Built On Too Many Faulty Premises

Rating: 3/10 (25 February 2017)

There is no criticism of "Batman v Superman" that the film or its creators cannot in some way rebuke. All they have to do is point to the box office totals. I get it. However, the money/hype this movie drives shouldn't be confused with the fact that, at its core, it isn't a very good movie at all. It was just brilliantly marketed and captured a wide swath of initial audiences. In dissecting the flick, though, one quickly discovers that it was built on too many faulty premises to succeed.
For a basic plot summary, "B v S" sees Bruce Wayne/Batman (Ben Affleck) substantially angry that Clark Kent/Superman (Henry Cavill) caused so much destruction and collateral damage during his fight with Zod (Michael Shannon) at the end of the previous "Man of Steel" movie. This leads to some serious animosity between the two heroes, with Superman fighting his own battles of conscience while Batman schemes for revenge and justice. Lois Lane (Amy Adams) tries to be a voice of reason, but with Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) whispering into the ear of both Clark & Bruce, the stage is quickly set for a confrontation. On the outside looking in is mysterious newcomer Diane Prince (Gal Gadot), who catches the eye of both men ends up a key player "down the stretch".
Let me start with the one (and only) thing that "B v S" does right: Director Zack Snyder is an "action man", renowned for his ability to choreograph pulse-pounding fights and action sequences up on the big screen. So, the 20-25 minutes where this movie actually shifts into full- on action movie is pretty exciting and epic.
Sadly, that is the only positive thing I took from the experience, as it is built on too many other faulty premises to even take seriously: -For a film that should have played to director Snyder's strong suits, why is so much time spent on character-building (an area where Snyder has no track record whatsoever)? Simply put, this should have been a "Justice League" movie right from the get-go. Instead, it put itself in the awkward position of trying to re-hash many of the old Bat/Supes tropes just because this was the film that was supposed to launch the "DC Universe" (after years of getting smoked by Marvel at the box office). What that means, though, is hours of character development from a director who doesn't know how to do it, leading to a bad situation. -Superman will never work as a "dark" character...it just isn't what the character was intended to be. You can't just copy-and-paste the Batman backstory onto Superman just because Christopher Nolan did it so well with Batman in his trilogy. This was readily apparent in "Man of Steel" and nothing has changed here. -So much of this film is set up for a Batman vs. Superman confrontation that will ultimately end in disappointment. There's a reason why this hasn't been tried on the big screen until now...because dramatically it just doesn't work. Too many predictability issues. Not helping matters is the fact that this sequence of the film ends with one of the lamest, most see-through "revelations" that I have ever seen on screen. -Eisenberg may be a decent Luthor...but most certainly not for this movie. I mean, why is he young when the entire rest of the universe is supposed to be older? It doesn't make sense in terms of story.
Basically, here is what I think happened with "B v S": "Man of Steel" was just successful enough that Warner Brothers didn't want to upset the apple cart by changing directors. So, they stuck with Snyder even if it meant sacrificing story/characters going forward. To WB, it was strictly a financial investment, as they didn't want to start back at square one in their pursuit of Marvel. So, they stuck it out with Snyder and (at least on the surface) seemed to create a movie (at least based on the trailers) that would play to his strengths (action/fight scenes). Tease an epic confrontation, tease Wonder Woman, tease Justice League, and cut some great trailers to build hype. But when one gets down to "brass tacks", you find a film that didn't take any risks or bring anything new to the table. It had the perfect setup to be a big financial success, and the entire project was comfortable being exactly that, as if the bean-counters had more input into this film's construction then the creative people.
Like I said at the beginning of this review, however, "Batman vs Superman" will be considered a success for Warner Brothers just for the sheer monetary numbers it will pull in. I can't argue with that line of thinking, and let's face it: I knew I probably wouldn't like this one (I didn't too much care for "Man of Steel"), but I felt like I had to see it. As a longtime fan of Batman and Superman, it felt wrong to just "not go". My point is this: Let's not confuse financial success with creative success in the analysis of this movie. There are many other things and situations that go into selling movie tickets that are far beyond "how good the movie is". This film pulled out all the stops in that regard. That still doesn't make it a good movie.
I'd give "B v S" 1.5 stars if I could (I save 1-star rankings for films that truly are abominations...although I considered it here). It scoots by on the bare minimum of creative storytelling or character development, instead letting its own "hype machine" determine its overall success. Fool me once, WB ("Man of Steel"), shame on you. Fool me twice ("B v S"), shame on me. Despite a mild fascination with the upcoming "Suicide Squad", I will definitely be skipping out on any further Justice League films with Snyder at the helm.