Here’s my two cents on the whole “Batman v Superman” issue: the movie wasn’t bad but it doesn’t deserve praise either. I allude to the Telegraph’s review that, indeed, the movie was incoherent: not because there was something wrong with the plot (not to me anyway) but, in part, due to the fact that it contained too many moving parts that failed to collectively fit as cogs of the whole “plot machine”. During the first hour or so, it continuously and lopsidedly jumped from Superman to Batman to Lex and back, with Wonder Woman, interspersed in between.
The only redeeming quality in the whole movie, for me, was Batman. I liked the fact that this movie tried to lend credence to Batman’s anti-hero status, by giving him a ruthless and uncompromising outlook that his movie predecessors somewhat failed to portray. This Batman is a departure from the previous incarnations. While the one in the Dark Knight trilogy was sleek and aesthetically pleasing, Ben Affleck’s Batman is rather like an unpolished rock- burly and imposing with the added feature of an unshaven look. Though I was a little disappointed that Bruce Wayne’s back story was tinkered with a bit, it didn’t really do much with regards to the grand scheme of things. In some ways, Jeremy Irons served as a dual character, fulfilling the roles of both Alfred and Lucius Fox.
From the trailers, I was given the impression that Jesse Eisenberg would serve as an interesting Lex Luthor. However, bits and pieces can be misleading, as they very well proved. He turned out to be somewhat like a rich college kid- impetuous and impatient – qualities most befitted to the Joker than any one else. I would rather have used him as a plot gambit, like a “Deus ex Machina”, revealing his true identity in the end. To me, he was a dead give away and his stratagem could have be used so much better.
Now, the whole “God” and “False God” mythos surrounding Superman was an inspiring take which I feel many more superhero movies should explore (having heroes must come with consequences). Nevertheless, Clark Kent’s (Superman’s) objection to the whole vigilante justice and disregard for people’s well-being of Batman seemed utterly sanctimonious. One of the biggest letdowns of the movie came as an apparent void of constructive dialogue. Many films are remembered because of grips of extreme emotions and words remembered – this movie possessed a little of the former and neither of the latter. I will not, however, broach the subject of Wonder Woman since her infrequent comings and goings leave little room for objective opinion.
Overall, Batman v Superman is akin to movie adaptions of popular novels which desperately try to squeeze tonnes of information within two hours. As my opening statements mention, this movie shuffles with too many parts that don’t seamlessly weave into a complete package. As is evident from more and more modern films, way too much money is used to make the visuals look “real”, battles look interesting etc., it’s apparent that little or no brain is used to make the plots worthwhile. In view of story-telling, this is an average film at best. But hey! that’s not what most movie goers look for, is it?