Discussion in 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' started by Thread Manager, May 8, 2016.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]512377[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]511599[/split]
there is no grey area when it comes to rescuing people from natural disaster or plane crush.
That wasn't the point of what I was saying.
I've been meaning to write a review for this. Spoilers, of course:
I've been torn between writing an essay or a blurb on this film since I saw it a few days after it dropped. For now, I'm going with the latter. I'm not sure this movie warrants the sheer amount of discussion it has as is.
Say what you will about Man of Steel- I didn't like it as a Superman story- but as an invasion story, where the twist is that the protagonist is an alien on our side? It's decent. I can name a multitude of better invasion stories, yet it manages to achieve what it set out to do. Clark's character arc is clearly the thread that links everything together; as a result, there's little confusion as to what's driving the story forward or what significance the subplots have on the greater narrative. It's all about how Clark becomes Superman and the nature vs. nurture debate he finds himself in. However flawed the execution is, Man of Steel is (for the most part) comprehensible.
This movie, not so much. Set aside all of its problems with internal and external logic. What is it about? Is it a pop art morality play on the ramifications of absolute power? If so, why is it so insultingly stupid so often? Even if it wasn't, the third act forgets to answer the questions posed in favor of a generic final boss fight with Doomsday, who's both out of place and immediately forgettable. Is it a thinly veiled excuse to have two superheroes beat the crap out of each other? Perhaps, but if that's the case, there's more time spent in Philosophy 101 than there is fighting. Maybe it's a way to introduce the Justice League? Why, then, does it feel like this movie would be better off without any references to them whatsoever?
If it's not any of that, what is it? I've been wracking my brain with that question since I came out of the theater and I still haven't come up with a satisfactory answer. My best guess is that it's meant to be a dark night of the soul for Clark, ending with a heroic sacrifice that eases humanity's angst over his role in Metropolis' destruction. If that's really it, this movie manages to fail even at that. There's a legitimate argument to be made that Clark's arrival has made life objectively worse for the people of Earth. What little altruism we see him engage in is treated as anathema, and his only reason for doing any of this seems to boil down to his love for Lois and his mother.
So Clark isn't that interested in us, and his presence puts us in danger. Oh, and he likes to instigate fights instead of preventing them, if that shove at the start of the Batman brawl is anything to go by. Remind me why we're supposed to feel for this guy again...?
I could say more. On how Batman's turn from foe to Superfriend is amongst the most terribly executed moments in superhero movies, or how much easier it would've been for Luthor to just give Batman the kryptonite, and a host of other baffling plot points. I just don't have the energy. It's pretty, I'll say that much. If half the effort put into the fight choreography, empty symbolism, and superficial references to The Dark Knight Returns went into this story, I might've liked this for what it was. As it stands, my only positive takeaway is that Affleck was the right choice and Wonder Woman's theme is catchy.
I agree with literally everything you said in your last post! Funny thing is I had written a spec script couple years ago after Man of Steel just for fun and it was very much in line with what you were saying in terms of Superman representing the common man and appreciating the beauty of humanity while constantly being challenged by those core beliefs. But he shouldn't lose that inherent charm and charisma he has with the masses that makes him so benevolent and endearing. Personally, I find Superman more relatable more than any superhero. He's not a billionaire, he's not a playboy, he's a working class farmboy who works a 9-5 job and is a GOD who has to learn how to be human and through him we understand why being human is so special. Now if we could only find a better writer in the industry to read your post....
The first time I saw it I thought it was maybe a 6/10. The second time I saw it in IMAX 3-D and it might be a soft 7 if I'm feeling really generous.
I understand why it's so divisive. The fiilm has way too many strands going. And I'm someone that really enjoys MoS.
The main gripe with this movie I think people have is: It not the movie we all thought we were getting. After the extensive destruction in the MoS climax, I think most of us thought this movie would for sure be about how Superman would have to be accountable for it and the deaths the battle caused. And BvS starts out that way. Then the capitol building blows up and the movie basically becomes Batman's. I was surprised Marvel dealt with the collateral damage and death issue in Civil War but I think it was due to them being afraid DC would do it first (and do it well) in BvS. I personally thought BvS would be Batman teaching Superman about no killing (after wanting to fight him for it.) Boy, was I wrong.
Affleck is a cool Batman. The much-lauded warehouse fight was a joy to see. But really, so were the sex trafficking building escape and the car chase. I love fitness stuff, and I thought the brief Bruce Wayne working out montage was actually kind of cool.
