Originally posted by Lestov16Even the DC fanatics admitted this film disappointed. What's wrong with you ?
Considering people prefer AOU to this, perhaps it's not that my standards are lower. Maybe it's my ability to judge a film on its own merit rather than having preconceived expectations of the characters. Sadly not a lot of people can do that because the characters are so famous, but I feel sad for them. Their bias prevented them from enjoying an spectacular and cerebral film.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Tell me, Golgo... do you bleed?29% atm, btw.
Originally posted by Arachnid1Yeah, there really is no redeeming this movie.
There are plenty of reasons the movie was terrible.Superman, Batman, and WW themselves were alright. Lex and Doomsday were absolutely wasted. I've always said a super hero movie is only as good as its villains, and BvS tanked in that regard. The plot was also pretty weak. The way Lex set Bats and Supes against each other flat out shouldn't have worked. It was a sucky reason to have them fight. Doomsday being shoehorned into the movie when they could have saved him for an awesome DoS movie was a terrible choice.
Spoiler:
Kryptonite being pulled out as the plot device is such an old trope for Superman too. Snyder went on record to say that Kryptonite doesn't exist in his universe back when he made MoS, and then he did a 180 here to give a lame fight between Supes and Bats. Even worse, he made Kryptonite Doomsdays weakness too, which doesn't make sense since DDs powers are to evolve to overcome his weakness. Kryptonite should have been no different. It's just radiation after all. This is what killed most of the action scenes for me, and killing the action scenes after already building an abysmal plot was a terrible choice.Also, this was a Batman movie. We followed Bruce/Bats for the majority. Supes was a side character no different than WW, which was annoying since it's his movie with his villains.
Why did Lois throw the kryptonite spear into the water only to get it back later? How did she know it was DDs weakness? She wasn't there when Bats figured it out, and had no idea DD was Kryptonian.
Why didn't Bats go grab the spear? That was his entire plan, and why he brought Doomsday back towards the city like an idiot (isn't this exactly why he hated Supes at first?). Then he just stood there and watched for the majority of the fight, completely oblivious to his entire plan with the spear. He was pointless for the entire last fight. This is not how you use Bats in the Justice League.
What was Lexes motivation? He had no reason to target Supes the way he did. Maybe he was just crazy, but thats not Lex. I couldn't take him seriously at all. Also didn't like how easily he played Bats.
How the hell did Lex frame supes in the beginning for killing the people of that village? They died from freaking bullet wounds. Same with suicide bombing. That obviously wasn't supes. He doesn't have the ability to just explode, and would have no motivation. No one would actually think Supes committed these things.
Batman was just flat out murdering people in this. What happened to his no kill rule?
WTF was with that scene where the Flash goes back in time to warn Bats? Thats cool and all, except it was a dream. How would Wayne dream about the future? He also somehow had premonitions of Darkseids invasion, which is a weird ability to give him.
How did Supes just not hear his moms location? She was crying against the gag. He can hear Lois halfway across the world to stop her from being shot. He can hear her screaming halfway across the world, get suited, and fly back to metropolis in the seconds it takes her to fall from the top of a skyscraper towards the ground (and reach her before she gets halfway to the ground). Why couldn't he do the same for his mother?
I also didn't like Supes automatically accepting that he might have to kill Batman to save his mom when he talked to Lois. Thats not Supes at all. He wouldn't get played that easily.
Originally posted by Lestov16Are you serious bro?
Considering people prefer AOU to this, perhaps it's not that my standards are lower. Maybe it's my ability to judge a film on its own merit rather than having preconceived expectations of the characters. Sadly not a lot of people can do that because the characters are so famous, but I feel sad for them. Their bias prevented them from enjoying an spectacular and cerebral film.
This was NOT a cerebral movie. It TRIED to be, but failed. It's actually one of the worst written cbm in recent years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/things-wrong-with-batman-v-superman_us_56f438bde4b0a37218196aad
These are just a few of the MYRIAD of issues that BvS contains. Please don't try to pretend you're smarter than everyone else for liking this flawed movie...
Originally posted by Lestov16
Considering people prefer AOU to this, perhaps it's not that my standards are lower. Maybe it's my ability to judge a film on its own merit rather than having preconceived expectations of the characters. Sadly not a lot of people can do that because the characters are so famous, but I feel sad for them. Their bias prevented them from enjoying an spectacular and cerebral film.
👆
Yeah there was a lot of pre-conceived negative perceptions with people going into this film, which the critics just fuelled further.
And yeah AOU was not better than this, and certainly didn't require higher standards to enjoy.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
👆Yeah there was a lot of pre-conceived negative perceptions with people going into this film, which the critics just fuelled further.
And yeah AOU was not better than thisand certainly didn't require higher standards to enjoy.
I went in with an open mind and wanting to like this, I like DC just as much as I like Marvel and Batman is my favorite superhero out of all publications. It's just not a good movie, it's not even average imo.
