The Backlash against 'Superman versus Batman'

kalibex

Dagobah Resident
Note: I have not seen this movie. However, I am intrigued by the amount of backlash against Zack Snyder's 're-imaging' of the Superman character that started in 'Man of Steel' (which I did see) and has by all accounts continued in 'Superman versus Batman'. I suspect that this general rejection of Snyder's 'darker, grittier' Superman may be (for what it's worth) an instinctive rejection of Snyder's attempt to essentially corrupt or 'ponerize' what was originally conceived of as an unabashedly heroic, 'light' character meant to be looked up to as an ideal. Thoughts?
 
I am not familiar with the movie. But all these superheroes films provide the masses with pseudo heroes. Even so that I am beginning to question if this doesn't fills the void for real heroes. Intentional or not, this remains the result of it.

Saving imaginary worlds is just that. In the main time there is a real struggle going with real heroes. Putin, Assad etc and all those who lead by example in their fight for truth and justice. They are the ones who keep the fight for the human spirit going. While giving others the courage to do the same.

pseudo heroes cannot do that. OSIT
 
bjorn said:
pseudo heroes cannot do that. OSIT

No, but that's besides my main point - like it or not, these characters you call 'pseudo heroes' currently serve an atavistic purpose as symbols of various characteristics, and I suspect the attempt to change Superman's character (whose general original characteristics do tend to echo those needed by truly effective leaders) may be a sally or volley, so to speak, in the spiritual culture wars, an attempt by higher level STS to get us to de-emphasize or make less fashionable positive attributes as something to be looked up to.
 
I saw the movie. I think the critics have it wrong. Many people who watched it also that I've spoken to share the same view. I think the critics are comparing this to the avengers/marvel movies.

What I liked about this movie is that it DOES show the human cost of these superheroes/super-villains fighting against each other i.e. people die, innocent people die. It also seeks to deal realistically with the concept of their being a 'superman' and what the world can do about it i.e. a person who is invincible and therefore essentially a god-man. A lot of the movie deals with this question.

The only thing I didn't like about the movie is their take on Lex Luthors character as he was depicted as unhinged really whereas the Lex I had in mind was more Machiavellian and had a better handle on his own character i.e. not a criminal failed psychopath but more a cooperate high-functioning one.

Lastly, superman did take on an almost divine appearance in a lot of the shots - perfection, above and beyond, almost symbolic. This was interesting but again, I think they were really trying to portray in as much realism as possible how it would be like if it were real, especially in terms of perception towards these heroes.
 
kalibex said:
Note: I have not seen this movie. However, I am intrigued by the amount of backlash against Zack Snyder's 're-imaging' of the Superman character that started in 'Man of Steel' (which I did see) and has by all accounts continued in 'Superman versus Batman'. I suspect that this general rejection of Snyder's 'darker, grittier' Superman may be (for what it's worth) an instinctive rejection of Snyder's attempt to essentially corrupt or 'ponerize' what was originally conceived of as an unabashedly heroic, 'light' character meant to be looked up to as an ideal. Thoughts?

It doesn't seem to be the case. Fans (I mean that in its true meaning) were greatly concerned about Snyder as the director as well as Ben Affleck as Batman, when the project was first announced. The movie is quite a mess.

IMO it's because of the director. Some have suggested studio "interference" but I doubt they'd do that to such an extent as to leave the final product being roundly derided. Ponerization? Dunno, but Batman is supposed to kill people in this but it isn't really explicit. It's like a sex scene where it's implied rather than shown graphically. But he does wield a shotgun for some reason. And most people think he's (Affleck) the best Batman ever. Personally I think this is due to the introduction of the videogame version of Batman where the moves are like a "meta-human" or something. Like a "soft" X-Men type thing. Again his actual fighting style (as opposed to him blowing stuff up because he's a jaded fifty year old or something) suggests that his enemies are dying by his punches, kicks & throws (look at a YouTube trailer to see) if a person were to perform this in real life.

