All Channels

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice 'Spoiler Free' Review | COG

COG writes - The hype was high but the end result is more disappointing than many anticipated. Plot holes abound in DC's latest, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
DynoMiteLaserCat1799d ago

Ugh, what a letdown to see all these negative reviews. I had such high hopes for this.

I only hope that they can still lay the ground work to really see Justice League come to life. The characters themselves have a ton of depth and JL has the opportunity to be an amazing film. Looks like there's an uphill battle in front of DC at this point though.

Digital_Anomaly1799d ago

100% agree... the characters themselves can easily carry a great film if it's written well and remains faithful to the source material.

Hold_It1799d ago (Edited 1799d ago )

This movie proves don't trust reviews for shit. Personally, I think the movie was a solid 8.5/10. The people who didn't like it thought it was going to be a Marvel movie, don't like comicbook movies, are hypersenstive, or hate Zack Snyder.

Ben Affleck was an amazing Batman, and the best Batman portrayal we've had to date. Jessie Eisenberg was WAY better than I thought he would be, and so was Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman. The movie was not the Spider-Man 3 fest I originally thought it was going to be, and while the movie does have flaws like everything, I believe there were more pros to this film, than their were cons.

Some people just can't handle the fact that this film requires to pay attention to detail to understand what is going on, and doesn't spoonfeed things to you like the average summer blockbuster. The movie is very dark for a PG-13 film, and I wouldn't recommend young children be present or people who are hypersenstive to violence, or their movies not being full of sunshine and rainbows.

This film is meant for adult DC fans, and has plenty of rewards for the DC fans of the comics. The well placed Easter Eggs and nods were some of the best things done in this film besides the final fight, Batman's fight sequences, the Batmobile, the main fight, and the new cast.

I hope that the R Rated Director's Cut smooths some things out, and I think the extra 35mins will help tremendously, and will change my score accordingly.

Digital_Anomaly1799d ago

All this proves is that you have a different opinion than others. You can belly-ache like a child all you want but the bottom line is that it's nothing more than two opposite thoughts on the same thing.

I'll never understand why nerds get their shit stirred up just because someone thinks differently. Instead of just agreeing to disagree they'll write a novel trying to argue their point. You won't change anyone's mind!

b163o11799d ago

@ Digital_Anomaly

Don't throw stones in glass houses. You did exactly what Ermac_wins did, instead of just disagreeing with his comment you try and bash the guy, for expressing his opinion? Why even reply? I never understood why geeks like this feel as if belittling someone for have an opinion makes them better. GrowUp, Elevate, Graduate. ($_$) "GreedyGenius"

ReelKid1799d ago (Edited 1799d ago )

I love DC but I honestly thought the film was terrible. It was boring for most of the movie, nothing was captivating me at all. The pacing was off as it was just one random scene after the other and I barely cared for any of the characters. The final fight? Great...until superman has to save lois. I mean this could have been so much better and I had hoped that it would be decent but it just wasn't. And although it's just a matter of opinion I don't how anyone could find this mess enjoyable. Each to their own.

1799d ago
fingazblank1799d ago

I agree wholeheartedly, though i didnt know there would be a 35 minute directors cut. Cant wait for that, as i feel it cut to scenes a bit to frequent, which i thought was strange. I always prefer to watch a movie at home too so seeing the directors cut will impress me even more.

Digital_Anomaly1799d ago

@ b163o1

My comment was directed ONLY at his hate-spit to the reviewer. The rest of his comment was well thought out opinion (for the most part). Whether I agree or disagree is of no consequence so long as it's kept on the level. :)

Defectiv3_Detectiv31798d ago

So what are we suggesting? That all of the critics conspired to give this movie a bad rating?

I wanted to like this movie despite all of the negative buzz, but at the end of the day I had to face the fact that it's just not very good. Like, even on a technical level there are several major flaws. That's not to say there aren't positives to take away from it, but in no way do those outweigh the overwhelmingly bad things going on here.

