Weekend Box Office

Box Office: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Dominates the Weekend

Zootopia falls to second, while My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 opens respectably in third.

by | March 27, 2016 | Comments


This weekend, following years of fan anticipation, audiences drove the new super hero event film Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice to a gargantuan global opening of $424M seizing total control of the box office around the world.

In North America, the Warner Bros. release bowed to an eye-popping $170.1M, according to estimates, marking the sixth largest opening weekend of all-time and the biggest ever in the entire January-to-April corridor. The PG-13 film averaged a stunning $40,099 from 4,242 locations including 3D and other formats with the 388 IMAX screens contributing $18M, or 11% of the gross.

It was the fourth biggest opening ever for a super hero film trailing the last three outings for Tony Stark. The largest overall domestic debuts of all-time are now Star Wars: The Force Awakens ($248M), Jurassic World ($208.8M), The Avengers ($207.4M), Avengers: Age of Ultron ($191.3M), Iron Man 3 ($174.1M), and BvS. Four of these six occurred in just the past 11 months as moviegoing remains red hot, as long as studios supplied exciting content.

The nation’s film critics were not big fans of Batman v Superman as reviews were quite negative. In fact, all five movies which opened bigger had good to great reviews so, Dawn of Justice scored the best opening in history for a critically-panned film. Fans ignored the reviews as they wanted to see the historic mash-up of Justice League heroes and judge for themselves. Audience feedback has been mixed, but is certainly better than where critics are at. The CinemaScore grade was a so-so B, although the largest groups (males and over-25s) both gave a B-.

The historic weekend began with Friday’s opening day tally of $82M (tied with Jurassic World for fourth all-time) which included Thursday night pre-shows beginning at 6:00pm of $27.7M. It was also the Good Friday school holiday allowing for more audiences to be available. Saturday dropped 38% to $50.9M while Warners is projecting Sunday to dip 27% to $37.2M. BvS will need to hit that projection in order to stay #6 among all-time opening weekends to edge out the $169.2M of the final Harry Potter film from 2011.

For the second year in a row, studios have used Easter to launch a major tentpole movie — the kind that would normally be programmed into summer. And they still generated summer-like business, proving audiences will show up in droves for the right film no matter what the calendar says. Last year, Universal launched Furious 7 to a $147.2M weekend with daily drops of 31% on Saturday and 29% on Sunday.

The studio will take this holiday back next year with Fast 8, Warner Bros. has already claimed 2018’s bunny weekend for Steven Spielberg’s Ready Player One, and Universal has planted its flag for 2019 with Fast 9 followed by Fast 10 taking Easter 2021. Currently, Cyborg is scheduled to open a week before Easter in 2020 but that could certainly get pushed a week. The holiday’s colossal money-making potential is too big to ignore.

Studio data on Justice showed that males, not surprisingly, made up 62% of the crowd while 60% was over 25. This is in line with most comic book movies. Another opening weekend record broken was for the DC super hero universe beating the $160.9M of The Dark Knight Rises. That final Chris Nolan film was 2D only and was affected by a shooting tragedy which hampered first weekend sales to some extent. Also, BvS delivered the best debut ever in the January-to-April corridor beating the $152.5M of 2012’s The Hunger Games which was also 2D only.

Word-of-mouth will play a major role for the road ahead. While some fans are disappointed, there are plenty who love the film and are recommending it. Plus this is the key movie setting up all the future DC comic book movies which will continue with next summer’s Wonder Woman and the first of two Justice League films which arrives in November 2017. Many schools and colleges have breaks this coming week so mid-week numbers are sure to be strong – another benefit to an Easter launch. Batman v Superman could finish its first full week of release in the $215-220M range and break $275M after its second weekend.

Warner Bros. gave Dawn of Justice a true worldwide launch with all major markets bowing this weekend including China and Japan which often open later. Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne amassed a stellar $254M from 66 markets making for a jaw-dropping $424.1M worldwide debut. Leading the way were China with $57.3M, the U.K. with $21.9M, and Mexico with $18.6M. IMAX saw $18M from 557 screens including $7M just from China. Super hero action sells well across the planet so crashing the $1 billion mark is likely for this behemoth putting its studio in a great position for the years ahead.

After a three-week run at number one, the bunny cop toon Zootopia remained strong over Easter weekend with an estimated $23.1M slipping 38%. Disney has banked an impressive $240.5M to date and looks on track to break $300M domestic with this one. Overseas markets rocked this holiday weekend with an estimated $42.5M pushing the international take to $456.2M and the worldwide tally to a stunning $696.7M. China smashed the double-century mark and stands at $201M as the biggest toon ever there. In Russia, Zootopia is now the second biggest Hollywood blockbuster of all-time after Avatar. The release in Disney-loving Japan is four weeks away and breaking $1 billion worldwide seems likely.

The comedy sequel My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 had a respectable opening in second place with an estimated $18.1M from 3,133 sites for a $5,782 average. The PG-13 film follows up on the 2002 sleeper hit which shocked the box office world with a leggy run for months that ended in a $241.4M final making it the highest-grossing romantic comedy of all-time. 14 years later and no film has been able to take that record away.

The sequel earned mostly bad reviews but Universal was able to attract a nice crowd in the first frame which was scheduled for Easter. Paying audiences were pleased, as Wedding 2 got a good A- grade from CinemaScore. Older white females were the core audience as studio data showed that the crowd was 76% female, 60% over 35, and 70% white. The studio dropped this on the calendar because of the holiday weekend and as counter-programming against the comic book superflick.

The Divergent Series: Allegiant took a nasty tumble in its second weekend falling a disturbing 67% to an estimated $9.5M for a domestic total of only $46.6M. That puts the third film in the franchise 46% below the pace of last year’s Insurgent. A $65-70M final may result with the final film still on the calendar for next year. International markets have contributed $71.8M for a global take of $118.4M.

The faith-based hit Miracles from Heaven held up well over Easter weekend grossing an estimated $9.5M, off 36% in its sophomore session. Sony has grossed $34.1M to date for this $13M production. The monster movie 10 Cloverfield Lane was off 52% to an estimated $6M for a new total of $56M for Paramount.

Despite the arrival of the super hero mash-up, Deadpool fared well, dropping just 38% in its seventh frame to an estimated $5M. Fox has amassed $349.5M domestically and has grossed another $396.5M overseas for a global gross of $746M. Rival R-rated actioner London Has Fallen took in an estimated $2.9M, off 57%, for a new sum of $55.6M for Focus.

A pair of critically acclaimed indies headlined by actresses around age 70 expanded and jumped into the top ten. The Sally Field pic Hello, My Name is Doris collected an estimated $1.7M from 488 locations for a $3,486 average and $3.3M cume for Roadside Attractions. Helen Mirren’s military thriller Eye in the Sky did well, averaging $8,138 from 123 sites for a weekend estimate of $1M. Bleecker Street has taken in $1.7M.

The top ten films grossed an estimated $247M which was up 14% from last year’s Easter weekend when Furious 7 opened at number one with $147.2M; and up 112% from 2014’s holiday when Captain America: The Winter Soldier spent its third week in the top spot with $25.6M.

  • Jeb El

    “Word-of-mouth will play a major role for the road ahead. While some fans are disappointed, there are plenty who love the film and are recommending it. Plus this is the key movie setting up all the future DC comic book movies which will continue with next summer’s Wonder Woman and the first of two Justice League films which arrives in November 2017.”
    The DCCU continues “next” in August with Suicide Squad.

    • luy

      Yeah, but we are in “marvels’s rotten tomatoes”…

      • M2R

        lol That’s funny and quite pathetic. Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Warner Bros. Maybe if Warner made better movies and better developed characters, they wouldn’t get rotten scores.


      word of mouth will actually be this films undoing-expect a 70% or higher drop off next weekend

  • Lloyd

    I’m not saying Batman v Superman was a 95% movie but a 29%??? The audience has it at a 73% (a 44% difference)!!! Rotten Tomatoes – I am completely done with you. Just another example how your critics piggyback off each other and play middle school popularity contests with their reviews.

    This site is a complete joke and it’s not just about this movie. It’s several movies throughout the years that have been the popular choice to pump up or pump down. Do yourself a favor people and use Metacritic or IMDB.

    • FullFlamelAlchemist

      B v S is on 44% on Metacritic, which kind of undermines your point. And IMDB is notorious for its infestation of fanboys and studio-plants, so it’s not that reliable either.

      I feel like you don’t understand how RT works. The % is the amount of critics that liked the movie. It doesn’t measure how much they like it. All the critics can think it’s good and it’ll get 100%. All the critics can think it’s OK-ish and it’ll get 0%. It’s a measure of pure like/dislike, nothing more. 71% of critics didn’t like it. It doesn’t mean they hated it. They just wouldn’t rate it 6/10. Seeing as a lot of people are 50/50 on B v S, this shouldn’t surprise you.

      • Michael Cavallaro

        Yeah, but that’s kind of why RT is a terrible ratings metric. It’s quantitative in value rather than qualitative. Ergo, you can’t take anything from it and it can be used for total manipulation by studios who, more than ever, influence or control sycophantic critics who in turn follow the herd. And that’s to say nothing of critics these days. Pretty much any fool with a blog is allowed to post their drivel. In fact, there’s a feminist critic who’s allowed to post reviews here, and everything she rates fresh is based on whether or not it pleases feminism.

        Force Awakens was a veritable pile of derivative crap but critics were terrified to pan it (one critic saw the advanced screening and said it was a dumb story, got a heap of hate on twitter, and two days later he gives it a fresh tomato). Hell, even the audience reviews on that film go back to April – fanboys who hadn’t seen it rating it five stars. How is that allowed? Then you factor in the fact that Disney owns 1/6 of world media and you start connecting the dots. All in all, B v S is a pretty boring, poorly structured film. It’s not 29 percent, but it’s way closer to 29 percent than Force Awakens is to 92.

        RT is like Washington politics. For a while, people believed in it, but once the cracks started showing, the fraudulence seemed to expose itself.

        • FullFlamelAlchemist

          Most of your criticisms are addressed above, in my reply to Lloyd. But as for your other ones:

          Any fool with a blog cannot contribute to the Tomatometer. There’s an entry on critic submission at the bottom of the RT page. Read it. It’s very restrictive. Critics that aren’t employed by a major media publication have to attract 500K unique viewers to even be considered.

          Right, Critics are terrified to pan movies and will give anything a good rating to avoid hate. So, remind me again why they gave BvS a bad rating?

          The notion that Disney is the reason TFA got good ratings is absurd. BvS is owned by Time Warner, the 3rd biggest company on the planet. By your own logic, BvS should be getting good reviews because of that. But it isn’t. Regardless of whether you liked the story, TFA is a well-made, well-acted movie. BvS isn’t. Zack Snyder is a terrible film-maker, who should never have been put in charge of the DCEU

          • edgar ramirez

            dude, nothing I could have posted on here would be better than what you just said. seriously! I’m not saying you are my idol or anything, but damn, you put it in prospective with arguments. well done, man!

