It takes close to an hour and a half before the Dark Knight of Gotham and the Man of Steel face off for the first time. In fact, there are only two scenes in the entire two and a half hour spectacle that is actually true to “Batman v. Superman” where the two titular characters fight each other. In some ways, it is a relief that the movie is not quite as dumbed-down as originally expected. There was fear, at least on my part, that Warner Bros. and DC had essentially just promoted a rock-em, sock-em match that gets high off its own destruction. Sure, maybe that does happen a little, but we’ll get to that later.
“Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice” (known as “Batman v. Superman” from here on out) is such poorly guided film, if only for its lack of focus and attempt to accomplish so much. It’s part Batman reboot, part “Man of Steel” sequel, as well as, part set-up for an eventual “Justice League” movie. As many already know, “Batman v Superman” marks Warner Bros. attempt to create an expanded comic universe from the DC canon that they own the rights to, hopefully re-creating the same formula that has made Disney and Marvel’s partnership so successful.
Later on this year, we will get “Suicide Squad” as part of this universe, as well as a “Wonder Woman” movie next year. The starting point for this venture has of course been Zack Snyder’s dark and overly serious Superman reboot, “Man of Steel;” a movie that was as divisive among comic aficionados as it was general movie goers. Snyder has returned for this film and is set to direct the upcoming “Justice League” movie as well. Yet, as much as Snyder may be a comic fanboy, his shortcomings as a director are often what gets in the way of this film.
Snyder begins the movie with a sequence meant to play upon a common complaint raised in his previous Superman movie. What many pointed out in “Man of Steel” was overabundance of destruction and civilian casualties left in the wake of Superman’s face-off with the evil General Zod. The climax in particular drew many comparisons to the September 11th attacks in New York and set off a conversation about the use of 9/11 style imagery in modern day blockbusters. In “Batman v. Superman” we see Bruce Wayne rush through the streets of Metropolis as buildings crumble and blankets of ash fill the streets. He frantically calls a co-worker in the city’s Wayne Enterprises building and watches in horror as the tower is reduced to a pile of rubble because of Superman’s tussle, with hundreds of employees killed in the process.
It’s this moment that sparks a rage within Wayne; one culminated by the fear of what kind of horror could be inflicted upon the world as a result of Superman. Here lies probably the movie’s most fascinating idea, as for a bulk of its first half, “Batman v. Superman” wrestles with the idea of Superman as a controversial world figure. While some view him as a Christ-like savior of humanity, others see him as a threat, one that refuses to answer to the consequences of his own actions and needs to be put in check. Among this second group includes a Kentucky Senator played by Holly Hunt and, most notably, the most famous villain in Superman lore, Lex Luthor.
Luthor, played this time by Jesse Eisenberg, wants the Senator to allow for the entrance of a large sum of krytptonite, discovered near a wrecked spaceship from “Man of Steel,” into the country so that he can forge a weapon to destroy Superman. Sadly, Eisenberg might be the weakest performance in the movie. Like Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey before him, Eisenberg goes as over-the-top as possible in his portrayal of the maniacal billionaire. The only problem is that everyone else around him, including the movie itself, is being deathly serious. In turn, Luthor comes across as less menacing than he does simply annoying. His diabolical plan to destroy Superman, involving the creation of a mutated creature with Kryptonian powers, only becomes more and more ridiculous as the movie rolls on.
As for the Man of Steel himself, Superman spends most of the movie weighed down by the pressure of being the worlds protector, though one not everyone necessarily wants. When he catches wind of Batman, he is rattled by what he sees as a “one man reign of terror” on the city of Gotham. Superman finds Batman’s methods to be unsound and attempts both to criticize those methods as Daily Planet reporter Clark Kent and physically stop the vigilante using his powers. Actor Henry Cavill continues to do fine work as Superman, but after seeing just how charismatic he could be in “The Man from U.N.C.L.E,” you walk away wishing that the film had allowed some of that to charisma to come through, instead of forcing him to walk through each scene with a clenched jaw.
And speaking of clenched jaws, Ben Affleck (a.k.a Batfleck) manages to be surprisingly good as the Dark Knight, somewhere beneath Christian Bale and Michael Keaton but drastically better than George Clooney or Val Kilmer. While Snyder’s take on Batman may not be as in depth as the one brought by Christopher Nolan, Affleck does manage to find a sense of sorrow and weariness in the character that actually works. Yet, most of what makes this Batman interesting comes from author Frank Miller, who helmed the famous “The Dark Knight Returns” comic series in the mid ’80s. Miller’s series was meant to be a rebranding of the character, bringing back the darker tone and feel forged in before the campy ’60s TV series.
The Batman featured in “The Dark Knight Returns” was a decidedly older and more morally grey version of the character, with a hulking body and far more aggressive fighting style. Snyder has clearly taken inspiration for his version of Batman and has even borrowed the same climatic fight between Batman, geared up in Iron Man-like armor, and Superman. The only difference being that Snyder loses much of the political satire and commentary that Miller was exploring within the comic. Yet, therein lies part of the problem, as Snyder is a director of style-over-substance. He wants to direct big, thunderous action sequences with people being thrown from one end of the room to the next and set pieces smashed to smithereens.
Snyder’s most successful work, “300” and his remake of “Dawn of the Dead,” are the ones that lend themselves to a constant barrage of violence and destruction. In his adaptation of Allen Moore’s graphic novel “Watchmen,” he continuously wrestles with having to delve into Moore’s dense source material and wanting to indulge in moments of over-the-top ultraviolence. In “Batman v. Superman,” we see Snyder deal with a similar issue. He has some interesting ideas to play with regarding these two characters but is more concerned with watching them beat each other to a pulp instead.
The film’s darkness also lacks any kind of real point. DC obviously wants to separate themselves from the generally lighter Marvel movies, but Snyder is no Nolan. Yes, Nolan did prove that you could tell these comic stories in a serious manner, without them coming across as ludicrous or silly. Yet, there was a purpose to that darkness. Nolan wanted to explore the inner psyche of Batman as well as the ethical dilemma of vigilanteism and how that could all fit into a world where domestic terrorism is an all too real threat. Snyder just wants to be dark for the sake of being dark. Perhaps he feels that telling a superhero story this way gives it some weight, when really that weight is dependent on the substance injected in it.
But enough about Snyder, the movie’s real problem is its screenplay. There are so many characters with so many subplots that everything feels like a sporadic mess. Many top-notch actors make appearances including Jeremy Irons as Alfred (quite good), Diane Lane as Martha Kent (quite forgettable), Lawrence Fishburne as Perry White and Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Adams might be the most misused of all of them. She is a great actress, but for the second time, she’s been reduced to nothing but a damsel in distress, something for Superman to come save. The one side character that does make quite an impact is Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. She isn’t given a whole lot to do, but there’s something captivating about watching her forge a character that has never made it to the big screen prior to this.
More than anything, the movie needs a good edit. It currently runs at roughly two and a half hours, with an R-rated extended cut apparently on the way. Some scenes take the time to spell-out already commonly known information, such as yet another sequence depicting the murder of Bruce Wayne’s parents. Others are there just to set-up the already in development “Justice League” movie, or even worse, disrupt the whole flow of the film. A scene of Superman seeing a vision of Pa Kent (Kevin Costner) brings the movie to a halt while Batman’s various nightmares add little, if anything, to the actual character.
Other factors at play can, unfortunately, not be explained due to restraint on spoilers. If you know that DC has plans to use these characters again, the ending will seem quite pointless and if you were hoping that cartoonish looking Doomsday in the trailer would look cooler in the actual movie, you’ll be sorrily disappointed. “Batman v. Superman” is not a failure by any means, some sequences actually do provide a heaping dose of pop escapism, but its ambition to tackle so much story, as well as, the misguided agenda of its director make for an experience that is mediocre as opposed to great.
3/5
Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures