Total Recall

Batman and Superman Movies Ranked by Tomatometer

by | March 23, 2016 | Comments

This weekend’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice brings DC‘s heaviest hitters face-to-face for their first live-action throwdown on the big screen — and gives us our first glimpse of the new Wonder Woman in the bargain. To celebrate this momentous occasion, we’re serving up a supersized Total Recall overview of all the times the Caped Crusader and the Man of Steel starred in movies of their own.


Batman & Robin (1997) 10%

batman-and-robin
One of the least-loved blockbusters of recent years, Batman & Robin brought the Batman 1.0 franchise to a screeching halt. Unlike the earlier installments, which returned the Caped Crusader to his brooding noir roots, Batman & Robin was a veritable camp-o-rama, closer in spirit to the 1960s TV series. Utilizing punny dialogue to a jaw-dropping degree were villains Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze (“Ice to see you!”) and Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy (“My garden needs tending”). Even George Clooney made little impression as Batman, and his sidekicks (Chris O’Donnell as Robin, Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl) failed to drum up much audience or critical enthusiasm. As a result, a planned fifth sequel, Batman Triumphant, which would have pitted our heroes against the Scarecrow, never materialized, so it was left to Christopher Nolan to resurrect the series. “Fans of the movie series will be shocked at the shortage of original thought put into this project,” wrote John Paul Powell of Jam! Movies.

Watch Trailer


Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) 12%

With Gene Hackman back in the cast and a four-year break to cleanse filmgoers’ palates after the unpleasantness of Superman III, 1987’s Superman IV: The Quest for Peace seemed to have everything going for it at first — including a smartly topical storyline that put the Man of Steel in the middle of the Cold War (and doing battle with a nuclear-powered Superclone designed by Lex Luthor). Unfortunately, when money started to run tight at Cannon Films, director Sidney J. Furie found himself forced to cut corners in every direction; the result, according to most critics, was a disjointed, cheap-looking mess, further hampered by dejected-seeming performances from a cast that appeared to know exactly how much of a mistake they were making. (In fact, Jon Cryer — who played Luthor’s nephew Lenny — alleges that Christopher Reeve told him the movie was “an absolute mess.”) It all added up to the original franchise’s critical and commercial nadir, a dud so resounding that it sent the franchise into limbo for nearly 20 years. Calling it “More sluggish than a funeral barge, cheaper than a sale at K mart,” the Washington Post’s Desson Thomson warned, “it’s a nerd, it’s a shame, it’s Superman IV.”

Watch Trailer


Superman III (1983) 24%

superman-3

The first two Superman movies boasted an impressive narrative scope, state-of-the-art special effects, and layered performances that made it possible for the story to move gracefully between action, drama, and comedy, sometimes within the space of a single scene. They were a tough act to follow, in other words — which might explain why 1983’s Superman III didn’t really bother attempting to build on their success, instead opting to take the franchise in an altogether sillier direction by pitting the Man of Steel against a power-mad CEO (Robert Vaughn) who blackmails an unscrupulous computer programmer (Richard Pryor) into using his know-how to help him achieve world domination. Aside from the typically techno-ignorant screenplay, which imagines weather satellites capable of creating tornados and supercomputers that achieve sentience after being attacked with an axe, III earned fans’ and critics’ ire by ignoring any semblance of character development in favor of director Richard Lester’s fondness for oddball humor and silly sight gags. Under different circumstances, Pryor could have been a worthy addition to a Superman movie — and the storyline, which sent Clark Kent back to Smallville for a high school reunion that reconnected him with childhood crush Lana Lang (Annette O’Toole), certainly had possibilities, as did a subplot that found Superman’s personality slowly being altered due to artificial Kryptonite poisoning. Ultimately, however, Superman III was less than the sum of its parts; as Variety argued, “Putting its emphasis on broad comedy at the expense of ingenious plotting and technical wizardry, it has virtually none of the mythic or cosmic sensibility that marked its predecessors.”

Watch Trailer


Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) 27%

The established rules of superhero films require at least one blockbuster battle by the final act — the catastrophic damage from which is typically largely forgotten by the time the curtain rises on the inevitable sequel. Credit Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, then, for trying to take a more thoughtful approach, and using the aftershocks from Man of Steel‘s climactic orgy of violence to establish the titular conflict between two iconic superheroes.

Unfortunately, director Zack Snyder was also tasked with setting up a slew of future films in the burgeoning DC Extended Universe, and the result was a sequel that juggles an unwieldy array of characters and storylines while trying to grapple with serious questions — and in spite of Batman v Superman‘s super-sized running time, many critics felt the whole thing was even more of a muddled mess than the much-maligned Man of Steel. Still, the CG-enhanced action was enough for some scribes, including Andrew O’Hehir of Salon, who admitted the movie was “kind of dopey” but shrugged, “It largely kept me entertained for two and a half hours, which is not nothing.”

Watch Trailer


Batman Forever (1995) 39%

batman-forever

One can draw a fairly direct line from the 1966 Batman to Joel Schumacher’s mid-series reboot: Garish colors; some tongue-in-cheek dialogue; the presence of Robin to draw in the young’uns. This may not be a great Batman movie, but it is a successful one — drawing in a legion of new viewers while shifting the series away from the twisted mindscape of Tim Burton (whose movies weren’t totally representative of the comics anyway). And if you were the at the right age, there was nothing more fun in 1995 than this (except perhaps getting a PlayStation). It’s “Bigger, battier and better,” wrote Susan Wloszczyna for USA Today.

Watch Trailer


Man of Steel (2013) 56%

man-of-steel

After coming down from the nostalgic rush of Superman Returns, studio execs decided that instead of a sequel, yet another reboot was in order, and they handed the reins to Watchmen director Zack Snyder to make it happen. The result was 2013’s Man of Steel, starring Henry Cavill as the latest take on the broad-shouldered Kryptonian orphan and Michael Shannon as his first nemesis, the villainous General Zod. Snyder’s revisionist take on the Superman mythology definitely had a special effects advantage over its predecessors, but a large number of critics took issue with other aspects of the movie, particularly what many saw as a rather cavalier approach to violence — summed up by Superman’s decision to commit murder in the final act. Still, even if few would argue that Man of Steel was an entirely successful attempt to apply a dark layer of post-Nolan grit to the franchise, plenty of writers appreciated seeing a fresh spin on a familiar character. “If Man of Steel is Snyder at his most conventional,” mused Mick LaSalle for the San Francisco Chronicle, “he’s still more inspired and innovative than his competition.”

Watch Trailer


Batman (1989) 71%

batman-movie

One of the most hyped movies in Hollywood history, and one of the finest examples of movie tie-ins and cross-promotion (so successful it made t-shirt bootleggers filthy rich), Batman is also one of the weirdest event pictures of all time. Director Tim Burton jettisoned the plots (if not the dark tone) of Bob Kane’s original comics, and came up with a picture with set designs reminiscent of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis and freakish, brooding characters similar to… well, a Tim Burton movie. Particularly compelling is Jack Nicholson as the Joker, who gleefully relishes his plan to kill the citizens of Gotham City with lethal gas. Michael Keaton makes for a subdued Dark Knight, a hero who dispenses vigilante justice while living a morose existence in Wayne Manor. A precursor to more complex comic book adaptations, Batman made piles of money, and the bat-logo was ubiquitous in the summer of 1989. “Burton brings back film noir elements to the new Batman, elevating it to a dark, demented opera,” wrote Jeffrey Anderson of Combustible Celluloid.

Watch Trailer


Superman Returns (2006) 75%

superman-returns

If you’re any kind of film buff, you’re already familiar with many of the twists and turns that Superman endured at Warner Bros. during the ‘80s and ‘90s — heck, they’ve even inspired their own documentary — so suffice it to say that after Superman IV tanked, the franchise was more or less frozen at a crossroads for years. Talk of another Reeve-led sequel stopped after the 1995 horseriding accident that left him paralyzed, and despite the best efforts of a long succession of screenwriters, directors, and would-be stars, our Kryptonian hero spent the better part of 20 years waiting for a hero of his own to rescue him from development hell. Help finally arrived in the form of director Bryan Singer, who was handed the keys to the franchise after proving his superhero mettle with X-Men and its first sequel; in the summer of 2006, Superman Returns rebooted the story, with newcomer Brandon Routh wearing the cape, Kate Bosworth playing Lois Lane, and Kevin Spacey chewing up the scenery as Lex Luthor. Despite solid reviews, a $200 million gross, and a properly reverent tone —  including a storyline that paid homage to the first two Superman movies while pretending the missteps of III and IV never happened — Superman Returns was ultimately regarded as something of a disappointment; plans for a sequel never materialized, much to the chagrin of the AP’s Christy Lemire, who wondered, “Does the world really need Superman? Maybe not everyone. But people who love movies do.”

Watch Trailer


Batman: The Movie (1966) 77%

batman

For a Batman interpretation frequently derided for its campiness, Batman: The Movie has a surprisingly high number of quotable lines and memorable scenes. Remember how the dynamic duo deduce that all their archenemies — Penguin, Catwoman, The Riddler, and The Joker — are working together to take over the world? Or the insane logic Robin consistently applies to Riddler’s questions that always turns out to be right? But the best bit has to be the one that involves bat ladders, shark repellent Bat-spray, and a high seas encounter with an exploding Megalodon. “Holy Cornball Camp, Batman!” exclaimed Scott Weinberg, “This movie’s a hoot!”

Watch Trailer


Batman Returns (1992) 80%

batman-returns

Tim Burton has said he always sympathized with monsters, and so, for his sequel to Batman, he gave audiences not one, but two empathetic, pitiable villains. The Penguin (Danny DeVito) is a deformed orphan who leads an army of aquatic, flightless birds from the bowels of Gotham City. The Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer) is a frumpy secretary who is killed by her boss (Christopher Walken) after she learns of his evil schemes, but is brought back to life by a group of cats. Teaming up against Batman, the pair plans an assault on the city above. Batman Returns is so cold and dark it makes the first installment look like Amelie by comparison, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing; it still made a killing at the box office, and was Burton’s favorite of the two Batman movies he helmed. “Of all the Batman pictures, this is the most striking, atmospheric and effective,” wrote David Keyes of Cinemaphile.org.

Watch Trailer


Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm (1993) 83%

phantasm

Before the Nolan Batman movies, Mask of the Phantasm offered the most articulate exploration of the Bruce Wayne character. While the movie takes the action that made The Animated Series such great afternoon fun and expands it (but avoids the cheap, empty thrills that having a big budget can afford you), it also showers loving detail on a pivotal romance in Bruce’s life and an affecting scene of Bruce begging for release at his parents’ gravestone. It’s the rare movie that shows its protagonist for what he is: essentially insane. “[Mask of the Phantasm] managed to soar above the theatrical Batman adaptation,” states Kevin Carr of 7M Pictures, “And would remain the best Bat Movie to hit the big screens until Batman Begins shook things up in 2005.”

Watch Trailer


Batman Begins (2005) 84%

begins

With his lack of superpowers and a vast fortune at his disposal, Batman was always the most plausible of heroes. With Batman Begins, director Christopher Nolan shucked off the direction of the previous big-screen incarnations and boiled the Batman mythos down to its essence, resulting in one of the most realistic superhero movies ever. Thankfully, Nolan didn’t skimp on action-paced pyrotechnics, and as the suitably suave and tortured Bruce Wayne, Christian Bale added a greater emotional heft to the Caped Crusader (he was also ably abetted by the likes of Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, and Gary Oldman). Batman Begins signaled a bold new beginning for the franchise, and was a huge hit with audiences and pundits alike. “It’s a wake-up call to the people who keep giving us cute capers about men in tights,” wrote Kyle Smith of the New York Post. “It wipes the smirk off the face of the superhero movie.”

Watch Trailer


The Dark Knight Rises (2012) 87%

dark-knight-rises

With 2012’s The Dark Knight Rises, Christopher Nolan was faced with the task of coming up with a compelling closing chapter to a blockbuster trilogy — the first two entries of which ranked among the best-reviewed superhero movies of all time. Under all that pressure, it’s commendable that Nolan emerged with something as solid as Rises: even if it didn’t quite reach the same lofty heights achieved by its predecessor, it offered Christian Bale’s Batman one last round of hard-hitting action before wrapping up this era of the franchise, with a bit of socioeconomic subtext woven into the plot for good measure. For some, just being forced to say goodbye to Nolan’s vision of the series was an untenable disappointment — to say nothing of any of the nits worth picking with a storyline that saw Batman being driven to the brink of destruction in an epic confrontation with the fearsome revolutionary known as Bane (Tom Hardy). Yet for most others, The Dark Knight Rises proved a perfectly fitting farewell — like Andrew O’Hehir of Salon, who called it “Arguably the biggest, darkest, most thrilling and disturbing and utterly balls-out spectacle ever created for the screen.”

Watch Trailer


Superman II (1981) 85%

superman-2

After putting together what seemed like a foolproof plan for a speedy Superman follow-up — hiring director Richard Donner to shoot much of the sequel concurrently with the first film — Warner Bros. watched with growing dismay as production slowed to a crawl, finally coming to a halt when Donner’s feuds with producers Ilya and Alexander Salkind led to his firing from the project. Things grew more complicated when new director Richard Lester came on board, and — needing to film at least 51 percent of the movie in order to obtain a director’s credit — reshot many scenes from a movie that had already been substantially filmed. Those are just a few of the many challenges Superman II needed to overcome before it finally arrived in theaters in 1981; amazingly, all that behind-the-scenes chaos didn’t have much of an adverse impact on the original theatrical cut, which broke the $100 million barrier at the box office while enjoying almost as many positive reviews as its predecessor. It certainly helped that the screenplay gave Superman (Christopher Reeve) the most formidable villains he’d face in the original trilogy: Kryptonian criminals Zod (Terence Stamp), Ursa (Sarah Douglas), and Non (Jack O’Halloran), sent into exile just before the planet’s destruction by Superman’s father Jor-El (Marlon Brando) and freed by the blast from a bomb Superman threw into space. Add in a subplot involving our hero opting to give up his powers in order to pursue domestic bliss with Lois Lane (Margot Kidder), and it isn’t hard to see why many fans consider this the best of the Reeve-era Superman movies (or why enough of them clamored for the release of Donner’s cut that it finally saw the official light of day in 2006). “Superman II,” sighed an appreciative Janet Maslin for the New York Times, “is a marvelous toy.”

Watch Trailer


Superman (1978) 94%

superman

“You’ll believe a man can fly,” promised the posters for 1978’s Superman, and they were right in more ways than one. The special effects were impressive for the era, but more importantly, the movie benefited from a talented director in Richard Donner, a solid screenplay derived from a story by Godfather author Mario Puzo, and a great cast anchored by Christopher Reeve, whose looming physique and chiseled good looks combined with his Juilliard-trained acting chops to help create the most perfect Superman ever to grace the screen (so far). While Gene Hackman’s rather ineffective Lex Luthor (coupled with the buffoonish Otis, played by Ned Beatty) was far from the most imposing foe our hero would face, the movie didn’t lack for dramatic stakes — and with Margot Kidder playing Lois Lane, it even managed to mix a little feminism in with its romance. “The audience finds itself pleasantly surprised, and taken a little off guard,” observed an appreciative Roger Ebert. “The movie’s tremendously exciting in a comic book sort of way (kids will go ape for it), but at the same time it has a sly sophistication, a kidding insight into the material, that makes it, amazingly, a refreshingly offbeat comedy.”

