Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

[Bruinsfan]

I would do a Snoopy dance if this film pulled a John Carter and it were just Snyder and Goyer that would get the heave-ho, but I'm pretty sure Henry Cavill would also be thrown out with the bathwater. I really liked his performance despite my objections to the Man of Steel script, and would hate to see his career torpedoed at this point.

[Zuleikha]

If I'm reading things correctly, the audience rating for Dawn of Justice is 86% (coming from 118,280 audience ratings). I'm wondering if there may be a strong split between critics' responses and audience responses. I've always wondered about whether MoS was really all that disliked since IIRC it made a pile of money and advance tickets sales for Dawn of Justice were strong. 

 

So if Dawn of Justice does well with the audience, I think DC will just ignore the mixed critical reviews (and the reviews are mixed, not across-the-board negative). 

[Matt K]

If I'm reading things correctly, the audience rating for Dawn of Justice is 86% (coming from 118,280 audience ratings). I'm wondering if there may be a strong split between critics' responses and audience responses. I've always wondered about whether MoS was really all that disliked since IIRC it made a pile of money and advance tickets sales for Dawn of Justice were strong. 

 

I would have been honestly surprised if the audience ratings were poor at this point (ETA: Even the new Fantastic 4 got good early reviews).  The majority of people seeing the movie early and posting reviews are generally biased in favor of said movie.  MoS actually had good reviews leading into its premiere.  It was only a week or so later that the bad reviews and word of mouth started pouring in.  And yes, word of mouth and not making Avengers money did kill MoS (the fact that WB made massive changes to turn MoS 2 into this proves that point).

 

Now it's possible that WB has a Transformers on their hands, a bad movie that makes a lot of money and so they keep making them.  But my guess would be it'd have to make Star Wars (TFA) money to pull that off.  From what I've read WB, unlike Disney, did not manage to keep costs down for this movie (although even DIsney has had to spend more because of adding so many name actors) so to actually be successful financially it has to hit a homerun.  Thor money or even Antman money wouldn't cut it.

 

ETA: I dug a bit deeper and MoS cost about $225 million and brought in $668 million.  Supposedly the costs for BvS are about double that, $410 million (although wikipedia reports the budget to be $250 mil, which seems unlikely, costing only $25 million more than MoS while adding a bunch of new characters and I imagine none of the MoS actors took a pay cut).  

 

For comparison, Avengers 2 cost only $279.9 million while bringing in "only" $1.405 billion.

 

That said, Green Lantern was a flop, budget of at least $200 million (as they are sources stating it was closer to $300 mil) and Box office $220 million.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Matt K

[Morrigan2575]

I saw a Deadline article (i think it was Deadline) that said BvS will need to make $800 Million to be successful (which doesn't seem like a difficult prospect for a movie like this).  I believe that article said BvS cost $250 million to make and another $150 million in marketing. Trying to find it now.

 

Sorry it was Variety not Deadline - http://variety.com/2016/film/news/wb-batman-v-superman-faces-high-expectations-1201729887/

Edited March 23, 2016 by Morrigan2575

[Matt K]

AV Club review, which bashed the movie on it's own merits, no comparisons to Marvel.  Love the title of the article

 

http://www.avclub.com/review/batman-v-superman-dawn-justice-inelegant-its-title-234188

[Matt K]

I saw a Deadline article (i think it was Deadline) that said BvS will need to make $800 Million to be successful (which doesn't seem like a difficult prospect for a movie like this).  I believe that article said BvS cost $250 million to make and another $150 million in marketing. Trying to find it now.

 

Sorry it was Variety not Deadline - http://variety.com/2016/film/news/wb-batman-v-superman-faces-high-expectations-1201729887/

$800 mil seems reasonable but at the lower end of the range.  Someone in the AV Club comments pointed out that Amazing Spiderman 2 had a budget of $255 mil and brought in $709 mil and had similar reviews to BvS and was a big flop.  Would an extra $90 mil turn a big flop into a success?  I don't know, but I wouldn't want to make it a base for a bunch of other movies unless it did really well (at least financially).  I'm thinking of how Avengers 2 made less than Avengers 1 (but still $1.4 bil) so there's at least a possible drop off in viewers for subsequent movie.

