DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (Page 6 of 19)

Well, my big fear with Snyder is how he comes off when he's criticized.  When people complained about the deaths in Metropolis, he threw in a dozen references to how few died in Metropolis (outside estimates said it'd be a quarter million - in BvS it's "dozens" in the newspaper clip) and how every part of Metropolis and Gotham were evacuated or empty or abandoned even when a lot of that didn't make any sense.

If he takes the same approach to humor, he's going to sarcastically throw in a bunch of fart jokes to make it "funny" and then get mad when people don't like that.

I'm happy with each movie having their own feel.  Flash needs to be bright and colorful and funny.  Green Lantern needs to be epic and fun and crazy.  Aquaman needs to be the most unique superhero film we've ever seen.

The problem is that Snyder's "tone" is grim and dark and lifeless.  Whether he's actually depressed or just never smiles because of Batman, we have an entire movie with a lifeless/depressed/angry Superman.  BvS might be a well-made movie, but it's just not any fun.  And I'm worried Snyder doesn't know how to do it.

Haha no reason to debate BvS anymore.

People are giving their thoughts on the Ultimate Edition now. I haven't read spoilers for all of the new stuff, but the reviews seem to be positive. Some people who weren't fans of the theatrical cut say that the ultimate edition is much better, giving more time to Clark and explaining some things.

Others say that if you didn't like the theatrical cut, you won't like this one. Either way, I'm probably going to have fun watching it!

Still waiting for the blu-ray set though.

I've been meaning to watch it.  Haven't yet.  The guys on the Weekly Planet podcast said that if you liked the version the first time, you'll like this one better.  If you didn't, it's way too long and there's not enough spaces filled in. 

I have heard there's some good stuff after the Capitol explosion, which corrected a big criticism of the film.

Well, I can't defend the Martha thing just because I think it was done really awkwardly.  Batman humanizing Clark because his mother's name is the same as his own is fine.  But it was weird that Clark called her "Martha" - not something like Mom.  I thought it was weird that it caught him so off guard.  Batman is a determined guy who had the villain in his crosshairs.  Would he have been caught similarly off guard if the Joker had said "Martha?"  Would Batman be distracted if he heard "Martha" while he was saving, say, a busload of kids?

And I get all the next-level symbolism we were supposed to be getting.  Man of Steel was about fathers, and BvS was about mothers.  They're tying Bruce's humanity to Clark's.  But I just didn't connect with that moment emotionally at the time.

Maybe the whole picture will let me connect better.  We'll see.

The Ultimate Edition is reversing my negative opinions of this film -- I thought the theatrical version was a mixed bag of incoherence, but this Ultimate Edition is revealing all of the theatrical cut problems to have resulted almost entirely from missing scenes that were absolutely essential. I'm starting to think the problem was less Zack Snyder and more Warner Bros. refusing to release a three hour movie despite the fact that they commissioned and approved a script that couldn't work as anything else.

I'm also seeing why the WB executives applauded when they first saw the rough cut of this movie and why the reaction to the theatrical cut was so very, very different. All my issues with the film -- the muddy lack of clarity over what Superman does all day; the aloof and alienating distance from Clark Kent; the character's selfish disregard for innocent life; the baffling tangents and dead ends of the plot; it's all fixed now.

More later, but I'm going to have to completely re-review this movie now. It's amazing how just a few shots and some revised sequences can add a completely new emotional context and a much clearer plot structure to things I found baffling in the theatrical release.

So, a re-review where I will focus on the director's cut differences that made a strong impact on me.

I thought BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN was terrific in its director's cut version. The theatrical cut had me saying, "I've seen worse!" This new version still isn't quite what I'm looking for in a superhero movie, but it's a very good piece of work. Aside from a few profanities and a few shots of a gun to Martha Wayne's head, this could have been released to theatres with a PG13 rating.

The main problems with the theatrical cut -- Superman being a cold and inscrutable figure who doesn't seem heroic and the plot being incredibly confusing -- both are addressed. Quite interestingly, it's the missing plot pieces that convey Superman's compassion and heroism.

In the theatrical cut, Lois is threatened while interviewing an African warlord and Superman rescues her -- but this somehow leads to the village being massacred and Superman blamed and accused of killing all these people -- leading to incredible confusion. Why didn't Superman save the villagers; why only Lois? Why is Superman being accused of murdering civilians? What did or didn't he do, exactly? Because we don't know where Superman stands on interfering and intervening, we have no idea who Superman saves or doesn't save. We have no idea if he cares about people or if he's just getting involved when it suits him -- so Superman trying to intimidate Batman into stopping his crimefighting feels more like Superman marking territory rather than trying to help anyone. Superman saving the little girl from the factory fire had a cold and distant face when people were thanking him; Superman hovering over a flooded town seemed dismissive and uncaring.

