the story is actually fairly simple - and I don't mean that as a compliment. [BLACKOUT]Ultimately, Lex's big plan involves getting Batman and Superman to fight each other and then when that doesn't work, he unleashes Doomsday upon Metropolis, in a manner that was (facepalm) similar to what Kevin Spacey's Lex did in Superman Returns - a film I hated. And I just kept thinking to myself, shouldn't this have been better?[/BLACKOUT]
I think the key problem is that this doesn't feel like a team-up/versus movie. It doesn't feel like Batman and Superman occupy the same amount of space. It feels like a Batman movie where Superman is a supporting character. And that pisses me off. I've defended this movie for the past three years because I drank Snyder's Flavor-Aid (I know everyone says Kool-Aid when they make this reference, but I go for accuracy). I believed that Superman was going to be, at the very least, half of the story, sharing the space with Batman like Kirk and Spock did in JJ Abrams' first Star Trek film. That would ahve been great. Instead, they went the route of Bryan Singer's first X-Men film, which I SEE SPIDEY once brilliantly referred to as "Wolverine and his backup dancers." Only the result here is worse because we've seen Batman a lot before and it almost seems unnecessary to force him down our throats this much just because he's the more popular character.
Let me say that all of the performances range from good to great. Ben Affleck is a good Batman. He's not at Bale or Keaton level, but he nails the role for the most part and makes it his own. Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor is also very good in my book. I can see why his performance is polarizing for many people, but I actually really liked what he did in the role. His best moments are when his mask of sanity starts to slip and you get glimpses into how f***ed up he really is. Again, I can see why it didn't work for some people, but it worked for me. Irons, Gadot and Fishburne have small roles, but do well in them. And it was great to see Harry Lennix again.
Henry Cavill and Amy Adams, despite being the film's best assets, are criminally underused. These are two actors that were BORN to play their respective characters, and Snyder and Terrio don't seem to know what the hell to do with them. Superman is given such little dialogue that it's difficult to feel for him. I never really got the complaints of a lack of dialogue in MOS, because he spent a lot of that movie by himself. But here, he's interacting with people a lot more, and most of the scenes consist of other characters lecturing him. And I don't blame Cavill for that. He can handle more dialogue; he had a lot more in Man from UNCLE and he did fine with it (and in an American accent, so that's not the problem). It's that Snyder and Terrio don't know what to write for him, probably because they just want to make a Batman movie with other superheroes in the background And as for Amy Adams' Lois... she's in the movie a good bit and she makes the most of it, but it's still not enough. I loved what she did in MOS and here she almost feels like an afterthought.
[BLACKOUT]As for the story... as I said before, the beginning was a jumbled mess. From Affleck's weird voiceovers to young Bruce flying (I know it was a dream sequence but still, WTF) to the Metropolis battle to the scene in Africa... the pacing is so frantic that it's a little hard to follow at times and even harder to become engaged in. The "Knightmare" sequence feels so out of left field it's painful to sit through. It's also never followed up on. I guess the presence of the Omega symbol means that Darkseid shows up and uses the anti-life equation to corrupt Superman or something, but accordingto Ezra Miller's Flash, it's actually because Lois Lane dies and Superman goes nuts or something. I don't know. That whole scene would have probably worked better as a post-credits stinger. Or better yet, leave the whole thing out. I mean, we get our first good look at Batman in costume DURING this sequence, when he's wearing goggles and a leather jacket instead of a cape.
Anyway, after that, the movie does start to find its way. We get to see Bruce doing some good detective work. We get our Justice League tease, which is pretty cool; I especially liked seeing Joe Morton as Victor's father... I had no idea he was in this. The scene with Lex on top of his skyscraper is pretty great. And the Batman/Superman fight is pretty good. One thing that surprised me there was that one of the characters actually "won" the fight; I figured it would end in a draw. But of course, this is a Batman movie first and foremost, so he had to ultimately win.