[benteen]

DC showed me how poor their commitment to quality was when they allowed a piece of crap like Green Lantern to be released.  It was a big deal for them to finally get out a major non-Superman/non-Batman superhero their own movie and they allowed a shitty movie to be released, killing that franchise.  It won't be a surprise to me if this movie is a bad one given how badly a job they have done with their non-Nolan superhero properties.

[Zuleikha]

MoS actually had good reviews leading into its premiere.  It was only a week or so later that the bad reviews and word of mouth started pouring in.  And yes, word of mouth and not making Avengers money did kill MoS (the fact that WB made massive changes to turn MoS 2 into this proves that point).

 

But a lot of people also still liked it. I know it's a polarizing film, but it's not a Fantastic Four, which is the way it often gets talked about. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that WB's motivation for BvS instead of MoS 2 had as much to do with wanting to commit to a DCCU as the critical response to MoS. They didn't ditch Snyder, who's generally considered the vision/problem behind MoS, and it sounds like they went full steam ahead with the general tone/approach of MoS. If BvS makes the money they want, I think they'll just start ignoring critical reception.

 

Now if it doesn't, they'll be making some hard decisions. I think advance ticket sales mean opening weekend should be okay no matter what, but I think a lot will be riding on what happens in the next one. I really want my Wonder Woman and Aquaman movies, so I don't care what gets scaled down or cut as long as those two are still released.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Zuleikha

[jcin617]

AV Club review, which bashed the movie on it's own merits, no comparisons to Marvel.  Love the title of the article

I was just going to link that review... I mean, I'll still probably go see this, but my expectations are pretty low now.

[stealinghome]

There's no way this movie won't make a bucketload of money even if it's total crap, and be judged a commercial success. The novelty factor of the Big 3 is too high. What I wonder savage critical reviews might affect would be creative vision moving forward. I wonder, if people dislike Snyder's vision, whether they'll go see second- or third-tier character movies they think might have a similar tone.

[Matt K]

Just read the Moviebob review http://moviebob.blogspot.com/2016/03/review-batman-v-superman-dawn-of.html

which was brutal (and if anyone cares, did compare the movies to Disney's output).  ETA: Also this review is full of Spoilers.  Just making sure no one accidently clicks on it would didn't want major portions of the movie spoiled (although reading about them, they sound awful). 

 

Haven't read anything from him since he left The Escapist but he was one of the critics who loved MoS on first viewing and then soured (by that I mean absolutely hated) over time.

There's no way this movie won't make a bucketload of money even if it's total crap, and be judged a commercial success. The novelty factor of the Big 3 is too high. What I wonder savage critical reviews might affect would be creative vision moving forward. I wonder, if people dislike Snyder's vision, whether they'll go see second- or third-tier character movies they think might have a similar tone.

I know I'm staying away from the DC movies despite having some interest in some of the characters (like WW and initially SS, before I read how they butchered some of the characterization). I just don't feel like sitting through a 2-3 hour movie that's unrelenting grimdark.  

Edited March 23, 2016 by Matt K

[Dandesun]

Wow. MovieBob is really focused on the ass in that review... in the angriest way possible. A third of the way through I was thinking 'you could probably have written an equally scathing review without all of the shit-fire/rectum-shredding/scrotum analogies.'

 

And yes, he gives the whole movie away.

[Matt K]

Wow. MovieBob is really focused on the ass in that review... in the angriest way possible. A third of the way through I was thinking 'you could probably have written an equally scathing review without all of the shit-fire/rectum-shredding/scrotum analogies.'

 

And yes, he gives the whole movie away.

I actually skipped over a few of those parts but wow that was a lot of vitriol.  I'm not sure the movie quite deserved that much hate (especially since I'm not going to see it), but I guess when you're a fan of the property seeing it butchered over 2.5 hours, especially with poor direction and editing and writing will put you in a bad mood.  

