So Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice just opened here yesterday and the reviews are out and bad. I'm actually kind of surprised at the fairly unanimous panning of a movie meant to be the cornerstone for a series of superhero films already in the works. I mean, this is the lead in to the Justice League, Wonder Woman, The Suicide Club, everything DC to compete with the Marvel universe. It says so right in the title, Dawn of Justice.

Anyway I hated the BvS trailers, long on talk and pretense, with the snippets of battle scenes to attract its real audience. And "One Expression" Affleck was a terrible choice for Batman, but Cavill is hardly the most exciting Superman ever either, so I thought that the comparison might work out better.

What I did not realize until I read the reviews and talked to someone who saw it yesterday, was how badly they went off the cliff with the story. At least that's how I would see it, were I the fanboy watching or even the casual observer that I am.

Now I put Spoiler in the title because everyone yells at me when I don't, but I will not reveal the big spoiler at this point, until someone else wants to talk about it. Enough to say that, apart from whatever else may happen in this film, why did anyone think that ending belonged in this movie? And why would anyone think that a humorless, preachy, semi-Biblical story of God vs. Man with CGI action scenes and a nutty Lex Luthor makes for a franchise builder?

People did seem to like Wonder Woman, which is good because that movie has already wrapped up production.

There is always so much talk here when things are being planned and not much talk afterwards, so let's have at it when you get around to seeing it. And then we can all argue.

I saw it yesterday. I've mixed the positive in with the negative but it's easier to point out the negative in any film and will read more that way. In general, I'd say the movie is a victim of heavy editing. The scenes are fairly choppy in their transitions and forge ahead with speed. Nigh every scene would have benefitted with a bit of lingering/breathing space to let those dramatic power lines sink in before immediately switching to another scene involving different characters in a different location. The announcement of the extended cut on DVD prior to the theatrical release might be a bit of damage control for those like me who felt it had a lot more going on than it could feasibly fit in a 2hr30 theatrical release. I'm not sure why directors do this - you'd think they'd be aware that the script is overlong before they even start. It seems a little self indulgent to make a lengthy film at this budget and scale? Peter Jackson did the same.

There's a lot of things that don't quite make sense or seem like poorly reasoned decisions - I'm going to assume it's because bits of context have been cut here and there to hit the run time, but the speed in which the movie goes along saves you from immediately noticing most until you analyse it later on. Lex's motivations are definitely confusing, and Wonder Woman's motivations are a bit wafer thin.

MVP for me was Holly Hunter's Senator Finch. Maybe because I didn't value her involvement in the trailer but I liked her interactions with Lex and her acting in her final scene felt like the strongest in the whole film to me. Scoot McNairy's role was great as well - neither of them are major characters but their arcs worked very well for me.

Lois Lane is largely unnecessary and would've worked better reduced to only one or two scenes, similar to Pepper Potts in The Avengers. If you're looking for an opportune moment for a quick loo break, Lois' scenes are the best bet I liked the nod to the classic scene from the Reeves movies though.

Alfred was another pleasant surprise - more able and less doddery than we've seen in films. Different take but I'd be interested to see him again.

The special effects involved in the Doomsday battle are a little less special when they disorient you among the whirlwind of headache inducing flashing lights and orange explosions and fire everywhere. (and the clichéd grunting.) Wasn't a fan of that fight and honestly think the movie would have benefitted without Doomsday's involvement at all. The anticipation for this film is built around the titular battle, and when it happens they DO throw some glorious moves against each other, but it's rather brief and anti-climactic. The reason they set aside their differences also really, really doesn't land on film. They build it up throughout the film but in prose or comic book form where we can get Batman's internal thoughts during the battle, I'm sure it would resonate. But it feels abrupt because of the subtlety. I think I would've preferred to remove the Doomsday sequence and instead see the pair have a longer conflict and resolve under different circumstances. It would've freed up some time for other scenes to be extended as well, or to reinsert the various cut elements.

Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot - both criticised a lot when first cast - shone brightly and I look forward to seeing Wonder Woman next year and whatever solo Batman flick eventually follows. They worked well together which is where most of Wonder Woman's involvement in the plot lies.