But the director's cut irons this out completely. A slightly extended sequence where it's shown that Lex's mercenaries killed the people in the village and burned the corpses before Superman arrived on the scene.

However, a witness mis-reports this, claiming the massacre took place after Superman came on the scene. Clark is shown to be horrified and confused by how his actions are being construed, which is reiterated later on in added scenes where Clark reacts to news coverage of Superman, uncomfortable with being accused of choosing who lives and dies -- which leads to him investigating Batman, who is making that choice by branding criminals who are always targeted for death in prison. Clark's investigation and his managing to find compassion for a rapist sex trafficker makes it very clear: Superman isn't here to fight or impose his values or create a public persona. He just wants to save lives.

It's not really that much extra material. A few short scenes here and there of Clark investigating the jailhouse murder of a Batman-branded convict. A few brief shots of Clark watching debates on Superman. Absent from the film, this material made Superman inhuman and removed. Restored, Superman becomes a hero -- and when we see him rescue a child but be solemn as people reach out to touch him, it's clear that he is uncertain about being a figure of such regard and concern. When we see him hovering over a flooded town, it feels like Superman is simply plotting the best course of action to determine how to save as many lives as possible.

This massive improvement is also especially vital later on -- when the Senate explodes. In the theatrical cut, there's an explosion, we see Superman look around blankly -- then there's news footage of Superman flying away from Washington like he didn't care to do anything to help. In the director's cut, we see victims being treated by paramedics and Superman flying another person down to the first responders -- and then looking at the body bags with grief.

With a Superman worth caring about, the rest of the film works: Batman gunning for Superman has real tension and danger to it now, Superman being pummeled and pulped by Batman and stabbed through the heart by Doomsday is a heartbreaking turn of events, and Batman's regret over misjudging Superman has weight as Superman truly does represent a decency of character Batman no longer believed in.

The clarity of the plot also makes the movie flow much, much better. In the theatrical version, it was unclear what Luthor's plan was. The broad strokes were obvious -- to manipulate Batman into killing Superman in order to act out Luthor's mistrust of anyone more powerful than himself -- but there were too many details without a clear context such as Clark and Bruce receiving letters and photos to manipulate them, the confusing incident in Africa, blowing up the Senate, etc..

Luthor then revealed he was behind all of it, but so much of the film was spent wondering what the point was of all these disconnected events and the theatrical film assigns blame without offering purpose. As a result, the theatrical film suffered from a sense of directionless randomness -- Lois' investigations and Clark's meanderings don't seem to amount to anything.

The director's cut, however, makes it absolutely clear from Africa-onwards that Superman and Batman are being manipulated against each other. Every development from Clark receiving photos of Batman's victims and being assigned to cover Lex's party to Bruce receiving clues about the Kryptonite and the Senate being bombed on the same day Bruce is made aware of his former employee's grief while eliminating evidence that Luthor created a false witness to the massacre -- it's all been to put Batman and Superman in each other's crosshairs and create a mounting enmity between the two.

And because I wasn't constantly doubting my interpretation of onscreen events or unsure of what the characters were doing or why, I was able to really enjoy this individual vision of Batman and Superman. Because I was so involved and compelled, the Martha-climax feels really well-earned.

While there isn't any additional backstory to why Batman has lost his way, the clarity of Lex masterminding Batman's madness is sufficient and there is a terrible sense of unease in this version with a now extremely heroic Superman fighting a noble but wayward Batman. The Doomsday attack, which in the theatrical cut was quite boring for me, was now a gripping sequence because now that I was invested in Superman, I felt every blow and blast he experienced and I was on the verge of tears when he died.

This is a good movie. It may not be the version of Superman that everyone wants, but it's exciting, thought-provoking, compelling and it makes strong choices that draw attention and engagement. This should have been the version released to theatres. It's not a fun, lightweight Marvel movie, but I think that if this version had been shown in cinemas, it would have made 800 million dollars easily in its first couple weeks. I can't imagine anyone going back to rewatch it for fun, but I can imagine people rewatching it to experience an epic journey again and to see how Luthor's plans fit together in such insidious and calculated fashion and to spend more time with Superman.

I think it's a real shame that Warner Bros. had so much faith in this film only to choke when they decided to rip half an hour out of it.

Also, rewatching factory fire scene where Superman saves the girl, I noticed that he is actually smiling at her and has a warm expression as he brings her back to the crowd. It only turns more serious after he is surrounded by people and looks back at the fire that's still burning.

