Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

1119120121123125

Comments

  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Batman 89 is a good film. But it lacks action....Batman hardly has a fight or fights crime. That is Burtons weak point.....he can't do action. He same goes for Batman Returns.

    Agreed, @suavejmf. Much as I like the film it wasn't my idea of Batman. Batman to me was a tireless vigilante crimefighter, not a lovesick puppy.

    Action was never Burton's strong point unfortunately.

    And Batman Returns was even more of a Tim Burton film than a Batman film.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    That s why it was so good.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985

    That s why it was so good.

    I didn't say it was a good Tim Burton film....

    b-(

    Michelle Pfieffer was a cracking Catwoman and Danny Elfman's score is superb, but other than that it's stupid mess of a film that never convinces it's set anywhere but on a soundstage.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2016 Posts: 23,883
    It's been a long while since I've seen it, but I recall it delved nicely into the Batman/Penguin psyche. That to me was its best attribute, apart from Pfeiffer's Cat.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    That s why it was so good.

    Tom Burton is a one trick pony. Gothic fairytales. Thank god his superman mess never got made.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    suavejmf wrote: »
    That s why it was so good.

    Tom Burton is a one trick pony. Gothic fairytales. Thank god his superman mess never got made.
    Would have loved to see that, with Nicolas Cage as Superman and Jack Nicholson as Lex Luthor.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Sounds bad. Cage is a bad actor (every part he plays is Elvis-esque)....plus a balding Superman....no thanks.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Batman 89 is a good film. But it lacks action....Batman hardly has a fight or fights crime. That is Burtons weak point.....he can't do action. He same goes for Batman Returns.

    Still a great film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    That final fight with the big dude with the glasses up in the cathedral was excellent. It's been a long time since I've seen it, but there were some serious moves during that encounter.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 140
    Let's get this straight Tim Burton's Batman is pants - just pants. MK is pants, the whole film is a cliche, it's just full of cliches...it's an awful film. I don't understand the love for it. Oh it's so dark and gothic - oh it's so creative - poppy of the cock.

    It was a by the numbers action movie with a bit of lewis carol throw in. Pants, pants, pants.

    I'll start listing the cliches here's the first one i can remember:

    Bruce and Vicki have dinner at bat's place. they are in a dark room with a huge table sitting 12ft apart from each other at opposite ends. Vicki - this is nice room (to break the ice). Bruce - eh? Oh I've never been in this room before (because my house is so big and i'm so rich and i'm dark and mysterious). What trash.

    The whole movie is littered with such trash writing.

    Oh what about the dark set designs and the super creative vision Burton brought to the screen?

    Really? 7 years before this trash came a truly ground breaking visual film that was the perfect model for Gotham and that film was Blade Runner. The look of this film puts Burton's art school 1st year student's attempt into its place.

    Burton's Batman is pants no question, just admit it.

  • Sanchairs wrote: »
    Let's get this straight Tim Burton's Batman is pants - just pants. MK is pants, the whole film is a cliche, it's just full of cliches...it's an awful film. I don't understand the love for it. Oh it's so dark and gothic - oh it's so creative - poppy of the cock.

    It was a by the numbers action movie with a bit of lewis carol throw in. Pants, pants, pants.

    I'll start listing the cliches here's the first one i can remember:

    Bruce and Vicki have dinner at bat's place. they are in a dark room with a huge table sitting 12ft apart from each other at opposite ends. Vicki - this is nice room (to break the ice). Bruce - eh? Oh I've never been in this room before (because my house is so big and i'm so rich and i'm dark and mysterious). What trash.

    The whole movie is littered with such trash writing.

    Oh what about the dark set designs and the super creative vision Burton brought to the screen?

    Really? 7 years before this trash came a truly ground breaking visual film that was the perfect model for Gotham and that film was Blade Runner. The look of this film puts Burton's art school 1st year student's attempt into its place.

    Burton's Batman is pants no question, just admit it.

    You're the cancer of the forum.
  • Posts: 140
    Sanchairs wrote: »
    Let's get this straight Tim Burton's Batman is pants - just pants. MK is pants, the whole film is a cliche, it's just full of cliches...it's an awful film. I don't understand the love for it. Oh it's so dark and gothic - oh it's so creative - poppy of the cock.

    It was a by the numbers action movie with a bit of lewis carol throw in. Pants, pants, pants.

    I'll start listing the cliches here's the first one i can remember:

    Bruce and Vicki have dinner at bat's place. they are in a dark room with a huge table sitting 12ft apart from each other at opposite ends. Vicki - this is nice room (to break the ice). Bruce - eh? Oh I've never been in this room before (because my house is so big and i'm so rich and i'm dark and mysterious). What trash.