Watch Trailer


The Dark Knight (2008) 94%

dark-knight

Having already brought an end to the candy-colored, Schumacher-wrought nightmare that gripped the Batman franchise in the late 1990s, Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale had fans primed for a successful second act — but even after the smashing success of Batman Begins, few could have guessed just how popular The Dark Knight would be in the summer of 2008. A sprawling superhero epic that somehow managed to make room for jaw-dropping visuals, a compelling storyline, and stellar performances, Knight climbed out from under months of intense speculation — not to mention the shadow cast by Heath Ledger’s shocking death — with a worldwide gross in excess of $1 billion, a towering stack of positive reviews, and a posthumous Best Supporting Actor Oscar for Ledger. Richard Roeper joined the chorus of near-universal critical praise, calling it “a rich, complex, visually thrilling piece of pop entertainment, as strong as any superhero epic we’ve ever seen.”

Watch Trailer

  • Chad Benjamin

    This is just bullshit. Why was Man of Steel ranked so low while Superman Returns and The Dark Knight Rises were ranked so high?

    • Rahul Chaudhary

      I agree about superman returns. But Tdkr is far far better then Man of steel. No comparison.

      • Gus Gorman

        I Understand TDKR. However I am surprised that Superman Returns ranks higher than 1989 Batman????? that makes no sense. And I really enjoy SR for what it is. But even I can clearly see 89s Batman is way more entertaining.

        • Darren

          Because Man of Steel is mediocre and TDKR is a very good movie that is just overshadowed by how good TDK is. Superman Returns is overrated though.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            agreed-I think nostalgia elevated it-it should be around 60%

        • I think it’s because 1989 Batman doesn’t hold up as well as Superman Returns does. SR, for all its flaws, had a solid character story at its core, a beautiful aesthetic, and an actor who understood how Superman and Clark Kent have to be different. Glasses alone aren’t enough. And while no one will ever top Christopher Reeves’ transformation (probably), at least Brandon Routh managed to get close. Henry “Cardboard” Cavill just…doesn’t.

          • Gus Gorman

            I have to respectfully disagree. I enjoy SR. I’ve seen it many times. However, BR’s performance as CK/SM is very mediocre. he never portrayed the duality of the character at all. He mimicked exactly what CR did. The entire part was a CR 1978 impression. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s what was needed for that film. But BR’s acting ability did not carry. Michael Keaton’s acting chops were far superior and original.

            I like BR. He’s winning me over on the DCLOT show as the atom. I think if they wouldve gone with an original direction rather than trying to resurrect CR, we would’ve seen BR shine like he could have.

          • Chaoslight

            To be fair, Christopher Reeve also copied other actors in his portrayal of Superman/Clark Kent. Hell, Clark Kent was supposed to be very Harold Lloyd..

    • NORMAN DOSTAL

      MOS was awful. Superman Returns at least was watchable and had some fun…

      • Exactly. It’s funny, for years I hated Superman Returns after seeing it, but after Man of Steel I went back and watched it again and realized it’s actually really well done. But for a couple of bad choices in the story, I think it probably would’ve generated a sequel. To me, the biggest issues were:
        1. Superman creeping on Lois Lane. Yes, I get that we’re trying to convey his sense of loss at the life he left behind, but come on–find another way to do it.
        2. Superkid wasn’t handled well. I’m honestly not sure what I’d do differently, however. He needed to be in the film, for sure. He brought some thematic resonance and resolved some of Superman’s sense of aloneness by the end of the film, and that was really, really important to the story the movie told.
        3. Last but not least, he should’ve had a big fight with a super powered enemy rather than just a huge ass kryptonite rock. Superman needs to do more than lift heavy things. He’s strong, we get it. That said, I did love the scene where Lex Luthor and his lackeys kick the shit out of Superman after he’s lost a lot of his strength to the Kryptonite. It was a very affecting, painful thing to watch.

    • minister_of_spinkicks

      I might not understand how the rotten tomatoes works, but I believe they are ranked higher because the aggregate average of all reviews suggests that they are better films. Again, just throwing it out there. I could be wrong… but I’m thinking it is the critical consensus…. maybe.

      Unfortunately they do not factor in the “test of time”.

      • Define this “test of time” and tell us how to factor it in 🙂

        • minister_of_spinkicks

          I’ll do that and get back to you.

      • Mickael Duncan

        Actually the Tomatometer doesn’t do that. It’s a binary system, more interested in whether people liked it, rather than how much. So if a review is 3 stars out of 5 or higher (60/100 depending on what ranking system the review uses) then it is considered Fresh, and if it’s below that then it is considered Rotten. So if there are 4 reviews for a movie, 2 Fresh and 2 Rotten, then they will always be ranked 50% Fresh, regardless of the actual scores.

        • minister_of_spinkicks

          so if professional movie critics give one film a higher rating than a different film, the former will have a higher tomato meter score?

          • Mickael Duncan

            Not necessarily. Using my example above, you could have movie #1 with the scores 2.5, 2.5, 5, and 5, giving it an average rating of 3.75/5 stars, and then movie two gets 1, 1, 3, and 3 giving it an average rating of 2/5 stars. Both of these movies would be rated 50% fresh on the Tomatometer, because two of the reviews were positive, and two were negative. Rotten Tomatoes does provide average score as the next line below the Fresh rating.

    • Because Man of Steel is a bad movie. Duh.

    • JO. O

      Because MoS was Terrible. Dark Knight Rises is actually a really great film. And IMO Superman Returns wasn’t that great but because of how bad MoS is I think Superman Returns is still a slightly better film then MoS.

    • Dennis Bowers

      Probably because they were better movies. Other than that I can’t think of a reason.

  • Dirk Disco

    You can’t trust RT’s ratings.

    • Darren

      And what website’s ratings can you trust better?

      • Tony Hughes

        Start by trusting your own opinion

        • NORMAN DOSTAL

          nope-movies are too expensive to waste money on-we can see BvS is gonna be more sheit like MOS

          • Ruce Bayne

            Can’t afford a $15 movie?

            WOW I must be RICH

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            no, dummy-I see IMAX movies which are close to $30-I would never see a regular movie. That’s for poor folk…

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            more importantly, studios must be taught that they cant keep producing shit and expect big box office…-that’s the higher goal. When this movie fails to hit 800 million, they’ll get it…

          • CamNewtonFan

            Yup. The more you most. The more obvious it becomes that you’re a massive troll looking for attention. Go do something productive.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            youre the one attacking me, you stupid sob! I didn’t engage you. Now turn off mommas computer and go eat your chicken pot pie

          • Carlos Dash

            He attacked you because you were trolling. You seem to have a strong passion for wanting this movie to fail and for wanting it to be bad before even seeing it. Who the hell pays to see a movie he wants/thinks will be bad. What a joke.

          • CamNewtonFan

            So you’ve made up your mind to hate it before even seeing it. Wow. What a sad, pathetic troll.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            im not a troll,, you moron. Im smart-I saw MOS and this is the same director at the helm and it’s getting WORSE reviews than MOS so-logic time-I wont like it. Now stfu and go see that pile of crap and pretend it was good! Those of us with more refined taste will wait until its free on cable if at all!

          • Carlos Dash

            You’re not smart. The fact that you have to call yourself smart proves that. Your “what the hell is an Inarritu” comment proves you’re the opposite of smart. It;s getting BETTER reviews from actual moviegoers than Man of steel. Look at the fan rating, not just the critical one. You’re making up your mind to hate the film despite not seeing even the first ten minutes. This is trollish behavior. Refined taste? You didn’t even know who Inarritu is. He makes the epitome of refined, best picture Oscar movies. You’re delusional. Simple as that. Don’t bother replying, I won’t be reading.

            Also, pretend it was good? So because critics don’t like it that means no one on Earth is allowed to disagree with them and like it? Wow. Way to promote sheep logic.

          • Richard DuPont

            “im not a troll,, you moron. Im smart”

            Yeah, this argument would be easier to believe if you had used proper grammar and known who one of the most respected directors in the world is. Sorry, Norman. Not buying it. As for Batman V Superman, you’re actually saying that even though you haven’t watched it, it’s a fact it’s bad just because critics say so, and that anyone who liked it is pretending it was good. Because no one is allowed to have their own opinion and like something critics dislike, right?

          • Carlos Dash

            He and his buddy are so hilarious…. in a sad loser kind of way.

    • NORMAN DOSTAL

      most of the time you can

      • CamNewtonFan

        Not at all. It’s like Inarritu said, critics are not artists. Most have never written, directed, or even produced anything. They’re not experts. They’re random people with opinions. Only sheep who can’t form their own thoughts trust critics. Vertigo. Scarface. Blade Runner. Wizard of Oz. All 4 were panned by critics when they came out. Now, they’re remembered as classics.

        • NORMAN DOSTAL

          That’s not correct. Theyre experts at reviewing movies-theyre paid to do it., It is a skill. Theyre not random people-most have been doing it for years, some even decades. Its absurd to label one who looks at reviews as “sheep”. That’s stupid. I think its actually moronic to mention Scarface and Oz and Blade runner as examples of movies people hated at the time in the same post as this Batman and Superman thread. Youre talking a handful of critics hated those movies….not the dozens or even hundreds we get nowadays! You really think this pile will be viewed as a classic in the future? 114 reviews so far and 70 of them say its crap. Not 7 people, but 70 professionals say its crap. Even the positive ones say its too long, soulless, pretty visuals but bland characters…and what the hell are you doing on here if you don’t read reviews?

          • CamNewtonFan

            If you really believe that, then you are a very ignorant person. You’re actually saying you know more than Inarritu and other great artists who have said critics don’t know anything. The last Indy Jones movie got very good reviews from critics. That says it all. Cosmopolis, the worst movie I have ever seen, got positive reviews from critics. It’s not a skill. Most have no experience making movies. Most have never stepped foot on a film set. They’re just random people who give their opinions in sometimes well-written articles. It doesn’t matter how long they’ve been doing it. That doesn’t mean you know anything about movies. I’ve been watching the NBA for 20 years. Does that mean I could coach a team to a championship? No. Does it mean I know as much as actual players and coaches? No. You’re very naïve.

            Man, your ignorance is something else. Those classics I mentioned were PANNED. Not just a few critics, but most critics hated them. They’re famous for that. Hitchcock was even mocked for years after Vertigo came out.
            Looking at reviews doesn’t make you a sheep. Blindly following reviews and not forming opinions of your own makes you a sheep. I never said BVS will be a classic. My point is don’t fall at the feet of critics and act like they’re experts. They are not.

            Let me repeat it for you, kid: 99% of critics have no idea what goes into making a movie.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            First of all, what the hell is an Inarritu? Secondly, I didn’t say I know more than anyone-I just said I trust professional reviewers most of the time. I also know my own tastes. I like horror movies for example, even bad ones. In regards to this BvS movie, I saw MOS and thought it sucked., Since this is clearly more of the same and is getting worse reviews, it is safe for me to assume I wont like it. How is that ignorant? Its actually super smart of me!
            Ohmygod youre really stupid with the sports comparison-sports vary every moment every game-a movie is static and falls into a specific genre most of the time and can be compared to like movies. You honestly think the entire critic world which is comprised of thousands of people know nothing more than you, some poor slob who thinks its easy to review a film? Its an art, just as any writing is!
            Wow-you went full tard with that last statement. 99% of critics don’t know what goes into a movie? You cant write a review, you idiot, without knowing the mechanisms of film!!!

          • Carlos Dash

            “First of all, what the hell is an Inarritu?”

            And there you have it, ladies and gentleman. LMAO. Inarritu is a multiple time Oscar winning director who once again won best director at the Oscars this year. He’s widely recognized in the industry as a genius writer/director.

            It’s obvious you don’t like using your own brain and need others to tell you how to feel. So I guess critical opinions are perfect for you.

          • CamNewtonFan

            Bwahahahahaha. You just proved your ignorance. Alejandro González Iñárritu is one of the top filmmakers in the world. In 2015, Iñárritu won the Academy Award for Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Picture for Birdman. The following year, he won the Academy Award for Best Director for The Revenant, making him the third director to win back to back Academy Awards, and the first since 1950.

            Actual brilliant artists know critics don’t know anything about movies. If you have blind hero worship for them, that’s your problem. And thinking being a critic is a an art is absolute nonsense. You’re out of it. Bashing other people’s art is not an art.

            No, buddy, you went full tard when you didn’t even know who Inarritu is. Shows how little you know about movies. Yes, 99% of critics don’t know about the nuances of what it takes to make a movie since none of them have made movies themselves. Inarritu said that. Speilberg has said that. Scorsese has said that. PTA has said that. They’ve all said that in order to truly understand what it takes to make movies, you have to be making movies yourself. Simply writing about them is not an art, nor does it make you an expert. I’m done with you. You’re clearly not bright at all. Have a nice life. Bye.

          • Richard DuPont

            “First of all, what the hell is an Inarritu?”

            Instant disqualification and loss of credibility. Please refrain from talking about movies ever again. Please and thank you.

          • Carlos Dash

            Did you just say a few critics didn’t like Vertigo and Wizard of Oz and Blade Runner and Scarface? Oh good god. Well, you’re obviously not well versed in the history of cinema. All four of those movies were destroyed by upwards of 90% of the critics who watched them. Another to throw on that list is “It’s a wonderful life.” Panned when it came out by critics. Moviegoers loved it though. That’s what counts. Dawn of justice won’t ever be a classic, but acting like critics are masters of cinema is ludicrous. Take it from someone who actually works in the industry. Critics are not respected at all. It’s not just Alejandro Inarritu who says they don’t know anything about movies. Everyone in the industry says that. It’s because most critics (not all) genuinely don’t know about any of the nuances of the film-making process. How could they? They’ve never done it. I could work as a book critic for 50 years, but that wouldn’t mean I know anything about writing books unless I had actually written something myself. If you think they’re experts, then you’re truly lost. Most critics were promoted up the ranks from other newspaper jobs. Most have never even been to a film study class let alone directed a movie. And no, you’re not a sheep for looking at reviews. But treating reviews as the end all be all makes you a sheep. It means you don’t have the critical thinking skills to create your own opinions.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            OK, how many saw Vertigo and wrote reviews that said they hated it? no one said anything about reviewers being masters at anything-I just said I trust their opinions when they are collectively saying something is shit

          • Carlos Dash

            You’re missing the entire point of what that other guy is saying. Stop treating critics like they always get it right. They don’t. It’s a wonderful did indeed get panned.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            I actually took a Hitchcock class at UCLA and we studied the film. Its great. Prove to me that a hundred critics reviewed Vertigo and said it was bad please. Otherwise your post is meaningless.

