The script.
Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
The director!
See it! And bring beer.
( I say this from a place of utter hypocrisy as I considered sneaking in beer but I chickened out because I was afraid someone would tattle on me. )
My review of the film:
I walked out of this movie feeling that it was nigh-identical to The Dark Knight, both structurally and in terms of narrative intent and execution, but I also walked out of the film believing that, like The Dark Knight, it was very successful in "owning" the world in which it was set and building on what had come before it, for better or worse, which is something that I appreciate in any property as a whole, but especially when it comes to "shared universe" stuff... especially when it's all too common for filmmakers to 'cow-tow' to fan complaints and change things too dramatically.
I have to confess up front that, prior to Man of Steel, I was never all that keen on the character of Superman, instead vastly preferring his cousin Supergirl (whom I felt to be both relatable and interesting as opposed to just bland and boring, which is how I had always felt about him), and that MoS consequently holds a "soft spot" in my heart for being the first adaptation to actually make Superman both relatable and interesting.
I was absolutely blown away by Henry Cavill, Ben Affleck, and Jesse Eisenberg in this movie. The three of them owned their respective roles and will do so for all time, but theirs were by no means the only standout performances/characters in the film. One of the only complaints I have about The Dark Knight is that, for everything that it did well in building on Batman Begins and expanding the world in which it and Begins were set, it sometimes felt like "The Joker show" rather than the Batman-centric vehicle/quasi-ensemble piece that it needed to be, in contrast to BvS, which very much felt like a Superman story even as it introduced us to Affleck's incredibly realized Batman and laid the foundations for the establishment of the Justice League and the further expansion of the cinematic reality in which it is set. Pretty much every character who appears in the film in any significant capacity feels very much like they belong there and like they contribute to the overall narrative of the story. The only exceptions to that are the "video cameo" appearances featuring Jason Momoa's Aquaman, Silas Stone (father of Cyborg), and the second appearance of Ezra Miller's Flash, which I felt were a bit unnecessary.
I've already touched on one way in which the film is different from TDK, but another way in which it differs from that film is that it builds very deliberately and directly on events from Man of Steel, owning and embracing the narrative decisions that had been made regarding the "true life" consequences of Superman and Zod's confrontation in that film (in spite of the criticisms surrounding said narrative decisions) and using them as a springboard for a storyline that also very much stands on its own as a very well-executed "comic book movie".
As much as I did enjoy the film overall, I do feel like there were a couple of areas where things fell a bit short in terms of execution, even if, overall, I felt like the film is very much on par with The Dark Knight. The first of these areas is the "Knightmare" sequence, which started out as one thing and then sort of seemed to inexplicably morph into something completely different involving Parademons and Apokalips imagery and iconography that felt rather disconnected to me from everything else that was happening. I did, however, like the reveal of Ezra Miller's Flash and the rather heavy implication that he was the one responsible for showing Bruce the events of the "Knightmare" in the first place, which I felt was a far more effective use of the character than the "video cameo" of him using his powers to stop a convenience store robbery.
The second of these areas is in Lex's interactions with the Kryptonian ship's AI as he starts to create Doomsday. I understood what he was doing, but not entirely WHY he was doing it, which is the only negative thing I have to say about his character and the way he was handled in the film since, as noted, I very much feel like Jesse Eisenberg delivered a phenomenal take on the character and will own the role forever.
I haven't yet talked about Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman, at least directly, but I absolutely loved the way she was incorporated into the film. Her role in the story felt very reminiscent of Anne Hathaway's Selina Kyle in The Dark Knight Rises, mixed with the way that Lois Lane was utilized in Man of Steel. The way in which she outmaneuvered Bruce and stole the data that he was trying to steal felt very much like Selina trying to steal the Wayne Enterprises "clean slate" chip in TDKR, albeit with more success. I also rather enjoyed the build-up to the moment when she decides to get involved in the fight against Doomsday, which also felt very much like the moment that Selina decides to return to Gotham City and help Bruce in TDKR. Her involvement in the film also got me very much excited for and interested in seeing her solo adventure next year, which is good.
