Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

[Mango]

A review is literally an analytical description of someone's opinion of a movie (or whatever they are reviewing). Complaining about their review and what they spent time talking about is just as bad as blatantly saying they are wrong for not liking it...

[KGator]

57 minutes ago, rukaio101 said:

If by 'droning on' you meant 'mentioned it once in the entirety of Part 1' then yes, I suppose I did. And all you proved is that you quickly skimmed through Part 1 in a desperate attempt to look like you actually read my review.

 

That said, since you've made it obvious you're not interested in any kind of actual objective debate on points made in the review and instead just want to insult me, I'm going to put you on ignore.

 

Do you really want a point by point debate?  And if so, wouldn't you lead off with that kind or challenge BEFORE putting someone on ignore?  lol . . . I see how mind works.  Sort of like challenging someone to a duel after you have already left the country forever.  Clever!!!  Kind of an obvious red herring there for everyone else to see though wouldn't you say?

[KGator]

58 minutes ago, Mango said:

A review is literally an analytical description of someone's opinion of a movie (or whatever they are reviewing). Complaining about their review and what they spent time talking about is just as bad as blatantly saying they are wrong for not liking it...

 

So let's get this straight, complaining about the structure and craftsmanship of an artistic piece is valid.  However, any critique of the form or validity of the actual criticism is . . . NOT.  Am I hearing you correctly?  Because that sure does sound somewhat hypocritical on it's surface.  

 

And just for a wee bit of clarification.  Everyone is entitled to their opinions.  You can love skittles and think M&Ms are abhorrent to the human condition.  HOWEVER, once you formulate and post your opinions in a PUBLIC forum like . . . I don't know, let's say a public message board for example . . . you no longer can claim that your personal opinion is protected from external comment.  After all, YOU are the one soliciting people to READ your opinions expressed!!!

 

For example, you may think that Grandma's cooking is terrible.  This is your opinion and since it is subjective it is wholly personal in nature.  It will always be accurate from your perspective.  Unfortunately, once you make this opinion public to either Grandma or other people who know Grandma they are completely justified in disputing your opinion.  If you didn't want to open yourself up for critical analysis . . . why publicly speak ill about Grandma's cooking skills?  You are the one openly broaching the topic.  If you didn't feel comfortable putting forth a potentially unpopular opinion on either the subject OR it's method of presentation (which would be the point of contention in this case) then you shouldn't call everyone's attention to your position.  

 

Once Ruka-eieio went through the trouble of posting on a board, enticing people to read his review and then continuing to keep his review on the forefront of discussion with continued posts . . . it's clearly open for public debate now.  Besides for those posters who are thin skinned, cannot deal with criticism or incapable of processing any line of thought that differs from their own, there's always the "ignore" button to run to!!!

[The Stingray]

This is like 8 Mile.

[TheMovieman]

35 minutes ago, The Stingray said:

This is like 8 Mile.

 

[Thrylos 7]

Just came back from watching this . A very difficult movie to review . I can see why critics didn't like it . The plot was incoherent . Lex Luther was awfully depicted , it seems that we will never get a proper lex Luther in a movie , and he basically had no motive for his actions . I guess his excuse was that he was crazy or something...whatever . The biggest flaw of this movie is its main principle , being the first in the DC movie universe instead of having movies with individual characters first . The way aquaman and the flash are introduced is idiotic and the way WW is introduced is awkward esp. with the WW1 picture . Everything seems rushed . People are saying that this is a dark movie...really ? If by dark one means humorless and with many...dark scenes then...yeah it is a dark movie . Other than that it's a typical CBM without the charisma most marvel characters show .

 

That is not to say that everything is bad . Batfleck is awesome , the best batman/Bruce Wayne on screen ever  . It's a pity that we didn't get a solo batman movie first . The induction of doomsday is actually a clever one and gives the movie the spectacle it needs plus we finally see superman fight a larger than life opponent , that isn't  general Zod , in a movie . Doomsday is very one dimensional to be the main villain in an entire movie but as a character that appears for a few minutes and gives the heroes a run for their money , he is a great addition . The batma/superman fight is fantastic, though the plot that they came up with to make these two fight isn't that good . The action scenes are amazing in general . 

 

Because i love CBM I give this a b just for the good time it offers , the dumb loud entertainment . No problem with that really .

[Claire of Themyscira]

I loved it.

 

I guess I'm just not as basic or extra.