Originally posted by Robtard
I went in with an open mind and wanting to like this, I like DC just as much as I like Marvel and Batman is my favorite superhero out of all publications. It's just not a good movie, it's not even average imo.
Wasn't talking about you. I know you like both Marvel and DC and say your opinion regardless.
But with many here their posts before they saw the movie made it clear they'd already made up their mind.
Originally posted by Robtard
Dude, come on. Every minute? Any Lex scene where he talked was atrocious alone.Not even sure proper editing could have made this bordering on decent, imo.
That's how you saw it. I thought he was a great villain, primarily because he was a perfect thematic foil to Superman. A neurotic dweeb who couldn't wrestle a houseplant, yet was superintelligent. He reminded me of Mr. Glass from Unbreakable in that he was physically weak but his mental intelligence and ruthlessness made him unstoppable, in polar contrast to the Hero.
I also enjoyed his histrionic behavior. Once again, in a film with such serious themes, his psychotic rambling was the perfect contrast to the always mentally composed Superman. Not to mention, we just had an ultra serious villain with Zod. It was time to switch it up this time around.
I love Clancy Brown Luthor, but I wasn't going into this film wanting to see a direct live action version of him. Matter of fact, I feel as though I already did in the inferior IM movies. I just needed a villain who fit the film, regardless of their name, and as stated, I thought Eisenberg did perfectly.
Originally posted by Zack M
950 or so is still a huge increase from MOS.
That would be great if this was simply MOS2.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Even it's biggest supporters on this board are only giving it average scores, so yes, it's that you have lower standards. Marvel has nothing to do with this.
Its cinema score was a B/B+. Not a D/D-.
Originally posted by Lestov16
That's how you saw it. I thought he was a great villain, primarily because he was a perfect thematic foil to Superman. A neurotic dweeb who couldn't wrestle a houseplant, yet was superintelligent. He reminded me of Mr. Glass from Unbreakable in that he was physically weak but his mental intelligence and ruthlessness made him unstoppable, in polar contrast to the Hero.I also enjoyed his histrionic behavior. Once again, in a film with such serious themes, his psychotic rambling was the perfect contrast to the always mentally composed Superman. Not to mention, we just had an ultra serious villain with Zod. It was time to switch it up this time around.
I love Clancy Brown Luthor, but I wasn't going into this film wanting to see a direct live action version of him. Matter of fact, I feel as though I already did in the inferior IM movies. I just needed a villain who fit the film, regardless of their name, and as stated, I thought Eisenberg did perfectly.
Fore sure, wasn't implying you're not allowed to your opinion/what you like. Just don't see how you got there, we're polar opposites on this.
That final scene with Lex, honestly laughed at how ridiculously absurd he looked and sounded, to me it was as if Synder and Eisenberg were taking a shit on all of us and laughing.
Originally posted by Lestov16Hey, you enjoy your "Super cerebral" BvS while the rest of us morons see it for what it is... I was being generous with my initial 6.5/10 review...I think it's dropped a point the more I think of Lex and how stupid he and his end goal were.
That's how you saw it. I thought he was a great villain, primarily because he was a perfect thematic foil to Superman. A neurotic dweeb who couldn't wrestle a houseplant, yet was superintelligent. He reminded me of Mr. Glass from Unbreakable in that he was physically weak but his mental intelligence and ruthlessness made him unstoppable, in polar contrast to the Hero.I also enjoyed his histrionic behavior. Once again, in a film with such serious themes, his psychotic rambling was the perfect contrast to the always mentally composed Superman. Not to mention, we just had an ultra serious villain with Zod. It was time to switch it up this time around.
I love Clancy Brown Luthor, but I wasn't going into this film wanting to see a direct live action version of him. Matter of fact, I feel as though I already did in the inferior IM movies. I just needed a villain who fit the film, regardless of their name, and as stated, I thought Eisenberg did perfectly.
Originally posted by RobtardYah, I'm the same way. My entire Theater was laughing at how stupid Lex was; at several points. We weren't laughing because he was funny; but because he was so cringeworthy there was nothing to do but laugh.
Fore sure, wasn't implying you're not allowed to your opinion/what you like. Just don't see how you got there, we're polar opposites on this.That final scene with Lex, honestly laughed at how ridiculously absurd he looked and sounded, to me it was as if Synder and Eisenberg were taking a shit on all of us and laughing.
I remember seeing a review that essentially said this move was bad because it was philosophical instead of "fun" like a "superhero movie is supposed to be". So I guess this movie was too smart for most audiences, who again rank stupid shit like IM3 above this. I mean, why reflect on themes of xenophobia and misotheism when you can laugh at a lame Tony Stark joke?
Originally posted by Lestov16
I remember seeing a review that essentially said this move was bad because it was philosophical instead of "fun" like a "superhero movie is supposed to be". So I guess this movie was too smart for most audiences, who again rank stupid shit like IM3 above this. I mean, why reflect on themes of xenophobia and misotheism when you can laugh at a lame Tony Stark joke?
Watchmen (which is the superb SH flick) would fit that, imo. I didn't find any real intelligence in this film.