Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My spoilery thoughts.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS Darn page previews. SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS



Spoileryness done!

I'll chime in too, in spoiler-free fashion. This will probably get *long* because it's stream of consciousness, but could even be longer just because I feel like there's a lot to talk about, and if I get started I'm going to be here for a while (not in a bad way). I'm happy to discuss spoiler-y stuff and particular points behind spoilers in the next couple days.

It's not a perfect film, partially because it's so ambitious. There's a lot of ground to cover -- transitioning from and tying up Man of Steel, introducing this Batman -- and to a lesser degree Wonder Woman and getting you interested in THAT film, laying some groundwork for Justice League, and even starting to introduce the ultimate threat in the DCEU. I think some reviewers are remiss not to give a certain allowance to Snyder knowing how hard this would be for ANY director. Getting down to brass tacks, I think some kind of "B" rating is fair within the film's genre. If you want to argue for a "C", I won't agree, but might acknowledge some of your points. It's not a "D" or "F", and I'll never really understand an argument for those kinds of grades.

The film is probably a little too brisk, and needed more room and time to simmer and breathe (although again, it was a long list of boxes it needed to check). Some unevenness resulted. And it almost requires that you've seen MoS. However, I didn't feel at all like the film was fatally flawed because of this. I'd call it a weakness and leave it at that. It's not an "incoherent mess." I thought the script asked some interesting questions early on. That might have been lost somewhat during the last third of the film, but it wasn't brooding for brooding's sake like some of the reviews would have you believe. It's a world and public still wrestling with the reality of this alien god running around doing stuff, and to me that's a realistic note. *shrug* This aspect of the film is personified in Holly Hunter's character.

Yes, it's a broody Clark/Superman in this film because he's still wrestling with the gak that went down in MoS, the disturbing ways people are acting toward him -- worshipful or terroristic, and some really unfortunate gak that happens during the movie. Something happens in this film that I think would have any reasonable person in his boots questioning whether the whole superhero thing was worth it. And I'd recommend that you believe the reviewers who said Cavill is good in the role...I liked his performance.

Batman/Bruce...I found it reasonably believeable that he'd feel the way he did. He's a damaged, extreme Batman who's been doing his thing for too long without any help or a lot of hope that he even made a difference. Then the Battle of Metropolis happens, he feels the aftermath of that very personally and deeply, and then with a few pushes... Some might not like that he's not THE good guy, or maybe even a good guy throughout the film. But I thought the end showed a Batman fully back on track, if that makes sense. And in a spot where he's the damn best...making plans. Affleck was also good in the role I thought...probably my fave Bruce/Batman to date. Interestingly he was Bruce for most of his screen time, it seemed. Of course, then when he's in the cowl...I dunno, personally I found myself thinking, now THAT is the Batman from the comics...or at least the closest thing that we've seen. Cripes, he actually does detective work! Importantly, I feel like this Batman (and Alfred) was established well enough by this film. I don't need the solo film first before we get JL.

What brings them together rang fairly true to me. Clark has a very good reason for hunting down Bruce, and Bruce...is in a mood. Too much so? If you want to question it, fine, but then see the first bit of my last paragraph. What makes them STOP fighting -- which is ultimately the more important point, right? -- is interesting. It may not ring true to everyone. Again, if you want to call that a potential weakness, that's fine. But I think some spackle was applied to that possible crack just because of the presence of another character in the scene.

Lex. This isn't the scenery-chewing real estate-obsessed Hackman/Spacey Lex, and it isn't the cold, calculating Lex from Smallville either. He isn't as goofy as the trailers might make him seem, but he's a twitchy sonuvagun. Eisenberg went with a "insanity/megalomania simmering hot *just* below the surface" thing. Snyder, Terrio and Eisenberg made some choices there, and not everyone might like them. Personally...I was okay with it. Over-the-top, perhaps, but he's a villain in a comic book movie and there were times I thought Eisenberg was very effective. He and Hunter had a number of scenes together and had good chemistry, I thought.

