Batman v Superman *spoilers from post 2434*

Mickeroo

Tony EH wrote: »

There's actually an awful lot of people who prefer the original cut (+ voice over), because shoehorning the "Deckard is a replicant" a decade after the film was released doesn't sit right with them. It falls apart under the slightest of scrutiny as it wasn't shot like that in the first place.

I'm one.

As for BvS, I don't know if adding anything will help. But, if it's going to end up like 'The Big Red One - Reconstruction' or 'Apocalypse Now Redux', then they shouldn't bother.

I've never bought Deckard being a replicant either and I've only seen the director's cut, don't really recall there being much about it until internet forums became a thing :pac:

Tony EH

Ah...the good old days.

Bacchus

Saw it last night. Wasn't overly impressed. It's a movie full of wonderful moments and flourishes and style but it's all wrapped up in an incredible convoluted, boring story and is weighed down by trying to fit so much in.

I've seen plenty of comments on this thread about how the character motivations don't make sense and I completely agree. The sudden shift from Batman wanting to kill Superman to moments later declaring he's "a friend of your son" was jarring. Lex, was a huge dissapointment too, not just because he was "Evil Mark Zuckerberg" but because he story made no sense. Why use Batman at all? Why not just do what he did with the kidnapping and when Superman arrives, have the helicopter pad lined with Kyptonite? Then stabby stabby with the green stuff and Superman is dead. Why did he create DoomsDay? What was the best case scenario for doing that? A world burning in fire at the hands of a monster? Also, how did he get so much access to the ship!!! What exactly was his leverage? Making a bullet from Kryptonite? That really gets him (a man who is clearly a bit unhinged) Zod's body and uninterrupted access to the ship? Also, the whole desert setup thing? Why exactly was that important? How exactly did that frame Superman? Doesn't matter anyway because that entire thread of the story was dropped mid-way through the movie.

Worse than Lex though was the interruptions to the movie with dream sequences & watching videos. Everytime we got one of those and it ended it felt like there should be an announcer saying "we now return you to your scheduled broadcasting". It was all so forced and out of place. If they wanted to do that stuff, they could have done a post credits scene for maybe the Flash bit. The Knightmare could have been skipped over entirely. The introduction of the other heroes could have been played off much more organically too, dropped into conversation about meta-humans instead.

On the action front, the Batman scene rescuing Martha was the highlight, followed closely by the opening scene with Bruce Wayne on the ground. I loved the first scene with him too in the house, it had a great horror element to it. The title fight itself wasn't bad, it had some great moments (particularly as Superman recovered from the first gassing) but I think the resolution of it brought it down. The final fight was fairly awful though, again there were a few cool visuals/moments in it but mostly it was flashing lights, loud noises and a terrible DoomsDay. WW's arrival and theme music was class though. Her character was pointless for the rest of the movie though.

On the positive side, as I said, there were plenty of cool visuals throughout. At times the style Synder brings to the table really shines. Affleck was a great Bruce/Batman and really had a great physical presence. I loved how powerful and strong they made Batman in this. The death of Superman was done well (pity about the final few seconds of the movie, it took away from it... even though we knows he's back for JL).

Definitely a movie of style over substance. Pretty to look at but it's a bit of a mess.

Shurimgreat

I thought it was decent. I always rate a film on whether I'd go see it again, and I think I would. The special effects and visuals are quite good. The plot is probably the weakest part. Affleck makes a half decent effort at Batman and would probably carry off another Batman film. People have raved about Jeremy Irons but I don't think he holds a candle to Michael Caine's Alfred who gave it far more emotion. Irons looks like he's just putting in a shift. Wonderwoman was decent enough. Overall, not bad, 3.5 out of 5.

jungleman

This is why reviews should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Billy86

jungleman wrote: »

This is why reviews should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Thelomen Toblackai

There's no way in hell this movie deserves the slating it's getting. It was one of the most enjoyable movies I've seen in a long time. The characters, the action, the casting was all top notch bar one blip with Lex Luthor. It was so over acted it was actually embarrassing. I hope we don't see him in Justice League.

Had some issues with the flow of the story but 29% on rotten tomatoes = the majority of reviews are from idiots as far as I'm concerned.

