D.C. Stop Following and Start Leading

Rating: 6/10 (27 March 2016)

The first movie adaptation of a comic book I ever watched was Superman. I watched the three Supermans after that and then came Batman in 1989. I saw that and the Batmans that followed. It was a DC dominated world. It wasn't until 2001 that Marvel released Spider-Man and with the exception of a few blips here and there it has been all Marvel ever since.
DC needs to get back to leading and not following. This movie was nothing but DC following the well crafted Marvel plan of creating a cinematic universe for its multitude of characters to do crossovers. But DC is just not as adept.
What was good?
Jesse Eisenberg's version of Lex Luthor. It was different than the Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey versions. He was a bit more quirky, spirited and fast paced. It was almost as if he were playing Lex Luthor and the Joker. He had the criminal mastermind of Lex and the criminal insanity of the Joker.
Wonder Woman. She didn't have much screen time but she showed up big. If you are like me and your only knowledge/memories of Wonder Woman are Linda Carter then this Wonder Woman will blow you away.
What was OK/acceptable?
Ben Affleck as Batman. Batman is noticeably older though no less ripped. Ben Affleck didn't do anything to harm the Batman brand and nor did he enhance it.
The story. To get a Batman versus Superman there needed to be a bit of a stretch with events. Batman being in Gotham, Superman being in Metropolis. Batman being a mortal, Superman being virtually immortal. Then, of course, why are they even fighting?
The destruction porn. I label this as an OK factor because it can go either way depending upon the viewer. If you love mass destruction when heroes and villains go at it then you'll be pleased. If you're like me and think it's a little tired when two or more super beings fight and the biggest losers are everyone else, then this was a negative. Not as much destruction as Man of Steel but up there.
What was bad?
Superman. I know. How can Superman, the main character, be bad? This is simply my own hang up. Superman long ceased being a favorite of mine when I got older and realized how boring his sagas are. We're talking about a super powered, nearly indestructible being that makes all of this heroic acts look like rescuing a cat from a tree. Where's the fun in that? No matter how hard they try there is never any real danger of Superman being killed. I like my super heroes mortal and vulnerable so that they have to hone their skills to protect that vulnerability. Superman's biggest issue is whether or not the public will like him.
Lois Lane. Spider-Man and Superman both showed me that no one will need rescuing more than the hero's girl. How many ways can you get yourself into a jam so that your super boyfriend has to save you? Superman had some psychic link to Lois Lane so he would show up even if she stubbed her toe. I'm sure it's great to have your own invincible bodyguard//lover, but how lame is that? It's nothing more than the damsel in distress cliché redressed. Furthermore, Lois was everywhere! Superman has the ability to fly but Lois certainly covers a lot more ground and seemingly quicker. Whether planned or unplanned, the Lois-Lane-in-need-of-saving act is old.
The net total of the good + so-so + bad = a slightly above average film. If we were to consider the inflated budget then this film significantly under-performed. I won't hold it's budget against it though; after all, it's not my money. But DC and Warner Brothers, listen to me: if you want to survive in this comic book movie game you're going to have to start leading and stop following.