          • Michael Cavallaro

            I think you missed the point on my first comment because I was simply expounding upon what was already said about why the rating system isn’t reliable. Maybe I’m wrong but it just sounds like you’re trying to be dismissive of that when there wasn’t any need to be.

            Regarding the blogs, I’ve had first hand experience with reviewers who shouldn’t be allowed to post their reviews here (as I’ve said) so a critic submission policy isn’t something I need to read as proof of function. Hence the anecdote I gave about the feminist blogger. So unless you’re of the opinion that reviews ought to have political rather than artistic dimensions, then no requirements policy is going to change the fact that any fool with a blog can post reviews here. And by any fool with a blog, that includes any fool with a wide readership. Maybe any fool is subjective in nature, but if we narrow the requirements to people who ought to actually be qualified to review movies rather than those with a large enough viewership or someone who’s managed to carve out an abstract niche for themselves, then it stands to reason that there are too many frauds posing as critics these days. In short, staring a blog requires a domain name, not a Master’s in film analysis. You make a fair point about the contradiction between Force Awakens good reviews and B v S bad reviews in terms of studio influence, but again, floyd made the original point that the trend here is that critics either pump up or pump down movies.

            And yes, the fact that B v S was pumped down admittedly contradicts the fact that Time Warner owns a large part of corporate media, but it’s still a separate business entity than Disney. Case in point, the marketing director for Sony was recently fired because of the tidal wave of negative audience response to the new Ghostbusters. The only thing we can really infer from these sorts of differences is the competency between the studios to utilize their controlling resources.

            And of course, you’re also missing the political dimension involved in this. A number of major publications have gotten behind TFA due to its liberal/feminist/progressive agenda. Don’t forget, this movie was attached to the ridiculous boycott, which I’ve speculated Disney themselves started.

            But regardless of what we can speculate, ask yourself this: is there any political agenda in B v S.? Nope…nothing besides a potential feminist meme in wonder woman, but that hardly qualifies as an obvious agenda and Wonder Women does draw from existing DC cannon, unlike Rey who tramples the star wars cannon.

            So which major publications have backed TFA. Off the top of my head: The Washington Post, the LA Times, The New York Times, The UK Daily Mail, Yahoo! The Huffington Post, etc etc.

            So if you see the political dimension that existed in TFA and that which did NOT exist in B v S, it suddenly isn’t that “absurd” to say this is the reason TFA received good ratings, nor is it against my own logic.

            Your last comment, though, about TFA being a well-acted, well made movie would be the first thing I’d look at in terms of why you think my argument is absurd. That’s fine if you liked it, but the principles of story, for which there is an objective reality, would probably contradict your subjective opinion.

          • FullFlamelAlchemist

            Politics and art aren’t separate. Art often comments on politics and vice versa(case in point: Captain America – The Winter Solider). Both have dimensions of each other. It’s ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

            Are there Master’s Degrees in Film Analysis?

            Dude, Time Warner OWNS Rotten Tomatoes. If corporate influence were an issue here, BvS would be getting the boost, not Star Wars.

            Where is this BvS boycott you speak of? I haven’t heard about any boycott.

            Movies like Sucker Punch(also directed by ZS) and Stonewall were pretty liberal and progressive in their politics. And critics hated them anyway. Political outlook is not the be all and end all you seem to think it is.

            Is there a political agenda in B v S? YES!!!! There’s fairly blatant commentary on refugees and the political treatment of them. The definition of justice and whose approach is more right, Batman’s or Superman’s. B v S has plenty of political subtext. It’s very poorly executed and virtually smothered by Snyder’s boner for CGI. But it’s still there. As for Rey trampling SW canon, please explain this to me because I don’t see how that’s the case.

            When I said well-made, well-acted, I was referring to actual film-making. The direction, the props, the effects, the set design. Regardless of how you feel about TFA, you can’t deny that all of those were impeccably done. Acting is more subjective. However, almost everyone, even people who hated the movie, agree that Ford, Ridley, Boyega and Isaac were excellent.

            BTW You’re kidding about the UK Daily Mail, right? I wouldn’t wipe my ass with the Daily Mail, let alone seriously consider their opinions on film.

          • Michael Cavallaro

            You are confusing the politics of the world WITHIN THE MOVIE with the politics of the REAL WORLD. You make a salient point to say art often comments on politics, but a real problem occurs when a) the political commentary is almost 100% controlled by one type of group, and b.) the use of that commentary is skewed to one particular point of view based on the secondary goals of the organization controlling the art. So, if you have a controlling group that dominates art and uses film as a platform for THEIR politics rather than the self-contained politics WITHIN THE WORLD OF THE FILM, then you have an industry that is wielding a very deadly weapon, and one that doesn’t see creativity as the main driver of art. Every film has a certain political environment which speaks to the hierarchy of power between the characters. Who has power, who doesn’t, and the value that is at stake between them. So to say it’s ludicrous to suggest the presence of politics in film that are more invasive than creative is to deny what’s being played out before your very eyes. Have you ever wondered why they call it a LIBERAL ARTS degree? It’s because it’s THE ART OF LIBERALISM. Same reason they call television PROGRAMMING. When they start offering a Conservative Arts degree, I’ll be inclined to believe that movies aren’t being used solely as a jumping off point for social engineering to one way of thinking.

            Yes, there are a number of film and television graduate programs…most notably NY University, USC and a number of other places in LA.

            Fandango owns Rottentomatoes. They bought it from Warner Bros last month.

            Never said there was a B v S boycott. I was talking about TFA.

            Regarding the commentary about refugees, you’ll have to pardon me with some of the details on B v S because I saw a bootleg copy so some of the finer points of the movie were missed by me. But we’re talking about a minor beats WITHIN THE MOVIE rather than an major external political controversy generated over TFA. THAT’S the difference. But the movie’s defense of refugees does speak to my point about this New Orwellian progressivism that’s being foisted on people. And again, we’re also talking about the differing degrees to which some studios may force their agenda into public consciousness. Disney, more so than any studio, promotes absolutely MASSIVE social engineering, so much so that they start at the adolescent level with children so they can indoctrinate people early. The way they operate is a world apart from the normally benign but invasive brand of left wing ideology. You seem to be pointing out other movies with the suggestion that what these movies attempted in terms of marketing-with-political-attachment was anywhere near the scale of what Disney pulled off. They weren’t, and that’s what made it so noticeable.

            Rey’s character tramples cannon because she doesn’t exist in the expanded universe. Part of the reason Lucas distanced himself from the project was because Disney announced that they were doing away with the books and going in another direction. That direction was progressiveness. I believe the sequel to Jedi was Heir to the Empire and JJ Abrams, who claims to be this big SW fan, said bye-bye to all of it. That’s why you had the spoiler jihad conducted by the fans. It was the real fans giving Disney the middle finger for going some commercial route, which they exacerbated by making it lamely feminist. Funny, because all the social justice warriors thought the jihad was because of the boycott. Nope. It was because JJ doesn’t give a shit about star wars.

            Eh, I thought the acting was pretty bad, but that’s because I KNOW the dialogue was shockingly amateur. When most of the characters are given crappy character-neutral dialogue or lines riddled with exposition, there isn’t much you can play off of.

            In terms of the film making, does its merits on props, effects, etc really amount to a good film if the story sucks? TFA had the opposite problem of the sequels: the effects were real but the story sucked. Who agreed that Ford and Boyega were excellent? I’ve seen a lot of criticism hurled at them. Boyega for just being a stereotypical black character who wisecracks and Ford for being a guy who just looks like he showed up because they paid him enough.

            I just mentioned a bunch of major publications that backed the movie’s marketing and it’s politics. I didn’t say anything about them being credible (although I’m not sure why you selectively omitted the other publications I mentioned). Yahoo! is a joke as well, but it reaches a lot of minds.

          • FullFlamelAlchemist

            The politics within the movie usually arrives at a conclusion, which acts as a statement on the politics of the real world. That conclusion normally reflects the political views of the person who made the movie. No movie ever just made up a bunch of political issues that had no real-life counterpart. Real-life politics and in-world politics are not unconnected.

            They call it a Liberal Arts Degree because Conservatism flies in the face of art(Assuming, ofc, that we use the classic definition of liberal, which is not the definition intended in the case of a Liberal Arts Degree). Art is because exploring new frontiers and discovering new ideas and deepening our understanding of already established notions, AKA progress, AKA the antithesis of conservative. Why do you think Christian movies are so terrible? Cos all the decent artists have fled religion and any other mechanism that seeks to restrict or repress free thinking and innovation.

            Yes, there are film/television graduate programmes. But not ones in film analysis and critique. The graduate programmes focus on how to make movies/TV. While a point of interest, the critic is more interested in the quality of the final product, not in how that product came to be. The restaurant critics cares about the quality of the plate. He doesn’t spend much time in his review discussing the marinading process that occurred in the kitchen(e.g. a critic may comment on the cinematography, he won’t go into extensive detail about how that came to be, unless it’s something especially notable like The Revenant).

            Yes Fandango now owns RT. But, when Man of Steel came out, Time Warner owned it. And the complaints from MoS are pretty much the same as they are in B v S. It’s almost as if the person who owns RT has no impact on the tomatometer.

            BTW I don’t see the problem in liking a movie because it’s feminist. After having to sit through Age of Ultron and watch Black Widow be reduced to womb-angst, Rey was quite refreshing.

            Disney reflects the politics that is popular. It doesn’t impose a left-wing ideology. People became pro-LGBT, feminist etc. all by themselves. Studio execs are interested in making money. They don’t care about “social engineering”, unless it makes them money. If Marvel fans weren’t pro-LGBT already, do you really think they’d give a damn about Georgia’s discrimination bill? I mean, come on, Isaac Perlmutter donates to Trump. They don’t give a damn. They only care about what makes them look good.

            George Lucas is one of the most progressive, feminist film-makers of his time. Princess Leia is a feminist icon and a trailblazer for empowered women. Lucas was doing things with female characters in the 70s that no other studio would dare to do. The idea that he distanced himself from TFA because it’s too progressive is ridiculous. Disney decided to do away with the Extended Universe, not JJ, and the decision was made months before Rey was even conceived. How could you possibly make a Star Wars sequel and keep 30 years of EU? No one would have any idea what was going on. The majority of it wasn’t even written by Lucas. The only thing that feminist about TFA is the fact that the main character is a woman and she doesn’t need to be saved. Apart from that, there is little to no discussion of feminism or issues that affect women. I fail to see how casting a woman in a lead role that isn’t a DiD makes a movie feminist.

          • Michael Cavallaro

            Yes, but again, if the politics is 100% controlled by one ideology, then the probability that it’s going to be more invasive than creative rises significantly, as we have seen now in almost every film being made. Art reaches for the universal experience and touches something we all can relate to; politics reaches for the subjective in an attempt to universalize experience as a form of control. For example, there are politics in The Shawshank Redemption (a hierarchy of power within that world), but at the same time, there are no “politics” (sublime or overt social messages urging your conformity). The Shawshank Redemption qualifies as art because it touches upon universal themes that few people would shrug off as phony to their own experience.