 

That said, he makes some pretty good point especially with regard to things like

Lois Lane puts the kryptonite spear into the water and then drowns trying to retrieve it minutes later sounds awful

which sounds awful but not surprising that there's poor directing/editing/writing in a Zach Snyder movie.  Or something like

  Lex Luthor trying to make people drink his piss?

which sounds both terrible and silly and completely tone deaf for this movie, like someone doesn't understand how to properly have moments of levity.  Honestly from reading these reviews the movie just sounds pretty boring.  Essentially 2 hour of grimdark posturing with a bit of action at the end.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Matt K

[MarkHB]

Wow, I've never heard of that MovieBob guy, but he's brutal (and he does indeed give the whole thing away),  As I said, I enjoyed the movie, and for the record I enjoyed MoS as well.  So far as one particular spoiler that was referenced here goes,

the "jar of piss" isn't a "major plot point".  At one point in the film, Senator Finch (who is far from being Lex's dupe or pet senator) tells Lex, "you can put pig piss in a jar and call it Granny's Peach Tea if you want, but I'm still not gonna drink it."  At the Superman hearing, such a jar appears on the Senator's desk as a message from Lex that, essentially, she's fucked.

[Ruby25]

And here we go.  DC will never win in this scenario.  If their movies are tonally different from Marvel's, they'll be called "too dark" or "too grim" or "joyless".  But if they use bright, saturated colors and quippy one-liners, they'll be "copying Marvel".

 

I disagree with this entirely. I think there's a way to do light and funny without seeming like Marvel. If anyone watches The Flash on the CW, that is exactly the kind of tone that they should be using for some of these DC heroes- that show is fun, but the emotions are genuine and the feelings are strong with the characters.

 

Marvel's is not. It's a bunch of snark but the characters are fundamentally shallow (except maybe for the first Iron Man, but that's kinda disappeared now), and I can't even remember the things that happen to them in the Avengers movies for example.

 

Another example might be the way J.J. Abrams approaches his Star Trek and Star Wars universes. It's light, but there's something real and emotional there too, far more than anything in the Marvel movies.

[VCRTracking]

I disagree. Marvel movies may not have big operatic, emotional moments but there are little moments in them that have humanity.

Edited March 24, 2016 by VCRTracking

[millennium]

The reviews are disheartening.  Many of have a whiff of schadenfreude so I don't know reliable they are.  

 

Each reviewer can't seem to resist spoiling little details which I find disturbing such as

Batman literally brands criminals with a bat symbol and Bruce Wayne is portrayed as a "borderline alcoholic."  So I guess this is just another iteration of Batman-as-functional-nutjob, a trope that disrespects decades of Batman as level-headed tee-totaller.

 

Now I'm glad I didn't buy advance tickets or have to face the opening weekend crowds.

I FUCKING HATE Affleck and Snyder for making me hate Batman.
 

 

 

You just summed up my esteem for Frank Miller.

Edited March 24, 2016 by millennium

[MarkHB]

Just a reminder: spoiler tags will no longer be necessary after 8:30 Pm Eastern Time tonight. We're in Daylight Savings Time now so that's UTC -04:00, or just ask Google what time it is in New York if you aren't sure.

[GHScorpiosRule]

The reviews are disheartening.  Many of have a whiff of schadenfreude so I don't know reliable they are.  

 

Each reviewer can't seem to resist spoiling little details which I find disturbing such as

Batman literally brands criminals with a bat symbol and Bruce Wayne is portrayed as a "borderline alcoholic."  So I guess this is just another iteration of Batman-as-functional-nutjob, a trope that disrespects decades of Batman as level-headed tee-totaller.

 

<snip>

 

You just summed up my esteem for Frank Miller.

 

 

No lie. I saw RED when I read that about Bruce. Because nothing could be further than the truth.

 

Frank is right up there. I've never liked him, and his pompous ass self proclaiming that Supes and Bats should hate each other; they shouldn't be friends.

 

Bite Me, Frank.

 

It's why I've never read his graphic novels. I may have skimmed Batman Returns, though.  But that's a rant that belongs in another thread.

[Yokosmom]

Well, I feel kind of stupid now, having run out and bought an advance ticket for Friday night.  Will have to see how it goes.  NY Times critic gave a damning review too.

