Is Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice any good?
 

I've heard so many bad things about it :suspect: is it really that bad?

my sister said it was and she loves superhero films

No

:worry: I will give it a go but I don't want to be disappointed

I thought a lot of the bad reviews were unwarranted, it basically came down to 'This isn't Marvel, WE HATE IT.'

It's not a perfect film, Jessie Eisenberg is woeful and they've cut out scenes that would have made the plot work better but I enjoyed it more than most Marvel films. It's nice to watch a superhero film that doesn't spend half the running time setting up sequels and spin-offs.

if it's anything like Man of Steel then I cba with it. That movie was tedious.

I didn't like it.

I hear mixed reports on if it deserves it's hate tbh.

And the IMDB board are tearing each other apart over it accusing each other of trolling on both ends.

There's plenty to like and plenty to dislike, IMO. There are some plot holes (or rather, unexplained motivations rather than actual holes), the dialogue is hit-and-miss, and I personally agree that Lex Luthor is awful in it. Badly written and badly acted. I also find Lois Lane pretty annoying... but that said, I have found EVERY live-action version of Lois Lane annoying :think:. There are also some pacing / editing issues.

If you can overlook that, though...

- All three of the main characters (Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman) are IMO really well done, interesting, versions of the characters. Not here for the "Boo hoo that's not my Batman / Superman!" fanboys... neither of them are supposed to be the "classic" characters in the middle of their careers. You have essentially a "newbie" Superman who is still figuring it out, and a middle-aged Batman who has been around for two decades and is all but worn out emotionally. Do we really want to see yet-another "origin story" or "mid-career" Batman?? There have been loads... I want to see a batman who has been fighting for half of his life, is in many ways stronger than ever, but is close to giving up... and that's what's on offer.

- The action scenes are top tier, and beat anything Marvel has done hands down.

- People have a problem with the fact that it's all very dark verging on melancholy, and complain that it doesn't have the "fun moments" or "funny bits" that Marvel scatters throughout their films. This is actually a positive for me, though. I enjoy it in Marvel films but... we already HAVE Marvel films for that. I personally have little interest in seeing "A Marvel movie with DC heroes" - I like that the tone is completely different.

Also some people complain that it's too long but... :shrug:. I like long movies. The longer the better :joker:. I'd actually have made it half an hour longer... would solve a lot of the pacing / jumpy scene transition issues.


I read a review the other day that lauded Eisenberg as one of the only good parts of the film :umm2:... I can only assume they went to the wrong movie.

Apparently the original cut was 4 hours long so a lot of plot holes were probably created because they cut out so much stuff, the one deleted scene they've already revealed gives us more insight into Lex's and that's only a few seconds long.

I think BvS will will end up like Watchmen, the cinema cut was trash but the Director's Cut they released on DVD was amazing.

I will totally watch a 4 hour version. Entirely alone, of course, because my wife considers a 2 hour film "a bit on the long side" and anything over 2.5 a straight up "no". :joker:

Still... 4 hours I reckon confirms my theory; this needed a standalone Batman film BEFORE BvS, as a large part of the problem was them trying to set up the Affleck-Batman character alongside everything else. Cut into the running time massively.

Yeah I agree with that.

Just watched it, loved it, don't get why it got so much hate, lol.

You mean BluRay and 4K BluRay Disks

http://cloud.attackofthefanboy.com/w...428.jpg?f6da22

Just watched the ultimate edition; it's just over 3 hours long (a full 30 mins longer than the theatrical cut) and I think it actually makes a huge difference. There are no major scenes cut but, essentially, I feel like what they DID cut from the theatrical cut is little quieter scenes and parts of scene transitions... the result being that the ultimate edition feels a LOT more fluid. I can't even pinpoint exactly where most of the 30 minutes is but it definitely makes a difference; the weird "cutting from scene to scene like a montage" effect is dramatically improved. I don't know if maybe there's also some re-ordering of scenes?

Also, interestingly, I don't know if it's just because it's a second viewing or something to do with the little bits that were cut, but something seemed quite obvious to me watching this cut that didn't strike me at the cinema: This is essentially a Batman film. The focus is on Batman / Bruce Wayne much more than Supes, who feels more like an "overwhelming force" in the background, something representing a new world that Batman is struggling to come to terms with. There's also much more Superman than Clark Kent, whereas there's more Bruce Wayne than Batman (for the first 3/4 of the film, even when he IS in the suit, he's Bruce Wayne... we don't see Batman until the final act).

They should just have accepted that it's a 3+ hour movie for the theatrical release and not cut it down. A much more coherent experience.


[edited to add]

Although I still think it's a horrible interpretation of Lex Luthor. I didn't mind it AS much on a repeat viewing. It's not that the acting is bad, even, he is a good actor... it's just way off the mark, for me. Makes me worry a bit about Leto's "Joker"... DC's villains are a huge centrepiece rather than a side-show like Marvel's, if they get them wrong it'll be a disaster in the long run. Doesn't matter so much here as, like I said, the main focus of the film is Bruce's struggle. Lex is more of a prop to guide along the politics of it and to introduce Doomsday, and little more.

*** ENTIRE POST IS SPOILERYISH ***


Follow up thought: I'm still of the opinion that one of the main problems with the film (not for me, but critically) is that it seems to be a film with a 9-figure budget aimed squarely at DC fans. One of the main draws of the MCU films is that you can go and see one with no prior knowledge of the MCU and still enjoy it as a "blockbuster".

BvS seriously assumed a HUGE amount of prior knowledge in order to appreciate the full experience. There are a number of scenes, e.g. Bruce's alternate-future flash forwards, that straight up don't make sense at ALL in only the context of the film. To know what's going on in those you need a fairly broad knowledge of both The Flash and his abilities, and also the Injustice plotline. Without that I can only imagine you'd assume that Batman has eaten some bad shrooms.

There are a lot more examples of this, too. It feels like they've made an awesome movie for people who are widely-read on DC characters and plotlines (awesome if you are) but is obscure and offputting to someone stepping into the universe for the first time... BUT with a budget so high that it NEEDS those casual moviegoers to carry it financially.

MCU is going that way a little bit too, I don't think you could walk into Civil War (and I would imagine moreso the upcoming Infinity Wars films) without knowledge of the MCU... BUT any knowledge you need, you can get from the MCU itself. The first Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Guardians films etc you can watch completely "standalone"... it introduces things bite-sized. BvS is sort of like, "Here's your entire meal, all five courses, I'm not telling you what any of it is just ****ing eat it!".

SO... I guess I'm still of the opinion that a previous Batman film was needed (not necessarily another Origins, but a transitional film where he goes from "classic" Batman to this darker version, showing the actual death of Robin etc), plus probably WW origins and Flash origins, before BvS.