    The whole movie is littered with such trash writing.

    Oh what about the dark set designs and the super creative vision Burton brought to the screen?

    Really? 7 years before this trash came a truly ground breaking visual film that was the perfect model for Gotham and that film was Blade Runner. The look of this film puts Burton's art school 1st year student's attempt into its place.

    Burton's Batman is pants no question, just admit it.

    You're the cancer of the forum.

    Seriously dude wouldn't you feel like an idiot if for instance you knew I had just survived liver cancer - wouldn't you? Disagree all you want, tell me to shut up, but do choose your words with care - who knows who you are talking to or what they go through day to day. Note: don't get personal.

    I'm checking out now and thank so much for your kind words.

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Re-watched BvS Ultimate Edition a couple of days ago.

    Sadly it doesn't get any better. It still is plot hopping that doesn't make sense and the first 65 minutes are even boring.

    Lexenberg is maybe the worst ever villain in a comic book film. He is just bloody annoying and completely useless, his "plot" only works because Supes is obviously an imbecile of intergalactic proportions.

    The Martha thing is cringe-worthy to the max. I can't believe Affleck accepted that and went along with it. He is so much more intelligent than that.

    The only thing that really works in that movie is Diana Prince and Wonder Woman. Without her BvS would even be at the very bottom of the Batman movies ranking and that includes ALL live action movies ever made of Batman. It includes even the Supes movies although BvS isn't bad enough to top Supes IV.

    It was hard to sit through it. Sure, there are some nice if not super cool sequences that work very well on its own like the Knightmare sequence, the James Bond sequence, the big fight of Batsy v Supes sans the bloody Martha incident.
    There could have been more, but the batmobile chase sequences is hurt dramatically by the unnecessary and out of character ruthlessness of Batsy. Snyder, respectively Terrio/Goyer clearly overdid it there.

    And then Alfred. Sure, to cast Jeremy Irons was a stroke of genius. BUT rename him Lucious Fox in the movie and nobody would even suspect he is not him. They just got the character of Alfred wrong in BvS, respectively the way they portray him he is much closer to Lucious Fox.

    Also all those "nice" little details that Snyder? put in it are mostly useless, confusing or downright wrong. Like showing the Robin costume, or The Flash travelling back in time that makes no sense at all in this movie if you don't know the comics or Pa Kent miraculously appearing on top of a mountain or Jimmy Olsen getting shot in the head etc etc.

    It still is a movie that can be watched and I'd give it a 6 out of 10 just for Diana Prince the few cool sequences and especially The Batfleck.

    But, and this is a first for me, I actually will prefer the theatrical cut in the future as the ultimate cut just adds on all the wrong corners that make it even more hard to sit through.

    BvS has proven that even a complete mess of a movie will generate revenue of over 800 million USD if the character of Batman is in it as a lead.

    Will be interesting to see how they will market The Justice League. I'm pretty sure Batfleck will be the clear lead in that and Supes will be in the background. And of course that would be a good thing.
    Also skip Lois Lane for JL please. As much as I adore Amy Adams and as good as she portrays a stupid Lois Lane and elevates the character from the stupid script, she would hurt the movie.

    With SS earning 577 million USD so far, it seems Warner/DC will at last get some money if SS continues to make big bucks. We will see where it stops. Anything under 700 million would be disappointing I guess.
    I have to see that yet, I have not much hope though but will go and see it without prejudices. And Leto not having much screen time might actually be a good thing because I didn't like one second of him so far in the various trailers.
  • Sanchairs wrote: »
    Sanchairs wrote: »
    Let's get this straight Tim Burton's Batman is pants - just pants. MK is pants, the whole film is a cliche, it's just full of cliches...it's an awful film. I don't understand the love for it. Oh it's so dark and gothic - oh it's so creative - poppy of the cock.

    It was a by the numbers action movie with a bit of lewis carol throw in. Pants, pants, pants.

    I'll start listing the cliches here's the first one i can remember:

    Bruce and Vicki have dinner at bat's place. they are in a dark room with a huge table sitting 12ft apart from each other at opposite ends. Vicki - this is nice room (to break the ice). Bruce - eh? Oh I've never been in this room before (because my house is so big and i'm so rich and i'm dark and mysterious). What trash.

    The whole movie is littered with such trash writing.

    Oh what about the dark set designs and the super creative vision Burton brought to the screen?

