1. dmdutcher says:

    6. No one likes Lois Lane.

    She’s a relic of the silver age of comics, and not a good one. Supes has grown in concept some since then, and that’s why he gets pushed with Wonder Woman these days. The Superman/Lane relationship has been deconstructed pretty heavily anyways with Watchmen’s Dr. Manhattan and Silk Spectre being a good one.

    Doesn’t surprise me she’s screwing things up as usual.

    7. Wouldn’t surprise me if the horned being was Zac’s idea of Darkseid. Darkseid is one of the few characters that never really got a visual revamp or gets experimented on.

    Luthor’s weird in that in the old days he seemed to be ridiculous but got rescued. He’s really effective when he’s arrogant, brilliant, cold, and brutal. You can’t really make him a ham without removing all his menace. The Penguin is similar, he got revamped a lot from the Burgess Meredith days.

    A return to camp Luthor isn’t all that good. You can’t really update him, in the same way the FF trying to update Doc Doom failed.

    8,9,10. Yeah apparently it’s a bad film. You don’t have to defend bad films, dudes. It’s okay to like them, or even parts of them, but don’t blow your credibility dissecting them. Most of us knew Snyder couldn’t direct when we had flying dragons on Krypton in Man of Steel. We weren’t expecting that much of this film.

    • I don’t “like” this film, D.M. I love it. I love the beginning, the middle, and the end. I praise it not because I’m defensive, but because I’m effusive. I think it’s a great film. Not good; great. If that blows my credibility in your mind, then you should probably ignore my opinion. But don’t insinuate that I’m being disingenuous.

    • Khai says:

      What did you think of Kevin Spacey as Luthor? He’s the only thing I liked about that movie (Superman Returns)

  2. Tony Breeden says:

    Re: “..it is interesting here that much of Lex’s power comes from the information he has collected. This is a first for the movie Lex’s, I think. He is dangerous first because of what he knows about he heroes, not because of what he does.”

    Are you kidding me with this? That has ALWAYS been the case with the film versions of Lex Luthor. For example, here are two Gene Hackman version quotes from the 1978 Superman:

    “Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it’s a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe.”

    [To Otis]: “Do you know why the number two hundred is so vitally descriptive to both you and me? It’s your weight and my I.Q.”

    In each cinematic appearance, Luthor’s power comes from his ability to piece together knowledge that no one else seems to be able to connect. It’s how he discovers Superman’s weakness in pretty much every film. It’s how he discovers the Fortress of Solitude and the significance of the holographic crystals in Superman Returns.

    For crying out loud, it’s Luthor’s mantra; as he says in both Superman and Superman Returns: “Mind over muscle.”

    Seriously, if you want me to take you seriously, don’t make statements like this.

    • Kerry Nietz says:

      Take a deep breath there, Tony. 🙂 Let me clarify.

      Sure, Lex has always been about information and using his mind. (Smallville Seasons 1-7, for instance.) He’s not superpowered, after all.

      But in the comics–which is the perspective I’ve had the most experience with, Lex started as a mad scientist, and then sort of morphed into a corporate executive, but he was never an information broker. He wasn’t an information gatherer. Not really.

      He had his mad scheme, and would devise some device or kryptonite-infused technology to fight Superman, but it was never about data. And his claims to great intellect were often refuted by Superman’s continued existence. Superman outsmarted him! More to the point: for all of seventy years in the comics, excepting some alternate reality versions, he never once figured out Clark’s identity.

      In the B v S version, though, we see the power of a brilliant intellect coupled with modern technology. And the threat is wholly a modern one. Not one that was possible in the 70s, or even the 90s. The surveillance state makes it so.

      • Khai says:

        This movie is the first time I’ve ever seen Luthor as “Compensating” instead of Confident. It made his hate much more visceral, on screen. Definite change from the older Luthors, “at ease” with their worlds and their entitlement to reign over it.

        • Kerry Nietz says:

          Interesting observation, Khai. And yes, the onscreen Luthors of Hackman and Spacey were much more confident. They really weren’t that different than the part Spacey plays in House of Cards.

      • Tony Breeden says:

        If your experience with Luthor is with the comics, Kerry, then it is truly a pity that you chose to invoke the film Luthors (i.e., “This is a first for the MOVIE Lex’s, I think”); in other words, you’re moving the goalpost here.

        Let me put this to you starkly. Eisenberg was a Lex Luthor in name only.

        I took my autistic 15-year-old to the movie last night. One thing I love about people on the autistic spectrum is that they tend to be pretty blunt. I asked him what he thought about the movie afterward.

        Like me, he enjoyed it, but he didn’t particularly enjoy seeing Supe and Bats beat on each other so badly. That fight was a down and dirty Dark Knight melee. I really found myself feeling sorry for Superman but ultimately rooting for Batman as the underdog, even though I knew Batman was completely wrong for what he was doing. Neither of us particularly liked the way Doomsday was rendered. The end battle was confusing and hard to make out with all of the explosions and and electrical effects. I say this as a guy whose favorite Christmas movie is Die Hard! They seriously could have toned down the effects.

