You know, a thing that I really respect from Daredevil season 2 (I didn't notice until now), even with his flaws and all, is that when the punisher kills people, it's freaking brutal, unpleasant and discouraging, and it needed to be that way, because it's not glorifying the violence that that character uses, instead is constantly questioning his ways and tries to explain why he has choosen that actitud towards crime, and I think it's shows it more as a resignation, a tragedy of the character that it always will follow him, more than exemplary behavior for the audience, that's the sort of depth that BvS is lacking
yep, we don't see things like the corpses or still living but burning guys Batman leaves in his wake in that car chase where he is ultimately intercepted by superman.
@Jeremiah B that's because Daredevil and Jessica Jones are two different people with different backgrounds. JJ was fighting her personal demons and shortcomings as "horrible" human being and finding her way back as a normal functioning human being and Daredevil starts out as a bottle of unbridled rage which needs a target, a bit like Batman (in the comics), if Daredevil (in the series, not the comics) goes too far he might just end up being 'just' a vigilante, akin to the Punisher. In the end, Daredevil is about justice in a flawed world, and Jessica Jones about overcoming trauma.
***** I also believe that it's a flawed season (I think that I actually said that in my commentary), but that aspect (the daredevil/punishe dynamic) is excelent and it should had rely more on that
Captain Zappa I don't think it was even trying to rely on that. The movie was ALWAYS trying to rely on the fact that Lex was manipulating both characters to hate each other to get Superman killed. The daredevil/punisher dynamic was never used because that was what TDKR was kind of about and the writers probably wanted o deviate from that but Snyder probably wanted the movie to be LIKE TDKR and this caused a disconnect.
I think the whole moral conflict between them was on some pretty shaky grounds. I mean, their methods and attitude were pretty much the same. Batman is dark and brooding and kills with little impunity and Superman is dark and brooding and kills with little impunity, albeit he's less blatant about it than Batman. So why exactly were they opposed to each other on a moral and ethical level? We know that Batman doesn't like Superman because of the destruction he caused at the end of MOS but Batman is show to be pretty destructive himself, and apparently Superman doesn't like Batman because he's a murdering vigilante but then so is Superman. So what made either of them think the other one had gone too far? If anything you'd think they'd agree with each other.
Superman only had to kill one person, zod. He made a promise never to kill again but to save people, to rescue people. Thats what he was trying to so following the events of MOS. Yes he was still carrying a heavy burden and trying his best to be a light in the darkness, a symbol of hope, but people just continually saw him as this angel, a godlike figure rather than as a person. For batman, he inspired fear and walked among the shadows like a demon. So the fight between these two was more like God vs the Devil, Angel vs. demon rather than opposing moralities or whatever. It was more epic, and grandiose, almost operatic. All the while they were being manipulated by a third party... luthor.
When people told me about this movie, and how bad it was, I thought, "Wow, that's pretty bad. Glad I didn't see it." Then I saw it. And man, were those people being *_generous_*
i went to the avant premier of this movie, when it ended i felt sad, uninspired and actually with less faith in humanity, superman has been who tought me to try to be better, that the power that you have it's pointless if you dont use it to help, this superman doesnt smile, he dont try to inspire you, his symbol means hope as they said on this movie, but superman dont inspire or have any of this, batman its a little harder because its his first movie on this incarnation, but the fact that he its richier masked punisher makes the character less deep, he doesnt have the struggle of dont kill (i know about burton's batman he was a psycho but he was deeper on other aspects) if you are going to put the robin suit of jason todd you cant make batman a killer, because when he comeback as redhood and ask "why havent you killed the joker?" there is no answer that can be good, its a line that when its cross you cant uncross it.
so many stupid things in any one slice of the film (and I wanted this movie to be awesome,believe me) - take just the senators hearing. explosion happens and we see a lingering shot of sad supes standing perfectly preserved (hair in place etc!) ... just standing on the spot looking at Lois,minutes later we have supes helping people who survived and a cop or paramedic says something about needing space and superman shoots off into the sky. at some point we saw Bruce Wayne watching live footage and being horrified so... 1. why is superman not a blur when the explosion happens, why is he not extinguishing the fire in as many fractions of a second as possible and why do we not see him going bananas trying to rescue people? 2. why does he fly off particularly when there is apparently something more to do because the media say he left suspiciously or too early 3. why does Bruce, worlds greatest detective etc seem to think that Superman had some hand in making this happen? does he imagine a bunch of powers that superman doesn't have in the movie like generating a massive explosion (yes yes, new 52, I know!) Superman is easily the biggest travesty, that talk about "Superman" being his farmer dads silly dream... what is this cynical nonsense? its not hard, just save everyone that you feasibly can! there is too much wrong with Supes to list but this is the second time in a decade we've had Batman come really close to a perfect take on the character. Snyder had an excellent budget, great cast, great people working with him but again we got Batman doing things he never would - Nolan's Batman lost his shine for me when he took a break for *years* after Rachel died, so much was right about Bales performance and the realistic take up till that point, Superman can be an olympic level athlete in multiple disciplines, he can be the greatest detective, a top tier martial artist, a genius inventor,an astounding tactician etc - not all at once unless its the comics but NEVER make him lose tenacity, his willpower and drive are not possible to break,this is the most central thing. Battfleck is another weird spin on this, he is allowing people to die left, right and centre by flipping cars onto people but people will defend that.. his spirit has been broken though, its why he is seeking to kill superman, Batman isn't some guy who makes calculations probabilities of people going rogue and then offs them! thats some supervillain logic like people wiping out 80% of the worlds population to "save" the planet yuck! just... make justice league very very different and no funny colour filters on cameras. in daylight scenes no brown tint, no darkening anything, nice and bright please. gotham nights are for murky stuff
Renzo Fideli Sancho Good. Sometimes a movie making you feel sad is better than making you feel nothing. I think of this movie as The Empire Strikes Back. Even though that was a vastly superior movie it provokes the movie goer into showing that sometimes the bad guys just win. I hope that Justice League will be The Return Of Jedi and will be a much more fleshed out movie with better character dynamics and Superman will inspire you again. As Leon stated this movie compares Supes to God. "Thy Lord Gifts Thy Lord Taketh away then thy gifts again."
*Batman finds out Superman's mom is named Martha, goes to save her* *In Warehouse* Batman: (to criminals) Hey, are any of your mom's named Martha? Criminals: Uh... no? *Batman kills them* XD
He feared Superman but he didn't know why, he felt compelled to believe in something.. anything during his personal identity crisis because he was going through a serious lost of hope and faith in what he does. So he then believes that defeating Superman will give him a restored sense of purpose, it is his new found destiny. Wayne believes the media hype, Superman is an alien, not human therefore a threat, he is a danger to human kind and there is no sign of weakness or vulnerability in him. This scares Wayne the most. Then as Batman finally has this alien mythological threat right where he wants him to destroy, Superman says the one name that triggers the first purpose Wayne became Batman to begin with, it's his mother's name. And then he sees a vulnerable desperate man begging him in a way a boy would to save his mother. In this moment Wayne/Batman realizes this is a man, not a god, it's not the dark threat he believed. Superman has a mother... and her name is Martha. Wayne flashes back and it all becomes clear; he lost his identity and his purpose because he has resorted to inflict fear and torture on people as a type of punisher, but the real reason he became Batman was to to save people, to save the mother he never got a chance to save. Wayne's eyes become wider under that mask, as he realizes that his destiny was not to kill Superman, it is and always has been...to save Martha. This is my psychoanalytic theory.
@@culturalartsandpoliticsrev6916 You don't understand. It's clear what Snyder is trying to do and it's all good on paper. However, the execution is laughable and makes the whole thing ridiculous.
@@culturalartsandpoliticsrev6916 bravo, thats exactly what i was thinking. Its just unfortunate that the way it comes off makes it seem less than what it is.
@@culturalartsandpoliticsrev6916 Indeed yes. He learns from almost killing Superman that killing is wrong. After that, he heads to a warehouse and kills a ton of goons with feelings, emotions, and families. My favorite character development is character development that not only isn't executed well onscreen so you have to read the script to even get it, but is so unfocused that it's immediately thrown away for another cool fight scene.
goman335 Yes but him saying that makes me believe that Snyders focus is to make his films as dark as possible without a concern about whether it would work from a narrative standpoint
As the credits rolled on this film, I had to leave the movie theater. I needed air. I felt nauseated. I sat through The Blair Witch Project seven times, once in the front row. I don't get nauseated when watching movies. I enjoyed BWP so much more than BvS. I still love that silly film. which was made for less than the purchase of a fancy car. Even tho it hinted at being a snuff film, it never promised that. In fact, BWP entertained me and was a lot of fun. Despite time being unkind to it, and I'm pretty sure a "Renegade Cut" look at The Blair Witch Project would rip it to shreds, it's still one of my favorite films. It delivered what I expected from it. I can't ask for more than that from any film. BvS cost a mint, and it completely fails to deliver. I felt conned walking out that theater. I felt like I was promised tasty junk food and was given smelly trash displayed on a plate as if it were gourmet food. This is not what I ordered, and it's not what anyone should want. Thanks for putting into words what I couldn't even grasp myself as I left that theater. BvS seemed to have all the pieces of the puzzle necessary to make this film, but they were so poorly put together it was shameful. Recent Superman films have failed to grasp, perhaps as far back as the fourth Christopher Reeve film, that Superman is always Clark Kent. Superman is the affectation. He was born Kal-El. When he learns about this as a young adult he comes to accept it (even choosing to worship Rao instead of the Abrahamic god in some iterations). However, Clark was raised to be John and Martha's boy. That's what he knows in his bones. He's just a farm kid. He's a boy scout. He's an idealistic American dreamer. That is the heart of who Clark is. If you told Clark Kent he were a Christ figure, he'd probably suggest you not take the Lord's name in vain. Clark wouldn't accept that. He's far too humble. He'd think that's silly. Even after coming back from the dead, he'd dismiss it as a coincidence. Warner Communications seems to have a problem with that. Perhaps this corporate inability to present a decent Superman to the American public says more about present day culture than the pulp fiction source material. Maybe America is currently having difficulty understanding what an average American really is anymore. Maybe what comic book writers imagined that would be half a century or so ago was always a fiction. I have always taken the Superman story to mean that even if you are an alien from another planet, if you see yourself as a red blooded American and by your good deeds and intentions that's what you present to your world, then that's who you really are. Being Superman is Kal-El's other job; actually it's more like a hobby. His first job is being Clark Kent. This is diametrically opposed to Bruce Wayne and Batman. Batman's who he truly is. Bruce Wayne is the affectation. Bruce Wayne is one of the masks Batman puts on to accomplish stuff that lets him continue to be Batman. Clark Kent uses the Superman persona to accomplish things he can't do as a mild mannered reporter. After watching several films now, I get the feeling this isn't just a Zach Snyder thing. I'm concerned those who defend the intellectual property of DC Comics don't fully understand the characters they represent. It's like if those behind Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's estate were to authorize a film version of Sherlock Holmes set in Australia to disco music with zombies and ninjas just because it play tested well. Someone should lose their job over a decision like that, at the very least.
Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain, you don't need to get permission from anyone to make your auzzie zombie disco ninja holmes. I for one am looking forward to The Case of the Black Mirrorball ;P
8:20 So, what you're saying is Ben Affleck wasn't lying when he said the movie was "trafficking" towards ideas and themes that were too smart for him, because technically all the movie does is "traffic" towards these ideas and themes. But that's where it ends. Excellent observation
6:55 I’m really glad that I’m not the only one who caught the switch from Zorro to Excalibur. Zorro follows a playboy who leaves home to learn how to fight so he can return to protect his people with the help of his butler, while Excalibur follows a man who recruits a team of noble warriors with the aid of a magical immortal. While the former sounds a LOT like Batman Begins, the latter is definitely what they’d envisioned for Justice League.
Here's the problem; Snyder doesn't have faith that the source material is worth liking. So he writes a completely unrelated story, and dresses it up in a Superman costume and calls it a day. He dosen't actually care about why people like Batman or Superman in the first place.
I LOVE YOU!!!! I can't believe so few critics, whether film or comics, have pointed out the game-breaking nature of having a Batman who kills. It is one of foundational aspects of the character, and to have the change go not only unacknowledged, but to serve as merely a stylistic choice, is an act of grave injustice to Batman.
The most pressing question is: Why did Luthor blow up his loyal and valuable assistant Mercy Graves? Is he just crazy? Did he forget that she’d be in court, too? Did he just not care? Does he ever try to replace her, or is he no longer in need of an assistant for some reason?
Someone should make a film about how people can craft the the most elaborate lies/excuses to tell themselves to justify their own opinions, actions or beliefs. MoS & BvS in the end were 2 films built around a series of SCENES instead of from an actual STORY.
The comics have aways asked the question if Batman is as crazy as his villains. In his first appearance, he hanged a man, and dropped another into a vat of acid (not the Joker). Here, he is no doubt even more insane than them. The hallucinations, murder, nihilistic and cynical attitude all prove this. And you're right, when he befriends Superman, he could have redeemed himself. It's also been confirmed that in Suicide Squad, the bombs implanted into the criminals are made by Wayne Enterprises. Everytime the movie has a good concept, it falls flat. Love this analysis, didn't even know the importance of Excalibur (since i haven't seen that film). :)
Your review of Se7en also perfectly shows how to make a film like this work. It can be as dark and grim as it wants, but there must be a glimmer of hope to make it worthwhile and make it's message come across well.
Actually, this is why I think Batman needs Robin as a supporting character, even though very few of the movies have actually used the character and not many incarnations, even in the comic, use it well. It's made clear that Robin is dead in this film. It could have been portrayed as Batman had lost his moral compass because the death of Robin shook him so badly that he withdrew from society and the isolation made him lose the part of himself that connected with people. But we never see Batman as anything other than the aging sociopath he's portrayed as here and the fact that he goes right back to callously murdering people after his supposed epiphany ruins any sense that this is the case, instead leaving you with a sense that Batman was always a stone-cold killer who never really had a good sense of empathy to begin with. It's one of the many wasted possibilities in this movie.
As many have pointed out, since it was Jason Todd Robin who died they said, they won't be able to do a prober retelling of Under The Red Hood since Red Hood was the killing vigilante in that story.
I kind of liked the idea of a Batman pushed to the edge and almost going over, the death of Robin making him more ruthless and uncaring. If this movie had any brains, that big fight scene would've seen him be less vicious, and more smart in finding ways to subdue these criminals rather than obliterate them. At the end of the movie he talks about failing Superman, and now trying to be better as a way of honouring him. If Snyder knew what he was doing, that big fight scene would've been the first indications of that line of thinking. When he let that hate of Superman go, it should've reflected in his actions afterwards...and it definitely didn't in that fight scene.
Yatsura2 no it wasn't.... It's true that they wanted it to have a different ending without The Box scene, but Fincher got to do the ending je wanted, and it fits with the rest of the movie. All of his other dark movies also have glimses of hope in them as well.
Luthor wants to kill Superman because he doesn't believe in all powerful gods who are good. "No man in the sky intervened when I was a boy to deliver me from Daddy's fists and Abominations..." "...I figured that way back that if god is all powerful, then he cannot be all good, and if he is all good, then he cannot be all powerful." It is basically (like with 'all interpretations of the character) that Luthor feels inadequate due to Superman's presence and wants to prove that he, a normal Man, can defeat a powerful alien. And he would also never reveal Superman's alter ego to the world, as it would rob him the chance of defeating the person that Clark wants the world to see...which is himself as Superman.
The movies theme of Superman being both a god and a devil might have been partially inspired by this quote from Justice League Unlimited by Dr. Hamilton: "I thought you were a guardian angel, come to answer our prayers. But Lucifer was an angel too, wasn't he?"
I wish BVS fans would understand why it's important for Batman not to kill. I've seen a lot of supporters for Batman's brutality and it just doesn't make sense, not just from a story aspect like you pointed out. But for me, mostly an ideals standpoint. There's nothing heroic about killing. Ask any soldier, and they will often tell you, "Don't call me a hero". So for Batman to callously take lives and still be left on his heroic justified pedestal, it shows a complete lack of humanity from the creatives in charge. I've often expressed that Batman restores faith in the justice system by allowing due process to play it's part. But remove it, and we get a Batman without ideals and thus an audience without someone to idolize. And with the current state of policing in America, I think we as a society could use a hero that doesn't rely on lethal force to save the day. (Sorry to get political)
You didn't need to get political but that was spot on. Consider how a Superman who kills changes the Batman of BvS from the real Batman. If Batman kills, then Joker shouldn't be a problem. The point of Joker is this is a mass murderer who keeps killing and Batman keeps putting him in jail or Arkham but Joker escapes and wreaks havoc and kills. But Batman won't kill and it creates a dramatic dilemma for the hero. If there is a Joker in BvS universe and Batman doesn't kill him or even attempt to kill him, then BvS will be exposed of it's flaws once again.
+Raymond Doyscher Exactly. When I realized Batman had no problem killing random hired goons, I just assumed the next step for Batman was turning Arkham Asylum into Auschwitz.
***** I'm interested in seeing JK Simmons as Commissioner Gordon. I feel like a genuine Gordon would never stand beside a murdering Batman. The point of their partnership was always to keep the police involved in their pursuit for justice. Hopefully, the past events of BVS will have created tensions between them.
Yatsura2 You're naive pal if you think Batman doesn't come with a "morale of the day" as well. He's an original golden age super hero, his very existence has become a cliche within the genre. And the overall message behind batman has always been "Seek justice. Not revenge."
Yatsura2 is also right. He is celebrating Frank Miller's God Damned Batman. We loved it in the 80's. We're buying it right now in DK III. The mass murdering angry vigilante is the Batman we as fans are buying.
The whole "Martha" scene kind of sums Snyder up...a potentially decent idea completely ruined by shitty execution. Having Supes say "Martha" instead of "Mom" is completely stupid, no child would address their parent in such a way when they were desperate to save them. But the writers thought they were being cute by pointing it out, so wrote a completely unnatural character line and made it all come off really stupid and hokey. If he said "Mom", it'd still have given Batman pause. Lois can then plead the case, "His Mother, Martha Kent, she's in trouble"...she can then go in to comfort Supes, this person showing love, affection and concern for him further cementing that Superman is a person too, and forces Bruce to confront his mistaken assumptions. It would've worked the same, been less poorly written and a LOT less goofy. The movie is filled with crap like that, poor decisions everywhere.
Yeah I probably worded badly. I know he wasn't calling out to her, I know he was talking to Batman. That's still bizarre to say "Martha" instead of "My Mom" or "My Mother". Snyder and Co. were trying to be cute by referencing that coincidental detail in the comics, but it made the dialogue really goofy and unnatural to do it. That's just bad writing. I also agree with regards to explaining what was happening to Batman. Indeed, he did try to talk to him when he got to him, but he insisted on advancing toward him rather than just hanging back and talking. He also looked mad when he got shot, even though there was no chance of those turrets hurting him. But they needed the fight to happen so they had a much needed action scene, so they had Superman act like an idiot. This movie is terrible man...thinking about it just makes it fall apart even faster.
If I may interject here, I haven't seen the film yet but did Batman know Supes' identity at that point in the film? It's possible Superman was trying to preserve his Clark Kent identity by saying "Martha" instead of "Mom" until Lois bungled it.
Dan Menard I think it did in both versions, with subtext. Got this much from it when I watched it the first time in theatre Reason I say that is the way Batman's whole attitude towards Superman is "You're not a man or even humam, just an alien" based off of the world knowing him as just an alien because of MoS. Had the "alien" just said "Mom", it would make no sense to someone off the deep end with full-blown PTSD already trying to kill him, like Batman was. "Martha" is just the name he said so Batman could find Martha Kent since Superman figured he was gonna die and he wanted his mom saved somehow, just the way they played it could've been a little better but it doesn't make or break anything.
Older video but I loved how you went into detail with the religous references. Superman as a Jesus figure is often super on-the-nose, and it's weird how people kind of cop out of representing the actual Jewish heritage and history of Superman lore.
Regarding the Martha scene, I think Superman deliberately did not say "my mother" because he was worried that by mere association Batman would let her die - after all she was kidnapped because of mere association. It almost felt like he was trying to make out that some random woman was in trouble.
I have speculated in why he does it too. I have come up with some assumptions: 1. Superman can have said Martha because he at that point is so broken down, beat up and tired that he only sees it as a mission to safe his mother, because let's remember that Lex doesn't say "your mother" either, he also says "Martha" when he confronts Superman with the kidnapping. 2. He might have said "Martha" because he knows from earlier on that Batman already expressed disdain toward Superman and his parents, by saying "Martha" he not only doesn't reveal it's his mother, he also makes Batman understand it's a human he has to safe. Had he said "Save my mother", Batman might have thought she also was an alien, but Martha is a human name. 3. Clark could have done some investigation and found out who Batman's parents were, because he clearly has an idea that Bruce Wayne is Batman, this can mean that he therefore in hope says "Martha" to trigger Batman's subconsciousness and play on his emotions towards his own mother. 4. This goes in relation to number 2. There are theories that Superman actually tries to say "Save Martha Kent", but can't because of Batman's boot against his throat. If that's the case then clearly Superman wanted to pinpoint to Batman who exactly he had to save. 5. Your theory. ;-) These are unanswered questions which often bothers many, but I actually don't mind that they leave it up to the viewer to interpreted it his own way, because by then it plays on the viewers own emotions and mindset. It's up to you to decide which one you wanna roll with, but maybe this can help. Personally I'm leaning most towards 3 and 2/4.
