Directed by: Zack Snyder || Produced by: Charles Roven, Deborah Snyder
Screenplay by: Chris Terrio, David S. Goyer || Starring: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jesse Eisenberg, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Jeremy Irons, Holly Hunter, Gal Gadot
Music by: Hans Zimmer, Junkie XL || Cinematography: Larry Fong || Edited by: David Brenner || Country: United States || Language: English
Running Time: 183 minutes
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (henceforth, DoJ) has been the subject of massive controversy following its release and historical box office performance (as well as underperformance), a culmination of nearly three years’ worth of intense hype and scrutiny following the similarly divisive Man of Steel (2013). Zack Snyder, also director of MoS and adult-oriented, R-rated, violent films like 300 (2007), Watchmen (2009), and the Dawn of the Dead remake (2004), has fulfilled my prediction by producing his most controversial, divisive film, yet.
I “loved” DoJ in the same way I “love” Alien vs Predator (2004) or Equilibrium (2002) or Independence Day (1996). None of these films are “great” movies, but in my eyes, they accomplish what they set out to do and are successful cinematic experiences on their own terms. Now for the average audience, watching two classic sci-fi monsters violently disembowel one another in an Antarctic pyramid, or gun-fu priests initiate coups in a dystopian 1984-ripoff, or a hackneyed mishmash of alien-invasion films, may not be their cup of tea. Some of those films were box office successes, yes, but none of them are held in too high regard if even remembered in the public consciousness today. Few audiences ever bothered taking them seriously.
The same situation applies to DoJ, here. It’s a guilty-pleasure movie that most folks shouldn’t feel too guilty about loving. The fact that most critiques of the movie regard things like the film allegedly not being “fun and colorful,” not being the type of superhero movie that superhero movies are “supposed to be,” not featuring the “right” kind of Superman, and “being too dark,” is amusing when the film has so many other actual faults. Those faults include the film’s quasi-episodic editing (largely corrected in the much better paced three-hour director’s cut), a mysterious lack of establishing shots, and a laughable Justice League-movie setup. Those are the true faults of this movie that people should be complaining about, much like how the true faults of Alien vs Predator were its lackluster, forgettable characters and shaky dialogue, not its premise nor its special effects nor even its PG-13 rating.
If you hate this movie, you have plenty of ammunition to tear down its movie-logic plot or scatterbrained editing, but wasting time bitching and moaning about how Batman violated his no-kill clause or how Superman wasn’t bright and colorful and offended your religious nerd-sensibilities are not going to convince yours truly. I don’t listen to religious nutjobs when they complain about artists not portraying religious figures “correctly” (re: how they believe said figures should be portrayed), nor do I care when geeks whine about films not portraying their favorite novel or comic books “correctly” (re: how they believe those stories and characters should be adapted). I do not care. At all.
A common complaint of MoS was its surprisingly dark tone “for a Superman movie,” but with DoJ, Snyder turns the dark-and-brooding dial to eleven and issues no apologies. At some point, what with all the lofty, self-serious dialogue and over-the-top melodrama and brutal violence, I had to respect the filmmakers for sticking to their guns. They made a morbid, grueling, cerebral riff on mythical comic figures and stuck to the morbidity and gruel, by golly. DoJ feels more akin to the brooding Watchmen comic, by Alan Moore, whose film adaptation Snyder also directed. Much of my enjoyment of DoJ was mixed with sheer shock at how a major studio production, allegedly budgeted upwards of $250 million, was approved with such a dour, violent, and intense story. Sure, the movie is none too intelligent, but it’s nothing if not emotional to a fault. It’s not something studios should expect general audiences to swallow, but that’s not my concern.
Perhaps this is my subjectivity seeping into this filmic evaluation, but I related to all the major characters in some way, believe it or not — even Henry Cavill’s Clark Kent/Superman. Unlike Man of Steel, where I found Cavill’s Clark Kent distant and somewhat unrelatable, I connected with the titular character this time around. One of the biggest complaints about this film that I liked was a brief metaphorical sequence where Cavill converses with his deceased father, Pa Kent (Kevin Costner). I interpreted that scene as an illustration of Cavill’s quest for guidance, or perhaps a yearning to live as a normal human with none of the great powers or responsibilities that come with being, well, Super.
