Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

[Phil in the Blank]

Batman vs Superman is a flawed movie for reasons that everyone has listed here before me but in short its a convoluted mess that tries to to jam too much into its runtime.

With that said, I left the cinema excited to see Batman Solo, excited to see a Wonder Woman solo movie and excited to see the Justice League movies so the movie must do something right to elicit that response from me right?

And yeah Rukio is a hardcore Man of Steel hater. His opinion on this film is worthless to anyone who enjoyed that film.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Phil in the Blank

[Water Bottle]

5 hours ago, KGator said:

 

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?

 

And my basic point is that a review of a creative source by it's own existence should be and is partial no matter who wrote it. Trying to dismiss a review for being subjective is thus trying to say that the entire field of film criticism. In other words, it's not tainted: it's working exactly as it should.

 

Criticism has always been a protected form of speech in 'Merica. It's called the first amendment.

[grey ghost]

The following has spoilers:

 

Everything is great until Batman and Supes fight. 

 

That fight made me dislike both characters.

 

Then the movie completely tanks with the Doomsday and death of Superman stuff. They really should've saved that for another movie.

 

So I see why the critics bashed the movie.

 

It's too bad because I thought the first half was fantastic (I even agree with CJohn about Lex being fun). 

 

TL;DR - The first half was one of the best superhero movies. The second half is one of the worst.

 

 

Edited March 30, 2016 by grey ghost

[cheesypoofs]

I wanted to like this movie, I really did want to. And while I'm primarily a Marvel fan, I've always loved Batman too. I even actually enjoyed about the first 45 minutes to an hour. But my god did it go downhill, fast. I really liked Gal, Ben was alright...Bale was the superior Batman though. The majority of this movie is one hot mediocre mess. The ending also drove me nuts.. Everytime I thought it finally ended, it just kept going, and going, and going. Doomsday was absolutely horrible. Scenes kept jumping all over the place. I was just very disappointed even with going in with low expectations.

 

D+/C-

[cheesypoofs]

10 minutes ago, cheesypoofs said:

I wanted to like this movie, I really did want to. And while I'm primarily a Marvel fan, I've always loved Batman too. I even actually enjoyed about the first 45 minutes to an hour. But my god did it go downhill, fast. I really liked Gal, Ben was alright...Bale was the superior Batman though. The majority of this movie is one hot mediocre mess. The ending also drove me nuts.. Everytime I thought it finally ended, it just kept going, and going, and going. Doomsday was absolutely horrible. Scenes kept jumping all over the place. I was just very disappointed even with going in with low expectations.

 

D+/C-

Other things that annoyed me:

 

Batman's dream sequence was just over the top

Lex Luther was just....weird

They made Gotham and Metropolis seem so close. I've never imagined them being anywhere near that close to each other 

[rukaio101]

2 hours ago, Water Bottle said:

 

And my basic point is that a review of a creative source by it's own existence should be and is partial no matter who wrote it. Trying to dismiss a review for being subjective is thus trying to say that the entire field of film criticism. In other words, it's not tainted: it's working exactly as it should.

Wait, is that KGator guy trying to claim my review is bad because it's subjective? That's hilarious. Reviews by their very nature are subjective. The closest you'll ever get to an objective review is a Wikipedia summary.

 

Anyway, the final part is finally here. For those wondering why it's a day and half late, it's because I wanted to spend as much time as possible making it as perfect as I can.

...

...

...

...

Okay, that's a lie. I was travelling yesterday. But anywhere, here it is. So now I can finally wash my hands of this movie. Hopefully.

 

 

 

 

[James]

On 3/28/2016 at 4:46 PM, rukaio101 said:

This is hilarious considering most of what I ended up talking about in those reviews was the movie's piss poor story structure and abundance of pointless scenes. Certainly I touch on character here and there, but most of what I talk about is simply the poor storytelling.

 

FYI, the bolded part is especially hilarious. The main reason I hate MoS is because its interpretation is significantly not more complex. I've nothing against a different or darker take on the character that deviates heavily from the comics. Hell, I really liked the darker alt-universe Superman in that Gods and Monsters animated movie. That guy killed and they did it really well. But if you're going to do a darker take on the character, that take needs to actually be good. MoS Superman is a bland, poorly-written character who is rarely allowed a human moment because that movie, like this one, mistakes talking points and half-baked religious symbolism for depth and characterisation.

