Minor spoilers or whatever.

batsignal batman v superman

I’ve been really freaking excited for Batman v Superman for a long time.

Batman’s inclusion and the rise of the Justice League felt like the natural evolution of the story presented in Man of Steel – he would definitely take notice of Metropolis, and Superman’s arrival could inspire other meta-humans to come out of the shadows. Casting Ben Affleck was another plus; I like him as an actor and he’s directed a bunch of critically acclaimed movies, so having him play such a pivotal character would mean he’d have a lot of creative input, which is a plus. The subsequent hiring of Chris Terrio as writer over David Goyer gave me a massive confidence boost. Goyer seemed to be the biggest problem with Man of Steel, and Terrio had just written Argo with Ben Affleck, which won the Best Picture Oscar. How could that not be a good thing? I was also pleased with Jesse Eisenberg’s casting as Lex Luthor, a choice I had actually pined for a couple of months before it was announced (and was shot down for…). The modern Lex would be like Mark Zuckerberg, and I was ecstatic at the thought of this new, innovative take on the character from a fantastic actor.

The trailers and plot all looked very promising. Injecting politics into a Superman movie was a salivating prospect; everything about Batfleck looked incredible; Lex was just how I hoped he would be; Wonder Woman looked awesome; the colour palette and spectacle from cinematographer Larry Fong were striking – everything looked great!

You know what happened next.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is currently sitting at 31% on Rotten Tomatoes, with 199 reviews counted. That score isn’t going anywhere. The fans all seem to be crazy for it, and it’s still gonna make a hell of a lot of money this weekend, but the critics hate it. Unfortunately, that last bracket includes me.

I saw it at the big UK press screening on Wednesday night (with fellow writer Ciaran, whose review you can read right now), and I left feeling bitter, angry, frustrated and disappointed. It’s perhaps even more divisive than Man of Steel was, with a lot of individual scenes to love but a hell of a lot of stuff to hate as well.

I’m not going to review this movie on what I thought it should be, which so many seem to be doing. Basically, I’m not going to say it’s terrible because it’s not fun. It’s important to assess films on narrative rules and what they’re trying to achieve rather than something it’s not. Without further adieu, let’s get started, shall we?


It’s incredibly apparent early on in Batman v Superman that it’s a complete trainwreck. It bounces between characters and plotlines carelessly with no real set-up for anything which is going on – we’re just thrown into the middle of situations. Zack Snyder took the “show, don’t tell rule” of filmmaking at face value by presenting us with a ton of stuff rather than relaying it through exposition. It’s always good to have less exposition, however the major issue (which was present in Man of Steel too) is that almost none of the stuff is backed up with any logic, leaving the viewer confused about what they’re watching and why – which is probably the keyword of everything in both of Snyder’s movies.

It’s unclear why Clark Kent is even Superman, or why Bruce Wayne is Batman. Why are they doing what they’re doing? What motivates them? Why does Lex want to bring down Superman badly enough that he’s willing to engineer some kind of monster (which would be a PR shambles) to do so? How does a flimsy African-bullet sub-plot relate to the wider story? Why do Batman and Superman only give a shit about each other eighteen months after Man of Steel? Why are Clark and Lois Lane in a relationship? What do they see in each other? What kind of person is Clark? Why does Diana Prince show up at all these high-profile events? Why should I care?

Just shoving a bunch of shit at us is the defining problem of both of these movies. Forget the overbearing darkness and Superman killing Zod; Snyder doesn’t seem to know how to provide context and set-up for anything, from characterisation to important plot points. The example which springs to mind is Clark’s relationship with his mother, who goes on to completely define the third act. Prior to this, the two characters share one scene together, a conversation which we’ve been shown in the trailers… and pretty much all of the dialogue is in the trailers too.

