Batman V Superman review

MK9

MK9

New member
Holy frickin WOW! Best Superhero movie of all time! I absolutely LOVED it! What did you all think?!?!
:D
 
For me, it's on the level of MGSV: Phantom Pain. Because my expectations weren't above the roof by the hype, the movie seemed fantastic.
 
Destroyer_13 said:
they totally favored Batman fanboys. Superman could have killed Batman with 1 punch if he wanted to.
Click to expand...

Not true about favoritism.

Spoiler:
That was the whole point. Superman was holding back. Batman was manipulated, by Luthor, to try and kill Superman. Superman never wanted to fight Batman. And Batman used his resources to win the "fight". So, it wasn't favoring any fanboys other than fanboys of both characters. These are story points from DC comics themself. Not to mention, the fight was based off of the ending of The Dark Knight Returns book. Nearly the same thing happened here. Batman, through his resourcefulness, defeats Superman, whom has not intentions of killing Bruce. Everyone knows Superman could kill Batman in a fight to the death.

The "Batman v Superman" title is mostly a ploy. The main point of the movie is the "Dawn of Justice"


Also, Bruce Wayne/Batman had more screen time than everyone because they were introducing a new Batman to develop in this series that had already introduced Superman. There was no bias in this film. It purely was a great and dramatic calmbination of DC stories to start their extended universe.
 
Last edited:
Yeah it was good if you know nothing about Batman...

I dont know how to do the spoiler thing so if i screw it up im sorry, and this is your warning. SPOILERS!

Spoiler:

Batman never uses guns... EVER! In fact he forbids the entire bat-family from using them, with the exception of Red Hood. His parents were gunned down so it is something he just DOESN'T DO.

Also, Batman NEVER kills. He takes every precaution needed to prevent someone dying as a direct, or even indirect, cause of his actions. Michael Keaton Batman killed with glee, sure, but that was a movie made by a man who never reads comics. Christian Bale Batman never killed, and dismantled any gun he happened across.

These are 2 VERY key elements to the character of Batman. Even video game Batman (speaking specifically of the rocksteady games) does neither of these things.

Likewise, Superman doesn't kill, aside from Doomsday. EVER! Not Zod, not anyone. In fact Superman usually fights his foes as far away from innocent people as possible to avoid collateral damage.

This is the inherent flaw in these movies. That and Jonathan Kent teaching Clark in the first movie NOT to save everyone all the time, as apposed to the lesson from the comics which is accepting that he CAN'T save everyone all the time. 2 VERY different messages.

Sure the movie was well done from a cinematic point of view, well acted for the most part, and very entertaining. Every time i saw Batman use a gun it took me out of it though.

And for anyone questioning who would win in the comics. It has been done. Not just in Frank Miller's books, but in actual canon stories. Batman has neutralized the entire Justice League. Never killed, just proved he can take them out should he need to. Bruce Wayne is such a paranoid psychopath, he has contingency plans for EVERYTHING. I dont have the time or the energy to find the books that it happens in, but believe me, it happens.


But generally, a good movie.
 
Last edited:
Noob-Zer013 said:
Not true about favoritism.

Spoiler:
That was the whole point. Superman was holding back. Batman was manipulated, by Luthor, to try and kill Superman. Superman never wanted to fight Batman. And Batman used his resources to win the "fight". So, it wasn't favoring any fanboys other than fanboys of both characters. These are story points from DC comics themself. Not to mention, the fight was based off of the ending of The Dark Knight Returns book. Nearly the same thing happened here. Batman, through his resourcefulness, defeats Superman, whom has not intentions of killing Bruce. Everyone knows Superman could kill Batman in a fight to the death.

The "Batman v Superman" title is mostly a ploy. The main point of the movie is the "Dawn of Justice"


Also, Bruce Wayne/Batman had more screen time than everyone because they were introducing a new Batman to develop in this series that had already introduced Superman. There was no bias in this film. It purely was a great and dramatic calmbination of DC stories to start their extended universe.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. You know I think they should have called the movie simply just "Dawn of Justice"! I mean look at the Avengers movie, they too all had conflict with one another in the beginning of the movie but they didn't call it "Hulk v Thor v Captain America v Iron Man" they just called it "Avengers". Both films featured Heroes (even ones who don't see eye to eye), uniting for a greater purpose.

But there's just something about this film. It was so dark, so hardcore, so brutal! And the best part is they are releasing an R rated Directors cut of the film on DVD with an extra 30 mins of footage (more brutal fight scenes, more epic EPICNESS!) making this movie run longer then 3 hours! The music and bone crushing audio was intense, the fight scenes were beautiful, the action was believable, the acting and feeling/emotion put into the characters on screen by the actors was very impressive! Best batman I have ever seen. Ben Afleck did a superb job and Henry Cavel as Superman was once AGAIN fantastic!