 

That said, since it became incredibly obvious from the first paragraph that you've not actually bothered to read any of my reviews past my opening statement, I really don't see any point in reading yours any further either.

Are you serious? There is no such thing as a pointless scene. If the writers put it there then it means they had a reason. Are you going to say to me that when I write I shouldn't write something that I, as a writer, who knows the world better than any reader, think belongs there just because I have to keep the plot continuously going? That is ridiculous. Have you read any of George RR Martin's work (Game of Thrones). The guy is a master at writing scenes that apparently do nothing to forward the plot but enrich the experience. Same with Stephen King. Look at PJ's LOTR and TH. World building is necessary. I prefer a 5 hour movie with good world building than a 90 minutes one that throws everything out thinking the audience must understand it. 

[WrathOfHan]

21 minutes ago, James said:

Are you serious? There is no such thing as a pointless scene. If the writers put it there then it means they had a reason. Are you going to say to me that when I write I shouldn't write something that I, as a writer, who knows the world better than any reader, think belongs there just because I have to keep the plot continuously going? That is ridiculous. Have you read any of George RR Martin's work (Game of Thrones). The guy is a master at writing scenes that apparently do nothing to forward the plot but enrich the experience. Same with Stephen King. Look at PJ's LOTR and TH. World building is necessary. I prefer a 5 hour movie with good world building than a 90 minutes one that throws everything out thinking the audience must understand it. 

Let's take the Pa Kent scene for this example:

 

Doe it contribute to the story? No.

Does it advance characters? No.

Does it flow with the rest of the movie? No.

 

That was a pointless scene. Writers always do second drafts but it's up to the director to choose what stays in, and sometimes they get a bit full of their movie or don't realize it was pointless. On the final point, the Knightmare scene is literally what you described. Only comic fans will get the full sense of that scene, for the rest it's simply a cool action scene that feels out of place.

[James]

1 hour ago, WrathOfHan said:

Let's take the Pa Kent scene for this example:

 

Doe it contribute to the story? No.

Does it advance characters? No.

Does it flow with the rest of the movie? No.

 

That was a pointless scene. Writers always do second drafts but it's up to the director to choose what stays in, and sometimes they get a bit full of their movie or don't realize it was pointless. On the final point, the Knightmare scene is literally what you described. Only comic fans will get the full sense of that scene, for the rest it's simply a cool action scene that feels out of place.

That is really a subjective matter. For me the Knightmere scenes were the best part of the movie and I'm not a comic book geek by any means (never read a comic in my life). And they fit really well with the "power corrupts" theme, that is actually the base for the whole movie. And anyway, that is not the point. If a scene is put there, in a movie or a book, it means that the director/writer put a meaning behind it. The fact that some people don't get the meaning is irrelevant. 

[KGator]

6 hours ago, Water Bottle said:

 

And my basic point is that a review of a creative source by it's own existence should be and is partial no matter who wrote it. Trying to dismiss a review for being subjective is thus trying to say that the entire field of film criticism. In other words, it's not tainted: it's working exactly as it should.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA!!!  That's NOT TRUE AT ALL!!!

 

if I gave you three versions of a crime scene investigation: one performed by the victim, one conducted by the accused and one created by an independent crime scene professional . . . You wouldn't put more faith in the third???

 

When we read on reviews we rely on the impartial analysis of others. Would you really trust a reviewer who openly admitted to not having a sense of humor and finding little value in the genre to help you decide whether a recently released comedy was worth seeing?  Would you value a review of the newly redesigned Toyota Camry from a reviewer who openly admitted to disliking foreign cars?  Do you really want a McDonalds spokesman writing an article on which fast food restaurant has the best hamburgers?  It is the whole expectation of objective analysis along with an assumed measure of technical expertise that differentiates a product review from just another form of marketing.

[Water Bottle]

5 minutes ago, KGator said:

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA!!!  That's NOT TRUE AT ALL!!!