[Matt K]

Each reviewer can't seem to resist spoiling little details which I find disturbing such as

Batman literally brands criminals with a bat symbol and Bruce Wayne is portrayed as a "borderline alcoholic."  So I guess this is just another iteration of Batman-as-functional-nutjob, a trope that disrespects decades of Batman as level-headed tee-totaller.

 

The thing that got me about the brand is that the reviews seem to indicate that Batman knows this will get the guy killed in prison.  That's so not true to the character.

I'm not sure I'd blame Affleck because this sounds like a mess across the board.  I'd put the majority of the blame in the writer (even knowing Affleck had a hand touching up the script as you can't polish a turd).

Edited March 24, 2016 by Matt K

[millennium]

The thing that got me about the brand is that the reviews seem to indicate that Batman knows this will get the guy killed in prison.  That's so not true to the character.

I'm not sure I'd blame Affleck because this sounds like a mess across the board.  I'd put the majority of the blame in the writer (even knowing Affleck had a hand touching up the script as you can't polish a turd).

 

I agree, but the precedent

for a passive kill is found in Nolan's Batman, who deliberately did nothing to save Ra's Al Ghul from being killed in the train wreck,   That too was entirely out of character.

[JessePinkman]

This is my favorite review title so far: ‘Batman v Superman’ a primal, endless scream

[MarkHB]

Well, I feel kind of stupid now, having run out and bought an advance ticket for Friday night.  Will have to see how it goes.  NY Times critic gave a damning review too.

 

That one was weird; it seemed like he was most irked at it for being a big, expensive tentpole designed to make lots of money and start a franchise.

[nobodyyoucare]

That one was weird; it seemed like he was most irked at it for being a big, expensive tentpole designed to make lots of money and start a franchise.

The reviewer is just engaging in hipster snark. But if this movie bombs like a turd hitting the deep end of the toilet bowl causing a splash to hit the ass cheeks, then the plans for the DC cinematic universe will be burned in a rite to exorcise the stink from WB, Any films already done like Wonder Woman will be straight to video. But it could also join The Day the Clown Cried in the secret film vault of the library of congress to not be shown for decades or if ever. . 

 

 

 

Now it's possible that WB has a Transformers on their hands, a bad movie that makes a lot of money and so they keep making them.  But my guess would be it'd have to make Star Wars (TFA) money to pull that off.  

Transformers like a lot of crap action films got money and sequels due to Asian audiences who don't understand english and watch horrible subtitles by default to LOL at the movie. 

 

I would do a Snoopy dance if this film pulled a John Carter and it were just Snyder and Goyer that would get the heave-ho, but I'm pretty sure Henry Cavill would also be thrown out with the bathwater. I really liked his performance despite my objections to the Man of Steel script, and would hate to see his career torpedoed at this point.

Hey don't diss John Carter. That movie was actually decent. Mars dog was awesome! If it had a marketing dept that wasn't sabotaged by a Disney exec who hated any movie dealing with the word Mars the movie would have done a lot better. 

 

If I'm reading things correctly, the audience rating for Dawn of Justice is 86% (coming from 118,280 audience ratings). I'm wondering if there may be a strong split between critics' responses and audience responses. I've always wondered about whether MoS was really all that disliked since IIRC it made a pile of money and advance tickets sales for Dawn of Justice were strong. 

 

So if Dawn of Justice does well with the audience, I think DC will just ignore the mixed critical reviews (and the reviews are mixed, not across-the-board negative). 

Keep in mind the audience for the premiere is comprised of those that would see this movie anyway since DC/WB announced it would lead to the Justice League film. 

Edited March 24, 2016 by nobodyyoucare

[Bruinsfan]

Hey don't diss John Carter. That movie was actually decent. Mars dog was awesome! If it had a marketing dept that wasn't sabotaged by a Disney exec who hated any movie dealing with the word Mars the movie would have done a lot better.

Oh, I quite liked the movie myself, and would be thrilled if I thought this one was going to be as coherent and entertaining. But it was the biggest box office bomb in living memory, racking up debt on a scale that's usually only seen in stock market crashes. And it saw Taylor Kitsch go from borderline A-list Hollywood leading man to a supporting role on a failed HBO series that was one step up from gay porn.