The remaining titular character whom nobody seems to have trouble respecting is Ben Affleck’s Batman, now considered by many to be the best incarnation of the character on film. Batfleck’s motivation for fearing/hating Superman are crystallized through a clever retcon of Man of Steel’s ending, and the character’s development henceforth is golden. His inclination to brand sexual predators and murder terrorists in cold-blood make perfect sense in this portrayal and in this universe.
To that end, Dawn of Justice’s visuals are magnificent and its action, splendid. Much has been made of the film’s upcoming home video R-rated “ultimate” edition, but not once during my viewing did I feel like I was watching a PG-13 blockbuster — and I consider that a good thing. Batman’s hand-to-hand combat is vicious and fluid, his tango with the Man of Steel is schlocky in the best way possible, and the movie’s finale with Doomsday and Wonder Woman manages to refresh some old-fashioned superhero spectacle as a brief respite from the film’s brooding darkness.
I get it — if you prefer Christopher Reeve’s Superman or Adam West’s Batman, then Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice probably won’t satisfy you, and quite frankly, probably won’t satisfy most general audiences despite being a $250 million+ tentpole blockbuster. But that’s Warner Bros’ and DC’s problem, not mine. I got the movie that I wanted, and I make no apologies for that. I understand that Dawn of Justice is not a great artistic rendition of psychological torment and physical trauma like, say, Nine Inch Nails’ The Downward Spiral (1994), but it’s no Disturbed album. Maybe it’s on the same level as Linkin Park’s angsty, yet occasionally hilarious Hybrid Theory (2000).
SUMMARY & EVALUATION: Dawn of Justice is as over-the-top as its clunky title would imply. Its many glaring problems, including its inconsistent pacing, confusing editing, and one particularly awful DC Extended Universe-commercial, are to be acknowledged; however, its characterizations make sense if you give them the chance, its music and visual style are memorable, and Zack Snyder delivers some of the best action direction in any graphic novel adaptation to date.
—> ON THE FENCE: It’s as much a traditional “superhero movie” as Deadpool (2016) was.
? When I see a superhero film, I want to walk out of the theatre crying! — Mike Stoklasa
Very, incredibly well written. You hit it right on the head with the Independence Day comparison too.
I say this to anyone who talks about this that I hope the extended cut fixes a lot of the issues with pacing and what not. But even just the way it is, I found this to be enjoyable.
I’m also glad I’m not the only one to feel the need to take FOREVER to write a review on this. This is how I felt the entire week or 2 after seeing this. I liked the movie, and had things in order as far as criticisms. I just didn’t know where to start. A lot of my issue with it had very little to do with the movie itself, and just on how weird the backlash was against it. As fans of this movie, we needed to find a way to truly display why it wasn’t a trainwreck, and why it’s the type of movie you can still enjoy. You did a great job of this!
I also like what you said about Batman. In the grand scheme of what’s to come, I think it’s going to be interesting having a character that might not know how to control himself entirely with doing the absolute moral thing. He killed in this movie, and I was fine with it. He has a screw loose obviously, much like how the Hulk does. I want a character in Justice League to display this. Maybe it’s Batman, maybe it might be Superman. But something tells me they’ll give that feature to the one that’s a bit more tormented. The only reason people didn’t like it is because we weren’t shown why Batman was the way he was. We didn’t actually see Robin die, so we had no connection. I’m really hoping that the stand-alone Affleck-directed Batman movie delves into this. It could retroactively make certain elements of this film better too.
I felt there was a lot of implied history in Batfleck’s character, the dead Robin costume being just one of many sequences hinting at his totally off-kilter psyche. For one, I’m tired of pop culture consistently rationalizing Batman’s violent, veritable vigilante behavior with his “no-kill clause,” as if that would somehow justify the character’s behavior in real-life, or even a relatively realistic film world like Nolan’s TDK trilogy.
I love Nolan’s work, don’t get me wrong, but his obvious conservative leanings became increasingly transparent and hamfisted what with the police-terrorist brawls, Robespierre-esque speeches, and martyrdom of Batman in TDKR. I think it’s time that America admits that maybe Batman was never meant to be a “moral” or “heroic” character; I always thought he was supposed to be the definition of an anti-hero! [definition: An antihero (or antiheroine) is a protagonist who lacks conventional heroic qualities such as idealism, courage, or morality. These individuals often possess dark personality traits such as disagreeableness, dishonesty, and aggressiveness.].