          • Carlos Dash

            It’s common knowledge the movie was panned when it came out. They even showed that in the movie where Anthony Hopkins played Hitchcock. You’re obviously not well-versed in film history, so I’ll give you a link or two,-

            http://cassavafilms.com/list-of-9/nine-classic-films-originally-panned-by-critics

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            Here-I just found out yoru e aliar-reviews in 1958 were mixed: Reviews were mixed. Variety said the film showed Hitchcock’s “mastery”, but was too long and slow for “what is basically only a psychological murder mystery”.[37] Similarly, the Los Angeles Times admired the scenery, but found the plot “too long” and felt it “bogs down” in “a maze of detail”; scholar Dan Auiler says that this review “sounded the tone that most popular critics would take with the film”.[38] However, the Los Angeles Examiner loved it, admiring the “excitement, action, romance, glamor and [the] crazy, off-beat love story”.[39] As well, New York Times film critic Bosley Crowther also gave Vertigo a positive review by explaining that “[the] secret [of the film] is so clever, even though it is devilishly far-fetched.”[40]

          • Carlos Dash

            A few liked it. Many did not. I gave a link that shows that.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            lets do another one-Blade Runner-oh look! Reviews were also mixed- looks like youre a douchebag! Initial reactions among film critics were mixed. Some wrote that the plot took a back seat to the film’s special effects, and did not fit the studio’s marketing as an action/adventure movie. Others acclaimed its complexity and predicted it would stand the test of time.[95] Negative criticism in the United States cited its slow pace.[96] Sheila Benson from the Los Angeles Times called it “Blade Crawler,” and Pat Berman in The State and Columbia Record described it as “science fiction pornography”.[97] Pauline Kael praised Blade Runner as worthy of a place in film history for its distinctive sci-fi vision, yet criticized the film’s lack of development in “human terms”.[98]

          • Carlos Dash

            This from the same genius who doesn’t even know who Inarritu is. Lower your ego, clown.

          • Carlos Dash

            Yes, let’s blindly trust the same critics –

            http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sharknado_2013/

            http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/

            http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/indiana_jones_and_the_kingdom_of_the_crystal_skull/?search=indiana%20jo

            http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/take_this_waltz/?search=take%20this%20waltz

            Enough said. Enjoy blindly believing whatever critics tell you. Meanwhile, the rest of us will use out minds to form our own opinions.

          • Carlos Dash
          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            one more-Wizard of Oz actually received HUGE acclaim!! The Wizard of Oz film received much acclaim upon its release. Frank Nugent considered the film a “delightful piece of wonder-working which had the youngsters’ eyes shining and brought a quietly amused gleam to the wiser ones of the oldsters. Not since Disney’s Snow White has anything quite so fantastic succeeded half so well.”[33] Nugent had issues with some of the film’s special effects, writing, “with the best of will and ingenuity, they cannot make a Munchkin or a Flying Monkey that will not still suggest, however vaguely, a Singer’s Midget in a Jack Dawn masquerade. Nor can they, without a few betraying jolts and split-screen overlappings, bring down from the sky the great soap bubble in which the Good Witch rides and roll it smoothly into place.” According to Nugent, “Judy Garland’s Dorothy is a pert and fresh-faced miss with the wonder-lit eyes of a believer in fairy tales, but the Baum fantasy is at its best when the Scarecrow, the Woodman, and the Lion are on the move.”[33]

          • Carlos Dash

            Sounds like you’re getting your info from Wikipedia. A site that anyone can edit. I see you still have no response to your idiotic “what is an Inarritu” comment. Please just quit while you’re behind. We get it. You hate the movie already and want it to fail. Move on.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            look at my below posts-turns out youre an idiot on all accounts-Vertigo was not panned, neither was Blade Runner and Oz received mostly positive reviews…

          • Carlos Dash

            Some awful movies that have gotten fresh scores on here from critics- Take this waltz, Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the crystal skull, Superman returns, Sharknado. Seriously, Sharknado has over an 80% positive score from critics.

        • Actually, that’s not true. Blogger reviewers are, often, not experts, that’s true. But movie critics at major publications typically have extensive backgrounds in the study of film and of literature, and have deep understanding of character and story construction and history.

    • Actually, you usually can. Not 100%, but pretty damn high percentage of the time.

  • Mandora

    I did not even know this site , and tell the way critics still live in the past, super value films that most do not get to see , with that unilaterally , good guys and bad guys and evil triumphs without much effort , all done stylish house , that standard story …

    Knowing that Zack Snyder managed to bring out the Batman Frank Miller have I surrender my eternal gratitude . For REAL FANS Comics is a dream finally see Triad DC

    • NORMAN DOSTAL

      REAL fans are hating it because it has no soul

      • CamNewtonFan

        I know MANY real fans who loved it. Please don’t pretend you speak for everyone.

        • Dennis Bowers

          Define many. 3? 5? 7?

      • attentionisattention

        REAL fan chiming in here: I loved Batman V Superman and thought it had tons of soul. Look at the audience ratings and the imdb ratings, AKA REAL fans and NOT critics; people like this movie. You can’t deny that.

        • CamNewtonFan

          Exactly. He’s just trolling. Everyone I know who saw the movie, including people who dislike Snyder and Man of Steel loved the movie.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            im not trolling-I honestly think its looks like crap and the fact that its made by the same people who made MOS and this is getting worse ratings, makes logical sense

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            everyone? what-you know three people who saw it?

          • Carlos Dash

            The fan score is good for the movie, as well as very positive word of mouth on social media sites including twitter and superherohype. You’re obviously determined to hate the movie before even watching it, so there’s no point in you seeing it. Stay at home and read a book. Preferably a classic. God knows you sound like you could use a little high culture.

          • RatBasterd

            That’s because WB plants have rated it up. Let’s see what happens by Friday morning.

            Let’s all remember, WB owns Rotten Tomatoes.

          • Carlos Dash

            That’s as idiotic as saying Marvel plants rate up their movies. Another person who wants it to be bad. Wow. What toxic behavior. That hard to believe people liked something you don’t want to like? Wow.

          • RatBasterd

            The film hasn’t even been released yet:

            http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/releaseinfo

            See you on Friday.

          • Marvel fanboys do and will rank up the user reviews, just as DC fans do. It’s a common practice. Unfortunately, some people tie their own sense of self worth to whether or not their pet fantasy movie is praised by others or not. It’s weird, but there it is. You cannot trust user reviews during the first week or two of a movie’s release.

          • RatBasterd

            I might agree with you but how could so many people have rated it up before the film is even released?

          • Do they? Or are you being hyperbolic? Genuinely curious. I’d never heard or read that.

          • CogInTheWheel

            Yup, Comcast and Time Warner own rottentomatoes. Those are NBCUniversal and Warner Bros.

          • RatBasterd

            That they’ve rated it up or that they own it?

          • That they own it. I have no doubt they’d kick up the user rating. Plenty of studios have been caught posting ads with “reviews” from critics who don’t even exist over the years after all.
            And given the user score has plummeted by 21 full points in under 48 hours as people start getting into screenings to see it, I think it’s more likely than ever that some combination of WB inserting fake positive scores and fanboys doing the same for a movie they’d yet to see (or worse, the ones who aren’t honest enough to admit when a movie is bad and rate it high even though it’s shit) is the whole reason why the score was ever at 99% fresh with audiences to begin with.
            I fully expect the audience score to continue tumbling throughout the weekend. It’s a bummer–I really hoped this would end up being a truly great film.

          • RatBasterd

            They own it. Just do a search. They’re owned by Flixster, which is owned by Time Warner.

            I completely agree with everything you’ve said though. Everyone wants a great movie going in. No one likes to see a shitty film.

          • Actually, the word of mouth on social media is largely negative, too. The IMDB/Rotten Tomatoes user scores can’t be trusted because there’s no way to verify that someone even saw the movie. Add to that the fact that literally THOUSANDS of “reviews” are already up, and yet the movie hasn’t released to the general public yet. What you’re seeing are fan trolls trying to pad the ratings.

          • Dennis Bowers

            I wouldn’t say a 68% is a good score. That’s a D+, only slightly above mediocre.

          • I know a dozen people who’ve seen it (perks of being a film student), and they all say it’s mediocrity incarnate. I actually had a ticket to go see it in Hollywood tonight but skipped it. I’ll see it in the morning sometime soon, while there are no obnoxious crowds.

        • NORMAN DOSTAL

          did you like MOS?

          • attentionisattention

            Yes I enjoy watching MOS. Is it a great movie? Not really. I can say objectively that it is just an okay movie and I do not worship Zack Snyder in any sense. But one thing I can say for sure is that BvS is a MUCH better movie and the ratings being *below* MoS is confusing. Seriously Norman, go see it; you might like it, even though you clearly don’t want to.

          • Carlos Dash

            Precisely. He doesn’t want the movie to be good. It’s childish internet stuff. He wants it to be bad and wants it to not make money.

          • Maybe, but the other side of the coin are fans who so desperately want the movie to be good and to do well that they’ll post fake reviews praising a movie they haven’t even seen yet. We see it in every major franchise. Hell, back when Phantom Menace released, people went nuts talking about how great it was. It wasn’t until the weeks and months later, after the hype period cooled off, that people got their heads on straight and realized they’d just seen a travesty of storytelling.
            I’ve zero doubt that BvS is beautiful to look at. What I doubt is that the story, characterization and plot are well constructed, because David Goyer is a poor writer and Chris Terrio wasn’t brought in until far too late in the production process.

          • Dijonase

            I saw a screening Tuesday night. I’m a huge DC fan. I liked MoS for the most part. I wanted the movie to be good. It wasn’t.

            Sure, that’s just my opinion, but this narrative that people are trying to invent about how “real fans” get it and those stuffy old critics can’t appreciate this amazing work of art is just silly. It’s a dour, drab movie that only really comes to life when Wonder Woman is on screen. Snyder likes to have all his characters talk about how Superman is this great beacon of hope, but that great beacon of hope is never allowed to smile. He treats saving people like it’s a chore. In a movie that’s supposed to be pitting these two opposing ideologies against each other, Batman and Superman are way too similar.

            There’s some stuff that works. Affleck is really good (even though his Batman kills quite a few people). Gadot is fantastic. Unfortunately, the movie around them isn’t very good.

            I’m sure a lot of people will disagree with me and love the movie. I also have no doubt that a lot of “real fans” will be blinded by the good parts and ignore everything else and convince themselves that it’s a great movie.

          • Richard DuPont

            I disliked MOS (especially those numbing flashbacks), yet I loved Batman V Superman. Not as good as Nolan’s, but still a very fun time at the movies. Several moments where the entire audience clapped.

          • Opening weekend/screening audiences are always filled with fanboys who’d clap at gonorrhea if someone said it in just the right way.

          • MoS was great.
            For me to poop on.

        • Darren Hood

          Audience ratings? The film opens to the public on Friday. The only audience ratings are those wanting to see the film, which is vastly different from actually liking the film. If you want another film buff’s opinion. I’m a massive comic book fan and I found myself horrified over this film treatment of Batman. This is a sadistic character that deserves to be thrown in jail, not hailed by the police. Superman comes across as a self interested deity thanks to the persistent slo mo shots and the mopey no body likes me is NOT what Superman should be. Their petty differences do not validate a 20 minute long slug fest, Batman has no place calling out Superman for being this overpowered alien who could snap and kill everyone, when it’s obvious that Batman is a sadist himself. This is not Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns, this is ASBAR or Dark Knight Strikes Again parading as DKR. At least in that story Batman had a legitimate reason for wanting to put Superman in his place, with 30 years of built up animosity towards a person who’s become a blind optimist government stooge.

          • Richard DuPont

            The movie has screened many times already. You can see a fan score based on over 100,000 ratings from moviegoers. The “want to see” meter went away this morning.

            Some things were merely inspired by Dark Knight Returns. No one said it was a live action adaption of it.

          • Darren Hood

            All of them are BvS fans, invited to a private screening by the studio. Everyone is caught up in the excitement of being at such a affair, to see something before anybody else. As such the film would have a more glowing rating. Friday that may change.

            EDIT: Which it looks like it has, going from a 98% want to see, to a 88% liked, to a 78% this morning. We’re already at the same percentage of audience approval that Man of Steel had with tallies from the first of the public sneak previews. One more before the wide opening and that rating could drop further, or rise who knows?

          • Had it been a live action adaptation of it, it would’ve been a better movie and gotten better ratings 😛

        • Jeff Haskell

          I love IMDB, but it’s ratings are meaningless. There were thousands of votes on Monday, before anyone had seen the movie. You may not like critics, or agree with them, but they can recognize a good/bad movie. That doesn’t mean it wont be enjoyable, they’re not the same thing. You liking a movie doesn’t make it good.

        • Mickael Duncan

          Those IMDB ratings were there last week, so I’m going to go ahead and say that they’re probably not all legit.

        • CogInTheWheel

          The fans gushing over this movie are just happy that it has two heroes punching eachother with cool-looking superhero poses. Instead of actual solid plotting, even pacing, and complex characters that dont betray their source material to be edgy.

          “Ahhh, Dark Superman destroyed this city and hurt innocent people! I’m going to punch him into buildings for doing that, then I’ll kill HIS civilians!”

          Logic isnt a word in Snyder’s vocabulary.

    • Darren Hood

      Uhhhhhhhh that was NOT Frank Miller’s Batman on screen, it may look like Batman, talk like Batman, but even Frank Miller knew to keep his version from going completely down the dark side. He was an aged vigilante, disgusted by the corruption of his city, but he still kept his morals. This Batman does not and it was horrifying to see the applause coming from other people in that IMAX screening as they cheered on this Batman.

      • Jeda

        So in your opinion, those people applauding the BvS interpretation of Batman are wrong to be doing so, right? So what they enjoyed about the movie is wrong because in your opinion they clearly don’t know what your ideal Batman should be doing.

        That they enjoyed the movie should tell you something about how the general non-fanboy public will respond to this film.

        You can’t tell everyone what they should like or dislike. If they enjoyed the film, that’s great for them. If you didn’t, too bad for you.

        The movie was released nearly 24 hours ago here in Oz.
        So far, the paper critics aren’t glowing in their reviews. However, the general consensus among the movie going public is that this is a good to great movie. How do I know? There’s a comment section at the bottom of the Australian critics’ reviews, which also contain links to consumer reviews. Unlike the majority of trolls, I have no allegiance to either Marvel or DC, I just enjoy good comic book movies. My favourite cbm so far is Captain America – The Winter Soldier. Surprising to me because I was never a Captain America fan.

        To me, BvS qualifies as a very good movie. But that’s just me.

        • Darren Hood

          I never said wrong, I said I was horrified at the decisions this Batman makes. If they like it, that’s fine. It’s not for me. I don’t like a movie where every single character aside from the females are just sad sacks moping about. That’s sad that only the actresses seem to be having fun playing these awesome fictional characters.

    • Adrian Bachnivsky

      By “REAL FANS,” do you mean idiots?

  • Riiiiiiiiiight

    THE DARK KNIGHT trailers still give me goosebumps and thrills 8 years later!!!

  • Ducked

    Superman Returns was awful. Man of Steel gets gets too much flack, it’s far better than most marvel movies. Why do critics like the same comedy cliche super hero movie?

    • NORMAN DOSTAL

      MOS isn’t better than any Marvel movie-it was soulless

    • What are you smoking? Man of Steel was MAYBE better than Iron Man 2 or Thor 2, but that’s pretty much it. And even that is highly debatable.
      Critics like movies that are well crafted. That doesn’t just mean that it’s pretty to look at. It means the script follows a logical path from point A to point Z, that the protagonist drives the story to its logical conclusion and that the hero is changed at the end because of the struggles he or she goes through.
      Man of Steel is so riddled by mindless plot holes that literally, had Superman been anything other than a complete moron when he went to talk to the *random priest* instead of the ALIEN father he’d already met, on the ALIEN ship he’d already found, where he learned about his ALIEN heritage just before the ALIEN invasion, then literally the entire second half of the movie *would not happen*.