I've seen some people online criticizing the film for sort of taking the "lazy way out" by having the thing that stops Batman from killing Superman be the fact that the two characters' mothers have the same first name, but I personally thought that was one of the better narrative decisions that the film made because it felt very much, thematically, like Rachel's death in TDK in that it was a "turning point" for Bruce and a culmination of everything that we'd seen from him up to that point in the film in terms of his motivation and his mindset.
If I were going to rate this film on a scale of 1-10, it would get a very well-deserved 9.5 from me because it's not entirely perfect, but comes pretty darn close, and was very much an effective "escalation movie" and "launching point" for the rest of what DC/Warner Bros. wants to do with its shared cinematic universe.
I walked out of this movie feeling that it was nigh-identical to The Dark Knight, both structurally and in terms of narrative intent and execution, but I also walked out of the film believing that, like The Dark Knight, it was very successful in "owning" the world in which it was set and building on what had come before it, for better or worse, which is something that I appreciate in any property as a whole, but especially when it comes to "shared universe" stuff... especially when it's all too common for filmmakers to 'cow-tow' to fan complaints and change things too dramatically.
I have to confess up front that, prior to Man of Steel, I was never all that keen on the character of Superman, instead vastly preferring his cousin Supergirl (whom I felt to be both relatable and interesting as opposed to just bland and boring, which is how I had always felt about him), and that MoS consequently holds a "soft spot" in my heart for being the first adaptation to actually make Superman both relatable and interesting.
I was absolutely blown away by Henry Cavill, Ben Affleck, and Jesse Eisenberg in this movie. The three of them owned their respective roles and will do so for all time, but theirs were by no means the only standout performances/characters in the film. One of the only complaints I have about The Dark Knight is that, for everything that it did well in building on Batman Begins and expanding the world in which it and Begins were set, it sometimes felt like "The Joker show" rather than the Batman-centric vehicle/quasi-ensemble piece that it needed to be, in contrast to BvS, which very much felt like a Superman story even as it introduced us to Affleck's incredibly realized Batman and laid the foundations for the establishment of the Justice League and the further expansion of the cinematic reality in which it is set. Pretty much every character who appears in the film in any significant capacity feels very much like they belong there and like they contribute to the overall narrative of the story. The only exceptions to that are the "video cameo" appearances featuring Jason Momoa's Aquaman, Silas Stone (father of Cyborg), and the second appearance of Ezra Miller's Flash, which I felt were a bit unnecessary.
I've already touched on one way in which the film is different from TDK, but another way in which it differs from that film is that it builds very deliberately and directly on events from Man of Steel, owning and embracing the narrative decisions that had been made regarding the "true life" consequences of Superman and Zod's confrontation in that film (in spite of the criticisms surrounding said narrative decisions) and using them as a springboard for a storyline that also very much stands on its own as a very well-executed "comic book movie".
As much as I did enjoy the film overall, I do feel like there were a couple of areas where things fell a bit short in terms of execution, even if, overall, I felt like the film is very much on par with The Dark Knight. The first of these areas is the "Knightmare" sequence, which started out as one thing and then sort of seemed to inexplicably morph into something completely different involving Parademons and Apokalips imagery and iconography that felt rather disconnected to me from everything else that was happening. I did, however, like the reveal of Ezra Miller's Flash and the rather heavy implication that he was the one responsible for showing Bruce the events of the "Knightmare" in the first place, which I felt was a far more effective use of the character than the "video cameo" of him using his powers to stop a convenience store robbery.
The second of these areas is in Lex's interactions with the Kryptonian ship's AI as he starts to create Doomsday. I understood what he was doing, but not entirely WHY he was doing it, which is the only negative thing I have to say about his character and the way he was handled in the film since, as noted, I very much feel like Jesse Eisenberg delivered a phenomenal take on the character and will own the role forever.