The JL cameos are forced and inorganic - since spoilers are involved, it is literally just Wonder Woman watching a few video clips (that she nicked from Batman who nicked them from Lex) on her laptop. These kind of feel like they could have been a post-credits sequence due to the fairly tangential nature. (Also I don't think Wonder Woman quite grasps how digital information can be duplicated.) The Flash gets another scene earlier on in which he appears through a portal in a dream (there's a bit of dreaming in this movie) to Bruce, in which he murmurs something about Lois Lane(!) being important. No less cringeworthy but at least it looks to build up towards something specific later on. It's just not of use for this film. As per the MCU, the universe building scenes seem to be uniformly the weakest parts of these films.

The movie is low on levity but Martha Kent makes a nice joke that's sort of out of place, still sort of fun, undecided. Cheesey in a good way.

I'm not surprised to see it around 2 out of five stars or hitting around 30-40% in reviews. There's a lot of expectation with these major blockbuster event pieces so it's going to get criticised maybe a bit more than it should and with the increased attention of superhero movies you're going to get every random film goer like me over analysing it. There's enough to appreciate - it's fun to see these characters on screen together and in live action, it's just overstuffed and I think the extended cut will help a lot to improve the experience. Still really looking forward to Suicide Squad - looks like major fun.

Edit: oh yeah, the ending! It's a bit surprising that it happened but actually super interested to see where they take it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: rwn410,

Since you mentioned the name Doomsday rwn410, I think I can now talk about it.

I am no Superman fanboy, but please correct me if I am wrong, the Justice League was formed well before Doomsday showed up. Doomsday could not be stopped by the other League members and it was up to Superman to . . .

Well you either know that or you don't, and if you know it that pretty much takes away the big spoiler of this film.

So my question is, why is Doomsday even in this first set up film at all? He belongs in a Justice League movie if anything. Why imply that a certain event may have created the Justice League when as far as I know it had nothing to do with it because it happened long afterwards? It seems like a needless change of comic history. Or am I the one who is missing something here?

I actually don't know my knowledge of Superman is mostly from the cartoons, and when Doomsday showed up he was immediately lobotomised by a more bitter and twisted Superman from a different universe (that definitely would've ended the film quickly) I somehow don't think it played that way in the comics!

Lex makes vague reference in his final scene to the showdown with Doomsday being an indicator/beacon and ominous threat that they'll be coming (I can't remember his exact wording) but the implication is that the villain they're building up to in Justice League (which is unannounced I think but invariably meant to be Darkseid) will have become aware to either Doomsday or Superman's presence. Again it's one of those things that doesn't quite make sense, because why on Earth would Lex know that? It's this sort of thing that is a bit prevalent in the film.

Well we are in luck because there are a slew of online articles now that are attempting to explain what it is you just saw, including a good interpretation of the ending on ScreenRant.

When I say good I don't really mean good because if it takes a few thousand words to tell you the real meaning of about eight different scenes that you saw and didn't get, including the ending, there is something wrong with what you saw.

Even with the explanations, I would still say that throwing Doomsday into this movie in such a sloppy way, when he should have appeared later on in this planned line up of movies, was a waste of a character. It just got another battle scene. They could have used any made up villain, but they wanted to get to one place. However we know the ending will not stay the ending because the Justice League is supposed to follow. So the whole thing makes no sense, apart from all else that made no sense I mean.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raven,

I'm a Superman fan and the last movie wasn't bad, but it didn't had the Superman atmosphere. The Zod material was like more for a 2nd movie.

About Batman vs Superman, I know a little kid that know I'm a comic fan. Days ago, he said to me very seriously: "The movie isn't very good."

I was surprise with his comment.

Then yesterday, somebody else said something similar to me.

I'm a comic fan of Superman and DC Comics, but since Batman Returns. I'm very clear DC Comics and Warner Bros don't understand how to grab attention from fans/viewers with their movies.

