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 -
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.