 

Hmmm, I think I may be changing my mind about protectiveness of Henry Cavill's career in light of that consideration...

[revbfc]

I really liked it. Having said that, here are the things that I didn't like:

-Not enough Wonder Woman.

-Lex was more mentally unstable than a calm, collected criminal mastermind I'm used to.

-Doomsday looked like Abomination from Incredible Hulk.

-Clark Kent being declared dead at the same time as Superman? Not a good choice. Why not have Clark go "missing" or something like that?

What I liked:

-For DC fans there are so many Easter Eggs.

-The whole thing felt like an insane graphic novel brought to life.

-The Batcave is ridiculous. Holy goodness it was implausible, but it was so cool I didn't care.

-$250 million? I believe it. That money was on the screen. The only corners cut might have been on rendering Doomsday.

-Ben Affleck is an amazing Bruce Wayne/Batman.

-I want to see this again.

For the Marvel people, I'll just say that it wasn't as thrilling as the Avengers, but better than any Thor movie or Age Of Ultron.

[SeanC]

Okay, so:  I award this movie my prestigious "not that bad" award.

 

It's far from a great movie.  Everything to do with setting up the Justice League movie make Iron Man 2 look like an exemplar of smoothly integrating worldbuilding into the story by comparison.  It's like the plot stops occasionally so that Batman and Wonder Woman can look at YouTube videos for a few minutes at a time, or receive cryptic visions of the future (also, if Lex had all this information, why wasn't he doing anything with it?).  There's some wonky editing in places.  I don't understand why Superman can hear whenever Lois is in danger but can't find his mom even though she's in the same city, nor why Lex's minions don't kill Martha the second it becomes clear that somebody is here to rescue her (why keep her alive?).  I expect the film's version of Lex will be very divisive; Eisenberg's tic-heavy performance is a bit much in places, and doesn't remind me much of the version of Lex I tend to prefer.  For much of the film I was wondering why he was even trying to kill Superman, since the movie never really offered much of an explanation for that, but from his final scene he's apparently just Darkseid's witting(?) lacky -- though that it turn is kind of a questionable choice for Superman's main villain.

 

The rest of the movie is, on the whole, a fairly competent execution of what it's trying to do.  A lot of people will take a dislike on principle to a story about thuggish douchebag Batman becoming obsessed with killing Superman, which I can understand; that said, it tells that story fairly well, though them immediately becoming allies feels a bit like a turn on a dime.  I like Superman and Lois' relationship, and Wonder Woman, while she doesn't get much to do here, looks cool.

 

How much time did they have to spend rehearsing the blocking in that Lois bathtub scene to keep from showing her nipples, I wonder?

[MarkHB]

I'm sure Amy Adams had some kind of covering in that scene. :)

[anyanka323]

I would do a Snoopy dance if this film pulled a John Carter and it were just Snyder and Goyer that would get the heave-ho, but I'm pretty sure Henry Cavill would also be thrown out with the bathwater. I really liked his performance despite my objections to the Man of Steel script, and would hate to see his career torpedoed at this point.

I think Snyder butchered Watchman, one of the greatest contained comic story lines and graphic novels.  It should have been adapted into a miniseries rather than a movie.  I think if Snyder gets dumped from the DCEU, then a reboot of Watchmen as a miniseries would be a great start.  I think that and Sandman would be great fits for HBO.

[scarynikki12]

This wasn't bad.  I do have some negatives but they're all on the production side.  I thought the pacing was inconsistent and the Doomsday visuals left a lot to be desired. 

 

I thought Affleck was fine as Bats, Cavill is still my future husband, and the basic story worked for me despite my intense hatred of The Dark Knight Returns.  But let's put all of that aside to focus on the important thing:

 

WONDER WOMAN!!!!