Now I'm a fan of Marvel/Disney Movies and the old Spider-Man 1 and 2 from Sony. Those movies are very good grabbing interest from comic fans and common viewers. X-Men movies, I still believe they miss something, but you can follow the story and like the characters. All the Fantastic Four miss a lot. Blade 1 and 2 well very interesting. Ghost Rider missed something.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kane1,

This had some good moments but it was ultimately like one those garish trick hamburgers at a greasy spoon that also has, like, ham, onion rings, and a fried egg on it. Lots going on to start, but not a good feeling once you're done with it.

No one roots for these kinds of movies to succeed more than I do, but they could have done A LOT better than they did here with the huge budget and fine cast they had to work with. At a minimum, I hope future DCU movies will have different writers than this one. There is no way such ridiculous things could have happened when Batman, the world's greatest detective, was on the case.

The early, massive grosses are obscuring the truth of it, but ultimately, this movie will be considered every bit as bad as the Clooney/Schwarzenegger abomination, if not as damaging to the Batman brand. As for Superman, maybe he can't be done well on the big screen. The last (only) good ones were Superman 1&2 about 35 years ago, and many aspects of even those haven't held up very well. Singer gamely tried to update that world to 2006, but even that didn't fly.

Hopefully, they'll work out some of the many problems with this would-be franchise in time for the Justice League movie, but I'm looking forward to X-Men apocalypse and Captain America Civil War, in part to help forget this one. The way it turned out, they might as well have hired hackmaster Michael Bay for it. (It probably would have been called "Batman v. Superman : Rise of Justice" instead, if they had.)

The one thing that puzzled me more than other points in the movie was the chap that got saved (and lost his legs) by Bruce Wayne. Why didn't he cash the cheques he was sent? This made no sense.

The guy who lost his legs wasn't receiving them. Lex (or someone on his behalf) was intercepting the checks and writing those phrases on them to further inflame Batman's hatred of Superman. Lex mentioned having done that in one of his rants towards the end.

I have to be honest...the movie annoyed me. There were so many dumb little details that I found it difficult to focus on the main story.

One example: At the end of Man of Steel (which I loved) Perry White is watching the destruction of Metropolis from the Daily Planet. He realizes the danger is too close and calls for the evacuation of the building. Go Perry!!

Beginning of BvS. Bruce Wayne lands by the water in a helicopter, then gets in an ugly little compact to drive through the city that is coming down on him. Meanwhile, he is talking on the phone to some guy named Jack who is waiting for Bruce to tell him to clear the building. Is Jack a moron? A bit slow? We don't know.....but Jack is screwed.


Bruce does a Rocky montage to train for a fight with Superman. I swear I broke out laughing in the theater.

Batman gets shot in the back of the head with the gun barrel resting on his skull and he just keeps on fighting.

Even the name of the movie is stupid. Batman vs Superman The Dawn of Justice? It's like saying the FBI vs CIA The Dawn of Criminal Investigation.


I realize that there were plenty of people that like it but I think the multi film plan could be in some serious trouble.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mykdude,

So reading this article I feel very vindicated with my assessment in my post! The film had so much footage that it was nearly 4 hours long as a rough assembly cut!

Again, I really think this film was a victim of heavy editing and self indulgent film making. Isn't that the reason we got an extra Hobbit film? I'd have been fine seeing this as two films.

Well going by that article, either the director and the studio are extremely stupid, or they are dishonest.

Every movie needs to be edited. Some scenes don't work, some characters are unnecessary, somebody and something always gets cut out. What you don't do is have a 4 hour finished movie that has to be whittled down to the 2 1/2 hour movie that you knew from the start was the longest you could get away with given the audience attention span and theatre schedules.

Either someone is very stupid to film nearly twice as much movie as could be used, which should have been very apparent even by just reading the script, or it was intentionally meant to boost the DVD extended director cut, where everyone who saw it already and those with the good sense to stay away, can buy the now complete and hopefully better version.

Self indulgent film making is generaly reserved for art films and vanity projects. Major studios know what's happening with their super hero block busters. They know that big box office numbers are guaranteed as long as enough things are blown up.