How can the audience be expected to care about this if we don’t understand why their relationship is so strong? Even in Man of Steel it’s kinda shoddy, and it ultimately leaves the narrative feeling empty and weightless. It’d be like if, in The Force Awakens, the audience didn’t know that Han Solo and Kylo Ren were father and son before he kills him, and Han’s only previous scene in the movie was when he chats to Rey on Takodana.

Sounds terrible, doesn’t it?

There’s an argument to be made that Snyder does all of this because he trusts the audience to use their common sense. Generally, people have some idea of why both Clark and Bruce do what they do: to bring justice to the world, avenge the ones they’ve lost, an inner desire to do good. It’s been hammered into pop culture since the 1930’s. However, this problem is two-fold. If we’re going to root for these characters then we need to be reminded of their motivations in the movie itself, especially when the plot relies completely on those motivations.

Furthermore, Snyder seems to have made it his mission to radically overhaul almost every character he adapts, rendering most of their prior portrayals meaningless in regard to these movies. If the audience knows Batman’s motivations, then they also know that Batman doesn’t kill, or at least tries to avoid it all costs – but Batman does kill a hell of a lot in this movie. So does Superman, obviously. The way that both of these characters are presented doesn’t exactly suggest that either of them want to bring justice to the world or have any kind of desire to do good because they’re so miserable. Batman doesn’t give a shit about anything and Superman cares about saving everyone one minute and only about Lois Lane another. Consequently, everything feels messy.


It’s no secret that the repercussions of Man of Steel‘s ending is dealt with in a big way. During the development and production process, it seemed that Zack Snyder had listened to those of us concerned about Superman’s lack thereof for collateral damage and civilian casualties. As it turns out, that was just at face value too. Recently Snyder defended the death toll yet again by saying that The Force Awakens had more death by blowing up an entire planet. This is true, but it’s still not answering what people were really bothered by. Of course there was going to be a high death toll. The problem is that Superman didn’t seem to care. Consequently, Superman spends no time reflecting on this in Batman v Superman, and all of the chatter about it comes from news reports, Holly Hunter’s Senator Finch and Batman. This creates a contradictory Superman: on one hand, he’s going all over the place and saving lots of people. On the other, he never brings up all those innocent people he ended up killing and still doesn’t seem to care about all the deaths and damage he’s causing in this film.

Snyder clearly understands this complaint to some degree (as evidenced by the excellent Bruce Wayne-centric prologue in Metropolis at the beginning), so this seems to suggest that Superman not caring is intentional. It doesn’t matter whether you think “dark n gritty” is the way to go for all superheroes – it’s a basic rule that the audience needs to root for lead characters, and when you have friggin’ Superman acting completely unlikable, there’s a severe problem.

The problems with Superman don’t even end there. During the car journey home last night, it became clear that Clark Kent is a blank void intended for cool action rather than an actual character. I challenge you, dear reader, to describe what kind of person Clark is. Is he funny? Awkward? Shy? Confident? Contemplative? Moody? Arrogant? Sarcastic?

You probably can’t answer it, thus leaving the main hero acting as a mouthpiece for moving the plot along. Batman is the only character in the movie with some clear motivations and personality; we get hints that he has a drinking problem, sleeps around, he feels a duty to take down Superman after being there in Metropolis, and he’s evidently a fucking psychopath. The entire time I was sat there I just wanted to be watching a Batman movie with Ben Affleck and Jeremy Irons appearing in every scene. They were both excellent, as was the majority of the Batman material. It’s a real shame that the film surrounding them was so weak; here’s hoping that Warner Bros. throws all the money necessary at Affleck to fast-track that solo movie.

batman ben affleck

This is a worse movie than Man of Steel in that the plotting and characters are nonsensical, however an issue persistent in both pictures is the lack of a solid structure. That film actually taught me the importance of structure in filmmaking – how scenes need to connect to one another and evolve in order to satisfy. The Avengers does this brilliantly in its first act, with each scene linked through dialogue or themes. Man of Steel continually bounces between the past and the present and elsewhere with limited cohesion, making the whole experience disorientating and confusing. This is nothing in comparison to Batman v Superman, where the exact same thing happens (the movies have the same editor), but it’s made so much worse because the story is far more sprawling. You’ve got Lois Lane’s stuff and Batman’s stuff and Superman’s stuff and Lex Luthor’s stuff and the government’s stuff and Justice League set-up and does your brain hurt now?

