A fascinating mess
At once complex and confusing, it reflects its main character
The two biggest characters in the DC universe go head to head.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice can best be described as a dark, beautiful, and uneven mess.
Perhaps this isn’t a surprise considering the film is directed by Zack Snyder, a man whose previous work, including 300 and Watchmen, inspired similar assessments.
In addition to stunning visuals, Mr. Snyder’s latest work has a top-notch cast, including Ben Affleck (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Henry Cavill (reprising his role as Superman/Clark Kent from Mr. Snyder’s Man of Steel), Jesse Eisenberg (Lex Luthor), Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman/Diana Prince), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), and Jeremy Irons (Alfred Pennyworth). Mr. Affleck, Mr. Eisenberg, Ms. Adams, and Mr. Irons have all been honored with Academy Awards recognition for previous work.
Although the film is currently receiving abysmal reviews from aggregator sites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, it hasn’t made a difference at the box office, where it already has earned in excess of $500 million worldwide.
So are the negative reviews accurate? Does the film deserve its financial success?
Over the past three years, Batman v Superman has built a massive following of expectant comic book fans and general movie fans alike. It had a lot to live up to. It also needed—arguably most importantly needed—to set up the DC Comics cinematic universe for all future films, including the highly anticipated Suicide Squad, Justice League Part 1, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and more.
The folks at Warner Bros. studio don’t care about the critics so long as they don’t scare away filmgoers and squash excitement for upcoming fare.
So in that sense, this is a rousing success. One thing that Batman v Superman delivers on is building excitement for the future. There are several cameos of Justice League members and hints of possible antagonists.
Ben Affleck’s layered Batman character steals the show.
In the interest of fairness, however, the movie spends so much time setting up the other films that, to an extent, it falls on its own sword.
Batman v Superman feels like watching three different films. First, there are too many characters to introduce. Although it’s nice to see these characters, there’s no strong connection to the plot.
It’s hard to follow some of the things in the film. There are problems with the flow of scenes and the editing of transitions, which creates confusion.
Way too many things happen and some plot points are stated, expanded, and concluded, all in a single scene. The rest is up to the audience to question.
The biggest question is in the title itself. Why are Batman and Superman fighting? This is both a strong and weak part of the film because of the inconsistent characterization.
It’s frustrating because Mr. Affleck is brilliant as Batman/Bruce Wayne. He looks great. His voice is great. His stunts are great. He steals the show.
He easily trumps director Christopher Nolan’s version of the character, portrayed by Christian Bale, in the Dark Knight trilogy. Mr. Affleck infuses the role with emotion and humanization, but also a touch of brutality that some may not be accustomed to seeing.
Mr. Cavill’s Clark Kent/Superman is good but the writing of his character comes off as dull with insignificant development. This could be because the film is largely a Batman film, but it should not be an excuse when the film is titled Batman v Superman.
Loading ...There’s just not enough characterization to make us truly care about their motives. This is a huge problem in terms of being invested in their big fight.
When the fight unfolds, however, it is done very well.
Mr. Snyder and cinematographer Larry Fong create some exhilarating moments, helped along by superb sound effects and a score composed by the master himself, Hans Zimmer.
Wonder Woman is a breath of fresh air because she is the only character who has a lot of mystery surrounding her. Where is she from? What are her motivations? The potential answers to these questions create excitement for Wonder Woman the film—because we don’t know who she is.
Mr. Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor is mesmerizing if predictable, and he delivers a fascinating monologue about man, God, and the theology of heroes—ideas that make up the core of the film. But what sold me was the more I thought about him, the more he paralleled the widely acclaimed performance of Heath Ledger’s Joker from Mr. Nolan’s The Dark Knight.
But it all takes too long to unfold. Two and a half hours is a long time, especially when it’s filled with ridiculous and unnecessary subplots and characters. Doomsday’s appearance says it all.
Ms. Adams’ Lois Lane, meanwhile, becomes a simplified damsel-in-distress. I disliked her chemistry and role with Clark Kent so much that I forgot why Clark even liked her at first.
In fact, there are too many things in the movie that either don’t make sense or just happen for the convenience of the bloated plot.
And yet it says something that I still enjoyed myself. The more I think about the dark story of Batman’s broken character, and the fear and anger he has in contemplating Superman’s opening of his wounds and feelings of helplessness he had as a child, the more I appreciate the film.
There is something here worth exploring.
Which leads to some important questions. Is the film worth watching? Yes. Will it meet all of your expectations? No. As for the question most important to the studio:
Will you feel anticipation and excitement for future DC films? Definitely.
Sarthak Panda is a senior and a resident of Grafton. He is passionate about sciences, arts, and music and hopes to pursue a career in medicine.
Sarthak...
Max • Apr 27, 2016 at 2:19 pm
It seems to me that the film is more interested in providing set-up for future stories rather than providing a compelling experience in the present. Batman and Superman are not fighting due to some moral misalignment or clash of ideologies or ethics. No, it’s because of some hokey reason that Zack Snyder pulled out of his hat in order to get some good action scenes in there.
By far the worst aspect of the film has to be Jesse Eisenberg’s portrayal of Lex Luthor. You said that “…what sold me was the more I thought about him, the more he paralleled the widely acclaimed performance of Heath Ledger’s Joker…” However, that’s exactly what’s wrong with it. Lex Luthor is a cold, calculating villain who will do anything in order to get what he wants, not a chaotic anarchist. Eisenberg (and the writers) completely misses the point of Luthor, and ends up looking absurdly silly in the process.
So, I echo your two questions. Is the film worth watching? Maybe (and that’s a big maybe). If all you want is to see two heroes going at it with no regard for proper characterization or respect for your intelligence, then by all means. Will it meet all of your expectations? Absolutely not.
I can safely say, “I want a refund.”