 

 

SHE WAS AMAZING!!!  She was amazing as Diana the mysterious woman who pulled one over on Bruce.  She was amazing as Wonder Woman, joining the battle to defeat Doomsday.  And I love that, somewhere behind the scenes, they clearly knew what they had because she got the "And Now We Give You Joy And Awesome" music intro.  The only applause in my theater was for her.  My hope ever since last year's Comic Con was that she would steal the movie and she totally did.  I cannot wait for her solo feature.

[Advance35]

Well I have to disagree with the critics.  I really enjoyed the movie.   Again there were some things I wish had been tightened up, for lack of a better term, but on the whole I thought it was a great movie and I hope they get to expand the Movie DCU.   I know some don't' like the darkness but I've always considered the DCU to be darker then the MU, so it's appropriate as far as I'm concerned.

[Lantern7]

I'm giving it a grade of C, and I'm being generous. A Batman who brands his victims, more collateral damage in Metropolis, plot device to turn Zod into Doomsday, Wonder Woman thrown into the mix (not hating her, just feel she's the Colossus/Negasonic Teenage Warhead of BvS), dream sequences that tie into upcoming movies (was that Flash trying to reach Bruce? Cyborg? I couldn't tell), and I think "MOURNING" was misspelled on the front page of the Daily Planet. Yes, I'm a nitpicker, and I probably should have waited until the movie came out on DVD to get it from the library for free, but I want to stay abreast of the memes to come.

 

Anybody else think there should have been a scene where Warner Brothers presents Frank Miller with sacks of money? It's okay to crib Dark Knight Returns, but the movie was sampling it like crazy.

 

Not hating Affleck or Gadot. Somewhat impressed that Superman/Clark is "dead." Warner Bros can do things a lot better, movie-wise. Don't they see the competition, be it Disney or Fox? Or have they seen their own shows, which manage to lighten up on the darkness for the most part? That's especially true with The Flash.

 

At least there's still Suicide Squad to look forward to seeing. Bad sign: The projector was down when I got to the theater, and we had audio only for that trailer.

[Kromm]

So not surprised people think this is a piece of shit, and the reviews are matching that.

 

If we're lucky, somehow WB can do a 180 and get Zack Snyder out before he ruins the other films in production. But I bet they won't.

[revbfc]

So not surprised people think this is a piece of shit, and the reviews are matching that.

If we're lucky, somehow WB can do a 180 and get Zack Snyder out before he ruins the other films in production. But I bet they won't.

It wasn't horrible, it was actually really cool. I read the bad reviews and they don't match up with what I saw. I think it might just be a difference in expectations. There were missteps, but not nearly as many as the Force Awakens had (I know, apples and oranges).

[Kromm]

I don't know why people expect the DC movies to be anything like the Marvel movies, I find that expectation to be beyond silly because the characters are so fundamentally different.

The DC characters and universe is different from the Marvel, it's true.  But that doesn't mean that the most successful/entertaining versions of the DC characters and universe are anything like what's been put in these shitty movies.

 

All one has to do is look at the DCAU to see how wrong these films are. DCAU is in fact even better than the Marvel movies in tone and character implementation. It's about respecting the origins of the characters, and reinventing intelligently rather than in some lame attempts to make characters into some grittier, edgier versions. MCU has done some lame reinventions themselves, but at least the tone shows they realize that comic book characters are supposed to be FUN. DCAU was all about that too. The Synder movies?  Amazingly clueless about this.

And the characters DO have to be relatable to real human beings, even if the point of the movies is to show how they aren't that. Also some things that DO work in comic books, like smashing cities to bits, just comes off as crass and cold in movies--for example mass destruction in the fights. Even Marvel is facing that problem--which I suppose is supposed to be part of the point behind their Civil War movie, but even that may only feed that feeling rather than "solve" it. 

It wasn't horrible, it was actually really cool. I read the bad reviews and they don't match up with what I saw. I think it might just be a difference in expectations. There were missteps, but not nearly as many as the Force Awakens had (I know, apples and oranges).

I'm not the biggest fan of Force Awakens either. So many mistakes--it's better than the prequels, but we know that's a low bar.

But Force Awakens is different in that people were SO hungry for new Star Wars content that they got super-forgiving. "Better" was enough to translate to "awesome" in a lot of minds, and it's stuck in their heads that way now, IMO.