This movie lost me as soon as I realized that Batman's idea on how to deal with Superman wasn't by using his detective skills to learn more about him, but to instead figure out the best way to murder him.
Spot on! You managed to convey pretty much all my thoughts on this move (and the Matrix sequels). I'd add this to the whole Christ imagery thing: there are two problems with the Christ imagery in Snyder's Superman films: 1) It's boring. Seriously, enough with Jesus already. It's been done a million times, it's not a very interesting story to begin with, and Snyder adds nothing to the mythology of Jesus or Superman in his movies. 2) Superman is not Jesus. In fact, he's based on another biblical savior - Moses. Superman's Jewish creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were clearly influenced by Moses, who is sent as a baby in a basket (or spaceship) down the river (space) to escape death and is eventually picked up and adopted by a foreign culture. This matter because while Jesus never throws a punch, Moses is actually quite the badass. I figured Zack Snyder would know this being Jewish, but evidently, he's actually not.
Whenever I gave my comments about this movie people usually told me that I was taking it too seriously and why couldn’t I just enjoy the battle and the “fun stuff” of it…and that response always bugged me since I felt that it was unfair to brush off my comment just because it was “too serious”, but I didn’t knew what to say to them to explain why I felt like I just couldn’t do that sometimes, so, thank you so much for giving a perfect explanation of why with certain movies is perfectly fine to take a serious critical approach to them.
In Watchmen a character says something like "I didn't say God exists, I said God exists and he's American" I think that's what Snyder took away from Watchman ignoring the final part of the quote "And if that thought doesn't terrify you it should" As a scary sci-fi horror movie I quite like Man Of Steel. It's just a shame I don't believe Snyder intended anything of the sort.
You know it’s interesting. I am watching this after checking out the latest Tarzan and that film like this is another example of one with a known property, iconic figures, with so much potential lost. I think you may have hit on to it with the observation as a film being the victim of a director a bit out of his depth. In both these films I can really see and even appreciate what they were shooting for. Both entrusted with these grand cinematic pieces, I can see Synder like Yates reached high, had a unique take and interesting vision, yet the execution falls so short perhaps because, mastery has not yet been attained, and that is what is needed for portraying such iconic figures in film.
Zack Snyder is a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. He honestly doesn't understand how unqualified he is to be a director, but because of his confidence and minor success he has somehow worked his way into that position. He has directed one movie that was well received (the movie 300), but only because teenage boys and other testosterone filled idiots loved it. I dare anyone to watch that film again and not see its huge flaws and see that literally any other director with a shred of talent could have done better. BvS bombed so hard I hope he never directs again and stops filling the world with his meathead views. He should just go back to watching MMA fights and drinking Blue UV-Red Bull. If you like this movie you honestly need to ask yourself if it's just because our favorite superheros were in it and if you think you deserve better.
I didn't enjoy Watchmen at all and think someone who actually understands film could have done a better job. Snyder just doesn't understand how to film things. He doesn't understand editing, music, composition, what shots to use, symbolism, or basically anything else that makes a good director good. He is an overblown music video director who has some "fun" ideas before shooting, but has no idea what they mean in an actual narrative. Watchmen is a chore to watch and only if you're a huge fan of the series do you really get what's going on because your brain fills in the missing stuff. The movie itself is garbage.
After watching the uncut director's cut, i was beginning to like BvS! But you opened my eyes because I can't but agree with your observations! Lex Luthor didn't need to turn Batman against Superman or vice versa especially if he had the Kryptonite and the keys to the world engine! All he needed to do was to get the token Russian henchman guy to shoot Supes with Kryptonian bullets... And a lot of them! But I can imagine an 8 year in love with this movie because only their batman and superman would stop fighting once they realize both their mom's name is Martha! They will love this movie and when they grow up they will turn this movie into an "underrated cult classic"! I stood by Zack Snyder when BvS Theatrical Shit hit the fans...now I want his head because he is indeed out of his depths, now I see it!
Snap the neck...Zod is dead! Doesn't return to life...they didn't let him out in the Sun probably! Have a nuclear bomb for dinner and not even a scratch...I don't get it! Why don't Superman snap Doomsday's he....sorry... I couldn't resist!
You echo my reaction to both the new cut and this analysis. That said, there's no denying that I hated the theatrical cut but was completely engaged with "ultimate" cut. There's so much to hate about it -- and I do hate so much -- but dang it, I'd be lying to say I didn't have much more fun with the longer version ... which I admit defies logic.
The thing nobody talks about is that Wonder Woman could have used the kryptonite spear to kill Doomsday instead of Superman, so Superman's death has no meaning but to make more films. But nooooo, for the eDgInEsS c:
Superman wouldn't give wonder woman the spear because handing his responsibility to someone else is not something he would do. It's called selflessness. That's what makes him a hero.
I'd pin the blame more on someone deciding that they needed to put The Death Of Superman (the comic) on the big screen. Like, someone handed Snyder this list of comic book storylines he had to at least reference, and he picked Death of Superman because everyone and their grandma knows about it.
1. Batman in BvS go down the violent path for years. His gear based on this, his training based on this. He can't just say "Oh, now I'm use nonviolent approach" and win a fight against professional killers. There's no time for new build. 2. Critics and fan reaction changed the studio approach to films. And in the end "Dawn of Justice" may really become DAWN of DC cinema universe -- the point where everything was so dark it hurts, but then slowly start to become lighter.
this whole back and form between superman and batman was so much better handled in Justice League (animated series.) But then... Batman the animated series was still better written and acted than any batman movie yet... just saying.
It obviously was...that was the whole point of it after Lex's discussion with the Senator and she brought up the phrase "Don't piss in a jar and tell me it's Granny's Peach Tea".
I will say I think the reason Batman stopped with the Martha thing was not supposed to be the realization that Superman was a person to, but remember the speech he gives superman right before he has him beat. He says something along the lines of "your parents probably taught you that you were here for a reason, that you were meant for something, mine taught me a different lesson by dieing in the streets, the world is ugly and some times things happen for no reason at all" by finding out that superman's mother had the same name, and that was also the last words his father ever spoke that moment made him doubt that thought that terrible things happen for no reason at all, and there may have actually been a purpose to the terrible losses that could not be prevented, it wasnt very well done sure, but I personally feel like that fits a lot more with what batman's story arc went into after that with his belief of needing to get the team together (because of the dream he had).
hm.....interesting overview. I loved this movie after watching it initially as a fan of graphic novels. I felt the film followed the graphic novel ideology very well. Then I went back and watched Man of Steel. I love that movie although do understand alot of the issues with it, especially the length.The main problem I have with both films is, they are confusing. This issue troubled the hell out of me after watching MOS "AFTER" BvS. Everything in BvS seems forced plot wise. Which pisses me off after they had a good reason for both villains ( I consider Batman a villain) to find conflict. That would be the codex. What the hell happened to the codex? They spent the entire first film cramming the codex down our throats. Only Kal-El can bring Krypton back alive, he doesn't even need to be alive to harvest the codex from his DNA. This movie has paranoia over aliens, Kryptonian libraries, and even a Kryptonian demon born to Earth. Why couldn't this be Luthor's motivation for some reason? Batman's paranoia is reason enough to corrupt him. He's obsessive obviously. Why wasn't that the reason of Luthor's plan to take out both heroes? One vigilante thats close to finding out Luthor's involvement in the underworlds militias, weakened by Superman, and setup for death. Superman, weakened by Batman's obvious theft of Kryptonite, setup to be harvested to birth Doomsday. Wonder Woman shows up to help both after her secret watching of Kal-El, suspicious of all involved. Doomsday's birth could've been a consequence of Lex's learning of other worlds and, of course, Darkseid. Krypton's demon sets off as a beacon of summoning Darkseid's interest in the Earth and Kal-El. Lex is a symbol of lack of hope that there is a creator. That Superman is a chance savior of scientific merit rather than divine intervention. Crushing his beliefs that GOD is holding his hand, forcing him to want to sacrifice Superman as symbol of martyrdom. Damn, these writers suck. lol
This is why I always look forward to your analyses. Every problem I had with the movie, you've put perfectly into words here. That "false edginess" is exactly the problem I have with Snyder's direction of the DCEU. The reason why Marvel's recipe has been so successful is because it presents us with the quintessential versions of our favorite characters, and writes (for the most part) some pretty engaging films around them. Whereas Snyder's DCEU so far has felt like a poorly conceived Elseworlds storyline. Its a shame to see WB trying to reverse engineer Marvel's success when their formula was so simple. The Avengers succeeded because Marvel eased the audience into the idea of a larger connected universe organically through several pictures' worth of world building. Meanwhile, WB is now trying to leap to point Z while skipping points A through Y. By far their biggest failure was their inability to find a creative lead who understands and cares about the characters like Marvel's Kevin Feige.
Wasted potential is worse than no potential, and there was potential in this movie. Just randomly remembering stuff, like the Injustice vision. Imagine how cool and shocking it would be if Batman killed only in THAT vision, used guns even, had he not done so any other time in the movie? Wouldve established that vision is when Batman is truly pushed to the edge. But no, he kills in the movie plenty, so it doesn't really seem different to someone who doesn't know Bats isn't typically a killer before coming into this movie.
In the case of Batman v Superman, wasted potential is WAY better than no potential. Flawed as the movie was, I'll rewatch it a bunch more times than loads of other superhero movies. I do agree that present day Batman shouldn't have killed or at least should have stopped during one point.
Excellent. You pretty much nailed it. They were in completely over their heads and wanted to seem like the "cooler, more mature" alternative to Marvel.
That quote is something I'd expect out of a teenage edgelord, not from a fifty year old man, but here we are. How about we let Hollywood keep Adam Sandler and kick this cretin out instead.
The Marix comparison never occurred to me, but it's really fitting. Also, the thugs Batman beat up survived... no really... argh! The movie is A LOT better when you divorce yourself from the idea that these are Superman and Batman. They are just same superpowered lunatics caught in a purgatory-like nightmare world destined to fight and fight and talk and fight ...