      • Mickael Duncan

        You’re assuming he’s actually seen any of the Marvel movies, which I doubt from the “comedy cliche” comment. That seems to be the standard DC fanboy bash of Marvel movies, and it just doesn’t hold up.

    • JO. O

      The MCU has not had a single misstep so far. Iron Man 2 could’ve been better but other then that they’ve done a hell of a job with their movies and their shows. Have you seen Daredevil (netflix) or Jessica Jones? Both fantastic shows. MoS was complete garbage.

  • NORMAN DOSTAL

    Its a pity that MOS was complete crap and BVS looks to be more (less?) of the same…

  • Toby Large

    The fact that TDK is #1 is proof that all the hype, awards, and critical responses were skewed heavily by Heath Ledger’s death. I thought his performance seemed forced and annoying; I didn’t “buy” it. Overall, it should rank somewhere in the middle of the list. The bandwagon of forced public consensus caused this movie appreciated far more than it should have been; everyone was on board to give Ledger the credit he “deserved.” Because of this role, Heath Ledger was unfortunately immortalized as a martyr for idiot degenerates for all time. Try Googling “Heath Ledger Joker memes” if you don’t believe me. I think he was a terrific actor, but his Joker was terrible.

    And how is 1989’s Batman ranked so low??? That’s top 3 in this list, easily!

    • Michael

      If anyone isn’t feeling intelligent and needs a pick-me-up, just read this comment. You’ll immediately feel better about yourself.

      • Toby Large

        Michael here doing his best Ledger Joker impersonation: a vague attempt at humor that falls as flat as his performance.

        • CamNewtonFan

          Again, no one cares if you didn’t like it. The majority loved it. He transformed himself into the character ala Daniel Day Lewis or Johnny Depp or Meryl Streep. Unlike Jack Nicholson, who sadly played himself in makeup. It is objectively a great performance. You finding it “annoying” won’t change that.

          • Toby Large

            Obviously, you care if I didn’t like the performance, or you wouldn’t be arguing the merits of said performance.

          • CamNewtonFan

            No argument needs to be made. There are idiots in this world who think DDL and Meryl Streep are overrated. Their “opinions” are wrong. Your “opinion” is wrong. Period. It was objectively a great performance. The end.

          • Toby Large

            Yet here you are, making cases for things you obviously don’t “care” about. I’m flattered by the attention. Please continue.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            dont listen to that silly tit-she argues to argue without substance…

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            again youre going full douche here—you support opinion when you agree with it-youre either twelve years old or youre a hypocrite-which is it, tool?

          • Carlos Dash

            He supports the opinion of actual artists. Not critics. Actual artists in the industry loved Ledger’s joker, and voted for him at every major award show. Very different from critics, who are people who don’t make movies for a living.

    • CamNewtonFan

      You not liking his performance doesn’t change the fact that it was considered brilliant by most. Not just because he died, but because he transformed himself into the character by drastically changing his voice, laugh, mannerisms, etc. Brandon Lee and many other actors have died before their last roles came out. None got the praise or awards Ledger did. Hell, Ledger’s performance is shown at RADA (top drama school in England) as an example of great acting. If you think his joker was terrible you know nothing about acting.
      Degenerate?. Way to have sympathy for people who suffer from addiction.
      The Tim Burton Batman was not a very good movie. And Jack played himself in makeup.

      • Toby Large

        If you’re into people who REALLY want you to know that they’re trying extremely hard to act in a very important and significant way, then I would agree that Ledger’s performance would be right up your alley. Reminds me of Cuba Gooding Jr.’s terrible Oscar-hunting performance in “Radio.”

        Also, you totally misunderstood my “degenerate” comment. It’s about the idiots that will forever link Ledger Joker memes, not Ledger himself.

        • CamNewtonFan

          No one who knows anything about acting agrees with your assessment. I guess you prefer performances where actors just play themselves. We’re done here. I have neither the time nor the energy to argue with simpletons.

          • Toby Large

            On the contrary. This is why I detest Johnny Depp. Every performance he gives is a caricature of himself.

          • Carlos Dash

            Yet most critics and moviegoers love his performances. Or at least they used to before he started doing bad movies. Seems like you just don’t like those kinds of performances, so you probably wouldn’t like the work of Daniel Day Lewis either.

      • NORMAN DOSTAL

        wait a sec-youre saying Ledgers’; performance was considered brilliant by most? dude, youre a super douche. Youre arguing above with me about opinions not being valid in any way, except when they agree with you? Man, yore a piece of crap hypocrite! Get the hell outta here, troll

        • Carlos Dash

          He’s saying the consensus is that he was great. Very different than one person on the internet hating on a beloved performance. It’s a great performance. Saying otherwise is invalid. He changed his accent, his voice tone, his body language, his facial ticks. It is a great performance in the same way Daniel Day Lewis is great in There will be blood and Gangs of New york. Performances are judged by the general consensus. No performance has been loved by 100% of people, but if most love the performance, it’s remembered as great.

  • Kevin Marques

    I’m a huge Marvel and DC fan. The pointless fanboy war is ridiculous to me. Having said that, I cannot for the life of me figure out why DC fans like Man of Steel. I love Superman. More than Batman. And Man of Steel was a TERRIBLE interpretation of the character. He basically just had the same personality as Batman. If I see a Superman movie, I want to see Superman. I don’t want to see a Superman written by some idiot who thinks the only good DC character is Batman so all DC characters should be just like Batman.

    • Alec

      You speak my mind friend. I love how people keep saying REAL FANS like this dark incarnation of Superman, but there’s barely a trace of this version in Earth 1. Then they say anybody who doesn’t like Man of Steel is a pussy that would rather watch Marvel movies “for preschoolers”, meanwhile we all unanimously agree the Dark Knight is one of the best superhero movies. What they have to understand is that there’s a reason the Dark Knight has a dark tone, since a mass murdering psychopath was on the loose, making people choose who lives and dies, creating fear and panic, killing people for a message, etc. What was the point of making Man of Steel that way? Zack Snyder’s only reason was “it looks cool”. If you believe that and like this film for that reason, you got scammed by a shitty filmmaker. Congrats.

    • Toby Large

      This is why Christopher Reeve’s Superman is timeless. He was positive and uplifting, a beacon of virtue. Dark and brooding does not suit Superman.

      • Kevin Marques

        Exactly! Dark and brooding is absolutely how Batman should be portrayed. But Superman is a symbol of hope. In the comics, it’s the irony of an alien showing us what it truly means to be human that makes him such a great character. In Man of Steel, there was no example at all of him holding life precious and inspiring awe. All he did was inspire fear. Like Batman does. I think the moment I knew it was going to be terrible is when Jonathan Kent tells Clark that maybe he should’ve let the kids drown rather than risk exposing his powers. Jonathan Kent, the person who Clark learned most of his morality from and the reason why he became such a good person, told him to let kids die. Horrible. Zero understanding of any of the characters in that movie.

        • Tom Caselli

          Kevin and Toby, I agree completely. Superman is different then Batman. I don’t understand why they would basically make him like batman.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            because Nolan movies made over a billion…

          • The unfortunate reality is that when Warner Bros saw Batman Begins and The Dark Knight score huge with critical praise and box office success (especially the latter), they decided then and there that EVERYTHING has to be dark.
            I am okay with using Superman as a villain to Batman, but not by turning him into something dark, by showing how his lightness could be bent to evil purposes by the people who command his loyalty.
            In Frank Miller’s 1986 Batman: the Dark Knight Returns, this is exactly how Superman was shown to be a dangerous force. Not because he can be dark and brooding, too, but because he’s so fiercely loyal, so consummate the boy scout, that he’ll follow those he’s sworn loyalty to almost no matter what–as long as they promise to let him save lives on the side.

          • Mickael Duncan

            It’s the same way that like a week after Deadpool set all those records for R rated superhero movies they announced that the BvS:DoJ would have an R rated DVD. It’s the same way Marvel has made billions by painstakingly creating a connected movie and TV universe, so WB has thrown as much as possible into BvS so that they can get all that money too. Outside of Batman, they have no idea how to create a profitable superhero movie, so they just made Superman into Batman. They take all of the wrong lessons from other movies and apply those lessons blindly, whether it makes sense or not.

          • Pranav Unnikrishnan

            SO what, do you think that the R rated scenes for the movie were fished out of their asses when Deadpool announced their ‘R’ rating? They were in production for the past 3 years, way before deadpool was even close to announced.

          • Mickael Duncan

            When a movie is half CGI, yeah it’s a possibility.

          • Pranav Unnikrishnan

            You do realize that even if 90% of the movie was CG, it still requires some form of filming and actor involvement? When they film, they film. There is absolutely no second filming just because they want to ‘add’ anything; they only remove stuff.

          • Mickael Duncan

            And you do realize that new scenes do not need to be added in order to get an R rating? All it takes is some CG blood or a few ADRed curses.

          • Pranav Unnikrishnan

            Are you kidding me? So, what, they added half an hour’s worth of just ‘blood’ and ‘cursing’ to the movie with CG? Explain that to me, please.
            ( Debate aside, if you didn’t know, there’s apparently half an hour MORE, yeah more 😛 of footage in this edition)

          • Mickael Duncan

            Yes, I do realize that. However, do you believe that it is going to be a half hour of “adult” content? They just weren’t going to put out an over 3 hour movie. I’m actually kind of curious what the effect of the extra footage will be. Whether it will patch up a lot of the issues, or just make things drag even more.

          • Pranav Unnikrishnan

            I’ll be honest with you. Maybe I’m being biased being a DC fan. But the reason all these negative comments hurts me is how important this movie is to the foundation of the DCEU. After seeing marvel l movies do so well that they became a standard for comic book movies (Don’t get me wrong, I loved iron man, winter soldier and am not missing civil war) that people keep comparing it with those movies. It’s sad that these movies can’t be dark even though the most successful movies of DC are the dark ‘Dark Knight’ series. Hope the next fare better with the audiences and hopefully, the critics.

          • Mickael Duncan

            Well, in all fairness, I probably being harder on it for pretty much the same reason. I very much want the DCU to become a success, but to do that they need to make good movies, or we see what happened with Amazing Spider-Man 2. And I think you’re taking the comparisons to Marvel in the wrong way. I really don’t think anyone’s clamoring for DC to start making Marvel style movies, we already have Marvel for that.
            But let’s face it, DC is trying to play catch-up with Marvel so they can get some of that sweet, sweet Avengers money, but Marvel took the time to build their universe, rather than tossing everything at us at once. And the Marvel movies are all different while staying true to their characters. The reason Avengers worked so well was that it took the sarcastic Iron Man, the tortured Hulk, the Shakespearean Thor, and the earnest Captain America, whom we’ve already met and fell in love with, and it was special to see them all mesh in their different ways.
            And DC can be dark, that’s no issue, and you’re right, The Dark Knight is an audience and critical darling, and the atmosphere is a big part of that. But why do ALL of their movies need to be dark? Superman is not a dark character. He stands for hope, he stands for the light, hell, he gets his powers from the sun, and that’s why his and Batman’s relationship is so fascinating – because they are so different. We don’t need everyone to be Batman. Quite honestly, I think the closest we’ve seen to actually seeing the characterization of real Supes in the movies in the past decade has been Captain America in his first movie, and that is a sad state of affairs.

          • serial Stalker

            MPAA cleared R rated version of Batman V Superman 5 months ago, not after Deadpoops release

          • Mickael Duncan

            No, MPAA gave a cut of the movie they received an R rating, which WB then cut down in order to get the PG-13 they wanted. So now they’re going to add back in the offending footage, which for all we know could be one thirty second take, so that they can look cool. If that was their plan all along then they would have either announced it earlier, or not until the home video release. It really doesn’t make much sense to basically tell people that the movie they’re going to spend money on in the theater is actually missing a big chunk.

          • Sorry, but that is factually incorrect. We go back and film new material all the time, based on audience and executive feedback, test screenings, etc. In point of fact, Suicide Squad is doing millions of dollars in reshoots *right now* as a direct response to audience and critical reception of BvS.

          • Ron Petersen

            Probably the cut a quick scene of Superman snapping the necks of 20 criminal thugs standing all in a line.

          • jazzlr

            I’ll agree partially w/ that comment, but MoS was substantially diff’t than Batman in almost every way.

          • Not really. It was dark, colorless, desaturated, and featured a brooding main character who had very little positivity. His parents encouraged him not to save people, and mostly, he didn’t.

            MoS was many things, but it wasn’t Superman.

          • jazzlr

            Disagree. It was mid-toned, slightly overcast as the environments through which Clark traveled really are, desaturated as a real eye would see were it in such places, and featured a confused young adult who was very much like Superboy/Tom Welling/young Clark from the Donner films, who like any real boy dealing with the things Clark had to growing up “different” was sometimes happy, sometimes blue, sometimes mad, almost always kind.

            His parents didn’t encourage him not to save people, they encouraged him to be thoughtful and careful before doing so.

            And actually, by far, far, far he mostly did save them, time and time again– not only in individual instances, but even more imporantly, the entire human race.

            There might have been thousands of lives lost in collateral damage from his novice ineptitude in stopping Zod, but in the end, he saved almost 7 billion lives, where no one else could or would have.

          • Jose Sandoval

            You have no idea , MOS is another version of Superman comic , as the film has also advanced the comic , the story is more real and has everything with more realism, the first Superman movie is just a version more

          • It makes me sad to have to agree, but there it is.

          • Truthteller

            A keyboard warror telling WB they dont know what they are doing. Get a life, loser

          • Ryan P

            Lol. Can you spell? He’s a loser? Do you recognize him when you look in on yourself? Seem familiar?

            The ability to speak does not make you intelligent or an authority now get out of here.

          • disqus_5IhZmGZsxY

            “I am okay with using Superman as a villain to Batman”

            I totally agree, and conceptually, I like the idea behind Batman v. Superman, that Superman’s battles would scare and anger Bruce Wayne and lead to a rivalry. But this recent portrayal of Superman’s character is way off.

          • Agreed. This Superman is not Superman. And what’s with Cavill, anyway? Talk about Captain Cardboard!

          • Leigh Rhoades

            My left buttcheek has more personality than Cavill.

          • Andros

            Yup. That’s how stupid they were. Nolan’s Batman was dark right? So let’s make everything else dark too and it will make a sack full of cash? Blegh!

            All they had to do was copy the heart of the original Chris Reeve film (and update it to be contemporary), and they would have had a winner.

          • James Bender

            Superman can have as much turmoil in making decisions as Batman is dark and brooding. It doesn’t really mean Superman is like Batman.

          • Mike Valadez

            Not really. Superman is supposed to be the ultra good guy. Always taking the high ground and doing the morally right thing. For starters he shouldnt be killing people, ever…

          • jazzlr

            Wrong. Superman killed or sanctioned the death of several people in Superman II, and no one had a problem. Killing Zod then didn’t even tear him up as much as it did in MoS.

            ALSO, MoS was about Superman “becoming” Superman, and still figuring all that out. You can bet he’d never kill again unless he didn’t have a choice.

            Besdies, in MoS, he barely had a choice at that point anyway- those people were about to be killed by Zod and we’re supposed to understand that there was no other way in that moment to save them.

