B v S: Dawn of Justice

[Crabs]

Finally saw this movie. I wasn't disappointed given that my expectations were pretty low to begin with. Sure, the movie has flaws, but I don't think it's as bad as critics are making it out to be. Imo, it's better than Man of Steel, which really isn't saying much. I was skeptical of Ben Affleck pulling off Batman when I first heard the rumors, but he does a decent job. Doesn't hurt that he arguably has the best uniform and Batmobile that we've seen on film. I like this new gritty, world-weary take on the caped crusader, whom is much less idealistic than his younger self. Without super powers or firearms, one man can't really be a viable threat to armed criminals. The gritty fight scenes are some of the best I've seen in a Batman movie to date. This rendition of the dark knight is kinda like what Daniel Craig was to the Bond franchise: brutal, dark and savage.

My biggest complaints with the movie are:

1) Superman has this infallible ability to know any time Louis Lane is in trouble, whether in the middle of a desert or falling off a building, and he's there in a split-second to save her life; yet he had no idea that his mother was being kidnapped and tortured? Or where to find her?

2) Batman was intensely committed to killing Superman until he found out that Clark Kent had an adopted mother with the same name as his own mother. Then he suddenly became Superman's "friend" and used that exact word to describe their relationship just minutes after beating him to a pulp.

2) Over-the-top action sequences that we've come to expect from Zach Snyder, which make it feel like a Marvel movie.

 

[Totenkindly]

Dear god. This explains why he's so bad at story; he's like George Lucas.
What does the quote on Superman's suit mean? - Business Insider

More seriously, though, why is he spending so much crap on things that no one can even notice without focusing on the stuff that is noticeable and does matter?

Still have mixed feelings about the movie in general. I'll probably be annoyed and yet obsessed about it all at once. I still love that little "Oh so that's how it's gonna be, is it?" knowing look WW offers after Doomsday smacks her away, right before diving in back after him. (Another reviewer noticed that one too.)

Finally saw this movie. I wasn't disappointed given that my expectations were pretty low to begin with. Sure, the movie has flaws, but I don't think it's as bad as critics are making it out to be. Imo, it's better than Man of Steel, which really isn't saying much. I was skeptical of Ben Affleck pulling off Batman when I first heard the rumors, but he does a decent job. Doesn't hurt that he arguably has the best uniform and Batmobile that we've seen on film. I like this new gritty, world-weary take on the caped crusader, whom is much less idealistic than his younger self. Without super powers or firearms, one man can't really be a viable threat to armed criminals. The gritty fight scenes are some of the best I've seen in a Batman movie to date. This rendition of the dark knight is kinda like what Daniel Craig was to the Bond franchise: brutal, dark and savage.

My biggest complaints with the movie are:

1) Superman has this infallible ability to know any time Louis Lane is in trouble, whether in the middle of a desert or falling off a building, and he's there in a split-second to save her life; yet he had no idea that his mother was being kidnapped and tortured? Or where to find her?

2) Batman was intensely committed to killing Superman until he found out that Clark Kent had an adopted mother with the same name as his own mother. Then he suddenly became Superman's "friend" and used that exact word to describe their relationship just minutes after beating him to a pulp.

2) Over-the-top action sequences that we've come to expect from Zach Snyder, which make it feel like a Marvel movie.

Yeah, I agree with that basic assessment.

World-weary:

I've heard people complain about Batman killing people in this movie, or appearing to. And branding them. But we're looking at a Batman who lost Robin years ago, is older than the Batmans of prior movies, etc. His world has been far more severe. And now he's seen super-powered folks trashing entire cities. He's been through a lot of shit; he's angry; and the margin for error also appears much smaller to him. All to say, it didn't really surprise me or seem unjustified.

With the spoilers:

1. Yeah. That got kind of old. First that he could recognize she was in danger and then somehow manage to be there in time. I thought even in "Man of Steel" was skirting the edge of "Let's save Lois" and here they did little with her character except repeatedly put her in trouble so Superman could intervene. Meh.

2. I think here the "friend" word was a little too much. However, with Batman running on pure rage so much of the time and having blinders up in regards to anything that would deter him from his pursuit of justice, and having experienced some moments of deep psychological shift myself, typically there is some kind of trigger that suddenly shifts everything. Here, Batman also wasn't just killing criminals in the heat of battle; he was premeditating, baiting, and murdering another sentient being, and he was doing this by focusing on Superman not being human but alien to humanity and thus a threat. I think that connection with Superman, who is about to be killed and is meanwhile begging him to save his mother, who has the same name as his mother, is the kind of shock to the senses that could get through when nothing else would -- Bruce's life was changed irrevocably by the death of his own parents, and now someone was going to rob Superman of his mother. In that moment, he discovered a shared humanity with Superman that totally revised his view of him -- Superman was not alien, he was actually like him. And he realized it was like him murdering another human being, not killing an alien threat.