He’s more of a masculine revenge-fantasy than a “hero,” in my eyes. He takes the law into his own hands to make himself feel better. He’s selfish, not heroic, much of the time, and that’s what makes him interesting to me
I couldn’t agree more! I think it’s okay for him to “try” and abide by a no killing rule, but to escape it quite frequently. He has always been more of an anti-hero to me for sure.
Finally saw this film. Watched it twice in fact. The first time round I was about half way through and thought ‘this is a cracking film.’ I actually liked the pace, it gave me time to think about what was going on, and that suggested the scriptwriter and director were treating the audience with respect. There were certainly some conundrums to consider and I usually scoff at superhero films getting all pseudo-philosophical: as you say these are people called Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman (and I don’t know if you were being diplomatic not mentioning Gal Gadot, but I thought she did a great job considering all the pre-release doubts.)
Where Man of Steel made a right pig’s breakfast of right and wrong I think Dawn of Justice took a more cautious line, left the subject a little more open.
Ben Affleck was a revelation in the role and Jeremy Irons brought a surprisingly youthful plausibility to Albert. I think Jesse Eisenberg is getting dangerously close to being typecast as the quirky oddball; maybe I haven’t seen enough of his films, but he seems to play a lot of smart-alec roles and I’m sure he’s a better actor than that.
I’m confident I’ll be watching this film a third time before Christmas. And I’m confident if Marvel don’t raise their game (Captain America Civil War was cobblers!) DC are gonna steal their thunder.
Yeah, I certainly don’t drink the Kool-Aide with respect to the endless Marvel Studios love nor the endless DCEU hate. I appreciate the fact that BvS tried to do something different, as well as the fact that its heroes actually seem wounded, relatable, and aren’t forcing lame quips out-of-character.
BvS felt episodic, flowing, stream-of-consciousness, almost like a continuous fever-dream, and that’s what I liked about it. I doubled-down on that opinion after watching the full 3-hour cut that was supposed to originally release in theatres. The film works.
Batman is one of the few superheros with whom I have a longstanding emotional connection, but in the arts, as far as I’m concerned, nothing is sacred. For that matter, I’m glad we finally have a Batman that’s scary, who feels intimidating, and is violent. If that offends people’s childhood sensibilities or comic book lore, I couldn’t be happier.
Eisenberg was fine, IMO, but he felt too on-the-nose at times, and as for Gal Gadot… I thought she bulked up for the role well, but otherwise I don’t care about her performance one way or another. I didn’t think she nor her character were worth discussing in detail in a review.
I’m on the lookout for that three hour cut now. It’s on Amazon movies but not dvd. Apart from the fact that, for me, this film can’t be long enough, I’m curious to see some of the odd bits explained eg Batman’s ‘dream’ sequence.
Just get the Blu-ray, and if you don’t have a BR-player, get one and then get the BvS Blu Ray. They’re no more expensive than DVD players were back in the day.
It’s nice to find someone who shares your opinion about a movie. I was so bewildered when this movie came out and people were dissing it. I just didn’t get it. I loved Man of Steel. And BvS worked for me all the way. So, I thought let’s watch them again and see if I can get what people were so cross about and I gotta say, both of the movies still get me as excited as they got me the first time I watched them.
I try to keep my dogs out of the Marvel/DC fanboy wars, given how I’m not much of a comic fan beyond the adventures of Batman or Wolverine (I’m the dark and brooding type…), but for the life of me, I can’t come down hard on these recent DCEU films when I find them so memorable (for both good and bad reasons, admittedly), in comparison to most MCU films, about which I forget typically 15 minutes after walking out of the theatre. Overlooking their source material entirely, I liked BvS as a sort of over-the-top, Shakespearean tragedy about redemption, with MoS working as a nice prologue. BvS’ style and self-seriousness won me over, in the end.
I don’t know, I try not to overthink this franchise bullshit, because frankly I don’t believe it adds much artistic merit to the individual films. Clearly, I’m in the minority, though.