I don't blame the choppy editing on the director, I think the extended cut was always the back up plan. If some people are willing to see a film again because it has 4 minutes of added scenes, wouldn't 90 minutes extra get a whole lot more people.

Watchmen - another DC superhero property from Warner Bros directed by Zack Snyder - had the 2hr42 theatrical, 3hr06 director's, and 3hr35 ultimate cuts.

The 3hr35 Ultimate cut has the animated Tales of the Black Freighter feature incorporated into the body of the film while the director's cut doesn't. According to Wikipedia (because I can't be bothered to read the sources), that Tales of the Black Freighter content was originally in the script for the film and was to star Gerard Butler and be visually similar to 300, but was going to cost around $20m so instead ended up animated and voiced by Gerard Butler instead. The Tales of The Black Freighter was then altogether cut from the film as it was already nearing 3 hours as a run time. It was then released direct-to-dvd separately. Some time later, the Ultimate cut.

I think a director's cut for BvS probably was anticipated well before it finished filming as you say, based on his history of making them, but maybe not from the beginning so much as being a contingency plan from WB. I really enjoy Snyder's visual style (except aforementioned Doomsday fight) to the point that I would cut him some slack on his ability but he's clearly a little less restrained than most filmmakers. I think WB would/should keep him in check from here on to reduce quantity and this slight chaos might actually prove beneficial to the later Justice League films' tightness.

Also I don't think anyone's mentioned that deleted scene that WB released on YouTube three days after the film came out as an obvious attempt to provide context on the Lex ramblings at the end of the film. I think it would've still been confusing but the level of the effects on it shows it's been involved in some cut of the movie to a fairly late stage before release.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: rwn410,

Ahh, Watchmen is a slightly different story and I still don't know what to make of it.

To begin with, I think the story was largely unfilmable, so the fact that they even got it done was an accomplishment. Was it done well enough for the average viewer to understand it? Doubtful. Would the average viewer like the story or characters? No. At least that's my opinion of it.

Now if you were a fanboy who already knew what this was supposed to be about, I think you appreciated it more.

Ultimately I think the movie failed, at least in it's released version. The extended DVD was better, but all the extras were for the fanboys, not a general audience. It's one of those cult experiences that wasn't going to work, but some good stuff was there and it made enough money so that no one was blamed for trying.

I read "Watchmen" month-by-month upon original release in 1986 when I was 15 and 16. Can't get any more fanboy that that.

As for the movie, I've seen it in every incarnation. Every time, the best part is the history of the Minutemen at the start of the movie in slow motion set to the music of Bob Dylan. Every time, the worst part is the ill-considered changing of the ending. Four word review for every version:
Starts strong. Ends Weak.

Even so, I'm glad they made the movie. It led to more people reading the source material which remains a high water mark of modern literature, without qualification. The more people who read "Watchmen", the better.

Beyond that, I'll always be grateful to Zach Snyder for commissioning an all-new 27x40 teaser poster for the film from original series artist Dave Gibbons and giving one to every fan at the Watchmen panel at 2008 Comic Con. It captures another instant from the iconic murder of the Comedian that kicked off the whole mystery, is astonishingly rendered, and remains one of my favorite collectibles. Add to that, it was free!

Interestingly, it was believed that the twin hammers of real world grit that were "Watchmen" by Moore/Gibbons and "Dark Knight Returns" by Frank Miller had effectively stripped the need for the cartoony super-hero comics of 1986 to even exist, having forever elevated the medium beyond the pedestrian.

As standard superhero fare continue on in various forms a full 30 years later, that is debatable to say the least, but having seen two Superman movies by Zach Snyder, I would argue he has done the exactly what Miller and Moore were accused of by removing all joy from Superman and now Batman in the name of realism. Unfortunately, the realism is utterly destroyed by all of the sloppy writing and poor editing in these new efforts.

I'm hoping the longer version of Batman V Superman, rumored Rated R, will clean up some of the mess that ended up on the big screen. And if all else fails, maybe we'll at least get a few decent posters out of it.