            First, let me say that I don’t identify myself as liberal or conservative, so these are observations that I’ve made as a passive observer (although whoever has the power in the White House usually causes me to despise that group more than the other). But to claim conservatives are incapable of art is just part of the programming that liberalism has subjected most people to. Mel Gibson is a conservative. He directed the Passion of Christ and has been nominated for an Oscar. Clint Eastwood is conservative and he’s won Oscars – not only won, but created movies that touch the universal experience, i.e. art. If liberalism qualified as “deepening our established notions,” then it probably wouldn’t be on this insane kick to control and minimize language. Here’s an example of the hilarity and the extent to which they want language minimized: one particular PC group has coined the term “lookism.” Basically racism, but discrimination against people considered ugly. So if you think someone is ugly, you’re a lookist. Plus, if liberalism was really about expanding frontiers and ways of thinking, they wouldn’t be doing stuff like calling James B Watson a racist for making comments about genetic differences between races, as they did about ten years back. Liberals more or less embrace the “deepening of thought” that science attempts to bring only if science can be used as an asset. Otherwise, it’s as ludicrous and hateful to them as theology. If you accuse someone of being racist, doesn’t matter if they are or aren’t. Because they know it’s the ACCUSATION that is more powerful than the actual facts. Same with pointing out the fact that the word “progress” in progressivism lends itself to actual progress. Feminists often use some webster’s dictionary definition of feminism to prove it’s about equality for all. Doesn’t matter if their ACTIONS betray the claim, because hey, it says here on this mission statement or page, and that’s all the proof you need.

            But regarding why Christian movies are so terrible, my guess is they are terrible because most of the time they are made by the people who hate them (but love their money), not because Christians or conservatives are incapable of art.

            I’m not sure why you would think Master’s programs at USC don’t include film analysis. There’s tons of courses on screenwriting and you can’t learn screenwriting without a deep understanding of story design. I’ve taken Robert McKees Story & Genre seminars and that’s exactly what it is. They don’t teach you how to write. That’s an intrinsic skill that can’t be taught. What they teach you is how to design a story. It’s actually quite technical, and designing story is analytical in nature. Most people with Master’s degrees in film and television have taken these courses. To run a blog, this sort of knowledge isn’t the main requirement to getting widely read. You just need to be entertaining or have a niche. Walter Chaw’s Film Freak site is extremely amusing for its rants, but I wouldn’t say he’s got much of a clue about story design. The feminist blogger I mentioned enjoys frequent rants about mysogyny in film and how this or that movie doesn’t pass the Bechdel test, but in my exchanges with her, I’ve had to literally explain, from the point of story design, why her reviews don’t hit a single analytic mark, let alone achieve any kind of objectivity. I had to explain to this individual that what she considered to be an aspect of sexism in a recent psychological thriller was actually a plot device in which the writer used a false function to intentionally mislead the audience to the wrong conclusion so they would be surprised at the end. Didn’t matter. She still paraded this idea as the basis for saying the movie was lousy. That’s not a critic, that’s a fool with a blog.

            Well, Man of Steel wasn’t universally panned. It was four points from a fresh tomato. You might even say the drop in roughly 27 percentage points between MOS and B v S for roughly the same type and quality of film after the rights were bought is statistically significant. And I feel like I have to keep saying this, but we can’t compare the marketing strategies between Disney and Warner and where they focus their efforts.

            There doesn’t exactly have to be a problem with liking a movie because it’s feminist. The problem is that feminist movies at one point were typically niche films. Niche films say, “we’ve got a market for you.” But they are now the mainstream, and mainstream says, “You will conform to this.” When it becomes the establishment, you’re now jamming it down everyone’s throat and they’re not allowed to protest. Other than that, I don’t really want to get in a long discussion about why feminism has become a problem, or why I think it’s not what it claims to be.

            Disney doesn’t reflect popular politics because life has now become a reflection of movies, rather than the other way around. In other words, what they are putting onscreen is what they want manifest in reality, and as it’s gained a foothold in mainstream consciousness, they have tried to further pass it off as “the popular belief.” TFA wouldn’t have been largely called out as forced feminism if it wasn’t being resisted on a mass scale. It just so happens that what they’ve reflected in movies to be manifest in life has worked to a large enough degree that it can be window dressed.

            You’re thinking too much in terms of liberal and conservative. I would submit that conservative organizations serve the same agenda as liberals; they simply play the necessary role of the bad guy so that the mainstream controlled by liberals can put conservativism on blast.

            Ask yourself this: if conservatives know that people are so dumb as to get all of their social engineering from movies and tv, then why wouldn’t they start their own Hollywood? And don’t tell me it’s because they’re incapable of being creative because I just mentioned Mel Gibson, who owns a studio, and Clint Eastwood. The answer is because they need to create just enough opposition to foster binary thought in people. Good/bad, so they can condition people into some sort of dual assessment using mainstream film and TV.

            What George Lucas ascribed to wasn’t dripping all over the original trilogy the way it’s on display in Force Awakens. It’s also worth noting that Lucas was criticized, even in 1977 for the way Leia was portrayed as a damsel in distress, and for “whitewashing” the future. This is why Leia becomes more of a warrior than a princess/diplomate in the Empire Strikes Back, and also why Lando Calrisian was cast as Billy Dee Williams. In 2015, you see him as a feminist trail blazer, while in 1977, he was branded by the second wave lunatics as mysogynist because God Forbid the princess had to be rescued off the death star.

            I never said Lucas distanced himself because of progressivism. I said he distanced himself because Disney trashed the EU.

            Really, there’s nothing feminist about TFA besides the gender role?

            Go back and watch the movie on a stream site and there’s a few things you’ll notice. For instance, in several shots, JJ uses a framing technique whereby the camera is positioned so that Rey is looking down at Finn, who’s looking up at her. The scene where he’s on the ground and she’s standing over him to offer his hand, which he takes (but of course she can’t take his and verbalizes it TWICE), and in the cantina, where she takes him aside and deliberately stands on higher ground to frame the scene. It’s subtle, but what they’re taking advantage of are subliminal images. You’ll also notice that Rey can do almost everything. Need a wookie translator? No problem? Never flew the millennium falcon? Piece of cake. You learned about the force five minutes ago? Don’t worry, she’s already a Jedi on the first try. And when she physically overpowers a six-foot-four dude and forces his light saber into the snow, I’m sure you’re first thought was, “I’ll buy that.”

            Come on, man, a movie doesn’t have to talk about women’s issues in order to be feminist. That’s like saying the only way to recognize the devil is if he walks into a room and announces himself as evil. Hello, I’m evil. Can I eat your soul? Talk about a bad marketing strategy.

          • NIRVANAbob

            Thank you for this. While some of what you said I disagree with, there is quite a bit you have me thinking about because you argued logically with a factual basis that made it easy to understand and frankly quite convincing. While many of the feminist devices (if you will) that you mentioned are also devices commonly used for any central figure, some were also thought provoking. But I just wanted to show my appreciation, to both of you actually, for an actual discussion instead of the normal whining and insults these things usually degenerate into.

          • Michael Cavallaro

            Sure, no problem. Everyone has a point in life; what varies, however, is the degree to which people see the entire picture.

            I didn’t intend for this to become a debate about TFA, but one more thing I would point out with regard to the framing techniques I mentioned is that if you go back to the Empire Strikes Back and watch the scenes between Han and Leia, you’ll notice that Lucas doesn’t diminish Carey Fisher by angling the camera down at her from Han’s point of view. Instead, he centers a medium shot on Leia, which concedes some of Harrison Ford (i.e. the top of his head is usually cut out of the frame). You see this in almost every frame they’re in. Believe me, JJ Abrams knows about framing technique and there is NO WAY he didn’t choose to make Rey superior in the frame’s with Finn. It’s a directorial decision that would have been planned out in the story boarding.

            And in terms of dialogue, I’ll give you another scene from Empire, which exemplifies the difference between great dialogue and the bland garbage that’s all over Force Awakens. Do you remember the scene in Empire when they flee the Imperial fleet and they go into an asteroid field? Well, in this scene, here’s the exchange between Han and Leia: Leia says, “You’re not actually going INTO an asteroid field.” To which Han replies, “They’d be crazy to follow us, wouldn’t they?” This exchange is brilliant dialogue for 2 reasons. One, because Leia’s line buries the exposition with rhetoric, so we don’t notice the verbal cue, and two, because Han’s line TELLS US SOMETHING ABOUT HIS CHARACTER. “They’d be crazy to follow us, wouldn’t they?” shows us that he’s a gambler and would do something that not even the empire would do. It also raises the stakes within the scene. Now, do we get any of this sort of dexterity from the dialogue in Force Awakens? Nope, not once. Instead, we get character neutral dialogue that does nothing to advance or deepen the characters, or we get completely unmasked, bald lines of exposition that tell us exactly what’s going on the the scene. Character neutral dialogue is basically lines of dialogue that ANYONE would say in ANY situation. For example, when Poe asks why Finn is rescuing him, Finn says, “Because it’s the right thing to do.” That is character neutral dialogue.

            Exposition is important because it contains information about a character or a scene, but the writer must bury the exposition so the audience doesn’t realize they’re being directly talked to. So when exposition isn’t buried or handled with subtlety, it’s considered “on-the-nose,” which happens when two characters who already know the information provide it directly to the audience without any other purpose but to give the audience a cue. For example, character A would say to character B, “Dave, how long have we been brothers? You know dad trusted me with the family fortune.” If they already know this shit, then the scene feels phony. Now look at the exchange in Force Awakens between Han and Leia about their son. Han already knows Kylo is there son and that he’s a problem child, therefore the only reason it’s used is to cue the audience. It’s basically on par with looking directly at the camera. For instance, Leia says, “He’s our son. I know there’s good in him. That’s why I wanted him to train with Luke.” Or she tells Finn, “That was really courageous what you did. Renouncing the first order, saving this man’s life…”

            Pretty fucking disgusting, right? So here’s how that asteroid field scene would have played out in dialogue if it happened in TFA. Leia wouldn’t have buried the exposition. She simply would have said, “That’s an asteroid field! If we go in there, we’ll die!” And instead of a line revealing character, Han would have used exposition and said, “It’s our only chance of escaping the empire.” These types of bald lines were all over The Force Awakens, which sapped all of the depth out of the characters. So when people say stuff like, the characters were boring, these are some of the reasons that they can’t put their finger on because they don’t know story design, but they have the intuition of understanding what looks and smells like crap when they encounter it.