All that being said, I think things are going in the right direction.  The Wonder Woman footage looks fun and exciting and way less dour than MoS or BvS.  I'm psyched about seeing Suicide Squad in a couple weeks (I already have tickets).  And even the Justice League footage looks way more fun/exciting/human than BvS was to me.

Although I thought it was odd that Bruce sorta used his Batman voice while recruiting.  It even seemed a little odd that he did his recruiting as Bruce.  I would've thought, at least with Barry, that he'd try and use the Batman costume to intimidate him.  Since he throws a batarang anyway, it's not like he's afraid of being too aggressive or giving away his secret.

But it's definitely moving in the right direction.  They can still take the material seriously without either being too light (Avengers) or too dark (BvS).  IMO, of course.

The more I think about it, the more I find myself downgrading the theatrical cut from "I've seen worse" to "absolutely terrible." However, Slider_Quinn21's criticisms still hold weight in many areas. Only Batman and his former employee seem to blame Superman for the Metropolis attack; the lines about Metropolis' downtown core, Stryker's Island and Gotham's harbour being nearly empty seem clumsy, and there's still no backstory to why Batman has lost faith after 20 years in Gotham. These are flaws -- but the director's cut is so well-paced and compelling and driven and purposeful that I find myself accepting its choices whereas the theatrical cut was too confused and fragmented for me to go along with it.

Watching it in theatres, I kept getting pulled out of a very disjointed narrative. Why does Lois spend so much time investigating a mysterious bullet when that doesn't lead anywhere? Why does Lex blow up the Senate? Why does Lex send Clark photos of Batman's victims? Why doesn't Lex just give Wayne the Kryptonite? How is any of his this crap necessary when all Lex needed to do was (a) give Batman a Kryptonite weapon and (b) kidnap Martha to force Superman to fight Batman? There comes a point when I and many viewers despaired of any of these plot threads adding up to anything and the movie became incredibly dull.

Then there's the incredible vagueness of Superman's character. What happened in Africa? Is he responsible for the massacre described? Why, with so many global issues, does Superman fixate on a municipal-level vigilante? Why the hell is Superman just watching a flooded town? Why does Superman fly away from the Senate explosion without doing anything to help and leaving people to see a government building blow up at a superhuman flying away without explanation? How willing is he to kill Batman in the fight?

All this was clearly laid out in the script, and it seems like the cutting was done in a shockingly careless manner. At the very least, the Africa sequence needed to stay intact -- not necessarily with all the extra dialogue, but to make it clear: Lex's mercs murder most of the village and incinerate the corpses, Lois is threatened, the US Army activates a drone attack, Superman flies in and manages to save Lois and some survivors by stopping the drone strike -- but a witness from the village declares that Superman murdered the civilians as part of Lex's plan to frame Superman and build him up as a threat in Batman's view.

If that were intact, all the subsequent material -- Lois' investigation, Clark being manipulated into investigating Batman further, Bruce receiving letters heightening his anger, the Senate exploison -- they would all be part of Lex's psychological mind game with Superman so disturbed by Batman that he might actually be willing to trade Batman's life for his mother's. Every incident was meant to be a step leading towards a titantic clash between Superman and Batman -- except the theatrical cut removed the context and the result was a very confused film.

Superman looks as demonic and frightening in the director's cut as he does in the theatrical cut -- but the film has spent some time with Clark Kent so that while the audience understands why Batman would hate and fear him, the audience knows that Batman is wrong about him and Henry Cavill's cold expressions now have context; he's not uncaring, he's uncertain.

This film is very much like CIVIL WAR -- it's about two people who should be friends instead becoming enemies and being maneuvered into destroying each other. But the cuts eliminated Superman's character to the point where this was completely absent in the cinema.

I am oddly impressed that Informant saw the theatrical cut and somehow saw the director's cut in there somewhere -- because a lot of his views on how Superman and Batman and Lex came off in the story struck me as Informant reviewing what should have been in the film as opposed to what was actually onscreen -- except it's all there now.

Is it weird that it really bothered me that Barry's "lightning" was blue?

And I think ireactions has it correct.  The movie, to casual audiences, just didn't connect.  There was way too many moving pieces and without the extra scenes, the gears didn't all connect to each other.  And what's funny is that it's a movie that I seemed to like a lot in the theater....then as time went on, I liked less and less.  I think, at the end of the day, it was rushed.  And not necessarily development but I think they wanted to be at a certain point and I think they bit off more than they could chew.  Bruce and Lex and Doomsday and Death of Superman and introducing Wonder Woman and the rest of the Justice League. 