When there’s no structure to what’s going on, the viewer can easily become confused about what matters, what doesn’t, and which parts of the story link (this is important in any vast narrative). It was so confusing for me that I’ve forgotten the order of most of the scenes, so the only example I can recall is when Perry White makes a joke about Clark clicking his heels and ending up in Kansas. Logically, you’d expect the next scene to be Clark in Kansas, but that scene doesn’t occur for another ten or fifteen minutes. In fact, it might have been before that line. I honestly have no idea because everything became so dizzying.

It’s as if someone made a really delicious, aromatic, tasty bowl of pasta, and then decided to throw it against the wall before serving. The pieces to a decent-to-good movie are all there; investigative Lois, Man of Steel fallout, scheming Lex, crazy Supes-hating Batman, controversial Superman and so forth, but they’re all so butchered and convoluted that you end up feeling angry at how badly the movie fails such an easy task. The characterisation issues would still be there, and the plot would still be a bit weird, but it would at least make a lot more sense and could have been much more enjoyable.

Aside from most of the Batman material, there isn’t really a lot to like about this movie. Wonder Woman is pretty badass but she doesn’t really add anything beyond what we’ve already seen, and her inclusion is still unnecessary; I actually liked Jesse Eisenberg’s erratic Lex Luthor and how you really didn’t want him to secretly win (as you do with a lot of villains these days), but there’s some definite character flaws with him – as in, there’s no logic behind anything he does; Larry Fong’s cinematography is great; there’s a mish-mash of tones which leave the film feeling weird; the sour and depressing mood really drags the whole thing down and robs it of any fun whatsoever – even Nolan had fun! Again, Snyder seems to take “dark n gritty” at face value, not seeing the need for moments of positivity bar a couple of shots at the end of the film.


After being burned by Snyder twice now, I’ve lost all interest in Justice League and have no excitement for it whatsoever. I have high hopes for Suicide Squad and think that will be good, but if Warner Bros. decide to keep him around then I’m not going to let myself get hyped for it as I have done for Man of Steel and Batman v Superman. I’d much rather everything in this movie be terrible (preferably all amazing), a la the Star Wars Prequels, than be so close to greatness yet at the same time so far. It’s just frustrating, and I have no interest in going through that cycle again for a third time. I adore all of these characters, and Batman in particular means a lot to me. While I was pleased with his portrayal here, I don’t trust Snyder to deliver again.

Part of me even pities the guy. He’s been looking tired and grey for months, and that seemed even more apparent recently. He and Henry Cavill actually showed up at the press screening. which was pretty awesome. Bleeding Cool filmed the whole thing and, well, see for yourself.

He looked and sounded haggled, awkward and unsure of what to say; I don’t blame him. If I’d spent three years working on a movie and the critical reception had been this bad I wouldn’t even leave the hotel room. He’s evidently trying, and I feel bad for him because of his love for the DC universe, but what’s clear is that he isn’t a good fit for the director’s chair and would be better as the ideas man.

Ultimately, Batman v Superman is not a good movie, and I was relieved by the time the ending rolled around. It’s not a film which really warrants repeated viewings unless you want to understand what the fuck went wrong. Nonetheless, I would still recommend seeing it. It’s a film you need to experience for yourself, and if you do enjoy it then I’m happy for you. I’ve been wanting to love this movie for the past three years, and I managed to convince myself – and others – that it would be incredible. I constantly defended it online and in real-life, citing Ben Affleck and Chris Terrio as great filmmakers who would keep Snyder in check, and lauded the epic trailers. I wrote my own plot summaries and ideas for what could happen in the movie and in the future of the DC Extended Universe. I was giddy at the Comic-Con trailer, and was ecstatic and relieved when the first reactions were overwhelmingly positive. I don’t have an “anti-DC agenda,” and I didn’t want to hate this movie.