And then we get the Doomsday sequence. And while it's cool seeing the trinity fight together, ol' Doomsy himself is pretty underwhelming. He looks like a big naked version of that mutant giant thing from 300 at first. Later, he grows some spikes and resembles his comic book counterpart a bit more, but he's still not that impressive. In fact, I think the CGI in that scene we saw in that second BvS trailer is the scene where he looks best. You'll remember that everyone poked fun at the CGI in that scene when that trailer dropped. And then we have our conclusion. While Superman's "you are my world" scene is very well acted and well done, I still couldn't help but feel a little irritated because I knew what was coming. I knew the film was going to end with Superman dying. And while I know he'll come back, it clearly wasn't obvious to the kid I heard crying at the end of the movie a few rows down from me. And you know, that really bothers me because I remember going to see the animated Transformers film when I was a child or so and I can still remember walking out of the movie crying because Optimus Prime died. Ending a film like this on such a downer is a misstep, thought I suppose by the end, Snyder has made so many other missteps that it doesn't matter.
I've heard people say that Snyder wants to be Chris Nolan. Perhaps. But I think he actually wants to be Peter Jackson. The way Superman's death plays out, it feels more like an attempt to emulate the (apparent) death of Gandalf in The Fellowship of the Ring. Yet Snyder doesn't have a clue as to why that scene was so emotional. Instead of LOTR Peter Jackson, we get Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies Peter Jackson, in which story and character are sacrificed for shoddy (yet still expensive) CGI. Cavill is as much Superman as McKellan was Gandalf, but Snyder didn't know how to utilize him. He thinks that just giving us a quick montage of Superman saving people interspersed with a bunch of cameos will do the trick and it won't. Instead of just a quick scene of Superman appearing and saving fire or flood victims, why not expand on it a bit and have him interact with them a bit, telling them that it's alright, that they're safe now. Give Cavill some material to work with so his sacrifice at the end feels more emotional. Or better yet, don't kill him at all and end the movie on a positive note, with our three heroes agreeing to find the others like them.[/BLACKOUT]
So yeah. If you're still reading this, thank you for indulging me. I had to get all of that out. I wanted to love this movie. I really, REALLY did. And I owe a lot of people around here an apology for aggressively defending it the past three years. Maybe this is the movie I deserve, but it sure as hell wasn't the one I needed right now (sorry, couldn't resist). As for Justice League... I hope they do get George Miller to direct. I've had my reserves about that because he said in an interview that he finds Superman boring. But perhaps that would make him strive to develop the character and make him more interesting. [BLACKOUT]Or maybe Superman will just stay f***ing dead until the last 20 minutes of the movie, as apparently WB doesn't know or care what to do with the character and is content to waste Cavill.[/BLACKOUT] I don't know. All I know is that I wanted this movie to really excite me for the future of the DCEU, and right now, I'm not. I'm bummed out.
Well I've just seen it. After 3 years or so of waiting, I've finally seen it.
Guys it was a bad film. It was really, really bad. Do you know the oldest lie in America? It's that the year long delay on this film was to assure the utmost quality and care. Ugh, my thoughts on this film are about as haphazard and muddled as the film itself right now haha. Now having said that, I did kinda like the film. Though I personally wouldn't call it a 'film' per se. No, it was more a montage of good moments that would have been dynamite had they been anchored by a framwork that actually provided context to each and every scene. As it happens, scenes just come and go and things happen because we naturally expect them to. There is next to no build up to anything in this entire film. The scene in which Martha Kent gives a speech to her son about his place in the world? It lasts about as long as it does in the trailers. It literally feels like we're dropped right in the middle of this scene, and it lasts about a minute. And then we move on. As I said, no build up to anything in this film. With that scene, it felt like we missed a great deal beforehand. And please remember, that's just one example. Whether or not that's because Snyder had to cut for time, who knows. I guess we'll just have to wait for that highly coveted Ultimate Cut that we're all no doubt salivating over.
