Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Debacle

Rating: 1/10 (1 July 2016)

Spoiler dodging will make this harder, so be warned I might drop one or two, but if you have any sense you'll hunt down the spoilers and avoid the movie.
Okay, so where did they go wrong?
They tried to fit so much story into the movie that none of it was realised. Introducing a new take on Lex Luthor, this time as a smart crazy teen, while also introducing a new Batman (Ben Affleck) at a later stage in his life and changing the core aspect of Batman's history, while introducing Wonder Woman, while putting in hints for the next movie while having Superman lose the trust of the people; I can see why the extended cut is over 3 hours long, but:
1. The characters got no development. Batman was two dimensional and the writers seemed to be relying on prior knowledge of the DC Universe to fill the character out (all the characters, really)but then made so many inappropriate changes that anyone who did know the universe would have been put off by the concept. For audience members that had no prior knowledge, the lack of character development would leave those poor souls guessing.
2. While I was concerned about Ben Affleck being cast as Batman I will be fair and objective; there was so little in the script that in any way 'read' like Batman, and there was so very little for Affleck (or any of the actors) to work with in the script, that it is impossible to judge his performance. His performance did seem somewhat wooden, but when the script is a metaphorical plank, perhaps wooden is all you can give.
3.Wonder Woman was unidentifiable as Wonder Woman unless you knew either a) that she was going to be in the movie or b) you had the prior universe knowledge I mentioned earlier, and most likely c) both of these factors. And I can't speak too much about the casting, but I think they said, "get me a brunette with an accent or who can do an accent." She may be a good actor (I haven't seen her in anything else so I don't know), but not for this role. Her two dimensional performance can once again be put down to the one dimensional script (congrats to all the actors for finding a second dimension in that morass).
4. Lex Luthor came across more like the Joker. A rich, spoiled, childish brat of a Joker. Imagine everything Luthor is supposed to be then throw away everything except 'smart'. Not a genius, just 'smart'.
5. Because of the convoluted, rushed, weak, and ill-conceived nature of the story, the concept and the script, Jeremy Irons was wasted. Enough said.
Ultimately, I got the feeling from this movie that Warner Brothers were trying desperately to play catch-up with Marvel. What Marvel did over five movies in the lead up to 'Avengers', Warner Brothers tried to do in one. It could have been done over three movies (on top of 'Man of Steel') or perhaps even two if they decided not muck about and used Grant Gustin as Flash and Stephen Amell as the Green Arrow. Or they could have decided to play it smart, do it over five movies, like Marvel, but giving it a uniquely DC look, instead of leaving the DC look out of it, as they did here.
I was going to wax poetic about the screenwriters, but as I write this review I find myself thinking that they probably had every producer, accountant and executive at WB in their offices every other day, telling them how to do their jobs.
Good points? Amy Adams and her portrayal of Lois Lane. She had the only character that was even slightly accurate, and she managed to realise her character effectively. The only other positive I can think of is the closing credits – they rolled, just three and a half hours too late.