[MovieGuyKyle17]

I went into Batman V Superman with very low to no expectations. That 2nd trailer really ruined anticipation I had for this film. Despite my previous motives, I went into this movie with a open mind. 
Spoilers Review 
.
.
.
.
.
Lets get to the positives first, the film does a great job setting up the new Batman character. I liked seeing Bruce Wayne in Metropolis during the Superman/Zod fight, seeing the destruction of the fight from that point of view. Ben Affleck as Batman is fantastic, same with the little bit of Gal Gadot as Wonder Women we get in the film. There was some good scenes that made me chuckle early in the film. I really liked how the film broke down the aspect of if the people should trust Superman and should Superman be held accountable for his actions. There were some shots that looked fantastic. Zach Synder knows how to create great visuals.
Now the negatives, Jesse Eisenberg, despite being better then how I thought he would be, was still not that good. I understand where they were going with his character but he wasn't intimidating. Which leads me to my biggest criticism of the film, the fight scene between Batman and Superman. The fight was just ok. I was never really invested into the fight because I knew they would get to Superman's mom. The whole Lex kidnapping Supermans mom and forcing Superman to fight Batman was ridiculous. If Superman can keep finding Lois Lane, why can't he do that with his earth mom? She is one of the two most important people in his life. Also why doesn't he just beat Lex Luthor up till he tells him where she is?
Lois Lane and the staff of The Daily Planet are very non existed in this movie. Laurence Fishburne is in this movie to make funny headline jokes and say how the Newspaper business is dieing. Lois Lane really doesn't do much in this movie. She is kinda wasted in the film.
Doomsday and the Justice League aspect are both basically shoehorned into this film. During the Doomsday fight, I don't care what the movie says, people were there and people died. Don't give me this BS that everyone is home from work. What about the night shift? What about the people that live in that area of town? There were people there. While the Justice League aspect is just there. It doesn't fit with the flow of the film but i'm pretty excited to see Cyborg and the Flash. The biggest problem with the film is that the film makers were more concern with setting up a universe instead of making this a great movie. If they just got rid of the Dawn of Justice title, they could of added the little clips at the end of the film.
I have a few more complaints but they are minor. The performances for the most part were good but I believe the story structure didn't work. I feel the actors deserve much better then what the script and story gave them to work with. Despite this very disappointing film, i'm looking forward to the Ben Affleck Batman film and the Wonder Women film. Hopefully Synder and the writing team have no part in those films. There are probably some stuff in the comic book that would explain a few of my problems I had with the film. I still recommend seeing the film for yourself to form your own opinion. PS. I think Man of Steel is a much better film then this
Grade: C

Edited March 28, 2016 by MovieGuyKyle17

[Water Bottle]

8 hours ago, KGator said:

 

So let's get this straight, complaining about the structure and craftsmanship of an artistic piece is valid.  However, any critique of the form or validity of the actual criticism is . . . NOT.  Am I hearing you correctly?  Because that sure does sound somewhat hypocritical on it's surface. 

 

You are complaining that rukaio has a negative opinion of the film, not arguing the points he's made. You don't really defend the film or try to address the points. You just accuse rukaio of having a lot of contempt for the film and then try to get him to address his "limitations" in his future writing endeavors. And yes, any critique of the validity of actual criticism is not okay. To suggest it's okay is to say that someone can't have a valid opinion on the film which goes into Mango's entire point of his post.

 

Rukaio didn't like the film and guess what? Just about every single criticism he's had about the plot of the movie holds water. Every single one. Now you can disagree and try to defend plot points but that doesn't mean Rukaio is wrong for wanting to address what he thought were flaws in a movie. And if you are going to try to argue that he's taking movies way too seriously on a forum dedicated to the film industry....good luck there? Yeah, I would hope there's members of this forum that take movies seriously.

[somebody85]

So I ended up seeing this finally (I didn't pay for it, someone else did) and oh my god, I heard all the negative stuff before going in, had major problems with the plot beforehand. And somehow this movie still ended up being worse then I thought it would be. Like a lot worse. 

I didn't think it was possible for a superhero movie to be worse then The Amazing Spider Man 2 but damn it if this one doesn't step up to the plate.

The best way I could describe this movie would go like this: You go to a movie theater and a bunch of different movies are playing. 
The movies are:
Man Of Steel 2 (Do We Really Need A Superman? Or what should have been a complete movie for the whole Death Of Superman Arc) - This was such a great question and it is never examined further.
Batfleck: A New Batman Story
Batman V Superman
Lois Lane & The Mystery Of The Kryptonite Bullet
Dawn Of Justice 

The plot of Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice was like going into the theater that was playing Man Of Steel 2 then saying "nah I'm good" after a few minutes and then walking into another theater to watch Batfleck: A New Batman Story for like five minutes and then saying "well maybe that other movie was better" and walking back into it. It was like walking back and forth to each one of these five different totally unrelated movies but only staying a little while each time.

And thanks to it, this movie is a complete cluster fuck. It's not just a mess. It's worse then that. None of the major characters have any motivations for anything. Batman completely forgets General Zod exists. The movie throws out the General Zod warning scene from MOS to bring him Superman. It acts like Bruce was sleeping during it or something because Bruce blames everything on Superman.

There is so many problems with it, that I could probably go on for HOURS. The reason why people are saying the climax is the best part is because at least that part was coherent! The rest isn't even a movie. It's a bunch of scene's thrown together and I cannot believe WB Greenlit it.

And the Batman V Superman fight. So Superman shows up to try to ask for Batmans help in a situation that mirrors the beginning of the movie with a gunman holding a gun to someones head he cares about. Why? Great question and the movie has no answer.

 

In the beginning Superman saves Lois just fine in this situation and in the big scene questioned Martha is being held by a window from a guy with a flamethrower. It is pretty much the same scenario from Africa but this time Superman I guess can't hear around the world! So for people calling this movie too intelligent for some people? How?!

Anyway Superman saves Lois and then says he needs to go to Gotham to plead for Batmans help to save his mother. So he goes to meet Batman and Batman says "Well here I am."Superman tries to talk to him and the sonic speakers trap goes off. Superman destroys those and says "You don't understand there's no time". And Batman goes "I understand".
 

So what does Superman do here in this pivotal moment? Does he ask for Bruces help more? You know like what he told Lois what he was going to Gotham to do? 

NO! He fucking pushes him. How does this make any sense at all to the defenders of this movie?

So the fight goes on a few minutes and the big Martha scene happens. Martha is foreshadowed a lot in this movie like focusing on the coffin saying Martha not once but twice. Real subtle Snyder! Anyway moments later Superman finally talks to him and Batman does a complete 360 and says "They need you at that ship. I'm going to make you a promise, Martha won't die tonight." 

It is even dumber on screen then it was on paper! It is just as bad as the Stepbrothers comparison. 

God man, I can't with this movie. It is just too stupid. The end battle is just as much destruction as MOS but apparently the buildings are abandoned this time so that's okay. Before Doomsday gets knocked into space he launches a blast that knocks out CNNs reception that almost certainly kills people. Then at this moment Snyder pulls a Michael Bay (May God Be With Us) with the military who take less then a minute to decide to nuke them while they are above a major city.
 

Wonder Woman shows up with her 90s Spider-Man cartoon guitar music and the big CGI battle happens. She was like Jason Statham in Furious 7 in this thing.

When Superman dies it was worse then Gwen Stacy in Amazing Spider Man 2. There you at least could feel the attachment because Peter and Gwens relationship had been built up throughout the movie. There's none here because the movie doesn't earn it! It doesn't earn anything and therefore everything falls flat.
 

As a movie this fails in every single aspect. I totally understand the critics and why people can make long videos or write essays trashing it. I was never bored but jesus after 3 years you think they would have done so much better then this. This was entertaining in the exact same way Fant4stic was, only in how bad it was.

There are good scenes in it but in the end it doesn't matter because nothing amounts to anything. It's like Snyder thought the audience had ADD and would lose attention so he kept randomly switching to different plot points after getting bored with them after a few minutes. That's why critics have compared it to a kid smashing toys together before getting disinterested and moving on to something else.

And some of the dialogue was cringe worthy bad. Like that final cemetery scene between Diana and Bruce.

As a movie - D
As entertainment in an unintentional way - I guess a C? There were so many times I laughed at how stupid it was.
 

The only logical character was Alfred. He was basically the audience. The movie should have been called This Really Stupid Movie V Alfred: The Voice Of Reason. He would have won that fight by a knockout within moments.

Edited March 29, 2016 by somebody85

[KGator]

10 hours ago, Water Bottle said:

 

You are complaining that rukaio has a negative opinion of the film, not arguing the points he's made. You don't really defend the film or try to address the points. You just accuse rukaio of having a lot of contempt for the film and then try to get him to address his "limitations" in his future writing endeavors. And yes, any critique of the validity of actual criticism is not okay. To suggest it's okay is to say that someone can't have a valid opinion on the film which goes into Mango's entire point of his post.

