Batman VS Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

[anais.butterfly]

When you're being beaten within an inch of your life and you cry out in desperation, you don't use your mother's name. It was a neat moment where it breached Batman's psychology and he suddenly realized he could relate to Superman on some level (And isn't it convenient that they both had Marthas for Moms) but it would have worked just as well to say, "You're letting my mother die!"

I don't think it would have worked. The word 'mother' probably wouldn't mean anything to Batman. At first, I thought that was really stupid, but the more I think about, the more it really works. If Batman's issue with Supes (and Lex's) is that he is a God...what is the one way to make a God human? Give them a mother. And Supes died to. That makes him less godlike.

Also:

Anybody know the big bad that Lexy was referencing at the end?

[Darth Geek]

Also:

Anybody know the big bad that Lexy was referencing at the end?

It's supposed to be Darkseid.

[jonalame]

I have no idea why Zack Snyder, or anyone else, wanted to make this story into a movie, and close examination of the film itself is no help. "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" is one of the most unpleasant, contrived, artificial, cloying experiences I've had at the movies. To call it manipulative would be inaccurate; it has an ambition to manipulate, but fails.


The film stars Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill, who are both wonderful actors (and if you don't believe me, watch the 2002 version of "The Count of Monte Cristo"). Here they are stuck in a story that no actor, however wonderful, however young, should be punished with. They both play a kid with inattentive parents, who decides to go into a cape, free himself of them, and go on a worldwide search to cope with the loss of parents.

This idea is deeply flawed. Children do not lightly separate from their parents - and certainly not on the evidence provided here, where the great parental sin is not being alive. The parents (some Clark Gable-esque guy and MAGG-IE from Walking Dead) have provided little Bruce with what looks like a million-dollar house in a Frank Capra neighborhood, all on dad's salary as a businessman. And, yes, I know that is supposed to be a fantasy, but the business jokes are only the first of several truly awful episodes in this film.

Clark goes into court, where the judge grew up emulating Greta van Sustern, proving without the slightest shadow of a doubt that she should never, ever appear again in public with any material even vaguely inspired by Jody Foster. Clark's case hits the headlines, and since he is such an all-star overachiever, offers pour in from would-be assassins all over the world, leading to an odyssey that takes him from Metropolis, across the bay to Gotham, and back to Metropolis, and maybe Gotham again.

What is the point of all the scenes with the baptismal/communion symbolism? (The victimized audience ranges from punching bag to browbeaten). The scenes all seen as broad, desperate comic caricatures. They are not funny. They are not touching. There is no truth in them. They don't even work as parodies. There is an idiocy here that seems almost intentional, as if the filmmakers plotted to leave anything of interest or entertainment value out of these episodes.

Bruce/Clark are followed on their travels by a mysterious character who appears in many guises. He is the Max Landis, a boy in a man's suit, Heath Ledger's 'The Joker', and a Vanilla Ice hook singer who works in several product plugs.

Funny, thinks the audience; this guy looks familiar. And so he is. All of the manifestations are played by Jesse Eisenberg, who is not funny, or helpful, in any of them.

I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.

I hold it as an item of faith that Zack Snyder is a filmmaker.

"Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" is a bad film - one of the worst movies ever made. It must represent some sort of lapse from which America will recover - possibly sooner than I will.

[RoninFox]

[Darth Geek]

I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.

[Edward J Grug III]

While I think I would likely feel the same way as you, Jon, I don't understand why you went to see it. What did you think it was going to be before you went in?

[ScottotD]

Well at least you're being reasonable about it

[jonalame]

My "review" is just Roger Ebert's review for the movie North with me playing BvS:Mad Libs. Doesn't a lot of it fit, though? I was quite tickled when I was converting it to be relevant to BvS. I bet a few of you already caught that, but just so we're clear. To make up for it, I will give you my honest opinion, not that I think my honest opinion is a currency anyone here has reason to value (and I'll try to do it without too many parenthetical notions.)


I just wanted to see it to see it, Grug. I want to be part of the water-cooler conversation. I want to have an opinion about whatever the zeitgeist is "about" at the moment and share it with like minded individuals. I'm fascinated by movies, good and bad alike. I like to analyze. Why is it good? Why is it bad? What happened between intention and execution? That is part of the reason I'm here, MST3K and what have you. There is material and solid ideas in this movie for four or five good movies, if they had gone down that route, instead it was all a cramped mess.

