Ever since Zack Snyder announced the incoming debut of "Batman v Superman"way back in 2013, the film has been subject to a massive Internet game of tug-of-war. This was, of course, partly because of the mediocre reception of Snyder’s Superman origin story "Man of Steel" (2013). Some thought that "Batman v Superman" was destined to be yet another adaptation failure and were disappointed with the core casting. Others were excited to witness Wonder Woman’s onscreen debut and for DC potentially making a comeback in the box office. The March 25 release of "BvS"was supposed to settle whether the movie was a ‘make’ or ‘break’… And yet, the divide of opinion has only become more defined.
A quick visit to Rotten Tomatoes is only one example of the increasingly split reactions toward the film’s release. The critical consensus is, of course, that "BvS" is a pile of crap, and yet the film grossed $681.3M its opening weekend. And even among the audience itself, there has been plenty of disagreement on whether the movie was good or not.
My take on this? Of course there’s a split in opinion. This film is the very definition of inconsistency. ArsTechnica called "BvS"the "Showgirls" of movies, and you know what? I have to agree. It was an incredible split of ‘shitshow’ and ‘decent’.
The editing, first of all was… Strange. It was as if Snyder desperately wanted to release an arthouse film but was forced to do a superhero movie instead. The stylized sequence of Martha and John Wayne’s death was pretty and aesthetically pleasing but was ultimately empty and didn't leave the audience with anything new. And even for all the style that Snyder lovingly placed in the film in hopes that it would somehow morph into the next hit at a hipster café, the editing sometimes left me wondering if they pieced this movie together the night before opening. Case in point is in the desert sequence, where Superman flies into the desert and the scene just cut to him inside the hideout. Also, why is there a shaky cam in "Batman v Superman"? Maybe there was an attempt to be artsy, but all I got was nausea. It was disorienting and strange and super pretentious.
As for characters, Ben Affleck as Batman has generally been agreed to be one of the better parts of the film, and for the most part I have to identify with that crowd. I mean, look at this.
Bruce Wayne hugging a small child while giving Superman the stink eye. That’s about as Bruce Wayne as you get. I really enjoyed Ben Affleck’s portrayal of Batman as a paranoid vigilante who chooses to be good because he can be. Also, lo and behold, the World’s Greatest Detective actually does detective work. He may not be the Bruce Wayne that many moviegoers are used to, but the way he is written is very reminiscent of Frank Miller’s “The Dark Knight Returns”. It was obvious that great care and research was done for this iteration of Batman, and that the writers and apparently Ben Affleck himself are fans of the character. That and of course the banter between Bruce and Jeremy Irons’ Alfred was gold, even if the closeness in age was a bit of a deal breaker.
As for Superman… I have to ask myself, is it really possible to get Superman wrong? And Zack Snyder answers with a resounding “yes!”
I grew up with "Superman: The Animated Series". It was one of my favorite shows on television, and though it is by no means the Bible on how to do Superman, as I watched this film I couldn’t help but compare. Snyder asks us the question: What is Superman? A savior? A god? Or just Clark Kent? The problem is that the question is posed without the movie ever really making sense of it. The film is filled with Christian symbolism coding Superman as Jesus – literally, there isn’t a Superman-centric scene where a Messianic motif isn’t jammed into our eyeballs - however, Snyder never really fills in the gaps as to why that symbolism is important. So much hung on the Superman’s humanity v. godhood conflict, but for all the screen time it was given, not much was actually explored. Everything about this Superman was grimdark and darkgrim. I thought back to "The Animated Series" and recalled a similar storyline, where people weren’t sure whether to love or fear Superman. But that was done so much better, because we were introduced to the concept of Superman as a person rather than just a general Messianic archetype in a blue suit. Even the New Testament made Jesus more human than Snyder does with Superman. I mean, Jesus wept. Superman… Grimaces.
Say what you will about "Man Of Steel", but at least in that movie Kal-El smiled. And communicated a bit more than just a series of grunts and menacing looks. Maybe it was because Zack Snyder decided that he could just shove any and all character development into the "Man Of Steel" movie so he could focus on bigger and better things in "Batman v. Superman",like making us watch John and Martha Wayne die again, or make Bruce Wayne go through a series of weirdly played out dream sequences.
Overall, I did enjoy the concept of the movie. But if you don’t want to waste your money on it, I honestly don’t blame you. However, if you do want to spend $14 to watch 30 seconds of Jason Momoa’s hair gracefully flowing in the ocean, I wouldn’t blame you. Just don’t expect anything trivial like Superman being interesting.