A positive to this film is that the climax is the sort of mindless bubblegum action that Snyder executes so well. The downside to this is that you have to sit through the muddled mess of scenes before it. But the tedium of that is lessened through the rapid, quick-fire pace. In regards to the pacing of the film - I'm a fan of Old Hollywood pictures. The golden age, so to speak. One of all time favourite films is The Maltese Falcon. And anyone who's a fan of that era of Hollywood (and The Maltese Falcon especially) knows that those films can be of a rapid pace. They're almost of a Seinfeld-level pace. And I'd assumed that due to my love of that era of cinema, I wouldn't really notice how quickly it was moving. At least not the extent that it bothered me a whole lot. I did notice it. And it was somewhat bothersome. Only somewhat though. As I said, we get to the mindless bubblegum action a lot quicker. Another positive of this film is the acting. Affleck - well there's not much to say here, is there?
He killed it. Great performance. I wouldn't go so far as to say he stole the show, but this is the one performance of the main cast (Henry, Ben, Jesse and Gal) where I had pretty much no problems with the performance or how his character was written. Well okay, there was one. Looking back, I'm insanely amused at how the people behind this film praised it and talked it up as being somewhat of an apology for Superman's idiocy and the disaster porn featured in MOS. There's a scene in this film where
Batman, having finally seen Doomsday land on Stryker's Island, realises that he has to retrieve the Kryptonite spear and kill the creature with it. You'd assume he would fly right back in his Batwing, pick it up and fly right back. What is final decision? He decides that he has to lead Doomsday all the way back to Gotham City, and resume the fight there. Huh? They later try to justify it by saying that the bay area is abandoned. Okay??? Still not exactly the wisest move to lead him back to a city full of innocent people where Superman can once again throw Doomsday into big buildings and watch everything crumble. Yay!
Now onto Gal Gadot... I know a lot of people seem to lose their **** over WW in this film, and it's understandable seeing as how this is her big screen debut. A lot of people described her presence in the film as being very much like Black Window in Iron Man 2, i.e, she weaves in and out of the film at various points, the point of her character only really coming to fruition in the climax of the piece. I would agree with that. What I wouldn't agree with, however, is that she 'stole the show' or 'upstaged the rest of the cast'. As said, she weaves in and out of the film at various points, the point of her character only coming to fruition in the climax of the piece. That, to my mind, does not provide a lot of room for a particularly good performance. So when people say stuff like WW stole the show, I'm very amused by that claim. John Campea was also correct on this point - It's the hype talking, not common sense or a genuine expert's critique of her acting ability. And that's not at all to say that she did bad. Like Cavill in MOS, she did a great job with what she was given. She was charming, feisty and conveys a great deal of intelligence and wisdom. But looking at her performance in the film and the amount of screentime she had, I'm unsure if she's necessarily deserving of the level of praise she's getting.
As some here may or may not know (probably not, because I'm a very sporadic poster), Eisenberg was the one element of this film that interested me the most. Now after having seen him in action, I can have an actual opinion on him. Objectively speaking, I don't know if anyone can actually say that he turned in a bad performance. Let's get one thing clear: no matter what acting choices he could have made in playing this part, it was never going to be a performance that everyone agreed on. Never. Some people say he stole show, others are saying the casting was a total misfire. I think that in this instance, it simply comes down to whether or not you're a fan of this new and original interpretation.
Well for me it worked a helluva lot. Dude delivered. In some ways, it wasn't what I was expecting at all, and in other ways, it was. He certainly captured the 'hedonistic corrupter' vibe that I got from his presence in the trailers. Sure, the surface elements have been greatly changed so as to accommodate Eisenberg's acting range, but the surface elements have never been what interests me the most about the character as depicted in the comics. With regards to the core elements of the character (the jealous rage, the god complex and the tragic villainy), I thought Eisenberg pulled it all off with great aplomb. There's not a single moment in that performance where I don't feel the vague sense of unease that something dark and nasty is bubbling right below the surface. I think the criticisms about how this Lex supposedly 'acts like the Joker or the Riddler' are pretty lazy ones tbh. Those are pretty much the criticisms you'll always get when the villain acts the slightest bit camp or flamboyant or nuts. It doesn't really mean anything to me. Now having said that, he did go a bit OTT at times. At times, he did sound like a manic street preacher or something. All that was missing was a bible and one of those wide brimmed black hats that the Amish people wear. The man was a raving lunatic by the end of the film. They really need to reign that in if he's to appear again in this DCEU. I liked it, but they really do need to tone that down. And it perplexes me that Eisenberg praised the writing of his character to the extent that he did. I remember reading the EW spoilers on this film, and it did mention that this interpretation of the character is one
that feels slighted by the the absence of God in the world, and the fact that he was son to an abuser and a hateful man.
