*THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS*
I'm 30 years old and I remember watching Batman as child. Whether it was the corny Adam West version or the style over substance Tim Burton and Michael Keaton years, I just loved the myth of the character. Which I am proud to say that "Batman v Superman" gave me the little kid sense of excitement every time Batman was kicking ass onscreen. Unfortunately the rest of the movie remind me of how being a grown up sucks.
In this new DC universe it's been two years since the event of "Man of Steel". Apparently Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) was in the middle of the 9/11, I mean the Metropolis disaster of "Man of Steel". After seeing how alien super beings can pretty much end mankind if they choose too, Wayne sets off on a quest to stop the son of Krypton. With the help of Alfred (Jeremy Irons) who is really there to just bitch about Master Bruce's obsession, Batman finally has a plan battle plan.
Meanwhile the libtards, I mean congress and some protesters are unhappy with Superman (Henry Cavill) using his power to rescuing people in a beautiful montage that reminds you about what makes Superman so heroic and noble. Unfortunately he gets into trouble because the script calls for Lois Lane (Amy Adams) to be in situations that required his assistance. After some super sex she sets out to get to the bottom of what or who is trying to frame Superman for deaths of people with bullet holes. Lex Luther (Jesse Eisenberg) is there to chew scenery and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) is also in the movie to remind you that it's setting everything up for the Justice League.
That in a nutshell is the movie which is 45 minutes too long in my opinion. Just like the "Transformers" series the long running time starts to wear a little thin on a person. What doesn't wear a person down is Ben Affleck as the caped crusader. I know when Ben Affleck was casted in the role the internet responded with a big NO!!!!!, but he is actually the best thing about the movie. His Bruce Wayne of course dark and tormented, but he lives like real person. Having him actually drink and indulge in the occasional fling to me made him believable to the audience. Of course we, sigh, have to be remind with another version of his parents murder, but it's done in such a different style that it actually helped with why the character is tormented. Another refreshing thing about this Batman is that he doesn't mind if a the bad guy gets killed. If other Batmen sent the criminals to the hospital, this one doesn't mind putting them in the morgue.
Henry Cavill still isn't Christopher Reeve, but this Superman does stand for truth, justice, and kind of the American way. Man of Steel had Superman be traveling bum with different exposition every 20 minutes about how he is Jesus, but Batman v Superman fixes most of those problems. We need to see Superman save innocent people from harm to remind us of what it means to be Superman. His relationship with Lois is more believable than forced this time and there was actually a sense of vulnerability this time that was lacking with Henry Cavill's first go around. Zack Synder is still under the impression that Superman needs to be filmed in the same style as Passion of the Cross, but its the other moments that make the character great again.
The rest of the cast is typical play by the numbers game. Jesse Eisenberg did a great job pretending the movie was The Social Network 2, Amy Adams's cleavage looks great in a bath tub, and Gal Gabot makes up for not being cast in the last James Bond movie. Diane Lane wears a gray wig, Laurence Fishburne's role is reduced to comic relief, Holly Hunter makes sure you know her character is from the south, and Jeremy Irons shows up for a paycheck.
While the movie was a lot better than I hoped for there are still problems that make if far from being "The Dark Knight". The length of the movie really needs to be trimmed a half hour if not 15 minutes. I know that since the success of Marvel's Avengers that DC wants to cash in on the formula of having each superhero have their own spin-off, but Batman v Superman beats the audience over the head with this it at times. The movie isn't exactly subtle about implying the future of the franchise the same way Marvel was with each "Iron Man" or "Captain America"was and to me that would take me out of the movie at times. I know that they were trying to accomplish this with Wonder Woman, but the problem is that she is just kinda forced in there to remind the audience about the upcoming Justice League. "Batman Begins" set up the next movie with a simple shot of a joker playing card, but imagine if both the Joker and Bane were in "The Dark Knight" and you understand where I am coming from.
What I still don't understand is Zack Synders obsession with 9/11 and handheld camera in the wrong scenes. The movie opens with the attack on Metropolis and once again building after building is turned into ruble with characters saying prayers before their doom. The end finale of "Batman v Superman" doesn't go to that extreme, but just like Michael Bay, Synder makes sure he is getting his money's worth with the CGI. The handheld camera has aways been a thing that screams early 2000s to me. Scenes that aren't intense come off like an episode of Law and Order because of this technique and I wish out of the 250 million dollar budget someone would have ran to Best Buy and got him a tripod.
Overall I did enjoy this movie, but I wasn't mesmerized like I was with The Dark Knight which is still the best Batman movie. But I have a feeling if Mr. Affleck signs on for another picture with a more restrained director, he could give Mr. Nolan and Mr. Bale a run for their money.
*** out of ****