Personally I'd give it 8\10 because I really enjoyed it. I'd understand some going lower given the potential and how mangled the story was but below 5\10 has more to do with your own issues than the movies imo. Most of them are probably career whingers who go to the cinema to find fault with movies rather then enjoy them.

jungleman

Billy86 wrote: »

Paul Blart: Mall Cop gets a higher review on Rotten Tomatoes.

Paul Blart is possibly the worst character any film has ever seen.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop is possibly the most inept, dumbed down, pathetic attempt at a "comedy" film in the history of cinema.

Yet it gets a higher rating on Rotten Tomatoes than BvS.

Aside from some badly advised and obvious studio interference regarding editing, which disrupted the flow of the film, created plot holes, and stunted certain character development, BvS is definitely not worthy of receiving a lower rating than Paul Blart: Mall Cop.

jungleman

Thelomen Toblackai

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Well firstly, why on earth would they make a movie that draws inspiration from THREE different books, and then ensure that they're the three most grim books they could find (bit hyperbolic, but there you go). They were in no way tied to doing that and they almost hamstrung themselves by doing so.

Secondly, it's not so much about levity as it is joylessness. There is a moment in the final battle where Wonder Woman seems in her element, completely enjoying the fight. This is the only point of the entire 150-ish minutes where anyone seems in any way happy. Do we really need a film where no one is happy at all? It's depressing and sets an awful tone for a film, especially one that involves Superman, the supposed symbol of hope for the world.

It's not about having jokes every 30 seconds, it's more about not purposely creating a film that excludes joy, happiness and hope; all of the things that a superhero is supposed to protect...

I liked that fact though. It gives a grittiness and realism to it. Its why The Dark Knight was so much better than it's predecessors and Daredevil the series is so good. If you commit to spending your time immersed in violence, criminality and suffering your world isn't going to be sunshine roses and witty one liners.

There's plenty of "beat the bad guy, have the craic, save the world" movies. It's nice to have a few darker ones too.

Billy86

jungleman wrote: »

Paul Blart: Mall Cop gets a higher review on Rotten Tomatoes.

Paul Blart is possibly the worst character any film has ever seen.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop is possibly the most inept, dumbed down, pathetic attempt at a "comedy" film in the history of cinema.

Yet it gets a higher rating on Rotten Tomatoes than BvS.

Aside from some badly advised and obvious studio interference regarding editing, which disrupted the flow of the film, created plot holes, and stunted certain character development, BvS is definitely not worthy of receiving a lower rating than Paul Blart: Mall Cop.

As awful as Paul Blart is, you sir, have clearly never seen Grown Ups 2.

I guess it depends on what you like in a movie, but I got convinced to go to this... and was on the edge of walking out the whole way through. One of the worst movies I've seen in a long, long time. I don't necessarily mind Batman killing people too much, but Batman shooting people in the face is just hilariously dumb - the whole reason he is Batman is because of his negative association of guns for crying out loud! It's just so typical Zack Snyder that it's painful - he's as predictable than Michael Bay at this point, if not more. If they gave him the keys to X-Men you'd have Patrick Stewarts' Charles Xavier pumping the weights in a dimly lit, 'moody', 'brooooooooooding' basement gym.

Everyone has their own things they look for in movies - for some it's story and character development. For others, it's effects and visuals. Some view movies for tone and escapism, etc etc. I don't put a big emphasis on visuals, or at least the CGI version (but I also don't rate much of the visuals too highly here - [basically] black suited Superman vs black suited Batman at night, dimly lit in the dark. Ugh... Zack Snyder everybody!!). For me it's something that has become increasingly easy to pump money into for a result, and is resulting in less and less inventiveness and creativity in that area, by and large. Batman's suit is just funny looking for that matter and not in a good way, Supermans is the same - it looks like it got designed by a 15 year old who lists Death Cab for Cutie as their favourite band ever. Doomsday flat out looks like sh*t. The visuals looked expensive, but not actually good for the most part. The story is horrendous, often incoherent, and completely goes against what the protagonists are about time and again. And the tone? Besides the lighting (there's about as much daylight here as there is darkness in Insomnia) and all the brooding, moody crap... I wonder if anyone has so much as laughed (non maniacally) or even ever farted in the world Snyder is building. It's way, way too self serious and this is conceded already on many fronts - apparently there are emergency reshoots of Suicide Squad going on to add more levity and humour, despite the trailer looking reasonably promising on that front already.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion so I'm not calling people who enjoyed this movie or trying to come in here mocking it or anything, but to me it was just a really bad, bad movie, the same way as Paul Blart was. Having more money behind it doesn't save it for me, because by and large, I found it was money squandered.

runnerholic

Saw this today and thought it was crap. Incoherent plot, overlong, too dark and Batman is an a..hole in it.