Had I not read those spoilers, I would not have known any of that. His motivation is relegated to one or two sentences that are delivered in Eisenberg's manic, rapid-fire delivery that I could barely even understand at times. It was almost as bad as the execution of Ultron's motivation in AOU. Really poor showing.
The secondary players (Irons, Hunter, Adams and Fishburne) were all adequate. They also did well with what little they were given. Irons was suitably snarky and weary, as Alfred so often is. Adams was a great damsel in distress (which is kinda lame when you remember how involved she was in the action of the first film), and Fishburne does a great impression of those angry black lieutenants from the 80s buddy cop films. Guys there's really not much to say here. I'm also quite disappointed that they just immediately wasted a character like Mercy Graves. I'm actually quite amused that Okamoto and Hunter were as involved in the promotion of the film as much as they were. They both appear in like one or two scenes, both of which mainly consist of them making googly eyes at Luthor,
and then they just die in an explosion.
What an unforgivable waste of talent and beauty. Hunter talked her role up so much, and all the while, she must have been thinking 'Good god this role was ****'.
Getting to this point in my little review or whatever (which is funny because I originally only sat down to write like a paragraph), you may have noticed that I forgot to mention Cavill. You're right, I did forget to mention him. And that's because the character is almost non-existent in this film. He is utterly forgettable. All the problems they had in handling the character in MOS, they're worsened by this film. I have a hard time believing that any Superman fan could actually be satisfied with his depiction in this film. There's barely any dialogue given to the character, and the dialogue that is given to him, Cavill delivers poorly and awkwardly. I am stunned at how mishandled and poorly treated the character is in this film.
If you think him losing the fight is something to talk about (and there's never a point in the fight where it does look like he's gonna win btw), wait til you see how he lost the battle for Snyder and Terrio's attention and care.
It was the exact same problem with the handling of the character in MOS, only massively emphasised and worsened by the fact that he's now surrounded by all these new, colourful and somewhat interesting characters. I'm so damn perplexed at what the hell Snyder's problem is with directing Cavill. I've seen Cavill in interviews, we all know the man can be a charming as hell mofo. It's not that much of a stretch to picture him playing the character like that. Instead, he's asked to play the character like a monosyllabic, emo looking neanderthal.
I almost expected him to say "Me Tarzan, you Jane!"
Good god I'm disappointed in that. The CGI wasn't much of a disappointment because we all saw how crappy looking it was in the trailers. Guys I'm giving it a 5. There's so much more that I had to say about this film, but I've only seen it once and I've forgotten half the criticisms I had while actually watching it. This film really is a beautiful mess. I loved the performances, and there are some really great, almost iconic moments here and there, but overall it's a colossal mess. Having said that, I think the film did a good enough job of laying the foundations for the rest of this DCEU. After seeing the film, I'm both nervous and excited. But above all, I'm just kinda disappointed. They need to get shot of Snyder fast.
Basically despite being overly long, what's in there still doesn't make sense. Sounds like they should have cut out unnecessary franchise set up stuff and let other scenes flow longer and more naturally.
I can't wait to see the How It Should Have Ended video on this.
I was chuckling yesterday about people scrambling for excuses to justify why "top" critics were giving it average sort of ratings & I personally avoided reading some of them until after I'd seen the movie. I can kinda see where they are coming from to a certain extent in regards to the pacing of the film & to an extent the story.
