Ok, quick run down of the plot because, somehow, people had a hard time following it. I admit it is plotted very densely, like a comic book series and less like a movie script (which I cherish as it separates it from the Hollywood-ness of all other superhero movies):
Batman thinks Superman is going to turn on humanity and enslave them eventually with his unstoppable power and will. Little does he know the seed to kill Superman is being planted by Lex Luthor, a young socialite entrepreneur who wants to destroy Superman because Superman is a god and Luthor hates God because his father abused him. Lois Lane is trying to clear Superman's name and Wonder Woman is trying to expose Luthor's corruption. Eventually, Batman realizes that he is projecting onto Superman his own anger that his father let his mother die and saves Superman's mother to get over his own issues and rectify his lashing out at Superman. In a fight with Luthor's monster Doomsday, Superman sacrifices himself for the world, thus proving to everyone that he was who he said he was. Batman and Wonder Woman decide fear that they cannot fill Superman's shoes, so they decide to form the Justice League. In Superman's grave, his dirt on his casket rises and we assume he is resurrected.
I saw Batman V Superman in theaters twice within 24 hours. This was easily my favorite movie experience of 2016 because its the rare film that is made to be viewed on a big screen, not only for mass consumption but to use its grand stage to be different and say something new. It was pure escapism: indulgent action, fabulous photography, bigger than life characters and a very melodramatic tone. I expected the negative reactions before I saw the film, was convinced fans would enjoy it during the film and then shocked at how much negative press it received. There is a clear bias towards the film as Marvel is the more populist label when it comes to superheroes and a darling with pop-critics. DC has been firmly anti-Marvel in their approach and seems to revel in their unpopularity. I dismissed much of the social media backlash to really dim fanboys having a circle jerk. I couldn't find any viable negative reviews but I was dismayed that there weren't very many glowing reviews either (perhaps out of fear of non-conformity). 2016 was a year where collectivism, peer pressure, political correctness and a move towards fascism
seeped in exploded into American life. But then Suicide Squad was released and it was truly the uneven, amateurish, middlebrow disappointment that fans hoped and claimed BVS was. I started to believe the hype that the DC movies may have some weakness I missed. So I put off rewatching BVS for a year.
I chose the Extended 3 Hour Cut to review and, while the film may not be my favorite film of 2016 in this or its more blunted form, Batman V Superman is one of the best popcorn movies ever. Maybe a masterpiece of the modern blockbuster genre. The Apocalypse Now! Redux of superhero movies. I think it surpassed The Avengers and actually just misses the glory and thrills of 1978's Superman, 1989's Batman and 2008's The Dark Knight, the three superhero films you can call American classics (sorry, Marvel).
Objectively, this cut of Batman V Superman is probably a solid 9 out of 10 stars to the shorter version's solid 8. The longer version fills in so much backstory and rounds out the subplots that are intriguing on their own but slow the film down. The theatrical cut has a very brisk and fun pace that is missed here, but the characterization is stronger and the structure feels more operatic and less roller coaster-y. I can't deny that the film has weak spots. I find Henry Cavill an actor who is full of potential with this role, but he's still a bit stiff and hammy. Affleck seemed bored at times and monotone. Amy Adams is also quite mawkish and uncommitted. Its sort of understandable because a film like this, in the tradition of Hitchcock and silent films, is more about plot, themes and spectacle, leaving little for the actors to do. They had smaller moments to shine and build chemistry and no one is the real quarterback here. This is typical with movies like Independence Day and, shit, The Towering Inferno. But that allows the insular actors to really breakout. Jess Eisenberg is almost brilliant as the snotty, condescending but self-satisfied manchild who will become Lex Luthor. Gal Gadot brings so much grace and emotion to the film as Wonder Woman. And Diane Lane is exquisite as Clark Kent's mother "Martha". Oh, Martha, Martha... we must talk about Martha.