The rest of the cast was good. Gadot looked good and not out of place like people feared. Obviously, Wonder Woman is revealed and gets some good moments, but stays somewhat mysterious, and they leave a lot for her solo film and had me looking forward to it. Call that a checked box. Amy Adams was good, and Jeremy Irons was a great Alfred...if he had had the screen time that Caine built up over 3 films, I'd probably say that Irons is the best to date. Fishburne didn't have a lot to do in the Perry White role, but I thought he actually had some of the snappiest lines. I even laughed out loud a couple times. My god, it wasn't so humorless as to drain my soul!

The presence of the other JL heroes was IMO very deftly done. Cyborg and Aquaman are in the film, but not in the story...and you'll understand what I mean when you see it. Flash...different thing. Or is it? That's something to talk about behind spoilers.

Visually, the film is pretty darn amazing...different and IMO much better than MoS. The opening scene is IMO an incredibly artistic version of something you've seen before. There's a lot of night stuff -- although Batman is a main player, remember -- but Snyder didn't shoot this with the blue filter like MoS. Colors are noticeably brighter, especially Supes' suit. The fights were pretty great to watch. Hell, just go for that and have fun with that if nothing else floats your boat. The final battle...if you want to say too much CGI or whatever, fine...call that a weakness. I didn't find it to be a fatal flaw, and during that sequence you get to see WW in action, which is a treat and kept me from focusing on how Doomsday looked anyway. They did go somewhere at the very conclusion of that fight that was both obvious, and yet still a little surprising. But what it did was take some of the issues people had with MoS, flip them around and leave things in what might be a more satisfying and appropriate place for some. The "Knightmare" sequence was stunning visually, IMO. I think I read that part was filmed in IMAX? I caught a regular showing, but that would be something to see.

Which kinda leads me to mention that I also enjoyed the easter eggs. Some very subtle, others not so subtle, but something only a DC fan would probably understand. And I'm sure I missed more.

@Compel -- I dunno about your assessment...I think it creates categories that aren't there. I've been a fan of the Superman character for 4 decades. I'm the guy who immediately got excited to see the shattered moon in MoS, knowing that it was the moon that Jax-Ur blew up. I'm the guy who immediately wondered and still wants to ask Goyer or Snyder if Russell Crowe's fighting moves were intended to represent Klurkor. I was the kid who learned in elementary school that other kids would look at you funny if you're playing Superman and bring up Super-Ventriloquism. And I liked this film, don't have deep rooted issues with it, and really want to see it again, because I have a hunch that it's going to shine more the second time through. I'm actually inclined to suggest that people with such issues with some of Snyder's decisions in the last two films really AREN'T as big of a Superman fan as they think they are...it's more likely that they're mega-attached to a certain version of the character at a given point in time. *shrug* He's been different things at different times...I think a "megafan" understands and rolls with that.

Okay, that was crazy long and it's very late. Looking forward to discussing it in the days to come.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
My spoilery thoughts.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS Darn page previews. SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS

Spoiler:

I think it's entirely possible that Lex is under Darkseid's control to an extrent. - He clearly knew more than he was letting on, going by his crazy rant at the end.

Future dude was the Flash. - Who I think was a big miscast. Looks more like indie rockband style dude than a police forensic detective.

The "big things" that would annoy megafans.
While, I wouldn't say Batman really directly kills anyone in the film, except perhaps but blowing up flamethrower dude. But there were *way* too many situations where he pretty much almost certainly was responsible for peoples death. - EG, Batwing machine guns hit the front of a truck, exploding it. He was clearly not shooting at the truck cab, but it's *really* unlikely that anyone there could have survived that explosion.

Part of it does seem intentional though. - The Batman for the majority of the film feels so completely hopeless that he effectively just doesn't care anymore. He's not going to kill someone, but he just doesn't care about the consequences of what the does. - This is highlighted / shown to be intentional by the discussion about the Batman brand being a deathmark.
- Alfred does call him out on it though and, can be assumed to be working on him about this for future films. Plus, the ending does suggest that he's rediscovered 'hope' now.

