Critics exaggerated with Batman V Superman

[Quark 7,098]

o<(0_0)>o

Batman V Superman is not getting great reviews so far. But I just watched the movie myself and I think that the critics exaggerated with their reviews. The main criticism that this movie gets is that the plot is very disjointed and all over the place. In this regard I have to somewhat agree because the movie wants to do too many things at the same time. However all of these things or ideas that this movie wants to explore are very interesting. Also, all actors in this movie provide great performances, the imagery is beautiful, and the action scenes are amazing. Now this movie is not the the greatest batman/superman movie but it is also not nearly as bad as critics made it seem to be. The first half of the movie is a little bit slow, but once it picks up during the second half the movie is very entertaining. At worst this movie is ok (not bad), and at best this movie is good (with moments of greatness too). 

[FATCAT 59,992]

All reviews are exaggerated. You can't go 50/50, you have to lean. If that means leaning towards it being bad, that's just how the cookie crumble.

[PopBitch 1,218]

I agree with all of your points.  I really liked it because there was enough good and great stuff to get me past the mess and bloatedness of his storyline at times.  It's not a great movie because of that, but it's a good movie that I really enjoyed. I even teared up in one point.

[PunkTheFunk 124,403]

[Bt1 5,213]

Did you read your opinion? It sounds like a negative review in denial.

[Quark 7,098]

3 minutes ago, Florin said:

Did you read your opinion? It sounds like a negative review in denial.

The only negative part that I found about the movie was that it was doing too much at times. The story was not perfectly flowing. However, this problem was not nearly enough to outdo the good things that this movie did have. 

[Bt1 5,213]

2 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

All reviews are exaggerated. You can't go 50/50, you have to lean. If that means leaning towards it being bad, that's just how the cookie crumble.

Not true. There are a lot of movies outhere who got 50-60% critical approval. If a movie gets as low as 30% something isnt right. If a big budget Hollywood movie gets there it usually mean that it is even worse.

[FATCAT 59,992]

1 minute ago, Florin said:

Not true. There are a lot of movies outhere who got 50-60% critical approval. If a movie gets as low as 30% something isnt right. If a big budget Hollywood movie gets there it usually mean that it is even worse.

That's the point though, a neutral review is subconsiously implied to be a bad review. If you don't give something a great/good review, then it's bad. (at least in most eyes)

[Bt1 5,213]

1 minute ago, Enigma said:

The only negative part that I found about the movie was that it was doing too much at times. The story was not flowing. However, this problem was not nearly enough to outdo the good things that this movie did have. 

You also did said that the first half of the movie is slow? The fact that there are some beautiful ideas and that the acting is good is kinda accepted by the critics from what Ive read.

[Quark 7,098]

1 minute ago, Florin said:

You also did said that the first half of the movie is slow? The fact that there are some beautiful ideas and that the acting is good is kinda accepted by the critics from what Ive read.

Is slow in the sense that it gives a lot of backstory to characters and the overall philosophy of the movie. Many people may actually like this about the movie. In my case, I was fine with it and like I already said, it not nearly half as bad as many of the critics made it seem to be.

[Bt1 5,213]

Just now, Enigma said:

Is slow in the sense that it gives a lot of backstory to characters and the overall philosophy of the movie. Many people may actually like this about the movie. In my case, I was fine with it and like I already said, it not nearly half as bad as many of the critics made it seem to be.

What critic review did you read?

[Quark 7,098]

Just now, Florin said:

What critic review did you read?

I just checked the general statements on metacritic and rotten tomatoes.

[PopBitch 1,218]

9 minutes ago, Florin said:

You also did said that the first half of the movie is slow? The fact that there are some beautiful ideas and that the acting is good is kinda accepted by the critics from what Ive read.

I think for people that don't know that going in and expecting lots of action it throws them off, but if you know it and realize that, you kind of relax and enjoy it because you know this about the movie.

[Bt1 5,213]

Just now, PopBitch said:

I think for people that don't know that going in and expecting lots of action it throws them off, but if you know it and realize that, you kind of relax and enjoy it because you know this about the movie.

Yes, but critics arent regular moviegoers. They are hardcore moviegoers and substantial philosophy and a slow, but steady build of a story or of the characters are usually considered a good thing. I think that people dont understand or even didnt read what critics said.

This movie is watchable, but nothing special. The philosophy with which is trying to make a good impression isnt substantial, but weak and superficial. The slow build is actually an incoherent build that at parts is more interested building commercial interest for future characters and movies than for this story and for this movie. So there are a lot of faillures and not many successes.

As we can imagine the special effects are good, but Batman movies were never about empty special effects.

[zakariah 11,718]

I agree with your points, and I gotta say I wasn't a huge DC fan, but after this movie I became one. 

I love Wonder Woman's fight scene, but I feel like they should've put her in a little more. And the acting was spot on too.