[D'rek]

(Not) The latest released footage of the duel between batman and superman:

[Cause]

Just came back from the premier. Cant say anything But its excellent.

[amphibian]

Why can't you say anything? Put it in spoiler boxes.

[Cause]

Can't run afoul of the NDA? But I can speak now.

Non spoilery comments but read at own risk

Spoiler

Good movie in its own right. But the magic is they have finally copied marvels formulae though in their own way and they use the movie to set up plot details for sequels as well as to hint at the appearance of the future heroes in the DC movie universe.

The marketing department did give away too much in the trailers. Also there are a few potholes I think. All in all though I thoroughly enjoyed it and better it's Made me excited for the upcoming DC films which frankly have been hit and miss before

Also while I was never against the batfleck I also never thought that it seemed like a good idea. All in all though it was a good performance and I felt like it was the best Alfred we have seen yet as well. There will certainly be many nerd debates about the batman he portrays though.

This post has been edited by Cause: 23 March 2016 - 08:29 AM

[Tsundoku]

http://fandom.wikia....vie-of-all-time

Interesting article about why - even before it was released - it's such a polarising movie. I guess only the box office will tell.

Currently 36% on Rotten Tomatoes, but I've noticed a lot of their reviewers tend to "pile on" if there's an aspect they don't like, and then tend to dismiss the whole thing out of hand.

I'll be going to see it, but I'm interested in your views too. Cheers Cause.

[Cause]

Yes I am seeing that its getting a ton of bad reviews. It puzzles me. It was better than man of steel and I thought that was an okay movie. Not my best but enjoyable. This is better.

That said its also my experience that you need to see whose doing the review for a movie like this. Some critics I feel dont understand that you dont review a batman movie with the same criteria you review a movie like spotlight with. This is not a cerebral experience.

[Tsundoku]

Oh dear. Funny but ... ouch. Poor Ben.

http://www.news.com....e97f138b01b38b8

[Aptorian]

I was just coming here to post it. The look of defeat. You can almost hear the inner monologue "This was supposed to rekindle my career!".

[Silencer]

Cause, on 23 March 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

Yes I am seeing that its getting a ton of bad reviews. It puzzles me. It was better than man of steel and I thought that was an okay movie. Not my best but enjoyable. This is better.

That said its also my experience that you need to see whose doing the review for a movie like this. Some critics I feel dont understand that you dont review a batman movie with the same criteria you review a movie like spotlight with. This is not a cerebral experience.

Haven't seen this movie yet (not even remotely hyped for it, tbh), but this intrigued me.

While I generally agree; you don't use the same criteria for judging a popcorn flick as you do for a think-piece; I also disagree in a Devil's Advocate kind of way. Why *shouldn't* we use the same criteria? If you (somehow) had no idea what kind of movie Batman v Superman was meant to be, and were traditionally into deeper, more complex fare, wouldn't you be looking for a critic who rates it against that same scale? Sure, with a superhero movie it's probably a bit of a foregone conclusion as to which side of the scale its most likely to fall on, but it's not guaranteed. While rating a movie for its perceived qualities is obviously pretty subjective anyway, what is it that exempts certain movies from being rated against a particular set of criteria? (Aside from the inevitable and prevalent snobbery of some critics that arises from this approach...>.>)
But my point is, even though a movie might never have intended to be intellectual, there's still a certain amount of merit in reviewing it against the same criteria as a movie that was. It gives uninformed viewers a head's up, and it get informed viewers thinking about the film in a different light. Besides which, you can get some comedy out of the situation by approaching a movie with a completely different perspective than what you're supposed to; there's a reason people choose to watch the Room, or Birdemic, for comedy purposes.

Anyway. Mostly I agree that there's no point in rating an Apple for it's level of Orangeness, but I don't think it's wholly a wasted effort, or that it shouldn't happen. The most important rating of a Batman film is how good it is at being a Batman film. Just...sometimes you might also want to know how good it is at being something else, too. *shrug*

[worry]

Apt, on 25 March 2016 - 05:25 AM, said:

I was just coming here to post it. The look of defeat. You can almost hear the inner monologue "This was supposed to rekindle my career!".

Man this is such a scumball question from the interviewer.

[Cause]

@silencer

Perhaps instead of judged by different criteria I could have said the judge matters.

The snobbish art critic will hate batman vs superman. Children and teens will love it. Adults who grew up watching batman cartoons or reading the comics will love it. I have noticed that the few gaming websites and the like I frequent praise the movie while regular newspapers pan it. Target audience matters to reception.

Also it's certainly going to be a case of critically panned but a commercial success! I heard it's predicted to make at least 150 million dollars in the US alone. The Hoi polloi vote with cash

[acesn8s]

Apt, on 25 March 2016 - 05:25 AM, said:

I was just coming here to post it. The look of defeat. You can almost hear the inner monologue "This was supposed to rekindle my career!".

"First Daredevil, now this...they are never going to let me play a superhero again. Fuck Ryan Reynolds!"