The first film of this 2 parter was "Man of Steel" and that movie was dedicated entirely on Superman (his origins, backstory, blah blah blah)! This "Dawn of Justice" introduced a new Batman (forget Christopher Nolans version of Batman ever existed), and with that they needed to spend more time with Batman. If anything it was more fan service to Superman fans because if you combine the two films together, Superman has more screen time! Anyways I'm more of a Batman fan. But yea, now there is going to be a Wonder Woman, The Flash, Cyborg, and Aquaman movie, then Justice League part 1 and then Justice League part 2. Hopefully somewhere down the line they make a stand-alone Batman film with Ben again. Well he is going to be in JL1 and JL2 anyways.

I liked how they combined so many different story ideas from so many different Batman and Superman previous released books/animated movies.... Brilliant!

I don't know why the movie is receiving such NEGATIVE reviews from the critics... Like WOW!
 
FreekinTragedy said:
Yeah it was good if you know nothing about Batman...

I dont know how to do the spoiler thing so if i screw it up im sorry, and this is your warning. SPOILERS!

<spoiler>
Batman never uses guns... EVER! In fact he forbids the entire bat-family from using them, with the exception of Red Hood. His parents were gunned down so it is something he just DOESN'T DO.

Also, Batman NEVER kills. He takes every precaution needed to prevent someone dying as a direct, or even indirect, cause of his actions. Michael Keaton Batman killed with glee, sure, but that was a movie made by a man who never reads comics. Christian Bale Batman never killed, and dismantled any gun he happened across.

These are 2 VERY key elements to the character of Batman. Even video game Batman (speaking specifically of the rocksteady games) does neither of these things.

Likewise, Superman doesn't kill, aside from Doomsday. EVER! Not Zod, not anyone. In fact Superman usually fights his foes as far away from innocent people as possible to avoid collateral damage.

This is the inherent flaw in these movies. That and Jonathan Kent teaching Clark in the first movie NOT to save everyone all the time, as apposed to the lesson from the comics which is accepting that he CAN'T save everyone all the time. 2 VERY different messages.

Sure the movie was well done from a cinematic point of view, well acted for the most part, and very entertaining. Every time i saw Batman use a gun it took me out of it though.

And for anyone questioning who would win in the comics. It has been done. Not just in Frank Miller's books, but in actual canon stories. Batman has neutralized the entire Justice League. Never killed, just proved he can take them out should he need to. Bruce Wayne is such a paranoid psychopath, he has contingency plans for EVERYTHING. I dont have the time or the energy to find the books that it happens in, but believe me, it happens.
</spoiler>

But generally, a good movie.
Click to expand...

Spoiler:
The way people died, indirectly with Batman didn't bother me. Honestly its alright. Kind of like how Bale said it, "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you thing." The way people died during all the violense. Come on, there's going to be casualities. He can't prevent everyone from dying like when some goon fumbles with a grenade or during intense car chases. I thought it was handled well. Though in the comics, this was an overly strict principal in Batman stories, it was cool to see it done this way in this movie.

I liked the part where Batman had to destroy those cars in the batwing in order to save Martha. The look on his face. Or the Knightmare scene, which I'm starting to feel is going to be an actual scene in Justice League. Seemed like he was avoiding killing but had no choice under the circumstances. I think this approach works in these movies. Not that he should ever be encouraged to murder. Its still a rule but as you see in these scenes, is unavoidable which adds a little edge of realism the same way Kal had to kill Zod. (yes, I know many other things are far from realistic :lol:)


[MENTION=4817]MK9[/MENTION]

Maybe Marvel studios are paying off these critics :laugh:

Spoiler:
I think the title is fine, though. I didn't mean that it was a ploy in a bad sense. The title distracts when the movie is about so much more than these guys fighting at one point.

(Side note: I really don't like Marvel aside from X-Men, Blade, and Ghost Rider comics. Dawn of Justice alone made the majority of the Marvel movie making machine look silly.)

Still can't get over how badass it was to see Batman seconds away from actually killing Superman. A testiment to his badassery.
 
Last edited:
I always knew Batman would be the forefront of the movie because his name was in front. Not only that, but every Batman vs Superman storyline has always had Batman be the forefront of the story arc i.e, Dark Knight Returns Pt. 2.
 
Noob-Zer013 said:
Spoiler:
The way people died, indirectly with Batman didn't bother me. Honestly its alright. Kind of like how Bale said it, "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you thing." The way people died during all the violense. Come on, there's going to be casualities. He can't prevent everyone from dying like when some goon fumbles with a grenade or during intense car chases. I thought it was handled well. Though in the comics, this was an overly strict principal in Batman stories, it was cool to see it done this way in this movie.

