It is a discussion forum. And I have been discussing it for days as have many other people. You just can't accept anything others say that opposes your viewpoint. Here, I'll repost my review. Feel free to negate any points I say in it:
I can accept it, I just don't understand why you think nobody should challenge your point of view merely because you have the weight of popular opinion behind you. Like I said before, I'm not talking about the numbers, those are what they are. I'm talking about the film on it's own merits, but you've given me your review which does exactly that, so that's a great place to start. Lets' proceed:
It's been three years since Warner Bros' MAN OF STEEL hit theaters. While the cinematic relaunch of the world's most well known superhero didn't strike a chord with many critics and a substantial portion of the audience, it garnered enough fan appeal and box office returns to garner a second outing. But BATMAN V SUPERMAN is much more than a Superman sequel, it also introduces a brand new Batman to the mix following the character's beloved Dark Knight Trilogy helmed by Christopher Nolan, pitting these two pop culture icons against each other for the first time on film. The action is intense and the scenery moves fast, hoping audiences catch all the little quirks and asides that will make sense in later movies. A lot of questionable decisions were made with the story, but thankfully the truly top notch acting sort of made up for it.
I'm glad we agree that the acting is good. I'd like to talk about what the questionable decisions are. That's a genuine request. Unless they're all covered in the following 'graphs.
Henry Cavill has grown considerably into the dual roles of Clark Kent and Superman, even though he still carries a healthy air of melancholy whenever he suits up. He's not really given much to do or say either. He may be the most silently suffering Superman ever. But whether he's playing off Amy Adam's Lois Lane (their chemistry here felt very forced compared to the last movie) or battling Ben Affleck's Batman, Cavill does the absolute best with what he's given. With more room to breathe and make the character his own this film could have been squarely supported on his muscly shoulders. Too bad this iteration of the character is too nihilistic to inspire anyone. Affleck's casting as Bruce Wayne/Batman caused a big commotion when it was announced, with all manner of Bat-fan and non-fan seemingly having something negative to say. Not only does he do a bang up job, he chews up every scene he's in with ease. Unfortunately, it's the characterization of this new Batman that I found major problems with. Exceptionally violent and borderline sadistic, he's written a bit too brutal for my liking. Whether this is the Caped Crusader's new status quo across other films has yet to be seen.
I would say that my opinion differs on the first count; I thought the romance felt much more natural this time. In MoS it didn't really seem earned, it felt more like a crush. Here they seem like a very happy couple, and it struck me as natural, so I don't agree on that one, but that's totally up to our individual perceptions, and therefore opinion, so it's all good.
As to the second point, the film showed Batman NOT branding Lex, and telling Diana that "men are still good" and that "we can do better." Doesn't that seem to indicate that he's not going to do that anymore? However I'll agree that doesn't necessarily mean he won't still kill people when they're shooting at him as he did throughout the film. I would ask out of curiosity, though, how you feel about the character's portrayal in previous films, especially Batman '89?
We also have a new Lex Luthor, Superman's cerebral arch-nemesis, and a new Wonder Woman who makes her big screen debut. Jessie Eisenberg plays a Luthor very different from what both comics readers (suave, stealthy villain) and Christopher Reeve era Superman fans (maniacal yet silly) are used to. He pushes the crazy part of the character's personality to the forefront, overshadowing his genius when he would need it most, which offers an interesting dynamic I think fans could be receptive to. Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman will be a high point for audiences to marvel at. She has minimal, but integral, screen time; much like Mark Ruffalo's Hulk in The Avengers. Fans have been waiting decades for Warner Bros to get off their asses and cast a new Wonder Woman and I feel their wait was rewarded pairing this graceful, charismatic actress with her battle-ready Amazonian counterpart.
Can't say I disagree with any of this.
Many people will go into this movie looking for the Batman and Superman confrontation to be center stage. It really isn't. At all. There's a lot of build up, highlighting the manipulation that leads to their gladiatorial grudge match, but too little time and effort put into their actual clash and reconciliation to make the hour and a half long wait satisfying before they (inevitably) team up to face the story's (real) threats: Luthor and his creation Doomsday -- the monstrous creature made famous in the 'Death of Superman' comic series from the 90s. There's also an attempt to make the climatic battle smaller in scale yet just as deadly as the building toppling ending of MAN OF STEEL, which attributed to a lot of that film's negative talk, but I didn't find it smaller, better crafted or more rewarding. The wonky effects on the video gamey "final boss" Doomsday didn't help either, nor did the continuous injection of fan-service comics references that were supposed to be important but are only half realized and will only appease the most diehard fans who are frothing at the mouth for any DC superhero shenanigans. It would have better served its audience by dropping its DAWN OF JUSTICE subtext and focusing on its two title characters.
To these points:
First, I'm not sure why the fight needs to be longer, since it shows what it needs to in order to serve the narrative, doesn't it? Superman tries to talk, Batman won't listen to him, he attacks, Supes defends, then Batman whoops his ass and Superman finally finds a way to get into his head and make him stop. Would being longer really make it any better? Unless you mean because it was marketed as though the movie was just them fighting... in which case, I agree that's a problem, but I'd lay that at the feet of the marketing department, mainly for the boxing posters and naming the film "Batman v Superman." That definitely set up a lot of people to be disappointed...never what you want as a filmmaker, or studio.
But in terms of the story structure, it's Shakespearean. And before you jump all over me here, I'm in NO WAY saying that this film is as good as Hamlet or anything. I'm saying that that's the kind of structure they used, Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy. I've even seen an excellent article written about this that made a ton of great points on the subject.
It's also a fact that most mainstream tentpole pictures are not set up that way. They mostly use a three-act structure; it's easy, breezy, and was popularized by Star Wars. The Marvel movies routinely go three-act as well. It's a good structure and it's the standard right now. But it's not the one they used for this movie. So I'll grant that we maybe chalk that one up to questionable decision, but it's in no way wrong to structure a story that way, or people wouldn't still study the classics.
To the last points, while I didn't have any problem with the effects, I think that's mostly an aesthetic thing at this point anyway, since no form of visual effects has ever been perfect, and CGI can only be perfect when one bankrupts Rhythm & Hues over a tiger.
So I'm not going to challenge that one either.
However, I am with you on the Justice League setup stuff feeling wedged in there. Most egregiously, I think the Knightmare scene is already vague enough for us fans in terms of what the hell it all means, it's got to be hell on the GA... and Wondy checking her email would have been far less problematic if it had been somewhere else in the edit.
This is the part where you respond to me and challenge my rebuttals on the three or four things that I disagreed with you on, barring the ones I flagged as opinion, probably, since that means I agree to disagree on those and no further discussion of those points is requested.
Your movie, sir. If you want to, I mean.