    Really? 7 years before this trash came a truly ground breaking visual film that was the perfect model for Gotham and that film was Blade Runner. The look of this film puts Burton's art school 1st year student's attempt into its place.

    Burton's Batman is pants no question, just admit it.

    You're the cancer of the forum.

    Seriously dude wouldn't you feel like an idiot if for instance you knew I had just survived liver cancer - wouldn't you? Disagree all you want, tell me to shut up, but do choose your words with care - who knows who you are talking to or what they go through day to day. Note: don't get personal.

    I'm checking out now and thank so much for your kind words.

    One of the dictionary definitions of cancer is - something bad or dangerous that causes other bad things to happen. I'd say that's a fair enough way of describing you. Funnily enough, you never considered whether people on this forum either A) had special needs or B) had to deal with family members who had special needs when you were throwing special needs around as an insult. Note: practise what you preach.
  • Posts: 6,432
    Batman Is a film I enjoy it has its place in the 75 years plus that Batman has been around for.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Sanchairs wrote: »
    Let's get this straight Tim Burton's Batman is pants - just pants. MK is pants, the whole film is a cliche, it's just full of cliches...it's an awful film. I don't understand the love for it. Oh it's so dark and gothic - oh it's so creative - poppy of the cock.

    It was a by the numbers action movie with a bit of lewis carol throw in. Pants, pants, pants.

    I'll start listing the cliches here's the first one i can remember:

    Bruce and Vicki have dinner at bat's place. they are in a dark room with a huge table sitting 12ft apart from each other at opposite ends. Vicki - this is nice room (to break the ice). Bruce - eh? Oh I've never been in this room before (because my house is so big and i'm so rich and i'm dark and mysterious). What trash.

    The whole movie is littered with such trash writing.

    Oh what about the dark set designs and the super creative vision Burton brought to the screen?

    Really? 7 years before this trash came a truly ground breaking visual film that was the perfect model for Gotham and that film was Blade Runner. The look of this film puts Burton's art school 1st year student's attempt into its place.

    Burton's Batman is pants no question, just admit it.

    OW !!

    Anyway,personally I love Batman '89.
    I think (surprisingly at the time) that Keaton does a great job,and as for Nicholson,he is still ,my favourite Joker by far.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited August 2016 Posts: 28,694
    Without Batman '89, "geek" culture wouldn't have the pulse it's been able to have on the big screen these days, and the excitement spent over the movie wouldn't have translated back to sales of comics, so love it or hate it, it deserves massive respect for reinvigorating the print market and bringing life to what we now know of the superhero genre after the film Superman stumbled in later sequels.

    fdda19fe44532f752ee0dab4a9e0052d.gif
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Batman 89 could have been better but then it also could have been a lot worse. It's a good film and Keaton is excellent in it with what he's given. Amazing score as well. But basically it kick started the Superhero movie revival and although it ripped off Blade Runner it was influential in it's own right.

    I notice the odious member that was BlofeldsScar has been banned. :\">
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Burton's Batman films will endure because of the mood and feeling they carry. It's feels like Gotham jumped off the comics page and landed on the screen, and the camerawork employed is exemplary, as it uses beautiful shifts of light and shadow to conceal a Batman on the prowl before he strikes. The camerawork in 89's film is a lot like what the old horror classics would do, showing you only glimpses of the beast or monster before it made its entrance in full to terrorize the ancillary characters. Through the camerawork Batman truly feels mythic and frightening right off the bat (pun somewhat intended).

    And of course, nothing beats shots of Batman's tall horned silhouette as he exits the shadows to beat up some punks. That image and the feeling it carries will never die.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 4,813
    We need to remember that back in 89, aside from comics, Adam West was the most recent live action Batman. (He even wanted to play him again , and was disappointed to only be offered the role of Bruce's father)
    That's a hell of a leap!

    Burton's Batman was groundbreaking and a total game changer.
  • Posts: 9,822


    Brady watch this and let me know your counter :)
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    That was linked either here or in the DC Cinematic Universe thread at some point. I had counter arguments to 90% of its points when I watched it, but that was awhile ago and I don't feel like watching it again.
  • Posts: 6,432
    That was linked either here or in the DC Cinematic Universe thread at some point. I had counter arguments to 90% of its points when I watched it, but that was awhile ago and I don't feel like watching it again.

    Yeah I posted it a few weeks ago,
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Risico007 wrote: »


    Brady watch this and let me know your counter :)

    @Risico007, I've watched every Batman v Superman video out there at this point, and that one is nothing new. You seem to think I enjoy disliking this film, when in reality it pains me heavily.