A lot of reviews described the story as muddled & convoluted, I don't think it was either, I just think it was somewhat edited & put together poorly. There are a lot of cogs turning in this movie & for example once you start seeing oh Batman's doing this to find out this *BLAM* your tossed into a meeting with Lex & the senator. It's like you are starting to get engaged & into an element of the movie & then it's ripped away from you to show you another scene that is not connected to the previous. It just felt like it would have made more sense for some of the scenes to be shown in a different order just in an attempt to stop the movie looking like someone that is juggling too many plates & struggling. Having more scenes that were more closely connected shown one after the other would have in my opinion, let the build up to the final act(s) run a lot smoother & better.
The plot in general, it's fairly meh. I did like that it was Lex behind the scenes poking & prodding mainly Batman in an attempt to have go after Superman. Generally his goal with Superman seems to be to pretty much frame, humiliate then have Batman kill Superman in that order as he (Lex) doesn't appear to have any reason for wanting Batman in particular dead. In general I did like both characters reasons for finally coming to blows although I was a little disappointed as to why the fight ended/stalled.
Then we've Doomsday & Doomsday was exactly what I'd been dreading. I felt from the trailer reveal, cool and all as it would be to actually see Doomsday on screen, that he was being shoehorned into the movie just as something for both Batman, Superman & Wonder Woman to come together as a team to stop. From an action standpoint & a climax to the movie, it was fine, but from a fan of the actual Doomsday character I was disappointed to see such an important character in the history of the Superman mythology/history just somewhat tossed in there as a punching bag sort of character. The ending of the movie, although I won't spoil it for those yet to see it was somewhat meh as well, I feel that it could have been done & handled much, much better.
I think the biggest possible problem with the movie is there is just too much in it, you know what it feels like, it feels like WB have looked at what Marvel have done with The Avengers & those characters & thought we need to get in on that action. The problem is it feels like they've tried to cram as much possible stuff into this & attempt to use this 1 movie to do what Marvel did over the course of 3 or 4 movies leading up to original Avengers. The weird thing is considering I feel there is too much in the movie, I actually don't feel it progresses the actual franchise as much as it should have. It reminds me in some ways of Avengers: Age of Ultron in that respect.
Cast wise I thought Affleck did very good as Batman, I'm pretty sure though Batman kills people in this movie as in more than 1.. few scenes where he lit up some cars with .50 cals on the side of his Batwing & I'm pretty sure they all died.. not sure how I feel about that. I enjoyed his Bruce Wayne & I enjoyed how brutal he was as Batman. Thought Jeremy Irons played off Affleck's Bruce very well.. better than I expected.
Thought Gal Gadot did fine as Wonder Woman, she wasn't in it as much as I thought she was going to be but she actually impressed me. She also looked fine as hell throughout the entire movie. As does Amy Adams who gives another good performance as Lois.
Cavill did a fine job again as Superman, I'm actually quite disappointed he wasn't involved as much as Affleck. The movie seems like a Batman movie, but a Batman movie revolving around others perceptions of Superman.
Jesse Eisenberg, I'm not really sure how I feel about his portrayal of Lex Luthor. I was lukewarm to his casting but the performance he gives isn't really what I was expecting. I feel he came across a little too schizophrenic at times for a character so smart & as it shows in the movie, someone who's always 1 or 2 steps ahead of his enemy. Particularly in the final act(s) he comes across quite Joker'esq with his behavior & little quips. Which is completely the wrong impression you should be getting if you are supposedly watching Lex Luthor who should be cool, calm, composed, confident rarely ever breaking those sorts of traits.
Overall I'm admittedly a little disappointed, the movie wasn't bad, certainly nowhere near as bad as the RT rating, as irrelevant as I find that score to be, suggests, but at the same time it wasn't a great movie. It was just simply OK. Falls in a similar'ish category of superhero movies for me as the likes of Iron Man 3 & Age of Ultron.
Basically despite being overly long, what's in there still doesn't make sense. Sounds like they should have cut out unnecessary franchise set up stuff and let other scenes flow longer and more naturally.
I can't wait to see the How It Should Have Ended video on this.