It makes me sad how many people are into this guy and can't see him for what he really is, a pretentious, faux edgy dude bro replicator of other people's work.
I think batman only realized that superman is not the (possible) monster he thinks he is but didn't realize he should go back to not killing till the end when he threatens to Bat Brand Luthor.
"Atrocious, tedious, depressing mess". Sums BvS up perfectly. I agree that people often use the word pretentious, and as a rule I NEVER call anything pretentious. So I'll stick to his second best description, "A dumb film trying and failing to be smart."
Yes. The series of newscasts was my least favorite part of the movie since it brought up interesting topics all at once, but didn't really try to explore those topics.
Yeah, at least Prometheus did try to engage its themes in a meaningful way and incorporate them into the story, and I honestly think that's the movie's saving grace. Unfortunately, it gets bogged down by so many other elements that didn't work so well and/or felt shoe-horned in or disjointed with the rest of it. Even some of those thematic elements, while interesting, were half-baked. I honestly think that movie was just a few drafts away from being a masterpiece, which makes it all the more disappointing.
Are you okay with people liking this film as a guilty pleasure? I hate seeing people being insulted for liking this movie, even though it is extremely flawed.
+Renegade Cut Thank you for replying! Its great to see people online being understanding of the opinions of others. And if it wasn't obvious before, yes. I do like this movie.
God bless you for this beautiful & exceedingly appropriate review. I almost didn't want this to end. Everything you said about this atrocious movie is truth above & beyond & were just absolute music to my ears. Thank you. Keep it up.
Forgive me, I'm going to go on about something I did for a bit, but I think it illustrates a point pretty well. I wrote a story a while back that was kind of my take on "dark superhero" stories. I actually wrote the main character to seem like a Christ figure - one of his superpowers was he could heal others by taking their injuries onto himself - and there were occasionally uses of Christian imagery. But the character was aggressively and needlessly violent - at one point even crucified a drug dealer just to make a point. As the hero, he goes about making snap decisions about who is good or bad, sure that he's doing the right thing because he sees an angel as a guiding figure and therefore must be chosen. Except he later goes against a sociopath villain who's superpower is to cause anyone he comes into contact to take on his sociopathy, which leads to ordinary citizens becoming aggressive, criminal and violent. In an incident where the hero is trying to quell a riot, he kills a bunch of people, only to find out afterward that all of them were under the influence of the supervillain, and that most of them had families, who were robbed of their loved ones by his rash decision made without any consideration that his understanding of the situation might be flawed. The horror of it nearly breaks him and in his despair, he nearly gives up, leading to the villain's near victory. Naturally, the bad guy is finally defeated. Not by violence - any attempt at violence fails utterly because this bad guy was a massive, unstoppable powerhouse beyond even the hero's ability to defeat - but by forcing the villain to see and confront what he was really doing, causing him to have a moment of perfect clarity and he commits suicide because he can't live with what he's done. It's not exactly like that, because the plot had a backdrop involving elder gods and demons that were manipulating the world indirectly and . . . Well, it wasn't exactly perfect by any stretch of the word. Plus, I wrapped it up in an experiment with non-linear narrative style that had a number of other problems. But I wrote that 8 years ago. The themes I was expressing with the story? 1. Heroes who try to solve their problems with violence are ultimately not heroes. 2. No human being is Jesus, and we should never think of ourselves as being that infallible, nor give ourselves the right to make the kind of final judgement reserved for God. 3. It's ultimately our humanity and our willingness to connect to people, not our physical strength which make us strong people. This was, as I said 8 years ago. I was fresh out of high school and a very amateur writer. For all its problems, despite being very dark, I still feel like it was a better job than what Zack Snyder did with this film. As a kid fresh out of high school, I had a better grasp of what a superhero was supposed to be than a man 20 years my senior.
Not to mention the hokey fight scenes which are overly choreographed. In the nightmare sequence one of the men fighting Batman kneels down before Batman hits him down. Like he got into position in anticipation of the next movement in the fight sequence.
"It takes itself seriously. TOO seriously." "Plot-threads dangle and questions go unanswered." "Nothing is resolved. Nothing makes sense." "Jessie Eisenberg is horribly miscast as Lex Luthor by way of the Joker." "The throw-down between Batman and Superman makes no sense except to watch two super-heroes punch each other." And the fact that the film is "pretentious". All throughout the review, I was saying, "Yes, YES, YEEESSS!!! This is EXACTLY why the movie failed!" And the funny thing is that I PREDICTED the movie would be like this: pretentious, trying hard to take itself seriously to look important to people, and only made to give the fanboys their desired Batman and Superman action film... even though there was barely any action in it, and the fight had no real reason to exist. -- I should point out that I didn't hate this film. I was kind of entertained by it (mostly for the elements that were bad in it but also some of the fight sequences). But there's no denying that it is a bad film, and I saw it coming, and my predictions were justified... even though I still paid my ticked to see it about two weeks after its release. I kinda liked it, but... yeah, it's pretty bad.
It was an entertaining movie, not as good as I wanted it to be, but not as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. I do get all the points in this video, but I honestly think that it isn't as bad or hard to follow. Nice review, tho.
There's a potentially BRILLIANT movie in the idea that superman and batman are both grim, broody murderers. Change it around so that they are fighting each other because they HATE how much they see of themselves in the other. Both have convinced themselves they are doing the right things and serving justice, but subconsciously they hate who they've become. So the fight becomes to sad men lashing out at the embodiment of their own, unrecognized, worst qualities. And its sadder because they are BOTH fighting a mirror. This idea would actually make a great movie if the heroes WEREN'T superman and batman.
The budget was 250 million (not that one could see the money on the screen a lot - there was a lot of fighting in old warehouses, which is usually a b-movie trait.). But with that kind of money, Lars von Trier and Bong Joon-ho would have made 10 to 15 amazing movies.
3:51 why is vandalizing the Superman statue considered a hate crime? And that "if you seek his monument" graffiti is unintentionally hilarious since that tomb is in the destroyed city Superman failed to save.
I think one of the most important yet least mentioned reasons behind the huge popularity of what was the grandfather of all superhero movies- superman the movie 1978- was that it was "bright" crisp, clear, sunny and bright. Starting with Tim Burton's Batman 1989, superhero movies just seemed to always be shot in either complete or almost complete "darkness" a trend that lasted until the recent Marvel Universe movies-- and I really think the crisp sharp bright shooting style of those movies plays a significant role in their global popularity. While a dark movie is fairly apt when dealing with Batman, I don't think it's a style that lends anything to the portrayal of the Superman character. It's a shame they've gone in the direction they have with their follow up to Man of Steel. It's almost as if they're just in too much of a hurry to play catch up to Marvel. Common sense and basic thinking should've screamed at them that another stand-alone Superman movie should have been made before they ever made dawn of justice. Its a shame too because in Henry Cavill they'd finally found an actor who could occupy that suit without being relentlessly compared to Chris Reeve. So much potential to really create a whole new era for the character. But no. We just got the usual predictable shite!
You know how easy it would've been to fix the Martha thing? Show Superman so beaten up, he obviously thinks he's about to die. And he asks Batman to tell his mother he loves her and to let her know that he was gone, so she wouldn't spend the rest of her life wondering what happened to him and holding hope that she'd see him again. Then he gives her name. THEN Bruce has the Martha epiphany. I'm an amateur screenwriter, yet I feel like I have better narrative problem solving skills than half of Hollywood haha
The problem with subtlety is when it isn't subtle and also overused. A single, blatant reference is fine, but Man of Steel beats us over the head with blatant Jesus references, as does BvS. If Snyder was trying to be subtle with the Jesus references, then he failed horribly.
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [1/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vLGjxFL6U_I/mqdefault.jpg)
"Why would Jesus want to show up in a bad movie ?"
- Renegade Cut
That was hilarious 😆
You know, a thing that I really respect from Daredevil season 2 (I didn't notice until now), even with his flaws and all, is that when the punisher kills people, it's freaking brutal, unpleasant and discouraging, and it needed to be that way, because it's not glorifying the violence that that character uses, instead is constantly questioning his ways and tries to explain why he has choosen that actitud towards crime, and I think it's shows it more as a resignation, a tragedy of the character that it always will follow him, more than exemplary behavior for the audience, that's the sort of depth that BvS is lacking
yep, we don't see things like the corpses or still living but burning guys Batman leaves in his wake in that car chase where he is ultimately intercepted by superman.
@Jeremiah B
that's because Daredevil and Jessica Jones are two different people with different backgrounds. JJ was fighting her personal demons and shortcomings as "horrible" human being and finding her way back as a normal functioning human being and Daredevil starts out as a bottle of unbridled rage which needs a target, a bit like Batman (in the comics), if Daredevil (in the series, not the comics) goes too far he might just end up being 'just' a vigilante, akin to the Punisher.
In the end, Daredevil is about justice in a flawed world, and Jessica Jones about overcoming trauma.
This. The two shows tackle very different subject matter, and can't really be compared like that.
*****
I also believe that it's a flawed season (I think that I actually said that in my commentary), but that aspect (the daredevil/punishe dynamic) is excelent and it should had rely more on that
Captain Zappa I don't think it was even trying to rely on that. The movie was ALWAYS trying to rely on the fact that Lex was manipulating both characters to hate each other to get Superman killed. The daredevil/punisher dynamic was never used because that was what TDKR was kind of about and the writers probably wanted o deviate from that but Snyder probably wanted the movie to be LIKE TDKR and this caused a disconnect.
"Disgusting False Edginess" - Zack Snyder in a nutshell
I was reading your comment literally as he said it, that's weird.
I think the whole moral conflict between them was on some pretty shaky grounds. I mean, their methods and attitude were pretty much the same. Batman is dark and brooding and kills with little impunity and Superman is dark and brooding and kills with little impunity, albeit he's less blatant about it than Batman. So why exactly were they opposed to each other on a moral and ethical level? We know that Batman doesn't like Superman because of the destruction he caused at the end of MOS but Batman is show to be pretty destructive himself, and apparently Superman doesn't like Batman because he's a murdering vigilante but then so is Superman. So what made either of them think the other one had gone too far? If anything you'd think they'd agree with each other.
+Kyle Robles
I think the Nostalgia Critic also pointed out that flaw, and by a character motivation standard, that is a bald thing to point out.
+Doughboy Devito
*big.
( How did I not notice that mistake I did?!)