Incidentally, how the flip did I never notice Martha Kent and Martha Wayne. That was really well done.

Not sure that Lex Luthor knowing *everyones* secrets was the best move though.

I did like the justice league 'videos' though. Kinda tells you the basics of what you need to know without having to delay by going through the whole Marvel style origin movie stuff. I'm looking forward to the Justice League films.

I think the "Lois Lane is key" tends to refer to various interpretations of Superman (Such as in Injustice: Gods Among Us), where Lois is one of Clark's real ties to humanity. Specifically, if she were to ever suffer a violent death, the world would be screwed. Presumably in Justice League, Batman will be faced with a choice at some point to do something like either (A) Save Lois or (B) Defeat Darkseid. In the dream sequence / future, he chooses Option (B), resulting in Lois dying and Clark becoming evil - eg, worse than Darkseid. Whereas, the correct choice is (A), perhaps resulting in Darkseid continuing to be a threat (but temporarily defeated, due to power of friendship), but Superman stays on the line of Truth, Justice and the American way.

Spoileryness done!

It's too late for me to reply to this, but Great Rao, I'm doing it anyway!

Regarding your point about a certain female...



And regarding Lex...

I was pleasantly surprised that I enjoyed this movie as much as I did. I definitely didn't think it was as bad as the reviews had suggested.

For me, parts of the story felt rushed, which is odd to say for a film of its length. Equally, though, other parts seemed to drag. It was a lot of building, and then suddenly stuff happened and the goals changed and it kinda felt like they wanted to introduce sa many characters as possible. Basically, it was a little all over the place at times.

Enjoyed the film a lot. As already said, it's got it's problems, but it had a lot of ground to cover. There were easily 2 films in there. But even the slow parts were enjoyable, particularly if they were concerning Bruce Wayne/Batman. Ben Affleck and Jeremy Irons stole the movie, absolutely top notch.

Leaning between a 4/10 and 5/10. Visually, the film is a Snyder - incredible visuals, loving the slow-motion and then OOOOMPFH cuts, AMAZING soundtrack. Affleck does an awesome acting job and really manages to deliver the angrier Batman, Superman...well, bland as usual.

Anything else is a horrible, horrible mess. The script is a disaster with critical plot points being just ridiculously bad, the teasing of the other JL heroes in YouTube clips style feels horribly tacked on and is done in an extremely bad way (the Cybot scene, what the heck!),



Overall, the movie is awesome to watch for its visuals and the AMAAAAAAZING sound, but it has as much depth as a random Adam Sandler movie, i.e: none. Great visuals, great soundtrack, good actors (with the exception of a terrible Eisenberg miscast), trash writing, trash pacing.

My advice: don't watch it in the cinema, wait for the 30 minutes longer (!) Bluray release and buy the soundtrack in the meantime.

Well hopefully those 30 minutes contain key plot points that ties together the ~2 hour film.

@Compel

@YouTube JL:



To be fair, though, DC really doesn't have as awesome heroes as Marvel. Superman is incredibly boring by concept, Aquaman is...Aquaman, Cybot is lame...Marvel simply has far more vibrant and interesting heroes.

Yea. Barring Batman (and Flash, by virtue of the TV show), I don't find DC all that interesting.

I agree, though. The video introductions felt a lot like "how can we quickly and effortlessly introduce the rest of the characters?" It was ham fisted and smacked of being a last minute idea. Very poorly done.

It's worth saying, it's Cyborg...

I was never much of a Superman fan until I saw the animated film Superman VS The Elite - it pretty much addressed all my issues I had about Superman.

I also particularly enjoyed the Wonder Woman animated film, though I imagine that someone going, "I don't want mythology in my superhero shows" would have issues with it.

Think I'll wait for the digital release on this one.

Granted, Marvel has much deeper pockets than DC nowadays, they're certainly on to a winning formula with the majority of their movies.