 

Rukaio didn't like the film and guess what? Just about every single criticism he's had about the plot of the movie holds water. Every single one. Now you can disagree and try to defend plot points but that doesn't mean Rukaio is wrong for wanting to address what he thought were flaws in a movie. And if you are going to try to argue that he's taking movies way too seriously on a forum dedicated to the film industry....good luck there? Yeah, I would hope there's members of this forum that take movies seriously.

 

You are incorrect, I didn't complain that rukaio had a negative opinion of the film.  I simply pointed out that in the beginning of the review he told his audience that he hated what they did to the DC characters he treasured so much.  All I did was let him know that everything that followed was going to be less a review of cinematic technique than an ongoing presentation of his growing resentment towards a film he was born to hate.

 

Seriously though, rukaio states that he hated BvS because of it's convoluted plot, unnecessary length and meaningless plot points.  So he goes on to write an unnecessarily long review that has a convoluted structure filled with meaningless examples of the individual scenes.  Is that not hilariously ironic to you?  "I'm going to show you how bad the movie is by designing an even WORSE review using the exact same structure I'm complaining about?"  I still can't decide whether this is a case of brilliant satire or juvenile tirade.  

 

I purposely didn't address specific points because anything he thinks is a flaw is his opinion.  I'm just stating that he openly admitted his motivation at the beginning (even if he could not himself see it) which destroyed any guise of impartiality.  Upon even slight examination it is obvious that his review resembles less of a technical breakdown of the film's storytelling and more of a rant from a scorned lover (of DC comics in this case).  And I'm not even being accusatory, I'm just repeating out the obvious inference established from his OWN introductory statements.

[Jessie]

On 3/24/2016 at 2:39 AM, 4815162342 said:

B+ (ish)

 

 

There's a lot to like, but a lot of it is burdened down by a lot going on which leads to a lot being underdeveloped or left as sequel bait. But the underlying core theme shines through, even if Supes never really gets a chance to articulate his side.

 

But the acting was strong, especially Trolluthor and Batfleck. Irons was a nice presence as well.

 

The Knightmare sequence didn't really work, the Future Flash warning neither.

 

Music was mostly eh. Really liked the Batman and Luthor cues, disliked heavily the weird rock metal garbage that was Wonder Woman's theme. Sounded like a pepped up version of the garbage disposal theme from Winter Solder.

 

 

 

And holy shit does Batman murder the fuck outta people. His body count in this film beats all other Batman films combined easily.

 

I actually liked that theme, was kind of haunting. 

[cannastop]

On 3/27/2016 at 6:45 AM, Harpospoke said:

 

Agreed 1000%.   I think he would be considered the best Supes ever if anyone would give him something to do with the character.

 

 

Batman shoots him TWICE.    Somehow Supes is too dumb to figure out he should easily dodge it the second time.    Batman's super power is apparently causing people around him to become incredibly stupid so he can look smart.    Kinda like the guy he was talking to on the phone at the beginning who was too dumb to figure out he should have the people leave the building until Bruce Wayne told him to do it.

Edited March 29, 2016 by cannastop

[Water Bottle]

7 hours ago, KGator said:

 

You are incorrect, I didn't complain that rukaio had a negative opinion of the film.  I simply pointed out that in the beginning of the review he told his audience that he hated what they did to the DC characters he treasured so much.  All I did was let him know that everything that followed was going to be less a review of cinematic technique than an ongoing presentation of his growing resentment towards a film he was born to hate.

 

Seriously though, rukaio states that he hated BvS because of it's convoluted plot, unnecessary length and meaningless plot points.  So he goes on to write an unnecessarily long review that has a convoluted structure filled with meaningless examples of the individual scenes.  Is that not hilariously ironic to you?  "I'm going to show you how bad the movie is by designing an even WORSE review using the exact same structure I'm complaining about?"  I still can't decide whether this is a case of brilliant satire or juvenile tirade.  

 

I purposely didn't address specific points because anything he thinks is a flaw is his opinion.  I'm just stating that he openly admitted his motivation at the beginning (even if he could not himself see it) which destroyed any guise of impartiality.  Upon even slight examination it is obvious that his review resembles less of a technical breakdown of the film's storytelling and more of a rant from a scorned lover (of DC comics in this case).  And I'm not even being accusatory, I'm just repeating out the obvious inference established from his OWN introductory statements.