          • Ron Petersen

            The “killing of Zod” in Superman 2 is complete a complete assumption and a weak defense from man of steel lovers that nobody every talked about until that movie came out. Sure Zod was powerless at the time and all we saw was him sliding down into a fog bank. There was no depicted death with him landing on spikes or anything. He could just as easily landed on a net, a pile of snow etc.

          • jazzlr

            Use your hopefully decent education to decide what’s the more reasonable assumption for an arctic crevasse:

            1. Net
            2. Pile of snow
            3. DEEP DAMN ICE CRACK

            Hint: It’s not a fucking net.

          • Ron Petersen

            The writers had a choice. Also the ship he found probably has krypton style life support which would rob Zod of his powers.

          • jazzlr

            The old resurrected Genesis ship?? Buried & in earth’s atmosphere for godknowshowlong? Plus the fight took place outside, after that ship was crashed and destroyed, and Zod would have started re-powering the minute there were any holes in the hull.

          • Mickael Duncan

            Superman didn’t kill Zod in Superman II. They were taken away by the police.

          • jazzlr

            Not in the cut I have on Blu Ray…

          • Mickael Duncan

            There are multiple different cuts of the film, of which you are probably watching the Lester cut. The script ends with the Kryptonians being led away in handcuffs by the police, and this was filmed by Richard Donner. However when Donner was replaced with Richard Lester, Lester cut the scene from the movie, not because they died, but because in his opinion, once they were defeated the audience wouldn’t care about them any more. Pretty much every cut of the movie, other than that original cut, has added that scene back in for clarity. But again, the intention was always that the Kryptonians survived.

          • jazzlr

            I haven’t seen the Donner cut, but I’ll go w/ the theatrical release as canon, and if that has any *hint of an implication that they survived at all, then fine, but otherwise, regardless of what the script or director intended, the film itself communicates only that frail powerless people were sent plunging into an arctic crevasse, (with no protective clothing to boot), which all reasonable people interpret as 99.999% chance of death.

          • Mickael Duncan

            Why? For all you know there’s a lake ten feet below where they fell from. You can choose to believe whatever you want, but don’t act like that’s what the movie told you.

          • jazzlr

            Um, I’ll choose to believe only two things:

            -1. what was shown

            -2. the overwhelming odds about what are usually within cracks like that in the real world.

            Most reasonable choice b/c least amount of conjecture. The rest is adding your own ideas.

          • lavendergooms

            And that played out to be a boring superman and that’s why all the previous superman film were corny. They actually gave him depth

          • Ron Petersen

            The original films were corny but they had depth (In Superman 1 and 2). In Superman the Movie he had to deal with the fact even with all his powers he couldn’t save (his dad) or everyone. And in the same film when Lois died he effectively said screw the rules and the consequences and opted to save Lois by breaking the time barrier. In Superman 2 he gave up his powers to be with the woman he loved again he had to deal with the consequences of his actions. See he can have depth without being a complete dick.

          • James Bender

            Well sure we’d love to always see him as the untouchable good guy but even in the fictional realm that’s unrealistic and rather static. I suppose there will always be a debate about Superman’s character base but he isn’t perfect, thank goodness.

          • max4rce

            “because he’s batman.”

          • jazzlr

            Christ, MoS was plenty light and not like Batman at all!

            So they were shown as a real people, that’s about it!

            But what do you need Superman to be, animated in crayon???

        • Zur-en-arrh

          Totally agree.. Esp the Jonathan Kent part.. The Kent’s always encouraged Clark to be the good person and always do the right thing.. We may live in a completely different era, but Superman is Superman and he always will be.. I love Batman for what he is, but it would never be right to switch personalities.. Cant imaging a happy, gleeful Batman 🙂

          • cable1977

            That was one of my biggest complaints about Man of Steel, that they turned Johnathan Kent into someone who would encourage Clark not to use his powers. In other iterations, Johnathan Kent was consistently afraid that Clark would be discovered, but always still wanted him to do the right thing, thus instilling a moral compass of sacrificing the good of others above what was necessarily good for Clark himself.

          • jazzlr

            Again, the movie is being criticized here only bc you are a dumbass:

            The point behind Jonathan Kent’s lesson about MAYBE not saving the kids was essential to being a good dad, and he was 100% right, and you completely failed to grasp it.

            Here’s a hint: there were bigger issues involved with more socially catastrophic consequences.

            So Pa Kent’s lesson wasn’t “don’t save the bus,” it was “don’t save the bus WITHOUT FIRST THINKING OF THOSE ISSUES & BEING CAREFUL OF THEM.”

            It was EXACTLY about the good of others being IDENTICAL to what is best for Clark in the long run.

            (Ya know, b/c of not wanting humanity to rip itself apart over him, nor his son to be ashamed of himself with deaths on his concience– figuring out how to balance those conflicts, and all that?? Comprende??)

            Christ.

          • cable1977

            Oh boy….I guess I should be really upset that the guy who lives in his Mom’s basement called me a dumbass.

            “So Pa Kent’s lesson wasn’t “don’t save the bus,” it was “don’t save the
            bus WITHOUT FIRST THINKING OF THOSE ISSUES & BEING CAREFUL OF THEM.”

            Oh ok….so we’re just going to add stuff to the script now, huh? But I guess when you simply insert what you want the movie to mean rather than what the script said and how the movie actually detailed it does make it easier, doesn’t it?

            Just out of curiosity, how much are Snyder and Goyer paying you to blow them on a regular basis? But thanks for the input Jizzlr. I’ll be sure to file it under, “Who gives a fuck?”

          • jazzlr

            Nah. That wasn’t adding anything to the script. It was plain as day implied in Pa Kent saying “maybe,” just as things will be when you nudge your own kids towards lessons while letting them figure things out & make their own decisions, if/when you do that.

            Spkng of jizzlr, your mom’s on the couch in my mom’s basement right now… gottagocya

        • jazzlr

          Nonsense. Man of Steel was awesome. It wasn’t anywhere near as “dark and brooding” as the Bat-films, but respected Superman as a real person navigating legit human challenges with the solid tone of a hopeful adopted young man trying to handle important life issues; aspiring to be his best while searching for himself, coming to grips with “being different,” figuring out his true history, place in the world, who he wants to be and why.

          There was plenty of humor, *plenty of lightness, & TONS of beauty (both emotional & visual), amidst character essentials that should always have been treated with gravity but barely were until MoS.

          I can’t think of any better way to handle the complexities of “what it truly means to be human.”

          It was the most intelligent, human, complex, & character-respecting DC movie after The Dark Knight, hands-down, with far more understanding of the characters than you seem to be capable of yourself.

          For instance: The point behind Jonathan Kent’s lesson about MAYBE not saving the kids was essential to being a good dad, and he was 100% right, and you completely failed to grasp it.

          Here’s a hint: there were bigger issues involved with more socially catastrophic consequences, so Pa Kent’s lesson wasn’t “don’t save the bus,” it was “don’t save the bus WITHOUT FIRST THINKING OF THOSE ISSUES & BEING CAREFUL OF THEM.”

          And FINALLY, FINALLY, the film showed what a battle between beings with that level of power is supposed to actually look like.

          Cities, countries, and hell, WHOLE PLANETS are obliterated in the comics by those fights time and time again and everyone loves it.

          But all of a sudden, we see it on-screen the only time they’re even remotely portrayed authentic to the premise of their immense strength, and everyone goes nuts. — Idiocy. —

          If you object to massive unpreventable collateral damage, and the deep internal struggles he has with that daily, then you don’t like, know, or understand the character of Superman.

          If you didn’t see him CONSTANTLY “holding life precious and inspiring awe…” then you must’ve missed half the fucking movie bc it was literally everywhere throughout.

          And given that it’s such simpleton literature to grasp, but that ppl like you haven’t already, I have to doubt whether or not you even could.

          But maybe if you did, you would “for the life of you” be able to figure out why so many of us liked it.

          Simply put: it was easily the closest to what might ACTUALLY happen were that character indeed real.

          Reality is the only thing worth putting on screen. *Especially when it comes to fantasy. Think that one through.

          Unfortunately they ruined that great start, bc BvS is apparently a mess.

          So hopefully next time you’ll take pause to think on a more literary level, so as to better distinguish between the movies for which the problem is actually with the movie (like BvS) as opposed to those for which the problem is your own lack of comprehension. ‘Nuff said.

          • Kevin Marques

            I stopped reading your comment after you began insulting me personally. The best way to make me not take your opinion seriously is to insult me for having a different one. Not once did I insult anyone who actually likes MoS but according to you, anyone who didn’t like it and thought it was unwatchable trash, like I did, is an idiot. Having different opinions does not make anyone an idiot. Insulting someone for that different opinion definitely makes you an ass hole though. So go away and keep trying to defend terrible movies. You just showed that you’re a terrible person and I will not respect your comment at all.

          • jazzlr

            You implied that the filmmakers & ppl who liked it were idiots by saying they had “Zero character understanding etc…”

            Which was definitely an insult.

            That wouldn’t have been so bad, had you not seemed oblivious to your own lack of character understanding, or at least acknowledged that potential.

            That general thought reflex, is, imo, the main reason most people who didn’t like the movie, didn’t like the movie. Their own projections & misunderstandings, not the film itself.

            I could be wrong about that, but all the comments I’ve read from those who didn’t like it over the years, have read exactly the same– fully lacking insight or self-reflection–

            except for ONE, which thankfully after years of all these dumb oversights, someone posted today, and whose dislike of the film I fully understand and respect.

            No problem with differing opinions, as long as there’s an informed, self-critical brain behind them.

            Sorry if that makes me an asshole, but honestly, I see people’s general lack of critical-thinking skills as responsible for pretty much every social problem, so I get pissed any time that ball gets fumbled.

            Especially when it leads to ripping on something I love.

            Is my point.

          • Shawn Hanson

            So hopefully next time you’ll take pause to think on a more literary level…

            I love this remark because this is the moment where most defenses of the MoS fall apart. This is not a literary work, this is a work of film. The mechanics of both are entirely different, and that’s where MoS gets dinged.

            It’s not the question of how much reality needs to be dashed in with your fantasy. It’s a question of what is being delivered to you on film.

            Let’s bring in another character who was recently translated to film (again): Spider-man. In the Amazing Spider-man, we had Peter Parker brought into heroics not through the lessons he learned from the death of Uncle Ben, but rather revenge. He didn’t’ learn a lesson based upon his arrogance, he didn’t learn what it meant to have great power and great responsibility.

            Instead, he became Spider-man because he was dedicated to hunting down and taking down the man that killed his Uncle. He just happened to get side tracked along the way into becoming a super hero because, hell, why not.

            Clark Kent became Superman more because of the words of Jor-El than of Pa Kent. Pa Kent, throughout the entire film, attempts to shelter Clark. You see this in the above scene at the bus and the message is reinforced in the moments preceding the tornado. It’s best not to risk yourself, or at least, not until you are ready.

            This leaves us with a Superman that is unprepared to handle his own powers well into adulthood, and therefore is a bull in a china shop.

            You speak to the idea that he cherishes life. The film speaks weakly to this idea.

            He saves the men from the oil rig. He saves Lois Lane. He saves his mother. He saves the family right before him. That is a very small scope of people that he actively saves in the film.

            In film, you don’t have the benefit of 350 pages. You have 2 ½ hours. Anyone can fill in the blanks with whatever they like, but the director and editor typically decide what the message of the film is going to be with the writer coming in probably third.

            We take the Smallville scene, for example. After he rages out on the Kryptonians he ends up tumbling smack dab in the middle of town. He tears through an entire IHOP. He meets the enemy on main street and his only words of warning are: “Get inside.”

            Get inside. He just ripped through an entire building. He knows what he is capable of doing, therefore he has an idea of what they are capable of doing. He doesn’t take them into the farm lands around town. No, he spends the entire fight there in town.

            Now, the argument is: he had no choice. I’ll grant you that, but at no point does the filmmaker even give us an honest attempt at him trying to get out.

            This is reinforced by the Metropolis scene. Zod is out of control and dogging him. Again: no choice, am I right? Yet, the film doesn’t even display a moment of Superman attempting to get him out of the city. It could have been as simple as Superman attempting to leave, and Zod instead beelines straight for an orphanage.

            In a “simpleton” storyline such as this, these elements are important. This isn’t “Eternal Sunshine on the Spotless Mind” or “Memento” or another film. What you see is what you get. The film gives you nothing more to go on than what you get.

            To add to that, and arguably the most jarring aspect of the entire film, is the ending. We see a Clark Kent on his first day of work. The sun is bright and the world seems to be perfectly back to normal and okay, even though the entire city is destroyed. It is contrary to the entire tone of the film and the weight of the act of killing the only other Kryptonian Kal-El knows of.

            I close this by saying it is entirely up to DC and WB to decide whichever story they wish to tell. However, you lose something in the translation that made the character great. In trying to humanize Superman they took away what makes him so exceptional. He is tarnished, overly human. He is now only super human in power set only.

          • jazzlr

            I have to say those are the hands-down best criticisms of MoS I’ve read anywhere. Nice points. I still disagree with many of them but at your level that’s more matter of opinion/aesthetic taste:

            I didn’t see Pa Kent as sheltering too much, instead trying to teach important mindfulness and principles of restraint; while definitely avoiding saying “you shouldn’t have saved the kids.”

            I don’t want any film to be just WISYWIG, I think all script-writing is a literary process, and that even the Teletubbies should be treated with the same approach to craft as Memento or Eternal Sunshine…

            So common-knowledge of the character’s beliefs is plenty enough for me (& should have been enough for audiences) to assume that a mix of “no choice,” “being a novice,” & “generally met by overwhelming force” is plenty to allow for him having made those slip-ups.

            Though I would *def.* have liked to see him at least TRY to get the fights away from civilians, I accepted those encounters as his learning curve. Especially given that his fights obliterate his beloved cities CONSTANTLY in the comics & cartoons, to no complaint whatsoever.

            Finally, you make a brilliant point, and I see how you’d prefer that, but I personally prefer the more emotionally-humanized Supes.

            The exact and most important point of his character has ALWAYS been (since the Byrne reboot at least) that he’s super-human in powerset only.

            He doesn’t get the easy path to being emotionally superior just b/c he has the convenient invincibility to avoid fear. He has to consistently work very hard on his own mind to overcome life’s challenges with grace.

            That’s the fundamental complexity that makes him worthwhile as a character to me. He becomes a moral beacon, but not because “he just is one”–but b/c at heart he is just a man like the rest of us, who makes LOTS of mistakes, whose inner strength improves each time he has to overcome them, b/c of how he chooses to overcome them.

            And actually, by the time he’s old (Kingdom Come)(canon??) he’s much less caring or morally high-minded, much more militant & detached, after a whole life of watching his super-heroics change very little about human self-destrutiveness.

            There are character complexities that should be blatantly portrayed, and those which are not, should be easily assumed by anyone with appropriate contextual understanding and empathy.

            Comicbook blockbusters may not be high literature, but I think they should be made with the same process and understood with that potential in mind. The Dark Knight was a fantastic example of why.

          • Shawn Hanson

            And I don’t disagree with your point on humanizing Supes. I mean, that has been the eternal struggle with the character ever since he solidified into the nigh on invincible being he is today.