But yeah, the "friend" word? eehhhhhhhhh.... "Yeah, I just tried to skewer this guy after baiting and abusing him, but hey we're good now! In fact, we're friends! Just a misunderstanding."

 

[Crabs]

I've heard people complain about Batman killing people in this movie, or appearing to. And branding them. But we're looking at a Batman who lost Robin years ago, is older than the Batmans of prior movies, etc. His world has been far more severe. And now he's seen super-powered folks trashing entire cities. He's been through a lot of shit; he's angry; and the margin for error also appears much smaller to him. All to say, it didn't really surprise me or seem unjustified.

I thought the whole branding thing was kinda weird and pointless. Add that to my list of dislikes, along with Jesse Eisenberg's overly neurotic portrayal of Lex Luthor.

I think here the "friend" word was a little too much. However, with Batman running on pure rage so much of the time and having blinders up in regards to anything that would deter him from his pursuit of justice, and having experienced some moments of deep psychological shift myself, typically there is some kind of trigger that suddenly shifts everything. Here, Batman also wasn't just killing criminals in the heat of battle; he was premeditating, baiting, and murdering another sentient being, and he was doing this by focusing on Superman not being human but alien to humanity and thus a threat. I think that connection with Superman, who is about to be killed and is meanwhile begging him to save his mother, who has the same name as his mother, is the kind of shock to the senses that could get through when nothing else would -- Bruce's life was changed irrevocably by the death of his own parents, and now someone was going to rob Superman of his mother. In that moment, he discovered a shared humanity with Superman that totally revised his view of him -- Superman was not alien, he was actually like him. And he realized it was like him murdering another human being, not killing an alien threat.

But yeah, the "friend" word? eehhhhhhhhh.... "Yeah, I just tried to skewer this guy after baiting and abusing him, but hey we're good now! In fact, we're friends! Just a misunderstanding."

Yeah, I get that it was a psychological trigger to hear his mom's name, but justifying killing Superman because of a "1% chance" seems more out of character for a world-weary Batman than using guns to kill criminals. (I read an interesting factoid recently that in his earliest incarnations, Batman usually carried a gun). Anyway, still seems a bit far-fetched to me that he would abruptly change his stance on the Superman issue because of his mom's name.

Still, as far as superhero movies go, I didn't think it was that terrible. The whole genre is rather trite at this point.

 

[Mal12345]

I started this thread by stating that I hadn't seen this movie, that I had no plans on *going* to see it. So I didn't. I downloaded a pirated version instead.
I had thought the critics were right, but instead this article got it right.
Do Batman V Superman’s Reviews Prove That Critics Are Snobs?

As you may have read, the article isn't about the movie per se, it's a review of the critic reviews (among other things). And as always, critics and fans don't necessarily see eye to eye on a movie's quality. There is one difference between critics and fans that the article neglected to mention: cynicism. The ho-hum boredom of critics who watch and review 3 movies a week and, it seems, are half-expecting some movies to fail a priori, and then they simply look for the reasons.

Well, I'm a "fan" of sorts (not a critic). I like action movies, but I don't read comic books. And I do want most movies to succeed. I'm rarely biased for or against a movie. But I think most "objective" critics are subconsciously biased. A rare exception to my lack of bias was the movie John Carter, which was equally panned by the critics and bombed at the box office. But these two events aren't connected. It bombed because it lacked support from Hollywood. And it was panned by the critics because sharks need to feed occasionally.

Knowing this, my curiosity got the best of me and I watched Superman V Batman. But instead of treating myself to an eardrum-destroying big-screen viewing of the movie, I downloaded a pretty good pirated version which did not hurt my sensitive ears.

I thought the movie was good. Using the old 4-star movie rating system I give it 3 stars. On the 10-star rating system used on the internet, I give it an 8.

I was granted a sort of bonus, having downloaded a version that was recorded in a movie theater, possibly in Asia -

When Superman died, I swear I heard an adult male audience member trying not to cry as he said something in his language which might be translated as "No..." or something to that effect. It was a very dolorous sound.

