Batman v Superman v Me

When Jonathan Kent started talking about cows on a mountaintop (how did we get to this mountaintop? What are we doing there? Why is Clark there? Isn't Jonathan dead?), I knew, once and for all, that Batman v Superman was, truly, doomed.

When I look at (any one of the million) posters for this movie, it is a mixture of emotions: Disappointment. Disdain. Frustration. But, most of all, I see this film for what it really is - and what it was always going to be. The truth is, the prospects for Batman v Superman were never really that bright. At best, it was always going to be an over-financed gimmick.

But let's do the routine anyway, shall we?

The Jonathan-Kent-on-a-Mountain-Top scenario was just one of the many instances that a character's rambling story fell flat. In some horrible Jimmy-Stewart-Gone-Wrong scenario, pretty much every character in this film rambles one lesson-learned story or another, but they consistently remain irrelevant. As much of the discussion of this movie has pointed out, each one of these scenes falls under the unfortunate umbrella of "Scramble to Connect these Disjointed Moments".

But I suppose we should talk about the good first. The best part of this film is easily Hans Zimmer's brilliant music, which gives the semblance that something is happening, even though nothing really is. Man of Steel had the same strength, though that film also failed to deliver. The only drawback to a brilliant score is that music of this caliber (which was even, at times, 2001: A Space Odyssey-esque, with that eerie roaring choir) makes you expect even more from the film, and when it's Batman v Superman, that can only leave you disappointed.

Second, I was less offended by Ben Affleck's Batman than I thought I would be. Ah, remember the good old days when they first announced Ben Affleck as Batman (to everyone's complete and utter dismay)? And now it turns out that, actually, Ben Affleck as Batman might be the least of this film's worries. I'm not saying his glowing-eyes suit wasn't ridiculous. I'm just saying there are bigger problems here.

And I suppose Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor would serve as a good transition into the bad. Jesse was really interesting in this film, in the sense that I was engaged when he was on screen (for the most part). He's obviously a very capable, creative actor. The problem, though, is multifaceted.

While I liked the character that Jesse played, it doesn't mean it was the character we needed. Despite the interesting performance, this character was completely wrong for this particular film. AND even though I liked whatever character Jesse was playing, it was certainly not the character of Lex Luthor.

So, essentially, my Lex problems boil down to these three things:

1. He's too obviously psychotic. I'm sitting there thinking, "Why hasn't anyone actually addressed that he needs help?" We're in an alternate Superhero-populated universe and I still can't believe that anyone in this world of brooding rich people would give any attention to this character who is so over-the-top out of his mind. There's no chance any of those people would revere him as some sort of genius philanthropist, as he's depicted in the film. Even if that were the case, his physicality does not play well (or menacingly) against either Ben Affleck or Henry Cavill.

2. I know there was some talk about how this version of Lex was going to go back to his "mad scientist" roots. But, honestly, this was jut a bizarre adaptation of this character that, while brave, is utterly at odds with the contemporary interpretation of the character.

3. Why even have Lex in this film in the first place? Why squander Lex Luthor's character when the movie is supposed to be Batman and Superman against each other (more on that later)? We don't need a villain, because the villain was, hypothetically, the superhero you weren't rooting for (in whatever outrageous battle was supposed to take place in the name of justice). Or wasn't it enough to have two superheroes fighting each other? (perhaps we should all take a lesson from this? ....)

The issues don't stop with Lex. For example, do I even have to bring up the Batman dream sequence? I feel the need to explain dream sequences to Zack Snyder. Like... once the audience realizes that it's a dream, that's when the dreaming person in the film wakes up. Because that moment when it becomes surreal is when the audience raises an eyebrow, predicts the dream, then gets to feel smart when they predicted correctly. Effectively, the surreal moment mirrors the affect of a dream; that's the synthetic dream for us. Unfortunately, the film denies us this.

Maybe it was just me, but I realized that Bruce was dreaming as soon as Batman was wearing a trench coat (???). The real mystery wasn't whether it was a dream; it was why on earth this dream was happening. And honestly? I still don't know. It seems as though it was somehow connected to the computer files from Wonder Woman? So I'm sitting there wondering what the point of this dream is only to have him wake up and find a bizarre energy monster next to him, then have him wake up again? Like, yes, we know Christopher Nolan is producing, but Zack, that doesn't mean you have to do Inception.

Part of the film's mystery was also supposed to be figuring out what sort of sadistic thing (or person) could turn these two heroes against each other (spoilers follow!). The film reveals that we're supposed to believe that Batman's hatred of Superman stems partially from how Superman destroyed the city when he was fighting Zod wayyyyy back in Man of Steel. But five minutes after Batman was going to kill Superman, they became best friends suddenly, then Batman proceeded to raze the city in the exact same way as Superman did in Man of Steel. Saving the world isn't exactly a neat and tidy business, guys (though it could be a little less computer generated...).

I'd just like to defend Superman for a moment, specifically in regards to the destruction of the city in Man of Steel. I remember watching Man of Steel and thinking, "Wow, this is an unnecessary amount of carnage." Later, I realized that I'm in the camp that believes that CG content exists to that extent largely because of Zack Snyder's direction. But let's just say it is Clark's fault for a moment. Okay, so Clark had to get messy to save the world. It's not like he had to help out with stopping Zod from destroying the earth. If he hadn't helped, would everyone be any happier? No, because everyone would either be dead or a slave to General Zod who would subsequently rule the earth. But when Superman does help out, then everyone's mad because he is crushing a lot of stuff while he saves the planet from destruction? People would be mad at Superman if he helped and mad if he didn't. This is so not Superman's fault.

Speaking of Superman, I'm still bitter they had to bring Batman into his movie. This really should have been Man of Steel 2 but once everyone saw Man of Steel, they must have realized that nobody wanted a second version of that. But, again - not Superman's fault! It's not that the character needs help supporting a film (see Richard Donner's 1978 "Superman" with Christopher Reeve - a classic!!). He has super strong shoulders for one thing - so we all know he can carry a movie. And yes, there have been problems adapting this character in the past. But it can be done, and it can be done well - and he doesn't need another superhero to come in and save him. Shouldn't the people in the Batman camp be equally mad that Batman had to share a movie with Superman? Or was it just altogether not really Batman because A) it was Ben Affleck and B) it wasn't Christopher Nolan directing and C) it wasn't really part of the trilogy which is still too recent to make another movie for?

I could write a whole doctoral thesis about this next issue: the false climax / double climax (or what I might call "The Doomsday Problem"). So what I'll do is keep it short and sweet: if the title of your movie points to a climactic fight between two characters, don't add a second climactic fight after the promised fight has taken place. Audience expectations demands that once the movie's purpose has been fulfilled, the movie ends. Once Batman fights Superman, the movie needed to be over. That's what we were there for. Instead, there's a whole second climax where the two heroes and Wonder Woman fight a really gross and wasted Doomsday Monster. I just wanted to go home.

But also - Doomsday?? Really??? I could hardly believe the way they wasted Doomsday here. If they were really going to do a Doomsday thing, give Superman his own movie and develop the story. They didn't need Batman to be involved at all, which would have really helped them focus their story - something which was sorely needed.

Last thing: anybody else notice all these motifs of the apocalypse in recent superhero films? I think there could be something there to discuss and investigate (I'm looking at you, X-Men: Apocalypse).

Overall, there will be collateral damage for these characters after this debacle. We are going to be feeling the tremors of this mess for DC films to come.