            However, it’s odd to work the character in reverse. It could pay off in the long run. Nothing would be greater than them creating a truly remarkable character arc that leaves him, at the start of JLA or the end of MoS 2, as the shining beacon of hope he is in the comics.

            I also agree with you on the amount of reverence that should be held with these characters. I firmly believe them to be our generations mythology, and when you consider where many of these characters come from in time, should be given the proper respect the 90s tried to strip from them.

            Good talk!

          • jazzlr

            So agreed on the character arc part– my support for MoS was pretty much based on seeing the potential for that, and hoping it was the setup. Buuuut…

            Heh, unfortunately it sounds like w/ BvS they really shat that bed… hopefully w/ JLA or MoS2 that can be fixed?

            Guess we’ll know for sure this weekend. 😛 🙂

          • Shawn Hanson

            Ya, it will be interesting to see how they roll it out. I am also willing to hold my reservations until that 30+ minute Director’s Cut is released.

          • Andros

            You know I agree with this. MoS “seems” like a decent movie that got chewed up in the editing room. Put the Smallville scenes in order (and add any deleted scenes, they are desperately needed). And if possible, remove some of the “asshole” Superman shit, like tearing up a military drone just because. A guy that powerful, if he means well, would find a way to befriend the military; to show them he is on their side.

          • lavendergooms

            Your’re entire argument fell apart as well. You did it all by yourself. The problem is not the story or the movie it self. It’s not the superman you want. I get it. The more you try to poke holes the more your argument falls a part. That said MOS was not the best superhero of all time but it was a solid movie that took a different approach from the boring version we have seen in the movies previously. This is no different from other good super hero films but Superman some how has to be the a drone.

          • Shawn Hanson

            You are correct: it was not the Superman I wanted to see.

            Your statement is something a friend and I get into quite often and that is exactly his point: it’s a different Superman and therefore he should be exempt from most preconceived notions of his past.

            There’s nothing wrong with that assumption and there is certainly enough proof in comics, and film alike, to support the idea that shaking a character up, even in their core traits, can often times be a good thing.

            However, the box office was sour for this version of the character and that in itself speaks louder than the critique of you and I, or even the pro critics.

            Now, before you start throwing numbers off IMDB at me: yes, the film made its money back. It also fell deeply below WB’s expectation.

            Also, I’m by no means here to say that MoS was an awful film: it was not. It just had many, many locations where polish and a another close look at what has made Superman such an endearing character could have benefited it.

          • Jenny

            Agreed. I LOVED Man of Steel! I just saw Batman v Superman and I left the theatre in silence, secretly thinking wtf was that.

          • jazzlr

            Yep same– It was just… a lot of… stuff… for like no clear reason.

          • Andros

            The Krypton scenes were stupid. I thought I was watching Avatar (a shitty movie in its own right). The Smallville scenes with Clark freaking out at his new powers was probably the best part of the movie. They needed to continue and build up on it for another 20 mins (the ones they wasted on the Krypton scene). The scene where Costner throws himself into the tornado was just stupid, considering Clark could have jetted in there and snatched him out faster than anyone would have noticed. The whole “Clark is a nomad and wanders aimlessly without purpose” was so cringe worthy. He stands up for a woman who won’t care about him 5 mins afterward, but punishes the trucker guy by destroying his livelihood (and risking someone finding out about him) because “it’s funny you see! hahaha!”.

            The scene where he saves the people in the oil rig where the ONLY time he was Superman in the entire movie. From there it just gets worse and worse.

            Lois Lane? well you see, she is woman, hear her roar! Talking about measuring dicks like “she can brawl with the best of men”. I found it comical even the two actors looked at each other like “What the fuck?” when she said that cringe worthy line. And of course, she bumps into Clark who saves her from her own stupidity, and it’s love at first sight because???…………

            Then Zod shows up with such advanced technology that……he looks like some bad 3d rendering from a late 80’s PC. He wants Kal-El, and….Lois? why? Then super ghost dad hologram has to save both their asses, and we get 2.5 hours of blurs and streaks which I guess was supposed to be Zod and Clark fighting. I thought a screensaver had activated.

            Then to add insult to injury, Superman’s big climax moment is fighting……some tentacle thing that looks like it came straight out of transformers (I was expecting Optimus Prime to show up), when the story should have had in IN Metropolis, helping the military out (The Christopher Meloni character was the best one of all, too bad there wasn’t more of him)

            Then to add more insult to injury, we see a level of destruction that is insanely ridiculous. Metropolis effectively has been nuked to ashes.

            And then to add more injury to the insults, they end it with Lois Lane and Supes “becoming one” emotionally, because…..soulmates? I suppose that pretty good game when a girl can become bonded emotionally to you after talking to her about…twice?

            Oh, and then a major kick in the balls: He destroys a military drone and tells a general basically to fuck off, because he wants to be left alone and “your military does not want to fuck with me”. What a prick!! And, hahahah girly girly says “he’s cute! giggle”

            ‘Nuff said.

          • jazzlr

            This is, point-by-point, one of the most incompetent critiques I’ve read about MoS. Not just incompetent in writing your thoughts, but in lack of ability to parse what’s in front of you, comprehend much in general & perhaps even simply manage going about regular, every day life.

            For instance:

            -It was desaturated, bc those are closer to the natural colors the human eye sees most of the time through the course of a day, esp in the climates he frequented. That was done to make it look like just something real being filmed. It certainly made things look more real to me, and I prefer that for my heroes, b/c it makes what they can do seem more astounding.

            -I liked Krypton; the only similarities it had to Avatar in its whole world of environments and culture, was one single, flying steed. Sooo… not sure how you hallucinated your way into that opinion.

            -Semi-agreed on the Costner tornado scene. I just chalked it up to him and his dad being, at that time, clueless about the extent of his powers, so he listened to his dad bc he assumed his dad knew best. Also, Pa might have been right, b/c even though no one would’ve seen Clark rush in and out w/ Pa Kent, they sure would’ve seen Pa Kent suddenly appear in safety after just having seen him about to be tornadoed. Might’ve been a small risk of exposure there, who knows. Either way, wasn’t enough to ruin the movie for me.

            -I don’t have time to write more, but for all your other gripes, there are legit story/character explanations that you seem to have missed entirely.

            But hey, if you want to maintain that a single flying beast = “I’m watching Avatar,” you’re entitled to set that depth for your own thinking…

        • Truthteller

          He didn’t tell him to let the kids die. Wow you people are unbelievable. You do nothing but knock a great movie that many people put their lives and souls in to. But it sucks because it doesn’t follow your interpritation of Superman? Got news for you losers. Superman needed a overhall badly. There is a reason there had been a Superman movie since 1987 mean while they made 6 Batman movies beofrew the next Superman movies.

          • Andros

            MoS wasn’t a disaster, but it was so full of cliches, that it really WASN’T a new movie. Nolan’s Batman on the other hand WAS refreshing and new, BECAUSE it flowed natural, as much as it could with a real life city, and that gave it an awesome genuineness.

            The Marvel films deal with this another way. They are very tongue-in-cheek. They basically say “look, we know this is all bullshit, so we’re going to play them as action parodies, since we’re not pretending to be making fine art here”.

            Surprisingly, the first Iron Man was very close to Batman Begins in style, it *almost* works!

        • rootbeer08530yahoocom

          I’m sorry but I think you guys generalize emotion too much… Just because supermans character showed the pain and anger he carries through the loss of his father and possible loss of mother along with possible loss of the home he has yet to truly realize doesn’t make him dark and brooding. There are plenty of issue of the original comic where things get dark. I think they gave a well rounded portrayal of his character. In the very same movie he could be described as an uplifting symbol of hope.

          http://comicbook.com/2015/07/06/superman-legend-dan-jurgens-man-of-steel-handled-zods-death-bett/

      • Scott Carroll

        The only difference between MOS and Superman II is that Reeve killed Zod with a smile on his face and Cavill seemed genuinely torn up about it. Superman and Batman have been around for nearly 100 years. They’re open to many different interpretations.

        • Jeff Haskell

          He didn’t kill Zod in Superman 2, wherever did you get that idea? In the theatrical cut, at the end of movie, the three are being taken away in cuffs.

          • Yes, he did kill Zod. You’re thinking of the special cut with alternate ending that aired on TV some years later. In the theatrical cut, he shoves Zod into a bottomless chasm, Non, being a moron, falls into one on his own, and Lois Lane clocks Ursa in the face, sending her into the chasm as well.

            https://youtu.be/LakXRQbdiUY?t=1m22s

          • Umm, no he did not.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA5d66AnT7s
            Also, anyone international, that’s what they saw in the Cinema as the official version.

          • Dennis Bowers

            So basically the argument boils down to that for the rest of the world the Superman in Superman II was not a killer because the police took the villains to jail. But for the more bloodthirsty Americans, Superman was a killer because no one saw the final fate of the villains. Explains why they liked Man of Steel so much.

          • Scott Carroll
          • Mickael Duncan

            That’s actually the Donner cut that they get taken away in cuffs. And remember that the Donner cut was the cut that actually followed the script. In the Lester cut (theatrical release) he omitted that scene as a time saving measure, and David Lester rationalized this by saying that once the bad guys were beaten, nobody would care. But again, that’s just a matter of not showing it. That was still always the intended result.

          • Actually, in the Theatrical International Release, they are also taken away and not killed. Also in the TV versions of the International release. So for all those not living in the US, that IS the version they saw, with them being taken away and NOT being killed.

        • Yeah, Cavill seemed torn up about it for about ten seconds until Zack Snyder decided it’d be a good time to cut to yet another pointless action scene and a fucking JOKE about how good looking he is. Give me a break.

          • kid_a2

            What action scene followed Zod being killed?

          • Superman being chased by, and then destroying, a drone. He then landed in front of a Jeep, chastised the general for trying to track him and flew off, after which the nitwit girl also present made some moronic joke about his attractiveness.
            It was completely inappropriately timed, because for whatever reason, Snyder doesn’t let the audience linger with the character in their emotional moments. We should’ve gotten a powerful scene of Superman’s reaction to having murdered Zod, but we didn’t. It got cut right at the moment when it should’ve stayed.

          • kid_a2

            Ah ok. I would hardly call that an “action” scene however. He more or less just flies down, talks, and flies off.

            You are right though that it seemed out of place and it would have been much better to go from the Zod scene straight to the cemetery/coda.

          • lavendergooms

            Incorrect that is where the action stop chief.

          • Nope. Drone chase and destruction = action. Immediately followed by a dumb joke.

        • You know how MoS fans arguing point regarding the murder of General Zod is far less horrible then in Superman 2? well, i was thinking last night about that whole scene and all of the “Special Powers” Superman was given in that movie, and it actually made sense within the logic of the movies themselves!

          I’ll explain: In both the first movie and the second, we see Superman in the fortress which has a sophisticated system, capable of producing realistic holograms which can interact. It’s made very clear the way Superman’s dad responds to his questions and in the second movie where (in either version) his mom/dad respond to
          his requests.

          Now, in Superman 2, after restoring his powers, he was still not at top notch, but he still tried to take on all 3 kryptonians but when he saw that it’s too much and the risk to public safety was great, he decided to come with a different plan.

          I’m assuming he knew Lex visited the Fortress and been there for quite a bit to learn how to use the system there, so he used the system to create holograms of himself that will respond using some sort of communication he had with it. He also needed element of Surprise to take them down without Lex or Lois getting hurt by accident.

          So we start with the Shield he supposedly throwing at Non, which takes him by surprise as he doesn’t know if it was real or not (you can see that by the way he is taken back). Then the multiple Superman are simply holograms and his Super Speed (which he proved he has in the 1st movie) for getting closer to Zod.

          Now, we also know from earlier the chamber he lost his powers have concentrated (in a small location) Red Sun radiation, however, when he reversed it, the effect might not be that strong on a larger area (the whole fortress) which is why they didn’t experience the same thing he had, and he wasn’t yet sure it affected them, so he played along.

          By Crashing Zod’s hand, he confirms that it at least partially worked (meaning he was the stronger one now) and Pre-preparing an area where he could fight them at his terms and a place where he can lock them up. After all, the fortress is on Ice, it’s not that deep. He throws Zod rather gently so he can slide down probably to a place leading him to a pre-set jail.

          Non and Ursa either fell to a water area, or the area was cushioned in some way to avoid them getting too hurt. As we didn’t hear a water splash or a strong thump and we do know the fortress isn’t that deep, logical assumption is that they landed on something soft.

          So all the “Special Powers” are just Holographic Illusions by the system he communicates to his own Dad/Mom and not real powers. The 3 Kryptonians were probably just moving super fast like he was, trying to catch him at the various places they thought he was.

          That’s my two cents on that whole scene!

      • James Bender

        Christopher Reeve’s Superman WAS timeless for that era. That version of Superman would have been seen as corny or even campy in the 21st century. A character like Superman, alien from another world, had the guidelines set by his upbringing through the Kents but he still had to deal with his own powers AND a unfortunately intractable adversary. Fighting Zod was an ordeal both tragic and severe to deal with but there was no other way for the writers to convey such actions based on Kal and Zod’s conflict. The characterizations of Christopher Reeve’s Superman would never have survived a battle with Zod and be incompatible with our time.

        • Mickael Duncan

          That may be true, there is definitely a better balance to be found. It just doesn’t make sense to turn Superman into Batman with powers.

          • James Bender

            It’s true that it isn’t always a palpable concept to see someone like Superman, when in the beginning the established mold manifests his more virtuous aspects and we find him more charismatic in character, ever have a dark side.
            We’d prefer he stay the way we believe he always should be. However, this story looks as though it will only be a stepping stone and this side of him only a facet that is brought out by the Batman. Bruce does have a point regarding Clark not feeling “Mortal” pain and what it means to be a man. It’s a cruel and even savage lesson with the fight evening out between them but from what I’m garnering from even the video clips it may be an important lesson for Superman. I get the feeling the balance between Superman and Batman will be revealed more clearly into the next chapter.

          • lavendergooms

            That is not even remotely true. It is more of a realistic take on his situation. He was no where near the brooding of batman.

          • James Bender

            Well does “brooding” mean when making decisions that are troubling later?
            Sure, Superman can brood too can’t he? Just not 24/7 like Batman of course.

          • lavendergooms

            I agree. I feel MOS and BvS is trying to tell the story of how superman transformed into the hero we see in the comic books. It is showing there is a learning curve and he had to get comfortable in the role of the hero and how to use his powers.

          • Jamie Pinson

            You’re right. He has more brooding than Batman. He’s so depressing that even he doesn’t seem to care about his character, hence the lack of emotion in nearly ever scene he’s in. Depressing does not equal more realistic. There are plenty of very happy people out there in the world. Realistic is staying true to a character’s essence no matter what else changes. Nolan was true to Batman’s character, so was Tim Burton and I think even Snyder with this new Batman. I didn’t feel that with Man of Steel. Zack Snyder doesn’t seem to understand Superman. They know Batman = cha-ching so that’s what they did. Batman with a red cape…well it was a darkish cape since Snyder loathes color. Still, we’ll just pretend it was red.

          • jazzlr

            What?? Every scene looked to me like he cared immensely.

            I saw nothing depressing at all and it mostly looked like an uplifting and hella inspriational depiction of how well someone can deal with very massive emotional struggles.

            Realistic isn’t “staying true to the character no matter what else changes.” That’s character authenticity.

            Realistic is “what would that character authenticity as defined do in the actual fucking world we live in.”

            And MoS nailed that brilliantly. That was its only similarity to Batman. Portraying real people.

            Beyond that, the only thing that would have made it more tonally diff’t than Batman is animating it in crayon.

          • jazzlr

            THANK YOU!!! What are these idiots saying??

          • He was astonishingly broody, and in BvS that’s just about all he does. It’s ridiculous. There was nothing realistic about Man of Steel. NOTHING.

        • SaburoDaimando

          Personally, I’m more into ether Tim Daly or George Newbern as the man of steel. Though if you are looking for a great Superman story, I would recommend “Superman vs The Elite.”

          • James Bender

            Yes I have Superman vs The Elite in my collection. It seems there are more of the positive characteristics of Superman in the WB animated features. It might be a Christopher Nolan-ish strategy by the movie makers that later dazzle us with a better Superman in the mext movie?

        • lavendergooms

          Christopher reeve superman was not timeless. It was good for its time. It was a corny take on superman and made lex Luther look like a bumbling idiot who’s villainous scheme was an over the top real estate scam.

          • James Bender

            Yeah THAT Lex did feel like a Super Con Artist. I mean it dented his so called high intelligence employing a doof like Otis. But you’re right it was good for its time.

          • Reeves’ Superman actually IS timeless, and the first film works on multiple levels. There’s some camp, yes, but that isn’t the whole movie, nor even most of it.
            Luthor’s scam was silly, though, I agree. Then again, Luthor’s scam in BvS is pretty hokey, too.

        • Chris Santucci

          What about Captain America? Didn’t everyone say that his character would not work in the 21st century? But, somehow, they made him work. And the Marvel films (especially the first “Avengers”) are light and fun and encapsulate something more pure and innocent.

        • cable1977

          One doesn’t have to be exactly like the Christopher Reeve Superman to capture the essence of the character. Smallville did a pretty good job of portraying the concern that his parents had regarding him being revealed as an alien, while still instilling the moral compass to always do the right thing. The Johnathan Kent from Man of Steel didn’t do that and instead raised him more with the idea that maintaining his safety from discovery was more important than the lives around him, the exact opposite of all of the good characterizations of the character.

          Why wouldn’t Christopher Reeve’s Superman survived against Zod? Because you don’t think he would kill? Ummm….did you not watch Superman 2? He killed Zod. Just because you don’t see their necks snap doesn’t mean that they survived being thrown against a wall and falling into a put of indeterminable depth (without his powers no less).

          • James Bender

            Based on Christopher Reeve’s Superman character type he would be hard pressed to survive MoS Zod onslaught who was much more brutal and savage than 1978 Zod. The later was powerful but not really menacing despite the damage he was able to inflict.

            The difference between the two Johnathan Kents has to do with the era they come from. The first Kent was worried they would take Clark away if they, we know who, found out what he was and that was understandable. The MoS Johnathan Kent was worried in the same manner but in the 21st century there’s more to worry about what would happen to him if it was discovered he was from another planet. Truthfully speaking people today would be naturally uneasy or even terrified of someone as powerful as Superman.

            Besides, MoS Johnathan Kent had a hell of a challenge on his hands keeping Clark safe from the world. The tv series Smallville went more in depth to Clark’s upbringing leading to his role as Superman. I guess it bothers fans and such when writers and directors try to translate source material into a script using a variation on a theme. Actually I like the variation. If Superman was the same in every story it’d get a bit boring after a while.

          • cable1977

            “Based on Christopher Reeve’s Superman character type he would be hard
            pressed to survive MoS Zod onslaught who was much more brutal and savage
            than 1978 Zod”

            It was brutal because of the CGI capability, no other reason.

            “If Superman was the same in every story it’d get a bit boring after a while.”

            I disagree. One can easily capture the core essence of characters while varying the plot points, as was seen in Smallville. Quite different from Reeve’s Superman, but still capturing the essence of the character without the need to turn into the brooding, emo Superman of Man of Steel. I don’t blame Cavill though, I blame Snyder and Goyer for crappy writing and directing.

            Having just seen the new movie, I think they moved a little in the right direction with Superman, but still not enough.

          • James Bender

            Well see there’s some hope there ” I think they moved a little in the right direction with Superman, but still not enough.”
            For a movie as big as BvS there’s a chance it’ll get better. A little in the right direction seems like a ray of hope to me. Besides, it doesn’t seem feasible for it to be all dark anymore in the next chapter. All we can do is hope Snyder and Goyer learn something from this first movie or maybe they won’t be part of it next time.

          • cable1977

            Well, don’t look for too much hope, the movie overall was a bloated mess. It had parts that have so much potential and then it just falls all over itself. If WB was smart they’d dump Snyder from Justice League and just let Batfleck direct it. He was really good and I’m definitely looking forward to him directing and writing the Batman solo movie.

        • naftoirtap

          The first half of the Superman movie is timeless. From Krypton through the Fortress of Solitude. I agree after he hits Metropolis/New York I change the channel every time. Then I change it back when he finds Lois in that car and goes into his time changing rage…then I turn it back again afterwards…No movie is flawless, but those scenes are filmed very very well.
          “You are Forbidden…!!” great line.

      • robb

        it’s timeless because it’s a 1978 classic. Like it or not the character needed an update. Now the flaw is their execution. They just can’t get it right.

      • Jeromeo Rome

        FUCK reeves Superman

    • CamNewtonFan

      Then don’t watch BVS, because Superman isn’t much different in that than he was in man of steel. The reason they changed his character is because the old style was considered stale after Superman returns.

      • Kevin Marques

        Actually the only reason I’m even seeing it at all is to see if they portray Wonder Woman well at all. She’s literally the only thing about this movie that has me interested.

        • CamNewtonFan

          Classic case of someone wanting the same ol same ol all the time. Sigh.

          • Dennis Bowers

            When I go to a sushi bar I don’t want to be served pizza.

      • They changed his character because Batman made a shit ton of money with a dark movie, end of story. The trouble is, while that works for Batman, and Batman SHOULD be dark, it doesn’t work for Superman. That’s not who he is.

      • Mickael Duncan

        Superman wasn’t stale. That was just an aweful movie.

    • CMatthew
    • Jeff Haskell

      I love them both too, but DC (WB really) can’t make a good super hero movie to save their life. I can only imagine, based on what the writers, and director has said, it’s because the source material embarrasses them.

      • Seriously. In the last 40 years they’ve produced arguably 4-8 good DC comics Superhero movies, and a whole lot of trash, not least of which was the very recent Green Lantern.

    • jek4

      I’m not a comic reader, so I’ve never really been caught up in the whole DC/Marvel thing. Superman has always been one of my least favorite superheroes. I never understood his appeal whatsoever. Man of Steel is the only Superman story I ever cared for.

      • Mickael Duncan

        Makes sense, since that wasn’t Superman.

        • lavendergooms

          How was it not Superman? They went with a realistic take on his story and becoming a hero and you fanboys had a stroke.

          • Jamie Pinson

            Again I see that word realistic. So it’s realistic for his dad to die for absolutely NO reason. To just walk off into the sunset….eerr I mean the tornado to teach good ol’ son a lesson and then have his son aka Superman disobey daddy and save some kids not even ten minutes later. It was pointless. Superman was pointless, his real dad was pointless. There was no lesson learned, there was no growth and nothing changed other than a city being destroyed. I guess if you’re the kind of person who views stagnation and never accomplishing anything in life as realistic then it could be viewed as realistic.

            OH, he learned to fly.

          • lavendergooms

            Then you just didn’t comprehend it and therefore you hated it. Those scenes weren’t pointless and had meaning but either you wanted to hate it because it wasn’t the boring corny robot superman(which is fine) or you lack the ability to comprehend the meaning.

          • Dennis Bowers

            But Man of Steel was a corny robot Superman. The Christopher Reeve movie Superman and the Melissa Benoist TV Supergirl have more range of emotions getting a cup of coffee that Henry Cavell had in the entire MoS movie.

          • Mickael Duncan

            He’s a bulletproof alien that flies. Realistic may not be the route to go. He’s supposed to be the Man of Tomorrow, a beacon of hope, and an example to strive to be. That did not show up in this movie. We got an Elseworlds Superman.

    • Erzengel

      I love both Marvel and DC as well and you can say that Captain America and Superman share a lot of the moral, boy scout beliefs. I don’t want to turn this into a franchise war but Marvel took Cap and has told a compelling, interesting story out of someone who some would see as boring and out of touch. It’s possible they could have told a good story with a Superman and not have to resort to a dark, gritty and serious overtones. I’m seeing BvS tomorrow but I have very low expectations of it.

      • Dennis Bowers

        Right. On TV Supergirl faced the same issues as Superman and it never crushed her spirit.

    • I’m a HUGE comic genre fan. Marvel has always been my favorite, but I like DC as well.. MoS was ok, but nothing amazing. I’m worried about BvS tho, as I’ve had a problem with how rushed it all seems, and it looks like that’s the problem reviewers are having. I’m glad DeadPool came out and did really well, so that if BvS doesn’t, we don’t here all the noise about how comicbook movies are dying.

    • Robert

      OK, I’ll answer your question. Why did I love Man of Steel?

      I don’t think it’s saying you’re making the character “just like Batman” to recognize that growing up with the powers Kent has would result in one screwed-up childhood. If you want a valid cross-reference, note that this is the same point made by The Incredibles. “Wait, what? I’m born with all of these powers and I’m supposed to hide them like some sort of albatross? WTF?” My wife, who was born with the ability to see spirits, was shaken badly by the classroom scene in which the child has a breakdown because the world is “too big”. That’s exactly how it is for someone who can hear too much.

      Why is it a bad thing to try somehow to make Superman a bit more realistic? It’s not dark and brooding to simply suggest that someone would honestly have a hard time reconciling their nature with their world. If anything, it’s a statement of how powerful a character Superman is that he can rise above this and still maintain a personality of hopefulness. The level of perfection that his character had known all of his years simply never appealed to me. I can’t believe in that. What I can believe in is imperfection that never stops trying.

      That said I’m not sure I’m going to see this new film. Honestly, I’m bored with the entire superhero genre. But in it, “Man of Steel” remains in my top 10.

    • Truthteller

      Just like in the comics. The DC and Marvel movies have their separate universes. You old school simpleton morons need to open your eyes up to change. No one wants to see the same old Superman story that we’ve seen 100 times. Man of Steel was easily the second best Superman Movie to date (Superman II being # 1). It’s a different take. Just like they did with Spiderman & The Amazing Spiderman. Or the Several X-Men movies. If you are too closed minded for a different darker story then stick with your 1978 movies. Those who can use there brain can handle a different take.

      BTW, All CB characters have the same issues. They Protect their city’s at all cost. None of them can get the girl because they stuggle with their alter egos and it would be too dangerous for the girl. The only thing different are the powers the Hero holds and the names. Other than that all CB Heros are the same. Same stuggles, same goals and same attitude. Get a life and learn to open your mind a little.

      • Dennis Bowers

        Supergirl faces the exact same issues and still manages to smile about it.

    • DaMac

      Just speaking for myself, as a movie only type guy, I just liked Man of Steel as a movie and wasn’t worried about comic book loyalty because I never read them. Also I felt the classic Superman was already done as well as could be in the Donner film(s).

    • robb

      do you know how ridiculous a Superman like that would be in 2016???
      It’s not a terrible interpretation, it’s just a different one, more current, they just didn’t know how to execute it.

      • Dennis Bowers

        I think the TV show Supergirl showed how a modern Superman can be done without turning Superman into Batman. Superman doesn’t need to be all sunshine and roses, but he needs to want to be Superman.

        • robb

          I agree. It looks like the only way they know is going to the extreme. Too good or too dark. Almighty or just plain stupid and incapable (Snyder’s version) This is a character that shouldn’t be black or white, it was a great opportunity to show supes grey areas, but they blew it as usual.

          • Dennis Bowers

            Right. A character should display a wide range of emotions, not just be one note. A lot of people find Supergirl cheesy or too feminist. But what I like about the character is she gets angry, she gets scared, she gets jealous, she gets resentful, she gets sad. But she is also cheerful, and full of hope and compassion, loyal, and brave and tries to find the best in people, even the villains. And dammit, she actually smiles while she is flying. That’s what I want in a Superman. Someone that acts like a real human being blessed with superpowers. How I would feel if I could fly. Not some dour wooden guy in a cape that hates being a hero and has the emotional range of a garden slug.

          • robb

            yeah in that sense I think MoS was better. I watched it again the other day and they actually did a good job for the most part, but the character regressed in BvS. It’s a shame because they had the chance to make people love him and that would have made his sacrifice incredibly epic and heartbreaking, which was what happened in the comic.

    • JOE

      We can’t have the same character over and over. We need to see different sides to them. Years from now, we will see the same from the marvel characters, more serious than the campy childish marvel offers right now.

    • Jose Sandoval

      Ridiculous is your opinion. MOS was a best Superman movie set design , effects, photography, script , actors, say otherwise shows little Compare Batman and Superman for how to tell your story is idiotic , but on the basis that all of Marvel superheroes have the same comic thread in their movies

      • Kevin Marques

        Good god. Next time maybe write something in English so I know what kind of point you’really trying to make. Your comment is completely unintelligible. Learn the language first then maybe I can show a little interest in your opinion.

  • Joshua Yamada

    It’s really no surprise that TDK tops this list off! Out of all the Batman and Superman movies, I’d watch that one the most, in fact I’ve seen it eight times in the theaters!

    • That’s…kind of sad. It’s a good movie, and I love it because it shamelessly steals from Shakespeare’s Othello, but come on. There’s no reason to spend that much to see a movie in theaters 🙂

  • Tom Caselli

    To those who don’t understand the rankings: all the percentages are the percentage of positive reviews each movie had. That is all they are.

  • David Lucas

    This list not right in some ways which think the top 3 are right but TDKR should be ranked after MOS and in its place should be 1989 Batman because Nolan’s last film was not true do any batman lore and if love batman you can not let that film be ranked so high.

    • Richard DuPont

      I love Batman. I loved Nolan’s last film, especially that ending with Bruce and Selina at the cafe. Being faithful to source material has nothing to do with a movie’s artistic merits. “The source material is irrlevant” – Christopher Nolan.

      TDKR was a MUCH better movie than Man of Steel and 1989 Batman. It was more emotionally moving, far more ambitious, and was more influenced by classic literature.

      • While I agree that Rises was better than both MoS and 1989 Batman, the ending was stupid as fuck. There is *no possible way* that Bruce escaped that explosion. No possible way that BRUCE WAYNE managed to go undisguised in a packed café without being recognized by someone. No way that Gotham itself survived once the radioactive cloud from that bomb swept the island.
        And while the source material may be irrelevant (a debatable conceit), the story still needs to be logical. Rises wasn’t.
        I liked the anti-populist stance it took, but despise the poor way they constructed the Batman elements of the film. Also, I have always disliked the fact that all three of Nolan’s films give us a *completely* different Gotham City.

  • TheNipplesofGod

    How in the hell does Batman Returns have a higher rating then Batman 89? And How does Adam West Batman have a higher rating then Batman89?

    • Artakha the Creator

      Because Batman Returns had better characters?

