Batman v.

Superman: What the critics aren't saying (and why they're wrong)
by
Benjamin Enos & Jesse Ashcraft
The reviews are in for Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice and quite frankly they're pretty
ruthless. Critics booted the superhero epic into the stratosphere with an underwhelming 29% on
Rotten Tomatoes alongside an unimpressive 44/100 on Metacritic, and it appears that a large portion
of the audience is listening for some reason.

The purpose of criticism

One might think that a proper critic review aims to judge whether a movie is worth the
money or not, but I would strongly caution you against this erroneous belief. That's not their
purpose. The purpose of a critic review, in my opinion, is to show how a flm reaches its audience
using the artistic materials at hand and whether or not it utilizes them to its full potential. This
might sound academic, but that's exactly my point. If you're not looking for a more academic
perspective you might as well listen to your buddy's opinion because at the very least you guys have
something in common. It makes absolutely no sense to read a critic review unless you're after a
more academically and intellectually concentrated perspective. If that's not the case, don't waste
your time. Now, I don't have a problem with critic reviews, I actually think they can offer some
great insight into flm, but the problem I have pertaining to the reviews for BVS is that these aren't
academic or intellectual at all. They're some of the most maliciously ignorant and uneducated
reviews I've read in a while. Deeming a flm too dark or too serious is not a valid assessment.
Being disappointed in the lack of humor in an action movie is not a valid assessment. It's one thing
if you're just giving a blas recap of the story, but it's another if you attack its integrity. It's as if
they've drained the flm completely of its artistic value and only given a brief statement on their
subjective opinion in comparison with The Avengers. A brightly lit joy-ride with incessant banter
may be what the critics want, but is that what the fans want? More importantly, is that what
Snyder wants? Zack Snyder may have crafted the most faithful interpretation of the comics and no
has noticed because the media has hosed it down with its facile reviews. If a proper review aims to
show whether or not a flm utilizes its artistic medium to its full potential, and in this case it
includes its source material, then its high time BVS gets a fair shake.

When killing is a good thing

Batman v. Superman is too dark. At least, that's what some moviegoers seem to think. How

can Batman want to kill Superman? They think he chooses the wrong side and is consequently
unrelatable, or perhaps they simply miss the Batman they fnd in Christopher Nolans flms. The
uncompromising hero. The sort-of martyr who shoulders the blame for acts he didnt commit or, if
were honest, the Dark Knight in name only. We never actually question whether hes right or wrong.
And that iron commitment to justice is what many of us have come to desire, even to expect from the
Caped Crusader. Batman is the good guy.
Maybe it isnt so simple. Lets look at the graphic novel from which both Christopher Nolan
and Zack Snyder take their inspiration: Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. Some argue that
Batman kills people in this novel. Some argue that he doesn't. I think Miller is deliberately
ambiguous. At one point, Batman clearly seems to shoot a thug dead who has a gun held to a
child's temple. Then a few pages later another character implies that, while Batman is wanted for a
number of crimes, murder and manslaughter are not among them. Soon after, we see him mowing
down a group of gang members with Batmobile-mounted machine guns. Turn the page to learn
theyre loaded with rubber bullets. Is Batman a killer or isnt he? The issue comes to a head in his
fnal confrontation with the Joker. While chasing the psychotic clown, Batman reasons internally
that people only kill each other so much because guns and other weapons make it so easy. It should
be diffcult, painful. A man should have to kill with his own hands. Fast-forward to Batman
grasping the Joker's head. He twists. The Joker dies. But then the Joker starts talking again. Only
this time Miller doesn't encircle the his words with his normal white speech bubbles; instead, he
switches to gray, a color normally reserved for Batman's speech and thought bubbles (not even
Bruce Wayne's are gray). The reader is left wondering if the Joker is actually talking or if it's all in
Batman's head. The Joker proceeds to contort his body as to snap his own spine. Did he kill him or
did the Joker do himself in?
Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe what matters is that Miller's Batman is a bit more gray and
a bit less black and white. With The Dark Knight Returns, Miller is getting us ready for what comes
next Batman's inevitable crossing of the line. SPOILER ALERT: Miller's Batman kills Dick
Grayson (unequivocally) in the sequel, The Dark Knight Strikes Again. But even if he didn't, we're
left with a Batman who has firted with the idea of killing. He may not have crossed the line in The
Dark Knight Returns, but at the very least he thinks he has crossed, if only for a moment. In