His performance of Bruce Wayne on the other hand, is probably the best ever. As I said earlier, he's jaded & older & is now "a criminal." As for Superman.... they wrote him as they've always done since the great Christopher Reeves. After the events of "man of steel", (eighteen months approximately) humanity is debating whether they really need a god-like alien who caused millions of dollars worth of damage to the city, in their lives. He's doing all sort of good deeds yet lies are being told about him (I'm interested in what anyone else here thinks about Superman btw, I'll explain a bit more shortly) & a congressional hearing tries to hold him accountable. Well here's where the real mess of the film begins with Lex Luthor (Jr supposedly) & his actions paving the way for the "man vs God" titular battle - which doesn't make sense nor should it have happened.

Anyway, for me what I was interested in was "supes" & how he'd deal with the fallout from the maddening destruction from "man of steel." The congressional hearing bit especially got my imagination going because of the anticipated drama it was sure to bring. Well that never happens & from there incoherent story-telling ensues. Defenders of the film say that non-fans "don't get it" because of the fleeting appearances of other proposed members of the "justice league" (I expect those upcoming movies to be full of ponerizing influences) - which is "bats", "supes" & other "heroes" with this movie being a pseudo prequel. Yet this is supposedly a Superman sequel, yet he's upstaged by (the people's favourite) Batman & the script basically shows what is around 4 movies rolled into one... and Superman gets tired dialogue, makes highly questionable decisions, & is moody in general. He has a lot to be moody about in my view. Heck, he's even upstaged by the appearance of Wonder Woman, who for some reason has powers that seem to be on the same level as any Kryptonian that finds their way to earth, like "General Zod" & his cronies from the last movie.

Seeing this film & now writing about it has made me realize how much I actually liked the character. I was never in to comic books & I've seen about 3 movies in the last 6 years. Whilst I'm against the whole saviour idea that Superman represents, I've always seen that character as the epitome of the superhero phenomenon. Most others essentially blow things up & leave a troubling trail of destruction behind them & are barely accountable, if ever. Supes is supposed to think first then act, engage in talk or reason. Force is his last resort OSIT. Which is why the last film is bad & this one even worse, which is saying something. Most people were looking forward to Batman kicking the crap out of people, I was looking forward to supes doing the reasoning & showing a better way (NOT "truth, justice, & the American way!") for the world. I could always put up with the "boy scout" thing because of how he held himself with all that power & the responsibility he felt due to his conscience & empathy. Ah well, look back to Mr Reeves then I guess.

Oh I almost forgot to say... Superman disappointment aside, his ultimate foe & its powers..... WOW. The ridiculousness of its energy output ruined the film completely. As did the obscure references to various timelines of interchangeable "heroes" in different comic book universes. Only true fans will lose their minds over seeing their favourite "hero" in a different coloured suit, or a live-action depiction of a hotly debated storyline in said alternate universe... & give this film glowing reviews. I swear, these script writers either don't know how to write Superman, or they hate him. Or both. Of course it could just be an "attempt to essentially corrupt or 'ponerize' what was originally conceived of as an unabashedly heroic, 'light' character meant to be looked up to as an ideal."

FWIW.
 
Ascien said:
As did the obscure references to various timelines of interchangeable "heroes" in different comic book universes. Only true fans will lose their minds over seeing their favourite "hero" in a different coloured suit, or a live-action depiction of a hotly debated storyline in said alternate universe... & give this film glowing reviews.

Spoiler:

The different universe was in-fact an alternate future. The 'flash' travelled back in time and influenced batman in order to avert the future from happening. Remember that scene where batman was supposedly having a dream and in the dream a face appeared saying "it starts with Martha". Basically, if Martha died, superman would go dark and the alternate future batman dreamt about was this. Therefore, batman on hearing superman talk about lex having got his mum (martha) in their fight scene, he immediately put aside his vendetta against superman and proceeded to help him. From that scene onwards, it was no longer batman vs superman, rather, it was the dawn of the justice league - with the 2 main heads having united in a common cause.
 
Puck and I went to see the film a few days after it came out and we enjoyed it.

