Movies
‘Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice’ — an incoherent letdown
It tried to give us so much in its two and a half hour runtime that it’s just a giant mess all over the place.
“Batman v. Superman is ultimately a film that fundamentally misunderstands its characters and could do with a lot of restructuring. It does have its moments, but not enough of them to redeem the whole.” ★★☆☆☆ — By Janin Volante
When you imagine two of the biggest superheroes ever created clashing in a fight both physical and ideological, you expect it to be nothing short of great. This is what Zack Snyder’s Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice tries to achieve, but sadly, the film lands nowhere near great and left this moviegoer exiting the theater disappointed.
Granted, the film had tall burdens: it was supposed to set up the next stage in the DC Extended Universe by introducing the future members of the Justice League, show the first big screen outing of DC’s so called “Trinity,” and of course give justice to the hyped up fight between Batman and Superman. Unfortunately, the movie collapses under the weight of its ambitions mostly due to incohesive storytelling, shallow characterization, and over the top acting from some key players. And despite the presence of Wonder Woman, this film also treats its female characters pretty badly.
Dawn of Justice bombards its audience with a dreary and seemingly endless exposition, jumping from one scene to another, never establishing any semblance of coherence and ends with two consecutive battles, which admittedly can be called visual spectacles. But that’s the problem, they’re just that — visual spectacles that feel dead behind the eyes.
The story opens on the aftermath of Man of Steel (2013), showing the massive destruction caused by the final battle between General Zod and Superman. In its wake, public opinion about the hero’s presence on Earth is divided. There are those who think the Kryptonian is a benevolent protector and should continue his crusade, while others believe that he and his alien powers could pose an unparalleled threat to humanity if he goes rogue, and want him to hang up the cape.
One of these detractors is Bruce Wayne a.k.a. Batman. He witnessed Wayne Tower collapsing with numerous employees inside it during said fight. There is certainly reason for revenge, but mostly the Knight of Gotham is motivated by the principle that such power from this mysterious being should not go unchecked. Then there are the not so subtle hints of the furious envy he has of the other hero’s powers.
On the other hand, Superman as his journalist alter ego Clark Kent has been following current events one city over. News of Batman killing criminals and branding them with the Bat-logo has the him reasonably mistrusting his vigilantism in Gotham.
Frankly, I feel like this premise is too simplistic. It’s basically just two very entitled men who feel like the other is too powerful to go unchecked. It’s like the alpha male dog trying to threaten anyone encroaching on his territory. This lack of compelling motivation is why the grand finale battles don’t have the gravity they’re aiming for. The most ridiculous part though is that the way the moviemakers decide to resolve the conflict between the two titular characters feels so contrived a coincidence it feels like a parody.
A noticeable issue in this movie is how structurally messy it is. It jumps from scene to scene back and forth, never developing a rhythm. Scenes with wildly different pacings and tones are knitted consecutively with each other in way that will simply give you whiplash, akin to being on a bumpy and jolting ride with a reckless driver. The numerous subplots felt like five movies unceremoniously squashed together into one. Call me a purist, but a good story should have cohesion and above all, make sense. It should have all its parts working towards a central theme.
The characterizations of well-loved DC Comics personas in Dawn of Justice lacked the much needed depth and verge into unfaithful. The fact that Batman now willingly kills his enemies justifiably puts many fans ill at ease. While it’s not unprecedented in the comics for the Caped Crusader to kill, he is very rarely depicted in this way, simply because it does make it a lot harder to root for a hero who doesn’t value human life and because it’s just not something not in the essence of the character.
Zack Snyder deconstructing the Batman persona isn’t necessarily something that could have never worked, because it could have made a lot of sense in the world he was building for the hero to be darker and grittier. The role Ben Affleck stepped into is someone older, a lot more jaded and hurt than the previous incarnations, what with his sidekick Robin implicitly killed by the Joker. Two things do irk me about this though. First, they show him killing without any inkling of remorse or moral dilemma. Second is this could have made for good character development, but they never really touch on it except in passing. When Jeremy Iron’s Alfred the butler, whose sarcastic and snarky portrayal is great by the way, warns Bruce that “the fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness, it turns good men cruel,” it lays groundwork for the screenwriters to examine this character and give him pathos. However, it seems that this profound line was just a throwaway.
Superman, a character meant to be hopeful and inspiring, spends the entire movie brooding, which all this time everyone thought was Batman’s signature descriptor, not his. While the subplot of Clark Kent attempting to expose the Gotham vigilante through journalism was a nice thread to the story, everything about this incarnation of Superman is just uninteresting.
Rounding out the badly characterized, we have Lex Luthor, a role that also happens to be badly acted. The Lex we get is cartoonish and hyperactive, making him stick out like a sore thumb in the somber and dark tone of the film. It’s as if Jesse Eisenberg was told to play an overcaffeinated evil Mark Zuckerberg. On top of that, it’s really dodgy how it never becomes clear why the villain wants Superman and Batman to fight to the death. He just gives us vague one-liners and rambling notions.
Arguably, Wonder Woman was the best part of this movie. She was a breath of fresh air in a testosterone filled haze of bad writing. You just can’t help but cheer when she swoops into the fight. Despite being amazing in battle, story-wise she wasn’t given the chance to shine. She had very few scenes and wasn’t characterized very much outside her superhero identity. The Amazonian warrior deserved better.
Other women in the cast were set up to have important roles in the story. For Lois Lane that was to expose a government conspiracy; for Senator June Finch it was to prevent Lex Luthor arm-twisting the state; and Martha Kent was there to jolt her son into perspective. Unfortunately, two of these female characters’ plots are hampered in the end when the movie puts them in the antiquated damsel in distress situation, while the writers just completely do away with the other one. It’s frankly insulting.
Batman v. Superman is ultimately a film that fundamentally misunderstands its characters and could do with a lot of restructuring. It tries to give us so much in its two and a half hour runtime that it’s just a giant mess all over the place. It does have its moments, but not enough of them to redeem the whole. Hopefully, those in charge of future DCEU movies slated to hit the big screen soon learn from these mistakes. ■ By Janin Volante
Watch the trailer here:
