On screen and on the page, superheroes have long offered insight into clashing ideas about justice and freedom. Should we work within the law to obtain justice, or go outside of it when conventional methods aren’t enough? Are courts and law enforcement the best judge of punishment? And what is the proper reaction when we’re faced with new, uncertain changes in our reality?
These are complex, important questions that, given the heightened political atmosphere these days, couldn’t be more timely. While Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice ought to be just the place to discuss them, in the hands of director Zack Snyder and writers David S. Goyer and Chris Terrio, that opportunity is wasted. Instead, they’re just the pretense for a super-powered beat down.
Snyder’s follow-up to his earlier Man of Steel, Batman v. Superman picks up during the last film’s climactic battle in Metropolis, between Henry Cavill’s Superman and Michael Shannon’s General Zod. It’s a scene full of destruction and mayhem, with buildings collapsing, and innocent people being crushed like so many ants. This time, we’re getting it from the perspective of Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), visiting from neighboring Gotham, who shows up just in time to see the offices of his company, Wayne Enterprises, collapse in front of him.
The shock of that moment causes Wayne’s deadly grudge against the Man of Steel and, as Batman, to don the cape and cowl to go after him. A U.S. senator (Holly Hunter) also thinks Superman needs to be kept in check after a rescue in Africa leads to additional destruction. Eccentric entrepreneur Lex Luthor (a cartoonishly spastic Jesse Eisenberg) offers to help by devising a kryptonite-based security system, but he has his own maniacal reasons for wanting to dispose of the last son of Krypton.
There are many problems with the film, both technical and dramatic, but it mostly comes down to this: For any kind of conflict to work, there needs to be at least two opposing sides, each with distinct perspectives that won’t be compromised. Otherwise, there’s not really a reason to fight.
While Batman v. Superman does a thorough job of articulating one side of the equation —Superman is a dangerous, unknown force, and shouldn’t be left unchecked — the other perspective, that of Superman himself, never really comes up at all. The film keeps him at arm’s length, with no real character development, and no actual answer to the charges laid against him than adolescent brooding.
That one-sided conflict seeps into every other corner of the film, giving us repetitive action scenes that don’t accomplish much (when you can see them through the grenade flashes and poor blocking), a few plot threads that serve as a setup for the forthcoming Justice League movie, and a final-act reconciliation that happens for weak, confusing reasons.
Ultimately, Batman v. Superman is a film with no real reason for being, other than to usher in the next round of DC Universe films, and to provide a bunch of explosions. This is a real shame, because it could have been different. There’s absolutely a potential for real meaning, to dig behind conflicting ideologies and look at why the two characters in question have them — something Marvel’s Avengers films have so far managed to pull off with little trouble, and a considerably larger ensemble. Instead, Zack Snyder opted for blinding explosions, and a film that aspires to operatic drama, but fails to understand the fundamentals of how drama works.
Abby Olcese is a freelance film critic and writer based in Missouri. You can find her on Twitter @abbyolcese.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!