I wouldn't go as far as to say he "ponerized" the character - but I'd say he went out of his way to contextualize such an unrealistic type of character into the real human world, which is, after all, a ponerized world. I felt the philosophical questions the movie raises about unchecked power and how a god-like figure like Superman would actually be perceived in our world are rather deep concepts. For instance, many looked up to him as an ideal being or even a god and thought him a hero, while many also rejected him as dangerous - as a being who was too powerful without any checks and balances. Even though he had saved the world before in the last movie, from General Zod, a lot of people blamed him for what happened because it was his presence on the planet that attracted Zod in the first place, who was of the same species as Superman. And while fighting Zod a lot of people died and got hurt in the process. This is what motivated Batman to figure out a way to kill Superman in case he suddenly became bad, because if he did, he would be able to destroy the planet - Batman saw him as too powerful and too dangerous to not have some kind of protection against.

I think the unabashedly heroic, ideal figure of 'light' that Superman was originally presented as is rather far-fetched, because even if he is all-good, there will always be people who are scared of the unknown, of what they don't understand, especially of something/someone so powerful, and would realistically be paranoid that this power, even if helping them, could turn on the world any minute. And facing those conflicts from the world around him and inside himself as an alien being makes for a much darker and grittier Superman, yes, but also one that makes more sense.

Also, we know society at large is already "ponerized", so I don't think there would be a wide-spread rejection of this kind of Superman because he's being corrupted or "ponerizing". If that was the case, if anything, it would make him more likable to society at large.
 
luke wilson said:
Ascien said:
As did the obscure references to various timelines of interchangeable "heroes" in different comic book universes. Only true fans will lose their minds over seeing their favourite "hero" in a different coloured suit, or a live-action depiction of a hotly debated storyline in said alternate universe... & give this film glowing reviews.

Spoiler:

The different universe was in-fact an alternate future. The 'flash' travelled back in time and influenced batman in order to avert the future from happening. Remember that scene where batman was supposedly having a dream and in the dream a face appeared saying "it starts with Martha". Basically, if Martha died, superman would go dark and the alternate future batman dreamt about was this. Therefore, batman on hearing superman talk about lex having got his mum (martha) in their fight scene, he immediately put aside his vendetta against superman and proceeded to help him. From that scene onwards, it was no longer batman vs superman, rather, it was the dawn of the justice league - with the 2 main heads having united in a common cause.

Ok. But I'm going by what avid long-time comic book fans have been saying on social media & movie critics. There exists a multiverse in DC comics to give continuity to the many characters they've created for over 50 years. So what you pointed out may be but there are opposing views/theories on who that character was/is as well as all the dreams/nightmares/visions that Bruce Wayne has. A lot of the movie references (fleetingly) "Robin" the "joker" (the upcoming new version in "the suicide squad" movie - God help us) & a slew of other plots even fans have forgotten (kryptonian regeneration chamber or whatever - the superman film with Kevin Spacey) or aren't aware of & Lex Luthor, some other "gods"/mutants (flying thingys in the desert scene with "dark superman") & their offspring & beings that can CROSS THE MULTIVERSE, cyborgs, clones, planes of existence ("hell" apparently) & other convoluted stories.

Don't get me wrong, I really couldn't care about all this in the film as I had no knowledge apart from a few names. I just thought that from a screenwriting point if view that it was flawed if you weren't some type of DC comics nerd (because if you like them you must be against Marvel comics smh) or a comic historian. I know that this movie's primary aim was to somewhat cater to its fans utilizing the back catalogue that spans decades of comics & cartoons. But in movie land, you've got to leave some space for those who aren't any of the above.

Like the star wars v star trek thing that's gone on for decades - "star wars is about good v evil & the force, & Luke & yoda & princess Leia & the Jedi... & it's fun & easy to understand.... unlike star trek with its complicated nerd speak & clean lines & funny looking aliens!" Which is basically the way everything works isn't it? "us v them " & other paramoralistic slogans. The film felt rushed (playing catch-up to marvel's movie success) & they haven't even fleshed out superman properly since the very first movie & now they're chucking in loads of other characters, as a teaser for proposed future movies... but ALL IN ONE FILM. Eh? People love the darker batman (more violent than any other batman - the warehouse scenes in the trailers really) but loathe superman as a non-emoting waste of space. I've never seen nor read so much hyperbole for such a poor movie.

I'm more an "X-Men" man myself, loved the 90's cartoons that fired up my imagination about genetics yet made me empathize with their plight (growing pains as to being different) & yet seeking to help those that perennially make them suffer. Shame that the best movie from the franchise is arguably the first one. I won't hold my breath for the new one ("apocalypse") as they'll find a way to spoil that some how (I'm looking at you transformers!)