    I've analyzed this film backwards and forwards in multiple essays that I've posted here, inarguably writing and thinking about this more than probably every member combined, for better or worse. The points that bug me will endure, and not much will change that but time and distance from this.

    I want to be able to see JL in 2017, be happy as I leave the theater and accept that BvS was where we needed this whole story to begin to properly develop Batman, Superman and all the other characters into the people we know from the comics. I'll be satisfied when I see a non-lethal and compassionate Batman who acts like a detective, and a Superman who actually saves people instead of moping about how nobody likes him. Then I can stop sweating this movie, and finally accept it for what it is before leaving it in the past.

    I don't think BvS is a total can of garbage, as it's got some genuinely interesting ideas in it, which that video above expertly points out. The narrator of the video actually goes into trying to make an insightful argument for the film, while the CinemaSins video criticizing it relied on nothing but stupid nitpicks that even I disagreed with, as you can do that to any movie.

    The things I liked: The concept of a broken Batman in a world he no longer recognizes. A anti-theist Lex who faces an existential and religious crisis after getting abused as a youth and who grows angry at God for not helping him, a hatred that he then places on the shoulders of Superman because he is so god-like and makes me feel inferior. A jaded Batman that returns to form after seeing the world through the hope Superman displays. Superman sacrificing himself for a world that doesn't like him, but that he sees as home.

    All these ideas would have been monumentally impactful if the execution of them wasn't so iffy. Eisenberg's jittery, off-the-leash performance sinks the momentum of so much of what the film is trying to do with Lex and the themes of God, heaven/hell and notions of power and corruption he expresses. We never get to see the context for why Bruce is acting so out of control in a big way, and we get no brief sequence showing him carrying Jason's corpse amongst flames or witness Alfred truly calling him out for tarnishing his mission and promise to his parents to really sell that this Batman has changed. Superman accepts the idea that nobody can stay good in a world such as theirs', pissing on the very concept of hope and good-will that the emblem on his chest is meant to signify. And of course, the film wasted Doomsday in a lazy attempt to kill off Superman just to get Bruce to set up the JL, and not for the emotional weight such a moment should carry. In the comics, Superman fights Doomsday to the death after all his friends have fallen in the face of the monster, friends he's known for years and people he's supported and influenced through his ideals of hope and righteousness; his family. In BvS all that power and connections between the characters is absent, leaving nothing but a CGI filled mess behind that doesn't even look good. Even the shot of the trinity uniting on screen for the first time, an image that should have been momentous to take in, is showcased as nothing but what it is, ie. a weak shot against a shitty green screen. Like so much in the movie, that shot is artificial and poorly executed.

    I'm done with the film at this point, just done. I should've known that going from Nolan's Batman films to a completely new universe of movies wouldn't be easy, but I genuinely couldn't have foreseen the direction the DCEU has been going in my wildest nightmares. WB have no trust in their creators, they hack and slash bad cuts of these films to show in theaters, and by listening to every little complaint of the audience, they're shooting themselves in the foot every time one of their films releases. They had better keep their goddamn hands off of Wonder Woman and let Patty Jenkins do her thing, as it's the one movie that gives me hope in the DCEU when I've lost it in everything else. And even then, I probably still feel more hope than Superman has felt or expressed during this entire "Snyderverse" thus far.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    You seem to think I enjoy disliking this film, when in reality it pains me heavily.

    This is what I don't think that BvS defenders understand. I've seen so many concise arguments that talk about the disappointment they felt with the movie, with how the movie could have been better and that there are good things about it, arguments I've also made, but then the BvS defenders just come in and defend it with "Well, I like it so nyeh." They seem to believe that people shit on BvS just to hate on it, which is not the case most of the time.

    If Batman were less homicidal, Lex were less narm and Doomsday not in the movie, it would be 200% better.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @Agent007391, absolutely. I also think that those who didn't take a liking to BvS have crafted better, more analytical and reasoned arguments for why it doesn't work as a movie than pro-BvS viewers who have tried to defend why it's a good film. I haven't seen that many pro-BvS reviews online, mind you, but those that I have seen feature people who either really liked the action, or they were so captivated by the nostalgia of their comic reading pasts that seeing even a parademon on the big screen instantly made them forgive anything else the film may or may not have been doing right.

    I've said it once, and I'll say it again: you can show me Batman fighting alongside Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Cyborg and all the rest to take on Darkseid himself, but if the narrative that's moving them and the characterizations that build their characters are as sturdy as a house of cards, I couldn't give a damn about any of it. Visuals don't mean anything if no substance is being executed beneath it.