How could I forget the most important thing?

 Compel wrote:
It's worth saying, it's Cyborg...

I was never much of a Superman fan until I saw the animated film Superman VS The Elite - it pretty much addressed all my issues I had about Superman.

I also particularly enjoyed the Wonder Woman animated film, though I imagine that someone going, "I don't want mythology in my superhero shows" would have issues with it.

Both of those were awesome. Then again, while Marvel has generally been better with live actors, DC animated movies blow Marvel so far out of the water, that I think Marvel gave up.

Watching this tonight with friends and family. We'll see how it goes.

 Sigvatr wrote:
How could I forget the most important thing?

Spoiler:

The movie's core plot point is Superman's and Batman's mother both having the same name. I am not kidding. Really.

I don't see that as a fair or accurate characterization based on the meaning of those words. It is "a key fact upon which the title conflict changes."



Regarding the inclusion of the other JL characters, if it HAD to be done, was there a way they could have done it better? The film was crowded as is, so while the approach they took might feel "tacked on," at least it didn't crowd the movie even more by including them in the story.

 Sigvatr wrote:
To be fair, though, DC really doesn't have as awesome heroes as Marvel. Superman is incredibly boring by concept, Aquaman is...Aquaman, Cybot is lame...Marvel simply has far more vibrant and interesting heroes.

In theory, DC has the better heroes - all of their heroes are superlative. World's fastest, world's best detective, etc. Marvel's heroes simply have more depth, because they're inherently slightly flawed.
____

 Compel wrote:
It's worth saying, it's Cyborg...

No, it's Cybot -- OP is German, and "Cybot" is absolutely correct. YOU are wrong to "correct" him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Granted, Marvel has much deeper pockets than DC nowadays, they're certainly on to a winning formula with the majority of their movies.

DC spent more on BvS than Marvel spent on AoU.

Stuffybits:

The Rotten Tomatoes score is really punishing at this stage - 30%. I don't believe that it is that bad - I mean, that is worse than X-Men Origins: Wolverine & the Daredevil film - but it does reflect both the expectations for this film, and also the importance of it as a franchise opener. Lots of speculation over on Reddit about whether we can expect Synder to be ejected from the JL shoot, which begins in a fortnight. Interestingly, Audience Satisfaction is far higher, and although I don't know much about how that usually goes on RT, I suspect that it shows audiences generally enjoyed it, despite the problems with it. Hard to gauge exactly though, since even through the flame wars it is apparent that most everyone agrees on the basic points: Lex Luthor bad, editing bad, pacing bad, action good, Batfleck good, etc.

I watched the Screenjunkies guys talk on it, and they focused on a fairly succinct comment that, 'there are five films here, and none of them get properly developed'.

 Charles Rampant wrote:
The Rotten Tomatoes score is really punishing at this stage - 30%. I don't believe that it is that bad - I mean, that is worse than X-Men Origins: Wolverine & the Daredevil film

Audience Satisfaction is far higher,

No, it probably is that bad. It is beating Fat Wedding 2 (27%), London has Fallent (24%), and Divergent (11%). Fantastic Four was down at 9%. Quite frankly, 30% is probably on the high side of where the movie should land. Realistically, BvS belongs in the lower 20s -- the "top critics" (who have to see all the movies as their job) are running about 3:1 against, so 25% is where it should top out.

Audience members were personally invested into BvS by having to pay for their tickets, line up for midnight screenings, finagling pre-screenings. The only people doing that are hardcore DC fans. That 25% did not like it speaks volumes.

Deadpool, OTOH...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Compel wrote:
It's worth saying, it's Cyborg...

No, it's Cybot -- OP is German, and "Cybot" is absolutely correct. YOU are wrong to "correct" him.

Sigvatr's a big boy, he doesn't need others to take offence for his sake. Especially as Cyborg isn't the most well known character in the world, it's not exactly unlikely that someone wouldn't know his name and, perhaps, I wasn't wanting to others to be confused. "It's worth saying..." isn't exactly a gigantic call out, as opposed to "YOU are wrong".