Apologies for veering slightly off-topic there.
 
I didn't see the movie either, but I don't think the failure of the movie was about a darker grittier Superman per se. Rather, I think it just comes down to the fact that the director is far more about making a spectacle than about creating the structure for a good story, with at least somewhat developed characters (as much as you could for a superhero movie anyway). Snyder also made the movie 300 which I haven't seen because, from everything heard about it, it is just another spectacle and seems to glorify militarism, force and fascism. Snyder's films, on the whole, just seem to have no heart.

Fwiw, I very much liked Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.
 
[quote author= Kalibex]No, but that's besides my main point - like it or not, these characters you call 'pseudo heroes' currently serve an atavistic purpose as symbols of various characteristics, and I suspect the attempt to change Superman's character (whose general original characteristics do tend to echo those needed by truly effective leaders) may be a sally or volley, so to speak, in the spiritual culture wars, an attempt by higher level STS to get us to de-emphasize or make less fashionable positive attributes as something to be looked up to.[/quote]

Characterstics as archetypes? I suppose that imaginational characters can lead by example. But it shouldn't distract from reallife heroes.

Thinking about it. If all superheroes in comics/movies would be perverted from their heroic tasks. It will probably reflect bad on our state as humanity. We need a force of good that inspires us. I understand your point now.
 
I haven’t seen Batman v. Superman myself, but from what I have read and heard from trusted acquaintances, it is a poorly made, bad movie. It is apparently worse than Man of Steel, which I personally found to be intolerable, so I’m steering well clear of this.

I think Snyder is to be blamed here. In my opinion he is a poor director and storyteller, and on top of that, he appears to espouse Ayn Rand’s psychopathic world views:

Snyder's an Objectivist. He believes in what Objectivists call 'rational self-interest,' which others might call 'radical selfishness,' which is the belief that the ultimate moral duty you have is to make yourself happy.

_http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/03/17/of-course-zack-snyder-wants-to-adapt-an-ayn-rand-novel

It has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the post-war world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly and catastrophically. Yet the belief system constructed by Ayn Rand, who died 30 years ago today, has never been more popular or influential.

http://www.sott.net/article/242625-Ayn-Rand-A-Manifesto-for-Psychopaths

Ennio said:
Fwiw, I very much liked Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

I also liked Christopher Nolan's Batman films, especially Batman Begins. Nolan seems to bring more "essence" to his movies, particularly if compared to Snyder's objectivist views.
 
All of these superheroes seem to be nicely distractive at best for the sheeple. They aren't any different than the cop/detective tv shows with fake heroes to help the public forget the truth in which most crime gets rewarded by the establishment and not punished. Same distraction with the James Bond character that Ian Fleming of British Intel started after the War.... none of these characters seem to understand WTF is really going on in the world... sort of reminds me of that Will Smith film, "Hancock", another messed up man with too much power of which he doesn't know how to handle... or his old 'girlfriend' who's hiding from him.... lots of hiding going on...

The blame game was used in 'The Incredibles' as well... same storyline across the forms, across the world, or at least the western parts of it, as we are the evil empire inflicting pain and corruption around the world, and when the truth has to be hidden, then the lies have to get bigger and bigger to hide them, thus 'superheroes', because only a super lie is big enough to hide all the crap we're doing out there... from psychopaths to pedophiles, smart or stupid, these superheroes seem like escapism to feed that need in the masses for 'fair play' etc. The examples of these storyline fantasies or idiocies is endless, take Superman as an example.... what kind of idiot govt would take their worst criminals and throw them out so that they can escape and wreck havoc elsewhere? What kind of superhero can't see where the real 'evil' is on the planet? At least in the X-Men, the metalhead guy is half-way on the 'right' trail, though it's the mental head guy that leads the foolish into more folly of protecting the criminal establishment that our govts represent... all of this seems a mask to keep the psycho govts in power and looking good in the public's eye.... same bs that Hoover did with his 'G-Men' films that Hollywood eagerly produced... this game is always the same... only now we see a bit of angst :shock: OMG! Look at how 'dark' they are? Same fake darkness that's been done many times before in all of these characters from Superman to Spiderman etc... even Bond seems to develop a brain cell every now and then, but quickly they all get busy with the action scenes once war and that brain cell of a little candle flame is lost yet again.