Therefore, I don’t want others to feel the same way, and the completely divided reactions means there’s a good chance you could love it. So, watch it. Fall in love with it. Smile with pure joy as Batman and Superman finally meet on the big screen after almost eighty years.

Let’s all just hope that Justice League turns out better for everyone.


I have been reborn amidst salt and smoke to lead UTF against the darkness. I'm also an amateur writer and filmmaker as well as having played the 16th Doctor and invented penicillin. Also, deceased.
  • Merchant

    While I understand your point, go check Batmans kill count in every other movie of his. He loves to murder people. Like A LOT. So does superman actually.

    • Doug Youngs

      There is a good chance you’re an idiot

      • Merchant

        as there is with you, there’s a damned good chance most people are an idiot. All of them together, one big idiot.

        Remember when Batman kicked a guy down a bell tower?

        What a racist.

        KGBeast isnt confirmed as dead, just crispy. Batman did properly fuck some people up though and it was awesome.

    • Jasper Cresdee-Hyde

      I know that they’ve both murdered people before on film, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it or think it’s a good idea.

      • Merchant

        It’s the best idea. Sometimes people just have to die.

        Plus now in the future we might get to see what really broke the Bat and sent him over the edge, it’s certainly hinted at in the film by Alfred.

        Oh and btw at no point did Batman or Superman murder anyone. Just need to say that. Not once. Kill some people yeah maybe a little, but murder? Nope.

        • Jasper C-H

          Sometimes villains in these movies and comics do, yes. But it should be an absolute last resort, and heroes should preach the message that using guns and killing makes you just as bad as the other guys – which has probably been used the same amount of times, if not even moreso, as “it’s okay to kill the bad guys”. For example, I was watching Justice League: Flashpoint yesterday for the first time, and at the beginning the different members save a bunch of criminals who have bombs strapped to their chests and try to defuse the bombs + get them away from civilians rather than just letting them all die. That’s the interpretation of these heroes I prefer.

        • Jasper Cresdee-Hyde

          Sometimes villains in these movies and comics do, yes. But it should be an absolute last resort, and heroes should preach the message that using guns and killing makes you just as bad as the other guys – which has probably been used the same amount of times, if not even moreso, as “it’s okay to kill the bad guys”. For example, I was watching Justice League: Flashpoint yesterday for the first time, and at the beginning the different members save a bunch of criminals who have bombs strapped to their chests and try to defuse the bombs + get them away from civilians rather than just letting them all die. That’s the interpretation of these heroes I prefer.

    • Vinzenz Stemberg

      That was more on the directors than Batman. Schumacher is all flashbangpowwhiz like Michael Bay, and Burton has this laissez-faire approach to death like “Oh well, they died, let’s keep moving shall we?” that made him perfect for Sweeney but a weird fit on Batman, still damn good movies though. They were more like his predecessor’s films would be, The Shadow and Grey Ghost.
      Kind of amusing the grimdork mumbly unintelligible Batman of Nolan’s is the one that killed the least. (Only Ra’s Al Ghul, and that was only a technicality, both in how he did it and in comic fans knowing he’s immortal anyway.)

      • Merchant

        >Batman of Nolan’s is the one that killed the least.

        That nuke he flew out to sea? Yeah that killed a load of people, the radiation made gotham uninhabitable. Arguably he probably causes the most death.

