Why All The Batman Vs Superman Hate?

Since it's release a few months ago, Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn Of Justice has been metaphorically slated by critics and fans alike. Many people say it's lazily plotted, with huge gaps in logic, poor acting and terrible dialogue. But, to be honest, is it really as bad as people say it is? No. And in fact, there was a time when it's was fine to like the movie. It's opening weekend split opinion, but it wasn't hated universally. Now, however, it seems perfectly ok to rip into the film, with many believing it to be DC's greatest mistake, even more so than 2010's Green Lantern. However, I still feel that Dawn Of Justice is not as bad as people say it is. Now, this isn't a review, I want to make this clear. A review would look at both positives and negatives, but I won't be looking at the negatives here. That would do no one any good, and besides, I'm trying to convince you that it's a good film. It would do no good if I just started to pick holes with it. If you want a review, you'll have to wait until the DVD comes out so I can rewatch it again, and see if there's any flaws in it. This is my merger attempt to defend the film, and to say to people to look back on it not wanting to hate, but rather with a balanced critical mind set, something I'd say could be equally applicable to Captain America: Civil War, but for opposing reasons.

I'd first like to talk about the comparisons between Dawn Of Justice and 'the Marvel version' (Civil War), since there are a few. While I haven't seen Civil War (for reasons which will become apparent later in this editorial), I do feel that I have to talk about them both at some point, as they share a lot of similarities with regards to their concept. Both take two key superheroes in their cinematic universes (DC - Batman and Superman, Marvel - Iron Man and Captain America), and pits them at loggerheads, with the fate of the world resting on the outcome. Some say that the idea that Batman and Superman would sling it out with each other is ridiculous, but equally ridiculous is the idea of Captain America and Iron Man doing the same thing. If you're going to critique one, you have to critique the other, it's as simple as that. A lot of this 'superheroes against each other' that DC was forced to pick up (and Marvel has since followed) has been born out of a crisis, and it's one we pretty much have Marvel to thank/blame. Thanks to the massive raft of hero team ups that have polluted the film schedules of late (The Avengers, X Men: Days Of Future Past, Age Of Ultron and even Guardians Of The Galaxy) a culture has been created where we're sick of lots of heroes teaming up to fight adversity. Hell, even Doctor Who's 50th anniversary special, The Day Of The Doctor, has probably not helped to contribute to this culture (having been shot and screened in 3D in the cinema). However, Marvel are probably the main cause of this disaster, since DC have very much sat on the side-lines for the past four years (Man Of Steel being the only movie they've released since the conclusion of Chris Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy), and therefore have missed the massive wave of team up movies that have saturated the market ever since. Quite simply, some idiots in the marketing and promotion division of both Marvel and DC have come to the conclusion that people will tire of these constant and endless team-ups, so 'let's give them a twist and make them fight each other'. The seeds of this idea were planted back in Avengers: Age Of Ultron, but now, this horrible reality has been born out. And these movies are being presented as blockbusters, despite the fact that little to no thought has gone into their construction. While the idea of pitting Batman against Superman seems illogical, ill-thought out and utterly forced, the idea of pitting Iron Man against Captain America is just as ill-conceived, if not more so. Both Captain America and Iron Man have worked together to defend the world before, so why would they now turn against each other? I don't think that idea has been well-thought out at all, and it just serves to underline my point. If people are going to label DC quick cash-grabbers with this film, than those people need to attach that same label to Marvel, because they're doing exactly the same thing.

Now that the context has been set up, I feel it's time we looked specifically at Batman Vs. Superman. While the film's main premise is vaguely defined, I feel that there are a lot of parts to it that do work. A lot of critics regarding Man Of Steel complained about Superman's destructive nature, and how he seemed to have been taken away from the paragon of virtue he was before. While I have many criticisms of that argument anyway, I feel that here, we get to see the after effects of this recklessness, and it's impact upon the character of Bruce Wayne, and his thoughts and feelings about Superman's actions. It's rare in superhero movies (at least up until this point, I have a feeling this will change over the year with more films of this ilk) for us to examine directly the consequences of the hero's battle with evil, and the damaging effect of these fights. Both Iron Man 2 and the second and third X Men movies did deal with these issues a little bit, but there, there is never a sense that these should be taken seriously by the audience. They're just obstacles, put up by officials in government to make thee heroes prove their worth to the American government who set up these things. Here, however, you get a feeling that the issues the government committee raises and the views of Batman are not just an obstacle for Superman to prove his worth, but rather a legitimate concern about the amount of power that he possesses, and his willingness to involve other lives and property in his battles. Admittedly, they do try the same angle with Batman, although to a much less successful degree, but it's a clear indicator of how the conflict between the two is set up. There's a genuine reason why they'd be at loggerheads, rather than just a contrived mcguffin. It's got an interest level to it, one that makes it distinctive. The problem is clearly set out early in the movie thanks to us seeing the events of Man Of Steel from Bruce Wayne's perspective. And that's all the audience really needs with regards to continuity. Anyone going to see Captain America: Civil War needs to have seen at least five previous films, and have a general understanding of the characters and universe. For the most part, a complete novice could watch Dawn Of Justice, and understand what was going on. I underline for the most part, and that's a key point. It does, of course, have references to past events, but unlike Civil War, I feel that it's continuity doesn't hold it back as much. Of course, this argument won't hold much water with the fans, since they understand all the backstory, but I feel that this is something which should be taken into consideration.

I also think that, while some of the plotting decisions are flat out stupid, there is material in this script that is worthy of the status it could have attained. In particular, practically every moment featuring Batman was excellent, I thought his character was very well written, and was made to stand out from Christian Bale's interpretation of the character a lot more than I expected. I had expected Ben Affleck to be playing pretty much an variation of Bale's character, and so it was a nice surprise to see it taken in a very different direction from what I was expecting. His character was also a great reimagining of the Nolan version, particularly in the set up regarding the character's back story. I loved the little hints of the fate of Robin, and I kind of hope that Affleck's solo Batman movie and/or Suicide Squad plays around with this a little more. I also thought that Henry Cavell was decent as Superman: not amazing, not awful, but decent. I wasn't as disappointed as most people was by him, and while I do think that, at times, he is acting a bit 'glazed over' as it were. On the whole, however, I did think that it was ok, and I wasn't disappointed in it at all. I also thought that Gal Gadot was also amazing as Wonder Woman, even though she was a little underused. The character that we were presented with was really, really interesting, and I thought that she set the character up for her own movie really, really well. I'd also like to talk about Jeremy Irons as Alfred, who was brilliant. I really thought that they wouldn't have been able to get over the amazing standard set by Michael Caine's Alfred, who is still the best Alfred there has been, but I actually thought Jeremy Irons did an amazing job with the material, and he really convinced me better than I thought he would. While the rest of the cast didn't really stand out that much, I did think that they were ok. Contrast with Civil War, the cast list is huge, particularly with regards to the main 'heroes', and I don't think enough time can be spent on each particular one.

Frankly, this won't change you're opinion on the movie, and I really need to rewatch it to form a coherent argument. However, I feel that Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn Of Justice does have some points in it's favour, and I really feel that it's hard to dislike the movie unless you're actually trying. As an alternative to the bright colour and spectacle of the Marvel team ups (which, before you all take the wrong way, is not a bad thing. Colour and spectacle can be really enjoyable), I think that Dawn Of Justice is a decent stab at a film which was always going to be critically ripped apart. The amount of hype that has been built up around the concept, let alone the movie itself, was always going to be a massive issue. However, disengage from the hype, and this is a decent, albeit flawed, film.