Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice - not as bad

The DC cinematic universe hasn't had it easy. While individual movies are successful, the shared universe is a huge divider among movie goers and comic fans. Dawn of Justice, while not the best movie around, isn't as bad as some critics said.

After the usual backstory (without the Joker), we see Batman on the receiving end of Superman's defending Earth against his own people. 18 months later, we see Lois reporting in Africa and being (unknowingly) used by the federal government. But she does get a very strange bullet in her notebook...

Batman, on his side, is acting like his usual vigilante but we hardly see him fight crime. He is trying to uncover something about the people Lois found in Africa, which eventually leads him to Superman.

Let's start with the bad: the title is very misleading. The so-called fight happens 75% of the movie in and doesn't even last 5 minutes. Plus, the Martha line is very anti-climatic.
Also, Eisenberg (?) as Lex Luthor is indeed a failure. He's too over-the-top, his long hair is very odd and his demeanor is exaggerated. Even Gene Hackman did it better. Also, Jeremy Irons as Alfred was an odd choice. He seems more like a mentor than a butler.

However, I did like Ben Affleck as Batman. He has the right features to play Bruce Wayne, his search for the "meta-humans" is intriguing (but nearly not developed enough in the theater release) and his physical transformation is quite impressive for someone (at the time) in his mid 40s.

I also liked the superhero accountability trope. Superman is invincible and seems to help people, but at what cost? When he comes before Congress, a device planted by Luthor explodes - which makes people question if he's a complice...

In short, Dawn of Justice is a movie that wasted its potential with a weak vilain and a disposable monster (Doomsday has quite an elaborate story in comics). Make sure you watch the standalone movies first to at least understand the characters first.

Final rating: 3/5