I think a movie could've been done where Superman is trying to clean up his image from Metropolis and Bruce doesn't buy it.  Instead of retelling the death of the Waynes, tell the story of Batman's fall during the course of the movie.  You have a detective and a journalist.  Clark could investigate what happened with Bruce and Bruce could just be blinded by rage.  Maybe we find out that Jason/Dick died right before, and Bruce is unhinged.  And over the course of the movie, we'd really get to know these characters.  We'd know why Batman lost his way.  We'd know why Superman acts the way he does.  There'd be scenes where Alfred is desperately trying to pull Bruce out of his tailspin, and there'd be scenes were Superman is struggling with the fact that he keeps saving people and they still hate him. 

It could've been a nice, somewhat-intimate character study.  But I also know how that kind of movie ends up turning into BvS.  Snyder doesn't think Metropolis is a big deal so he adds the Africa stuff.  You have to add Lex because Bruce can't be the bad guy - he has to be manipulated.  And because Bruce has to be a good guy, Clark has to look menacing.  And the movie can't end with Batman fighting Superman because the good guys have to get over their issues and fight something - it'd be even crazier to introduce Darkseid in a third act so you throw in Doomsday.  And at that point, throwing in Wonder Woman and the Justice League isn't crazy.

But if you do the smaller film with a tease to Wonder Woman, you're getting her film.  I might do a "Bruce gathers the Justice League" movie.  I was thinking about it earlier and I might do it Pulp Fiction or Sin City style.  Where it's three separate stories.  Bruce tracks down Aquaman.  Bruce tracks down Barry.  Bruce tracks down Cyborg.  In all three stories, there's action and intrigue and character, but it's written like Pulp Fiction or Sin City where they don't have to all get together.  It's three separate stories that sorta cross over at times.

Then you do Justice League.  You can either still do Suicide Squad or make the Bruce movie instead and save Suicide Squad for later.  I've basically gotten the DCCU in the same place without going batshit crazy (pun intended) with BvS.

All that being said, I agree - Informant saw the Ultimate Edition when the rest of us saw the regular version.  Pretty cool.

Yeah, I just think they could've gotten the same place at the same time without the bloating.  I don't necessarily think the movie needed to go to Africa.  Congress could've (and should've - it's unknown if they did) held hearings on what happened in Metropolis where American citizens did die.  I don't think Lex and Doomsday necessarily needed to be in the film.  I don't necessarily think Wonder Woman needed to be in the film.  And whether you liked any of that stuff (I thought Diana was great in her limited time - Lex not so much), those elements took away from time that could've been used elsewhere. 

Superman didn't need a controversial inciting incident - he had one in Man of Steel.  Any time spent on Diana could've been spent on Superman.  Any time spent on Lex could've been spent on Bruce.  What if the cameos by Flash/Cyborg/Aquaman (and heck, Diana) were Bruce putting together pieces to make an Amazo-like android who could finish the job if Batman failed? 

So the movie opens with Batman on patrol with Jason Todd.  A villain gets the better of them, and Batman is a step slow in saving Jason.  He's older and doesn't have it anymore.  He snaps and kills the villain.  He gives up the cape and the cowl, and he goes full Bruce Wayne businessman.  And yet Batman calls to him - getting revenge didn't make the pain go away.  Flash forward X months/years and the Battle of Metropolis happens.  And all the feelings come back.  Bruce knows he only has a short amount of time and *this* revenge will make things better.  It will make everything matter again.

Superman is doing is best to make up for Metropolis.  Some people are scared, some people think he's great.  Some *hate* him - some *worship* him.  It's a mess.  The government wants to hold hearings about it.  Clark doesn't know what to think.  He just wants to save people.

Batman comes up with a three-pronged plan.  Find out who Superman is (detective), find out what hurts him (detective), and kill him.  The first and second act is Bruce implementing this plan as Batman.  He's brutal and scary.  While Clark is trying to find common ground with Superman, he gets interested in the Batman story.  This was a hero who Clark grew up loving.  He went as Batman for Halloween at one point.  This new guy can't be Batman.  Something is wrong.

Batman finds out Clark is Superman.  Clark catches Batman snooping and finds out Batman is Bruce.  Clark (journalism) finds out about Jason Todd.  Dick Grayson.  Barbara Gordon.  The Waynes.  All the death.  How it impacts people.  And he starts to look into all the pain caused by what happened in Metropolis.

He goes to Congress and basically admits that he was responsible.  He should've been better.  He will be better.  Some of the congressmen want to see him taken away.  Some don't.  Superman leaves before it's resolved - Batman sees this as him being a fugitive.  He starts on phase three of his plan.  He's found out about Kryptonite, but he's not sure it's enough.  He starts his backup plan.