Superman only had to kill one person, zod. He made a promise never to kill again but to save people, to rescue people. Thats what he was trying to so following the events of MOS. Yes he was still carrying a heavy burden and trying his best to be a light in the darkness, a symbol of hope, but people just continually saw him as this angel, a godlike figure rather than as a person. For batman, he inspired fear and walked among the shadows like a demon. So the fight between these two was more like God vs the Devil, Angel vs. demon rather than opposing moralities or whatever. It was more epic, and grandiose, almost operatic. All the while they were being manipulated by a third party... luthor.
I love that you can maintain your cool while narrating this.
Eyy boss. where's the suicide sqwad video?
When people told me about this movie, and how bad it was, I thought, "Wow, that's pretty bad. Glad I didn't see it."
Then I saw it. And man, were those people being *_generous_*
That's right, Mike.
I had the opposite reaction. Avoided the movie for the longest time, but finally saw the Ultimate Edition. Love the movie, flaws and all.
The first version that I saw was the extended cut and honestly I've never felt so uninterested in a film that I wished that it was over.
i went to the avant premier of this movie, when it ended i felt sad, uninspired and actually with less faith in humanity, superman has been who tought me to try to be better, that the power that you have it's pointless if you dont use it to help, this superman doesnt smile, he dont try to inspire you, his symbol means hope as they said on this movie, but superman dont inspire or have any of this, batman its a little harder because its his first movie on this incarnation, but the fact that he its richier masked punisher makes the character less deep, he doesnt have the struggle of dont kill (i know about burton's batman he was a psycho but he was deeper on other aspects) if you are going to put the robin suit of jason todd you cant make batman a killer, because when he comeback as redhood and ask "why havent you killed the joker?" there is no answer that can be good, its a line that when its cross you cant uncross it.
so many stupid things in any one slice of the film (and I wanted this movie to be awesome,believe me) - take just the senators hearing. explosion happens and we see a lingering shot of sad supes standing perfectly preserved (hair in place etc!) ... just standing on the spot looking at Lois,minutes later we have supes helping people who survived and a cop or paramedic says something about needing space and superman shoots off into the sky. at some point we saw Bruce Wayne watching live footage and being horrified so...
1. why is superman not a blur when the explosion happens, why is he not extinguishing the fire in as many fractions of a second as possible and why do we not see him going bananas trying to rescue people?
2. why does he fly off particularly when there is apparently something more to do because the media say he left suspiciously or too early
3. why does Bruce, worlds greatest detective etc seem to think that Superman had some hand in making this happen? does he imagine a bunch of powers that superman doesn't have in the movie like generating a massive explosion (yes yes, new 52, I know!)
Superman is easily the biggest travesty, that talk about "Superman" being his farmer dads silly dream... what is this cynical nonsense? its not hard, just save everyone that you feasibly can!
there is too much wrong with Supes to list but this is the second time in a decade we've had Batman come really close to a perfect take on the character. Snyder had an excellent budget, great cast, great people working with him but again we got Batman doing things he never would - Nolan's Batman lost his shine for me when he took a break for *years* after Rachel died, so much was right about Bales performance and the realistic take up till that point, Superman can be an olympic level athlete in multiple disciplines, he can be the greatest detective, a top tier martial artist, a genius inventor,an astounding tactician etc - not all at once unless its the comics but NEVER make him lose tenacity, his willpower and drive are not possible to break,this is the most central thing.
Battfleck is another weird spin on this, he is allowing people to die left, right and centre by flipping cars onto people but people will defend that.. his spirit has been broken though, its why he is seeking to kill superman, Batman isn't some guy who makes calculations probabilities of people going rogue and then offs them! thats some supervillain logic like people wiping out 80% of the worlds population to "save" the planet
yuck! just... make justice league very very different and no funny colour filters on cameras. in daylight scenes no brown tint, no darkening anything, nice and bright please. gotham nights are for murky stuff
Renzo Fideli Sancho Good. Sometimes a movie making you feel sad is better than making you feel nothing. I think of this movie as The Empire Strikes Back. Even though that was a vastly superior movie it provokes the movie goer into showing that sometimes the bad guys just win. I hope that Justice League will be The Return Of Jedi and will be a much more fleshed out movie with better character dynamics and Superman will inspire you again. As Leon stated this movie compares Supes to God. "Thy Lord Gifts Thy Lord Taketh away then thy gifts again."
BuT sUpErMaN iS jEsUs iSn'T tHaT sO eDgY aNd DeEp
+John Smith Saving people is just a burden for him and he's a bloodthirsty, mopey prick.
The montage of Superman saving people is shot like a funeral sequence. It's so depressing and joyless.
But if we're all God's children ... what makes Jesus so special ?
Sorry. I appreciate the advice, but I see things differently.
Superman is Jesus, i know that sometimes writers in holywood try too much but really...?
*Batman finds out Superman's mom is named Martha, goes to save her*
*In Warehouse* Batman: (to criminals) Hey, are any of your mom's named Martha?
Criminals: Uh... no?
*Batman kills them* XD
He feared Superman but he didn't know why, he felt compelled to believe in something.. anything during his personal identity crisis because he was going through a serious lost of hope and faith in what he does. So he then believes that defeating Superman will give him a restored sense of purpose, it is his new found destiny. Wayne believes the media hype, Superman is an alien, not human therefore a threat, he is a danger to human kind and there is no sign of weakness or vulnerability in him. This scares Wayne the most. Then as Batman finally has this alien mythological threat right where he wants him to destroy, Superman says the one name that triggers the first purpose Wayne became Batman to begin with, it's his mother's name. And then he sees a vulnerable desperate man begging him in a way a boy would to save his mother. In this moment Wayne/Batman realizes this is a man, not a god, it's not the dark threat he believed. Superman has a mother... and her name is Martha. Wayne flashes back and it all becomes clear; he lost his identity and his purpose because he has resorted to inflict fear and torture on people as a type of punisher, but the real reason he became Batman was to to save people, to save the mother he never got a chance to save. Wayne's eyes become wider under that mask, as he realizes that his destiny was not to kill Superman, it is and always has been...to save Martha. This is my psychoanalytic theory.
@@culturalartsandpoliticsrev6916
You don't understand. It's clear what Snyder is trying to do and it's all good on paper. However, the execution is laughable and makes the whole thing ridiculous.
@@culturalartsandpoliticsrev6916 bravo, thats exactly what i was thinking. Its just unfortunate that the way it comes off makes it seem less than what it is.
@@culturalartsandpoliticsrev6916 Indeed yes. He learns from almost killing Superman that killing is wrong. After that, he heads to a warehouse and kills a ton of goons with feelings, emotions, and families.
My favorite character development is character development that not only isn't executed well onscreen so you have to read the script to even get it, but is so unfocused that it's immediately thrown away for another cool fight scene.
"Raped in prison"
What in Christ's name is wrong with Zack Snyder?!
spideyfan2002 To be fair Serenity underperformed yet Joss Whedon directed 2 Avengers movies.
he said if he want to make a dark film then that would happen because that actually dark. Not that he just wants him to get rapped.
goman335 Yes but him saying that makes me believe that Snyders focus is to make his films as dark as possible without a concern about whether it would work from a narrative standpoint
you are all wrong
yutube jode You'd like to see a version where Batman gets raped in prison? That's okay and all, but why?
As the credits rolled on this film, I had to leave the movie theater. I needed air. I felt nauseated. I sat through The Blair Witch Project seven times, once in the front row. I don't get nauseated when watching movies. I enjoyed BWP so much more than BvS. I still love that silly film. which was made for less than the purchase of a fancy car. Even tho it hinted at being a snuff film, it never promised that. In fact, BWP entertained me and was a lot of fun. Despite time being unkind to it, and I'm pretty sure a "Renegade Cut" look at The Blair Witch Project would rip it to shreds, it's still one of my favorite films. It delivered what I expected from it. I can't ask for more than that from any film.
BvS cost a mint, and it completely fails to deliver. I felt conned walking out that theater. I felt like I was promised tasty junk food and was given smelly trash displayed on a plate as if it were gourmet food. This is not what I ordered, and it's not what anyone should want. Thanks for putting into words what I couldn't even grasp myself as I left that theater. BvS seemed to have all the pieces of the puzzle necessary to make this film, but they were so poorly put together it was shameful.
Recent Superman films have failed to grasp, perhaps as far back as the fourth Christopher Reeve film, that Superman is always Clark Kent. Superman is the affectation. He was born Kal-El. When he learns about this as a young adult he comes to accept it (even choosing to worship Rao instead of the Abrahamic god in some iterations). However, Clark was raised to be John and Martha's boy. That's what he knows in his bones. He's just a farm kid. He's a boy scout. He's an idealistic American dreamer. That is the heart of who Clark is.
If you told Clark Kent he were a Christ figure, he'd probably suggest you not take the Lord's name in vain. Clark wouldn't accept that. He's far too humble. He'd think that's silly. Even after coming back from the dead, he'd dismiss it as a coincidence. Warner Communications seems to have a problem with that. Perhaps this corporate inability to present a decent Superman to the American public says more about present day culture than the pulp fiction source material. Maybe America is currently having difficulty understanding what an average American really is anymore. Maybe what comic book writers imagined that would be half a century or so ago was always a fiction. I have always taken the Superman story to mean that even if you are an alien from another planet, if you see yourself as a red blooded American and by your good deeds and intentions that's what you present to your world, then that's who you really are.
Being Superman is Kal-El's other job; actually it's more like a hobby. His first job is being Clark Kent. This is diametrically opposed to Bruce Wayne and Batman. Batman's who he truly is. Bruce Wayne is the affectation. Bruce Wayne is one of the masks Batman puts on to accomplish stuff that lets him continue to be Batman. Clark Kent uses the Superman persona to accomplish things he can't do as a mild mannered reporter. After watching several films now, I get the feeling this isn't just a Zach Snyder thing. I'm concerned those who defend the intellectual property of DC Comics don't fully understand the characters they represent.
It's like if those behind Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's estate were to authorize a film version of Sherlock Holmes set in Australia to disco music with zombies and ninjas just because it play tested well. Someone should lose their job over a decision like that, at the very least.
Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain, you don't need to get permission from anyone to make your auzzie zombie disco ninja holmes. I for one am looking forward to The Case of the Black Mirrorball ;P
8:20 So, what you're saying is Ben Affleck wasn't lying when he said the movie was "trafficking" towards ideas and themes that were too smart for him, because technically all the movie does is "traffic" towards these ideas and themes. But that's where it ends. Excellent observation
6:55
I’m really glad that I’m not the only one who caught the switch from Zorro to Excalibur.
Zorro follows a playboy who leaves home to learn how to fight so he can return to protect his people with the help of his butler, while Excalibur follows a man who recruits a team of noble warriors with the aid of a magical immortal.