In any case, I was pretty fine with the 'youtube' section particularly since it would have been the first time a lot of people out there would have seen these characters.

He is very well-known:

Now, Beast Boy, he's obscure...

The youtube thing is a rather clumsy thing to shoehorn into the movie, when it should have been handled as Batman at the Bat-computer in the Bat-cave post-credits.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Audience members were personally invested into BvS by having to pay for their tickets, line up for midnight screenings, finagling pre-screenings. The only people doing that are hardcore DC fans. That 25% did not like it speaks volumes.

Actually, those of us who liked it more than the *dire* reviews are more than capable of making sound judgments about the film without having 13 dollars spent or a history with these characters in other mediums render us hopelessly biased. That's a really cute assertion, though.

One could even more easily question the motivations and biases of someone who jumps into a discussion to slag a movie that they haven't actually seen and namedrop unrelated films from another studio.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
He is very well-known:

Now, Beast Boy, he's obscure...

The youtube thing is a rather clumsy thing to shoehorn into the movie, when it should have been handled as Batman at the Bat-computer in the Bat-cave post-credits.

HERESY.

Although I hear rumours about a live-action Teen Titans, which is cool.

I'm fairly certain that Cyborg was retconned in the new 52 to be founding member of the JL in place of Martian Manhunter, so amongst fans he should be known.

BvS is currently sitting at $93m box office last I checked. So yeah, bad film according to critics, but money-making machine by virtue of DC's two biggest names.

 gorgon wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Audience members were personally invested into BvS by having to pay for their tickets, line up for midnight screenings, finagling pre-screenings. The only people doing that are hardcore DC fans. That 25% did not like it speaks volumes.

Actually, those of us who liked it more than the *dire* reviews are more than capable of making sound judgments about the film without having 13 dollars spent or a history with these characters in other mediums render us hopelessly biased. That's a really cute assertion, though.

One could even more easily question the motivations and biases of someone who jumps into a discussion to slag a movie that they haven't actually seen and namedrop unrelated films from another studio.

Early viewer reviews are most often vastly more positive than later ones. This isn't a big conspiracy of some sorts, it's a logical consequence as there's multiple factors coming in: frenetic fans are the first ones that want to view the movie and thus want it to be good, buyer's / early bird remorse etc.

I'll see it tomorrow with the wife. As long as it's more consistent with the pre-final fight with Zod MoS then I'll be fine. That last fight with Zod put me into bleh on MoS.

 Frozocrone wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
He is very well-known:

Spoiler:

Now, Beast Boy, he's obscure...

The youtube thing is a rather clumsy thing to shoehorn into the movie, when it should have been handled as Batman at the Bat-computer in the Bat-cave post-credits.

HERESY.

Although I hear rumours about a live-action Teen Titans, which is cool.

I'm fairly certain that Cyborg was retconned in the new 52 to be founding member of the JL in place of Martian Manhunter, so amongst fans he should be known.

"in place of Martian Manhunter?"

NOOO!!!!! MM is the best not-Superman Superman, bar none.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

NOOO!!!!! MM is the best not-Superman Superman, bar none.

Yeah agree there. Whoever decided to stick MM in Supergirl deserves a raise, best decision made for it.

Saw it - and rather enjoyed it!

I'm really not sure what movie all the reviewers who rate this one at 'horrible' actually saw...

But I'll admit to being a bit biased!

 gorgon wrote:


And regarding Lex...

Spoiler:

I took it more to mean that he got all the info from the Kryptonian library, got to the part about the New Gods -- especially the naughty ones -- and it kinda blew his mind. Almost like a Lovecraft character rolling around gibbering after being confronted with that kind of cosmic horror. Darkseid is pretty much cosmic horror, after all. And Lex was already off his rocker about a single Kryptonian. Then he probably got hit with stuff like the existence of the Anti-Life Equation, etc.