I haven't yet talked about Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman, at least directly, but I absolutely loved the way she was incorporated into the film. Her role in the story felt very reminiscent of Anne Hathaway's Selina Kyle in The Dark Knight Rises, mixed with the way that Lois Lane was utilized in Man of Steel. The way in which she outmaneuvered Bruce and stole the data that he was trying to steal felt very much like Selina trying to steal the Wayne Enterprises "clean slate" chip in TDKR, albeit with more success. I also rather enjoyed the build-up to the moment when she decides to get involved in the fight against Doomsday, which also felt very much like the moment that Selina decides to return to Gotham City and help Bruce in TDKR. Her involvement in the film also got me very much excited for and interested in seeing her solo adventure next year, which is good.
I've seen some people online criticizing the film for sort of taking the "lazy way out" by having the thing that stops Batman from killing Superman be the fact that the two characters' mothers have the same first name, but I personally thought that was one of the better narrative decisions that the film made because it felt very much, thematically, like Rachel's death in TDK in that it was a "turning point" for Bruce and a culmination of everything that we'd seen from him up to that point in the film in terms of his motivation and his mindset.
If I were going to rate this film on a scale of 1-10, it would get a very well-deserved 9.5 from me because it's not entirely perfect, but comes pretty darn close, and was very much an effective "escalation movie" and "launching point" for the rest of what DC/Warner Bros. wants to do with its shared cinematic universe.
You know what doesn't help the DCU that people don't mention enough? It's not the comparisons to Marvel. It's the comparisons to the DC TV shows that air currently. When I watched Flash and Supergirl team up, I was grinning ear to ear and I'm not even a regular Supergirl watcher. The fun the actors were having practically popped off the screen and I enjoyed every single second of it, despite some of the wonky storytelling. When it's fun and you're entertained, the little things don't bother you as much.
And it upset me that I find the movies missed the mark so much so that there's no way I'll watch Snyder's next movie.
Has nothing to do with Marvel (it disappoints me that this comes up so often). But actually everything to do with DC. Marvel is just the easy target I guess.
^ Why does this have to be an "either/or" scenario? Both the DCTV stuff and the direction that has been decided upon for the DCEU can exist simultaneously without having to be compared or contrasted, and each both bring different things to the table.
I love what's being done on TV with DC characters like Green Arrow, The Flash, Supergirl, and the "Batman family", and I thought what they did with BvS was excellent as well and can't wait to get more stuff set in its universe (such as Suicide Squad and the Wonder Woman solo movie).
I love what's being done on TV with DC characters like Green Arrow, The Flash, Supergirl, and the "Batman family", and I thought what they did with BvS was excellent as well and can't wait to get more stuff set in its universe (such as Suicide Squad and the Wonder Woman solo movie).
If this was a simple either/or scenario, things wouldn't be this divisive. We CAN have two sets of tones, quite easily, and why not? I just wish quality and entertainment came with both sets of tones.
Why are they compared? Because it's easy. Both are DC based media. And one is better than the other (my personal thoughts, obviously, though I'm not alone). That makes contrasting so easy. Especially when we know there are ways of telling these stories that aren't so divisive, that's what's equally frustrating. Would a "World's Finest" adaptation have split the fans? Depending on the director, probably not.
It's sad that with all the focus, money, and attention to the movies, that the tv shows that are (comparatively) rushed together make me want more, while the movies make me want less.
Even the animated movies are far superior. And I don't even care for all of them!
At least there's no giant robot spider, right?
Kevin Smith is entitled to his opinion, but it's a bit disingenuous IMO to promote the film so heavily (and get paid to do so) and then turn around and eviscerate it and accuse the filmmakers of not understanding the characters as if there's some hard-and-fast standard governing them (news flash: there's not).
Still not a big fan of that book, ugly artwork, shlocky writing. It's the early signs of Frank Miller's dementia that would lead to the follow up book, ASBAR and Holy Terror. I think of all the comics in history this one is highly, highly overrated.
Kevin hadn't seen the film yet, I assume, when he was being paid to advertise it.
What exactly was Luthor's plan?
Was he hinting that he somehow summoned Darkseid by creating Doomsday?
Even though his plan to lead Bruce Wayne to the Kryptonite was in effect months before he had the kryptonite, and he only finally got access to the Kryptonian library computer hours/minutes before before Batman and Superman were supposed to kill each other?
By the way, right up tot he point, near the end when Alfred said 20 years of fighting street criminals had to be worth something, all evidence pointed to the fact that Batman didn't exist till Superman fought Zod through a city and left thousands dead, because why else would Superman/Clark just now have a hard-on for a consistent threat to order that had been a monument on the land scape for 20 years?
Perry wasn't ignoring Clark's insistence that something had to be done about Batman, Perry White just remembered that in the last 15 years that he had run a thousand stories about Batman being a menace, so it was just the same shit on a different day, and he was bored about the entire subject.
What exactly was Luthor's plan?
Was he hinting that he somehow summoned Darkseid by creating Doomsday?
Even though his plan to lead Bruce Wayne to the Kryptonite was in effect months before he had the kryptonite, and he only finally got access to the Kryptonian library computer hours/minutes before before Batman and Superman were supposed to kill each other?
By the way, right up tot he point, near the end when Alfred said 20 years of fighting street criminals had to be worth something, all evidence pointed to the fact that Batman didn't exist till Superman fought Zod through a city and left thousands dead, because why else would Superman/Clark just now have a hard-on for a consistent threat to order that had been a monument on the land scape for 20 years?
Perry wasn't ignoring Clark's insistence that something had to be done about Batman, Perry White just remembered that in the last 15 years that he had run a thousand stories about Batman being a menace, so it was just the same shit on a different day, and he was bored about the entire subject.
DKR came out so long ago, that some of us were impressionable children with no class.
The plot doesn't hold up to any kind of critical thought, it was a series of pretty scenes with no narrative thrust or coherency. I'm still not entirely sure what Lex Luthor's end plan was, nor his motivation. I've read a bunch of Superman comics, but I'm not a huge reader of them since my early 20s - but there was a really awesome scene with Lex flat out explaining to Superman (or was it just a vision) that he was going to destroy him, and why - I think maybe it was "Lex Luthor Man of Steel"?. Then I remember one comic where Lex creates a false flag attack so he can blame Superman, which is maybe what they were going for with Doomsday being a kryptonian weapon, but he instantly gets arrested? So they can't go that route.
I really dislike both MoS and this movie because I really think, script wise, there is a decent movie there. The director just doesn't have the talent to refine and put it on the big screen, it just feels like we're at a point in the DCU that they should be reaching in their start of phase 3. But they're 2 movies in and they've already played their biggest card?
<<Kevin Smith is entitled to his opinion, but it's a bit disingenuous IMO to promote the film so heavily (and get paid to do so) and then turn around and eviscerate it and accuse the filmmakers of not understanding the characters as if there's some hard-and-fast standard governing them (news flash: there's not).>>
He didn't see the movie until it came out. And on the Fatman podcast he was actually MOSTLY positive about it, the press is just reporting only the negatives as usual. He certainly had fundamental problems with it, like I did, but he also liked it.
He didn't see the movie until it came out. And on the Fatman podcast he was actually MOSTLY positive about it, the press is just reporting only the negatives as usual. He certainly had fundamental problems with it, like I did, but he also liked it.
If you couldn't figure out Lex's motivation for most of his actions, you weren't paying attention.
Re: Kevin Smith, his own previous comments regarding BvS bely the idea that he hadn't seen or been aware of the film's take on both Batman and Superman prior to its official release.
Re: Kevin Smith, his own previous comments regarding BvS bely the idea that he hadn't seen or been aware of the film's take on both Batman and Superman prior to its official release.
Kevin Smith's opinion is of litte value; he is packaged as some "expert" on all things comic books--while as a filmmaker (his alleged job) has no place to judge. He's still living off of this manufactured "geek cred" from the early 1990s, while cobbling together largely forgettable comics. For a so-called filmmaker so in love with comics, one wonders why he never petitioned to have his name is attached to any of the big DC movie productions planned for release well into the next decade (an episode of The Flash does not count), since he has a professional relationship with DC & Marvel. Instead, all he's scheduled to contribute to the film universe (if you can all it a contribution) is Mallbrats, (yes, brats) Clerks III and Hollyweed.
