Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

A film so dark that you can’t see anything in most of the actions scenes, and to such extent that it looks as if the cinema was showing a low quality bootleg. The long expected duel between two of the most famous comic book characters unfortunately ends up in a rather uneventful scene (I counted only one interesting moment) where Batman and Superman beat the crap out of each other, only for their conflict to end with an incredibly cheap script cop-out so they can fight together some sort of big-eyed, digital extraterrestrial monkey, created in a weird way for weird reasons (the motivations of the lead villain, hello? Are you there?). Incidentally, you have to wait an ungodly long time for any action to happen, and when it finally happens, either you can’t see anything (as I’ve already said), or it is a confusing digital mess where lightning flashes around the aforementioned monkey, explosions are followed by explosions, and the experience equals zero. And on top of that, Lois Lane gives the right answer to a question form Batman she didn’t hear, or throws a spear into the water so she can dive for it later and almost die, without any dialogue that would reveal its importance or enough information to allow her to figure it out for herself. Disappointment. Probably the only positive thing in the end was Affleck as a grumpy Batman, I would love to see him in another film. PS: I gave Man of Steel 5*) (03/23/2016)

Basically, everything that was true about the first movie applies perfectly this time as well, but it is more chaotic and noticeably less tight thanks to the number of characters and story lines that are only started but not developed properly. The main distinguishing features are contradiction that goes hand-to-hand with divisiveness, where every fifteen minutes of footage include five minutes of enthusiasm (some performances, storylines, specific scenes), for five minutes you look at your watch (the amount of ballast around the lengthy building of the fictional world, which is not properly used, there are unnatural story lines packed with troubles of Lois or a too complicated dull phase of Luthor's plan) and five minutes of desperate beating of the head on a seat (bloated pomp, dream sequences of Clark and Bruce, Eisenberg's childish play, confusing action culminating in a half-hour digital mess like "skyscrapers" are falling again dull finale scene, absent tension between the central duo and especially "Marta"). And the whole movie consists of ten consecutive 15 mins sequences. This is best illustrated by Affleck/Batman. The role of the weary aging Bruce fits him perfectly, but the script makes him a stale naive puppet in the game of smarter people. Like Batman, he is also excellent, but he is useless, because during the final settlement he just dodges the falling building while the super (men / women / mutants) are fighting. So, you have everything in one basket: good intentions and ideas, the realization of which is often not very smooth and sometimes becomes almost an unwanted self-parody. The Ultimate edition montage is then smoother, despite the length. You feel that everything is running more smoothly but nothing more. Yes, it's good for the first two hours, Clark and Bruce's motivations are more elaborate, Lois suddenly has something to do. It all represents Snyder's gloomy vision better. But what's the point of all this if the functional stress is ruined in the last third of the movie (which is still an hour of footage) during "we fight a monster in a CGI way" which is both silly and boring. And it does not fit into the atmosphere set by the first two thirds. Not at all. Which, this montage surprisingly makes even stronger. (03/23/2016)

Three-hour Ultimate Edition; definitely a grown-up comic. This film is just like Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises, it's similarly ambitious as an author, it's told on a grand epic scale, it wants to convey a lot, so the usual runtime isn't enough, it's just so sprawling that maybe it's detrimental to it and the average viewer won't appreciate it, which is a shame. Judging by the reviews, I was afraid of Eisenberg's overacted Lex Luthor, and unnecessarily so, I was also afraid Snyder would reveal his other self, again unnecessarily so (the 15 minutes or so of the fight with Doomsday were easily digestible), so my criticisms would be small, for example the reconciliation of Batman and Superman was too rushed, but otherwise it was fine and in the unedited ultimatum version everything made sense, everything fit together. The result was better (i.e. darker, more mature) than most of the overstuffed Marvel films for undemanding teenagers. And in retrospect I now appreciate the previous Man of Steel, though my complaints about the digital clutter remain. PS: A message to those who complain about the film being too dark: don't look at screen rips or low quality dvd-rips (1,5 GB and smaller), fools.... (07/21/2016)

Fans would see this as the best sex of their lives, but for casual viewers it might be a hard pill to swallow. Christopher Nolan’s Batman anchored in reality was replaced by Zack Snyder's expansive comic universe. Because of the number of characters and even more motivations, this would require a slower pace and an even longer runtime. Yet it remains an immersive experience, with familiar music from Man of Steel (there is no trace of the motifs from Nolan’s Batman trilogy). In the last third, the demands on the viewer’s attention decrease and we’re in for a nerdy climax. I enjoyed the linking to Man of Steel at the beginning. Ben Affleck’s performance is okay. (03/23/2016)

Not as good as I hoped, not as bad as I feared. Excellently acting by the main heroic trio, awfully bad villains. A screenplay full of holes with illogical motivations. The action digital - as you would expect - but pretty good, even so. It should have been a little slower. The movie wants to say and show an awful lot of things. Not that today’s comic books aren’t overfull too. The intro with Affleck’s Wayne is awesome. (03/23/2016)