Batman/Superman Dawn of Justice movie review thread

[Commenter 42]

I'd say, they're on Par. MOS and PDMT. Equal parts trash. Even Suckerpunch was mildly better than MOS, if we're being honest.

[Krutch]

I'd put PDTMNT over MOS, to be frank. Look, I know TMNT means a lot to us, but to the cultural zeitgeist they will always be goofy entertainment at best, and I get that. And there's nothing wrong with that.

But Superman stands for something. And MOS actively sought to destroy that.

[Commenter 42]

Where is that video!!!!

[Krutch]

It's a work in progress, but I'll finish it. Eventually. I promise I'd say I'm about 30 percent finished. I don't want to treat it like its work.

[Commenter 42]

LOL! no nonononono...do it for the love...

Just excited

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Zack Snyder's worst movie on his worst day is still far better and more of a film than anything found in the first Bay-produced TMNT "film" or anything we've seen of part 2.

Is it bad that knowing the only comics he read as a kid was the Mirage TMNT means I'd be fine with handing him copies of Return to New York and letting him go?

Originally Posted by Krutch

Look, I know TMNT means a lot to us, but to the cultural zeitgeist they will always be goofy entertainment at best, and I get that. And there's nothing wrong with that.

That implies that the public would reject a TMNT movie that endeavored to be more than just goofy fun and I think that's just plain untrue and we've got a whole slew of comic properties once thought as little more than goofy fun being taken with varying degrees of depth and being hugely successful.

There's nothing wrong with the goofy fun mentality in principal but I think with movie 3 we've got a bit of a problem. You'd think they might have just teased Krang and save him for another sequel but he's a major part of Out of the Shadows. They've used all their nostalgia/goofy trump cards in Out of the Shadows. What have they got to follow that? Leatherhead? Rat King? Baxter-fly? I don't think any other characters carry anywhere near the nostalgia pull of the Fred Wolf cast. Now if these movies were genuinely well made it wouldn't matter as the audience would still go on the good faith they'd have built just like most of the general audience go to Marvel movies despite being unfamiliar with the characters.

Like I said we've got one more movie before the movie series is mothballed for a very long time. That's what turning their noses up at anything more than goofy fun will get them.

But Superman stands for something. And MOS actively sought to destroy that.

Superman stands for whatever the writers make him stand for.

It's not like when Siegel and Shuster created the character he was a bright light paragon of virtue or had any of the Jesus or Moses metaphors, that was all added later. Now you can do great work with those aspects but I tend to think that the constant deconstruction of the character and trying to figure out what Superman means will often lead to you messing up what he means to some people but more importantly get in the way of telling a good Superman story.

[Krutch]

Originally Posted by Galactus

That implies that the public would reject a TMNT movie that endeavored to be more than just goofy fun and I think that's just plain untrue and we've got a whole slew of comic properties once thought as little more than goofy fun being taken with varying degrees of depth and being hugely successful.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Superman stands for whatever the writers make him stand for. It's not like when Siegel and Shuster created the character he was a bright light paragon of virtue or had any of the Jesus or Moses metaphors, that was all added later.

I think you misunderstand me.

The public would absolutely welcome a serious TMNT film if it were made. People want good movies regardless of where they come from. I'm not saying TMNT doesn't need or deserve that kind of treatment. I obviously hope to see the day that happens, actually. What I'm getting at is what the franchise actually represents outside itself is completely different than what Superman represents.

Superman was born in the 1930s during the depression. Humanity's desire to hope for a better tomorrow is what birthed the character. He acted as a symbol of hope at a time when people desperately needed it. Was that the intention of the character at the moment of inception? Probably not. Siegel and Shuster were likely just hoping to make a buck. But regardless, that's what people projected on the character, and that's what makes him culturally significant. He's light at the end of the tunnel. He's who we can aspire to be even at our worst times.

The closest thing TMNT did in those terms is cause a resurgence in indie comics and have a bit of a rags to riches story in terms of two guys just getting together, making each other laugh with silly drawings, and wake up a few months later millionaires. It's a nice reassuring dream that anythings possible. But most people don't know Eastman and Laird's story and it doesn't even really hold much relevance to the world as a whole or the times it came from. Sorry, that's just facts. I love the TMNT, but there's a reason they'll never be as revered as Superman is.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Krutch

Superman was born in the 1930s during the depression. Humanity's desire to hope for a better tomorrow is what birthed the character. He acted as a symbol of hope at a time when people desperately needed it. Was that the intention of the character at the moment of inception? Probably not. Siegel and Shuster were likely just hoping to make a buck. But regardless, that's what people projected on the character, and that's what makes him culturally significant. He's light at the end of the tunnel. He's who we can aspire to be even at our worst times.

