Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

The big story of the weekend ended up being that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Zack Snyder’s sequel to Man of Steel, is critic-proof. Despite a Rotten Tomatoes score hovering in the neighborhood of 30%, the film took in about $170 million, on pace for more than $420 million worldwide. I’m one of the people who didn’t quite see what all the hullabaloo was surrounding Man of Steel – I rather enjoyed it as a more sobered first step in Superman’s hero’s journey.

Count me among those, then, who continue not to get it – I think Batman v Superman is a suitably epic next installment in the growing DC Comics cinematic universe, big and grand and contemplative.

The film begins with yet another retelling of the murder of the Waynes, but it can be said more properly to begin with Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) in Metropolis on the day of the city’s destruction in Man of Steel, witnessing firsthand the breathtaking new dangers facing earth. Eighteen months later, the world ponders the powers and intentions of Superman (Henry Cavill), who labors under the weight of his titanic responsibilities, while Batman considers taking the fight to the Man of Steel. Meanwhile, Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) attempts to manipulate the world for his own ends, which involve defaming – or destroying – Superman for good.

Critical opinion seems to agree on two things – Batman v Superman is operatic, and it is not a Marvel movie. Somehow, both of those have been received as negatives against the film’s favor, and yet I think those are among the film’s greater strengths. First, the grandiose scale of the film. I had the opportunity to rewatch Man of Steel the night before seeing Batman v Superman, and there’s a few shots in that film of mankind looking up at the Superman/Zod battle, in a way that’s very reminiscent of the old Jack Kirby Fantastic Four comics. Slack-jawed gaping is humanity’s proper response to the arrival of gods. And make no mistake: in the mythic vernacular, the DC pantheon are gods who aspire to be human (Marvel, meanwhile, features humans who aspire to be heroes).

So I don’t understand the complaint that the film is too operatic. Does this mean that the film means more than it ought to, that it assumes a mythic significance unbecoming of itself? I vehemently disagree. I will note as a matter of personal taste that there are fewer jokes in the film than I might have liked, that the tone is a little darker than I might have gone, but there is a powerful difference between a film’s ambitions and one’s own personal expectations. Batman v Superman is very much of a piece with Man of Steel in terms of tone and scale, and to me this is a compelling distinction between the DC and Marvel cinematic universes. Believe me, as someone who’s rewatched nearly all of the MCU films in the past three months, I don’t want a “Marvel’s Superman.” I want something different.

The nature of characters like this is that they endure, no matter how a creator riffs on them. If you want a Superman who refuses to kill, you’ve got comics and films that do that. If your Superman can take a life – indeed, can see the necessity in taking Zod’s – you’ve got comics and films for that. You can find a Batman who frighteningly devastates criminals, as he does here, or you can go seek out a Batman who fights a mustachioed Joker. Point being, the complaint that Batman v Superman misses the point about these characters, frankly, misses the point about these characters. Batman v Superman takes the claim that superheroes are modern mythology to its logical extension – this is comics mythology writ large, in which men and women stand shoulder to shoulder with gods, do battle, and discover something about both god and man.

All of this is to say nothing by way of actual review – just a cursory rebuttal of some of the more prominent critiques of the film. It’s got less humor than some might like, and it is ponderous in a way that the action movie crowd might not expect, but I don’t think any of that is a disservice to the film. If anything, Batman v Superman’s operatic quality is augmented by the script’s approach to subtext – namely, that it inscribes subtext as literal text, as when the film quite literally puts Superman on trial for the events of the preceding film, asking, “Must there be a Superman?”, invoking the Elliot S! Maggin classic story of the same name. Additionally, Batman’s devotion to his unique brand of justice and vengeance is literalized when he’s given an opportunity to prevent history from repeating itself.

I was an early doubter of Affleck’s ability to do Batman justice, but I think he’s an excellent choice, particularly as Bruce Wayne, where he’s able to toggle between playboy billionaire and dark knight sans cowl. His Batman is very much what you’d expect, marked by an exceptionally bulky physique. I have only kind things to say about Jeremy Irons as Alfred, here more militarily inclined but with much more of the incisive snark that Michael Caine’s Alfred lacked (Caine’s was kinder, gentler, more inclined to good-natured ribbing).

The real surprises here are Gal Gadot’s smirking Wonder Woman, who almost entirely steals the film’s third act, and Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor. Of all the shoutouts to upcoming DC films – and there are quite a few, some delivered with more subtlety than others (but what does one expect, in this era of franchises?) – Wonder Woman is the most promising; the tastes we get of her in this film, nuanced with mystery and exceptional combat skills, portend a wonderful solo film next June. Eisenberg’s Luthor, meanwhile, telegraphs his Zuckerberg-esque eccentricity, but it conceals a darker psychology, a twisted mind which reveals itself in a pitch-perfect Luthor soliloquy.

Batman v Superman proves, as Man of Steel forewarned, that DC’s slate is not necessarily going to be quintessential popcorn fare – and I say that as an unabashed devotee of popcorn movies. These are movies that require a bit of digesting, that are unafraid to confront their viewers with heady thematic content, symbolic registers, and a careful bit of thought. If it’s straight fun you’re wanting, the line for Guardians of the Galaxy 2 starts over there. Batman v Superman is fun in a different way, with the feeling of fulfillment that comes from sighing as the credits roll, “Now that’s a show.” It’s spectacle in a self-assured way, bombast with an emphasis on “bomb,” a 21st century epic that isn’t afraid to go full Greek chorus and literalize its own subtext. It may not to be everyone’s liking, and that’s fine – but there are also those of us who like this sort of thing, and I’m one of them.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is rated PG-13 for “intense sequences of violence and action throughout, and some sensuality.” There are shootings and lots of punching, but most of it is bloodless. A few characters are branded, one receives a long cut down his face, while a few characters are stabbed with some graphic content shown. Superman and Lois kiss passionately a few times during the film, and another woman wears dresses that predominantly show off her back. Overall, the grim tone may unsettle younger viewers.

Heads up, True Believers – we’ll continue to Make Yours Marvel this Wednesday with another installment in “The Grand Marvel Rewatch,” so check back then for 2013’s Thor: The Dark World. Or subscribe above, and receive those missives right in your inbox. Nuff said!