I feel like people tend to overestimate cbm's to begin with. Even though a majority of the reviews for a particular movie might be positive, the actually scores tend to be quite average and mediocre. Marvel is just as guilty of this as anyone, after you get past the surface layer of one-liners and cheesy sentimentality there is some seriously questionable storytelling on display.

I have much higher hopes for Suicide Squad, which looks like the best CBM to be released in years, and I also think that a Affleck helmed Batman flick could have serious potential.

gangsta_red1798d ago (Edited 1798d ago )


I'm going to have to agree with the critics on this movie. It was a huge mess with the most incoherent plot I have ever watched for a super hero movie. And that is saying something.

Definite 6/10 from me.

The film was a mess editing wise and there were 0 transitions from scene to scene. It made each shot disjointing and confusing.

The plot was a huge mess. Almost every single sub plot was left unanswered. The movie brought up so many interesting points but then decided to drop ALL of them for the final climax.

Batman was the ONLY good thing about this movie as Ben Affleck and Jeremy Irons carried this whole movie on their backs. Just like Man of Steel, for some reason they didn't give Superman/Clark Kent any type of real dialog or growth and barely any screen time unlike Batman.

Lex Luther was a joke of a character and they should have seriously just made him the Joker the way Eisenburg portrayed him. His Lex had ZERO explanation or motivation as to why he would want Superman or Batman dead. Plus his reasons at the end for doing what he did (creating the final antagonist) made 0 sense at all except to have the cliched big Hollywood battle at the end.

--SPOILER RANT In bound---

This is the biggest plot hole and biggest problem I have with this movie out of many:

If Lex Luther and Batman have the same goals to kill Superman with Kryptonite...why the hell didn't Lex just team up with Batman to do this?

Lex had no beef with Batman because the movie did not establish any of that. All it did manage to establish is that both Batman and Lex both hate Superman. So why the confusing and so very convenient plan of Lex to have Batman steal kryptonite from him only to have him use it to kill Superman?

Lex even knew Batman's identity because he says he's been plotting and planning this fight for two years!

Made no sense at all.


This movie had some great ideas but almost all of them fell flat on it's butt.

The only thing it did do right was Batman. And I have a feeling that's because Ben Affleck was directly involved with that since he will be in charge of the new Batman franchise.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1798d ago
-Foxtrot1799d ago

"I had such high hopes for this"

And critics did aswell, but if it's not that good and has been overhyped then what do you want them to do? Lie to you and others, pretending it's amazing, almost near perfection when it's not.

I applaud them for not getting sucked into the hype and not letting fanboy/comic book die hards get the better of them.

MRBIGCAT1799d ago

I still want to watch this but yikes, nothing but horrendous reviews.

Minute Man 7211799d ago

See for yourself, Rotten Tomatoes gave Sharknado a 82%

-Foxtrot1799d ago

That's more like it's so bad it's "good" kind of film. Nobody was expecting anything from it but with a film like this it's harder to do that.

coolbeans1799d ago

That's because Sharknado is one of the best tongue-firmly-in-cheek movies of the decade.

This is a dramatized comic-book adaptation that fails in so many respects to story.

Soldierone1798d ago

Honestly can't believe people are going to extents of trying to defend the Sharknado reviews.... lmao

1799d ago
ABizzel11799d ago

It's not a bad movie, just mediocre in almost every way.

There are so good pros, but outweighed by a bunch of petty cons, such as bad pacing, bad scene transitioning, bad script, bad character reasoning for why they're doing what they're doing, Batman killing or at least sending people to ICU for the rest of their lives, Gotham being across the lake from Metropolis, The whole Batman vs Superman fight, and just several other little nagging issues.

The entire first hour and a half is a complete drag to get trough, because nothing really happens.

That being said there are great moments such as the Trio vs Doomsday, and Ben and Gal did good jobs at portraying Batman and Wonder Woman (although the Batman voice tries too hard).