He does however, seem to lack a little for me as Wayne. I liked his, "Do I own that one?" line regarding The Daily Planet, but he's just so dour and serious that it's hard to relate to him. Hopefully they are able to straighten that part out for the standalone Bats movie.
Cavill is once again a worthy Superman, but he has so little to do after the capitol building scene.
Even after two viewings, I'm still not feeling Eisenberg as Lex. People keep comparing him to Carrey's Riddler, and I don't really see that as much, but...I get what they tried to do. They tried to take him in a different direction by making him this socially awkward weirdo instead of a cold, calculating mastermind. I just...his scenes are tough to watch. I think Cranston would even be a little out of place in my opinion, simply because he's almost twice Superman's (Cavill's) age. I would like to see that role recast in any event.
Gal Gadot was good as Wonder Woman, but like Cavill, she doesn't have a lot to do. She goes to a party and steals a thing, then basically shows up to fight Doomsday and that's it.
Oh, Dooomsday. Can't say I was happy about that either really. I was shocked when I first saw the trailer. And why kill off Superman only to show he's alive at the end?
The film just tries to squeeze so much in to catch up with Marvel. I ultimately think either a Batman reboot or a MoS sequel would have worked better.
The Good Stuff
Affleck as Batman
Opening scene with Bruce looking at the Superman-Zod, fight from the ground with the soundtrack bumping
People looking in awe as Superman walks inside the Capitol building
Batman's first appearance
The Batmobile chase sequence
The "Knightmare" dream sequence
The Batman fight scene and rescue of Martha
Gadot in the final fight
The Bad Stuff
Eisenberg as Luthor
Killing Superman...for a minute
Not enough Kent/Superman
Only brief screen time for other JL members
Things that were not explained:
Does Batman only brand sex offenders? Is that why it's a "death sentence?"
How does Lex know their secret identities? How did he obtain that info?
How does Superman know Batman is Bruce Wayne?
In closing: I see why a lot of people hate it, but I'm a huge fan of both characters. The movie isn't great, but I think I'll still probably get the blu ray, because I enjoy many parts even with the film's flaws.
First of all, this is an intense, delicate and insightful movie.
Not your average Michael Bay "Explosion Smackfest".
This is a movie that plays out like a romance, a BOOK, giving us an exclusive insight into the different worlds of Superman and Batman. It's delicate, not necessarily "bleak", but sure as hell simil-quasi-"realistic" ---- a-la "Watchmen" (2009).
Even the action scenes are well calibrated and atmospheric, like the supposed "fight" between Supes and Bats. It's frightening at points, and very metaphorical. You can see that it's a fight between two spirits, not your average body-to-body duel thrown in there for pure eye candy and marketing purposes.
It feels like a Batman movie featuring Superman. Yes. Batman is amazing. They FINALLY depicted the comic-book Batman on screen. All other cinematic Batman were heavy re-interpretations of the character. They did not feel like the comic book Batman at all. They were rearrangments, elaborations.
Affleck's Batman was the Batman of the comic books magically turned into flesh and bones. His fight against the terrorists was FANTASTIC ----- it reminded me of the fight Rorschach did in the "Watchmen" movie, only to the nth degree. It was great... and beware, I'm not even a Batman fan. I'm a Superman fan.
Superman is tormented, truly plagued by remorse and regrets, stressed and under pressure. He's a very HUMAN and vulnerable figure in this movie. The Clark Kent persona is well crafted and Superman is truly "himself" only when he is Clark. When he's Superman, he's a distant God, struggling with his doubts. I love this. It's a great dichotomy.
I loved to see Cavil's tenderness on screen.... he feels a lot like the animated Superman of the forties. He's a pure and naive Superman trying to fit into a different human kind, a brutalized and disillusioned human kind.
Yes. It was a meaningful fight. It was wonderful from a visual standpoint, very "dark" and atmospheric. At the same time, I loved that it felt like a confrontation of two different spirits/souls --- not just two "super" bodies fighting each other for the sake of it.
Batman's motivations were strong. AT THAT POINT, Batman had crossed the line. He wasn't the Batman he used to be before, when he was young. It was a "corrupted" Batman. He had no pure consciousness anymore. Flash's "appearance" from the future was the pivotal catalyst that pushed him over the edge. And take notice, he knew Flash was 100% REAL, because his (Flash's) file was among the "Metahuman" files that he studied.
