Mass media critics are WRONG.

Rating: 10/10 (27 March 2016)

First things first; dear producers, NO ONE wants to watch Martha and Thomas Wayne die AGAIN. We KNOW that little Brucey fell into the proverbial"Lassie's well" and became traumatised by bats. We've seen it countless times. HOWEVER; despite being reminded of all of that REPEATEDLY, these first few little details were fantastically and vividly detailed, to the point where pearls dropping were singularly focused upon. You actually SEE the light go out in Martha's eye.I was a little confused by the bats lifting Bruce into the 'light' as though they were somehow saving him. On reflection, I understand now that it was a metaphor explained away by the simple Affleck one liner "in the dream" which foreshadows a later confusion I had concerning another dream sequence(in an apparent post-apocalyptic future by the way), which given the lack of warning did not make much sense until after Bruce woke up at his computer. Someone needs to stop drinking coffee and fueling their traumatised, insomnia driven anxiety. In all, I came out of the movie massively impressed. The last time I had come out of a movie so stunned by the magic of cinematography, CGI and acting was when I went to see 300. I was blown away then, and I was blown away by this. This was a new level of superhero action movie. Having expected to have to 'switch off' my brain as I generally feel I need to with mindless action films and superhero movies, I was pleasantly surprised to be fully engaged throughout. There wasn't one point where I got fidgety and restless; because I was so visually captivated, and in a few instances actually on the edge of my seat. Doomsday; When Lord of the Rings showed us the creation of Uruk-Hai, they probably didn't imagine it being done better, or on a larger scale; but Doomsday squashed that belief with ease. It was easy to understand why they needed two superheroes and a very well trained, gadget loving vigilante to defeat him. Making something powerful and believable enough to be a match for Superman alone can be a difficult task, but this was wonderfully well executed. It made the CGI cave trolls from LOTR look like Ardman creations. When I first heard that Jesse Eisenberg was portraying Lex Luthor, I laughed. Previously, I had only ever seen him play those silly geeky roles like Columbus in Zombieland. After being forced to see The Social Network under duress however, I could kind of see it was a good choice, but was still a little dubious. Eisenberg's portrayal of Luthor was nothing short of brilliant. ANYONE who merely suggests that the character Jesse manages somehow to channel is not a maniacal psychopath needs to re-read the definition of those two perfectly descriptive words. It. Was. Genius. From the little twitches in his facial features, to the almost struggled attempt to mask his insanity from speeches given throughout; from the hand gestures representing a man who is struggling to organise the thoughts in his mind; therefore must use outlandish and physically accentuated visualisation techniques, to the downright rage glistening in his eyes in the last few moments you see him behind bars it is the only portrayal of such a notorious villain I believe I have EVER seen in a Superman movie (Sorry Spacey, you're a brilliant actor, but you've just been replaced in the role for best Luthor). Ben Affleck. The world who HATED him for ruining Daredevil was skeptical about him portraying yet another superhero; in the same way the world who HATED Ryan Reynolds for destroying Green Lantern was skeptical about him as Deadpool. In both instances, the world was wrong to be skeptical. We have never seen Batman so accurately dark, gritty and brooding. This was the polar opposite of the campness seen in 1966 and 1997 The fight sequences were fantastically choreographed. Never have we seen Batman fight like that. AND we could hear and see the effort it took him to take those infamous steel punches. He got battered around like a dog's favourite rag doll and was appropriately vocal about it. No one would get beaten like that and not grunt and groan and not have their toys get broken. Gal Gadot's FIRST appearance, actually dressed as Wonder Woman, as what critics are panning as a knock off Xena Warrior Princess, lacks the red, white and blue Americana influenced costume she's known for. But that doesn't make her any less beautiful, strong and confident. Anyone concerned that she's not a good choice as a representative of the feminist movement cannot fail to notice that her first act as Wonder Woman is to SAVE A MAN. And not just any man. She saves Batman. So she's not built like an Amazonian princess. Neither is Hugh Jackman 5'3, squat and occasionally running on all fours throughout any of his portrayals as Wolverine. No one is going to look like the illustrations of Wonder Woman without a lot of cosmetic surgery to enhance their breasts and waistline and without basically destroying their spinal cord in the process. She does appear as somewhat of a bit character, but despite this, I was impressed by the equality portrayed, showing that she's just as strong as Superman and just as intelligent as Batman, and doesn't need a man to 'rescue her' like Lois Lane frequently does. Move over Xena, there's a new girl in town.