I liked Cavill. I liked Affleck. I thought all the religious symbolism and reflecting on life's greater meaning and wallowing in the existential mud has no real place in a superhero movie(I wasn't a big fan of this with Nolan's Batman trilogy or Man of Steel or V for Vendetta or Alan Miller's work and so on down the line.) I would like to point out that I am not religious, but I don't mind religious symbolism or subtext whatsoever in any given story, I just found it to be out of place here. Superhero movies should before all else strive to be entertaining; a fun romp one delves into with whimsy and escapism, not a seat on the pew in the bully pulpit. That is why Guardian of the Galaxy struck such a chord, isn't it? It was fun? That is not to say that films can't "have something to say", and they should, but I had enough of the superhero as Messianic figure and the parallels one could draw some time ago. One wants to project themselves onto the hero of the story, right? Why would I want to be any of these miserable characters? A lot of the stuff that gets used seems like a hodge-podge of left over ideas from Watchmen's alternate future.

My real problems with the movie are few, but major. Chiefly, Jesse Eisenberg. He is roughly one third of the movie. Even if the Batman/Superman portions were firing on all cylinders, and they weren't, it would all still hinge on Eisenberg's performance to tie it all together. The man can clearly act and he took a risk, and so did the people involved with the movie in other regards, but that was a risk that resulted in colossal failure. (In my opinion the risk worked for Star Wars and Kylo Ren, apropos of nothing.) In his last scene, where I believe I am supposed to be intimidated in the reveal of the next "Big Bad" villain, my eyes rolled back in my head and I literally guffawed.

Next, the pacing. The first half of the movie is a slog, the second half is chock full of gorgeous cgi overkill, but we only get to see B v S for a few minutes. I would have preferred zero narrative whatsoever and just have them fight like they were lego figures I was smashing together in my hands, rather than have a single moment make the title technically true.

There are many other problems, but those are the two that stick out most at the moment.

I'd like to say something nice about the movie. I genuinely enjoyed the dream like quality that Snyder was able to impose on the film.

[ScottotD]

My "review" is just Roger Ebert's review for the movie North with me playing BvS:Mad Libs.

Oh, that's why I thought it was awful.

[Edward J Grug III]

I just don't understand hate-supporting something. Giving money to something terrible just makes it more likely to be repeated. You've caused more of the thing you hate to exist in the world. Especially doing it in the first week.

I find it frustrating how much of that I see. "well, I went and saw TMNT/Transformers/BvS" etc etc

If that's your thing, if you like it, more power to you. but if you don't like a thing, it seems odd to support it.

[Kete]

I just got back from seeing it, and I really liked it. It certainly has flaws, but overall, I thought it was pretty great. I think that the critics just decided to pile on this one. 30% is not fair at all. This one was at least as good as Man of Steel, and a hundred times better than Superman Returns. I think it deserves somewhere in the 70% range.

[ScottotD]

Yeah, seems a *bit* like John Carter where people just wanted it to be bad and just heap scorn on it

[Edward J Grug III]

I just got back from seeing it, and I really liked it. It certainly has flaws, but overall, I thought it was pretty great. I think that the critics just decided to pile on this one. 30% is not fair at all. This one was at least as good as Man of Steel, and a hundred times better than Superman Returns. I think it deserves somewhere in the 70% range.

Which critics have posted unfair reviews? I've only read about six (mostly from places I tend to trust reviews from), but they all seemed well reasoned.

[Kete]

I just got back from seeing it, and I really liked it. It certainly has flaws, but overall, I thought it was pretty great. I think that the critics just decided to pile on this one. 30% is not fair at all. This one was at least as good as Man of Steel, and a hundred times better than Superman Returns. I think it deserves somewhere in the 70% range.

Which critics have posted unfair reviews? I've only read about six (mostly from places I tend to trust reviews from), but they all seemed well reasoned.

It's those exact 6 that you follow.

[Edward J Grug III]

I didn't make a claim that the reviewers were being unfair, you did.