It's entertaining! Why aren't the reviewers liking it?

Rating: 9/10 (23 March 2016)

Just got home from seeing this, i was really worried after reading the professional reviews, was even a bit disappointed. Concerning the directing, they had their point, the first act suffered from bad pacing but after that it started to flow good when the story concentrated on one path, instead of showing multiple plot lines, which to my eyes is the main cause of jumping from situation to situation since time is limited.
Actors we're good, Ben Affleck really is the Batman, and Bruce Wayne. Jeremy Irons handled Alfred well, i would have liked to see him more though. Jesse Eisenberg seemed to take a page out of Heath Ledgers book with Lex's manners and talking style. It did fit yes, but still, felt somehow strange. It was a good performance, i don't mean that. Just, a bit too familiar.
Overall the plot was good, it wasn't great, mind-blowingly clever or anything like that, but it was deeper than usually in superhero movies. Thinking about it afterwards, it's the same problem that i had with The Dark Knight Rises: For the plot to work better, we'd need more time, but 2,5 hours is already a massive movie, and there wasn't useless scenes almost at all imo, i liked to watch the drama.
Like my gf said after the movie:"If you want light-hearted entertainment, choose Marvel. If you want more serious and mature, choose DC for that".
So yes, disregard the first professional reviews, only valid point they had is the directing, and that's only at the first third of the movie. go watch this, enjoy a darker than usual superhero story and hope we will get a sequel maintaining the more mature attitude.