 

He didn't review cinematic technique, sure, but he did review screenwriting technique. I mean, it would be hilariously ironic, except your own posts are unnecessary long, convoluted, and making also meaningless points. So I guess that's irony squared? Anyways, yeah his review is his opinion. That's what a review is and in fact the best criticism pieces aren't impartial. It's an opinion piece and once again, it's a pretty valid one. You can feel free to disagree but considering how all you've done is try to discredit his opinion (hence why you try to claim he doesn't have a technical breakdown of the film's storytelling, which he does, but it's a rant), I take it you can't actually piece together a defense of the film.

[mattmav45]

On 3/28/2016 at 7:35 AM, KGator said:

I cannot relate to disliking a movie so much that it becomes an obsession but if putting your outrage and sorrow to words helps to serve a therapeutic purpose for you, then by all means continue.  

 

Perhaps not, as it seems you relate more to obsessing over one's subjective opinion and personal reaction toward a film.  But hey, if putting your outrage and sorrow surrounding one's, once again, subjective, opinion serves a therapeutic purpose and manages to reel in some of your obvious insecurities, then by all means continue.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

Enough said.

 

 

[DoctorWho]

I liked it, its a 7/10 from me. My favourite part is Wonder Womans theme, this one:

 

 

 

[Mango]

I liked Wonder Woman's theme a lot. The rest of the score wasn't that memorable though.

[somebody85]

11 hours ago, KGator said:

 

So he goes on to write an unnecessarily long review that has a convoluted structure filled with meaningless examples of the individual scenes.  

Yeah and that's sort of like you're opinion man...

He can write a review for however long he wants. If it's unnecessarily long to you then don't read it. And he's writing a review not the ACTUAL script of a big budget movie that has been three years in the making. So in that case no it's not ironic. To even compare his review to the plot of this movie is nonsense.

And yes the movie does have an extremely convoluted structure and the things he picked out were not meaniningless examples. Sorry you can't take criticism about a movie you liked but a lot of others see the major flaws in it.

[Dragon]

I like it but it could have been better. 7/10 MOS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Im in different with Lex. On minute I liked him then the next im like jessie why. He went over the top sometimes. Im seeing it again on Thursday to see i stop being mixed. I did died when he called Clark "Clark Jo".

 

Wanted more Wonder. They could have cut some of those Lois scenes and give it to her.

 

Ben, Gal and henry were good.

 

People complained about the first hr. I actually enjoyed it more than the 2 hr. The final fight scene with doomsday was Meh, I hardly saw shit. all i saw was electricity and few slams against the floor and wall.  come on zack your better than that. Foara and Superman was better

 

I cried when clark died. they could have should Batman visiting Lex before the funeral occur. I agree with some of the editing complaints but it didn't took me out that much.

 

The Martha scene that made the civil was good. Idk whys some people laughed at that from what i read online. Although I did laugh when he said im a friend of your son. He could have said acquaintance

 

Im still excited for the JLA. So bring it on.

[KGator]

16 hours ago, Water Bottle said:

 

He didn't review cinematic technique, sure, but he did review screenwriting technique. I mean, it would be hilariously ironic, except your own posts are unnecessary long, convoluted, and making also meaningless points. So I guess that's irony squared? Anyways, yeah his review is his opinion. That's what a review is and in fact the best criticism pieces aren't impartial. It's an opinion piece and once again, it's a pretty valid one. You can feel free to disagree but considering how all you've done is try to discredit his opinion (hence why you try to claim he doesn't have a technical breakdown of the film's storytelling, which he does, but it's a rant), I take it you can't actually piece together a defense of the film.

 

My basic point is the reviewer was partial and thus his review is (or will be construed as) tainted.  Debate that if you want but it would dispute the reviewers own admission.

 

Why would I defend the film?  I don't work for WB, I have nothing vested in the movie. His criticisms are not of me, I have no dog in this fight.  I saw flaws even if, overall, I enjoyed it more than he did.  At least Rukiao was honest enough to admit his animosity at the beginning, even though it gave his overall review much less value than it would have had if he was not so emotionally vested.  While the value of a purely analytical and unbiased examination may not hold much importance to you personally, many people favor a less partisan exploration of a topic.  So how exactly is my pointing this out to the author not a valid point?  How is criticism now a protected form of speech?