Review time I guess, I liked it A LOT. But I feel in a guilty pleasure sort of way, I mean it is disjointed and a complete mess. Snyder is the kind of guy that lacks conviction WB probably through all these at him, we want Batman v Superman, we want Doomsday and we want a JL Set Up. Here is 250m and make it happen. It is pretty apparent from the start that this was a simple MoS sequel that was gonna feature Batman, then that idea evolved and we got this. All the build up to the title of the film was about Batman v Superman and so when we saw Dawn of Justice a lot of red flags turned up. Then the announced the delay and more red flags- most likely due to DoJ. Then Teaser Trailer and Comic Con Trailer- got everyone excited this looked real good, the delay looked worth it. Trailer 2- Pretty much the reaction to the movie, eh. Funnily enough except for WW the DoJ part was dropped from the marketing almost completely and trailer 3 was just damage control.
Anyway the actual film. The beginning was good, real GOOD. Established Batman well. Superman bits needed a lot of fleshing out though. Scenes looked out of order, then the whole Lex thing was so convoluted, he was annoying but in a fun way I guess.
The fight was good, really good worth it alone for that. I really liked the resolution some found it tacky I didn't, Bruce's reaction was fantastic!!
The build up around the fight was terrible. They marketed the hell out of it but it was like one small plot point, I completely understand the motivation complaints.
Doomsday looked horrible and the fight was a disappointed because I didn't know where to look.
Death of Superman was done really well I teared up shame it happened in this clucky film and not a solo Superman one
The Batman
redemption at the end not branding Lex after Superman instilled hope, was brilliant
The Court room scene was done well.
Man there was flashes of a brilliant movie here, but they wanted too much. Oh and all the cameo's and such were so out of left field. Unnecessary.
I'm seeing a lot of 6/10 reviews, and I think those hit the nail on the head. The narrative is indeed a bloated, muddled mess. If I were the director/editor, I might have fought to open the movie when the parties start pursuing the McGuffin (the kryptonite) in earnest. That's where the story actually begins. Honestly, that should have been diagnosed by the raconteur (Zack Snyder) during the development of the screenplay, and then the script should have been rewritten accordingly. I will say that the second half of the movie is often entertaining, at least on first viewing; we'll see if that holds up in the future. But there are two great--legitimately great--moments in the film that are bungled by the director:
1) The courthouse explosion, and 2) the moment that Batman feels a connection to Superman after learning that both their mothers are Marthas.
The former should have had repercussions that resonated throughout the movie until it ended, but instead it was glossed over so that Batman and Superman could start punching each other. The latter was interrupted by flashbacks of the name on the gravestone and more falling pearls--essentially, the audience wasn't trusted to be smart enough to realize that these women had the same name, so the filmmakers spoon-fed us some sentimentality. And then, of course, the moment quickly passes, and Batman and Superman are fast friends because it's time for them to start punching Doomsday together. Someone needs to tell Snyder that fight scenes and spectacles of mass destruction are not a proper substitute for character development or story development.
The Rotten Tomatoes scores are misleading. This is not as offensive as the Schumacher Batmans. But it is a lame sequel to an awful first effort from Snyder (Man of Steel). I've seen some people try to remove blame from the director and place it on some of the other filmmakers involved, but to do this is to completely misunderstand the job of a film director--the blame is all his. I know there's virtually no chance of Snyder losing Justice League Part One at this point, but I do hope that the negative reviews make Warner Bros. reconsider handing Aquaman to James Wan, a director with an oeuvre of soulless kitsch.
I'm seeing a lot of 6/10 reviews, and I think those hit the nail on the head. The narrative is indeed a bloated, muddled mess. If I were the director/editor, I might have fought to open the movie when the parties start pursuing the McGuffin (the kryptonite) in earnest. That's where the story actually begins. Honestly, that should have been diagnosed by the raconteur (Zack Snyder) during the development of the screenplay, and then the script should have been rewritten accordingly. I will say that the second half of the movie is often entertaining, at least on first viewing; we'll see if that holds up in the future. But there are two great--legitimately great--moments in the film that are bungled by the director:
1) The courthouse explosion, and 2) the moment that Batman feels a connection to Superman after learning that both their mothers are Marthas.