Well that certainly wasn't what Superman was when created as. He was a socialist crusader fighting back at the corrupt sometimes with lethal force rather than acting like something to aspire to. Even as his rougher edges were sanded off he was still more of a reactionary character and that was his most successful period.

Sure people have projected values onto the character that weren't originally part of his makeup and the character did legitimately become that for a long time but in the modern era it can easily work to the character's detriment.

Sorry, that's just facts. I love the TMNT, but there's a reason they'll never be as revered as Superman is.

I didn't say they could be and even if they were it wouldn't be for the same reasons as Superman has been. Emphasis on the past tense.

Superman is like Mickey Mouse now. Everyone knows him but I don't think he's actually revered or that people in general care too much about him.

He's been eclipsed by Batman, Spider-Man and even Iron Man. What Superman stands for in many peoples eyes is a bland mascot of a company and as a reaction most writers try and deconstruct the character to prove these things can be interesting in modern context. Superman's a savior but people may not accept that, Superman's a boy scout so we'll put him in a situation were he has to kill and see how he deals with it, he's unique so let's make him feel isolated. Nothing in Man of Steel is anything that hasn't been in Superman comics in any era and it's not a bad idea to explore these themes but it might have been better to just be underlying themes in an entertaining movie as opposed to be a great dissection of the character few people care about anymore. I think that would have been a better way to make people care again.

[sdp]

Just got back from the movie and I thought the movie was pretty good. Everyone should definitely watch it before judging it by the RT score now that the movie is out. I definitely understand why it has such a low score, its going to be a very divisive film for years to come. The movie has plenty of flaws which are going to be nitpicked to death but it has plenty of stuff to redeem itself. I'll go ahead and post my thoughts with a spoiler tag just in case but there are no real spoilers in there so if you want to be spoiler free you can still click on it I won't spoil anything but beware around the internet since there is indeed a big spoiler that I'm sure will be everywhere and its going to be hard to avoid.

Spoiler:

The movie is going to turn off the casual fan, it is not an easy to follow film like Marvel movies are. People who didn't see Man of Steel are going to be lost and people who don't know the DC Universe in general are also going to be lost in a few parts as well. This movie doesn't introduce you very well to the DCU, it just kind of puts you in it so if you're not quite familiar with a few things from DC you might get confused but I'm guessing that's no one here.

If you didn't like MOS then you are not going to like Superman since he's portrayed the same, however if you liked Nolan's Batman trilogy you'll definitely like Batman since it very well feels like a sequel to those movies. The movie's mood is definitely dark throughout, jokes are extremely rare but at least the few that are in get you to laugh. I kind of wish they had shown more of the extremes between Superman being the light and Batman the dark but oh well, missed opportunity there.

The reason for the fight is a bit silly but it was done this way so it could segway to the final act nicely which it does but sadly that also means the actual fight the movie is named after is not very long at all. On the plus side the final act does redeem it. Wonder Woman is indeed just kind of there for no good reason but as much as I didn't care about seeing her in the movie I ended up enjoying all of her scenes. The Batman scenes were great and so were the fights it really felt like a Justice League film.

Another reason people won't like the movie is that it is convoluted but not for the reasons most people speculated about, for example it's also not because we're being introduced to so many characters that wasn't a problem, even the cameos of Aquaman and the others are done in a non-intrusive world building way. The plot just has a lot of things going on and the status quo of the story is changes a lot through out the movie. This worked for me since its really no different than say the superhero tv shows we have on now but in a movie instead of the story changing throughout the season.

I do have to mention a few Spoilery things so here is another spoiler tag but this one is full on spoilers:0

Spoiler:

I can't talk about Lex Luthor without mentioning Spoilers. I really liked him in the movie however with him it feels like we're missing a movie between MOS and BVS. We never know why he hates Superman or how he found out what his secret identity was or Batman's for that manner. Kidnapping Martha Kent was so cheap and out there, they could've had Superman fight with Batman for another reason and I can only let it go since it transitions the fight to the final act nicely. None of those things are explained and then the ending with him foreshadowing what I'm guessing is Darkseid makes even less sense and was so stupid. It's a shame because I really liked this interpretation of Luthor but they mess it up because we have no idea of why anything he is setting up is happening, we never know the endgame. Now that I think about it it reminds me of "The Light" from Young Justice. And that's what I meant with convoluted, a few things that happen which are mostly done by Luthor are hard to follow or at least I think it will be for a casual audience who isn't familiar with the DC Universe.

Now for the other Big Spoiler, they indeed followed the Death of Superman storyline with Doomsday killing Superman. I Can't believe this didn't leak everywhere or that they actually killed him in his second movie not to mention the movie that begins the DC Cinematic Universe. I thought it was very well done and I'm super happy to have seen this on film. I do think BvS could've been a movie about just BvS and the death of superman his own movie as well but Doomsday is totally redeemed by killing Superman here, never saw that coming.