  • GeekySciFiGirl

    Your review put into words everything I felt leaving the theater this afternoon, except, think I’m much more heartbroken and cynical because I’m no longer excited about Suicide Squad and want to erase all DC movies from my memory because of this. Historically, their films have not been even 1/2 the level of the bad Marvel ones (Iron Man 2 comes to mind with Green Lantern being less than 1/2 as good as that), but I expected that all to change today. Sadly, it didn’t. I will have to disagree about Jesse’s portrayal. I felt like I was watching a bad imitation of the Joker and LEX IS NOT NOR SHOULD HE BE JOKERISH. He’s an evil genius and didn’t go batty (no pun intended) until the unpleasant business with Brainiac. To make him seem like nothing more than some nutcase with too much money was insulting.

  • JUStAnotherGUEST

    When one’s expectation is set so high, and when reality sets in. What do you do? Shoot them all down? F#$K’em all right?
    I am still gonna see it. I am a big fan, DC and Marvel alike. But I’ll take it for what it is. These movie director’s tried and they try hard to make good movies. They can’t please everybody. You have to watch it and come to your on understandings and conclusions. I am a movie buff. I watch a lot of movies since I was a kid and so does everybody. But as a kid everything they do in a movie is almost perfect no matter how shitty it is. But as an adult you start to see all kinds of flaws and makes you want to ask. Why this? Why that? How come this? and how come that? My wife hates going to see a movie with me because of the after discussion. Now, when I do watch any movies I see it for what it is. The fact is at least they are making it. At least these kind of movies are out there. See it, don’t see, we have a choice. But I would not take or listen to other people’s opinions. IMHO

  • Doug Youngs

    It seems that there is a huge difference between what a time number of critics think and what millions of fans think, and it is the fans buying the tickets so what critics think amounts to what shit smells like. What was that number of reviews, under 200, and the number of fans going to the movie in the millions. Now who do I really believe, a pitiful little group of cry baby fan boys or people who enjoy movies and know why they like them. And of course there are the actual ticket sales and Thursday night, premiere night, Batman v Superman broke its first record at the box office, so to Jasper C-H I, and millions of other people say bl;ow it out your ass and stick ti reviewing toilet paper, its more up your alley.

    • Jasper Cresdee-Hyde

      The epitome of maturity.

      But I’ll address your point about critics. In you – and the rest of the BVS team – saying “this isn’t a movie for critics, it’s for the fans,” you’re placing a massive wedge between the two when there really isn’t one, and placing critics on some kind of special pedestal and demonizing them.

      Critics are not evil monsters who want to hate everything, and anyone who does hold that view needs to immediately re-examine it. The reality is that the vast majority of critics ARE fans of superheroes and these characters, and if they’re not then they certainly won’t want to watch movies like this fail. With the internet, pretty much anyone can be a film critic, and I’d argue that most of the influential reviewers who you see on Rotten Tomatoes or around the internet are just fans like you who also happen to be well-versed enough in the art of film to review them. I mean, that’s what I am. I’ve been a fanboy all of my life. I grew up on Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man, the Spidey/Batman animated series’ and the Batman animated movies (I used to love Mask of the Phantasm and Sub-Zero). I’ve read almost every major comic run from both Marvel and DC, I’ve followed the development and production of comic book movies since 2010. I know these characters and these worlds inside and out.

      It also just so happens that I study the art of film and am a filmmaker, and I know the same goes for most online film critics. We’re just fans, like you, and nobody wanted this film to fail. Why would we? How does it benefit us in the online film journalism industry for films to not do well? In what reality does that make sense? People often tell me that “knowing all about films” ruins the experience because it means I enjoy them less. That isn’t how I see it. Being knowledgeable about cinema and writing about it allows for me to be more selective in what I enjoy, and thus enjoy and appreciate it way more.