It's a movie that for every positive there are two negatives bringing it down from good to just decent. It's like watching a 2 1/2 hour set-up for the Justice league, where 2 of those hours is spent searching for ways to steal data / intel from one another.

gangsta_red1798d ago (Edited 1798d ago )

You hit the nails on the head. (don't know why the many disagrees)

"Gotham being across the lake from Metropolis,"

I seriously did a double take at that part.

But you are so right, for every positive there was two negatives. Even the positives fell flat because they weren't explored or expanded on.

This movie is such a strange's epic because it features two of the most iconic heroes in history, but it's waist deep in mediocrity and wasted potential. You want to like it...but you just can't.

MercilessDMercer1799d ago

There certainly were elements of this that were good and it showed so much promise, but Snyder just doesn't have a cohesive vision, especially when he has so many moving pieces to juggle

DangerousDAN1799d ago

So this movie is worse than Daredevil? Yeah, right, pal. Critics can kiss my ass.

Hold_It1799d ago (Edited 1799d ago )

The Director's Cut of Daredevil wasn't bad. It fixed a lot of things wrong with the film, and sadly one of the biggest things these days is that people write the movie off after viewing the theatrical version, when really the Unrated or Director's Cut version of the film are the director's real vision of the film to judge.

But no, the reviewers have shit taste, and I guess they expected the movie to be Gone With The Wind or something. BvS for me is a 8.5/10

Director's Cut of Watchmen for me is a 9.5/10
Director's Cut of Daredevil for me is a 7/10
Director's Cut of The Wolverine for me is a 7.5/10

Originally for Daredevil I would have said a 5/10
Originally for The Wolverine I would have said a 6/10
Originally for Watchmen I would have said 8.5/10

UnwanteDreamz1799d ago

New to film?

The "Directors cut is not the directors true vision of the film. I don't know where you get that nonsense other than word associations. I wouldn't say they don't include scenes that the Director had to cut or plot points that there wasn't time for but in almost every case it is just superficial fan service.

Directors cuts don't change or improve


So at best you get a better or more cohesive plot. In my opinion that isn't enough to say people who don't enjoy a film just need to see the Directors cut.

wannabe gamer1799d ago

what are you talking about.... directors cuts dont improve movies. all they do is include a few scenes that got cut and usually 99.9999999% of the time they do nothing to improve the movie cause they have nothing to do with anything of consequence.

Hold_It1799d ago (Edited 1799d ago )

You must be new to film. For the average director's cut, it might add a couple seconds or minutes to a movie, but for the ones that add an extra 25+ minutes, it can make an improvement upon the movie, and tie up loose ends.

It's not just plot points there wasn't time for, it's that studios don't like it, or don't think audiences will be able to tolerate the length of the film. For the kind of audience who only really likes mindless action with little to no story, and can't tolerate room to breathe.

I can understand why the timing aspect might become a problem. But, I have no problem with things spending time to develop, or plot points being added to define the character or characters further. The director's cut versions are closer to what the director's vision for the film is than the Theatrical Version. The theatrical version is the end result we get because the MPAA steps in and says "if you don't take out this, this and this, you're going to get an R rating an alienate the PG-13 crowd, and lose that potential market".

The director's cut versions tend to be better than the theatrical version, because they aren't left up to the demise of the MPAA.

What I do have a problem with is when studios race change or sexuality change a character to cater to the "black" community, or LGBT community, instead of making the character that way to give them more depth, or because it adds a new and refreshing take on an already established character.

I'm not new to film, I just know how to "judge" a comic book film accordingly, and judge a movie based on what it was going for, what genre of film it was, and what the end result was, and did it meet what the director was going for, and did I enjoy it rather than trying to hold it to the same standard as "everything else" by having a flawed universal rating system.

You can't judge a comedy the same way you would judge a horror film. You can't critique a drama film the same way you would critique an action film. It just doesn't work.

Sahil1799d ago

It's not that bad people, come on.

Show all comments (41)
The story is too old to be commented.