 

if I gave you three versions of a crime scene investigation: one performed by the victim, one conducted by the accused and one created by an independent crime scene professional . . . You wouldn't put more faith in the third???

 

When we read on reviews we rely on the impartial analysis of others. Would you really trust a reviewer who openly admitted to not having a sense of humor and finding little value in the genre to help you decide whether a recently released comedy was worth seeing?  Would you value a review of the newly redesigned Toyota Camry from a reviewer who openly admitted to disliking foreign cars?  Do you really want a McDonalds spokesman writing an article on which fast food restaurant has the best hamburgers?  It is the whole expectation of objective analysis along with an assumed measure of technical expertise that differentiates a product review from just another form of marketing.

 

A film review is not a criminal science investigation, a food review, or even a car review. Film is a creative endeavor, many people consider it to be art. I'm sorry to burst your bubble but if a critic only tells me that a movie has competent direction then that review tells me one thing: the movie is a shallow experience that didn't speak to said critic. Roger Ebert, considered one of the greatest film critics of all time, would often talk about how a film spoke to him based on his own personal experiences. In other words, he would bring his personal bias into the film and that would influence how the material spoke to him and then he would tell us this. A film review is an opinion piece: if you have a problem with this then you have a problem with film criticism.

[KGator]

6 hours ago, Water Bottle said:

Criticism has always been a protected form of speech in 'Merica. It's called the first amendment.

 

Then why are you attempting to admonish me for expressing reservations about what seems to be, from all indications, a misleading and highly partisan review.  Just as public criticism is a form of protected speech so too is any subsequent criticism directed towards the original critique.  Isn't that right?

[Water Bottle]

1 minute ago, KGator said:

 

Then why are you attempting to admonish me for expressing reservations about what seems to be, from all indications, a misleading and highly partisan review.  Just as public criticism is a form of protected speech so too is any subsequent criticism directed towards the original critique.  Isn't that right?

 

Because your admonishing might discourage others from posting their reviews. They might see your posts and get discouraged from contributing to the forums or using the blog feature. You are free to lodge criticism at the criticism itself but not at the critic. It's that simple.

[KGator]

2 hours ago, WrathOfHan said:

Let's take the Pa Kent scene for this example:

 

Doe it contribute to the story? No.

Does it advance characters? No.

Does it flow with the rest of the movie? No.

 

That was a pointless scene. Writers always do second drafts but it's up to the director to choose what stays in, and sometimes they get a bit full of their movie or don't realize it was pointless. On the final point, the Knightmare scene is literally what you described. Only comic fans will get the full sense of that scene, for the rest it's simply a cool action scene that feels out of place.

 

I disagree in the sense that we need to be careful in applying simplistic benchmarks to individual scenes.  While I personally thought the Pa Kent scene was unnecessary and would have preferred it to have been exchanged for the Lex Luther parademon extra scene released recently . . . hindsight is 20/20.  If Snyder felt the scene was important to establish Superman's state of mind (and perhaps preach about how one man's hero can be another man's villain) then the scene had a purpose.  How effectively that point translated to the average viewer is another matter.  While you and I found very little value in the Pa Kent vision scene, that in itself doesn't make it anymore pointless than say . . . .the flash contact dream sequence.  To people not versed in comic book lore the Pa Kent scene might have been much more humanizing while the Knightmares just confusing and out of place.  

[RobinHood26]

After seeing this second time I truly believe this is the worst edited Blockbuster I've ever seen.

 

Also a very simple thing they messed up on, they had a guarantee cheer moment but they choose against it. The Title comes up small in the corner during the batman intro. Personally I don't think that scene was needed but why not after Bruce saves the little girl and he looks up with the Bruce Wayne logo behind does it not cut to the fucking LOGO! Do the whole BAM BAM BAM BAM soundtrack shit and the Bat logo and the Superman Logo crowd goes nuts then boom 18 months alter. I mean it cuts to black anyways and say 18 months later there. This is a comic book film, come on, total missed opportunity, thats a crowd moment no matter what. 

[KGator]

1 hour ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Because your admonishing might discourage others from posting their reviews. They might see your posts and get discouraged from contributing to the forums or using the blog feature. You are free to lodge criticism at the criticism itself but not at the critic. It's that simple.