I don't think the DC movies have that luxury. Some people may indeed be forgiving, but there's such a glut of Superhero content (including better done DC content on TV) that the bar is raised. 

Snyder is like Michael Bay. He makes cold, soulless films that operate on the principle (admittedly a proven one) that people will just show up for smashing and explosions.  And sadly they do.

[revbfc]

Snyder is like Michael Bay. He makes cold, soulless films that operate on the principle (admittedly a proven one) that people will just show up for smashing and explosions. And sadly they do.

Disagree. Michael Bay cares about characters a whole lot less than Snyder. Snyder also cares about source material more than Bay.

On a related note, have you seen BvS, Kromm?

Edited March 25, 2016 by revbfc

[BatmanBeatles]

Do they (Batman and Superman) actually bond over the fact that their mom's have the same name?

[revbfc]

Do they (Batman and Superman) actually bond over the fact that their mom's have the same name?

Kinda.

[SeanC]

Apparently Lois' photographer in her first scene was supposed to be Jimmy Olsen, and originally to be played by Jesse Eisenberg.

 

I didn't hate this movie, but this whole article pushes me further in that direction.  Like, you're telling me we could have had a traditional intimidating Lex Luthor played by Bryan Cranston, but instead we got whatever the hell Eisenberg was doing?  This article is clearly meant to be a cool bit of trivia, but it's actually a catalog of a terrible decision-making process.

 

And to top it off, the "joke" loses both of the things that were meant to make it funny/shocking, since Jimmy isn't named or played by a recognizable actor.

[tanita]

IDK, it's not a disaster to be honest.

 

The only REAL problem in my eyes is the HORRIBLE editing - total SHIT. The transitions between scenes are hurrendes, not to mention that the movie kept jumping back to some of them, it would cut when it got interesting and lost steam because of it. I hated the Batman origin (we have seen it all before - and seriously, did we need to see his parents getting killed twice in the same movie) and that flying with the bats scenes - uhhhh - that screams deleted scene.  Also, I HATED how the ending was weirdly cut - funeral, then Bats and Lex and then back at the fureral. Like WTF.

 

The acting was great across the board, with maybe Cavill being a bit weaker then the rest. I actually like Eisenberg's Lex a lot. Maybe a bit too manic at times (that were the only moments he took me out of the scene - it's clear he has a mental disorder, but maybe a bit to Joker-esque) but he was entertaining and never dull. Godot was fantastic, she is Wonder Woman. Can't wait for her movie.

 

The first hour/hour and a half really needed a good action/fight scene. It was rather slower then the rest.

 

Also, the movie had to many lovey-dovey Lois and Kal-El moments for my taste - and I'm a girl. And she was "damsel in distress" at least 3 times in one movie. OVERKILL.

 

It's hardly perfect, but overall it was enjoyable as hell.

 

A sold B score from me.

Edited March 25, 2016 by tanita

[GHScorpiosRule]

Apparently Lois' photographer in her first scene was supposed to be Jimmy Olsen, and originally to be played by Jesse Eisenberg.

I didn't hate this movie, but this whole article pushes me further in that direction. Like, you're telling me we could have had a traditional intimidating Lex Luthor played by Bryan Cranston, but instead we got whatever the hell Eisenberg was doing? This article is clearly meant to be a cool bit of trivia, but it's actually a catalog of a terrible decision-making process.

And to top it off, the "joke" loses both of the things that were meant to make it funny/shocking, since Jimmy isn't named or played by a recognizable actor.

Noooo!!! Et tu Sean C??? I was hoping you would say you were right to say you were going to hate it!

[Advance35]

Some people may indeed be forgiving, but there's such a glut of Superhero content (including better done DC content on TV) that the bar is raised.

 

 

I can't speak about "Supergirl" but are "Arrow" and "The Flash" held in high regard, I gave up both because I found them god awful from a writing and (in some instances) acting standpoint (especially The Flash, ugh).

 

I do think one of the highlights of this movie was Wonder Woman/Diana.   I loved seeing that picture of her and Chris Pine from "1918" and it has me really looking forward to her movie.   And it really has me curious since she said she turned her back on man kinds world almost 100 years ago, I can't wait to find out why.   