            Another thing I would say about the Rey character is this: the weakness displayed by the antagonist Kylo Ren also contributes to her being a feminist meme. So when people say they hated Kylo Ren for being such a puss, it’s partly because they’re aware on some level of the feminist desire to portray an emasculated, tantrum throwing emo male, and that this contributed largely to there being almost no tension in the film. Feminists, along with the mainstream press heralded Rey as the “strong female character” they’ve been demanding in Star Wars, but in their warped view, a strong female character simply qualifies as an all-powerful one. In stark contrast, a character like Leia, who simply has a lot of depth that the audience can explore and generate some concern for, isn’t considered the strong character they’re looking for.

            And Disney was more than happy to oblige them. They simply didn’t care that the only way the audience was truly going to care about Rey was if the balance of power was shifted heavily TOWARD the antagonist,not away from him. Instead, they gave us an impotent, weak-willed loser who can’t control his emotions. If the audience can’t take the antagonist seriously, they never experiences any legitimate sense that the protagonist is ever in danger, so there’s no tension and no interest in how things will turn out. At that’s what’s really the driving force behind every great character arc – the journey the character takes INDIVIDUALLY to either obtain or regain the balance of power through the pursuit of a goal. And even when the character makes some headway, they experience a number of unexpected gaps between expectation and result, which temporarily set them back in their journey.

            Anyway, this was supposed to be about the failure’s of B v S and it turned into a full blown discussion on TFA, so I’d rather just leave my comments at that.

          • NIRVANAbob

            I don’t disagree with your opinion but your argument is extremely flawed as far as the companys producing the movies goes. Time Warner is no where near being the third biggest company on the planet. In fact according to Forbes worlds biggest companies 2015 list, Disney is #84 and Time Warner is #163. There is a huge gap between those numbers which could go to disprove your argument all together. I don’t believe that is true personally, but now looking at the numbers, I can see how someone could believe that.

          • FullFlamelAlchemist

            Sorry, I meant that it’s the 3rd largest company that produces entertainment media & film.

          • Michael Cavallaro

            Out of curiosity, you mentioned that 500k unique views are required on a review site in order to post on RT. Is that per month, or per year? I’m asking this because I just went to an analytics site to measure the feminist blogger’s metrics and it says she received 164K total views (unspecified as unique) in the month of February. If 500k are required per year, then she obviously meets that minimum requirement. But if we’re talking views per month, she falls short of that.

            P.S. In doing this, I went to her site to get the URL and she posted a review of B v S in which she labels the movie as misogynist.

        • Darnell

          Your post is ridiculous, and filled with nonsense. The reason that BvS has a terrible RT rating is because the film isn’t very good. Critics rate movies based on how well they are made. Critics do not rate movies based on if they enjoyed the film or not. I remember years ago Roger Ebert talked about that in detail. It’s a critics job to rate how well a movie is made, and how well it’s directed, and if it’s putting forth a plausible narrative. He went on to talk about how he gave great reviews many times to movies he hated, and bad reviews to movies he enjoyed.

          The reason that critics bashed BvS is because it’s not a very good movie. The narrative is not coherent on any level. The story structure is completely amateur and a disgrace for a major Hollywood production. Nothing that is going on in the movie makes lick of sense. I will say the acting was great and all the problems lay at the feet of Zack Snyder who continues to show the world that he is a hack and a terrible, and talent less director.

          • Monkeh

            You’re talking about film critics like they conform to some kind of standard.. That is ridiculous.

          • Darnell

            Most of the good ones do. Also when 500+ people review a film, and even the ones that gave it a positive review list all the problems that should tell you something.

            The movie wasn’t very good which is why the reviews are bad. You realize that a B cinemascore is pretty crappy for a movie of this type? When you add in the fact that people under 30 (the target audience) gave it a B- cinema score that says it all.

            The movie isn’t very good and that’s just a fact. I saw it and was complete underwhelmed. I went in wanting to love this movie since I am a huge DC fan but I just couldn’t. The movie is just flat out boring, and soulless.

            Like I said I blame Zack Snyder. He showed in this movie he hasn’t improved at all as a director. The movie felt like a collection of scenes just pasted together without much thought as to how it impacted the narrative cohesion of the film.

            There were so many scenes that were pointless. If they had cut out most of the dream sequences which added nothing to the movie. Added a few more scenes for Wonder Woman, and spent more time creating a believable reason why Batman wanted Superman out of the picture it might have gone over better.

            Also Lex was a mess. I am all for different interpretations of characters but this was to much. This guy didn’t reflect the calm, and ultra brilliant, and ruthless Lex we all know and love. I mean Lex becomes President in the comics. The Lex we got was absolutely chaotic and insane which is NOT Lex from the comics.

            Lex also took away from the film. The film had this ultra serious tone, yet Lex came off as 1960 Batman TV show campy.

          • Monkeh

            You make good points and my comment was unduly flippant. I wasn’t criticising (or rather I hadn’t intended to) BVS reviews in particular, it’s more my perspective of film/game/book critics in general; although you have mad me ponder that there may be decent examples of the profession buried somewhere under the bulk of internet critics.

          • Michael Cavallaro

            First of all, I’m not sure if you skimmed my comment because I agree that the film isn’t very good for those reasons you listed and that’s mainly the reason it was panned. However, there isn’t anything in your post that supports the notion that my post is “ridiculous.” If you want to call it that, then at least give me supportive reasons that directly connect to my comments. I don’t think it’s 29 percent bad, but certainly below 60 percent.

        • Mark

          I tried posting my review of FORCE AWAKENS before I had seen it, thinking…nobody will know. LO and Behold, my Jello, wouldn’t let me. So, at least part of me knows RT is hell, but a separate kind of hell than yours.

          • Michael Cavallaro

            If you check the audience reviews, they date back to April, so I can only speculate on why you weren’t allowed to post a 5 star review (which you shouldn’t be trying to manipulate anyway). From what evidence we do have with marketing manipulation, Sony has been deleting comments from the Ghostbuster’s trailer with bots, so purely speculating here, it’s possible that someone affiliated with TFA marketing had access to those reviews before anyone and pumped up the reviews with 5 star ratings going all the way back to April. Again, before you give me something predictable like calling me a conspiracy theorist, I’m stating this is purely speculative. What isn’t speculation is the fact that the page was dumped with like 20 pages of 5 star reviews going back as far as April 2015.

          • Mark

            Shake it off. If I want to manipulate reviews, I will, LIKE everybody else! To survey a landscape that is obviously unnatural, though, and call them all 5 star ratings?…Tak-tak, tic-tic.

      • Lloyd

        Michael below answered sentiments exactly – quantitative instead of qualitative. When you go to the doctor and he asks what your pain level is on a scale of 1-10; should I just answer him yes or no? There is a lot more to rating movies too other than just yes or no. Especially movies since there are so many factors to consider.

        It’s definitely not just this movie either, there are so many others here that are so far off you’d be better off flipping a coin. Your point about Metacritic is way off too as they are a qualitative rating. Now for this movie – how do you explain a 44% difference between fans & critics? I’m sure RT themselves can’t be pleased with this much of a disconnect.

        • MewLover34

          You understand the audience score is fake right? Of the 170,000 scores, 130k of those were put in before the movie premiered. It’s just fans giving it 5 before they even see it, and I assume some haters going the other way, either way though, the number is meaningless.

        • FullFlamelAlchemist

          Rotten Tomatoes has a qualitative rating as well. It’s listed just under the Tomato-meter as “Average Rating”. BvS has an Average Rating of 5/10. That’s a pretty accurate reflection of how this movie is being viewed, by critics and laymen alike. It also lines up with Metacritic’s own score.

          The Tomatometer isn’t intended to give an average score. It’s intended to give you a % likelihood that you will enjoy the movie. Not love the movie. Not hate the movie. Just how likely you are to enjoy it. If the doctor asks you if you are experiencing pain, the appropriate answer is a yes or no.

          I explain the 44% differential on 3 grounds: 1) Most people use 5/10 and up as the bar for liking a movie. RT uses 6/10. 2) As Michael mentions below, the audience score is jacked by fanboys and doesn’t accurately reflect the opinions of the movie-going public 3) Movie critics tend to care a lot more about film-making and don’t subscribe to the notion of turn-your-brain-off entertainment. Just like a DC fan is going to be much more critical of a DC movie than the average movie goer(and many DC fans are incredibly critical of BvS), a movie critics who cares about good film-making and technique is going to be more critical of movies than the average movie-goer. Critics tend to dislike Zack Snyder movies because he’s not a good film-maker. He’s the problem, not DC.

    • glantern35

      The “critics” opinion is no better or worse, and no more valuable than anyone else’s. I don;t give two shits what any of them think. Some of the stuff they like is God awful to me. I’ve watched this film twice so far and loved it more the second time. Hey critics…. kiss my ass. Go find a real job where you actually add something to society.


        wrong-critics are professional writers who do this every day for a living=-pretty sure they know more than the average moronic fanboy who wants to see a superman or batman movie no matter what!

        • glantern35

          Norman, your ignorance is showing. Being a professional writer does NOT make your opinion better than someone else’s. I’m a computer programmer. Does that make me a better critic on a video game than someone else? No. Your comment is ignorant and either you are ignorant or you are trying to illicit a reaction with your schoolyard taunts of “moron” and “fanboy”. Sorry, I’m not biting, especially when the faux attack is so transparent.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            you sound really stupid. Being a professional “anything” means they are paid to do what they do. They do this for a living, every day, every week. They know films. I don’t need to debate this to you because youre a mindless fanboy who likes superheroes no matter what. The movie sucks. Its a failure. The dropoff form Friday to Sunday is a record. It will drop off by 70% this weekend and fail to hit a billion which, per the studio, is what it needs to break a profit. Deal with it.

          • glantern35

            Oh Norman. You’re so misinformed. Try reading the Forbes article on how profitable this movie was before it even opened. As for the drop-off, anyone with a basic knowledge of mathematics will explain that to you. It’s a percentage you see? When there’s such a HUGE Friday, then an average Sunday will of course be a large percentage drop from that huge number. It’s math, have your teacher explain this to you. Also, can you post your source for the studio saying that less than a billion will be a failure? You can’t? It doesn’t exist? That’s what I thought. Thanks for trying though.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            Forbes never said the movie was profitable before it opened-that’s retard talk dude. You mean this article? It broke records opening-sure-but it also broke another record-the HIGHEST drop form Friday to Sunday in superhero movie history. That’s a bad sign. Wheres the profit part in this article> I dont see it…http://www.iusbpreface.com/2016/03/29/despite-bad-reviews-batman-vs-superman-shatters-records-142278/

          • glantern35

            Here’s the Forbes article Norman. http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2016/02/19/relax-fans-batman-v-superman-wont-flop-despite-rumors/#4403eb5970bb Again with the insults. You sure do hate this film and all the millions of people that are enjoying it. Yes, that drop between Friday and Sunday was steep, but when you have such a massive release day, then an average Sunday would of course drop off more than most films. It’s very simple math and statistics which you seem incapable of figuring out, but that’s OK. The world needs ditch diggers too, right? Maybe if that Friday had not been so spectacularly good the drop off would not seem so bad. But Sunday was followed by a record breaking Monday and a record breaking Tuesday. Could today break another record? Over half a billion dollars in less than a week, despite bad reviews? Wow, that seems like an awesome film that is bringing smiles and pleasure to millions around the world. Maybe you should watch it again… maybe you’ll like it a bit more.