    And I'm damn terrified about how they'll handle Darkseid, if they even get that far. He's such a cerebral, intellectual villain with depth that I don't know how well the filmmaking team will present him amidst the demands for CGI action. If they go the route of the "Darkseid Is" Grant Morrison JLA take and have him as a sort of manipulator of all he comes in front of to make them his slaves, and he finds that Superman is incorruptible even at the hands of his manipulation and all his New Gods, that would be fascinating to watch. We'll just have to see.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,340
    I think the biggest problem with the movie is it's trying so hard to be the next Watchmen. Seriously, I was getting some serious Dr. Manhattan vibes from Supes and Batman was more or less the Comedian which is funny because the actual Comedian, Jeffery Dean Morgan played Thomas Wayne. Coincidence? I think not. ;)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Murdock wrote: »
    I think the biggest problem with the movie is it's trying so hard to be the next Watchmen. Seriously, I was getting some serious Dr. Manhattan vibes from Supes and Batman was more or less the Comedian which is funny because the actual Comedian, Jeffery Dean Morgan played Thomas Wayne. Coincidence? I think not. ;)

    It's definitely Batman and Superman viewed through the prism of Watchmen, but even in the original source material that is The Dark Knight Returns, which came out and captivated the public around the exact same time as Watchmen did in 1986-87, there are comparisons that can be made between them. Alan Moore and Frank Miller were playing with similar ideas/story arcs.

    Dr. Manhattan and Superman are both superpowered god-like figures placed under the control of the American government, and Batman and Rorschach are the respective heroes who refuse to give up crime fighting even when these superpowered beings are urging them do, in addition to other factors in their societies. Vigilantism is viewed as a crime on the grandest scale, and they depict societies on the brink of collapse. Supporting heroes in each story have long been retired, the final acts of the stories end in a snowy setting, and the conclusions of each story, while up in the air/open-ended, carry some hope and optimism to them despite the dark worlds they portray.

    Watchmen and TDKR show that we need these heroes as a society, but what does BvS have to teach us? That doing good things only brings bad? That it's impossible to stay good in a world where bad exists? At times it tries to teach us that judging a book by its cover is wrong and that absolute power doesn't have to corrupt absolutely, but those messages get lost in the mess created by the rest of its indulgent, pseudo-complex misery.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,340
    Murdock wrote: »
    I think the biggest problem with the movie is it's trying so hard to be the next Watchmen. Seriously, I was getting some serious Dr. Manhattan vibes from Supes and Batman was more or less the Comedian which is funny because the actual Comedian, Jeffery Dean Morgan played Thomas Wayne. Coincidence? I think not. ;)

    It's definitely Batman and Superman viewed through the prism of Watchmen, but even in the original source material that is The Dark Knight Returns, which came out and captivated the public around the exact same time as Watchmen did in 1986-87, there are comparisons that can be made between them. Alan Moore and Frank Miller were playing with similar ideas/story arcs.

    Dr. Manhattan and Superman are both superpowered god-like figures placed under the control of the American government, and Batman and Rorschach are the respective heroes who refuse to give up crime fighting even when these superpowered beings are urging them do, in addition to other factors in their societies. Vigilantism is viewed as a crime on the grandest scale, and they depict societies on the brink of collapse. Supporting heroes in each story have long been retired, the final acts of the stories end in a snowy setting, and the conclusions of each story, while up in the air/open-ended, carry some hope and optimism to them despite the dark worlds they portray.

    Watchmen and TDKR show that we need these heroes as a society, but what does BvS have to teach us? That doing good things only brings bad? That it's impossible to stay good in a world where bad exists? At times it tries to teach us that judging a book by its cover is wrong and that absolute power doesn't have to corrupt absolutely, but those messages get lost in the mess created by the rest of its indulgent, pseudo-complex misery.

    Oh I known it's very loosely based on TDKR which is my favorite DC Animated movie, but I just couldn't help but think that The Snyderverse is trying so hard to be Watchmen 2.0 that it falls flat.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    The Dark Knight Returns is one of my favorite DC Animated movies. The Killing Joke would be my absolute favorite, if not for that Batgirl prologue which does nothing to enhance the story. The Dark Knight Returns' only problem as an animated movie is that some of the internal monologue doesn't work as spoken dialogue. I'd rather Bruce think the line "There's nothing wrong with you that I can't fix... With my hands" and hear it as internal monologue than to see Bruce sitting in a chair watching TV and saying the line.
Sign In or Register to comment.