 

Despite Clark's fate, I thought the film was optimistic in the sense that Batman/Bruce seems to have had his dedication to Heroism reignited and Diana is coming out of isolation to do what she can to help the world.

 

I'd give it a B.

[Raja]

I can't speak about "Supergirl" but are "Arrow" and "The Flash" held in high regard, I gave up both because I found them god awful from a writing and (in some instances) acting standpoint (especially The Flash, ugh).

I do think one of the highlights of this movie was Wonder Woman/Diana. I loved seeing that picture of her and Chris Pine from "1918" and it has me really looking forward to her movie. And it really has me curious since she said she turned her back on man kinds world almost 100 years ago, I can't wait to find out why.

Despite Clark's fate, I thought the film was optimistic in the sense that Batman/Bruce seems to have had his dedication to Heroism reignited and Diana is coming out of isolation to do what she can to help the world.

I'd give it a B.

The Flash is generally held in high regard. Arrow has been lightened up to more match its younger TV sibling.

Wonder Woman seems as powerful as Superman I wonder why she would need a Howling Commandos type team like a Captain America would?

Having read the graphic novel it reminds me of Star Trek starting with lift head and scream Khan then making a movie with the flip. But I liked it. Slot it just above The Age of Ultron and the only Batman movie that feels fun.

[JessePinkman]

Apparently Lois' photographer in her first scene was supposed to be Jimmy Olsen, and originally to be played by Jesse Eisenberg.

Snyder's quotes read like something from an Onion article.

[Bruinsfan]

I just watched my recording of Snyder's appearance on Last Call, where he was gleefully chortling about all the ways Superman would—not could, mind you, but WOULD—brutally kill Batman in a fair fight. Melting his face off with heat vision, sucking all the air out of the room to suffocate him, etc. Exhibit A of how he miserably fails to understand what the concept of heroism is about at every opportunity. Every time I see footage of the man I'm torn between the urges to stuff a handful of Ritalin down his throat or just backhand him with a spiked gauntlet.

[Jewlmc]

This is yet another example of how critics can be useless.

I thought it was good. Not GREAT, but nowhere near the POS that some people are THIRSTY for it to be.

[Lantern7]

Before I turn in for the night, I have to share this. I wouldn't call it movie accurate, since I don't remember Superman having the spit-curl, but it made me laugh.

[Shannon L.]

 

I thought it was good. Not GREAT, but nowhere near the POS that some people are THIRSTY for it to be.

This is how we felt about Man of Steel, so because of the reviews, we won't be spending prime time money on the movie, but will go to a cheaper matinee instead.  Funny, for all the heat they got for casting Ben Affleck, I'm hearing that he's one of the better parts of the movie. Which, if you like Ben, you're thinking "I knew it", but if you don't, then you're probably thinking "Wow, just how bad is this movie?"  :)

 

I happen to like Ben, but this made me giggle: 

 

[Yokosmom]

This is yet another example of how critics can be useless.

I thought it was good. Not GREAT, but nowhere near the POS that some people are THIRSTY for it to be.

 

ITA  I actually thought that the movie was fine.  Not the greatest, maybe, but fine. I liked the acting, even surprisingly, Jesse Eisenberg (he did the best he could with the character as written). Affleck was a great, somewhat older Batman. Gal Gadot gave me hope for the Wonder Woman movie. The script was what kept it from getting from a B to an A+.  It was choppy, had too many flashbacks, and some plot points (Batman's sudden change of heart re Superman, Lex Luther's motivations) were not given the proper attention. And the ending was rather strange, I thought.

 

I like Batman and many of the other superhero characters but am not a fangirl and don't understand the whole Marvel vs DC mindset, as I like both. I think that a lot of people are panning the film because they REALLY hate Snyder and, to a lesser extent, the casting of Affleck and/Eisenberg. Look, it wasn't great, but it's getting reviewed as though its the worst superhero movie EVER, and it isn't anywhere near as bad as that, in my opinion. I think that a lot of folks were actively hoping it would fail before it even came out.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Yokosmom