[blackzoid]

Critically panned but a commercial success is not a good thing. Aka Transformers.
We should not reward bad movies (even though I know art is subjective and all that)

I love Batman and Superman,and am sick of the entire Marvel MCU hype machine so I'm on Dc's side here, but if the film is incompetant (ala Batman and Robin) I will not be happy. And it sounds like it is. Overstuffed and badly directed.

EDIT: Though I will say that I am getting a sense of "pile-ing on" from a good few of the reviews. That a superhero film cannot be grim and dark etc. My feeling is that this film has long had a target painted on its back. Controversy over all the decisions the studio made, etc. I'll try to be fair and objective to it when I see it. But if it really is shit....

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 25 March 2016 - 01:21 PM

[amphibian]

The reaction against grim or more serious flavors of DC heroes has been going on since the Burton movies. A large group of people are very against Superman or Batman actually killing people, despite the ludicrously dangerous situations the writers put the characters in.

Marvel does this to some degree, but Wolverine and Deadpool go a ways towards addressing the issue that yes, murder is a logical endpoint for many of these super powered characters.

[QuickTidal]

Saw it tonight. Really enjoyed it! It starts out a bit slowly overall, but once it gets going it's a blast. Yes you have to accept the grimmer tone, the washed out palette, but this is just as good of a superhero flick as marvel makes....just from a different angle. No big complaints other than the slow beginning.

Wonder Woman nearly steals the show. She's fantastic.

[Aptorian]

How was Jesse Eisenberg's "Lex Luthor"? I thought he looked completely miss-cast in the trailers.

[Morgoth]

Apt, on 26 March 2016 - 05:15 AM, said:

How was Jesse Eisenberg's "Lex Luthor"? I thought he looked completely miss-cast in the trailers.

I thought Eisenberg brought something genuinely interesting to the character. He was very good. Sadly the dialogue in this movie was subpar, the low quality culminating in a straight up painful conversation between Luthor and Lane towards the end of the movie.

So I didn't really like this movie. Parts of it were fun, and the imagery was at time spectacular. But Snyder presents the same flaws here as in his other movies. The music, the explosions, the light, it all gets too much by the end. I found the last showdown to be almost absurd. Like an SNL parody of a Snyder movie.

And yet I did quite enjoy Affleck as Batman, and I think Cavill does an excellent superman. And when Snyder wasn't too busy working hard to make a scene super awesome he produced some really good moments. So in the end I'd rate this mediocre to alright, say 5000 out of 8000 drums.

[QuickTidal]

I think the problem with Luther was Goyer's script had him always trying to speak in metaphors or be saying something that was over the top "poetic"...and it sounds too ridiculous out loud. That said, I agree with Morgoth that Eisenbergs portrayal of that individual (even with those lines) was solid and interesting. They didn't go for straight up Lex Luthor caricature.

And Affleck was good as Bats.

Spoiler

Oh, the one part that did piss me off (and I assumed it would before going in) the scene with whatshisnuts as the movie version of the Flash? Yeah fuck that guy. Grant Gustin could buy and sell that MFer.....and the suit was....weird. Also Barry Allen doesn't have a scruffy teen beard or a little rat pony tail. What the fuck?!

[Morgoth]

QuickTidal, on 26 March 2016 - 11:59 AM, said:

I think the problem with Luther was Goyer's script had him always trying to speak in metaphors or be saying something that was over the top "poetic"...and it sounds too ridiculous out loud. That said, I agree with Morgoth that Eisenbergs portrayal of that individual (even with those lines) was solid and interesting. They didn't go for straight up Lex Luthor caricature.

And Affleck was good as Bats.

Spoiler

Oh, the one part that did piss me off (and I assumed it would before going in) the scene with whatshisnuts as the movie version of the Flash? Yeah fuck that guy. Grant Gustin could buy and sell that MFer.....and the suit was....weird. Also Barry Allen doesn't have a scruffy teen beard or a little rat pony tail. What the fuck?!

Why wouldn't they just use the tv actor?

[QuickTidal]

Morgoth, on 26 March 2016 - 01:18 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 26 March 2016 - 11:59 AM, said:

I think the problem with Luther was Goyer's script had him always trying to speak in metaphors or be saying something that was over the top "poetic"...and it sounds too ridiculous out loud. That said, I agree with Morgoth that Eisenbergs portrayal of that individual (even with those lines) was solid and interesting. They didn't go for straight up Lex Luthor caricature.

And Affleck was good as Bats.

Spoiler

Oh, the one part that did piss me off (and I assumed it would before going in) the scene with whatshisnuts as the movie version of the Flash? Yeah fuck that guy. Grant Gustin could buy and sell that MFer.....and the suit was....weird. Also Barry Allen doesn't have a scruffy teen beard or a little rat pony tail. What the fuck?!

Why wouldn't they just use the tv actor?

According to Snyder, his version "isn't right for the tone of the film universe"...whatever the hell that means. I think it's a huge mistake personally. To me the tv actor is the PERFECT version of that character.

I will say that I liked

Spoiler

Aquaman's cameo...short, and to the point. Probably the best future JLA moment in BvS.

Also, here's a great breakdown of the Knightmare sequence and what it axtually was and meant and will mean for the future.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 26 March 2016 - 01:24 PM