Chain Smoker

jungleman wrote: »

This is why reviews should be taken with a pinch of salt.

They're subjective opinions relative to their competition, expectations are gonna play a part in any viewing experience.

There is no one in the world who sees Paul Blart and thinks "CINEMATIC EVENT OF THE YEAR". Paul Blart sets itself the extremely modest goal of being a tolerable way to fill up two hours, be it in a plane, at home, or in a shopping mall while your parents buy the groceries. It still fails miserably in that respect but it's hard to be especially frustrated by it.

evil_seed

Just back from the cinema. Knee jerk reaction as the credits rolled was it was awful sh1t.
Travelling home I came around and enjoyed a few bits. The framing of scenes as if in an actual comic. The bat suit, Alfred, wonder woman, some Lex luther bits, the brutality of the fight scenes
What I didn't like... the start, Martha, Batman using guns, superman still able to fly and be strong while carrying kryptonite, doomsday for 5 mins, the batmobile looking like a lotus

Goldstein

Eisenberg was woefully miscast and cringeworthy throughout. Humble pie for all those who attacked criticisms of that particular casting when it was announced. Not everyone is Heath Ledger.

Comic book or not, BvS was just Michael Bay level dumb. I was even disappointed in Zack Snyder in setting the bar so unadventurously low. Reminded me of Episode II - so much crap going on, so little interest.

Michael Shannon had more screen presence as a dead General Zod than the rest of the cast did put together.

Billy86

evil_seed wrote: »

Just back from the cinema. Knee jerk reaction as the credits rolled was it was awful sh1t.
Travelling home I came around and enjoyed a few bits. The framing of scenes as if in an actual comic. The bat suit, Alfred, wonder woman, some Lex luther bits, the brutality of the fight scenes
What I didn't like... the start, Martha, Batman using guns, superman still able to fly and be strong while carrying kryptonite, doomsday for 5 mins, the batmobile looking like a lotus

And Batman/Superman kissing and making up on the basis that both their mom's names are Martha, which was just... Ugh.

By the way I heard a podcast where they item not hearing Batman referred to as Batman once - always 'the bat' which is true fron what I can remember. It's that kind of try hard nonsense which winds me up so much about Snyder.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Billy86 wrote: »

And Batman/Superman kissing and making up on the basis that both their mom's names are Martha, which was just... Ugh.

****ing hell, are people still hung up on this?!

The movie is full of **** but, this part isn't one of them.

He doesn't kill Superman because "both of their mothers share the same name"
He doesn't kill him because when he hears Martha is his mother, it firstly reminds him that Superman is more human than he thought and has the same human emotions....Secondly, it also shows him that he has become the same guy that gunned down his father(Thomas) for trying to protect his wife, Martha, in the origin flashbacks....It shows Batman that he is the one who has lost his humanity...Hence why he doesn't brand Lex for death at the end of the movie, like the other criminals earlier. That part has changed him....This was Batman's theme throughout the entire film....How he had become disillusioned and had changed his rules

Seriously, there was even a flashback to Thomas Wayne defending Martha when Lois Lane told Batman who Superman was on about....

If people really need to be spoon fed this information then, it's no wonder the film is getting such over the top, negative reviews

mickoneill31

bclar12 wrote: »

****ing hell, are people still hung up on this?!

The movie is full of **** but, this part isn't one of them.

He doesn't kill Superman because "both of their mothers share the same name"
He doesn't kill him because when he hears Martha is his mother, it firstly reminds him that Superman is more human than he thought and has the same human emotions....Secondly, it also shows him that he has become the same guy that gunned down his father(Thomas) for trying to protect his wife, Martha, in the origin flashbacks....It shows Batman that he is the one who has lost his humanity...Hence why he doesn't brand Lex for death at the end of the movie, like the other criminals earlier. That part has changed him....This was Batman's theme throughout the entire film....How he had become disillusioned and had changed his rules

Seriously, there was even a flashback to Thomas Wayne defending Martha when Lois Lane told Batman who Superman was on about....