Clark goes back to trying to save Bruce.  But Bruce is gone.  Batman is gone.  No one can find either.  That's because Bruce is around the world.  He's found an android built by Silas Stone.  He's found a powerful Amazon warrior.  An Atlantean king.  The fastest man alive. 

Batman attacks Superman.  They fight.  Batman is brutal but Superman is trying to get through to Bruce.  It doesn't work.  Superman has to fight back or he's going to die.  *whatever Martha moment you want* They find common ground.  Superman saves Batman.  Then Amazo shows up - it's as fast and strong as Superman but can fight like Batman.  Batman helps Superman defeat it.

They form an alliance.  Bruce says he knows others that can help.  End of movie.

I love that.  DC needs to hire the Holy Trinity of the Sliders BBoard to write Justice League 2

If they were going to do "older Batman" (which, the dead horse says, I wasn't in favor of), I *love* the idea that Superman was a fan of Batman.  Because how couldn't he have been?  Batman is supposedly in his 40s in BvS.  So he would've been active for 10-15 years?  Superman is supposed to be in his early 30s.  So even if Clark wasn't young enough to be Batman for Halloween, he was a teenager when Batman was just getting started.  As I've said before, I think it could be a really cool DCCU Elseworld to have a story where Clark becomes the first Robin.  Maybe after the death of Pa Kent?

About the Africa thing... I think that it shows the aftermath of the Metropolis event, while moving the story forward. It gives Lois a new story to work with as well. I think it works because it shows that after what happened in Metropolis, it doesn't matter what Superman does. A lot of people are ready to believe that he is evil, no matter how many lives he saves. It was a great way to use the press in the movie (and not entirely unlike what I've done in some of my recent books). There is manipulation of the public opinion.

I don't know that staying on Metropolis would have built that story or that world in the same way that moving forward did.

Moving on...

Reviews are coming in for Suicide Squad. Critics hate it, which makes me oddly more excited to see it. Especially since some of their comments prove how little they get the source material. They say that Harley is written in a sexist way. Well... duh. She was Joker's puppy dog, chasing him around in skimpy outfits, shaking her ass and trying to get in his pants while he really didn't care for her that much. But on the flip side was this smart, well educated, classy woman who didn't so much go crazy as she just decided to stop being sane.

There is no way to do Harley right without being sexist. But that is just one part of a larger, deeper, complex character.

But the weird thing about the reviews is that I'm seeing similar wording across different reviews (I was skimming reviews earlier and there were examples, but it was hours ago and right now I can only remember the word "machismo" being used to criticize the movie). That always strikes me as odd. You'll usually see it from politicians, when they're repeating the party memo for the day, or in news reports that are trying to skew the story. I wouldn't expect to see it in movie reviews.

I think the problem is that people want and expect Guardians of the Galaxy, where the heroes are criminals, but ultimately good. This is not that. I don't get the comparisons to Guardians.

Going back to BvS, I see a lot of that movie as being about the ripples of the Metropolis attack. I don't see it as a healed world that had moved on, or Superman not having to answer for his role in it. It all feels very connected to me.

I don't think there will be any DC movies that get solid good receptions. Most critics think that comic book movies should be cartoonish, which is why they love Marvel and the older Superman movies. Most of them think that comic book stories shouldn't be dark or gritty, which is going to be a problem. Criticizing Harley Quinn because it's a sexist portrayal, or dinging the movie because of its machismo... it sounds like they're more upset that the movie doesn't live up to their political standards than they are about the actual movie.

It could be a mess. I don't know. But the critics are so out of the loop on these movies, I can't take them seriously. And their "inside information" has been proven false in the past.

Wonder Woman might get better reviews, since the character is a feminist icon and critics won't want to bash the first female superhero movie like this. But overall, the critics are a joke. They keep expecting DC to put out Marvel movies, and DC isn't doing that. So DC gets criticized for not being Marvel. It's no-win. Guardians is about lovable rogues. Suicide Squad is about genuinely bad people. Killer Croc is not Groot.

I guess we will find out after the movie is released. I'm hoping to see it next week, but my schedule is always difficult, so we'll see.

Well, on the Weekly Planet (a comics podcast I love) they were talking about Suicide Squad and said it's the movie most people were talking about.  I'm a week behind so they were talking about it before seeing it, and they were both really excited. 

For reference, neither thought it was particularly a great movie.  I didn't listen to his review yet, but his short twitter non-spoiler review said it was good but not great.  Going in, he expected it to be great.

So I'm sure it'll make money.  The question will be whether it has any traction for more than a week or two.  BvS made a ton of movie the first week and then died out due to word of mouth.  Suicide Squad needs to at least win this week and stay competitive the next couple weeks.

For reference:
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/batman-v-s … 26119.html

SPOILERS

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

Okay, so I saw it.  I'm not really sure why the movie is getting such bad reviews.  It's a bit of a mess, but I thought it was fun.  I thought it was sorta like a more serious Marvel film - much more fun than BvS or even MoS.  And it still sorta felt like the DC universe even though it was brighter and people were smiling.

I thought Margot Robbie was good as Harley, although I really didn't think they played up the tragedy of her character that much.  Even Batman: The Animated Series devoted more time to Harley's fall, and since she was such a central character, I would've liked to have seen her downfall to madness more than we got.  One of the problems of the movie is that it gets bogged down, but I think I only really understood her backstory because I've seen it elsewhere.

Will Smith was good as Deadshot.  But again, I don't really think I understood where his character was coming from.  Was he always a character who wanted to be better, or did having a daughter change him?  Did he truly like killing, or was it a means to an end?  It was hard to say.

El Diablo was a pretty great character, actually.  Maybe my favorite.  I think I understood his character the best, which was odd.

The rest were just sorta there.  I thought Katana was oddly added, and there wasn't much to her character.  Killer Croc and Captain Boomerang were forgettable in the background, and I thought Rick Flagg was pretty forgettable in the foreground.

Then there's the Joker.  I really didn't like this version of the Joker, and I'm a little upset about it.  And my main problem is that he didn't feel like the Joker to me.  Not at all.  He just seemed like a sorta-psychopathic gangster to me.  Nothing about any of his exploits really screamed "Joker" to me, and he wasn't even laughing all that much.  I know Heath Ledger's Joker wasn't really using "Joker" weapons or props, but I got the idea that he was at least an agent of chaos.  I really just didn't get a Joker vibe from him the entire time.

Amanda Waller was pretty well done, but I also wasn't really sure where her character was coming from.  The scene where she kills a room full of agents was bizarre, and I never really understood her motivations.  Was she just out for herself?  If so, why didn't she give Enchantress what she wanted when she was captured?  Why didn't she try and make some sort of deal?

I thought Batman's part was a bit weird.  I liked the mid-credits scene quite a bit(*), but I thought the two flashback scenes were sorta bizarre.  Batman gets the drop on Deadshot with this daughter, but would Deadshot have killed him if his daughter hadn't stepped in?  Did a little girl save Batman's life?  Deadshot basically beat him in the fight.  I know it's not a Batman movie, but it was a little odd to me.  And the Joker scene was really quick for how much it was prominently featured in the promo materials.  Flash's brief cameo capturing Boomerang was almost better than the two Batman cameos.

* I really liked the interaction between Bruce and Waller, but I had a few questions about it.  I know Waller knows everything, but is Bruce too old to care that much about his secret identity?  Including the Justice League trailer, Bruce is basically working as Batman in his Bruce Wayne persona a lot.  These are scenes that I expect Bruce to have in costume.  Instead of meeting with Amanda in a suit in a restaurant, I'd imagine that scene would take place on a rooftop as Batman.  It just feels a bit weird for Bruce to be doing so much of the work. 

* continued - And I'm still confused about why Bruce needs *more* information on Aquaman/Flash/etc.  The dossiers didn't seem that long, and he already has the information from Lex.  It just seems a bit of a retread.  Maybe Bruce just wants to be thorough.

All in all, I thought it was fun.  The first half of the movie is better than the second, but I didn't hate the second.  The action was pretty fun, and I liked the characters.  One thing that surprised me is that the movie really isn't very funny.  I can't think of any times, really, where I (or, really, anyone in the theater) laughed out loud.  There's comedy, sure, but I was surprised at how few genuinely funny scenes there were.

Oh and one last thing.  Just like Katana was tacked on, I thought there was some lazy writing with Slipknot.  His death was so telegraphed.  After every character (even Enchantress) gets an introduction with a flashback and a scene at Belle Reve....right before their first mission, "Oh, and here's Slipknot.  His power is whatever."  He gets one brief scene where you see that he's a bad guy and then he's simply a prop to show that Waller/Flagg can really kill them if they want.  They should've either pretended he was a real character (so we care whether he lives or dies) or use him to show how ruthless Waller is (maybe have a scene where she tricks him into thinking he can escape so he'll try - to basically sacrifice him to show that she's serious).  I just thought it was really lazy.