These projects can be very entertaining of course, and no one does spectacle better than Hollywood, most often because they spend 10 - 20 times more than anyone else... being the chief empire with a global currency allows that to happen... until the party ends, and the super masks come off and we realize they really weren't 'super' at all, just another con man paid by 'the man'... gotta pay the bills right? IMO, these projects are better done as comedies, but it's the magical girls that get that treatment, while the boys have to be either bad asses or superheroes.... that always remain asleep. :zzz:

It all seems like a closed loop... in which nothing ever changes... civilizations come and go, wars come and go and these 'supers' never seem to realize that they are part of the problem... they are on the 'wrong' side of that fence... so is that a conscious decision? Doubt it, right? Most of these projects are 'boys with their toys'... and boys aren't known for getting the job done... so the crap keeps coming and coming and coming... just like the sequels and remakes, generation after generation.

Some call it Purgatory... the only project that I remember that dealt with this in any realistic sense was the "AniMatrix' project, specifically that one with the runner, which seems more in line with our situation, especially if you aren't aware of reality... like these superheroes seem to be. Giving more power to such people doesn't change much... IMO.
 
Ennio said:
I didn't see the movie either, but I don't think the failure of the movie was about a darker grittier Superman per se. Rather, I think it just comes down to the fact that the director is far more about making a spectacle than about creating the structure for a good story, with at least somewhat developed characters (as much as you could for a superhero movie anyway). Snyder also made the movie 300 which I haven't seen because, from everything heard about it, it is just another spectacle and seems to glorify militarism, force and fascism. Snyder's films, on the whole, just seem to have no heart.

Fwiw, I very much liked Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

That's the general view about him. Critics ripped BvS apart but most fans love it & are criticizing the critics, to put it mildly. Apart from the hyper-stylized comic book bloodbath that was "300" He also did "watchmen." I've tried to watch it a few times since it was on terrestrial channels but I kept falling asleep every time. Possibly a sign I suppose. I only wanted to see it as I'd heard that it was meant to be a truly intelligent, grown-up superhero movie with politics & all, (I think there's some "cold war" setting/propaganda so...) & I prefer the Bruce Willis movie "unbreakable" anyway.

Despite the movie being panned people want to see it & it's 3hr directors cut because it's better. Which is what he's been peddling about BvS "the 3hr cut explains things more and...." I stopped listening at 3hrs as the version released is already 2hours & 15 (approximately) mins of barely tolerable on-screen decision making. Specifically why Batman fights Superman. Switch off your brain & go with what seems to be true (like the "news" tells us 24/7) is the majority of this movie.


hiker said:
I haven’t seen Batman v. Superman myself, but from what I have read and heard from trusted acquaintances, it is a poorly made, bad movie. It is apparently worse than Man of Steel, which I personally found to be intolerable, so I’m steering well clear of this.

I think Snyder is to be blamed here. In my opinion he is a poor director and storyteller, and on top of that, he appears to espouse Ayn Rand’s psychopathic world views:

Snyder's an Objectivist. He believes in what Objectivists call 'rational self-interest,' which others might call 'radical selfishness,' which is the belief that the ultimate moral duty you have is to make yourself happy.

_http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/03/17/of-course-zack-snyder-wants-to-adapt-an-ayn-rand-novel

It has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the post-war world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly and catastrophically. Yet the belief system constructed by Ayn Rand, who died 30 years ago today, has never been more popular or influential.

http://www.sott.net/article/242625-Ayn-Rand-A-Manifesto-for-Psychopaths

Ennio said:
Fwiw, I very much liked Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

I also liked Christopher Nolan's Batman films, especially Batman Begins. Nolan seems to bring more "essence" to his movies, particularly if compared to Snyder's objectivist views.

You're right about MOS & I thought I was the only one that felt that way until I saw the forum thread on it. Many critics have said the same about his storytelling (lack of) ability & how he should only be allowed to direct certain action sequences, whilst a better director does the rest. Never. Gonna. Happen. Interesting link you provided. I'd seen that he's an objectivist in a web search but I forgot what that actually meant. Anyone with empathy, conscience & an adequately working brain should be offended by that manifesto. Psychopaths often pop their heads out like this & yet people try to debate or "play nice" with followers of clearly anti-human principles. You don't have to study psychopathy/ponerology to know that you should avoid these types.

