Matt Reviews "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"

Unless you've been in a coma for the past week or so, it's kind of hard to miss the massive amounts of reviews slamming DC Comics' latest cinematic entry, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Even my cohort, Jay, had quite a bit of negative things to say about the film. While he and I both agree it's not the worst comic book adaptation ever -- Spider-Man 3, X-Men: The Last Stand, Hulk, Green Lantern, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, the Joel Schumacher-directed Batman films (Batman Forever and Batman & Robin), Ghost Rider, Jonah Hex, and all of the Fantastic Four films fit up on that mantle -- nevertheless, I think the negative reviews are a bit extreme and critics are definitely over-exaggerating. Now, don't get me wrong. Critics and viewers have the right to not like this film. Batman v Superman (BvS) is not one of the greatest comic book films ever -- it's not as good as Captain America: Winter Soldier nor does it even come close to the best comic book adaptation to date: The Dark Knight. However, BvS is not the dull let-down the naysayers would have you believe it is.

First off, let me say I really enjoyed BvS! Despite its title, I'm happy it was more than some rock-'em-sock-'em action flick. Besides the much-talked-about action near the end, there was an actual story (which is more than I can say for Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies) -- this time around inevitably having Superman dealing with the aftermath/fallout of his battle royale with General Zod (Michael Shannon), Ursa, and the rest of their Kryptonian criminal crew at the end of Man of Steel. I particularly liked the fact that this film addressed the almost vilifying of Superman, which perfectly reminds audiences of why Superman -- despite his few allies -- is one of the most alienated comic book characters. Despite his attempts to do good ever since the Kryptonian attack in Man of Steel (MoS), there is always some group of people he's offending or accused of attacking. This comes to a head when he is framed for murdering a group of African villagers and criminal soldiers (although, there is no shown casualities other than the criminals), and his actions get the attention of Senator Finch (Holly Hunter), who heads a Congressional subcommittee investigating Superman and believes he should understandably be held accountable for his actions or, in this case, inadvertent actions. While this is going on, spoiled rich boy (who tries not to act spoiled) Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) exploits the public's fear of Superman by using some Kryptonite found in the Indian Ocean to create a "final solution" to end Superman. As for his actual motivation, Luthor does not trust Superman being an alien and having so much power. Also, Luthor simply envies what he cannot have: Superman's power. It's the same motivation every Superman fan and anyone who's read a Superman comic knows. While this is all happening, Superman also has gotten the attention of another billionaire, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who, after suffering his own personal losses in the Kryptonian attack, has it out to destroy the man of steel.

The paramount thing to remember about DC's current cinematic universe is these films are exploring origins of characters that have been told and retold a dozen times or more by many different writers and in many different fashions. The only exception is Affleck's Batman, who has been doing his vigilante crime-fighting for quite some time -- as evidenced by visual (Robin's suit with Joker's spray-painted taunt) and spoken references (Wayne to Kent: "Maybe it's the Gotham City in me ... we just have a bad history with freaks dressed like clowns."). So, the critics' argument that -- particularly in MoS -- Superman doesn't act like Superman is a bit unfounded or, at best, moot as Superman is growing into and learning to be the hero us comic fans know. For fans who so adoringly remember and love Richard Donner's 1978 Superman, starring Christopher Reeve (who will always be the true Superman), MoS and this film are probably a bitter pill to swallow as this interpretation is definitely not the same. The origin may be there but the production, writing, acting and overall feel of the films are different. Again, I'm a huge fan of the Donner film, but if you go into MoS and/or BvS with the same kind of expectation, prepare to be thoroughly disappointed. If Donner's Superman was the golden age comics version of Superman, then MoS and BvS are the New 52 comics version. And I think that is wherein mostly lies the problem for critics and fans. There have been other versions of Superman in the cinema and most people love Reeve's portrayal; this version is not like Reeve's version, which most unknowingly have a problem with, and because this is a character people love so much, they are all the more critical if the film and character don't live up to their expectations or the version they care so much for.

There is certainly a lot to enjoy in BvS. Affleck's turn as Bruce Wayne has him comfortably portraying a hardened, weary, alcohol-for-breakfast-swigging Wayne while his version of Batman is darker, more ruthless, showing off his many years of fighting crime. He is the embodiment of Nietzsche's warning of becoming a monster after fighting them for too long. While we are briefly shown Batman's traumatic origin, I'm happy it will not take center point when or if a solo Affleck Batman film is released (I heard a 2018 or 2019 with Geoff Johns' assistance  is on the roster). This is a technique being used nowadays with comic book characters whose origin story is widely known and/or has been recreated on film a few times. Case in point, Marvel Comics' The Punisher's origin (which has been shown on film three times) is merely talked about on the hit Netflix series, Daredevil; and Spider-Man (whose origin has been shown on film two times) will be rebooted and reintroduced to filmgoers in this year's Captain America: Civil War and eventually in his own standalone film, which has already been announced will not be an origin story. Jeremy Irons' portrayal of Wayne's butler, Alfred, was good as he vocalizes the central theme to BvS: fear. "That's how it starts. The fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men ... cruel."