The former should have had repercussions that resonated throughout the movie until it ended, but instead it was glossed over so that Batman and Superman could start punching each other. The latter was interrupted by flashbacks of the name on the gravestone and more falling pearls--essentially, the audience wasn't trusted to be smart enough to realize that these women had the same name, so the filmmakers spoon-fed us some sentimentality. And then, of course, the moment quickly passes, and Batman and Superman are fast friends because it's time for them to start punching Doomsday together. Someone needs to tell Snyder that fight scenes and spectacles of mass destruction are not a proper substitute for character development or story development.
The Rotten Tomatoes scores are misleading. This is not as offensive as the Schumacher Batmans. But it is a lame sequel to an awful first effort from Snyder (Man of Steel). I've seen some people try to remove blame from the director and place it on some of the other filmmakers involved, but to do this is to completely misunderstand the job of a film director--the blame is all his. I know there's virtually no chance of Snyder losing Justice League Part One at this point, but I do hope that the negative reviews make Warner Bros. reconsider handing Aquaman to James Wan, a director with an oeuvre of soulless kitsch.
Honestly I'd maybe open with the Joker killing Jason because it seems like that's where the current Batman was born if you know what I mean... We saw Bruce's parents being murdered so many times before and at least Snyder wouldn't try that 'Martha' ********.
It's an 8 or 9 out of 10 from me. I loved it. Not perfect, would've preferred someone else as Lex and saving Doomsday for a later film. The editing didn't bother me at all.
A few scenes could've been removed, but the story interested me and so did the motivations of the characters (excluding Lex). All of the other major characters were superb.
I'm seeing a lot of 6/10 reviews, and I think those hit the nail on the head. The narrative is indeed a bloated, muddled mess. If I were the director/editor, I might have fought to open the movie when the parties start pursuing the McGuffin (the kryptonite) in earnest. That's where the story actually begins. Honestly, that should have been diagnosed by the raconteur (Zack Snyder) during the development of the screenplay, and then the script should have been rewritten accordingly. I will say that the second half of the movie is often entertaining, at least on first viewing; we'll see if that holds up in the future. But there are two great--legitimately great--moments in the film that are bungled by the director:
1) The courthouse explosion, and 2) the moment that Batman feels a connection to Superman after learning that both their mothers are Marthas.
The former should have had repercussions that resonated throughout the movie until it ended, but instead it was glossed over so that Batman and Superman could start punching each other. The latter was interrupted by flashbacks of the name on the gravestone and more falling pearls--essentially, the audience wasn't trusted to be smart enough to realize that these women had the same name, so the filmmakers spoon-fed us some sentimentality. And then, of course, the moment quickly passes, and Batman and Superman are fast friends because it's time for them to start punching Doomsday together. Someone needs to tell Snyder that fight scenes and spectacles of mass destruction are not a proper substitute for character development or story development.
The Rotten Tomatoes scores are misleading. This is not as offensive as the Schumacher Batmans. But it is a lame sequel to an awful first effort from Snyder (Man of Steel). I've seen some people try to remove blame from the director and place it on some of the other filmmakers involved, but to do this is to completely misunderstand the job of a film director--the blame is all his. I know there's virtually no chance of Snyder losing Justice League Part One at this point, but I do hope that the negative reviews make Warner Bros. reconsider handing Aquaman to James Wan, a director with an oeuvre of soulless kitsch.
I thought the flash back was necessary, because that is exactly what Bruce must have been going through. It added more to it for me, because it shows even though Bruce is old he hasn't forgot that day.I do agree it passed a little to quickly though.
Wish me luck as I'm in theater now. Audience is full of young children. Man will they be in for a "pleasant" surprise. I'm throwing this movie into the Transformers category and hope to have visually pleasing experience.....
Wish me luck as I'm in theater now. Audience is full of young children. Man will they be in for a "pleasant" surprise. I'm throwing this movie into the Transformers category and hope to have visually pleasing experience.....
Having just got out of the movie, I will say I enjoyed it. It does have problems, mainly with the editing and placements of some scene. I'm seeing it again latter, and might post a full review after that.