I would like to pinpoint that Kryptonite Smoke just weakened Superman, but he seemed to me still partially invulnerable. So I would say in this universe Kryptonite doesn't INSTANTANIOUSLY deplete Superman's solar stores. That would explain why he was able to lift the Kryptonite Spear and "hover" above the soil, thus stabbing Doomsday. No plotholes at all.
I loved the way they inserted Wonder Woman, it didn't feel forced at all, but a natural progression of the plot. She's gorgeous.
The final fight with Doomsday was very comic-bookish, like a comic book came true for us fans. It was epic, inventive, well directed and just marvellous. It made me proud to be a Superman fan.
It totally belonged to the "UNIVERSE" of the modern comic book Superman, the POST-CRISIS, Post-1985 Superman that only true fans know.
They presented a very rich and polichromatic Clark Kent (which is his "real self" in this continuity), and a tormented and distant Superman (which is the "facade" for people) who limits himself to save people and tries to be as distant as possible from human race in order to be OBJECTIVE and FAIR.
It's a very complex dichotomy and I appreciate that.
He loves human kind. And he wants to understand what's the best "interface" he can have with human kind, in order to be FAIR.
It's a Superman trying to understand HOW he can fit into the bigger scheme of things and what's the best "modus operandi" for his established role in the world as SAVIOUR. After all, he has become Superman very late in his life, only 2 years before. 2013.
About the fight:
Superman wasn't fighting. At first, he was "teasing" Batman, trying to act as a deterrent. He didn't know Bats had Kryptonite in store. How could he?
Then, it became self-defense. Pure self-defense.
Batman literally "demolished" Superman. He wasn't bleeding only because he still retained a part of his invulnerability.
In regards to Lex Luthor:
I loved him. I think they did a fantastic job with him. He was a psychotic genius with a inferiority complex. He was very vulnerable. Not a "Joker" rip-off at all. He was a very different character and tried to be different.
I agree the sequence when he interfaces with the Kryptonian ship required more explanation. More footage. I assume the Kryptonian A.I. was influenced by: 1) Zod's fingerprints and 2) Lex pushing Jor-El's Command Key into the mainframe again.
Just remember, it was a ship belonging to the OLD phase of the Kryptonian culture, when Kryptonians were more "naive", prone to space exploration. It belonged to the "GOLDEN ERA" of Krypton, 18.000 years ago.
All in all, this is a masterpiece... very artistic movie, not just your average Superhero product.
Bit late for this, eh?
well written review, supper.
great counter points there, miller, you really made me think.
Thank you so much.
I loved this movie.
And I'm a huge Superman fan.
Very interesting read, Supperhero!
That reminds me, what's sad is even behind Batman's corrupt mind is that there is a very good motive behind it all. In popular culture, Batman doesn't touch guns and kill people because he believes once he does it once, he has crossed the line and becomes extremely hard to go back. He has become a criminal himself. In the movie, he willingly crosses the line in the hopes of stopping an apocalyptic future for humanity and planet Earth. He is willing to let go of his principles because he is pushed into doing something extreme in order to save innocent lives. This is a beautiful tragedy. There is also something that is very interesting. Batman says that he is a criminal and that he has always been a criminal. I assume that he has lost it and he failed in his quest for justice. People die, Good men turn bad and there's nothing he can do to stop it. People call this Batman a *****ebag while I really feel bad that he gave up. He gave up that men are still good. Not this is the Batman I wanted to see, but it is a great perspective. I also loved that Batman has this arc and realizes he was WRONG. Just a brilliant movie if you look at it from a certain point of view.
It’s really interesting to read the different points of view on this forum from those who hated BvS and those who loved it. It’s like a great debate and I always see both points of views.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard of any movie being this divisive before... comic book or anything else. Really crazy how two different people see totally different things.
yes it is...
Every time I read someone pointing out all the flaws, I agree with them and see exactly what they are saying, but I also agree with what someone says talk about all the good points and how they interpreted it. I keep being swayed by the discussion, which never happens to me. I think maybe it's because of my fandom for both characters that I really want to believe that we got a good movie, but then I remember the issues with it... maybe that's it.
I think many of us can explain away some of the flaws, but unfortunately they don;t play out that way on screen. It's much like a post in the all discussion thread, where the narrative is telling us one thing (Superman being disconnected from humanity) while the people in the story are telling us the opposite (Lois is saying he symbolises hope etc.)
Just bumped it down to 6.5/10. But I'll go into the Ultimate Cut with as open a mind as I can.
What I try to keep in mind is the NET result. What you take away.