If people really need to be spoon fed this information then, it's no wonder the film is getting such over the top, negative reviews

If your argument was correct then the more realistic
"they're going to kill my mother" would have achieved all that.

Penn

mickoneill31 wrote: »

If your argument was correct then the more realistic
"they're going to kill my mother" would have achieved all that.

Agreed. It was the way it was done that was the problem, not the intent behind it. The first thing Superman thinks to shout is "You're letting him kill Martha!" The second thing he shouts is then "Find him. Save Martha!"

With just the small change of "Lex has my mother!" and then "Find Lex. Save my mother!" You can do the exact same thing of Bruce thinking about his own parents murder and realising that Superman is more than just an alien, he's a person with a family he cares about.

It was just really poorly done by trying to shoehorn in the fact their mothers had the same name

Osmosis Jones

The movie's tone isn't nearly it's biggest problem, the narrative and dialogue throughout is poor to non-existent. Every moment that could be good, like the Martha scene, is ruined by awful writing.

faceman

Watched The Dark Knight Returns (both parts) last night. Jesus. The bits and dialogue I did like in BvS were completely lifted from the Dark Knight Returns!

Nail in the coffin for any hope of a future decent DC movie from Snyder.

e_e

jungleman wrote: »

This is why reviews should be taken with a pinch of salt.

This only shows your fundamental misunderstanding of how people (not just critics) appraise films. Ratings are supposed to be relative and not "hmm this wannabe dark and intelligent 3 hour superhero blockbuster is sure better than Disaster Movie in fairness. 4 stars!"

On the other end you're hardly gonna watch The Dark Knight and think "but how does it stack up against Tokyo Story?" are you? People don't just view movies on these simplistic black and white terms. There is a tonne of context to be considered.

Listen to Ebert from 5 minutes on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYvxIbBifKA

BlitzKrieg

jungleman wrote: »

This is why reviews should be taken with a pinch of salt.

why because BVS got a higher rating?


Oh are we looking at the big flashy % and not the actual info

average rating BVS: 5/10

average rating Mall cop: 4.6/10

number of reviewers should also be counted

there are 113 reviews of mall cop

269 for BVS

thats 156 reviewers that didnt review mall cop, 156 potentially (who are we kidding? of course damning!) reviews of Paul blart missing.

big films bring more reviewers which will affect the % in an unrealistic fashion

On top of that you'll have specialist reviewers (comic book sites etc) for BVS that you wouldnt get for paul blart.

People are always weird when it comes to reviewers, they're just people in the end, if you find you have similar tastes/experiences then you can rely on them to give reviews that you are likely to agree with.

If you dont have similar tastes you can still judge a film's quality if you know what their tastes are like and adjust your expectations.

For example Yahtzee just did a damning review of The Division, but I've seen a few of his videos I know he hates multiplayer games and military style shooters.

The division is a multiplayer co-op military shooter. So of course he was going to hate it.


Same logic here.

Any reason for a lynch mob with some people...

e_e

I love how people routinely accuse critics of elitism and bias (which is a good thing surely?) while dismissing their opinion out of hand because the tiny thumbnail of a tomato happens to be green.

dublinman1990

I saw this movie on Thursday and I thought reading some of the hate reviews before I had seen it were unnecessary & asking for too much trouble. IMHO this wasn't the worst batman movie I have ever seen but it certainly was not as bad as I expected.

Here is my initial reaction to the film so far.

I was not expecting a whole lot to come out of the theatrical release. But I did see a few nuggets of good stuff with scenes with the rest of the Justice League being sequenced out in front of WW while she was viewing them on her laptop when Bruce sent her the email with the Lexcorp. I also thought that Ezra Miller as the Flash wasn't instantly recognized when he was talking to Bruce in the Batcave while Bruce was going through his dream sequences.

I thought that Superman's story of becoming a hero was going through some very tough environments as he tried to make a positive role model for himself. This happens especially when he had to go to court in Capitol Hill because he was framed as the central perpetrator for an incident in Africa outside of his control. This story was not going to cut the mustard as we know that this incident was instead the fault of Luthor with his hired terrorist group.

