Dawn Of Disappointment - Batman Vs Superman

Mixed reviews haven't stopped Bats Vs Sups from gaining significant box office, but most of us would probably agree, that something was missing from this heroic adventure. I go in search of what went wrong, with one of the most anticipated films of the year?

There hasn't been a film like Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, that has split both public and professional opinion since...since I don't know - The Blair Witch Project. Some are adamant that the film is absolute rubbish, others seem to find it thoroughly enjoyable. But straight of the bat (no pun intended) I can't think of a worthy DC or Marvel film to even compare it to. I mean, it's more watchable than the likes of Iron Man 2, but in terms of never delivering total satisfaction, it's more in line with Ghostrider, just with a bigger budget and with very different art direction. 

So what are the good and bad points about the film?
Firstly, I still haven't read a single review, these are my personal opinions influenced by none other than the film.

The Characters
I for one, never had a problem with Ben Affleck being announced as Batman and my earlier blogs will confirm that. My hunch regarding him was right, he played a very decent Batman and an even better Bruce Wayne, the best since Michael Keaton. Holly Hunter, Henry Lennix, Diane Lane and Laurence Fishburne we're also very good, for the minimal screen time that they had. They instantly brought in that gravitas that veterans actors do, commanding their scenes with minimum effort. Unfortunately everybody else was in a different movie. Superman (the character) seemed to have regressed in personality and depth, Cavill's portrayal this time around was very one dimensional. Then again, he wasn't really given that much to do as the actual character. Whereas in contrast, Clark had more passion and dimensions than Superman and yes, some might argue that Superman should hide his feelings, but Christopher Reeves' Superman worked emotionally because Superman cared outwardly. Lex Luthor played by Jesse

"Lex Luthor just made me wanna give him a backhand followed by a 'shut up - byatch!"

Eisenberg...hmmmm, what can I say? Whilst I appreciate an actor putting their own spin on a character, Lex is supposed to be a cold villain, charismatic, but glacial with it. Where as here, Eisenberg's Lex Luthor could have given Deadpool a run for his money when it came to his motor mouth forever flaberjabbing, a new word I just invented to mean talking a lot. Lex Luthor just made me wanna give him a backhand followed by a yelling of 'shut up - byatch!' His teenage demeanour just doesn't place him to be anyone's nemesis except to a fellow spelling bee competitor. Regarding Wonder Woman, I was openly against Gal Gadot's casting as the Themysciran wonder, but admittedly, as the civilian Diana she was good, as Wonder Woman, she doesn't have the physique (something she could have changed alongside Ben and Henry) and she doesn't exude the pinpoint focus, straight talking, mama don't take no mess, that Wonder Woman has. Wonder Woman doesn't give smug grins when she's fighting - I have never seen Wonder Woman enjoy a battle. Amy Adams as Lois Lane was fine, she was just an emotional cue, but still had more dimensions than Kal-El.

The Story
I really liked the first hour...you weren't expecting that. The build up, the investigation into the character's feelings and motivations, were good and necessary. BUT ENOUGH WITH THE DREAM SEQUENCES ALREADY! Use another method to convey those plot points. I did like one of Batman's fears that manifested in those pesky dreams, but couldn't he have just thought it? We all think and imagine whilst awake...don't we? Come the time for the main title fight, and nothing unique or particularly clever is included in the narrative to make us see the superior intellect of Batman, defeat the super powers of Superman. It's a kryptonite safari as usual. Also, Superman didn't really try to communicate the situation he was put in by Lex, to get Batman on side early - that was very silly to me. The fight that then ensued was overly brutal, okay, DC is saying that this isn't for kids, but I'm not sure if the build up warranted that sudden brutality. It seemed out of place, where as in the Watchmen it made sense. I reserve my biggest criticism for the whole line they took with Doomsday. First of all, the monster looked like it was created from CGI technology circa 2001, and how frikken dare they think they can do 'The Death of Superman' storyline as the ending for the film! The Death of Superman is a massive battle, where Doomsday is putting every superhero's ass that tries to stop him, in a sling and that's a lot of slings being handed out. He is only beaten by Superman at the cost of his own life, through a slugfest of sheer attrition. The weekly comic issues of The Death of Superman and what followed, were eventually combined to create a trilogy of trade paperbacks. These stories detail the arrival and fight-to-the-death of Doomsday and all the things that happen afterwards in

World Without A Superman and The Return of Superman. You don't just chuck one of the most significant deaths in comic book history at the end of a completely different story! Come On! The origin story of Doomsday is a revelation in itself. Made by Kryptonian scientists, he is an experiment, a created being that is made, then taken out and left in an intensively harsh environment with killer creatures around. If the climate doesn't kill him, then the creatures would. This being is subjected to this and killed 100s and 100s of times. Each time he is killed, his leftover body/DNA would be scooped up by the scientists and the 'material' would be used over and over again to eventually create a being that could withstand the 2 main threats of the planet. But more importantly, it leads to Doomsday only being effected by a killing assault one time, then after that he adapts like the Borg. That story can be seen in Hunter/Prey. If the production team wanted to do a story of Superman's demise, that epic tale should have spanned the next 3 Superman movies.

Direction/Editing/Script
When I watch a Bruce Lee or Fred Astaire film, I can see what actions they are performing because the editing never obscures the action and that type of limited editing is not there by accident. Whereas the final fight in this film did my head (and my eyes) in, because the cutting was too Jason Bourne, but at twice the speed. The standout fights were between Batman and some thugs he had to get through in order to save the 'other' Martha. And one of the Caped Crusader's dream sequence, which shows they could produce visually appealing fights. Script wise nobody said any lines that made me wince, so I'll give the lyrics a pass. In the first half of the film, the mostly talking, non-action half, we have a good dramatic watch. It is when Zack Snyder gets to the second half that we have a horrid and weird mixture of corniness and brutality. Zack is the man that made the unfilmable comic Watchmen filmable and made it well. The man that gave us the visual stunning Suckerpunch and 300. And of course gave us Man of Steel. So why has super-powered action suddenly become a mystery to him. You know, sometimes less is more, less can still be a filling meal and more is on the edge of pushing for a vomit session...sorry.

Summation
Batman Vs Superman is not rubbish, Iron Man 2 is rubbish, this film is flawed, a little bit of re-editing, re-casting and another villain to unite the 3 main heroes and this film would have been cool. Overall I came out of the cinema thinking that this was a wasted opportunity, I wasn't insulted, I didn't feel that I had just watched John Carpenter's Vampires, it just didn't hit all the marks like Man of Steel. In fact it made me want to go back and watch that film instead.

​Rating 5/10