Loud, inane, violent, crude garbage that spits in the faces of fans

Rating: 2/10 (29 March 2016)

Spoilers in general tone and a few details that you already know if you've seen the trailers; just not taking any chances after that warning up top.
----
The Batman character portrayed here might as well be the love child of Donald Trump and Dick Cheney, on bad meth. And that's probably the kindest thing anyone can say about him.
This IS NOT a dig against Ben Affleck, who spends well over two hours utterly convincing us of the way Batman sees himself, the world, and particularly one Superman, revealed in time to be Clark Kent. Henry Cavill's Kent/Superman feels very familiar to his fans; if you could see the character you grew up with while watching Cavill in Man of Steel, then you'll have few qualms about his portrayal here. He's the quintessential straight arrow who's learned the hard way that not everybody always plays by the rules, even the "good guys", but he's not letting that stop him.
Batman, on the other handwhere to start? The old Batman, up to and generally including the Christopher Nolan epic cycle, is all about bringing the Bad Folks (Guys and Gals) to lawful justice. It's REALLY hard to do that if they're dead. Yes, he's deeply shaken by losing people in the attack of General Zod on Gotham City, which chillingly, and in the mind of this survivor gratuitously, evokes detailed comparison to the effects of the 9/11 attacks on New York. The new Bruce Wayne is different than the Bruce Wayne of old in other important ways as well; he takes an explicitly vengeful, hysterical response to the childhood death of his parents, leading him to say things like "if there's the merest shadow of a chance this guy (Superman) could do that (destroy everyone on Earth with his superpowers), then I HAVE to TAKE HIM OUT!" The fan mind quails at trying to place those words in the mouth of Christian Bale's/Christopher Nolan's Batman, and utterly fails.
The violence is uniformly, lethally, over-the-top; Batman's stealth, cunning, and inventiveness in crafting effective yet non-lethal weapons has been jettisoned in favour of Shock And Awe At All Costs. And, like the Americans' military version of same, it comes to have severe, almost terminal blowback — which he grudgingly acknowledges at the very end of the film, far too late to do anything about it save through the Magic of Hollywood.
Because, underlying everything, this is what it is: a cynical, exploitative, crude commercial cash grab. There are, or will be, games on your computer and online. There are, or will be, theme park attractions calculated to sell lots of extra-price admission tickets, souvenirs, and other merchandising tie-ins. There will be sequels for as long as there is money to make them.
Not all is gloom and doom. Laurence Fishburne as Perry White will delight and motivate fans of Fishburne in the scant few minutes his very human Perry White is on screen. Diane Lane as Martha Kent isn't given any great lines, but she does her considerable best to add a third dimension to what was clearly written as a near-cardboard character, despite having been defined so clearly for so long. Gal Gadot as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman is someone I'll be keeping an eye out for any other opportunities I have to watch her work; she gets better lines than Diana Lane does, and action as well, and she makes the awesome look nearly effortless; you soon stop seeing the actress rather than the character.
And it was absolutely delicious to see Jesse Eisenberg, an actor whom I had grown to generally loathe, taking on the role of Lex Luthor and playing him the way he always should have been played — as a spoiled brat of a megalomaniac who just HAS to control everything he can think of — and he has a depressingly amazing imagination. Mr Eisenberg, your agent has no doubt been telling you for years that you'd do much better as the unsympathetic Bad Guy cartoon character. This role should have taught you not only that he (your agent) is a very wise man, but that playing these roles is several hells of a lot more fun than, say, Mark Zuckerberg.or J Daniel Atlas. You're also that much better at them.
Should you see it? If you're a strong, traditional Batman fan, the answer is an emphatic "NO; run away; run screaming away". If you're in love with any incarnation of Superman from 1933 to 2013, the answer is a qualified "maybe, but you're going to have to see this AND THE NEXT MOVIE to see Your Guy look good". Those hoping to see the Justice League form, way too early in this timeline, will be tantalised but ultimately disappointed. Above all, the superpower most on display is the one that empties your wallet and your aspirations.