      • I’d agree with that. BR was filled with fun, interesting characters who had layers, much more so than Batman 89 was. It still betrayed a lot of what Batman is all about, but it was at least interesting.
        And as for Adam West Batman, that’s pretty simple: that movie is so campy and so filled with hilarity that it’s become a cultural touchstone.

    • Hero

      Batman 89’s script started out relatively faithful to the comics, then during the writer’s strike, Burton had rewrites done which arguably did not flow with the rest of the movie. This is where Joker killing the Waynes and Batman gunning down Joker’s goons comes in. Originally, there was no reference to Joker killing the Waynes and the Batwing faced off against the cake float in the parade which was actually a tank. The Batwing fired a laser at it and the cake tank fired back, which is how it was shot down.

      Because of Burton’s success with Batman and other movies, he was given full control over the sequel. Returns’ story was Burtonized from the start and so elements such as sewer freak Penguin didn’t conflict with the rest of the movie. At one time, there was a different script by Sam Hamm which included Penguin and Catwoman, but it was entirely different(I think the villains teamed up for a jewel heist) and Burton’s movie isn’t a rewrite of it as far as I know.

      I think because Returns was an overall more harmonious creation, critics appreciated it better than the mish-mashed incompleteness of 89.

  • Vits/Vicente Torres

    I think you should’ve included CATWOMAN and SUPERGIRL, since they’re spin-offs.

  • Robert George

    What a joke, Superman Returns is better than Batman from 1989? Superman retur s was just horrible. I agree with Superman 1 and Dark Knight being 2 and 1 but Burton’s Batman should be 3, that or Superman 2.

  • lukewarmester

    If you’re feeling even remotely positive about humanity, read a superhero comment section. That little bit of positivity will vanish in a hurry.

  • One of the most brilliant parts of Reeve’s performance was that he actually made it BELIEVABLE that Superman and Clark Kent were two different people.

    It’s perfectly illustrated in the scene in Lois’s apartment in the first film, where Clark considers telling her the truth about his identity. You can actually SEE the transformation as he takes off his glasses, straightens, and deepens his voice. One moment you’re looking at Clark Kent, the next you’re looking at Superman, and it’s all done with just the slightest change in posture and tonality.

  • most wanted

    No wonder if The Dark Knight is released now you will say It to be the dark grimm,gritty film of all time and say “no fun at all”. boring and Rotten like your critics

    • Dennis Bowers

      Batman is supposed to be dark, grim, and gritty. Superman is supposed to be bright, clean, and cheerful. Sort of like on TV with Gotham and Supergirl. Both work because that is how the characters are supposed to be presented.

  • thatsnomoon

    Megs are a little bigger than that.

  • hoochiemoochie

    Disappointed that Batman ’89 only got 72% originally, BUT I’m so glad to see that TDKR had a higher RT score than the abysmally boring Batman Begins. TDKR might have not been nearly as tightly woven as TDK and it may have suffered from some holes…but at least it was entertaining and fun. I will never understand the love for Batman Begins.

    I cannot make it through that movie without falling asleep…and it also ends in one of the silliest finales I’ve ever seen in a major blockbuster. Never cared for Bale or Caine as Bruce and Alfred and they are in too much of Batman Begins. Love Cillian Murphy and Liam Neeson but they were ultimately underused and weak adversaries overall.

  • max4rce

    There is no fanboy war. if a movie is shit people will hate it, if a movie is good people will like it. the whole fanboy thing comes into place when people can’t come to grips with the realization that something they waited so long for has turned to shit but i don’t think that is going to deny a good or bad movie the credit/ridicule they deserve.

  • William Shakespeare

    The fact that they rate “Superman Returns” over the ’89 “Batman” is all you need to know about the value of opinions from film reviewers (they are not proper critics).

    • lurkinman

      Define “proper critics.”

  • Helmyy Kkuerniakediri

    i love this batman and i like this superman hero my funny

    >thansk very much sir<

  • SaburoDaimando

    Glad you managed to put Mask of the Phantasm on the list of films. That movie is the main reason why I love Batman, and the performances of Kevin Conroy, Dana Delany and Mark Hamill make this worth watching again.

    • lurkinman

      No kidding! I was totally surprised with how much I liked that. The voice casting was terrific, too.

      As much as I liked Mark Hamill as Joker, John DiMaggio’s performance as Joker in “Batman: Under the Red Hood” was terrifically chilling and crazy.

  • Bill David

    I absolutely detested the Tim Burton Batman movies. Tim Burton has a good eye for set design, but wow, he cannot direct. His movies are a BORE…

    • lurkinman

      To each his own. I’ve been a Batman fan since I was kid – long ago – and it totally worked for me. HARDLY boring.

      • Bill David

        True, it’s all opinion.

  • Nick Hamling

    Mr. Giles, including an animation but only one animation is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in Rotten Tomatoes long history of developing lists has there ever been anything that could be considered such an irrational thought. Every single reader is now dumber for having seen it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    • Dennis Bowers

      This was for movies release to theaters. The rest were direct to video.

  • Luke Ace Oliver

    Batman and Superman are my favorite super heroes. That being said, I much prefer Marvel’s movies because the quality is there. I loved DC films until after TDKR. With all of their endless resources and cash supply, could DC really not find someone more capable than Hack Snyder to take the reigns from Nolan? Snyder is essentially getting to serve as the creative agent for their universe, just as Whedon had done for Marvel. Directing major pictures, and producing/consulting the projects in between. Nolan started something great, and Snyder has thrown it all into the wood chipper. You can have the most interesting characters humanly possible, but if you don’t develop them and you always put style over substance, what’s the point?

  • Joe Simple

    It just doesn’t make sense to me on why Critics would bash this movie let alone go in with a closed mind and expect a Marvel film.. I feel like none of the critics have picked up the Comic book and saw how much thought went in to the movie to please the Fanboys.

    • lavendergooms

      No one is ever going to be happy on the story angles taken with superman. The fact superman returns got good reviews is proof critics are in love with the corny truth justice and the American way superman and not the realistic take of Superman is proof life exists outside of earth. Which realistically would be a big deal

  • Colin Odell

    The best and most consistent interpretation of Superman was the Superman: The Animated Series by Bruce Timm. That was Superman at his most iconic. I loved the original Superman movies but it gets a little out there with spinning the Earth backwards to reverse time and throwing his S-shield to capture the bad guys. MOS isn’t the Superman I want to see. Actually, the way to do Superman now would be just the way Marvel is doing Captain America.

  • VA9ERSFAN

    They are out of touch at best. No way Superman Returns is better than Man of Steel

    • Dennis Bowers

      Way.

  • Ryan Harju

    where is under the red hood?!!!

  • VA9ERSFAN

    People are missing the evolution of character in MOS that is leading him to become the Super Man everyone wants to see. From baby on planet earth-> to child learning to hone strength and abilities -> Young adult trying to fit in -> to being thrust in a position to destroy his own people while protecting Earth -> to dealing with what it takes to become a hero.

  • Joshua Jones

    As it stands BvS sits between Batman Forever and Superman III, not exactly where the studio wants it to sit considering Snyder is trying to continue Nolan’s brooding films with his own touch and it’s leaving him with a rating that’s 50% worse

  • Jamie Pinson

    Wow, so if we put Batman Vs. Superman on this list at this current moment it would rest right between Superman III and Batman Forever. Pretty much right where it belongs. I knew the ratings weren’t going to be great but I had no idea the movie would be this freaking bad. Not a fan of Snyder nor am I surprised by the professional reviews. I guess they also prefer their movies in actual color. Snyder tries to borrow Nolan’s color scheme but never got it quite right. He overdoes it to the nth degree and beats you over the head with it just like everything else he does. Instead of subtle storytelling we get smacked over the head with the same things over and over because obviously we’re not super smart like Snyder is so there’s no way we’d ever be able to understand the nuisances of his genius. Like his nonstop ham-handed comparisons between Superman and Jesus. Once isn’t enough, oh no, we’re too stupid so he has to show us it over and over. Basically in every other shot we need another comparison because of our stupidity.

    Snyder isn’t good with characters in the first place. It doesn’t help when he doesn’t even know much less understand his characters. Man of Steel to me was the worst interpretation of Superman I’ve ever seen. If I want dark and brooding I’ll go watch a Batman movie. It’s sad when Superman is more depressing than even the new dark and depressing Batman, although to be fair Afleck does a great job at it. It’s just not right for Superman. Snyder has never made a great movie. 300 was fun and good but it’s been all downhill since then. Give him full reign and he creates stuff like Sucker Punch or Batman Vs. Superman. Hopefully WB will wisen up but I doubt it. They still think Green Lantern failed because it was too funny. Hence the reason for no humor in Batman Vs. Superman.

  • Marc Valenzuela

    It’s pretty clear what the consensus was out of all these Batman and Superman films: Batman under Chris Nolan’s direction was highly successful in terms of realism in the superhero genre. Whereas, Superman was successful only when Christopher Reeve was still around.

  • And now, checking in around 30%, we have Batman v Superman checking in as the worst Batman or Superman movie since Superman 3, roflmao.

  • EnL10

    just my two cents – when RT wants to do these types of lists — which clearly raises much disagreement (for the most part) — why not have the rankings adjusted to mix both the Tomatometer (Critic’s Reviews) and Audience Score? —

    Whatever algorithm or adjustment they want to use is fine

    (i.e., if an earlier movie doesn’t have the same number of audience reviews, make an ‘adjusted audience score’ or whatever, so that its apples-to-apples comparison)

    but I just think it would better reflect the ‘true’ overall rankings of these films

    just a thought

    • Dennis Bowers

      Because the audience scores are bogus.

  • Jim222001

    Batman vs Superman would be right between Batman Forever and Superman 3 ratings wise sadly lol. When all the reviews don’t knock the acting and just the dark and dreariness. It’s obvious Zack Snyder needs to go.

  • jjstarA113

    Hey, we’re all forgetting the REAL highest-rated Batman/Superman movie (at least percentage-wise) on RT:

    THE LEGO MOVIE (2014) – 98%

  • onionrovirosa

    WTF! Superman Returns higher than BATMAN 1989!!!!!! NEVER TRUST THE RT METER

    • Tom Caselli

      It doesn’t have anything to do with any meter. The number is the percentage of positive reviews from all the critics, nothing more, nothing less.

  • Alma Felix

    Christopher Reeve.Simply the Best!

  • Belinda

    Actually, I don’t like Nolan’s batman much, even though the movies received lots of positive comments. I think Nolan created a new world which is different from that in comics. In this world, there is only one superhero which is batman.

  • Carlos the Dwarf

    Superman Returns > Batman (Burton)???

    How?!

  • Novasuper

    Yeah you idiots do not read comic books and you will never understand and will eventually evaporate.

  • SnidgetAsphodel

    The fan war means very little to me. However, for me, the Dark Knight trilogy reigns supreme. Batman Begins is utterly my favorite superhero movie ever created, and the other two in the series follow along shortly. I suppose as I grew up with those movies, Christian Bale will always be the perfect Batman. He made me love the character, and every other great actor sprinkled into that trilogy was just the layering on the cake. Freeman, Oldman, Neeson, Caine, Murphy, Hardy, and Ledger were perfection.

    I was not overly excited for the new Batman vs Superman movie, but I’m still a little disappointed it is getting such horrible reviews.

  • Leigh Rhoades

    Eff this movie. THAT is NOT Superman. What a joke.

  • Leigh Rhoades

    This movie is so insulting to the Superman legacy that they were unable/unwilling (?) to give Superman a non CGI cape. What a friggin joke.

  • Romeoking

    Christopher Reeve’s – Superman is equals to Robert Dawnye Jr – Iron Man, is the best superman, this Henry Cavil is very ice and without grace looks like a robot.

  • Batman v. Superman was just awful.

  • Rob Scott

    BATMAN & SUPERMAN MOVIES
    1. The Dark Knight
    2. The Dark Knight Rises
    3. Superman II
    4. Superman
    5. Batman Begins
    6. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
    7. Batman Returns
    8. Man of Steel
    9. Batman
    10. Superman Returns
    11. Batman Forever
    12. Superman III
    13. Superman IV
    14. Batman & Robin

    MARVEL MOVIES
    1. The Avengers
    2. Iron Man
    3. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
    4. Guardians of the Galaxy
    5. Deadpool
    6. Thor
    7. Avengers: Age of Ultron
    8. Captain America: The First Avenger
    9. X-Men 2
    10. X-Men
    11. Spider-Man 2
    12. Spider-Man
    13. X-Men: Days of Future Past
    14. X-Men: First Class
    15. The Incredible Hulk
    16. Ant-Man
    17. Wolverine: X-Men Origins
    18. Iron Man 2
    19. Iron Man 3
    20. Thor: The Dark World
    21. The Amazing Spider-Man
    22. The Amazing Spider-Man 2
    23. X-Men 3: The Last Stand
    24. Spider-Man 3
    25. The Wolverine
    26. DareDevil
    27. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Soldier
    28. Fantastic Four (2005)
    29. The Punisher
    30. Punisher: War Zone
    31. Fantastic Four (2015)
    32. Hulk
    33. Ghost Rider
    34. Ghost Rider 2: Spirit of Vengeance

  • Josua Ndikum

    seriously superman returns was not good i hardly trust critics

  • Mathias Bleier Bega

    Si le ponen 79 por ciento a Superman Returns, significa que lo demas no tiene sentido.

  • Siggivahen Sathivel

    BVS… overall a movie is fun and can be watched not rotten.. What disappoints me the most with well cast actors are follows
    1) As all agreed Superman has no human touch feelings but rather dark and brooding
    2) Batman does not kills but rather protects and defends the peoples. Here we see him as an executioner rather than being the Capped crusader.
    3) The worst thing is Lex Luthor is totally opposite from what we see Luthor in comics and animation being cunning, manupulative , charasmatic and genius but here we see him as someone who is nervous and characterless. Luthor is one of the best villain in the comic world. Clearly did not add value to the movie. Why had him in the first place. Casting mistake?
    4) The movie is too much bloodying of human sacrifices… all we see is people are dying of crash building. totally opposite from Donner Version.

    The saving grace is Wonder women

  • LukeTheHallowed

    I wish they would’ve kept going with Superman Returns. It was a FAR better movie that Man of Steel.

  • FMAN

    The Dark Knight Rises is a poorly executed movie riddled with plot holes, leaps in time, and pointless character reveals. Things happen “just because” like the Bat not having an autopilot function. The ending is silly, unnecessary, and effectively kills the Batman franchise.

    The Dark Knight was a great film but this one was a stinker. Once the Nolan goggles wear off, people will see the Dark Knight Rises for what it is.

  • Alan Peterson

    Chris Reeves will now and forever BE THE ONLY SUPERMAN, This new superman needs to get a sense of humor and give a better feeling of caring for us “Humans” I also loved The Nolan movies especially TDK but hated Christian Bale as batman every time he would get angry and used his I’m batman and I have serious throat cancer voice I cringed

  • Dragoon

    I want to know who sold their soul(s) to Satan to get the popularity up on the Nolan trilogy. They were NOT good Batman films AT ALL. The only saving grace the first one had was a brilliant performance by Liam Neeson as Ra’s Al Ghul. After that they’re a campy, horrendously dragged out mess that got worse with every release. Thank every god they ended at 3 and we have Bat-Affleck to play with now. Ben is at least ten times better as the Dark Knight and ESPECIALLY Bruce Wayne than Bale could ever hope to be.

Tag Cloud

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