      There are two ways to approach reviewing a movie. The first is viewing it from a fan perspective; with superhero movies, fans like to see their characters treated and played well, the iconography of their childhood brought to life, good action, good adaptations and so forth. It’s all surface-level stuff. The second is as a cinema fan/filmmaker/critic/all in one; they’ll pick apart stuff like how good the storytelling was, whether the character development made sense, whether the structure was coherent, the tone, pacing etc. Now, this doesn’t mean that normal movie fans aren’t capable of pointing out story and character flaws or appreciating them. And sure, you get people who are a mixture of the two (me), but from all the years I’ve spent on the internet I think that’s a decent way of splitting it down the middle.

      I don’t want to sound arrogant and like I’m generalising, but fans from the first bracket generally don’t seem to care about the stuff from the second, unless the movie happens to be really fucking good at it and gets praise (Dark Knight Trilogy). BVS is most certainly a movie “for the fans,” in that sense. It brings all the iconography we’ve wanted to see on film for years and has a comic book-y colour palette. However, when you start picking apart its story, characters, tone, pacing, structure and all of that stuff, it completely falls apart.

      And that’s not even to mention the fact that generalising and attacking critics for being snobby or whatever disregards the fact that they just have opinions and happened to not like the film.

      Whenever a studio tries to claim that a movie is “for the fans,” it’s to combat bad critical reception. Acting as if that claim is a good thing is ridiculous, because history has constantly shown that, in the vast majority of cases, good reviews help movies and make them influential and give them longevity. Similarly, movies which don’t get good reviews don’t get any of that. The Force Awakens and the Avengers movies would not have made as much money as they have if they were terrible. They would have still made lots of money, but not as much. Deadpool wouldn’t have opened to $130m on its opening weekend if it was shit. Oscar movies such as The Revenant would not make hundreds of millions of dollars if they didn’t get good reviews. MCU movies would not be as culturally important as they are if they were all boring and bad. This isn’t a difficult concept to grasp and I’ve no idea why this war has broken out between fans and critics, when in reality they’re one and the same.

      Something I keep seeing from BVS defenders is how it’s the audience ratings which matter rather than the critics ratings. At the moment, MOS’ audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes is 76%, and BVS’ is 73%. That’s either the same or in the same area as Marvel movies like The First Avenger, Thor/The Dark World and Iron Man 2. The most critically acclaimed MCU movies all have high audience ratings, and are, funnily enough, the most successful.

      Iron Man: 91%
      Avengers: 91%
      Winter Soldier: 92%
      GOTG: 92%
      Daredevil: 87%
      Age of Ultron: 84%
      Ant-Man: 87%

      What an intriguing correlation.

      As evidenced from its opening weekend predictions, Batman v Superman will end up making a lot of money. It’ll probably pass $1B. But if it were fun to watch, had three-dimensional, interesting characters, a great plot and good pacing and structure it would fly past it and make Avengers money. It won’t, though, because it’s not good enough, and so long as Warner Bros. find themselves content with settling for less the DCEU will be more and more damaged.

      • DReager1

        I highly disagree. The vast majority of critics are not comic book fans just like the vast majority of viewers aren’t, but they still enjoy a good action film. I’m suspect for a lot of critics because nowadays they want everything to be like the indie titles, which has been hurting their credability a lot. Everyone’s disliking this film because it’s faithful to the comics and has a lot of plot lines going. Then they go and give the Indie film of the week a 10/10 for doing something controversial or working with a super tiny budget. I’ve never put any faith in critics as they seem to always make the wrong calls. It’s all subjective of course, but hiveminds seem common among critics as once the flow is starting to tilt in one direction, they all jump on the bandwagon.

        • Jasper Cresdee-Hyde

          Perhaps not in some more serious publications, however all of the influential and popular movie sites have comic book geeks writing about and reviewing movies. Even places like Forbes and The Guardian do. If you’re a movie writer, then you’ll be knowledgeable about comic book movies, which lends itself to comic book knowledge and interest and so forth.