So back to movie reviews, I watched quite a few as you know, both spoiler and non-spoiler versions. What I found is that they are mostly wrong about Batman V Superman. In one Youtube review, the reviewer even had to slow down a very fast effect in order to find something to trash (and even then, it wasn't a good reason to trash it).

For a good article about online movie reviewers, read Is Something Rotten at Rotten Tomatoes? Investigating Batman V Superman's Rotten Rating | Comicbook.com

"Is Something Rotten at Rotten Tomatoes?" Yes, there is. I've read RT reviews in the past, and what I've found is a flawed rating system. Whoever assigns ripe and rotten tomatoes is simply not very good at it or it's based on that person's opinion on which way the review is swinging. Reviewers are not always very clear. But on some occasions I've read a review which had a rotten tomato next to it, and it was not trashing the movie being reviewed. So I suggest that there is some bias occurring, for example, a Marvel fanboy/girl at RT has decided to label more reviews as rotten than actually exist.

Some reviews were blatantly false. I read or saw something about how this movie has too many flashbacks or dream sequences. But I didn't see any to speak of. Some said it was slow to get going in the first hour. No, it was actually quite full of dramatic moments. "The movie was confusing" - no, you were confused because you watched a DC movie that was actually quite good for a change and didn't meet your low expectations.

For the repressed movie-goer who wants to see 100% action, go watch Deadpool again. Or any of the Transporter movies.

B v S has been criticized for showing the Batman origin yet again. Well sorry, it was extremely necessary for the plot.

B v S has been criticized for having too many slow motion effects. I didn't think so. The one with young Bruce Wayne at the beginning, during the origins scene, was pretty tropish. But I could find dozens of things to nitpick if I wanted to - if I was a trashy movie critic.

I thought B v S blended very well with "Man of Steel." Some thought that "Man of Steel" was better than B v S, but these were the same people who trashed "Man of Steel." So they don't like MoS better because it was a good movie, they are simply saying that B v S was even worse by comparison.

Some critics say that too much pre-Justice League was crammed into B v S, but these are the same critics who complained that they didn't get to see enough of Aquaman. They will complain that the movie is trying too hard to lead up to a Justice League movie, but Marvel did the same thing before the Avengers and they didn't complain then. Anybody could see that coming. But I didn't see B v S as trying too hard to reel in a future Justice League concept, and the individual cameos (such as the one with the Flash) blended in well with the rest of the movie without taking very much movie time at all. The Flash's appearance was far more of a teaser since all we saw was a blur (if that) on a convenience store's surveillance camera.

The Age of Superheroes is nigh, if not already here, and things are going to get better.

 

[Mal12345]

I forgot to mention another good thing about B v S, Clark Kent had a lot more screen time than he did in Man of Steel.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think I was one of the few here who actually liked "Man of Steel" .. or at least I was one of the more positive reviewers on TypC. I actually rewatched it again after seeing BvS and was reminded why I liked it; my only real dislike came from a lot of attention being spent on Russell Crowe... I just wasn't into so much time being spent on Krypton + Crowe having at least as much time in the movie as Kevin Costner and Diane Lane (the former of whom was a highlight of the movie and the latter of whom deserved some more presence). I'd give it 4/5 star now, at this point -- while I've always enjoyed Terrence Stamp's megalomaniac Zod, I found Shannon's Zod to be believable and sympathetic on some level. (Which makes what happens with him in BvS due to Luther seem even more resonant/poignant.)

I had mixed feelings about BvS and can make fun of some aspects of it. (There's some dumb stuff, like when Wayne gets caught in the computer room of Luther's home and instead of leading him out, his assistant, just leaves him in there and walks off... No, he'd get led out. And we've mentioned how Lois plays damsel-in-distress, etc.) But there were just some really great scenes as well -- the bathtub scene, the senate scene, some of the one-on-one conversations, etc. I think first-watch is when people get hit by what a movie is not. Second watch, you can accept it for what it is.

I noticed the big disparity between the critic response and viewers' response on RT; and I agree with you that I've seen ratings assessments that seem misapplied, where they assign a pos/neg value to someone's review where one had not been explicitly given. Also, it seemed pretty fashionable to cream this movie in the reviews; I very much felt like people were just looking to take shots at it.

I dunno. we disagree on some stuff. I found the insertion of the Justice League material heavy-handed, from a writing POV. It didn't feel organic to me at all. I didn't even feel it was necessary, honestly. And the dream stuff emotionally seemed to come out of left-field, kind of like Jackson's take on Galadriel's "All green and glowy" scene in Fellowship of the Ring where he completely overdoes the effects; even knowing the mythos, I found it confusing and disruptive to the narrative but I guess they are plugging things for later. To me, it came across very much by feel as something tossed in after the original script was done, it didn't mesh well.

