Skip to main content

Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice


Oh, Zack Snyder. What have you done?

I’m tempted to just leave my review at that. Batman V. Superman is a mess, and one with not a lot of redeeming qualities. The movie opens with a narration from Bruce Wayne, and he’s probably high when he’s saying whatever he said, because it makes less sense than Donald Trump trying to convince people he’s never insulted women. And then the movie takes off, at a pace of maybe 5 MPH, if I’m being generous. Envision your great-grandmother driving for the first time. Then imagine that she’s driving a car that has a maximum speed of about 2 MPH. That’s roughly equivalent to the pace of this movie. Wow. Where do I even begin?

Superman’s actions are beginning to be questioned. Why now, and not immediately after the events of Man of Steel, you ask? Well, who knows? The writers certainly didn’t. Meanwhile, in Gotham City, Bruce Wayne decides to take matters into his own hands even though the government is probably slightly more equipped to do that, and they’re investigating Superman anyway. Why does Bruce Wayne hate Superman, you ask? Because Superman threw Zod through a skyscraper that apparently had somebody in it, or something, when every building in the area was supposed to be evacuated. It’s not like Superman saved everybody on earth, with minimal casualties, and probably didn’t even directly cause a single death. The motivations in this movie are just the worst, in case you were wondering. Meanwhile, Lex Luthor also wants Superman dead, because, in his own words, if you’re all-powerful, you can’t be all good. Even overlooking the philosophical problems of this idea, Superman isn’t all-powerful, and Lex knows this. After all, if he wants Batman to kill him, then he must believe Batman has a chance to kill him, right? How did the writers come up with a plot like this, you ask? Well, we can’t be sure because we weren’t there, but it’s safe to assume they’d probably been smoking some weed to keep them awake, because Warner Brothers probably gave the writers about 4 weeks to come up with a final script, because that’s apparently what they really do. (I’m not joking, they actually did this to the Suicide Squad writers.)

Plot problems and character motivations (or lack thereof) aside, the pacing of the movie is atrocious. Nothing happens for about the first 2 hours. Superman and Batman slowly begin to hate each other, and then they finally fight. The fight itself is pathetic. After waiting for 2 hours, we got maybe a 7 minute fight scene. (Note to rabid DC fanboys: Captain America: Civil War gave us a fight scene over 15 minutes long. This is why people like Marvel movies more.) And then comes, perhaps, the most moronic character development ever devised. Batman defeats Superman, and as he’s about to kill him, Superman pleads “Save Martha”. Why would he call his mother by her first name, you ask? Because the writers just didn’t care. Anyway, Martha was the name of Batman’s murdered mother. Suddenly, all of the concerns he has about Superman’s nearly unlimited power are erased from existence, and he becomes a new man, but only after shouting the cringe-worthy line “Why did you say that name?!” repeatedly, as if we weren't crying in terror after hearing it just once.

Next, I have to talk about the tragic attempt at world-building. There are so many forced moments and pointless cameos that after a while it becomes tiring. Look, building your world like this just does not work. Iron Man 2 tried to build the Marvel universe like this too, and that movie fell flat on its face. It’s cool that Wonder Woman shows up in the finale, sure. But why is she there? What does she contribute to the final battle? Absolutely nothing. If you think it sounds like I absolutely despise this movie, you would be wrong. There are only a few movies that I truly loathe, and this isn’t one of them. I merely dislike the majority of it. So this brings us to the good things about it.

Contrary to what you may have heard, this isn’t the worst movie ever made. It’s a complete mess, sure. But it’s got a couple of redeeming qualities. Ben Affleck is the bright spot of the movie, playing Batman to absolute perfection. Henry Cavill isn’t given a whole lot to do, but he does a good job with what few emotions he does get to show. The CGI looks great, with the exception of Doomsday, who looks like Playdough and mud thrown together. Gal Gadot does a nice job playing Wonder Woman, though I’m still clueless as to why her presence was necessary in the movie. Jesse Eisenberg also does a good job, the person he’s playing just isn’t Lex Luthor. The direction is… sort of competent, I guess? Zimmer’s score provides a nice backdrop, but isn’t quite as good as his score for Man of Steel. The movie as a whole is mildly entertaining in parts, and then the last 30 minutes or so are pretty solid. So what I’m trying to say is that this isn’t Batman & Robin 2.0, because that movie doesn’t have a single redeeming quality other than the fact that it ended Schumacher’s Batman movies.


 So, to sum it up, Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Worse Than Mediocrity is a wasted opportunity on many levels. And really, I don’t think Snyder is to blame for this. There are better directors, sure. But the problems are all in the script. The writers absolutely and thoroughly failed to do their jobs. So, would I recommend this movie? Sure, if only because of Batman and the fact that you’ll need to watch this to know what’s going on in upcoming DCEU movies. If this were anything other than a superhero movie, and a necessary (to watch) part of a series that will hopefully get far better, I would probably advise you to avoid it like Walmart bathrooms without toilet paper. But sadly, it’s required viewing if you’re gonna watch the rest of the DCEU. So get ready to throw away two and a half hours of your life, unless you fall asleep during the movie, in which case your time will be well spent. 2.8/5 stars.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Revenge of the Sith Review

I’m sure you’ve probably heard that Revenge of the Sith is just slightly better than The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. In my opinion, that is completely untrue. Revenge of the Sith is a masterpiece. Let me explain why I think so. First of all, the plot here is just so much better. Even the dialogue is greatly improved. It’s still not perfect, but it’s only cringe-worthy in a few scenes. That in and of itself is a huge improvement. Secondly, George Lucas has the power of his own legendary original trilogy behind him this time. Finally, we get to witness Anakin become Darth Vader. And it’s glorious. We finally get a little bit of believability when it comes to why Anakin turned to the dark side. This time, it’s not just because he was an arrogant brat. We’re finally able to believe that he was pushed over the edge. On a technical level, everything is flawless, and the CGI still looks incredible today. The acting is far better this time around, and Hayden Christensen i...

Thor: Ragnarok

Thor: Ragnarok is the third and final film in the Thor series. The movie finds Thor humbled, hammer-less, and in a desperate race against time to save Asgard. Ragnarok finds Taika Waititi taking over directorial duties, Kenneth Branagh having directed the first in the series and Alan Taylor having directed the second. Both Branagh and Taylor played the first two films dreadfully seriously. While the first had intermittent, light humor, the second film was oppressively dark and grim. Waititi corrects this problem in only five minutes. Ragnarok’s prologue alone contains more lighthearted fun than both of the previous films combined. Waititi has a bit of a reputation for his oddball sense of humor, but it works wonders for Ragnarok . Waititi suggested that much of the film’s dialogue be improvised, and it does a great deal to reinforce the film’s themes of uncertainty and insecurity. The randomness and off-the-wall quality of the jokes makes...

Casino Royale Review

Back when this film came out in 2006, there wasn't much hope for the future of Bond. The last few films had been train wrecks when it came to getting a good critical response. With the exception of Goldeneye and two or three Roger Moore films, there hadn't been a truly good Bond movie since Sean Connery gave up the role. That was all about to change. Eon Productions brought back Martin Campbell to direct Casino Royale, his last Bond film having been Goldeneye. What little hope there had been for Casino Royale was completely demolished when it was announced Daniel Craig would be playing Bond. It was a huge gamble. (No pun intended.) The film opens in the classic Bond manner, with Bond on a random mission which leads into a chase. Once we finally get to the actual story, we learn that a gambler named Le Chiffre (I'm still not sure how that's accurately pronounced) is joining a high-stakes poker game, and Bond is sent to join the game and beat him. It's immedia...