          There isn’t anything wrong with wanting blockbusters to be like indie titles, because the majority of the time they’re fucking great films. Being faithful to the comics is one thing – being a good film is another, and just because Zack Snyder threw in Darkseid references and parademons doesn’t mean we all need to bow at his feet.

          Yeah, hiveminds are common, but not for the reasons everyone seems to think. Film is subjective but there are certain core principles of narrative storytelling which have existed for thousands of years, of which every single movie writer is well aware of, even in a basic sense. Film can evoke incredibly personal responses and you can enjoy it for seemingly no reason sometimes, but the rules of character, tone, structure, plot and so forth are objective. When they’re broken – which is BVS’ problem – it’s incredibly obvious. The degree to which that matters depends on the reviewer, however there’s always a general agreement that something has gone awry.

  • James Pietz

    I read the majority of reviews posted on rotten tomatoes prior to watching the movie and was expecting to see a truly disappointing movie. I walked out of the movie theatre wondering exactly what movie the majority of critics watched. 30%!! Seriously!! Batman v. Superman is an outstanding movie. The current 30% rating places this movie in the same category with movies that are total garbage and impossible to watch. Totally unfair and beyond my ability to understand. Let me address the majority of the reasons given by the critics used to justify their completely unfair analysis. First and foremost they argue that the movie is too dark and too violent. Give me a friggin break. The movie is batman centered. Have any of these critics bothered to read a batman comic published in the last 20 years? Batman is dark, violent and filled with issues. One of the Robin’s was murdered by the Joker for god’s sake. I felt like I was watching the actual batman written about in modern comics. This movie nailed the real batman and the mood of his comic book world. The Second argument often made was there was no humor in the movie! Again, what movie were they watching? “Is she with you? I thought she was with you?”/” I’m a friend of your son’s. I figured that with the costume and all”/ “You’ve never known a woman like me”. Perry White’s comment about clark kent clicking his heels. I could go on but my point is made. Saying that the movie didn’t contain humor doesn’t make it so. Lex Luthor and Alfred had their moments as well. Third, many criticized the movie for revisiting batman’s origin. Again, give me a friggin break. It was presented in a very brief and condensed manner. Fourth, many criticized the movie for keeping wonder woman’s, cyborg’s, flash’s and aquaman’s appearances too brief. Doesn’t make sense. This is a batman and superman movie. Not a flash movie. Not a justice league movie. It intended to only introduce these characters, which it did in a meaningful but brief manner.. Wonder woman’s role was much bigger and her appearances were well done. I was left with wanting to see more of her, which is exactly what the movie should have left me wanting. Same with the other characters as well. The movie jumped around because the story demanded it. I felt like all of the major characters were well acted. That is always going to be a personal preference however. The soundtrack was top notch. The CGI was excellent and believable. Apparently I watched a different movie than the majority of the rotten tomatoes critics did.

    • Maventii

      Fanboys tend to love crap, despite it being crap.

  • Captain Crunk

    It is very true to the DC comics of the last 20 to 30 years on almost everything, mainly the storytelling style and elements. I can understand why the critics didn’t like it, most didn’t understand why certain things were happening because the movie didn’t waste time with exposition (a really good example probably being Doomsday and how he works). Some probably wouldn’t even enjoy the comics this pulls from, and that is fine. I think it is also very obvious that some of the elements used for the dream sequences are going to actually be event plot points in future movies to tie them closely together, in the same way comic books do.

    So sure, as a film for someone that doesn’t care about the comics or just doesn’t know them well, they could hate watching the movie and be left very confused. That’s fine. The studio let Synder make a movie for the fans of the comics, which is what he has been saying he wanted to do all along. It certainly wasn’t made in the Hollywood style so many critics seem to be asking for with all the cheap jokes and a tightly packaged happy ending for everyone involved. This isn’t the 1978 Superman, and it certainly isn’t the 1989 Batman. I understood what I was watching and enjoyed it. It is a modern comic book as film, not a film reflecting a comic book franchise’s characters.