          • glantern35

            Oh, by the way… the guy who wrote that article… He’s a writer. He gets paid to write. That means his opinion matters, right? He’s a professional that does this every day. I guess you were right when you said that professional writers must know what they are talking about. That Forbes article was actually filled with facts and statistics to reinforce and back up his assertions and claims. Too bad the film critics don’t have facts to back up their opinions… just their feelings.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL


    • Justin

      I was dying to leave the theatre about 45 mins in…

      • Darnell

        Dude the best part about the movie was when Doomsday impaled Superman, and killed him. The reason that is my favorite part because it signaled the movie was about to end.

        Never have I sat in a movie theater watching a superhero movie, and after 1hr I couldn’t wait until it was over…

    • M2R

      It’s not Rotten Tomatoes fault the movie sucked. That falls on the shoulders of the movie makers, not RT. Grow up.

    • Xavi Rose


      I’ve been thinking a little, because so critical to this film BvS when if the film is too good, I realized that most people hate it or love it, why such a difference ?, in my reasoning comes the following conclusion about the haters faboy.

      In this case I’m going to talk about marvelitas fanboys attacking BvS, looking for mistakes, exposing them, that more things that are not true or no relevance on the film, you expose all this and already cataloged the film as bad and awful, when there is not a perfect movie, all movies have errors only that they are rarely exposed both, with DC films they do that because fanboys hate them, but when Civil War comes then these fanboys will only expose their good things and cataloged as good, clear there are also fanboys DC and they will take care to do the same (although currently less) and understandably they don’t let you throw garbage only his films.

      Worst of all is that most of today’s fanboys only know the movies, and that’s because they are cliché people with little personal identity, repeating the same thing as everyone else, to read all these bad reviews of fanboys is the they believe and also the catalog of bad and horrible giving the same grounds that read from a youtuber hater or a fanboy told, and like that is how they hate films, creating new fanboys. The truth is that it is a big deal this new phenomenon, which started stronger with the start of DC cinematic universe, the rivalry between fanboys haters be in charge of destroying movies with criticism.

      Well said this, the films of Snyder are made for fans of DC, don’t come made to all audiences as Marvel, therefore, if you know nothing of the universe of DC will cost more work to understand, but that’s not a problem that only with you a little interested this universe look for references or movie geeks with youtubers as “JaeRoar” and thus you should have no problems.

      So my personal recommendation is that do not be guided for youtubers or people like that, they are just more junk heap.

      I’m sorry if I have several mistakes, currently I’m a student of English.

      • FullFlamelAlchemist

        But anyone who’s a DC fan says that this is a terrible representation of Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent. Their characterisation has been utterly torn to shreds. This movie is not for fans of DC. It’s a movie for people who like watching men dressed as Batman & Superman punch each other.

        • Michael Cavallaro

          Retconning cannon doesn’t have to be the death of a comic book adaptation, though. The movie has to work AS A FILM, not as an adaptation of a comic. B v S failed because it doesn’t work as a film, not because it wasn’t faithful. I’ve said the same thing about TFA. Even if it didn’t retcon the expanded universe or rip off all the major plot points of ANH, it still doesn’t work as a film.

    • kid_a2

      Metacritic is also an aggregate of critic reviews. I never go to IMDB anymore because you can’t really trust the general public, and you have no insights into who is actually doing the voting.

  • William Seth

    Rotten Tomatoes is the Pitchfork of movie reviews. Ps. I loved BvS.

    • kid_a2

      Not really. Rotten Tomatoes aggregates a bunch of different reviews. Pitchfork’s are written by one pretentious person, unless they’ve changed that recently.

  • M2R

    the movie sucked. if it weren’t for name recognition of batman and superman the movie would be a financial failure. it gets a pass because the characters are popular, otherwise. it’s death for the franchise.

  • SortaZen

    I just want to take this opportunity to once again give the finger to JJ Abrams for making Star Wars The Force Awakens. Most Disappointing Movie Ever! There’s not a single a single scene in that movie I care to watch ever again. I just wish it somehow didn’t exist. I would rather see a Jar Jar Binks origin story rather than one second of that piece of garbage.

    • Brendan Ouimet

      BvS is way better.

  • HG2012

    BVS should atleast be at 65% not fucking 29% x men origins has a better rating

    • Mike

      It’s garbage. Which is why it’s 29%

      It should be 10% in all honesty.

  • W. Drew Curtis

    I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. I’ve seen it twice and plan to go again this week. I think critics went a little overboard with the negativity with BvS. It’s certainly not above critcism, but the enthusiasm with which many critics panned it made it difficult to take them seriously.


      you revealed your bias-seeing a below average movie twice already? its hard to take someone who has no criteria in judging films seriously!

      • Eric

        Wow, I think it just hurts you to know that the general public shows that your “idea” of what makes a great movie a thing of the passed or as some say, a has been. I went into thinking it was going to be terrible because of what these so called critics. Found it to be a great film throughout, but I’m bias to I suppose to right? lol give me a break.

        • Mike

          Great film?

          GREAT FILM?

          Wow, I do NOT want to see your movie collection….or lack thereof.

  • Allen Bradley

    All that critics says is I HATE Zack Snyder,if this exact same movie whats done by Christopher Nolan or Andrew Niccol or whatever other director you all will be sucking his dick so fucking hard,really dont understand why is like Snyder killed santa or the easter bunny and you will always hate whatever movie he makes.

    • Darnell

      They hate the movie because the movie is bad. The reason the movie is bad is because Snyder is a talent-less hack. Also the critics gave Watchmen 65% RT score, and 300 got a 60% score. Both movies were rated fresh.. Dawn of the Dead got 75% RT score..

      So the idea that critics hate Snyder and won’t give his movies good reviews doesn’t lineup with the evidence.

      The critics gave this movie crappy reviews because the movie is crappy.

      • Allen Bradley

        Did you read the critics? They say literary “Zack Snyder ruined the movie” in every critic they post,also sorry but no,the movie isn’t that bad 29% is really low,compared to the 38% from X-Men Origins – Wolverine,or the 92% that the new star wars got.

        • Darnell

          I am on board with you there. The movie is definitely better than 29%. I mean Daredevil got 44%. The second Fantastic Four movie with Silver Surfer got 37%.

          It’s definitely better than those movies. Man of Steel only got 56% but I felt that was to low too, and I don’t think MoS is a great movie by any metric.

          BvS should have hit the 60% mark. It was decent enough to get a fresh rating. I understand why people don’t like it but 29% is far to low.

    • Ato Mix

      There was a rumor some years ago that Snyder didn’t speak politely to some critics but they were silent about it at a time. I tend to believe those rumors because since then his works were always panned critically. Critics hold together as much as screenwriters but unlike the latter they think highly of themselves. Their voices can either make product sell better or worse regarding of quality since many people of this era(internet social era) are influenced easily by something they hear and read.
      I’ve read some critics reviews and they didn’t even explain anything. They state something as a fact and write it negatively with plenty of interesting and beautifully written sentences. The same critics that gave high score to Star Wars 7, Ironman 3(and even 2) and teenage movies like Hunger games that went worse and worse with each new movie.


      no, stupid-critics loved Nolan’s movies because they were done well…

  • Kal El

    I watched SW:TFA. UTTER garbage. A TOTAL rip off of ep 4. In EVERY scene I told my partner what was gonna happen next. Literally they just changed character names/sexes and made ep 4 again. Will I watch any others ? hell no. And yet it got 92% what were the critics watching ? cos it seems they were watching a completely different film to the rehashed garbage I saw.

    BvS gets 29%, the length of the film was great and never once did I (or my partner who usually doesn’t like violent films) feel any pacing issues. The story was relatively easy to follow, had great cinematography, great acting and a great musical score.
    Critics cited a lack of humour, yet my partner loved the jokes in BvS, but what were critics expecting ? a comedy ?
    Batman had the majority of the screen time, but the underlying theme belonged to Superman. How he saw himself, viewed his own actions or in the biggest case, lack of them. I get the distinct impression that the film was too intelligent for the critics and that they were just expecting “powder puff” heroics.
    Also, and this is a DAMN BIG also. WHY have no critics mentioned the emotional state of the audience (or themselves as well) ? I’ve seen it twice, and people of all sexes and ages were crying their eyes out. That’s IMMENSE film making.
    One guy posted that he knows some members of the Armed Forces who watched BvS, armed forces who have seen combat, killed people without shedding a tear, and yet they were weeping during this. Did EVERY reviewer buck a trend and not shed a single tear? imo, no ofc not. They simply DELIBERATELY chose not to mention the fact they’d cried (or maybe didn’t even bother watching the film at all, pocketed their expenses and just piggy backed other critics’ comments).
    To a certain extent, I get the impression that critics were somehow paid to pan the film, or panned it simply because Snyder was at the helm.
    In the end, just 29% ???
    Yet in the end, globally, BvS took more in its opening weekend than ANY of the Marvel films that the critics fall over themselves to priase.

    Critics ? hah, one critics poison is an actual moviegoers wine. BvS, was champagne and I’m sure the WB execs are drinking plenty of that right now, and rightly so.

    • MewLover34

      I’m not sure fan boy is enough to accurately describe this post.

      • Kal El

        Critics basically printed shit (and with the biggest global opening of all time for a SH movie), they are now having to eat it.

        • Darnell

          The Transformer sequels continue to break 1 billion dollars. Those movies are complete garbage. Making money doesn’t mean a movie is good or bad. This movie is going to make more money than Deadpool and Days of Future Past and it isn’t as good as either.


          haha-no-it just opened on more screens than any other movie. It will top off at 800 million global which is a huge letdown compared to Avengers which made over a billion. I

        • TheAverageGuyTAG

          It also had the worst Friday to Sunday box office drop of all time for a SH movie.


    • Darnell

      I was willing to write your post off as fanboy which is fine. However once you started claiming people were crying I knew you were flat out lying. There is no emotional weight at all to this movie.

      Superman dying didn’t mean anything because the way he died had to be the dumbest in movie history.

      Instead of giving the spear to the indestructible Warrior princess kicking ass. He chooses to use it himself and die? Also he nearly drown just trying to get it out of the water yet he was able to fly and had the strength to impale Doomsday?

      Movie was other garbage and silly, and made virtually no sense since the motivations of all parties involved were never truly explained.

      Lex hating Superman made no sense. How Lex knew the identity of Batman and Superman was never explained. Batman goes nearly 75 minutes without talking about Superman. Flash talking to Batman through the portal was never talked about or discussed again. How Batman was having these dreams were never talked about. It’s obvious they were not dreams because of the Darkseid references in the dreams.