 

Warning or accusing a review of being misleading or inaccurate due to the reviewer's state of mind or pre-existing bias is by definition a criticism of the review, not the reviewer.  So your actions in this matter do not seem to follow your stated intent.

[KGator]

1 hour ago, Water Bottle said:

 

A film review is not a criminal science investigation, a food review, or even a car review. Film is a creative endeavor, many people consider it to be art. I'm sorry to burst your bubble but if a critic only tells me that a movie has competent direction then that review tells me one thing: the movie is a shallow experience that didn't speak to said critic. Roger Ebert, considered one of the greatest film critics of all time, would often talk about how a film spoke to him based on his own personal experiences. In other words, he would bring his personal bias into the film and that would influence how the material spoke to him and then he would tell us this. A film review is an opinion piece: if you have a problem with this then you have a problem with film criticism.

 

A formal investigation, product review, food critique or film review ar all forms of independent analysis.  They only vary in degrees of importance due to the subject matter.  Roger Ebert was objective because he did NOT go into movies with preconceived notions and instead would rate each film on its own merit.  As long as he applied his own viewpoint to each film that was not personal bias.  Now if he went to a movie and immediately downgraded it if he saw a prominent ethnic actor because he had a deep rooted aversion to non-white actors . . . THAT would be an incorporation of personal bias because certain films would automatically be treated differently.

 

Bias is bringing a specific prejudice or favoritism into a situation, not simply viewing a film from a unique perspective.  Perhaps you like to rephrase your argument.

[filmlover]

27 minutes ago, Jay Hollywood said:

After seeing this second time I truly believe this is the worst edited Blockbuster I've ever seen.

 

Also a very simple thing they messed up on, they had a guarantee cheer moment but they choose against it. The Title comes up small in the corner during the batman intro. Personally I don't think that scene was needed but why not after Bruce saves the little girl and he looks up with the Bruce Wayne logo behind does it not cut to the fucking LOGO! Do the whole BAM BAM BAM BAM soundtrack shit and the Bat logo and the Superman Logo crowd goes nuts then boom 18 months alter. I mean it cuts to black anyways and say 18 months later there. This is a comic book film, come on, total missed opportunity, thats a crowd moment no matter what. 

This is a comic book movie that's completely ashamed to be a comic book movie. Snyder has such a fundamental misunderstanding of why these characters have always been so popular that it completely sinks the movie.

Edited March 31, 2016 by filmlover

[Water Bottle]

19 minutes ago, KGator said:

 

Warning or accusing a review of being misleading or inaccurate due to the reviewer's state of mind or pre-existing bias is by definition a criticism of the review, not the reviewer.  So your actions in this matter do not seem to follow your stated intent.

 

Except the review isn't misleading or inaccurate. It just has opinions that you don't like and anybody reading your posts can tell immediately.

 

6 minutes ago, KGator said:

 

A formal investigation, product review, food critique or film review ar all forms of independent analysis.  They only vary in degrees of importance due to the subject matter.  Roger Ebert was objective because he did NOT go into movies with preconceived notions and instead would rate each film on its own merit.  As long as he applied his own viewpoint to each film that was not personal bias.  Now if he went to a movie and immediately downgraded it if he saw a prominent ethnic actor because he had a deep rooted aversion to non-white actors . . . THAT would be an incorporation of personal bias because certain films would automatically be treated differently.

 

Bias is bringing a specific prejudice or favoritism into a situation, not simply viewing a film from a unique perspective.  Perhaps you like to rephrase your argument.

 

 

The point is that his reviews weren't objective. They were subjective. And you admitted that in that post: he applied his own viewpoint to each film. So has rukaio. We're done here.

[RobinHood26]

So many terrible editing choices we wait FOREVER for superman to go fight, but then after he flys away to go do it. "No man can stay good" or whatever it should cut straight to BATMAN. Instead to make you wait and kill the pace even more they have Wonder Women look at all the Justice League clips. Something that should have been done 20 minutes earlier around when Batman was. You undercut the tension you've built. Oh yeah I forgot, they were about to fight.