I'm disappointed that it's getting bad reviews, but I can see why people might not like it.  It's two different movies (setting up the characters and then going on a mission), and the characterization is definitely unbalanced.  What they get right (Harley, Deadshot) is good, what they get wrong (Joker) is bad., and then there are just a bunch of characters that are just there.  And I barely mentioned the plot, but there was a lot about it that didn't make a ton of sense (no one seemed to know what the mission was, I don't really know whether or not they were actually trying to kill Enchantress or not, a lot of time seems to pass between the initial attack and the Suicide Squad showing up - where were the other heroes?, etc).

So, yeah, there were issues.  But for what it is (and it knew what it was), I though it was enjoyable.

Well, to be fair, I don't know anyone (on a personal level) who has said the movie was great, but I almost everyone I've talked to (who is even remotely interested in comic book movies) has either seen it or is planning on it.  There was a great deal of interest in it, but most people I've spoken to (friends and acquaintances, not reviewers) have either been disappointed in it or said something like "I'm surprised that the reviews were so bad, I thought it was fine."

When you read my review, I think you'll see that it's very easy to fall into a review going either way.  No spoilers, but the characterization is uneven (which you'd expect from an ensemble film but it's worse than most) and the plot doesn't make much sense.  At the same time, I was never bored, I enjoyed a few of the characters very much, and it was pretty cool to be watching Harley Quinn on the big screen.

So if you wanted to write a negative review, you ignore some of the fun and focus on what's bad (and there's enough).  If you wanted to write a positive review, you ignore some of the issues and focus on what's fun and good (and there's enough).  I'm not going to say there's a movement against DC because I don't really see how reviewers would benefit from taking down DC and/or propping up Marvel (and I don't think Disney is paying reviewers to give bad reviews), but I do think people are (overall) disappointed in the DC universe as a whole.  So that might make "average to good" reviews into "average to bad."

It's hard for me because I haven't loved any of the three DCEU films.  So I can't say anyone is saying a "great" movie is bad.  They're pointing out flaws in the movies that really exist.  But some movies (Episode 7) are universally loved despite their flaws, and the DC movies are getting the opposite treatment.

I get that.  But, like I've said in the past, I think these movies are aiming higher and get judged on a higher standard.  I don't think it's really fair that Thor the Dark World and Suicide Squad are measured against each other just like I don't think The Secret Life of Pets and Sausage Party should be measured against each other.  They have things in common, but they have completely different goals.

When you have Thor punching a giant rock monster and your primary villain gallivanting as Captain America in a humorous cameo, you're telling your audience that they don't have to be emotionally invested.  But in Suicide Squad, the "heroes" are told that if they step out of line, they explode (I hope that's not a spoiler).  And unlike Loki, if you die, you don't come back. 

So for Thor, the movie is judged on "did you have a good time?"  And yeah it was stupid and I don't think I'll watch it again, but I had a good time for two hours.

With Suicide Squad, just being fun isn't enough because the movie made it clear it was trying to do more.  So I have to judge on whether or not character motivations make sense.  I have to judge it on plot details.  I have to judge it on characterization.  When something doesn't make sense in Avengers, they make a joke and move on.  DC can't aspire to be better and do that.  It's why we care when Metropolis is destroyed but not when New York is.

If you want to be better, you're judged more harshly. 

It's also weird to me that you bunched in Iron Man 3 with Thor 2 and Avengers 2.  Iron Man 3 failed in some areas, but it was the most un-Marvel of the entire MCU.  It tried things that no other Marvel movie ever tried.

Well, there's also flaws in Rotten Tomatoes' system.  It's a binary system but what if a movie doesn't really fit in either category?  What if it's not good, not great - just average?  Rotten Tomatoes makes reviews go one way or the other so an average movie could potentially go either way.

And this is one of those movies.  There are problems with plot and characterization.  To enjoy it, you are going to have to look passed some things.  I don't think this is a movie that's being unfairly treated - it truly could go either way.

I did discuss it with a friend of mine who's a hardcore DC defender, and we did come up with some ideas on how it could've been better.  I'll discuss once you've seen it.

The more I think about it, the more I really think this movie just needed one more rewrite to be really great.  Mini spoiler alert, but in my rewrite, I would've eliminated two characters from the lineup.  I thought back, and with only one minor plot point, both characters are basically Rogue from Days of Future Past - they could be eliminated from the plot entirely with no plot holes.  So I'd get rid of them.

With those characters gone and no additional scenes needed to fix any errors (just one character doing something significant instead of another), there's three scenes I'd like to add.  It'd probably end up being slightly longer than the original cut, but it wouldn't be super-noticeable (and there's a scene or two that could be cut to keep it at a certain length.