      How Superman knew Lois was in danger was never explained? How Lex knew that Batman had weaponized the Krytonite was never explained? The way Doomsday was created was completely ridiculous…

      • Sammy Moreno

        I also saw people crying at BvS, so he’s not probably lying. I’m from Mexico by the way.


          they were crying at how awful it was-there were no emotional beats so don’t kid yourself that they were weeping by being moved!

          • Catalin Fumuru

            the movie has great scenes…the scene with the explosion at the hearing was amazing.imagine you being a godlike person and can’t do nothing to save inocent people…that was emotional. there were some good lines also:when batman fight superman,you are not brave line..i loved almost every marvel movie,but i can’t quote any of those movies. they have lots of humor,but nothing worth mention. i understand you did not like this movie, but i also understand those who do. when i saw “the trinity” at the end,i almost cried,reminded me of justice league animated series…

      • Sammy Moreno

        Superman heard Lois, it was perfectly clear. You should go see it again and pay attention.

        • NIRVANAbob

          If you listened all he heard was pounding. She wasn’t even doing an underwater squeal or anything. For all he could know it was anything hitting anything else underwater. Seems like a pretty big flaw to me. Perhaps a consideration to make before you say someone else wasn’t paying attention.

      • Ato Mix

        There was plenty emotional scenes in the movie and well written dialogs. This was one of the very few movies were people were stopping their popcorn rein for the majority of the movie. I haven’t experienced this kind of resonance for years already. SW7 grabage had huge amount of people simply eating and drinking loudly leaving and coming back without any trouble. There was no such case on this movie.

        How exactly putting an end to the problem from his other world, his responsibility is stupid? That warrior princess could’ve die instead of him and he could do it successfully because she was holding back Doomsday and Batman weakened him before he could evolve again.

        Motivations to what? Intentions of all of the characters were shown throughout the whole movie. What don’t you understand, i can explain.

        Lex hated him because he can’t control him, he can’t succeed when he is around. He doesn’t like to hear “no” and it was clearly shown in many scenes.
        Lex finding out whom they are is how it is supposed to be unless you think a genius billionaire that tracked down met-human can’t figure out who others are. On top of that he explained that he found out Superman by places he visits the most and how much time it takes him to get from one place to another. Basicly its something like

        Flash gave that vision upon breaking time barrier its obvious. Flash wasn’t a dream(you could clearly see paper coming down once Bruce came to senses) so whats this other vision from the future you talk about?
        Superman heard Lois, he clearly reacted to the noise that everyone except for depth people could hear in movie theater.
        Lex saw that someone broke to his facility and stole his kryptonie leaving a batarang on it place. I am not sure but maybe this is how he knew about that?
        What was ridiculous in Doomsday creation?

        Sometimes i wonder how do you people watch a movie…

      • PastureMuffins

        I hope you don’t lie awake at night worrying about these issues….

      • pimnos

        Thank you for the spoiler.

    • edgar ramirez

      29% does not mean it got a 2.9 out of 10 score. it means just over 7 out of 10 critics did not like the movie. the percentage is low, the average score is 5/10. no offense, it’s great that you loved the movie so much, in the end, that is the only opinion you should care about, but 5/10 is a fair score. the difference between audience and critics is outstanding, but it’s not just hapenning here, look at Cinemascore which is ONLY audience’s score- B. that is NOT a good score (in comparison, Godzilla got a B+, Man of Steel got an A-, see?)

    • Dan Sulin

      More like BvS was bathtub hooch, sure it will get you drunk and 13 year old love it. But a discerning pallet will tell you its crap. You go enjoy your Flying Rat man vs S dude movie(featuring Xena Warrior Amazon). Those characters are neither Batman or Superman.

  • Cole Thornton

    Just back from seeing BvS a second time at the imax.

    If possible, enjoyed it even more second time around.

    Film critics are like politicians: they are professional bandwagon jumpers.

    How good this film is (it’s awesome) compared to the bulk of critical reaction reminded me of one thing: there was only ever one film-adoring Roger Ebert. The self-important, snide A.O.Scott’s of this world are ten-a-penny.

    Can’t wait to see this on blu ray.

    • Monkeh

      Probably best not to pay attention to professional film critics; they are the textbook definition of parasites after all.

    • Ato Mix

      Here is the first dose https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-MUzvASr8s
      I have a feeling that Blu-ray edition will expand everything and maybe even give a glimpse of Joker and Todd moment.

    • Art Salmons

      Yes, you definitely do not want to listen to a bunch of credentialed writers who have tons of film experience. We illiterate slobs know what’s good for us!


      no-reviewers are professionals-they judge a movie on its genre, its talent, its composition, its acting, etc. BvS is a huge mess compared to other successful films in the genre. NO soul. NO humor. No chemistry between some of the leads. Sad!

      • glantern35

        The studio heads at Warner Brothers are professionals too. Their job is to make a huge profit. I guess they’re pretty good at their jobs because they made more money this weekend than every one of those critics will probably earn in their lifetimes combined.

        • Mike

          Currently, Batman VS Superman’s budget is sitting at 410 million.

          Meaning with it’s phenomenal run so far, it’s actually only made what? 90 million?

          Deadpool cost 53 million to make and is already over 730 million. Not to mention it’s R-rated so it isn’t in China or many other global markets.

          That my friend is profit.

          • Thawed Cave Bear

            Not even that 90 million–in fact, they’re still in the red a good deal, and maybe always will be. Half the box office goes to the theaters, and you have to make up interest on financing loans, and more importantly the distribution costs (minimal if distributing digitally, not minimal if on film), and every dollar in advertising. A rule of thumb is you may have broken even financially in film if your box office reaches 2.5 times your budget. If the gross is three times the budget, people sigh in relief and are comfortable the film was a financial success. Not before. So…yeah. This film needs to pass a billion dollars in gross before it’s made any money. I imagine this film will do that…audience word of mouth among dudes seems good enough that I imagine more viewers will come to this steaming pile of a film (sorry–Iike The Dark Knight Returns, but the idea that an electric-powered suit could put Batman on a footing to fight even a much-weakened Superman, or land a blow against his super-speed…it’s always depended on critical aid from Green Arrow wielding kryptonite, which never made sense because Kal-El and the Arrow have a long, positive history together, based in part on both characters’ Liberal, fight for the vulnerable (Green Arrow is half-Robin Hood), attitude. Miller may at this point have a substantial dash of Libertarian in him that’s always really been there; but not Oliver Queen. Rather, he has pretty communitarian attitudes with an emphasis on helping the poor, that dominate his life outside crime-fighting, and within it to an extent. You can imagine how he got along with Superman, a man of great power who’s not corrupted, but who instead has dedicated his life to aiding the needy and endangered of a race not his own. O’Neil/Adams had celebrated runs with both characters, a decade or more before Miller. Also, Batman and Superman had an even more famous friendly relationship, printed in maybe two or three-hundred issues of ‘World’s Finest’, a book vastly more popular than the later, bigger hero teams, and showcasing the friendly rivalry and competition of Supes and Bats and often Dick Grayson, too. So…why the hell is Baffleck (or Miller’s Batman, really–Supes has never been the conformist he’s portrayed as, in that book. Not ever) scheming, with a lamp-post powered battle suit (or an antigrav one, sure) to take on Superman. Superman’s power level varies modestly, depending on the writer, but it had been since the mid-40s, latest, that The Man of Tomorrow, even weakened, wouldn’t have been, um, stronger than steel-with enough super speed left that a Bruce Wayne would never lay a glove on him. Unless one of Supes’ best friends among the DC heroes is going to rig the fight with a kryptonite arrow, of course. Which is totally plausible.

            By the way, my mother, who grew up in midcentury, the Silver Age of comic books (not that she’s a fan), yesterday grew angry enough when I mentioned the title of Snyder’s film to DEMAND what sense that even made, that those two heroes would be fighting–or why people would want it. I reminded her Americans are famously paranoid, and that since the 70s-90s they have grown vastly more cynical and conspiratorial than the optimistic midcentury and Depression-era Americans once FDR’s presidency got rolling. There just wasn’t trust in the larger community or the aspiration for personal virtue, the way there had been when she grew up. She quickly agreed, in disgust, that was exactly it. Pretty sad, if you ask me. Tell me, how many times does Superman act as an example, a beacon of hope, in this film? You know: “They can be a great people, if they wish to be, my son. They only lack the light to guide the way.” …Ever?

            Oh, hell. May the force be with you. Always.
            -The Bear
            “Deadpool represents the absolute worst worst section and content of comic book history.” -Cyrano de Bergerac, 2006 – “Plus, the dude’s just a Deathstroke ripoff played by that tool from…you know the one. Played classily confident Hal Jordan like an over-energetic class-clown–which is to say, like he does every role. Oh, whatever. I have wine.”

          • glantern35

            So we should take another look at this in 4 weeks or so and see where we are. You can’t really compare a movie that’s been out for 7 days vs. a movie that’s been out for 50 days. I hope that much is obvious.

      • Apoorv Tandon

        If we needed humor we could have watched any of the Marvel movie. We needed a comic book oriented movie and finally we got it.

        • pimnos

          Oh, so none of the Marvel movies are comic book oriented ? Stupid DC fanboy spotted.

          • NIRVANAbob

            Thanks for saying it so I didn’t have to 🙂

          • pimnos

            You’re welcome ! I mean, it’s always surprising to see stupid people trying to deny how good Marvel/Disney is at finding the right tone for their characters’ individual movies on the big screen, while also finding the perfect balance between seriousness and comedy.

          • NIRVANAbob

            I don’t even like all of Marvel’s movies or anyone’s movies for that matter. But with the divisiveness and blatant generalization, it’s just insulting to act like you are just plain right and everyone else is stupid for not agreeing with you. You know?

          • Kevin Morrell Free

            They are, but their movies is more fantasy like then realistic. I dnt want to laugh during a bvs movie. There’s no reason to. I’m glad it was serious

          • pimnos

            Good for you. Good to see the DC-cliché in action. Apparently it’s not ok to have some fun in a movie with heroes in spandex. I guess it causes some people’s balls to shrink.

            We don’t fucking need a realistic movie that will tone down the characters, I watch a super hero movie to see super heroes. I have enough movies on my other hand to explore so-called “mature” themes.

            Meanwhile, actually better yet more serious movies like Gladiator, American Psycho, the first 2 X-men movies, Inception, the Nolan’s Batman trilogy manage to have humor and are infinitely more enjoyable. Hell, even Saving Private Ryan had a little bit of humor. I’ll stick to those & Marvel. Enjoy your suicidal-oriented Snyder borefest made for “mature” people. Can’t wait to see Flash or Aquaman all acting/brooding like Batman.

        • Mike

          No…no you didn’t.

          The fact you think that, just goes to show how little you know about comic books, specifically about Batman, Superman & Doomsday.

    • Mike

      **Spoiler alert**

      I find it hilarious how you wasted your money twice.

      Saw this massive piece of junk the other night. It’s amazing how a fan turns into a “critic” after not liking something or by calling it what it is.