Batman v. Superman, Snyder might have simply taken one more step down the path Miller laid out

for him. If anything, I would contend he's more of a fulfllment of Miller's Batman than a deviation
from him.
I wasn't sure whose side I was on during BVS, to be honest. At least not until Batman (Ben
Affeck) was holding the spear over Superman (Henry Cavill) when, in the briefest of moments, I
thought, Do it, kill Superman. I wasn't sure if Batman was right or wrong, and I don't think I was
supposed to be. If you want to get exactly what you expect, by all means, go see The Avengers. DC
will be here pushing the boundaries of comics in flm.
Oh, the humanity
The majority of the reviews blame BVS for being too bleak. Let's get one thing straight: it
isn't too bleak it's bleak. It isn't too dark it's dark. One reviewer actually described the flm as
Death, death, and more death. Apparently these folks haven't read the aforementioned Miller
comics. Batman spawns from death and is steeped in it. Snyder understands this and he began the
flm in a forbidding cave to point this out. It is death that has driven him to become a vigilante. A

vigilante. Not a witty, pithy pansy. We all saw that Batman back in '97 and George Clooney still
can't live it down.
Snyder presents us with a broken man who no longer believes in good guys. In contrast,
Christopher Nolan's Batman is literally broken but his spirit remains intact, enabling him to
rebuild his body and emerge a stronger hero. In the Dark Knight Rises, Bane claims to have
broken him, but he is proven wrong when Batman refuses to break his one rule against killing.
Nolan's Batman never ceases to be the hero, while Snyder's Batman abandoned any notion of
being a hero long ago. Lest he forget that the good guys don't win, he leaves the dead Robin's suit
standing in his Batcave, a monument to his failure as a hero. The words of a maniacal villain
sprayed across the torso: HAHAHA JOKE'S ON YOU BATMAN.
Alongside Batman, some say that even Snyder's Bruce Wayne does nothing but brood
around. But within the context of the flm (dead parents, dead partner, dead employees, dead
friends), how can a man do anything more? They may say that the playboy alter ego is
underdeveloped, but Snyder seems to be arguing for the humanity of his characters. Bruce Wayne
can only play the part for so long before the harsh realities of the world set in and he's perpetually
burdened to be nothing more than the Batman. If you watch the scene at Lex's mansion you'll
notice that Bruce Wayne hardly puts any effort into being Bruce Wayne; even when he's not
sporting the cape and cowl, he's Batman. The world has exhausted the billionaire playboy we once

knew and has only left the bitter, brooding caped crusader known (appropriately) as the Dark
Knight. While he's able to relinquish his moral code as the Batman, over the years it's become
more and more diffcult to put on the facade of an oblivious philanthropist. What Snyder shows
us is a man whose ethics have grayed as much as he has. Oh, and as for his one rule... that seems
to have died years ago. This may scandalize what Nolan did with the character, but as for this
flm, it works thematically.
Another criticism is lobbed at the relationship, or charisma I should say, between Bruce
and Alfred. It would appear that the grim circumstances of Robin's death, the unyielding forces of
evil and the possible enslavement of humanity by an all-powerful alien has brought them to the
dark confnes of pessimism. Both succumbing to the sedation of alcohol, the pair have grown more
and more indifferent to the betterment of their relationship and more preoccupied by the darkness
that's engulfed them.
Considering most of their scenes together take place in a cave or graveyard, Alfred serves as a
reminder to Bruce that he is stuck in a pit of his own anguish. An undoubtedly more jaded version
than the lovable father fgure, as in Christopher Nolan's adaptation, but given the context we
understand where this comes from. Alfred, in Snyder's interpretation, doesn't necessarily try to
convince Bruce that there's a light at the end of the tunnel, but more so that there's no hope in
remaining in despair. But years of ignoring his sage advice has left Alfred mumbling his words of
wisdom into a nearly empty glass of scotch. Bruce has become numb to his old friend and Alfred's
running out of things to say. If Batman gave up on Bruce Wayne years ago, then Alfred can't be
far behind.
Superman isn't safe from the harsh words of the critics either. The mighty manifestation of
hope has been brought down to our fallible level and people are outraged. For Snyder, the idealism of
Superman was left in a smoky haze back where Krypton used to be. Long gone are the days of
uncompromising morals, fawless virtues and irreproachable characteristics. In the world of BVS no
one is safe from the fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men cruel. It is in
this piece of dialogue that Alfred sums up one of the most prominent themes in the flm.
Powerlessness. It is, however, understandable to feel heartache as we hear the Man of Steel utter the
words, no one stays good in this world. This is probably the most controversial line of dialogue in
the entire flm. To some, this means Superman is dead and Snyder has killed him. To others, it adds a
fresh twist on the untarnished All-Star alien. But a character who has been raised as a human and
feels what humans feel would not be very sympathetic if he were to stay impeccable. How can we

relate to perfection? This is the dividing line.