Nolan was a producer on BvS btw & I've also read/heard that he pleaded with Snyder not to make certain decisions. Like Batman killing people (some fans say that he does so in some comics) & other stuff. There is a certain feel to Nolan's Batman trilogy though I can't quite put my finger on why I don't particularly like them like most people. They're very well made & clearly well thought out. I do find it interesting that all the villains (psychopaths) in Nolan's trilogy upstage Batman to the point where that is what is ever really discussed by fans. Mainly "the joker" & "Bane." I've never seen a superhero (technically he's not super) toyed with by a villain in the way Bane did in their main fight (the quotes about peace costing him his strength etc) & he got saved by Catwoman who in the end, finally heeded the call of her conscience. Still, I could never get into Batman begins because of that "league of shadows" malarkey. I don't know why it annoyed me so much but it did. And in reality they did have a point about Gotham being purged & Bruce trying to stop the inevitable. Of course this was a pathological ploy using higher ideals. (Why that city is worse than others such as metropolis with its mutants & aliens is still a mystery to me)
But their talk of cleansing the city of evil kinda made me think about how this planet is going to get purged cuz humans threaten so many expressions of life cuz we still can't get to grips with pathological types manipulating us.
 
Regarding the killing of bad people, I find most superhero movies unrealistic in this regard e.g. in the avengers, they try there best not to kill anyone but if you think about it logically, when the Hulk is running rampant in a city, or when in the last one a whole city is lifted up to the sky.... of course millions of people would be dying. Showing Iron man or Captain America saving the token person stuck in a car doesn't negate the fact that carnage is reining supreme all around. The carnage is always there due to the superheroes/supervillains fighting against each other. Unlike in BvS, Marvel haven't dealt with this glaring fact yet. In Civil War, I imagine they start to.

In the latest Daredevil series released on Netflix, they deal with this subject by introducing 'The Punisher'. The daredevil doesn't kill anyone (just breaks bones) whilst 'The Punisher kills bad guys out of principle. As you can imagine, the Daredevil wasn't happy about this! It's the same way Superman wasn't happy about batman killing bad guys in BvS.

I imagine from a writing point of view, you need superheroes who don't constantly kill off the main bad guys otherwise the writers will always be left with the task of creating more and more bad guys who can capture the attention of the viewers.

Which brings me to my last point, the superheroes in these movies tend to have a symbiotic relationship with the supervillains (Batman/Joker, Spiderman/Green Goblin, Superman/Lex, Professor X/Magneto, Daredevil/Wilson Fisk). Their lives are defined by their status as 'hero', not by their day jobs or identities (Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, Peter Parker, Matt Murdock, Tony Stark etc). You might hear some say they just want the quiet life, away from 'heroing' but really, everything they are revolves around this and without it, they would be lost in the wilderness. Dare I say, they would be lost in being 'normal'. Daredevil had this same choice to make in the last series and he chose the daredevil identity rather than the lawyer identity. Look at the existential crisis of Captain America in the Marvel series, a man who can't tear himself away from his identity as a 'soldier'. Tony Stark will always choose to be the Iron man rather than assume day to day running of his company.
 
I can't quite understand the backlash from critics, since (in my opinion anyways) this film isn't any worse than any of the "event" superhero movies (Avengers 1 & 2, Captain America Winter Soldier, etc.).

I actually enjoyed the movie. Was it perfect? No. I would have liked to see more Superman (since he's my childhood hero), but that's a pretty minor quibble.

Zack Snyder did a good job of showing what a "superhero" would be in the modern world I thought. The performances were excellent, and while the plot was a little muddled, that's like saying it's a terrible movie because it's not like Shakespeare.

Yes, it's not Shakespeare. But it's entertaining, and does a genuine job of trying to show the angst of the characters, which I found to be believable. Affleck was excellent as Batman, and I actually liked Lex Luthor; he was absolutely believable as a psychopath.

It makes me wonder if the critic backlash isn't motivated by things outside of the movie itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom