The foundation of a franchise without being a standalone film.

Rating: 4/10 (4 September 2016)

Regardless of subjective skepticism on various levels; the divisive reception of the previous installment "Man of Steel", the expansion of a franchise hinting at subsequent stand alone films,the initial reviews, consisting of mixed to negative from critics and a more favorable reception from general movie goers, in addition to the simplicity of being its on self contained narrative; I still had the intention of viewing this film from a rational and overall optimistic outlook before I made any generalisations.
But after watching the film and validating both good and flawed aspects, skepticism prior to the viewing is exactly what prevented it from being a disappointment, as on a basic verdict, it was exactly how I expected it to be, an incoherent, convoluted and forced attempt at setting the first steps of a larger universe without establishing intrigue or investment.
The movie is not without its redeeming qualities.
The representation of some of the comic book counterparts was done effectively. Ben Affleck's depiction of the titular role managed to prevail over the controversial casting decision to deliver a strong performance on both personas as Bruce Wayne and Batman.
With the origin less emphasised and more implied to interpretation, the characterisation of Batman was done well for the most part, but would have been more effective in a more coherent premise.
The MAJORITY of the supporting actors also manage to convey strong performances, notably Jeremy Iron's portrayal of Alfred and the feature length debut of Wonder Woman by Gal Gadot.
Their presence in the film, while few and far between in terms of adequate screen time and and character interactions, still provided for intrigue that hopefully will be depicted more in depth in the subsequent installments.
Unfortunately, aside from visually stunning cinematography, the unique stylistic look present in all of Zack Snyder's previous directorial efforts and the majority of the action sequences, at this point I am done elaborating on the positive aspects.
The few redeeming aspects in the film are hardly enough to compensate or for me to overlook a cluttered plot, disjointed pacing, underdeveloped character motives, lazily shoe-horned in Justice League set ups and overall a movie that feels dull, hollow and at its lowest moments the last term I want to describe a film- boring.
For the majority of the film's run-time, there are evident attempts at being dark and realistic, which would have worked if not for the tonally inconsistent moments.
The impact of a dark depiction of the source material was reduced significantly with the inclusion of Eiseberg's portrayal of Lex Luthor.
Not only did his on screen presence feel forced an out of place, not only was he an underwhelming and pathetic antagonist, but his comic relief hardly compensated for the absence of genuine humour and likability that the movie was seriously devoid of, ruining any sense of escapism.
As for Eisenberg's performance, while forced and at its worst making supposedly pivotal moments laughable and contrived, even a superior casting choice such as Bryan Cranston or Mark Strong wouldn't have made the humorous and insane depiction of Lex believable. They only would have benefited the role if the screen writing had portrayed how Lex was established in the comics and previous material, calculating and intelligent. (I am aware he is Lex Luthor Jr,but that was still an unnecessary approach for the character)
"Man of Steel" was flawed and inherited the same problems as this film, but at least it felt stand alone. There was no concern over further installments and had the intention of emphasising the perspective of just one character. This film prioritises the expansion of an entire franchise, ensuring installments for various pre-established characters of the DC mythos, and because of this the screen writing glosses over something as simplistic as a basic premise and coherent characterisation from the two titular characters.
The Justice League set ups via the email gave that very implication. There is no intrigue or anticipation for the next steps of the franchise when no appeal or reason to be invested have been illustrated sufficiently.
The political evaluation of Superman's actions was necessary, but gradually became overly emphasised with more focus on exposition and less emphasis on why the publicity and the world were against him.
Henry Cavill delivers a solid second on screen performance as Superman/Clark Kent, but his characterisation and interaction with Batman was weak and not fleshed out. He had no real reason to oppose Batman's ideals and his reason for the confrontation was cliché and lacked tension.
The brief fight sequence with Batman at the climax of the film was initially enthralling, but their overall confrontation was redundant.
With their lack of prior interaction, there was no emotional implication to be engaged with the outcome of the fight sequence.
The resolution of the fight, after the controversially cliché "MARTHA!" scene, felt rushed and forced.
Batman and Superman's lack of interaction was the most disappointing aspect of the film, with their eventual union feeling underdeveloped.
But the unnecessary climax of the film was the decision of killing Superman off. Had he been explored with more depth, there would have been some emotional weight to the scene.
But his supposed death seemed less like a bold decision and more like a plot device for setting up the Justice League.
In addition, the movie backs away from the concept with the final shot implying the dirt rising from the coffin. It was hardly subtle, as it couldn't be any more evident Superman is alive.
Overall, aside from its under-cooked narrative and forced approach to adapt the source material, this movie does not even feel like a genuinely entertaining popcorn flick.
As a final verdict, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a horrendous and boring 2 and a half hours.