Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
I still haven't seen the movie, but I broke down and read some of the negative reviews. Does it seem to anyone else, like the people who penned bad reviews for this movie already had bad things to say, and are now using their platform to vent? Seriously, most of the "sins" come off as nitpicks and a chance to throw stones at a highly anticipated movie.
Do people hate Zack Snyder that much? Would it surprise anyone to know that Snyder went to the same film school as Michael Bay?
Do people hate Zack Snyder that much? Would it surprise anyone to know that Snyder went to the same film school as Michael Bay?
That actually explains a lot...
I find Rotten Tomatoes problematic because oftentimes when you actually read a review with a SPLAT next to it the review is more positive than negative, and vice versa for the fresh ones, so I frequently have no idea how they determine splat from fresh for reviews which are mixed and not pegged at the good or bad ends of the scale.
RT gives reviewer the ability to vote several ways; positive or negative, number scale, or letter grade.
However, anything with a C is considered a negative review/rotten scores. Check MOS, it has a lot of Cs. On the number scale, I believe 7/10 or 3/5 are also negative/rotten scores.
So you could have a film that is "ok" or just "good" but with a low score due to the wonky rating system. Right now BvS is rubbing shoulders with Paul Blart Mall Cop and The Room (Tommy Wiseau's film).
I just watched GameSpot's spoiler-free review (nice to hear some Brit accents for a change!):
My takeaway from this is that the movie suffers in terms of plot coherence and Lex's motivation not making much sense. The reviewer theorises that the extended version (an extra 30 minutes) might improve it significantly just by filling in those gaps.
Chris Stuckmann does a good job of being fair:
He says the first half is great, then it turns into a mess: painfully forced JLA foreshadowing, Batman as mass-murderer, Eisenberg apparently channeling Nick Cage.
Incidentally, I can think of a justification for Batman's killing ways. He was originally a very dark hero, but was cleaned up during the 1950s comics panic, and the no-kill policy is a remnant of that. While other heroes have since come along who've pushed the edge, Bats has been stuck with his clean-cut moral code which doesn't match his origins. So there is an argument that Batman-as-killer is a legitimate development from the original.
Just sayin'.
My takeaway from this is that the movie suffers in terms of plot coherence and Lex's motivation not making much sense. The reviewer theorises that the extended version (an extra 30 minutes) might improve it significantly just by filling in those gaps.
Chris Stuckmann does a good job of being fair:
He says the first half is great, then it turns into a mess: painfully forced JLA foreshadowing, Batman as mass-murderer, Eisenberg apparently channeling Nick Cage.
Incidentally, I can think of a justification for Batman's killing ways. He was originally a very dark hero, but was cleaned up during the 1950s comics panic, and the no-kill policy is a remnant of that. While other heroes have since come along who've pushed the edge, Bats has been stuck with his clean-cut moral code which doesn't match his origins. So there is an argument that Batman-as-killer is a legitimate development from the original.
Just sayin'.
Last edited:
They wouldn't hold a crisis meeting until the movie's first weekend. The film is scheduled to open in both the US and China this Thursday night and Friday. If the weekend returns are disappointing (they're projecting $350 WW this weekend), then they'll be scrambling for damage control.
I know we've been joking about people cheering for BvS to fail, prior to it's release. Now that the film is partially released, does anyone feel like (with all the negative reviews) people need this film to fail? I'm sure there are problems, but 33% seems EXTREMELY lopsided.
Why is it lopsided? Why cannot it not just be a turkey? (And I say they as someone who was looking forWard to this).
I think a lot of fans overthink this stuff.
Because of the nature of the criticisms in most of the reviews. Someone compiled a list.
- too much action
- not enough action
- great cameos
- a few good cameos
- the beginning is amazing
- the beginning is choppy
- nobody has motivation, or character moments
- Batfleck, Holly Holms, Alfred are great
- Henry doesn't do much
- Henry has more to do, and is more vulnerable, than in MoS
- The last 30 min are amazing
- The last 30 min are boring
- I was bored the whole time
- I was at the edge of my seat, even though the movie was okay
- Too dark, no humor
- Alfred and Lex are funny, and the dark tone helps
- This is not a child's movie
- Silly things happen that break tension
- Perhaps the comic book genre needs a break
- Doomsday fight is amazing
- Meh Doomsday
- Amazing Bats vs Supes fight
- Bats vs Supes skirmish?
- Tailor made for comic book fans, and nerds
- Makes comic fans, and nerds, wish it was never made
- Too many Oscar winning actors
etc
It does seem like critics had it out for this film before it was released. There's no consensus on what is wrong with it, but everyone is taking their chance to throw stones. It seems, to me at least, like WB/DC can't win for losing.
I think that you will have pretty much the same opinion about this one as you had of MoS. There are better parts and then there are worse parts.
This really does seem more like a Batman movie sprinkled with Superman and Wonder Woman. And it really doesnt help that it has Lex that is acting like the Joker.
And did they really need to include Lois in the end of the movie at all if they couldnt think of anything meaningful for her to do? First she throws the sceptre to the pool and then right after she leaves the room she has to go back and retrieve it. And then she gets stuck there and has to get Superman to help her. Basically her only role in the movie is to be a damsel in distress, twice. I thought that we had moved on from that potrayal.
And why does Superman need to carry the sceptre at all? WW seems to be quite capable of handling Doomsday on her own.
Let Lois retrieve the sceptre on her own and throw it at WW who then defeats Doomsday with Superman and Batman watching on the sidelines. Would have been great ending.
And why does Superman need to carry the sceptre at all? WW seems to be quite capable of handling Doomsday on her own.
Let Lois retrieve the sceptre on her own and throw it at WW who then defeats Doomsday with Superman and Batman watching on the sidelines. Would have been great ending.
Me and my partner enjoyed it thoroughly, even if some of the critiques are justified.
My suggestion: Stop looking at the bloody tomatometer and go see the film. I had lowered my expectations going in ( having seen the score ) and came out pleasantly surprised, as well as being incredulous with the pounding it's taken critically...
Basically, a complete reversal of my experience with Star Trek Into Darkness.
My suggestion: Stop looking at the bloody tomatometer and go see the film. I had lowered my expectations going in ( having seen the score ) and came out pleasantly surprised, as well as being incredulous with the pounding it's taken critically...
Basically, a complete reversal of my experience with Star Trek Into Darkness.
It happens sometimes that the movie press picks a movie and roots for it to fail. John Carter may be the best example in recent memory. The Hollywood press had their knives out for that movie.
In this case, I think the problem may be more, "This isn't what I want." Grimdark Batman fighting Grimdark Superman isn't really what I want, either, but if the film's themes support it -- and all indications from the reviews I've read is that they do -- then I'll be pleased.
This is a popular claim on the Internet, but it's very, very wrong. You can get the real story here. Yes, he was originally somewhat dark when he debuted in 1939 (when he was basically just a ripoff of the Shadow and hadn't yet developed much of his own identity), but the cleanup happened in 1940, when he was less than a year old. He was shown using guns in his first year, but mainly on splash-page or cover art unconnected to the story, or against inanimate objects, or once against vampires. The one and only time he apparently used lethal force against humans, when he strafed a truck from the Batplane in Batman #1 in 1940, he did so while stating aloud that he disliked taking life but found it regrettably necessary in this case. Even so, the editor felt it went too far and immediately imposed a strict no-kill rule on Batman from then on. Two months earlier, Robin, the Boy Wonder -- "The Sensational Character Find of 1940" -- had been added to make Batman a more youth-friendly character, and the stories became lighter and more upbeat from then on. Yes, the '40s comics had more serious storylines than the wild sci-fi comedy of the '50s, but they were hardly the grim, ultraviolent bloodbaths that Internet myth would have us believe. The Batman of the '40s was a clean-cut, respectable lawman and father figure who readily exchanged witty banter with his pun-loving boy sidekick as they beat up thugs and racketeers and supervillains, then tied them up and handed them over to the police for arrest and fair trials. When Alfred debuted in 1943, he was a chubby, bumbling comic-relief character who wanted to be a detective like Batman and Robin and kept "solving" mysteries by stumbling into the answers.
Another reason that Internet myth is egregiously wrong is that Fredric Wertham's concern about Batman in the '50s scare was not about its violence, but about the implied homosexuality he imagined he saw in the Batman-Robin relationship. Not to mention that his charges about comics' harmful effects were largely fabricated, and that he indiscriminately lumped children's comics like Batman and Superman together with adult-targeted crime and horror comics, not caring about the distinctions. So to believe that Batman comics actually had anything in them that needed to be toned down is giving way too much credence to Wertham's witch hunt.
Really, the Comics Code didn't change Batman and Robin themselves all that much; it just changed the kind of challenges they faced. Instead of battling gun-toting thugs and killers, they took on aliens and monsters and convoluted superscience crimes and pranks perpetrated by Superman. Their own methods and personalities didn't change much at all from what had been laid down in the '40s.
I'd heard rumblings of the bad reviews but avoided them until I saw the film.
The trailers didn't get me particularly excited, but I was still looking forward to it. I have to say, I pretty much hated it. I really wasn't expecting to say that, but it is what it is. I didn't hate it right away, and there are good things about it...but yeah. In my opinion, not great.
I'm still curious about Wonder Woman and Suicide Squad, but I think I'll wait and see what the reactions are in general to Justice League before I plunk down my money.
The trailers didn't get me particularly excited, but I was still looking forward to it. I have to say, I pretty much hated it. I really wasn't expecting to say that, but it is what it is. I didn't hate it right away, and there are good things about it...but yeah. In my opinion, not great.
I'm still curious about Wonder Woman and Suicide Squad, but I think I'll wait and see what the reactions are in general to Justice League before I plunk down my money.
I'm with Batman. If we even believe there is even a 1 percent chance the movie sucks, we have to take it as an absolute certainty.
So. Yeah. Not gonna bother.
So. Yeah. Not gonna bother.