While the former sounds a LOT like Batman Begins, the latter is definitely what they’d envisioned for Justice League.
Here's the problem; Snyder doesn't have faith that the source material is worth liking. So he writes a completely unrelated story, and dresses it up in a Superman costume and calls it a day. He dosen't actually care about why people like Batman or Superman in the first place.
I LOVE YOU!!!! I can't believe so few critics, whether film or comics, have pointed out the game-breaking nature of having a Batman who kills. It is one of foundational aspects of the character, and to have the change go not only unacknowledged, but to serve as merely a stylistic choice, is an act of grave injustice to Batman.
The most pressing question is:
Why did Luthor blow up his loyal and valuable assistant Mercy Graves?
Is he just crazy? Did he forget that she’d be in court, too? Did he just not care? Does he ever try to replace her, or is he no longer in need of an assistant for some reason?
"Urine smells bad."
-Renegade Cut.
Someone should make a film about how people can craft the the most elaborate lies/excuses to tell themselves to justify their own opinions, actions or beliefs.
MoS & BvS in the end were 2 films built around a series of SCENES instead of from an actual STORY.
Great video!
That "reference, but don't engage" thing seems pretty widespread these days.
Every time someone lauds the warehouse fight, I just hear burgess Meredith: “all of these guys have a mother”
Except, they're bad guys and Superman isn't.
The comics have aways asked the question if Batman is as crazy as his villains. In his first appearance, he hanged a man, and dropped another into a vat of acid (not the Joker). Here, he is no doubt even more insane than them. The hallucinations, murder, nihilistic and cynical attitude all prove this. And you're right, when he befriends Superman, he could have redeemed himself. It's also been confirmed that in Suicide Squad, the bombs implanted into the criminals are made by Wayne Enterprises. Everytime the movie has a good concept, it falls flat. Love this analysis, didn't even know the importance of Excalibur (since i haven't seen that film). :)
Your review of Se7en also perfectly shows how to make a film like this work. It can be as dark and grim as it wants, but there must be a glimmer of hope to make it worthwhile and make it's message come across well.
Actually, this is why I think Batman needs Robin as a supporting character, even though very few of the movies have actually used the character and not many incarnations, even in the comic, use it well.
It's made clear that Robin is dead in this film. It could have been portrayed as Batman had lost his moral compass because the death of Robin shook him so badly that he withdrew from society and the isolation made him lose the part of himself that connected with people. But we never see Batman as anything other than the aging sociopath he's portrayed as here and the fact that he goes right back to callously murdering people after his supposed epiphany ruins any sense that this is the case, instead leaving you with a sense that Batman was always a stone-cold killer who never really had a good sense of empathy to begin with.
It's one of the many wasted possibilities in this movie.
As many have pointed out, since it was Jason Todd Robin who died they said, they won't be able to do a prober retelling of Under The Red Hood since Red Hood was the killing vigilante in that story.
I kind of liked the idea of a Batman pushed to the edge and almost going over, the death of Robin making him more ruthless and uncaring. If this movie had any brains, that big fight scene would've seen him be less vicious, and more smart in finding ways to subdue these criminals rather than obliterate them. At the end of the movie he talks about failing Superman, and now trying to be better as a way of honouring him. If Snyder knew what he was doing, that big fight scene would've been the first indications of that line of thinking.
When he let that hate of Superman go, it should've reflected in his actions afterwards...and it definitely didn't in that fight scene.
Yatsura2 no it wasn't.... It's true that they wanted it to have a different ending without The Box scene, but Fincher got to do the ending je wanted, and it fits with the rest of the movie. All of his other dark movies also have glimses of hope in them as well.
Luthor wants to kill Superman because he doesn't believe in all powerful gods who are good.
"No man in the sky intervened when I was a boy to deliver me from Daddy's fists and Abominations..."
"...I figured that way back that if god is all powerful, then he cannot be all good, and if he is all good, then he cannot be all powerful."
It is basically (like with 'all interpretations of the character) that Luthor feels inadequate due to Superman's presence and wants to prove that he, a normal Man, can defeat a powerful alien.
And he would also never reveal Superman's alter ego to the world, as it would rob him the chance of defeating the person that Clark wants the world to see...which is himself as Superman.
The movies theme of Superman being both a god and a devil might have been partially inspired by this quote from Justice League Unlimited by Dr. Hamilton: "I thought you were a guardian angel, come to answer our prayers. But Lucifer was an angel too, wasn't he?"
I wish BVS fans would understand why it's important for Batman not to kill. I've seen a lot of supporters for Batman's brutality and it just doesn't make sense, not just from a story aspect like you pointed out. But for me, mostly an ideals standpoint.
There's nothing heroic about killing. Ask any soldier, and they will often tell you, "Don't call me a hero". So for Batman to callously take lives and still be left on his heroic justified pedestal, it shows a complete lack of humanity from the creatives in charge. I've often expressed that Batman restores faith in the justice system by allowing due process to play it's part. But remove it, and we get a Batman without ideals and thus an audience without someone to idolize. And with the current state of policing in America, I think we as a society could use a hero that doesn't rely on lethal force to save the day. (Sorry to get political)
You didn't need to get political but that was spot on.
Consider how a Superman who kills changes the Batman of BvS from the real Batman. If Batman kills, then Joker shouldn't be a problem. The point of Joker is this is a mass murderer who keeps killing and Batman keeps putting him in jail or Arkham but Joker escapes and wreaks havoc and kills. But Batman won't kill and it creates a dramatic dilemma for the hero.
If there is a Joker in BvS universe and Batman doesn't kill him or even attempt to kill him, then BvS will be exposed of it's flaws once again.
+Raymond Doyscher Exactly. When I realized Batman had no problem killing random hired goons, I just assumed the next step for Batman was turning Arkham Asylum into Auschwitz.
***** I'm interested in seeing JK Simmons as Commissioner Gordon. I feel like a genuine Gordon would never stand beside a murdering Batman. The point of their partnership was always to keep the police involved in their pursuit for justice. Hopefully, the past events of BVS will have created tensions between them.
Yatsura2 You're naive pal if you think Batman doesn't come with a "morale of the day" as well. He's an original golden age super hero, his very existence has become a cliche within the genre. And the overall message behind batman has always been "Seek justice. Not revenge."
Yatsura2 is also right. He is celebrating Frank Miller's God Damned Batman. We loved it in the 80's. We're buying it right now in DK III. The mass murdering angry vigilante is the Batman we as fans are buying.
The whole "Martha" scene kind of sums Snyder up...a potentially decent idea completely ruined by shitty execution.
Having Supes say "Martha" instead of "Mom" is completely stupid, no child would address their parent in such a way when they were desperate to save them. But the writers thought they were being cute by pointing it out, so wrote a completely unnatural character line and made it all come off really stupid and hokey.
If he said "Mom", it'd still have given Batman pause. Lois can then plead the case, "His Mother, Martha Kent, she's in trouble"...she can then go in to comfort Supes, this person showing love, affection and concern for him further cementing that Superman is a person too, and forces Bruce to confront his mistaken assumptions. It would've worked the same, been less poorly written and a LOT less goofy.
The movie is filled with crap like that, poor decisions everywhere.
Yeah I probably worded badly. I know he wasn't calling out to her, I know he was talking to Batman. That's still bizarre to say "Martha" instead of "My Mom" or "My Mother". Snyder and Co. were trying to be cute by referencing that coincidental detail in the comics, but it made the dialogue really goofy and unnatural to do it. That's just bad writing.
I also agree with regards to explaining what was happening to Batman. Indeed, he did try to talk to him when he got to him, but he insisted on advancing toward him rather than just hanging back and talking. He also looked mad when he got shot, even though there was no chance of those turrets hurting him. But they needed the fight to happen so they had a much needed action scene, so they had Superman act like an idiot. This movie is terrible man...thinking about it just makes it fall apart even faster.
If I may interject here, I haven't seen the film yet but did Batman know Supes' identity at that point in the film? It's possible Superman was trying to preserve his Clark Kent identity by saying "Martha" instead of "Mom" until Lois bungled it.
Dan Menard I think it did in both versions, with subtext. Got this much from it when I watched it the first time in theatre Reason I say that is the way Batman's whole attitude towards Superman is "You're not a man or even humam, just an alien" based off of the world knowing him as just an alien because of MoS. Had the "alien" just said "Mom", it would make no sense to someone off the deep end with full-blown PTSD already trying to kill him, like Batman was. "Martha" is just the name he said so Batman could find Martha Kent since Superman figured he was gonna die and he wanted his mom saved somehow, just the way they played it could've been a little better but it doesn't make or break anything.
"an aspiration that can be attained by any child with two action figures."
Oh, you've *met* Zack Snyder, then?
The fact Chris Terrio is co-writing "The Rise of Skywalker" has me very worried.
You weren't wrong.
Older video but I loved how you went into detail with the religous references. Superman as a Jesus figure is often super on-the-nose, and it's weird how people kind of cop out of representing the actual Jewish heritage and history of Superman lore.
I wouldn't trust zack Snyder to properly apply the right amount of vinegar on my sandwich without ruining it if he worked at Subway
He wouldnt last long at burger king. Snyder always likes his meat DAAAARRRK
McDonald's will do meat well done by request, maybe he should consider going there!
He would have made it ALL vinegar.
Regarding the Martha scene, I think Superman deliberately did not say "my mother" because he was worried that by mere association Batman would let her die - after all she was kidnapped because of mere association. It almost felt like he was trying to make out that some random woman was in trouble.
I have speculated in why he does it too. I have come up with some assumptions:
1. Superman can have said Martha because he at that point is so broken down, beat up and tired that he only sees it as a mission to safe his mother, because let's remember that Lex doesn't say "your mother" either, he also says "Martha" when he confronts Superman with the kidnapping.
2. He might have said "Martha" because he knows from earlier on that Batman already expressed disdain toward Superman and his parents, by saying "Martha" he not only doesn't reveal it's his mother, he also makes Batman understand it's a human he has to safe. Had he said "Save my mother", Batman might have thought she also was an alien, but Martha is a human name.
3. Clark could have done some investigation and found out who Batman's parents were, because he clearly has an idea that Bruce Wayne is Batman, this can mean that he therefore in hope says "Martha" to trigger Batman's subconsciousness and play on his emotions towards his own mother.
4. This goes in relation to number 2. There are theories that Superman actually tries to say "Save Martha Kent", but can't because of Batman's boot against his throat. If that's the case then clearly Superman wanted to pinpoint to Batman who exactly he had to save.