      Lex Luthor, played terribly I might add has no plot, no reason for wanting to kill superman…there’s no explanation for the sex slaves or why his weapons ending up randomly in terrorists hands? Oh wait, None of that matters. Who cares right!

      Either Batman dies…or your Mom dies….Really? That’s how we set this up? Write some chicken scratch notes to push the weak willed bat over the edge, and kidnap superman’s mom because I guess Lex just knows these things telepathically, and it’s “fight night”


      Batman spends how many months crafting a way to take on Superman? He Finally gets to the point where he can actually kill him, and superman whimpering out “Martha” makes him not only wanna be best friends, but don’t worry I’ll save your mom tonight too!


      Doomsday? Really?

      That’s like chucking Thanos into the first Avenger’s movie.

      Doomsday is the wedding ring at the end of a steady 10 years of new DC movies crafting a plot and point. He’s a planet destroyer.

      On top of that they butchered Doomsday….his whole store, how he was made? what the heck is going on here!??? They slaughtered everything about one of the most brutal villains out there.

      There’s easily a hundred other extremely stupid things I could point out, but the most obvious is how they say “IT’S FOR THE FANS.”

      No…no it wasn’t. If it was, they would have had far better casting and writing. This was total garbage.

      And the people I find “liking” this movie are neither critics NOR fans.

      They kinda just float in the middle with low expectations…and that is what the masses are.

      Want a movie made for the fans? Go see the R-rated Deadpool and enjoy.

      • Thawed Cave Bear

        Good response–but ‘like chucking Thanos into the first avengers movie’? …Ignoring that Thanos is just a (reasonably effective, I’ll admit) Darkseid ripoff–as his creator and friend have now confirmed positively, i.e. ” ‘If you’re going to rip off one of the New Gods, at least rip off the good one!’ I told him.” The next day he was working from a picture of Darkseid.

        Okay: just quick, on Doomsday–first, note that Snyder obviously has little understanding of the Superman character (any version) and probably not much interest in continuing the mythos further, so from his point of view, why the hell not. Second, though…Doomsday is a modern villain people remember, with a reasonably good look, reasonably original in some ways–but fundamentally just the ultimate ‘brick’ in terms of his powers. i.e. super-strength, powerful invulnerability (later expanded into constant genetic error correction and healing in some decent science fiction)…and that’s mostly it, like many other superheroes and villains. But though he’s got a genetic urge to eradicate life added to that, otherwise, he’s just a more powerful brick. There’s really nothing especially creative about that, he was invented in order to lay waste to Metropolis and go toe to toe with Supes, but there are more interesting characters with similar strength/invulnerability advantages over Superman, but more intelligence and more interesting stories (ask yourself: in Star Wars, all three films, are The Death Stars “the ultimate power in the universe”, the big thing…or is the force really more important to the story? Me, I’d go with The Force. On top of everything else, it gives us a mythic structure and two fabulous lightsaber duels, plus a psychic connection to life and to evil–and fingertip lightning. Also gives us Darth Vader, the most famed and celebrated film villain of all time. So, bear with me a touch longer:
        —Okay, personally, you like Doomsday, and his role in the 90s comics. They’re not the worst. But perhaps the just-as-strong-and-tough (I’d say) ‘Mongul’, also invented to be a terror in combat with Superman, but much more intelligent, is a better archvillain. And Darkseid is the same, plus a dash of Kirby’s genius and The Omega Force–plus the fact that, even if Superman beats Darkseid soundly, he probably can’t kill him or end his power, for fate has told that only Orion (who’d be another great character to see in a future Henry Cavill Superman film (and with precedent–he got rather the better of Superman in a mistaken fight in the original New Gods in their first meeting, but the warrior-son of Darkseid and our Kryptonian champion have had a powerful, if entertainingly troubled on occasion, alliance since then. ‘Doomsday’, a near-mindless beast, superstrong with a healing factor? He’s not nearly as good to carry a movie–and if you put him up against Superman’s opponent from youth, Validus (who did, in fact, rip a planet in half once), he’d last all of a minute, I’d wager, before being crushed by a super-strength fist, and blasted away into atoms by utterly massive psychic energy blasts. But I can answer a question for you: what was going on with this version of Doomsday? Well, a magnificent source of the strongest mortal DNA you could find was acquired: General Zod’s preserved Kryptonian body, and from that, earth’s greatest, if very criminal, scientific mind, Luthor, genetically engineered something fairly closely resembling the Doomsday of the comics (who had no origin, anyway, during his big story). Who else would pull that off? –Okay, a Luthor NOT played by Jesse Eisenberg. Sure–Gene Hackman probably could have done better than ‘nuclear man’ with that corpse.
        –But enough. Doomsday is a very, very strong brick–and has status because he killed Supes in a slugout media-fest that was also the last nail in the coffin of the public having residual major affection for comics (which are an American creation). After the death stuff passed, Superman’s sales numbers crashed even harder than before, whether because folk resented the media event they’d been fed, or because Superman was wearing leather jackets and long hair and other jackshit-stupid things like that which were transparent attempts at being ‘cool’, and just as transparently trying too hard. Doomsday’s big adventure damaged the entire industry, and Superman in particular–in the end, even if I rather like some of the comics, he’s NOT an enemy that deserves a place of honor in the Superman family. Further, other mean machines created to trade super-punches as hard or harder than Superman’s–Lobo, or better, Mongul, who stars in one of the top five Superman comics ever written, and is mentioned above–so much more intelligently malific and ambitious than big, grey and stony. Who do you think will have the bigger moves, the interstellar dictator, or the guy with a head made out of rock? In any case, Darkseid has the same advantages as either, plus the Omega Force. He’s the archvillain of the DC universe. Not ‘Doomsday’, who’s widely considered something of a hulk ripoff. You think Doomsday should be the apex we build up to, with Darkseid as a stepping stone? That’s…not going to happen, even if there are more movies like this, which unfortunately it seems there will be.

        As for enemies, remember the other classics who’ve bedeviled Supes much longer–but never killed him because in that era, heroes that died had to stay dead, and Superman and his spinoffs sold the top six comic lines by the end of the silver age, i.e. more than all the supposedly dominant Marvel titles put together. Have Braniac kill The Big Guy and DC goes bankrupt in 1970–even if Braniac is actually arguably a little more interesting in the long term. He and Luthor (pere) can fill out the field, and we won’t have to see Jesse Eisenberg’s face again–my god, it will be beautiful! All that’s assuming they bother to have Superman in any more movies, which, at this point…I try to care, really. But while I’d like to see the knowledge-obsessed, city-shrinking cyborg genius from Colu (by Braniac I certainly didn’t mean his rewrite as a computer invented by Superman’s dad) anchor part of a film, I find, if we actually think about it, that, no offense to Michael Shannon, he left something missing when he died, i.e. the possibility of a character who actually was the viscerally dangerous, charismatic and threatening Zod that did so much to balance Chris Reeve’s dynamic superman–forget Doomsday, we’ll never see a real villainous Zod worth the name: General Zod, once trusted by the council, charged…with the security…of the planet Krypton; architect of this destruction and AUTHOR of this insidious plot! To establish a new order amongst us, with himSELF! As ABSOLUTE RULER! (inside the prison, Zod’s downcast, humble eyes finally snap up, staring down Jor El without a trace of fear)…

        Fine, so this wasn’t the best Doomsday–but Michael Shannon’s Zod was a pile of tumbleweeds in the last film–next to the deadly megalomaniacal presence of Terence Stamp in 1978. Again, like it matters–we’re not going to get any real Superman anyway without a radical creative change. Snyder fundamentally misunderstands why anyone is interested in the character, I suspect Chris Nolan just takes a check for attaching his name, and Snyder…after all his excuses has turned in another Superman film with the same problems, and no closer to having an attractive character resembling, well, something like the costumed hero that started this genre. At all. And as for burnt out bad guys, Doomsday? …Clone him again. We can come up with another Golem-reading-level destroyer. Zod, though, was far more famous to the general public, and packed a more powerful emotional kick, I’d have to say (in 1978-80, I mean, when he was played by an actor with commanding presence and dialogue. Honestly, all I remember about Michael Shannon’s performance was that we were maybe supposed to feel bad about the loss of his evil breeding program or whatever. Who cares? Exactly. Terence Stamp would have eaten him alive, then made his skeleton bow and pledge eternal allegiance, but we’re not going to see that character now, are we?
        —But you know, all this is for nothing–the Gods of Apocalypse are the baddies of the next film, and it’ll probably focus more and more on Baffleck–even if he isn’t remotely powerful enough for Darkseid’s Lieutenants to need to pay attention to him, I’d imagine. The folks making these movies aren’t even interested in the Henry Cavill character–he hasn’t once behaved in a way where you said: oh, hey–damn, that’s Superman! Whereas Chris Reeve was something shockingly different and exciting the moment he walked out of a revolving door that first time with his suit on, because of the athletic confidence, awareness, and purpose he radiated. This series has featured only blue tights, some punching here and there–which he’s inexplicably bad at, and a general thing of being Kal-El Broodypants. We probably won’t see much or any more of the superman world anyway. Screw it.
        -Ursus Artoris Terriblis Giganta (last of his line, born circa 11400 BCE near the Dneiper, Author of ‘Achieving Superiority via Bear Cavalry’)

        -Oh, and Deadpool…you know what, just never mind.Never mind, I got nothing to say on that. Nor ever will. It’s a beautiful world out there with lots of wonderful films based on the comic world from before they let Ben Affleck into a bat suit. And one day soon he’ll just be ash and the irritation will be gone. Goyer and Snyder. Twice in a row, managed to do Superman films without their Superman smiling–or even saying anything encouraging about the statistics regarding air, or, say, elevator, travel. Screw this.
        -The Bear
        “COME to ME!!–Son of Jor-El! -KNEEL- before ZOD!”!!

    • Matias Orlando Arancibia Stark

      Yeah i seen it 3 times now.. Best fucking movie

  • Pol

    Saw it. It´s not a bad film or a disaster of a film. The pacing was good enough, visuals were nice, acting was acceptable. But it was not a good film either. I did not feel anything for any of the characters. Both protagonists were photogenically moping around. The first half was a lot of set up confused by too many flashbacks/premonitions/nightmares and unnecessary sideplots. We’re talking about a 2 hour set up for a pretty underwhelming titular fight, followed by run of the mill CGI explosions and a “surprise” death which moved nobody in the audience except for one crying 8 year old who should have been left at home watching Justice League cartoons instead of Snyder’s “Dark N Gritty” teenage angst fest.

  • Pol

    Batman V Superman is summed up best by Ben Affleck´s monologue at the end of the film;
    “We can do better. We will. We have to..” The fact that Zack Snyder did not leave those lines on the cutting room floor shows how little self-awareness he has. One question; if Snyder´s Batman has no problems killing off bad guys that get in his way, why the hell is Joker still alive? Will they have to reboot Batman after he kills Joker in the next film, or will they simply apply some historical revisionism, the way they did with all the civilian deaths that went unnoticed in Man of Steel?