The story of Superman being made a villain had took up a large part of this film. But I'm not saying that it was unnecessary. IMO it was suggesting to me that Superman was being wrongly blackmailed from the mass media into becoming something fearful for the masses to be afraid of which we all know that was done in secret by Luthor behind Superman's back all along & eventually backfired in front of Luthor later on in the film. This apparent level of fear for Superman among the masses had eventually hit Batman's mind that Superman was a dangerous villain which turned out to be very misinformed by various statements being confirmed from Alfred, Lois & Superman when Batman nearly kills Superman with the Kryptonite until Lois comes in & stops him. This lead to the conclusion that Batman's initial thoughts about Superman's way of life of being a killer was wrong which resulted in a new friendship with Batman who was then asked by Superman to rescue his mother Martha Kent from Luthors henchmen.

I'd say that the chain of events that surrounded Superman's story in the movie plot is undoubtedly one of trying to spread hope & resilience for his people. As we have seen in MOS he was already trying to spread a message of hope & resilience while he was out fighting with Zod who was plotting to destroy planet earth. But I would think that Superman was trying to solidify the message that was a powerful ally for Batman & WW & for the inhabitants of planet earth.

That is the main point about the film that I will enjoy. I will look forward to seeing how the re-emergence of Superman will pan out in JL1.

The other things about it. The cast overall was pretty good especially for Batman, WW & Superman. The cinematography was excellent. The sound quality with Dolby Atmos was unreal but with some of the other scenes in the dream sequences made me a jump a little bit because it was loud at times but overall I was very impressed with it. The fight scenes with Batman were done brilliantly. I thought the introduction of WW in the film turned out to be done extremely well.

Hopefully the Ultimate edition coming out on Blu-ray & DVD will give us a lot more additional scenes for us to enjoy more out of it.

I gave it a 4 star rating as I did enjoy the movie as the plot is good that is because it's use of colours was very nicely done.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Penn wrote: »

Agreed. It was the way it was done that was the problem, not the intent behind it. The first thing Superman thinks to shout is "You're letting him kill Martha!" The second thing he shouts is then "Find him. Save Martha!"

With just the small change of "Lex has my mother!" and then "Find Lex. Save my mother!" You can do the exact same thing of Bruce thinking about his own parents murder and realising that Superman is more than just an alien, he's a person with a family he cares about.

It was just really poorly done by trying to shoehorn in the fact their mothers had the same name

Oh I'm not denying it was poorly done...Hence why I feel sorry for Affleck....I'm just astounded at the amount of people thinking it's because the mothers shared the same name...I figured people were smarter than that tbf

mickoneill31

bclar12 wrote: »

Oh I'm not denying it was poorly done...Hence why I feel sorry for Affleck....I'm just astounded at the amount of people thinking it's because the mothers shared the same name...I figured people were smarter than that tbf

Why wouldn't people think it's because the mothers shared the same name. It's shoehorned in and then we get a flash back in case we've forgotten that Bruce's mothers name is Martha.
If he'd said save my mother your argument would be fine.
I understand your point about Bruce and it could have been done like that. If Clarke said save my mother we could have had flashbacks to Bruce's childhood where his mother looked after him. It would have taken the same amount of time and work. We didn't. We got Marthaaaaaaa.

I think you're making an excuse for the movie. People are smarter than that but the movie isn't.

razorblunt

Saw this last night and I have to say I enjoyed it.
Of course there are problems with it, the pacing, trying to fit too much in, not utilising Irons enough, but there also some good points and some very good points, notably the fight scenes, Affleck was a bloody good Batman/Bruce Wayne and they handles Wonder Woman brilliantly.

The Aquaman introduction looked awful, I laughed out load when his hair got in his eyes.

Ben Gadot

I just saw concept art for an alternate Doomsday, I can't believe they didn't go with it instead of the uninspiring design that we ended up with.



http://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-concept-art-doomsday/

micks_address

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Why wouldn't people think it's because the mothers shared the same name. It's shoehorned in and then we get a flash back in case we've forgotten that Bruce's mothers name is Martha.
If he'd said save my mother your argument would be fine.
I understand your point about Bruce and it could have been done like that. If Clarke said save my mother we could have had flashbacks to Bruce's childhood where his mother looked after him. It would have taken the same amount of time and work. We didn't. We got Marthaaaaaaa.

I think you're making an excuse for the movie. People are smarter than that but the movie isn't.

We'll I suppose Martha isn't supermans mother... I actually liked the idea and had never coped they both had the same first name.. That being said there's no way he would have started with he's going to kill Martha.
I'm hoping the extended cut fleshes this out somehow.