Gal Gadot's Diana Prince/Wonder Woman is the mysterious figure to intrigue audiences, getting them pumped up not just for the upcoming Justice League film but also for her long overdue standalone film (look closely and you'll spot a slightly blurry pic of Chris Pine as Steve Trevor). I found the photographic hint of her history was certainly enough to get me excited for the films and I think her role in the final battle is integral to showing audiences just how powerful she is (some don't know her power almost equals that of Superman's). I think not fully utilizing her in this film was a wise move as the filmmakers had, they would've risked jamming too much into a film with already a lot going on. There's a moment during her battle with the major baddie -- those who've seen the trailer know it's Doomsday (as in the monster who was responsible for killing Superman in the 1990s comic book run) -- when she actually smiles after being hit by the monster, and I couldn't help but smile myself because those in the know are aware of her true power. Also, when she, Batman and Superman first share screen time before their battle, even though there is little dialogue, their chemistry together feels, looks and sounds like what they are known for in the comics. Amy Adams' Lois Lane worked in BvS and she proves she is one of Superman's few tethers to a world in which he still doesn't feel comfortable yet; plus, her chemistry with Henry Cavill improved. I also loved the intriguing twist of Jimmy Olsen as a spy. What got me most excited, though, were the cameos of a majority of the rest of the Justice League: Ezra Miller's Flash, Jason Mamoa's Aquaman, and Ray Fisher's Cyborg (which all ran longer than I thought).

Most may be expecting the Lex Luthor most people associate with the comics version (on the right), but Jesse Eisenberg's younger portrayal fits more into the Secret Origin younger version (on the left).

As for the two more contentious characters (and their portrayals), Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor has drawn the most ire as many didn't take well to his particular brand of acting. Some have compared him to his Mark Zuckerberg portrayal from The Social Network: a nerdy, awkward, fidgeting dork doing his best to be threatening. While Eisenberg's portrayal (as any of the other parts in the film) is more a testament to the writers' version of Luthor, it should also be said that this Luthor is not the brawny, intimidating Luthor currently shown in DC's comic but rather the younger Lex prominently featured in Geoff Johns' Secret Origin comic. While that may be no excuse for letting down people's expectation, the fact that this is Luthor's introduction to the new cinematic universe and he's young proves that the Luthor all fans have grown to love to hate still has to do a bit more growing himself. What I do find ironic is that people/fans who are so in love with Donner's film would be so critical of this film, but expectations are high. It's a good thing Donner's Superman and Superman II weren't released today -- as critics would pan those films! I can hear it now. "Isn't Luthor's ultimate plan of sinking California a bit too simple a plot point?" "Turning the earth backward to turn back time? Seriously!?" "A super kiss that makes Lois forget? C'mon!" "Margot Kidder's acting?" And "Gene Hackman's comedic approach to portraying Lex Luthor?" Nevertheless, I can understand people's issues with Eisenberg's portrayal and if it's not for you, it's easy to see why. One of my biggest complaints was the sore underusage of Luthor's assistant, Mercy Graves (Tao Okamoto), who was first created for Superman: The Animated Series and is quite tough!

From 1992's The Death of Superman story, Doomsday is introduced as a mute killing machine who simply wants to destroy everything and everyone ... pretty much like the BvS version of Doomsday.

The second abused character is Doomsday, the Luthor-created Kryptonian monster best known for his introduction by killing Superman in the 1992 DC Comics storyline, The Death of Superman. Jay was quick to point out he thought the character was some mindless, horrible-looking thing which resembled the dopey Bane in Schumacher's Batman & Robin. However, unlike Bane in the comics, the comics version of Doomsday, when first introduced, does not talk and is merely a rage-filled killing machine that simply wants to destroy, there is no other motivation. So the portrayal of Doomsday here is quite on the mark. Also, the Doomsday in the comic (when first introduced) looks a bit too cartoony so I don't see a problem with how they created him via CGI for this film (I'm just happy that added the jagged rocks sprouting from his limbs and body). As for the criticism of Zod's ship being kept in Metropolis, it is true that it is never explained but when seeing how big the ship is, knowing this is only a year-and-a-half after the battle of Metropolis, and the fact the ship is made of Kryptonian metals and materials, it's safe to say the ship may not be as easy to move with earth material-made construction equipment as most would think. Finally, the creation of Doomsday is not merely Luthor putting his blood on Zod's body and putting him in water. The ship connects to Zod's body and begins the metamorphosis process, and Luthor's blood is merely mixed with the symbiotic fluid used to create a chrysalis for the transformation. The ship's technology takes it from there.

If there is one minor issue I had about BvS it's the inconsistency of teetering between origin story and throwing in what only comic fans would most likely know. Most of us know the basics of why Luthor first dislikes Superman, but if BvS is supposed to be an origin story for the two characters -- and especially their relationship -- I feel the filmmakers could or should have written some kind of scene to better explain or develop Luthor's jealousy as the scene at the benefit gala did not cut it. The closest they come to explaining Luthor's reasoning is at the end when he confronts Superman, and basically explains he doesn't trust Superman because of his being an alien and the fact he has so much power. Still, it's extremely difficult to make a film about a character who's already been portrayed so many times before. Another element I didn't care for was the writers' weakening of Superman, which has been shown on film ever since the Modern Age (mid-1980s), and is shown in BvS when a nuclear bomb explodes near him (SPOILER) and he's left in the atmosphere near death, which would never happen unless the bomb had Kryptonite in it (END SPOILER).

What I loved most about BvS was the final battle scenes. I won't get into too much detail as I don't want to spoil anything but I thought both were well-executed with great pacing and acting thrown in for good measure. The bottom line is: BvS is not the spectacular film everyone hyped it up in their minds to be, but it's also not the snore-fest most critics are painting it to be. If you're a fan of Superman and/or DC Comics, you're gonna most likely enjoy this film. If not, at least DC Comics and Warner Bros. have given us a barrage of characters (stemming from BvS) whose films will be forthcoming and can thus give us high hopes from this point on!