  • Romeoking

    Take that rotten tomatoes.!

  • Pol

    Compare this to Guardians of the Galaxy, which is filled with all the things Snyder thinks are childish and beneath him; colour and fun, dance-offs and silly jokes and raccoons and irony. More people cried when Groot died than they did at the end of BvS. A CGI plant got more emotional response than flesh and blood actors get after 5 hours of Zack Snyder film. What does that tell you?

  • redeyedjedi410

    The film was good. Will definitely be seeing it again this weekend. There is no way it deserves a friggin 29% on here.

  • Matthew Crew

    I never listen to critic they always say something sucks and they end up doing great


      not usually

  • Darnell

    Overall ratings are subjective. I didn’t like BvS I thought it was a complete mess from a narrative standpoint. Far to many side plots that didn’t go anywhere. It took 2hrs to setup the big fight which was a complete joke from a motivation standpoint, and visually it was underwhelming.

    With that said Daredevil The Movie got 44%, X-Men Origins got 38%, X-Men Last stand got 58%, Iron Man 2 got 57%, Blade 3 got 38%….

    Batman v. Superman is sitting at 29%. Come on folks it’s better than all those movies. I mean no one can argue to me that this film is worse than Daredevil or X-Men Origins???? Blade 3?? Is it really worse than the Rise of The Silver Surfer which got 37%

    This film with all it’s problems is better than those films. The critics were right to dog it because it’s not very good…or as good as it could have been but 29%?

    That seems overkill…


    A perfect contrast to the Marvel Universe…Thoughts: How someone like Superman would be perceived in our fragmented world of 2016 was accurately portrayed. Ben Affleck’s Batman was also refreshing change that fits the ruthless world we live in. As Wonder Woman Gal Gadot is a total badass!!


      caville cant emote though-that doomed his portrayal…

  • Sammy Moreno

    I enjoyed BvS. It is the kind of superhero flick I like. Gritty, dramatic, intense not only in action scenes but character introspection. Will see it again soon.

  • Pedro Saez Williams

    There is a very plausible argument to be made that film critics were particularly harsh on this one. Basically, Zach Snyder is a “repeat offender”. This is, his movies illustrate something that is painfully true for film critique, and that is that social media is displacing (or rather reducing) the purpose of film critics as guides to consumption (as opposed to reflection, for example). In all of Snyder’s films, audiences have been far more receptive of his work than critics. It is not uncommon to find examples of movies or other sorts of cultural produce that were derided by critics (or applauded for that matter) and received by audiences or later lauded critically upon historical perspective. The Wizard of OZ, for example, was not critically appreciated back in its time (other examples include Citizen Kane and to a lesser degree The Empire Strikes Back, which was hailed by some but condemned by other [for reasons interestingly similar to BvS’s bashing]). This disjuncture between critics and the changing aesthetics of the time, becomes more evident now than ever before, as access to means of mass communication is open to audiences. In this regard, I think that critics tend to be overtly harsh with filmmakers that continue to succeed in spite of being panned. Upon finding themselves unable to predict the aesthetic tastes of the audiences (the main reason why they publish in media directed to the general public) they then try to influence these tastes. It is simply a case of critics realizing they are losing their power (and thereby their livelihood) and struggling to get it back the only way they can.

    PD: Review of Empire Strikes Back in 1980 by the Telegraph – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/star-wars–the-empire-strikes-back/review/

  • Suvajit choudhury


  • Mark

    I read Superman gets into a bath with Lois in BvS…Didn’t this happen in one of the Superman movies before? Like, ban the 70’s.

    • willerz

      Don’t get too excited. He had his clothes on, and they didn’t show the goods on Amy Adams. If they did, I’m sure it would have gotten a better audience rating. I know from me it would anyways!

  • NameNamerson

    Zack snyder should go direct video games or someshit, he sucks at movies.

  • Victor Barrera

    Just like Watchmen BVS’s got 2 or 3 sequences that are smashing, just because of that the film is worth seeing, maybe a bit too long but I didn’t regret it, little kids were not paying alot of attention but older crowds like myself sure did enjoyed it.

  • Bruno Samuel Sampaio

    X-Men 3 has a score better than this movie.

  • PastureMuffins

    Gotta take into consideration the lower IQ’s of people who would spend money to see this tripe.


    expect a HUGE drop next weekend-at least 70%

  • glantern35

    When I dislike something, I don’t waste time or energy on it. I just ignore it. It’s fascinating how much time and effort these haters spend posting about this movie. I’m not saying you shouldn’t hate this movie, I’m just curious why someone would expend so much energy instead of just walking away and ignoring it. Some of these people spend more than 2 1/2 hours bashing a film that their either didn’t see or didn’t like. There’s definitely some type of psychosis there.

  • Malajeka

    Ben affleck has batman destroyed this film, the guy who failed at daredevil , who pretty much has been playing the pretty boy role all his life. This was just a disaster casting him as batman. The script plot was boring too for me, who wants to see 2 superheroes fight each other? Seriously have they run out if ideas….. I rather see a movie where the Heroes are fighting some evil villains than seeing 2 superheroes go it it, there is no appeal it.. I won’t go to the cinema no wonder a lot of people downloaded this movie for free.

  • Mark Trollglade

    It’s been updated to 166.01M. Which means technically, the Hunger Games made more in its OW. (Adjusted, it hits 167.5M). Lol, bow down to Katniss.

  • Jim Dawkins

    This is a perfect example of a good flick that is being panned by critics and LOVED by audiences. I enjoyed this as much or more than any of the Avenger movies. This movie is going to stir up controversy over critic reviews.

    • NIRVANAbob

      Not all audiences loved it. I’m not a critic. I don’t even like critics but I didn’t like this movie either. Not only that but I know that most of the theater I was in agreed it was bad. I know this because they made their opinions very vocal as we exited the theater. The reason most of the audience reviews are good is because not many people take the time to review or discuss a movie they hate. Just like a comment below by glantern35 suggests.

  • pimnos

    Well, to quote the Joker, a little : “Age of Ultron gets bashed in the critics and no one bats an eye.

    B v S has an awful rating on RT and everyone lose their mind !”

  • Fuebay

    Okay kids, the issues here is when you use the label “critics” it is too broad a brush. So anything following that is of your worthless opinion. Yes, worthless, because you can’t back it up. News flash, not all opinions are equal. If you want to criticize a critic meaningfully, you actually have to ….READ their reviews and have thoughts other than yes/no based on your feelings. Since your not going to take the time…STFU As for the film…meh decent superhero film. <—example of worthless opinion

  • Segal27

    This movie is the most average movie I have ever seen. I largely enjoyed it until Bats and Supes fought it out. The action scenes and acting for the most part were great. The problems derive from the plot and dialog. For examples, right before they begin their brawl, Supes calls Batman Bruce and there is no explanation of how Superman knows Batmans secret identity. Things like these really threw off the movie for me and left a bad taste in my mouth. If the dialog was cleaned up just a little bit I would have enjoyed this film much more.

  • Mandela Morais

    MoS was not good but this movie was a Master Piece.

  • Kev Sarchet

    I saw the movie last Saturday. It isn’t Highlander 2 bad, but that’s not saying much. Very dark, and not in the great Batman by Tim Burton way. Best part of the film was Gal Gadot as Diana Prince (Wonder Woman). Jeremy Irons as Alfred was a close second. Luthor was terrible throughout the whole movie, it made me wish for Gene Hackman. Ben Affleck is a better Batman than George Clooney, but nowhere near as good as either Keaton or Bale. Henry Cavill is definitely no Christopher Reeve. Was better than Affleck’s other superhero film Daredevil, again not saying much. I would put it somewhere between Iron Man 2 and Thor Darkworld.

Tag Cloud

Britbox cats Video Games Music jamie lee curtis Black Mirror docudrama American Society of Cinematographers dceu RT History Tomatazos psycho E3 biography Pixar politics GoT Trivia Election Syfy crime thriller Animation Nominations Red Carpet NBC Quiz DC Comics Christmas sports Mindy Kaling Spring TV A&E CBS All Access Winter TV Apple Disney Channel Rocky Podcast crime TCM festivals Reality Competition Marvel Drama USA X-Men Hulu Shudder serial killer Logo zombies Creative Arts Emmys YA First Look thriller Polls and Games Watching Series Countdown Best and Worst what to watch Chilling Adventures of Sabrina technology Crackle transformers social media singing competition Food Network TLC comic Oscars unscripted 45 TruTV Comics on TV Tumblr APB Extras PaleyFest Comedy Central Musicals Awards Bravo award winner Photos doctor who talk show Certified Fresh Paramount TIFF Ovation New York Comic Con SundanceTV Lionsgate ratings cops mockumentary Star Trek Action OWN comiccon History DC Universe police drama VH1 spy thriller Captain marvel Star Wars 21st Century Fox romance Cartoon Network Reality true crime cooking blaxploitation supernatural 2019 dramedy 007 Musical Infographic Summer Rom-Com boxoffice BBC Kids & Family crossover Trophy Talk Pirates Freeform sequel IFC DGA Warner Bros. Sundance Now LGBTQ Brie Larson The Arrangement facebook political drama CBS Song of Ice and Fire Trailer Year in Review 2018 Fall TV Dark Horse Comics CMT Biopics Premiere Dates cults Rock WGN TV cinemax MTV 2017 Holidays Ghostbusters DC streaming service MCU VICE Pop President Horror GIFs Amazon Prime Mary poppins travel Anna Paquin Toys MSNBC Superheroes GLAAD robots BBC America hist NYCC Box Office San Diego Comic-Con 2016 science fiction justice league Universal composers Grammys SDCC harry potter Paramount Network Sundance aliens Superheroe spider-man Shondaland TCA Ellie Kemper Country Mary Poppins Returns Awards Tour Adult Swim Valentine's Day finale Thanksgiving ABC Family Lucasfilm anthology FX Western Cosplay Marathons streaming anime mutant TV Land TBS YouTube Red 24 frames HBO See It Skip It The CW golden globes Comedy period drama Emmys 2015 adaptation diversity Comic Book Spectrum Originals Columbia Pictures AMC sitcom Fox News DirecTV BET ITV Sci-Fi Winners Opinion historical drama Set visit Nickelodeon Acorn TV Amazon 20th Century Fox war television PBS casting miniseries Martial Arts E! Nat Geo binge Spike adventure Esquire CNN ABC crime drama Netflix Mystery Writers Guild of America Super Bowl SXSW TCA 2017 dc Epix Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt FOX Character Guide Disney Mary Tyler Moore National Geographic TNT Walt Disney Pictures IFC Films Lifetime Calendar Schedule Showtime El Rey vampires Interview Masterpiece Fantasy USA Network ESPN medical drama Teen green book zombie FXX discovery YouTube Premium CW Seed Sony Pictures based on movie Starz Sneak Peek