So yeah, overall the movie has a few problems in the story so if you're expecting a deep story you'll be disappointed but it gets the job done and overall if you want to see a cool superhero movie with awesome stuff happening you won't be disappointed.

[ZariusTwo]

So yeah, overall the movie has a few problems in the story so if you're expecting a deep story

S*it. I wanted a deep story.

[Bry]

Originally Posted by Krutch

Superman was born in the 1930s during the depression. Humanity's desire to hope for a better tomorrow is what birthed the character. He acted as a symbol of hope at a time when people desperately needed it. Was that the intention of the character at the moment of inception? Probably not. Siegel and Shuster were likely just hoping to make a buck. But regardless, that's what people projected on the character, and that's what makes him culturally significant. He's light at the end of the tunnel. He's who we can aspire to be even at our worst times.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Well that certainly wasn't what Superman was when created as. He was a socialist crusader fighting back at the corrupt sometimes with lethal force rather than acting like something to aspire to. Even as his rougher edges were sanded off he was still more of a reactionary character and that was his most successful period.

So... he was a beacon of hope for the oppressed and downtrodden at a time when the world was on the brink of war, the economy was in the toilet, and the people were frustrated by the corrupt officials and elites keeping them down? Gee, too bad none of that's relevant anymore.

But yeah -- that just draws a big fat line under what a great Superman could have, and should have, been in today's world. And I think the character could be hugely relevant and effective again if they'd tap into that in a smart way. Having Superman be heroic, principled, and optimistic at a time when it's hard to be any of those things makes the character stronger. Snyder did the opposite, making him brutal and weirdly aloof, giving in to the troubles of the world instead of rising above them. IMO, that's a completely wrong angle. Superman should help lift us up in troubled times. IMO, going for the "deconstructionist" angle was the absolute wrong move at this moment in time.

Originally Posted by sdp

So yeah, overall the movie has a few problems in the story so if you're expecting a deep story you'll be disappointed but it gets the job done and overall if you want to see a cool superhero movie with awesome stuff happening you won't be disappointed.

Well, personally... in a market where there's "a cool superhero movie with awesome stuff happening" released every handful of months, and if many or most of them have better stories and are getting better word-of-mouth than this one, that's a less compelling argument.

[Sumac]

sdp's review is well aligned with what critics said: that it is a more of a prequel to the Justice League, rather than movie of its own and that plot is rather incoherent at times.

What I don't like the most about this, is that some filmmakers still can't get simple idea in their heads, that when you introduce fictional universe with established characters and other stuff, you should make it understandable for people who don't know nothing about its source.

[TheSkeletonMan939]

I know Reddit is the worst source for just about anything, but this I think is interesting.

Feeling a little pressure there, WB? I'm sure companies do this stuff all the time, but it's interesting that Warner needs to do this to boost ratings for what they've hyped up to be the biggest, smartest, deepest superhero film ever.

[Shred Head]

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939

I know Reddit is the worst source for just about anything, but this I think is interesting.

Feeling a little pressure there, WB? I'm sure companies do this stuff all the time, but it's interesting that Warner needs to do this to boost ratings for what they've hyped up to be the biggest, smartest, deepest superhero film ever.

Considering some of these are the reviews it would not shock me

"A constellation of stars together in one film. 10/10"
"In the future they will talk about Batman v Superman debut as a historic day. 10/10"

A constellation of stars who the **** would write a review like that.

[TurtleTitan97]

Originally Posted by Shred Head

Considering some of these are the reviews it would not shock me

"A constellation of stars together in one film. 10/10"
"In the future they will talk about Batman v Superman debut as a historic day. 10/10"

Not gonna lie those reviews had me busting out laughing.

[Amaranthus]

I hate it when people get blown away by their first viewing of a movie and call it the best movie ever.
Makes me cringe.

[TheSkeletonMan939]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

I hate it when people get blown away by their first viewing of a movie and call it the best movie ever.

That's what I did with The Winter Soldier, except my mind is still being blown by it

[Amaranthus]

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939

That's what I did with The Winter Soldier, except my mind is still being blown by it

As long as you're not one of those people who call it a paranoia thriller.

[TheSkeletonMan939]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

As long as you're not one of those people who call it a paranoia thriller.

It kind of is though. Have you seen it?

It's an 11/10 film. Great writing, great acting, excellent music, smart editing...

[Amaranthus]

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939

It kind of is though. Have you seen it?

SinCast disagrees with you.
I haven't seen it though. You need to keep up with the MCU as a whole and I don't have the motivation or urge to do so.