Anyway, I plan to watch it again regardless.

----

Suicide Squad is something I've been looking forward to; but what I find interesting is the scramble after BvS came out to "add more humorous elements" to Suicide Squad based on responses to BvS.

Which raises the question of "Why the hell didn't they make SS funnier to start with?" I mean, the topical matter is very much the kind that would be humorous to begin with, and the trailer even focused on this. it's not something that should have been an afterthought, it should have been part of the movie concept to start with -- and I think it was even conceived as DC's answer to Guardians of the Galaxy anyway.

I see DC scrambling way too much, they're too much the tail on the dog and don't seem to have a clear sense of what they want. So either they don't guide something enough up front to be confident in their product and/or they seem to flip out after the fact and overreact to things because they still lack confidence in their product. And I do think they are rushing way too much; I think Marvel has had more solid superhero pics in recent years than DC, and then those things are building towards the big universe. DC seemed to have very little in recent years until Nolan's spin on Batman; nothing else seemed to really do well with the fan base, and people had mixed feelings about MoS. I guess their TV properties like Flash and Green Arrow and Gotham have done okay...

 

[Domino]

I want Zach Snyder and Ben Affleck to be forced into a mutual extinction event, hopefully involving old leaky TNT and a remote island with no toilets.

 

[Mal12345]

I started reading a fan review at RT and ran across this right away:
"In terms of spectacle and action Batman v Superman mostly delivers the goods, but in terms of narrative excellence, it is simultaneously plodding and just plain not good enough for these classic characters. Ben Affleck does make a good Batman and gives a great performance, but I did not really like this interpretation of Batman. I prefer my Batman with morals and not a vigilante who does not care anymore."

Whut? Did we watch two different movies?

 

[Totenkindly]

This was rather cool.

Sad thing is the body model is that sports guy that died last year (I think the guy who died in the trainyard? Am I connecting the right person here?)

Anyway... I thought the replica in film looked pretty good. Kind of eerie. They should give one to Michael Shannon, so he can stick it in his bed when he stays over at a hotel and freak out the maid.

I started reading a fan review at RT and ran across this right away:
"In terms of spectacle and action Batman v Superman mostly delivers the goods, but in terms of narrative excellence, it is simultaneously plodding and just plain not good enough for these classic characters. Ben Affleck does make a good Batman and gives a great performance, but I did not really like this interpretation of Batman. I prefer my Batman with morals and not a vigilante who does not care anymore."

Whut? Did we watch two different movies?

I'm getting the impression the viewer base is so diverse on films like this (e.g., with casual viewers versus hard core fan boys versus actual film critics who see a ton of films a year and have become jaded + more) that these kinds of conflict responses are unavoidable.

 

[Mal12345]

This was rather cool.

Sad thing is the body model is that sports guy that died last year (I think the guy who died in the trainyard? Am I connecting the right person here?)

Anyway... I thought the replica in film looked pretty good. Kind of eerie. They should give one to Michael Shannon, so he can stick it in his bed when he stays over at a hotel and freak out the maid.



I'm getting the impression the viewer base is so diverse on films like this (e.g., with casual viewers versus hard core fan boys versus actual film critics who see a ton of films a year and have become jaded + more) that these kinds of conflict responses are unavoidable.

There were hardcore fans who loved the film, and those who don't care and simply went with the mob's opinion. But in the review I quoted, the reviewer is claiming that Batman is portrayed without morals, and as a non-vigilante who doesn't care anymore. But the precise reason he is going after Superman is that he has morals, that he is a vigilante, and that he does care. This is obvious in the scene where Batman is explaining his reasons for wanting to kill Superman. So I'm not focusing on the reviewer here, I'm focusing on the review and its facts. The reviewer is making up facts that don't exist in order to criticize them. It doesn't matter if the reviewer is a fan or not.

 

[Cellmold]

 

[Tellenbach]

I liked it but it could have been improved with some character development and a better plot.

The positives:

1) Great special effects and lots of action
2) Wonder Woman's fight scenes looked great
3)

that scene in the Capital was terrific. Bye bye senator Leahy.