Those who wish to keep Superman a spotless beacon of hope will moan and groan at
Snyder's interpretation of a conficted hero. But if we look at what he's done with Batman, it works
just as well to bring Superman to the ground foor of all the chaos and cruelty that the world
dishes out. Here we fnd Superman not only struggling to use his power wisely, but to use it at all.
The complexities of politics and religion are explored and it may end up scaring some fans away
in fear that their savior hero is at risk of becoming something less than an ideal and something
more human. To some tried-and-true Superman fans this is blasphemy, but to others it's just great
storytelling.
Superman represents the best of the human spirit, an untarnished and unapologetic force for
good. That is, until Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) threatens his mother's life, at which point we learn
our wholesome hero will do anything to save hereven murder. Luthor intends to turn this
untarnished view of Superman upside-down, much as he turns his father's painting of a great battle
between angels and devils upside-down. Devils don't come from hell beneath us, he says. No, they
come from the sky. The flm does something smart here, but may also upset a lot of viewers. It takes
the two most pervasive characters in comics, de-heroizes them, and makes them human. Superman
may have come from the sky, but are we to think that he is a devil because he cant stomach letting
his mother die? Not a god, but certainly not a devil, either. Maybe he is human after all. After all, in
the end it's not Superman's evil that surprises us. It's his humanity.
Perhaps Luthor's painting could be more aptly applied to the Dark Knight himself. James
Gordon pulls a lever and a winged fgure lights up the night sky. A devil from above. He brings peace
by means of fear and justice by means of bloodletting. He has to be talked out of fre-branding
people to die. In this sentiment, Snyder breaks two of our most beloved heroes. Some of us resent him
for it, but by doing so he breathes life into the mythos. The characters are able to peel themselves off
the page and stand upright, now with fesh and bone. If nothing else, Snyder pushes the boundaries
of two of comics most played out characters. Would you really expect less from the director of 300
and Watchmen?
By humanizing these characters, we're able to sympathize with their internal battles. As
far as Superman on flm goes, this is an entirely new arena. Either by hiking up an isolated
mountain or returning home to speak with mom, Superman undoubtedly bears the marks of
humanity even though he has alien blood running through his veins. In one of the flm's most
moving scenes, we fnd Superman atop an icy mountain listening to his deceased father recall a

time when he did the right thing but ended up harming others in the process. This is a skillfully
written scene that captures Superman's struggle with power and conscience.
We also see these marks of humanity when we fnally watch the two heroes duel it out in the
flm's most anticipated scene. Batman, shielded in plated metal and armed with a kryptonite spear,
towers over a weakened Superman struggling to breathe under the heavy boot of the Bat. We see the
gritting teeth of Bruce Wayne under his torn face-mask, exposing the man under the metal, while
blood runs down the mighty Superman's chiseled face. As Batman raises his spear, the words Save

Martha spew from Superman's mouth. Batman stops at the mention of the name, a name both their
mothers share. Even though their ideologies confict, the two are brought together by their most
vulnerable and human qualities, the love for the women who raised them. Here, Snyder has brought
them to our level, making them more human than we've ever seen before. It is on this common
ground that the Justice League emerges. Not by altruism or idealism, but vulnerability.
What doesn't work in BVS
While up until the second half of the third act remains fairly solid, there is, however, one
piece of criticism that is valid. And that is what the critics deem as the overstuffed quality of the flm.
We've seen how the philosophies of Batman and Superman differ and how they eventually come to
an understanding, but when Lex conjures up Doomsday we get a sense that this is only a ploy from
the studio to get Superman, Batman AND Wonder Woman in the same battle sequence. The flm
could have easily ended as soon as Batman and Superman save Martha, but it seems that all the
pressure to get our heroes together as soon as possible may have had them assembling too early,
which makes the flm's ending feel a bit crammed. In the comics, Doomsday has an entire graphic
novel dedicated to him, so it would make sense to have him the main villain in one of the following
features. But alas, the studio appears to have given into the pressure to catch up to Marvel and get
everyone together ASAP. This is where BVS stubs its toe. What the flmmakers need to recognize is
that Marvel had the time and all the right gimmicks to excite the audience for the big reveal ( The

Avengers). DC needs to take its own road and take its time. And while I don't have a problem with
Wonder Woman per se (or that sensational entrance), I do think that the compulsion to have her
fght was a bit premature. And so naturally with all that power, you're going to need a villain
superior enough to combat with, of which Doomsday defnitely fts the bill. It was an awesome
spectacle, but would feel more evenly paced if it were in the next Justice League.
Another character subplot that adds to its stuffy quality is Lois Lane (Amy Adams) and her

quest for the magic bullet. This story arc adds next to nothing in the overall scheme of things and
could have been summed up in a scene or two, tops. It foods the narrative with background noise
and is led by an actress who has unquestionable talent, but doesn't ft into the grim world Snyder has
created. I'm surprised this part of the flm wasn't criticized more considering it's one of its only
aspects that doesn't work thematically.
So what now? Superman imperfect? Batman a killer? Not what many of us expected. Yet, Snyder
brings new dimension to these characters and new depth. His heroes are heroes we can sympathize with.
He wanted to get at the heart of the these two even if it scares us, and while this may not be ideal for a
superhero, it sure makes one heck of a movie. So in a sense, yes, the critics are right. BVS isn't fun or
funny. It doesn't give us pithy jokes or lighthearted banter. It gives us something more substance.