Was Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice as bad as the critics would have you believe? Absolutely not! Is the film as good as what the fanboys would have you believe? Abosultely not! In truth, the film most likely falls somewhere in the middle. Visually, Dawn of Justice is as good as anything you'll see in a recent Hollywood blockbuster. However, the pacing and overall plot is at times, downright cringeworthy. The best analogy I've read was from someone who describes Dawn of Justice as a breadmaker who's about to bake a cake using the best ingredients money can buy. However, he decides to not follow a recipe and relies on his skills as a breadmaker. The result, is a cake that still tastes good but ultimately dissapoints becuase there's knowledge that a pastry chef could've produced a cake from such high quality ingredients that was greater than the sum of its parts. This is Dawn of Justice in a nutshell.But regardless of how you or I may personally feel about the film, it looks poised to perform very well at the box office; thus ensuring that Warner Bros. stays the course regarding their aggressive plans for the DC Extended Universe. Yet, Dawn of Justice leaves us with a number of questions - some intentional, some unintentional. For example, what source material is serving as inspiration for the DCEU moving forward? And how did Lex Luthor acquire the data on Wonder Woman, Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman? Where possible, I'll attempt to answer these mysteries, however, some of these questons can only be answered by the creative decision-makers.
Superman was head-scratchingly blamed for a crime in Africa where villagers and terrorists were killed by guns with experimental bullets. Killed...by….bullets. This is the most powerful man on the planet, who flies through the sky and shoots laser beams from his eyes. In the 18 months since Man of Steel, he’s been selflessly saving people around the globe and halting natural disasters, yet he suddenly kills innocent bystanders?Perhaps the media could’ve spun the story to highlight the fact that Superman didn’t save anyone except for Lois, but do ficticous populace of the DCEU honestly believe Superman picked up a gun and mowed down an entire village? Furthermore, why is a United States Congressional hearing being called about what’s happening in Africa? Kudos to whoever came up with the clever idea to have Superman in a courtroom where a bomb explodes, killing everyone except him. That scene illustrates to both Superman and the audience that even someone as powerful as him has limitations. However, there was apparently a struggle to figure out a reason to get Superman in the actual courtroom. The long, contrived plot of Lois in Africa, Jimmy Olsen as a CIA agent, framing Superman for the murders and riling up the Kentucky Congressional representative was all just to get Superman in the courtroom. A more logical and less complicated reason should have been used to get Superman to the hearing.
Mercy was incredible perceptive of Bruce Wayne’s subterfuge at Lex Luthor’s party. The only other people to take notice were Superman and Wonder Woman, lending credence to the notion that there was something extraordinary about her. However, the film never really has Mercy do anything of consequence except maybe to show that Lex doesn’t give a damn about anyone, even his close, personal assistant. Was there originally, something more to Mercy? In some modern interpretations of the character, Mercy is actually a robot and personal bodyguard for Luthor. In the Senate hearing, when it became incredibly obvious that a bomb was going to go off, I kept expecting Superman to use his powers to get a warning and immediately suspect the wheelchair, only for it to be revealed that Mercy is a robot and/or that she’s the bomber.
ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.