I liked the part where Batman had to destroy those cars in the batwing in order to save Martha. The look on his face. Or the Knightmare scene, which I'm starting to feel is going to be an actual scene in Justice League. Seemed like he was avoiding killing but had no choice under the circumstances. I think this approach works in these movies. Not that he should ever be encouraged to murder. Its still a rule but as you see in these scenes, is unavoidable which adds a little edge of realism the same way Kal had to kill Zod. (yes, I know many other things are far from realistic :lol:)


[MENTION=4817]MK9[/MENTION]

Maybe Marvel studios are paying off these critics :laugh:

Spoiler:
I think the title is fine, though. I didn't mean that it was a ploy in a bad sense. The title distracts when the movie is about so much more than these guys fighting at one point.

(Side note: I really don't like Marvel aside from X-Men, Blade, and Ghost Rider comics. Dawn of Justice alone made the majority of the Marvel movie making machine look silly.)

Still can't get over how badass it was to see Batman seconds away from actually killing Superman. A testiment to his badassery.
Click to expand...

Yeah to the Bale quote you are correct...
Spoiler:

But he lands the batmobile on one guy's FACE, and uses guns to SHOOT other guys. THAT is direct killing, something the real Batman would never do.

Here is another review:
https://youtu.be/5w7bbujLRy0

Just saying... it was good but not really Batman. Just some really good cosplay. Henry Cavil as Supes is pretty great though. minus the things i said in my previous post.
 
FreekinTragedy said:
Yeah to the Bale quote you are correct...
Spoiler:

But he lands the batmobile on one guy's FACE, and uses guns to SHOOT other guys. THAT is direct killing, something the real Batman would never do.

Here is another review:
https://youtu.be/5w7bbujLRy0

Just saying... it was good but not really Batman. Just some really good cosplay. Henry Cavil as Supes is pretty great though. minus the things i said in my previous post.
Click to expand...

I'll watch these reviews after work.

Spoiler:
I understand how these parts would bother some fans. I still stand by what I said. Batman had to get pass the goon in the car with the mini gun. And him crushing the batmobile on to the other car seemed like another moment where it was either accidental or what he had to do to get to the target.

But I feel like this is a changed Batman like in The Dark Knight Returns. Hopefully, if they make Affleck stand alone Batman films, they will show a Batman before he's changed in to this hardhitting, no screwing around Batman. I think that was one of the points they were making that he had become this after 20 years of fighting crime and losing allies etc. Its just we see him for the first time at this point. Despite all these controversal subjects, this Batman is the greatest in my opinion.
 
Noob-Zer013 said:
Spoiler:
But I feel like this is a changed Batman like in The Dark Knight Returns. Hopefully, if they make Affleck stand alone Batman films, they will show a Batman before he's changed in to this hardhitting, no screwing around Batman. I think that was one of the points they were making that he had become this after 20 years of fighting crime and losing allies etc.
Click to expand...

Spoiler:
That was my feeling on it too.
IMO, it felt like a mix between Dark Knight Returns and Injustice Batman vs Superman (regime Superman soldiers taking down Batman in that dream / vision sequence).
I have no issue with Batman doing what he had to do, for the better good, even if it meant going against his "no kill" rule.
The same goes for Superman killing Zod in MoS.
Had he not killed Zod and stuck to his "no kill" rule, then Zod could put that many more innocent lives in danger.
 
Commander said:
Spoiler:
That was my feeling on it too.
IMO, it felt like a mix between Dark Knight Returns and Injustice Batman vs Superman (regime Superman soldiers taking down Batman in that dream / vision sequence).
I have no issue with Batman doing what he had to do, for the better good, even if it meant going against his "no kill" rule.
The same goes for Superman killing Zod in MoS.
Had he not killed Zod and stuck to his "no kill" rule, then Zod could put that many more innocent lives in danger.
Click to expand...

I agree! i mean come on already, so what if 20 people die to save thousands!....

People with their obsession on Bats "NO KILL" rule... You need to grow up and stop crying! LOL
 
Commander said:
Spoiler:
That was my feeling on it too.
IMO, it felt like a mix between Dark Knight Returns and Injustice Batman vs Superman (regime Superman soldiers taking down Batman in that dream / vision sequence).
I have no issue with Batman doing what he had to do, for the better good, even if it meant going against his "no kill" rule.
The same goes for Superman killing Zod in MoS.
Had he not killed Zod and stuck to his "no kill" rule, then Zod could put that many more innocent lives in danger.
Click to expand...

Spoiler:
I have a theory that the Knightmare scene with the Injustice-ish Superman is actually a vision from the future. As we know, Flash goes back to the past to warn Bruce. Its possible he somehow sent him this vision. I have a feeling this scene will be in the Justice League movie. We see Darkseid's Omega symbol burned in to the earth with an apocalyptic sky. Synder has said that when Superman is reasurected, something goes wrong. So, its possible that this Superman goes Injustice in the Justice League. It also serves as a Bruce's paranoia but this theory has a lot moving in to place.
 
