As a 6th Grade English Language Arts teacher, I have read many essays. The biggest error I notice is the lack of coherency. Instead of focusing on a singular objective or point and developing it, kids introduce many claims and fail to substantiate each one with fidelity. Such was the fate of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (henceforth referred to as BvS), a film with the coherency and development of a 6th grader’s english essay.

For this review, I will discuss the “separate films” inside BvS that, if made into standalone movies, could be fairly solid. My main go-to line with my kids is “You’re making a lot of good points here, but you’re not developing each one enough. Choose one to focus on, and build it to fruition.” BvS will get the same thesis in this review:

Film 1: Dark Batman “Origin” Film that takes place before Man of Steel

Origin is worse than some swear words in the superhero film genre these days. “We already know how Bruce Wayne became Batman; We don’t need to be told that story again!” When I say origin, I mean the origin of how this Batman came to be the way he is. Ben Affleck (henceforth referred to as Batfleck), the best part of this film, portrays an aged and fatigued Batman. However, he is so vigorous and relentless with his justice distribution. His two big scenes were a grand car chase and a hand-to-hand showdown with an entire floor of bad guys. You can assume that many of the thugs in BvS die instantly or later succumb to the wounds inflicted on them by Batman.

Batfleck also does a great job portraying the Bruce Wayne millionaire playboy mystique and much of the “World’s Greatest Detective” moniker when he sneaks around downloading secret files. Jeremy Irons’ Alfred was also stellar and a nice foil to Batfleck.

We can infer that either a singular event or his body of experiences turned Batfleck into this type of Batman, but which one and/or what was it? This is important because we never get a true sense of where he stands on the morality line. Does he refuse to kill people? Or does he refuse to kill people directly, but is okay with people dying because of his actions? He brands criminals who murder and kill, but then does the same thing and, again, outright plans to Superman!

Batfleck is definitely the high point in the film, and we should have gotten to spend more time with him.

Film 2: Superman’s “Hopeful, Political Thriller Synthesis” Sequel to Man of Steel

After the events of Man of Steel, Superman has become a controversial figure. There are those that see his existence as  a bright beacon of hope, a savior of some kind. Others see him as an alien creature with godlike power who has proven to be a serious threat. Superman is so distraught about people’s perceptions of him and the complications people fabricate regarding him saving people.

Holly Hunter’s Senator [name] had a lot of interesting dialogue with other characters in interviews. “Does the world need a Superman?” “What should he do?” Amy Adams’ Lois Lane is serviceable. She’s in love with Superman and basically exists to handle plot macguffins.

Jesse Eisenberg’s “Lex Luthor” is terrible. His motivations are unclear. He hates Superman because he’s either a) jealous of his power b) has a complex about God and gods c) has daddy issues or d) wants to destroy the world by creating Doomsday who, if he succeeds in doing what he was creating for, will kill Superman (yay!) but kill the entire human race afterward (yay?). His performance is less Lex and more Joker. Kevin Spacey and Gene Hackman already gave us campy quirky Lex; when can we get the Clancy Brown, cold and caculated Lex from the Bruce Timm series? I just wasn’t on board with what Eisenberg was going for.

The Superman stuff basically ends there. The world has mixed feelings about him while politicians and journalists argue. Instead, a follow-up to Man of Steel should be a hopeful tale of Superman’s redemption in the eyes of the public. He goes on to save people while the people argue about him. Superman is a figure that is to inspire hope; the “S” on his chest stands for “hope” on Krypton in this Zack Snyder lore. A proper Man of Steel sequel should articulate through Superman that even though you may make great and destructive mistakes, people should eventually realize your true intentions and be appreciative. The idea that people argue over Superman even though he does the right thing even feeds into the Lord Jesus Christ metaphor that permeates Man of Steel, since a plethora of people had a problem with Jesus performing miracles and challenged him.

Film 3: A Justice League Recruitment Film?

You could argue that the third film found in BvS is a Justice League Recruitment film. Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman (I’m so happy that this is print so I don’t have to risk mispronouncing her name) was better than I expected. Without spoiling anything, she doesn’t do much action-wise until the end. Along the way she’s a woman of mystique and basically an object to facilitate the big Justice League mini-teasers that would be post-credits scenes if this was the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Any further discussion regarding the Justice League setup and recruitment would invite spoilers.

Should you see it?

I suppose you could do worse than BvS. The overall narrative has no coherency at all. The action sequences are filmed well enough. The titular fight is about 3% of the entire running time. Character motivations aren’t clear or sufficient, except Batman. In fact, most things in this movie aren’t great except Batman; see it for Batman at least.

You can read this posts and others just like it at JonathanMKing.Wordpress.com and can Follow this writer on twitter @JonRoyalty