5. Your theory. ;-)
These are unanswered questions which often bothers many, but I actually don't mind that they leave it up to the viewer to interpreted it his own way, because by then it plays on the viewers own emotions and mindset. It's up to you to decide which one you wanna roll with, but maybe this can help.
Personally I'm leaning most towards 3 and 2/4.
I don't know why but I like watching this movie. Like, I know it's bad, but I can't stop myself from enjoying it.
This movie lost me as soon as I realized that Batman's idea on how to deal with Superman wasn't by using his detective skills to learn more about him, but to instead figure out the best way to murder him.
Spot on! You managed to convey pretty much all my thoughts on this move (and the Matrix sequels).
I'd add this to the whole Christ imagery thing: there are two problems with the Christ imagery in Snyder's Superman films:
1) It's boring. Seriously, enough with Jesus already. It's been done a million times, it's not a very interesting story to begin with, and Snyder adds nothing to the mythology of Jesus or Superman in his movies.
2) Superman is not Jesus. In fact, he's based on another biblical savior - Moses. Superman's Jewish creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were clearly influenced by Moses, who is sent as a baby in a basket (or spaceship) down the river (space) to escape death and is eventually picked up and adopted by a foreign culture. This matter because while Jesus never throws a punch, Moses is actually quite the badass. I figured Zack Snyder would know this being Jewish, but evidently, he's actually not.
Loved it Leon. Especially the neat ending & the explanation of subtletly into participating in a movie's narrative.
Keep up the good work!
Thank you for making this, Leon. As a huge fan of Batman and Superman this was cathartic.
Whenever I gave my comments about this movie people usually told me that I was taking it too seriously and why couldn’t I just enjoy the battle and the “fun stuff” of it…and that response always bugged me since I felt that it was unfair to brush off my comment just because it was “too serious”, but I didn’t knew what to say to them to explain why I felt like I just couldn’t do that sometimes, so, thank you so much for giving a perfect explanation of why with certain movies is perfectly fine to take a serious critical approach to them.
The first movie that I can think of when you described a film "earning" its right to pontificate would be Wings of Desire.
Entertaining and thoughtful analysis as usual. I look forward to your next video, whatever that may be.
In Watchmen a character says something like "I didn't say God exists, I said God exists and he's American" I think that's what Snyder took away from Watchman ignoring the final part of the quote "And if that thought doesn't terrify you it should" As a scary sci-fi horror movie I quite like Man Of Steel. It's just a shame I don't believe Snyder intended anything of the sort.
You know it’s interesting. I am watching this after checking out the latest Tarzan and that film like this is another example of one with a known property, iconic figures, with so much potential lost. I think you may have hit on to it with the observation as a film being the victim of a director a bit out of his depth. In both these films I can really see and even appreciate what they were shooting for. Both entrusted with these grand cinematic pieces, I can see Synder like Yates reached high, had a unique take and interesting vision, yet the execution falls so short perhaps because, mastery has not yet been attained, and that is what is needed for portraying such iconic figures in film.
Zack Snyder is a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. He honestly doesn't understand how unqualified he is to be a director, but because of his confidence and minor success he has somehow worked his way into that position. He has directed one movie that was well received (the movie 300), but only because teenage boys and other testosterone filled idiots loved it. I dare anyone to watch that film again and not see its huge flaws and see that literally any other director with a shred of talent could have done better. BvS bombed so hard I hope he never directs again and stops filling the world with his meathead views. He should just go back to watching MMA fights and drinking Blue UV-Red Bull. If you like this movie you honestly need to ask yourself if it's just because our favorite superheros were in it and if you think you deserve better.
Watchmen was decent, but only because Snyder made shot-for-shot adaptation. I guess, it's the only way he can manage complex stories.
I didn't enjoy Watchmen at all and think someone who actually understands film could have done a better job. Snyder just doesn't understand how to film things. He doesn't understand editing, music, composition, what shots to use, symbolism, or basically anything else that makes a good director good. He is an overblown music video director who has some "fun" ideas before shooting, but has no idea what they mean in an actual narrative. Watchmen is a chore to watch and only if you're a huge fan of the series do you really get what's going on because your brain fills in the missing stuff. The movie itself is garbage.
I don't know..Nolan thought that Snyder's Watchmen was pretty amazing.
After watching the uncut director's cut, i was beginning to like BvS! But you opened my eyes because I can't but agree with your observations!
Lex Luthor didn't need to turn Batman against Superman or vice versa especially if he had the Kryptonite and the keys to the world engine! All he needed to do was to get the token Russian henchman guy to shoot Supes with Kryptonian bullets... And a lot of them!
But I can imagine an 8 year in love with this movie because only their batman and superman would stop fighting once they realize both their mom's name is Martha! They will love this movie and when they grow up they will turn this movie into an "underrated cult classic"!
I stood by Zack Snyder when BvS Theatrical Shit hit the fans...now I want his head because he is indeed out of his depths, now I see it!
Snap the neck...Zod is dead!
Doesn't return to life...they didn't let him out in the Sun probably!
Have a nuclear bomb for dinner and not even a scratch...I don't get it!
Why don't Superman snap Doomsday's he....sorry... I couldn't resist!
You echo my reaction to both the new cut and this analysis. That said, there's no denying that I hated the theatrical cut but was completely engaged with "ultimate" cut. There's so much to hate about it -- and I do hate so much -- but dang it, I'd be lying to say I didn't have much more fun with the longer version ... which I admit defies logic.
The thing nobody talks about is that Wonder Woman could have used the kryptonite spear to kill Doomsday instead of Superman, so Superman's death has no meaning but to make more films. But nooooo, for the eDgInEsS c:
Superman wouldn't give wonder woman the spear because handing his responsibility to someone else is not something he would do. It's called selflessness. That's what makes him a hero.
I'd pin the blame more on someone deciding that they needed to put The Death Of Superman (the comic) on the big screen. Like, someone handed Snyder this list of comic book storylines he had to at least reference, and he picked Death of Superman because everyone and their grandma knows about it.
14:38 Tell that to Pure Flix.
1. Batman in BvS go down the violent path for years. His gear based on this, his training based on this. He can't just say "Oh, now I'm use nonviolent approach" and win a fight against professional killers. There's no time for new build.
2. Critics and fan reaction changed the studio approach to films. And in the end "Dawn of Justice" may really become DAWN of DC cinema universe -- the point where everything was so dark it hurts, but then slowly start to become lighter.
Great review. You explanied how I felt about this movie with words I don't have the knowlegde to use.
The only difference between Michael Bay and Zack Snyder is that Bay knows he makes dumb trash and has fun with it.
Thank you. Cathartic.
Just hearing the premise, this already sounds like 3 or 4 separate movies crammed into one.....
"this plot ain't gonna contrive itself."
I love you
"I have so many questions about this pee." - The best review of the film I've come across.
Years from now, Zack Snyder will be remembered as that over-paid hack who made mediocre comic book movies.
Great episode and I made it into the credits. Keep up the good work
"This plot ain't gonna contrive itself!" New favorite phrase!
Thanks for explaining what 'pretentious' means. So many people misuse that word.
this whole back and form between superman and batman was so much better handled in Justice League (animated series.) But then... Batman the animated series was still better written and acted than any batman movie yet... just saying.
Wow, I'm glad I'm not Zack Snyder.
"Urine smells bad"
Maybe it wasn't urine in the first place
It obviously was...that was the whole point of it after Lex's discussion with the Senator and she brought up the phrase "Don't piss in a jar and tell me it's Granny's Peach Tea".
"Why would Jesus want to appear in a bad movie?" lol.
I will say I think the reason Batman stopped with the Martha thing was not supposed to be the realization that Superman was a person to, but remember the speech he gives superman right before he has him beat. He says something along the lines of "your parents probably taught you that you were here for a reason, that you were meant for something, mine taught me a different lesson by dieing in the streets, the world is ugly and some times things happen for no reason at all" by finding out that superman's mother had the same name, and that was also the last words his father ever spoke that moment made him doubt that thought that terrible things happen for no reason at all, and there may have actually been a purpose to the terrible losses that could not be prevented, it wasnt very well done sure, but I personally feel like that fits a lot more with what batman's story arc went into after that with his belief of needing to get the team together (because of the dream he had).
Anyone else a little miffed that Snyder took a very Jewish character, who was basically Space Moses, and made him Jesus?
you are amazing. love your channel
Been Waiting for this analysis
hm.....interesting overview. I loved this movie after watching it initially as a fan of graphic novels. I felt the film followed the graphic novel ideology very well. Then I went back and watched Man of Steel. I love that movie although do understand alot of the issues with it, especially the length.The main problem I have with both films is, they are confusing. This issue troubled the hell out of me after watching MOS "AFTER" BvS. Everything in BvS seems forced plot wise. Which pisses me off after they had a good reason for both villains ( I consider Batman a villain) to find conflict. That would be the codex. What the hell happened to the codex? They spent the entire first film cramming the codex down our throats. Only Kal-El can bring Krypton back alive, he doesn't even need to be alive to harvest the codex from his DNA. This movie has paranoia over aliens, Kryptonian libraries, and even a Kryptonian demon born to Earth. Why couldn't this be Luthor's motivation for some reason? Batman's paranoia is reason enough to corrupt him. He's obsessive obviously. Why wasn't that the reason of Luthor's plan to take out both heroes? One vigilante thats close to finding out Luthor's involvement in the underworlds militias, weakened by Superman, and setup for death. Superman, weakened by Batman's obvious theft of Kryptonite, setup to be harvested to birth Doomsday. Wonder Woman shows up to help both after her secret watching of Kal-El, suspicious of all involved. Doomsday's birth could've been a consequence of Lex's learning of other worlds and, of course, Darkseid. Krypton's demon sets off as a beacon of summoning Darkseid's interest in the Earth and Kal-El. Lex is a symbol of lack of hope that there is a creator. That Superman is a chance savior of scientific merit rather than divine intervention. Crushing his beliefs that GOD is holding his hand, forcing him to want to sacrifice Superman as symbol of martyrdom. Damn, these writers suck. lol
This is why I always look forward to your analyses. Every problem I had with the movie, you've put perfectly into words here. That "false edginess" is exactly the problem I have with Snyder's direction of the DCEU. The reason why Marvel's recipe has been so successful is because it presents us with the quintessential versions of our favorite characters, and writes (for the most part) some pretty engaging films around them. Whereas Snyder's DCEU so far has felt like a poorly conceived Elseworlds storyline.
