Just how bad is "Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice?" "Batman & Robin" was a better Batman movie. "Superman Returns" was a better Superman movie. "Daredevil" was a better super hero movie starring Ben Affleck. "Waterworld" was a better movie featuring Kevin Costner.
Those movies were all misguided messes, but at least I found them entertaining the first time I watched them, which is more than I can say for the joyless two and a half hour drag that is BvS.
Can Ben Affleck pull off Batman? That's been one of the big questions on everyone's mind since he was cast. He can and he does. While I wouldn't call him the best actor to ever dawn the cowl, he's suitably intense and brooding. If the movie was cut down to just Affleck's scenes, it still wouldn't be good, but it would at least be watchable. As for another questionable casting choice that pays off, Jeremy Irons' performance as Batman's faithful butler Alfred Pennyworth is pitch-perfect. Despite normally being associated with villainous roles, Irons' Alfred is the film's biggest bright spot. But this is far from the only terrible movie Jeremy Irons has been the only bright spot in.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor. Great actors like Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey have chewed their way through the scenery in the role before, but Jesse Eisenberg takes it to a whole new level of over the top. From adopting a Southern accent to quote "A Streetcar Named Desire," to sharing a Jolly Rancher with a hapless Senator, to a mumbling Paul Revere impersonation, Eisenberg seems to be channeling the Joker rather than Superman's cerebral foe. There's such a thing as a villain that audiences are supposed to love to hate, but Lex Luthor had me wanting to walk up to the movie screen and punch it for all the wrong reasons. And the explanation for how the character goes from flowing locks to his iconic chrome dome had me scratching my own scalp.
The other performances are about what you'd expect. Henry Cavill fares just as well as Superman as he did in Zack Snyder's "Man of Steel." Gal Gadot, Ray Fisher, Ezra Miller, and Jason Momoa get too little screen time to make much of an impression as the other members of the Justice League.
But the movie's flaws go much deeper than the casting. BvS seems like it's trying too hard to be the antithesis to Disney's breezy Marvel Cinematic Universe. While those movies make comic book adaptations fun and enjoyable for mainstream audiences, BvS sucks all the fun out of the room. That's not to say that the film shouldn't be dark and gritty. But even Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns," the graphic novel BvS takes most of its plot cues from, had its own warped sense of humor, and Heath Ledger's Joker and Tom Hardy's Bane had audiences laughing at, and still quoting, their darkly humorous quips throughout Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.
The plot finds Superman suspected of war crimes after once again flying heedlessly to the rescue of damsel in distress Lois Lane. Meanwhile, mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent is appalled that the vigilante Batman in Gotham City has taken to branding the criminals he takes down, marking them for prison justice. Even for an alien that has only been on Earth for two years, it seems crazy that he would think he can curb Batman's brutal methods twenty years after the Bat Signal's been installed.
The two characters spend two hours dramatically circling each other before finally throwing down in an anticlimactic fist fight. (Batman seriously punches Superman in the chin several times before realizing the Man of Steel won't flinch.) And even with the slow crawl to the battle, it seems like key scenes had to be edited for time. With all the plot holes, it's hard to understand why Bats and Supes are finally fighting, or why we should care who wins. Or why so much time that could have been spent developing the plot was wasted on dream sequences.
Those movies were all misguided messes, but at least I found them entertaining the first time I watched them, which is more than I can say for the joyless two and a half hour drag that is BvS.
Can Ben Affleck pull off Batman? That's been one of the big questions on everyone's mind since he was cast. He can and he does. While I wouldn't call him the best actor to ever dawn the cowl, he's suitably intense and brooding. If the movie was cut down to just Affleck's scenes, it still wouldn't be good, but it would at least be watchable. As for another questionable casting choice that pays off, Jeremy Irons' performance as Batman's faithful butler Alfred Pennyworth is pitch-perfect. Despite normally being associated with villainous roles, Irons' Alfred is the film's biggest bright spot. But this is far from the only terrible movie Jeremy Irons has been the only bright spot in.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor. Great actors like Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey have chewed their way through the scenery in the role before, but Jesse Eisenberg takes it to a whole new level of over the top. From adopting a Southern accent to quote "A Streetcar Named Desire," to sharing a Jolly Rancher with a hapless Senator, to a mumbling Paul Revere impersonation, Eisenberg seems to be channeling the Joker rather than Superman's cerebral foe. There's such a thing as a villain that audiences are supposed to love to hate, but Lex Luthor had me wanting to walk up to the movie screen and punch it for all the wrong reasons. And the explanation for how the character goes from flowing locks to his iconic chrome dome had me scratching my own scalp.
The other performances are about what you'd expect. Henry Cavill fares just as well as Superman as he did in Zack Snyder's "Man of Steel." Gal Gadot, Ray Fisher, Ezra Miller, and Jason Momoa get too little screen time to make much of an impression as the other members of the Justice League.
But the movie's flaws go much deeper than the casting. BvS seems like it's trying too hard to be the antithesis to Disney's breezy Marvel Cinematic Universe. While those movies make comic book adaptations fun and enjoyable for mainstream audiences, BvS sucks all the fun out of the room. That's not to say that the film shouldn't be dark and gritty. But even Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns," the graphic novel BvS takes most of its plot cues from, had its own warped sense of humor, and Heath Ledger's Joker and Tom Hardy's Bane had audiences laughing at, and still quoting, their darkly humorous quips throughout Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.
The plot finds Superman suspected of war crimes after once again flying heedlessly to the rescue of damsel in distress Lois Lane. Meanwhile, mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent is appalled that the vigilante Batman in Gotham City has taken to branding the criminals he takes down, marking them for prison justice. Even for an alien that has only been on Earth for two years, it seems crazy that he would think he can curb Batman's brutal methods twenty years after the Bat Signal's been installed.
The two characters spend two hours dramatically circling each other before finally throwing down in an anticlimactic fist fight. (Batman seriously punches Superman in the chin several times before realizing the Man of Steel won't flinch.) And even with the slow crawl to the battle, it seems like key scenes had to be edited for time. With all the plot holes, it's hard to understand why Bats and Supes are finally fighting, or why we should care who wins. Or why so much time that could have been spent developing the plot was wasted on dream sequences.