For most of BATMAN V SUPERMAN’s bloviated pretension, I was merely bored. This half-baked idea studded with ponderous pronouncements, shockingly sedate action sequences, and the simulacrum of serious philosophical inquiry plodded along, weighed down by an overstuffed plot and an underdeveloped narrative. But when we arrived at a meticulous recreation of the deposition from the Cross, followed by an evocation of an ersatz Calvary in the ruins of Metropolis (or was it Gotham City and who cares?), my passive distaste become active, passionate dislike. Conceived as the launching pad for a new franchise dedicated to the Justice League, it may instead be a final resting place for this incarnation of Batman and his pals.
Ben Affleck, Jeremy Irons
Ben Affleck takes over the role of Batman, and while he is fiercely committed in those scenes showing Batman’s alter ego, Bruce Wayne, bulking up in preparation for his final showdown with the Man of Steel (Henry Cavill), including, for some reason, beating the heck out of a truck tire with a sledge hammer, Affleck’s demeanor throughout is somewhere between petulant and dyspeptic.
Henry Cavill
Cavill, on the other hand, has a righteous solemnity about him, even when Superman’s alter ego, Clark Kent, joins his true love, Lois Lane (Amy Adams) in the bathtub for a bout of splash and tickle. He has mastered the concerned, slightly pitying expression of a superior being feeling true sympathy for the lesser creatures around him. In short, he may be dazzlingly attractive, but he’s just a little too saintly.
Jesse Eisenberg
Thank the cinematic gods for Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, the psychotic, sneaker-wearing philanthropist who longs to see a final showdown between the two superheroes, and has both the means and opportunity to make it happen. He makes the twisted theology of a madman almost entertaining. Theology, as you might have guessed, looms large In this film, as do philosophical musings on what it means to do good. For the political take, there is Holly Hunter and her chewy southern accent as the junior senator from Kentucky who wants Superman to submit himself to a Congressional inquiry into his ultimate trustworthiness, what with his capability of destroying the world with those superpowers that, heretofore, have only been used to save humankind. Okay, destroying billions of dollars of infrastructure sometimes, but ultimately saving the planet, as well as people trapped in burning buildings.
There is so much wrong here. Too many attempted fake-outs with Bruce Wayne’s nightmares. The way Michael Shannon’s entire role is that of a corpse. A somnambulant Jeremy Irons as Alfred, the wonder Butler at the nerve center of Batman’s technological weaponry fretting about whether or not his master will settle down with a nice girl one day. The opening music from EYES WIDE SHUT, Shostakovich’s “Suite for Variety Stage Orchestra”, playing when Bruce Wayne first talks to Diana Prince (Gal Gadot), the mysterious (wonder) woman he keeps running into at swanky soirees. That tin-can of a bat suit that turns Batman into a less agile Robocop knockoff. I could go on, but I refuse to relive the horror except to say that why Batman is so intent on killing Superman is sketchy at best. Sure, he decimated one of Bruce’s skyscrapers saving the world from aliens, but it wasn’t personal. Is he irritated by Superman’s innate goodness when he, Batman, gets less respect for walking so decidedly on the dark side? Is it the way Superman’s seemingly prehensile cape always wafts majestically even when there is no breeze? Or was it the way Superman ripped the doors off the Batmobile at one point? I understand guys are real touchy about these things.
Affleck, Cavill
Many things get blown up in BATMAN V SUPERMAN. Many building crumble. Dreams are shattered. Terrorists pop up. Pseudo-intellectualism embraces chaos and all so that those superbly square jaws of Cavill and Affleck can jut at one another in all their cleft-chinned perfection. No chins are worth it, not even these.
Using words like “bloviated, simulacrum, dyspeptic & prehensile” to accuse a film of being pretentious is a bit rich. I don’t doubt this film is going to be pretty awful, but this article read like it was less about reviewing a film and more about you continuously reaffirming yourself as a pedant, as though that’s something to be proud of.
I’d much rather sit through this movie than ever stumble across one of your “reviews” ever again.
Its a stupid premise. Batman vs Superman – why would anyone think that was a good idea? Moronic is what it is. How could the movie made from such a dumbass idea be anything other than bad. What were the people who made this thinking? Or smoking?
Probably because the Frank Miller comic that made Batman relevant again did an excellent job if it.
They should have just made that into a movie.
I think the trouble of making MIller’s masterpiece, or any other, into a movie is that the directors then have to stay filial to the plot. No comic movie has ever attempted that 100% of the way except for “Watchmen”, and “V For Vendetta”. Everything else is a crushing of concepts into one soup of a comic film with lots of allusions and explosions. What else do people expect?
critics also need to read more comics and spend less time reading a thesaurus for bloated terminology… or should I say “bloviated”. This movie is basically Miller’s “Dark Knight Returns” meeting Mike Carlin et. al’s “Death of Superman” with allusions to other DC universe storylines intermingled. It is a source of entertainment, and attempts to make superheroes plausible for moviegoers living in a real world which has destabilized authority, intelligence and in some cases reality. It’s pretty fun. Go see it if you like comics, and want to see the dream team of Bats, Supes and WW team up for the first time on film. That alone is worth the price of admission. Calm down critics, don’t get all fustian on us.