Noob-Zer013 said:
Spoiler:
I have a theory that the Knightmare scene with the Injustice-ish Superman is actually a vision from the future. As we know, Flash goes back to the past to warn Bruce. Its possible he somehow sent him this vision. I have a feeling this scene will be in the Justice League movie. We see Darkseid's Omega symbol burned in to the earth with an apocalyptic sky. Synder has said that when Superman is reasurected, something goes wrong. So, its possible that this Superman goes Injustice in the Justice League. It also serves as a Bruce's paranoia but this theory has a lot moving in to place.
Click to expand...

I couldnt have said it better myself bro! :)
 
Commander said:
Spoiler:
That was my feeling on it too.
IMO, it felt like a mix between Dark Knight Returns and Injustice Batman vs Superman (regime Superman soldiers taking down Batman in that dream / vision sequence).
I have no issue with Batman doing what he had to do, for the better good, even if it meant going against his "no kill" rule.
The same goes for Superman killing Zod in MoS.
Had he not killed Zod and stuck to his "no kill" rule, then Zod could put that many more innocent lives in danger.
Click to expand...

Spoiler:
That's just it, he is friggin SUPERMAN! He could have covered Zod's eyes in the first movie to stop the lazer vision from killing those people. Then figured out a way to send him back to the Phantom Zone.
Having either Batman or Superman kill anyone is lazy writing. It is such an elemental part of both of their characters that to not adhere to it is to bastardize what they stand for.
To Batman the "better good" is not becoming "the enemy", to quote Dark Knight Returns. In that book he made a very public scene of dismantling a gun because it is the "weapon of the enemy" and not something to be used. His parents were killed with guns for crying out loud. And in any good Joker book he usually makes the point that the second he breaks that rule he is no better than the Joker.


It is not a matter of "growing up" and getting over the no kill rule. It is about having standards for a moralistic superhero like Batman and Superman. Their very inception is around the idea that they set an ideal, and stick by it.
This movie would have been so much more interesting if Snyder had just respected the source material, and had not been just trying to be the next Michael Bay...
 
I agree that it's not a matter of "growing up."
Like I said before, though, I have no issue with Batman or Superman doing what they had to do, for the better good, even if it meant going against their "no kill" rule.
Sure, it goes against his morals and standards, but in a sense I put myself in Batman's shoes and I probably would have done the same if those morals and standards weren't working and stuff just kept on getting worse.
It's why I've often been able to relate more with Batman than with Superman, because at least with Batman he's human and I can relate to the human side of him.
Whereas, I never could relate like that to Superman.
Sure, he could have sent him to the Phantom Zone and dealt with him there, but at the moment he did what he thought was necessary to stop this super being from destroying everything.
Would I have liked for them to have stuck to more closely to the comic source? Sure.
Did it break the movie for me? No.
I enjoyed it for what it was, and for the most part I understood WHY characters did certain things.

For me:
Spoiler:
I thought that the fight between Batman and Superman felt forced / shoe-horned and didn't really live up to the title of the movie or The Dark Knight Returns.
Doomsday also felt like a weak plot-device, to me, in the way that they did it.
IMO, we could have had more screen time of Diana being Wonder woman, but she also felt shoe-horned like Venom in Spider-Man 3.

^^^
Aside from those things, though, for the most part, I enjoyed the movie.
I didn't think it was GREAT, but I also didn't think that it was HORRIBLE on the other extreme, either.
 
Last edited:
FreekinTragedy said:
Spoiler:
That's just it, he is friggin SUPERMAN! He could have covered Zod's eyes in the first movie to stop the lazer vision from killing those people. Then figured out a way to send him back to the Phantom Zone.
Having either Batman or Superman kill anyone is lazy writing. It is such an elemental part of both of their characters that to not adhere to it is to bastardize what they stand for.
To Batman the "better good" is not becoming "the enemy", to quote Dark Knight Returns. In that book he made a very public scene of dismantling a gun because it is the "weapon of the enemy" and not something to be used. His parents were killed with guns for crying out loud. And in any good Joker book he usually makes the point that the second he breaks that rule he is no better than the Joker.


It is not a matter of "growing up" and getting over the no kill rule. It is about having standards for a moralistic superhero like Batman and Superman. Their very inception is around the idea that they set an ideal, and stick by it.
This movie would have been so much more interesting if Snyder had just respected the source material, and had not been just trying to be the next Michael Bay...
Click to expand...

He DID respect the source material. Have you not watched Batman: Dark Knight Returns Part 1 and 2? .... anyways Superman goes Evil in the next film when he is ressurected! Whoot whoot
 
I honestly loved this movie. I saw it a second time two days ago and I enjoyed more than the first time I watched it. It's the best superhero movie to date.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top