        I digress. We both loved the film overall, despite a few things we didn’t like.

        But when it came to Luthor, my son felt no love. A exact quote: “That wasn’t Lex Luthor. Lex Luthor is smart. That was some kind of crazy stupid crazy guy.”

        The bottom line is that Eisenberg’s “?Luthor” didn’t come across as smart enough or conniving enough or even controlled enough to pull off the things he’s credited for in the movie. Calling him Lex Jr doesn’t change this damning fact; Senior or Junior, Eisenberg’s version simply isn’t megavillain material. Eisenberg’s Luthor comes axross as a Heath Ledger as Joker rip-off, which is too imbalanced (if clever) to be a criminal mastermind. Ledger’s “Joker” wasn’t even the Joker. Rather than portraying teh clown prince of crime, Ledger chose to portray a psychpathic mad dog killer who was basically interchangeable with any over-the-top criminal from an 80s action flick (except that he was supposed to be the Joker… even if he didn’t respect the role enough to pull it off). Eisenberg did the same thing, pretty much dtewaling ledger’s Joker schtick to create a Luthor in name only who is too imbalanced to be a believable criminal mastermind, especially one with a master plan to pit Batman against Superman like that and manage to create another supervillain as a failsafe. That’s a whole lotta nope, right there. I kept waiting for Brainiac to step out of the shadows and take credit for all of ?Luthor’s work. You see, Joker isn’t Luthor; because of his inherent instability, Joker can’t ever play in the big leagues like Luthor. Eisenberg’s ?Luthor as Joker (and I’m reeeeally sorry Jared Leto got the role you really wanted Jesse) could never pull these things off because the Joker [and here’s a deep irony] could never pull these things off without a Luthor to back and mastermind the operation.

        Casting Eisenberg as Luthor isn’t a “bold, new imagining” of the role. It’s a simple case of bad casting, on the level of casting Topher Grace as Eddie Brock/venom in Spider-man 3. It’s casting with zero regard for the character’s needs. It is an unfortuante reality that Hollywood needs big names to generate the money to produce big budget movies [hasn’t that been the standard line for the casting decision is such movies as Gods of Egypt, after all?], so let’s not pretend that Eisenberg’s casting as Luthor in this film was anything inspired. Especially given his gibbering performance as a Luthor in name only.

        Spacey managed to make his Luthor more menacing without losing the character’s gravitas. I believed that his Luthor was stable enough to pull off his highly intelligent plans. He never came off as stuffy or even that predictable. His intelligence made him anything but predictable or safe. Eisenberg’s Luthor is a simpering, mentally imbalanced child. In fact he reminds me of Hayden Christensen’s awful moping rendition of Anakin Skywalker (seriously? I’m supposed to believe that when he became a cyborg he matured enough to become the Dark Lord of the Sith from the original trilogy???) or, more recently, Kylo “Cry me a River” Ren. Those mopey Sith Lords made their movies just plain suck. I managed to watch Episiode 3 ONCE… and never again. Kylo and Anakin were weak villains. Eisenberg is no better.

        A superhero is only as good as his greatest villain. Batman’s rogues gallery defines him and also outlines his strengths and weaknesses. This holds true for any worthy hero. I weep for the Star Wars sequels because thus far the series lacks a strong villain. I mean, a Stormtrooper and someone who learned the Force like yesterday handed his blubbering butt to him, so… In Batman v Superman, everything stalls when the fight between the title characters ends. Even Lex Jr suspects he isn’t good enough; he unleashes a bona fide monster to deal with the fallout rather than suiting up like he should’ve. Luthor would’ve let Batman weaken Superman and then finished him off himself. Instead, Luthor has no idea what he’s unleashed as a failsafe and we’re never really sure why.


        Bottom line: #7 is a criticism that is well-deserved, even if I liked the rest of the film. Lex Jr. is inconsistent, out-of-character and just not smart enough to pull off what teh movie needs him for. Let’s pray Darkseid or whoever does a better of job

        And btw, Kerry, don’t ever tell me to take a breath, unless you want me to use it for my next evil monologue. I think you get that now ;]

  3. Khai says:

    6) I like Lois Lane. She’s got a job. She’s got something that propels her to take risks and be in dangerous places. And that something is not Superman. It’s her reporter’s nose. She’s had a reputation for it since before Superman was on the scene to save her. And as long as that curiosity and itch to catch the scoop stays real (and they let Amy Adams play her that way), she’ll keep a personality in this franchise. And she’ll be not annoying.

    Contrast that with Natalie Portman’s “Jane” in Thor. I never bought her as a physicist – ironically, because Natalie Portman is highly intelligent.

    7) Lex Luthor overdid the “Human squirrel” act on the roof. Or weasel. I kept expecting him to spaz out and suck his teeth. But overall, the character was as awesome as Austin says. They should have dropped in another line delivery about Luther’s actually abominable father, though. So we could get a deeper respect for his rage and his defiance the optimistic, idealistic view of goodness.

What do you think?