Its a shame to see WB trying to reverse engineer Marvel's success when their formula was so simple. The Avengers succeeded because Marvel eased the audience into the idea of a larger connected universe organically through several pictures' worth of world building. Meanwhile, WB is now trying to leap to point Z while skipping points A through Y. By far their biggest failure was their inability to find a creative lead who understands and cares about the characters like Marvel's Kevin Feige.
Wasted potential is worse than no potential, and there was potential in this movie. Just randomly remembering stuff, like the Injustice vision. Imagine how cool and shocking it would be if Batman killed only in THAT vision, used guns even, had he not done so any other time in the movie? Wouldve established that vision is when Batman is truly pushed to the edge. But no, he kills in the movie plenty, so it doesn't really seem different to someone who doesn't know Bats isn't typically a killer before coming into this movie.
In the case of Batman v Superman, wasted potential is WAY better than no potential. Flawed as the movie was, I'll rewatch it a bunch more times than loads of other superhero movies.
I do agree that present day Batman shouldn't have killed or at least should have stopped during one point.
Damn, this is the most scathing review I've seen for this movie.
Why would they put Zack Snyder in charge of the french fries?
Excellent. You pretty much nailed it. They were in completely over their heads and wanted to seem like the "cooler, more mature" alternative to Marvel.
That quote is something I'd expect out of a teenage edgelord, not from a fifty year old man, but here we are. How about we let Hollywood keep Adam Sandler and kick this cretin out instead.
The Marix comparison never occurred to me, but it's really fitting. Also, the thugs Batman beat up survived... no really... argh!
The movie is A LOT better when you divorce yourself from the idea that these are Superman and Batman. They are just same superpowered lunatics caught in a purgatory-like nightmare world destined to fight and fight and talk and fight ...
glad you pointed out the films pretentiousness, and yea I hate people misusing that word too.
Teen Titans go to the Movies: *Renegade Cut*
It makes me sad how many people are into this guy and can't see him for what he really is, a pretentious, faux edgy dude bro replicator of other people's work.
I still can't get over the fact, that H.Bomberguy is a big fan of Snyder. Of all his opinions, this is the only one that is SO WRONG.
I was thinking the exact same thing.
I think batman only realized that superman is not the (possible) monster he thinks he is but didn't realize he should go back to not killing till the end when he threatens to Bat Brand Luthor.
This video helped me get over the trauma of this toilet of a movie.
Chris Axberg Sorry you feel that way. I liked it.
"Atrocious, tedious, depressing mess". Sums BvS up perfectly. I agree that people often use the word pretentious, and as a rule I NEVER call anything pretentious. So I'll stick to his second best description, "A dumb film trying and failing to be smart."
Another excellent analysis
Excellent appraisal, Leon. I wish I could like this video multiple times.
I'd say that Affleck and Gadot did pretty well in acting. Other than those two aspects, I pretty much agree with you, Renegade Cut, about this movie.
great analysis keep up the good work
Yes. The series of newscasts was my least favorite part of the movie since it brought up interesting topics all at once, but didn't really try to explore those topics.
You're right about Jesse Eisenberg being horribly miss-casted as Lex Luthor----- LEON THOMAS AS NEXT LEX LUTHOR !!
You say "pretentious" regarding films, and I immediately think of Shyamalan.
The film Prometheus as well...
Hah! And you went on to mention The Happening.
Ridley Scott with Prometheus at least tries. There is an intelligent movie there somwhere, buried under miles of nonsense
Арсений Брилёв
Yes, that's true. I agree completely.
Yeah, at least Prometheus did try to engage its themes in a meaningful way and incorporate them into the story, and I honestly think that's the movie's saving grace. Unfortunately, it gets bogged down by so many other elements that didn't work so well and/or felt shoe-horned in or disjointed with the rest of it. Even some of those thematic elements, while interesting, were half-baked. I honestly think that movie was just a few drafts away from being a masterpiece, which makes it all the more disappointing.
Are you okay with people liking this film as a guilty pleasure? I hate seeing people being insulted for liking this movie, even though it is extremely flawed.
+Renegade Cut Thank you for replying! Its great to see people online being understanding of the opinions of others. And if it wasn't obvious before, yes. I do like this movie.
Fantastic analysis
God bless you for this beautiful & exceedingly appropriate review. I almost didn't want this to end. Everything you said about this atrocious movie is truth above & beyond & were just absolute music to my ears. Thank you. Keep it up.
Forgive me, I'm going to go on about something I did for a bit, but I think it illustrates a point pretty well. I wrote a story a while back that was kind of my take on "dark superhero" stories. I actually wrote the main character to seem like a Christ figure - one of his superpowers was he could heal others by taking their injuries onto himself - and there were occasionally uses of Christian imagery. But the character was aggressively and needlessly violent - at one point even crucified a drug dealer just to make a point. As the hero, he goes about making snap decisions about who is good or bad, sure that he's doing the right thing because he sees an angel as a guiding figure and therefore must be chosen.
Except he later goes against a sociopath villain who's superpower is to cause anyone he comes into contact to take on his sociopathy, which leads to ordinary citizens becoming aggressive, criminal and violent. In an incident where the hero is trying to quell a riot, he kills a bunch of people, only to find out afterward that all of them were under the influence of the supervillain, and that most of them had families, who were robbed of their loved ones by his rash decision made without any consideration that his understanding of the situation might be flawed. The horror of it nearly breaks him and in his despair, he nearly gives up, leading to the villain's near victory.
Naturally, the bad guy is finally defeated. Not by violence - any attempt at violence fails utterly because this bad guy was a massive, unstoppable powerhouse beyond even the hero's ability to defeat - but by forcing the villain to see and confront what he was really doing, causing him to have a moment of perfect clarity and he commits suicide because he can't live with what he's done. It's not exactly like that, because the plot had a backdrop involving elder gods and demons that were manipulating the world indirectly and . . .
Well, it wasn't exactly perfect by any stretch of the word. Plus, I wrapped it up in an experiment with non-linear narrative style that had a number of other problems. But I wrote that 8 years ago.
The themes I was expressing with the story? 1. Heroes who try to solve their problems with violence are ultimately not heroes. 2. No human being is Jesus, and we should never think of ourselves as being that infallible, nor give ourselves the right to make the kind of final judgement reserved for God. 3. It's ultimately our humanity and our willingness to connect to people, not our physical strength which make us strong people.
This was, as I said 8 years ago. I was fresh out of high school and a very amateur writer. For all its problems, despite being very dark, I still feel like it was a better job than what Zack Snyder did with this film. As a kid fresh out of high school, I had a better grasp of what a superhero was supposed to be than a man 20 years my senior.
Not to mention the hokey fight scenes which are overly choreographed. In the nightmare sequence one of the men fighting Batman kneels down before Batman hits him down. Like he got into position in anticipation of the next movement in the fight sequence.
Yep this video sums up my thoughts perfectly on this movie.
"It takes itself seriously. TOO seriously."
"Plot-threads dangle and questions go unanswered."
"Nothing is resolved. Nothing makes sense."
"Jessie Eisenberg is horribly miscast as Lex Luthor by way of the Joker."
"The throw-down between Batman and Superman makes no sense except to watch two super-heroes punch each other."
And the fact that the film is "pretentious".
All throughout the review, I was saying, "Yes, YES, YEEESSS!!! This is EXACTLY why the movie failed!" And the funny thing is that I PREDICTED the movie would be like this: pretentious, trying hard to take itself seriously to look important to people, and only made to give the fanboys their desired Batman and Superman action film... even though there was barely any action in it, and the fight had no real reason to exist.
--
I should point out that I didn't hate this film. I was kind of entertained by it (mostly for the elements that were bad in it but also some of the fight sequences). But there's no denying that it is a bad film, and I saw it coming, and my predictions were justified... even though I still paid my ticked to see it about two weeks after its release. I kinda liked it, but... yeah, it's pretty bad.
It was an entertaining movie, not as good as I wanted it to be, but not as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. I do get all the points in this video, but I honestly think that it isn't as bad or hard to follow. Nice review, tho.
There's a potentially BRILLIANT movie in the idea that superman and batman are both grim, broody murderers. Change it around so that they are fighting each other because they HATE how much they see of themselves in the other. Both have convinced themselves they are doing the right things and serving justice, but subconsciously they hate who they've become. So the fight becomes to sad men lashing out at the embodiment of their own, unrecognized, worst qualities. And its sadder because they are BOTH fighting a mirror.
This idea would actually make a great movie if the heroes WEREN'T superman and batman.
I think the Justice League Unlimited cartoon made a "Who Guards the Guardsman" reference too.
The budget was 250 million (not that one could see the money on the screen a lot - there was a lot of fighting in old warehouses, which is usually a b-movie trait.). But with that kind of money, Lars von Trier and Bong Joon-ho would have made 10 to 15 amazing movies.
3:51 why is vandalizing the Superman statue considered a hate crime?
And that "if you seek his monument" graffiti is unintentionally hilarious since that tomb is in the destroyed city Superman failed to save.
I liked the interview with Snyder where he joking mentioned the (at the time) upcoming Cpt America movie was going to be goofy/corny...
I think one of the most important yet least mentioned reasons behind the huge popularity of what was the grandfather of all superhero movies- superman the movie 1978- was that it was "bright" crisp, clear, sunny and bright.
Starting with Tim Burton's Batman 1989, superhero movies just seemed to always be shot in either complete or almost complete "darkness" a trend that lasted until the recent Marvel Universe movies-- and I really think the crisp sharp bright shooting style of those movies plays a significant role in their global popularity.
While a dark movie is fairly apt when dealing with Batman, I don't think it's a style that lends anything to the portrayal of the Superman character. It's a shame they've gone in the direction they have with their follow up to Man of Steel. It's almost as if they're just in too much of a hurry to play catch up to Marvel. Common sense and basic thinking should've screamed at them that another stand-alone Superman movie should have been made before they ever made dawn of justice. Its a shame too because in Henry Cavill they'd finally found an actor who could occupy that suit without being relentlessly compared to Chris Reeve. So much potential to really create a whole new era for the character.
But no. We just got the usual predictable shite!
You know how easy it would've been to fix the Martha thing? Show Superman so beaten up, he obviously thinks he's about to die. And he asks Batman to tell his mother he loves her and to let her know that he was gone, so she wouldn't spend the rest of her life wondering what happened to him and holding hope that she'd see him again. Then he gives her name. THEN Bruce has the Martha epiphany. I'm an amateur screenwriter, yet I feel like I have better narrative problem solving skills than half of Hollywood haha
The problem with subtlety is when it isn't subtle and also overused. A single, blatant reference is fine, but Man of Steel beats us over the head with blatant Jesus references, as does BvS. If Snyder was trying to be subtle with the Jesus references, then he failed horribly.