And this is why I really like the idea of someone like Feige or Johns who is overseeing everything.  Because if it was me, I'd ask the screenwriter two questions about each character: 1) does the audience have enough to care about this character and 2) does this character serve the story?  For the two characters I'm talking about, the answer is "no" to each. 

And if the writer says "well, they serve a purpose down the road" then I'd either include them as a cameo or move their introduction to another movie.  Allegedly, the Batman solo film is going to take place in Arkham, and any character from Suicide Squad could be introduced in that movie and included in a Suicide Squad sequel.  I know the Batman stuff hasn't been confirmed so it definitely wasn't confirmed when Suicide Squad was being written....but, again, if there was a bit more planning, that might've been known before things started getting written and shot.

Well, the complaints were that Superman was too moody.  Not so much in Man of Steel but definitely in BvS.  If he's that moody in Man of Steel 2, then that is a problem.

I know it probably won't happen, but I'd like to see someone else direct Man of Steel 2.  I'm thinking Snyder just doesn't want Clark to have any fun at all

Well, I think there's a big gap between Christopher Reeve and what we saw in Batman v Superman.  I think Man of Steel was in that gap, but I think there's still some room to play with.  The scene in MoS where Clark learns to fly exemplifies where the character should be at times.

Yeah, life can be rough when you're the only one of your kind.  When you have to be so careful with everyone around you.  When so much is riding on your shoulders. Heck, when people hate you because you saved the world.

But it's also nice to remember that Clark can have lunch in Beijing and dinner in Paris and still be home by bedtime.  He can see the polar icecaps and the Sahara Desert and Angel Falls in the same day.  He can throw a baseball into the sun.  Being Superman would be *so much fun* and just focusing on the bad just makes for a depressing movie.  I mean, we all have problems, Clark.  But not all of us can just float above the Earth when we get sad.

I think Smallville had a lot of that balance.  Yeah, Clark was sad about Lana or whatever, but there were really fun scenes where Clark and Pete played basketball or Clark and Bart raced.  Even stuff like Clark making Lana's engagement ring from a piece of coal.

Superman can (and should) have a lot of fun.  He deserves it.

I mean, I just don't see the character as someone who'd be weighed down by his powers.  Would you not switch lives with Clark in an instant?  Wouldn't anyone?  So when the character is written as moody or depressed, it's like writing Richie Rich as depressed.  "Damn all this money!  It makes it harder to connect with my fellow kids?"

Maybe the Christopher Reeve movies were an extreme of this where his life is great and nothing ever goes wrong, but again, I think there's a happy medium in between those movies (for the record, I think the Reeve movies are boring and I cannot watch them).

Clark would have problems like everyone else.  But unlike everyone else, he can enjoy life in a way that no one else can.  This version of Clark could apply to someone like Ben Grimm (who has cool powers but cannot fit in) or maybe Martian Manhunter (who is weighed down by being the only Martian *and* living through it).  But Clark shouldn't identify as a Kryptonian.  He's SuperMAN.  I think he should identify as human since he was human longer than he was Kryptonian.

So he's a human with cool powers living on a planet with 7 billion other humans.  So I don't know why he'd ever feel like his life is joyless.

I guess I can see that.  But if that's the case, I just don't like this version of Clark.  Because he's clearly not antisocial - he has confidence in social interactions.  He's able to slyly flirt with Lois Lane and win her over.  He might be afraid of his powers in his youth, but he has no issue displaying them or showing people his indestructibility on the oil platform.  He seems to have fun on his first flight.  So while the movie might want him to be this lonely drifter who stayed away from human contact because he's afraid of what will happen, some scenes in the movie don't really line up with that.  You make him sound like he's Andrew from Chronicle, but Andrew could never talk to Lois Lane the way Clark does.

I guess my vision for Clark is someone who doesn't let the weight of the world get to him.  He'll hold the weight of the world because he can handle it.  He'll handle others' weight too because he can handle it.  And he'll handle it with a smile because he's Superman, and he has a responsibility to save you as if you're the only person in the world.  He saves Lois every time, but he makes everyone feel like they're Lois.

If this Superman never had fun with his powers and thinks being Superman is too hard....then I can see why he's seemingly so depressed in BvS.  But if he wants to switch lives, I'm sure the line will be 7,442,094,132 people long (as of this instant).

He claims a lot of his part was cut (and we know some of it was based on shots from the trailer).  But the more I think about it, Joker was the most disappointing part of the movie.

I wonder if his character is the biggest victim of the alleged major re-edit.