Having just got out of the movie, I will say I enjoyed it. It does have problems, mainly with the editing and placements of some scene. I'm seeing it again latter, and might post a full review after that.
My review on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. REMEMBER ALL THIS IS MY OPINION AND YOU ARE FREE TO HAVE YOURS AND DISAGREE WITH MINE.
*OST 9.5/10 Favorite song? Wonder Woman’s.
*VFX 9/10
*Costume department 10/10. Normally I don’t put 10 on everything but Wilkinson has made perfection (so to speak lol).
*Top 5 favorite characters:
1. Wonder Woman: She stole the show. Plain and simple.
2. Superman: Everything a Superman fan wanted to see (Superman is my favorite superhero as you have noticed) on the character. Personality, powers and morals as if he was in the comics.
3. Batman: My favorite Batman… Oh well, I’m gonna say this… THE BEST BATMAN (Bruce and Batman) EVER SO FAR IN LIVEACTION.
4. Lex Luthor: Heath Ledger level of villain. FINALLY the LEX LUTHOR I ALWAYS WANTED TO SEE ON THE BIG SCREEN! Depending on tastes which one was your favorite. TDK Joker and DCEU Luthor are my favorite and IMO the best CBM villains EVER!
5. Alfred and Perry White. The interactions of Bruce-Aflred and Perry-Lois and Clark were GOLD! This ALFRED IS MY FAVORITE AND THE BEST ONE SO FAR IN LIVEACTION.
6. CLOIS FOREVER! I will only say that.
General: 9/10
Verdict: **** RT site and the majority of its critics. Some of us may have seen that critics hate Snyder with passion and they are moved by their own feelings and tastes not to mention NOSTALGIA and not objectivity and professionalism. I bet Snyder, WB and Affleck knew this was gonna happen when it’s about Superman and Batman, it was inevitable IMO. Tho since years ago I stopped paying attention to that joke of a site, not only for his hypocritical criteria in the movies they want to succeed or the ones they don’t, no matter the quality of the film itself.
Now I’m completely sure that I was right of staying away of that site. They are moved by other type of movies and think that style is the only one and correct. Shame on them and on the people (A LOT) who thinks like that and follow them. BUT I HAVE TO SAY THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE General Audience doesn’t give a **** about them and many don’t even know about the existence of that site.
My advice for you is… GO SEE THE MOVIE AND FORM YOUR OWN OPINION. Whether you like it or not at the end, FORM IT BY YOURSELF and enjoy it or dislike it but by your own CRITERIA.
That’s the most important thing you need to take into consideration for enjoying the movie industry not following some other guys opinions.
PS. I’m so glad I stood away from Twitter and social media and not seeing spoilers nor more footage or reading reviews before my own experience.
They start filming JL in TWO WEEKS (April 11). You're pretty naive if you think they'll be able to drop Snyder and get a new director rolling and ready to go that quickly and not have it be a disaster.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Ugh, my thoughts on this film are about as haphazard and muddled as the film itself right now haha. Now having said that, I did kinda like the film. Though I personally wouldn't call it a 'film' per se. No, it was more a montage of good moments that would have been dynamite had they been anchored by a framwork that actually provided context to each and every scene. As it happens, scenes just come and go and things happen because we naturally expect them to. There is next to no build up to anything in this entire film. The scene in which Martha Kent gives a speech to her son about his place in the world? It lasts about as long as it does in the trailers. It literally feels like we're dropped right in the middle of this scene, and it lasts about a minute. And then we move on. As I said, no build up to anything in this film. With that scene, it felt like we missed a great deal beforehand. And please remember, that's just one example. Whether or not that's because Snyder had to cut for time, who knows. I guess we'll just have to wait for that highly coveted Ultimate Cut that we're all no doubt salivating over. 
And I'd assumed that due to my love of that era of cinema, I wouldn't really notice how quickly it was moving. At least not the extent that it bothered me a whole lot. I did notice it. And it was somewhat bothersome. Only somewhat though. As I said, we get to the mindless bubblegum action a lot quicker. 
Another positive of this film is the acting. Affleck - well there's not much to say here, is there?