The film makes the bold choice to hinge itself on a single emotional moment between Batman and Superman at the peak of their conflict. Smart. But the plausibility of the moment is truly questionable. The coincidence that they have mothers with the same name is fine. The coincidence that Batman's parents are his Achille's heel is fine. But can we really buy that Superman calls his mom by her first name? Its such a tiny gripe but it takes you out of the movie right when you need to be there. It irks me to no end and reminds me that we are still in contrived comic book plotting territory no matter how beautiful, fun and daring this movie is. Ironically, the film's biggest haters aren't bothered by the implausibility of the Martha moment but confused why it would stop Batman. Here I
can defend the film's choice as both poetic and psychologically taut. Batman realizes that he is becoming the killer he set out to stop and that Superman is a placeholder for his own father. "You're killing Martha" is Thomas Wayne's ghost speaking to his son through Superman. Batman sees Superman as the man who let his best friend die the same way he sees his father as letting his mother die. Batman's arc is about realizing where his own rage and fear of Superman comes from and reasserting that Superman is a victimized son trying to honor his mother. "Martha won't die tonight" is Batman sort of putting to rest his beef with his own demons and trusting Luthor's new "demon". Its very clever and maybe brilliant in its conception. I'm just underwhelmed with the build to this moment because it is so good. Its cheesiness, pretentiousness and romanticism is still in keeping with the source material of superheroes in a way, so I still allow it.
Batman V Superman isn't The Godfather, but its a bold lie that the script is full of holes or the characters act uncharacteristically. Mainly, these claims come from Marvel people who look for problems that aren't there and DC purists who are offended that these films take liberties and try to entertain people who don't care who Jimmy Olsen is. I've met lots of people who enjoyed and even loved BVS but they really don't care about comics i.e. they don't rant online about it (like I am).
One special complaint needs to be squashed: "Batman doesn't kill!" More accurately, Batman doesn't murder. In this film, Batman ends a few lives by chance or self-defense. He's never negligent or going out of his way to kill, neither reckless or meditated. "Why is Batman so unsafe when he's a ninja genius?" Because the lives of goons are not as sacred as the lives of innocents that will die if he doesn't drive through this car of people shooting at him.
And lets talk about the talent of Zack Snyder. This guy has a lot of haters who not only dislike his films but claim he is a hack. The claim is that he's style and no substance. His history in commercials and music videos haunts him for some reason, even when many directors started there (Ridley Scott, Spike Jonze, David Fincher). He has a very graphic visual style that is supported by acting and story rather than supporting them. So what? Hitchcock was the exact same way. Most great directors I would argue because film language works in this way. I find it refreshing that Snyder makes films that work in operatic and sometimes oneric ways. As a stylist and technician, he is far above the average as he always stages action in the most dramatic way possible, giving weight to every moment and using light to match the emotions of his characters, not relying on actors to do the heavy lifting. Scott and Fincher do this too, but Snyder has found a new personalized way. And unlike any director ever, Snyder takes world-building to a scale never before seen. Such diversity in actors, settings, action and effects. He's the modern Cecil B. DeMille. Like DeMille and Hitchcock, Synder is famous but not totally respected during the course of his career and I assume it will take a younger generation to appreciate the mix of innovation and classicism he has brought to genres that are usually thought of as low or middlebrow and expendable. Zombie movies, CGI kids movies, war movies, scifi. He's bringing a lot of taste to audiences who aren't always accustomed to it. I respect his craftsmanship, stark vision, unwavering guts and respect for the audience. His detractors would deny him those same qualities, but highlight them by denying they exist in his arsenal. BVS is a perfect story for Snyder and even an auteur piece as Synder is as despised, divisive and pure as Superman is.
In summary, there's a lot under the surface of BVS, but many of ignore it and focus on the shallow differences to what they were expecting. I had my high expectations met so I think the problem is that most people had impossible expectations or simply have bad taste. Let me be clear that this is not quite high art. But its far more complex, experimental, moving and fun than what its being compared to. If you go into this demanding stark realism or classical drama or something other than good guys beating up bad guys, you are an idiot. This is escapist theater with just enough brains and style as needed and more. I think I did get more out of this movie than any other in 2016 because it was the only Hollywood film that succeeded in being an art film in a sea of art films trying to be Hollywood. Its a welcome reversal and another huge step toward big conglomerate filmmaking actually trying to reach high cinematic expression. And it did it.