The negatives:

1) We're never told why Lex hates Superman or what his motivation is because there is zero character development.
2) Some minor plot holes:

Are we to understand that Supes monitors Lois 24/7 and that he's able to rescue her within seconds every single time? So the Kryptonians have a law banning genetic experiments, but the computer programming can be overriden with a mere question? No failsafes at all? Wouldn't inhaling the kryptonite dust have a much more lasting effect on Supes? Batman wants to lure Doomsday back to Gotham because that's where the weapon is? Really Bats? The military lets Luthor have access to alien technology and an alien specimen without any military supervision? Batman doesn't deal the death blow because he said "Martha"?

 

[Mal12345]

I liked it but it could have been improved with some character development and a better plot.

The positives:

1) Great special effects and lots of action
2) Wonder Woman's fight scenes looked great
3)

that scene in the Capital was terrific. Bye bye senator Leahy.

The negatives:

1) We're never told why Lex hates Superman or what his motivation is because there is zero character development.
2) Some minor plot holes:

Are we to understand that Supes monitors Lois 24/7 and that he's able to rescue her within seconds every single time? So the Kryptonians have a law banning genetic experiments, but the computer programming can be overriden with a mere question? No failsafes at all? Wouldn't inhaling the kryptonite dust have a much more lasting effect on Supes? Batman wants to lure Doomsday back to Gotham because that's where the weapon is? Really Bats? The military lets Luthor have access to alien technology and an alien specimen without any military supervision? Batman doesn't deal the death blow because he said "Martha"?

Most of those aren't plot-holes. The reason Lex hates Supes is an obscurity not answered, but it's not a plot-hole. The answer however is that Superman caused Lex to lose all his hair. Lex wants to kill Supes for causing him to lose his hair. This event occurred when they were both children. Since Luthor has hair in the movie's beginning, it means the producers don't understand or perhaps even care about the Lex Luthor origin story. But it's not a plot-hole.

I don't know the answer to the question of creating Doomsday. It seems like a plot-hole if your question is valid.

Does the question of Supes inhaling the Kryptonite dust really matter? Perhaps he exhaled it. Perhaps he didn't inhale any.

"Batman wants to lure Doomsday back to Gotham because that's where the weapon is? Really Bats?" Yes, really. Not a plot-hole.

"The military lets Luthor have access to alien technology and an alien specimen without any military supervision?" Yeah. Luthor apparently has some pull in government as is proved in the movie. Not a plot-hole either way.

'Batman doesn't deal the death blow because he said "Martha"?' Yes, both of their mothers just happen to be named "Martha." Batman's mother was killed in the incident at the beginning of the movie. That's why showing the Batman origin story was so important although many people thought it wasn't necessary.

 

[Mal12345]

Didn't Luthor say somewhere in this movie that the reason he hates Superman is that Superman has power and Lex doesn't? I think I remember seeing that.

 

[Mal12345]

Best comment I've read yet (found on youtube): "I think, first and foremost, there is no accounting for taste. I personally really enjoyed the movie, precisely because I liked the theoretical framework of the story; i.e. the question of whether god is almighty/good and then applying that to superman. I think, that that is the main aspect of the story and it went over most other people's heads. Considering that the entire arc of suspense was actually based on these kind of philosophical questions and that the fractured kind of editing and rough narrative style reflected this philosophical question, unless you were able to discern it when watching, which actually required more of an active thought process from the viewer, the main problem with the reception of the film was that it was too demanding of an audience, that was expecting an entirely different kind of film. I personally feel that from a stylistic and formal perspective the film was original and cohesive and also really fun to watch."

 

[Mal12345]

So expecting one thing while getting quite another (in this case, for just the first hour of a movie) does not render it a bad movie.

 

[Tellenbach]

Affleck did a good job as Batman but you sometimes wonder if Batman's decisions were Bruce Wayne's or Ben Affleck's (this is not a fault of the actor but the writer).

 

[Mal12345]

A lot of people trust the Tomatometer to give an accurate idea of movie reviews. A lot of people need to change their methodology.

 

[Mal12345]

A friend of mine, who has been saying for years that he likes Rottentomato, just told me in an email that a Batman movie (he didn't say which one) got an 80% audience rating on RT before the movie even came out. He said it was based one reviews using words like "I can't wait for this movie to come out!"

 

[Totenkindly]

A lot of people trust the Tomatometer to give an accurate idea of movie reviews. A lot of people need to change their methodology.

The first mistake is that people might assume the percentage to be a direct reflection of the movie quality, but it just describes the percentage that gave the movie a positive (versus negative) review. Even with a 90% rating on RT, the movie itself might have just BARELY been a positive review from all the reviews and still garner a 90%.

But yeah, then sometimes it's clear the way someone calculates whether a review was good or bad can be in error.