Overall entertaining or not. That simple. Was it enjoyable? Did it entertain or astonish you? Were you amazed? Did you feel something?
After that, of course you can pick apart even the greatest films or art of all time. roughly translated - Lorenzo de' Medici said to Michelangelo, "Your portrait of me does not resemble me"! Michelangelo replied: "In 500 years, who will know?" This did not stop it from being an incredible work of art...is the point.
If you go in with preconceived notions or "wishes", the film already done in your mind and "expect" something...and then don't get it- you are disappointed and angry.
Sure, BvS had some technical issues with pacing or editing but not enough to warrant all the negative response. Overall to me, BvS gave us iconic characters in unexpected twists and situations and showed them in a light that is not the classic expected way but the imagery and metaphors throughout are astonishing, beautifully constructed and relevant.
Technical merit for traditional story telling- 6/10
Entertainment value seeing incredible images - 8.5+/10
lol... have you make up your mind yet? ha
I thought this movie was boring and it was too long
I really enjoyed this movie. Was it the best script or acting? No. I think Henry Cavill has the look of Superman, but this movie did nothing for me when it comes to developing the Superman character. I thought Affleck killed it as Batman. He was great in both roles as Bruce Wayne and Batman, which only few are capable of doing.
I wish they would have done MOS2 BEFORE BvS because they need to build on their version of Superman more, and this movie didn't do that. However, they really built on Batman, and from the looks of it, Superman won't have as big of a role in the first Justice League movie, so hopefully MOS2 comes out before the second Justice League.
Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor I wasn't crazy about either. I didn't like the casting choice when they made it and I didn't like his performance. I DID like the character they made Lex, just would have preferred a different actor to portray him.
I think Doomsday was done poorly. I think it's something they could have waited on or done in MOS2 instead.
I'd give the movie a 7, but it's one of those movies that I can watch over and over.
I'm looking forward to seeing what Justice League and The Batman bring us in the future, as well as the MOS sequel.
Watched the Ultimate Edition last night after having seen the regular cut back when it was still out in theatres. I thought it had a few trip ups, but was ultimately very happy walking out of the theatre. Judging from the trailers, I expected to be underwhelmed, but ended up impressed with effort of the script.
I thought the film was thoughtful, earnest and careful in handling exactly who the characters are and what they mean. In particular, I enjoyed how they sewed some pretty big themes and ideas into the original fabric of the characters and the unraveling of the plot. (As examples: Clark Kents day job becoming relevant to the development of his character by his questioning the responsibility of the press, Lois Lanes ambition as a reporter gradually leading to the reveal of the LexCorp conspiracy, Luthors sanity dissolving along with sense of importance in the world, Batmans paranoia being confirmed to the audience as the correct perception through Flashs appearance, etc.). The movie was smart and handled bold statements really well (examples: several different political mainstream news outlets debating on the role of the superhero, victims of a clash between more powerful entities being exploited for propaganda, the disposing of key members of Congress whose interests didnt align with Luthors, etc.). Another thing that I thought was clever was Luthors ability to presume correctly what who was going to do in which situation, as if the outcome was resoluteand it was, considering he managed to get Superman killed by the end of the moviemaking him the formidable threat to Superman that the general public in the DCU didnt realize existed.
In any case, it wasnt a perfect movie by any means. There were a few moments I considered very lazy or one-step thinking, like the Martha scene or Bruce Waynes immediate Murder Superman ASAP plan. Superman turning out to be alive in the end was also an eye-roller of a gimmick. And as much as I adore Wonder Woman, her purpose for being in Metropolis in the first place over a digital photo of herself was lacking in reason. (I would have just told anyone who asked it was a photoshoped conspiracy.) I can certainly see why critics wouldnt like itBatmans dream sequences would make no sense to anyone not familiar with the comics, and much of my observations about tying the themes to the characters fall flat if the details of the characters mean nothing to you.
Despite the cheesiness and shoe-horned moments, I still love it. I love the direction of ideas that DC is going in. It feels like there is an actual point to their films rather than just being entertaining or pandering to nostalgia. It doesnt seem to be playing out so well with the audience, so it may end up that JL is a completely different kind of movie. My hope is that they dont go for the cheap humor route.
It was boring. Way too long and the content didnt justify it. The plot was weak and made for a terrible onscreen adaptation of Superman. Id give it a 5
"It's a piece of s**t!"
Mel Gibson - director, actor, anti-Semite (in recovery)
From someone who doesn't like superhero movies, it's like those critics that slate horro films but start reviews off saying they don't like horror movies.