Personally I loved the note it struck at the end with Bruce aware that something's coming, and starting to make plans. We're talking about Batman with advanced warning...that gak is in the bag.

I think I might have actually fist-pumped seeing the Mother Box during the Cyborg sequence.

Spot on stuff there Gorgon - I think you've nailed it!

Well, most of it?

It still appears that Lex knew...almost everything about almost every one pre-Kryptonian Scout Ship.

The way it's filmed and the action of the movie is absolutely great. The rest... hell no.

Much of what I have read about it or seen elsewhere I generally agree with. I liked it but didn't love it. It has moment of greatness but also some low points. The first part of the movie seemed to be where the ambition and interest were as it set out to deal with the effects of MoS as well as showing Batman investigating what was happening in the background. The latter part where they tried to shoehorn in follow up film lead ups was less focused or interesting.

I thought the fight with Doomsday was nice but it seemed a waste of Doomsday in a lot of ways.

Gal Godot was ok: not great, not awful, just ok.

Putting Gotham and Metropolis so close to each other seemed kind of odd.

Overall I think people should see it if they are interested, just know that it is a flawed film going in.

 Ahtman wrote:
Much of what I have read about it or seen elsewhere I generally agree with. I liked it but didn't love it. It has moment of greatness but also some low points. The first part of the movie seemed to be where the ambition and interest were as it set out to deal with the effects of MoS as well as showing Batman investigating what was happening in the background. The latter part where they tried to shoehorn in follow up film lead ups was less focused or interesting.

I thought the fight with Doomsday was nice but it seemed a waste of Doomsday in a lot of ways.

Gal Godot was ok: not great, not awful, just ok.

Putting Gotham and Metropolis so close to each other seemed kind of odd.

Overall I think people should see it if they are interested, just know that it is a flawed film going in.

...as most films are!

I think this is also getting a bit of the Comic Book Movie Backlash from 'serious reviewers' and/or 'filmgoers', maybe?

And it is always easier to bash on DC films, for the most part - and that is largely DC's own fault!

It was enjoyable, but not memorable.

Something about it just felt off when I came out and got to discussing it with friends, but couldn't place it.

 Alpharius wrote:

Saw it - and rather enjoyed it!

I'm really not sure what movie all the reviewers who rate this one at 'horrible' actually saw...

But I'll admit to being a bit biased!

I predicted bad reviews to a friend of mine the day before the embargo lifted, and it had nothing to do with what I expected from the movie. One strike is that it's Zack Snyder. Some critics just have it in for the guy. Strike two is about the framing of the movie. Had they just written and marketed it as a Marvel-style smash up, thrown in more yuks, etc., I think critics would have backed off. By trying to work in some heavier stuff and pathos, the reviewers took the gloves off. They don't watch and critique Zootopia in the same way that they do The Revenant, right? Same thing.

The film has its flaws without question. The creators also took some chances and made some interesting decisions. But some of them are molehills that got turned into mountains by certain reviewers. And when you see reviews laying into aspects like the visuals and cast (beyond some of the choices that Eisenberg made)...well, yeah, then I really have no idea what movie they screened.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Much of what I have read about it or seen elsewhere I generally agree with. I liked it but didn't love it. It has moment of greatness but also some low points. The first part of the movie seemed to be where the ambition and interest were as it set out to deal with the effects of MoS as well as showing Batman investigating what was happening in the background. The latter part where they tried to shoehorn in follow up film lead ups was less focused or interesting.

I thought the fight with Doomsday was nice but it seemed a waste of Doomsday in a lot of ways.

Gal Godot was ok: not great, not awful, just ok.

Putting Gotham and Metropolis so close to each other seemed kind of odd.

Overall I think people should see it if they are interested, just know that it is a flawed film going in.

Welcome to the 'liked it even if I didn't love it" club! And in addition to your last statement, it almost needed to come with a "MoS Knowledge Required" label. I now finally understand what Snyder meant by calling it a MoS sequel, even though it's obviously not MoS 2.

Regarding the battle with Doomsday (this is for anyone)...