Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Jeremy Irons thinks 'Batman v Superman' deserved to get bad reviews

By

·

May 29, 2016

It's not every day an actor speaks negatively about one of his movies (especially when he's in the middle of shooting the sequel), but that's exactly what Jeremy Irons did in a new interview with Daily Mail's Event magazine.

When the fact that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice "took a kicking" from the critics was brought up, Irons said that he thought it was deserved!

"Deservedly so. I mean it took £800 million, so the kicking didn’t matter but it was sort of overstuffed…"
He lets those words hang in the air, then laughs at the thought of a film described by one critic as the most incoherent blockbuster in years.
"It was very muddled. I think the next one will be simpler. The script is certainly a lot smaller, it’s more linear."

"The next one" that Irons is referring to is Justice League: Part One, which he confirmed he has a part in and is currently filming in London.

What do you make of Irons' honesty? Are you happy to hear that Justice League's story will be a bit simpler? Let me know in the comments below.

SOURCE: Daily Mail

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com

534 comments

Theclaw Yaww
May 29, 2016
Jeremy Irons just became 10x cooler for being honest and I'm glad to hear that Justice League isn't as overstuffed with subplots and whatnot
1. Amey Malekar
  May 29, 2016
  Still waiting for the extended cut though..
  1. Theclaw Yaww
    May 29, 2016
    Tbh i don't believe it will make the movie better
    1. josuearisty
      May 31, 2016
      They should release the 4 hour uncut movie, maybe we could be able to understand it better.
      1. Theclaw Yaww
        May 31, 2016
        Yeah THAT would be interesting I don't think 30 minutes will change much
  2. ernest schoenmakers
    May 29, 2016
    As for me with a very special reason.
2. Jaime spenser
  May 29, 2016
  Same I trust Jeremy irons, and look forward to JL. I hope this shuts down the liars who think the film is flawless, XMfuturecomics is a disgrace.
Virgil Scott
May 29, 2016
While enjoyed Batman V Superman, he's not wrong. And at least you can depend on Irons to not give a shit and speak his mind.
1. O.G. Loc
  May 29, 2016
  Couldn't agree more. People think it's black and white. If you liked the movie, hell, if you didn't hate the movie it must mean you ADORE Snyder and BvS, and think it's the perfect movie. The movie had issues, and one of those is what Irons said. Too many cooks in the kitchen. And with so much going on, the movie ended being 3 hours long. Plus, they said "nah, it needs to be shorter".
  The editing. That's pretty much my only gripe with it.
Dr.Arkham
May 29, 2016
Joss Whedon said that Avengers is cliche.
1. Jordan Kenney
  May 29, 2016
  He was right. Particularly about the second one.
  1. BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
    May 29, 2016
    Both..
2. BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
  May 29, 2016
  And hes free to do whatever he likes..
3. Axxell
  May 30, 2016
  I wouldn't say it's "impossible" to breathe at 30,000ft...the people who climb Everest can do it.
  1. Axxell
    June 1, 2016
    Technically, if you watch that scene again, the Helicarrier was flying between the clouds, which sit below the peak of Mt Everest, therefore, Hawkeye stood in the cargo door a substantial distance below the highest point a human has even been at. Not saying it's something anyone can easily do; after all, one would imagine Hawkeye is trained for harsher conditions.
    1. Axxell
      June 2, 2016
      Until it can be confirmed that it was indeed their altitude on that specific scene, I'm gonna take the visual cues as reference, which is the only thing we know for sure: the Helicarrier was flying between the clouds for cover, so Hawkeye was significantly below 30,000 ft.
      1. Axxell
        June 4, 2016
        The type of clouds shown in the scene only happen at or below 30,000 ft.
    2. cheesewhiz
      June 8, 2016
      All belief must be suspended. He's on a HELICARRIER for God's sake. Mere physics alone says this vehicle would be impossible to engineer even with unlimited resources. The fuel alone to turn the rotors would be exponential let alone impossible to lift an object of that size made of steel.
    3. cheesewhiz
      June 8, 2016
      And anyone on the deck would be immediately blown right off.
ReallyYesReally
May 29, 2016
And...I remember Chris posted an article here somewhere about Irons being proud of BvS :/
1. You let your family die
  May 29, 2016
  I remember that too . But to be fair , "everyone" at WB was proud of BvS b4 the release .
2. Kriss_Kringle
  May 29, 2016
  Maybe he's proud of the car or house he bought with the paycheck from BvS.
AquaCthulhu
May 29, 2016
http://batman-news.com/2016...
'Smaller' and 'linear' being the indicators of ... Oh.
1. col42
  May 29, 2016
  If he saw the film at the time, than yes, it would be odd. But I honestly think the script was great and all the footage they had on the floor was indicative of that. But with WB's request for the film to be cut so much shorter, I feel the plot got muddled in the process, thus, pretty much screwing up the film. I'm betting there's a great film to be gathered up from all the footage, doubt we'll ever see it though.
  1. OGDickGrayson
    May 29, 2016
    But the script was bad.
  2. RedHood
    May 29, 2016
    uh oh, someone on the internet using logic and reason in a conversation!!!
  3. AquaCthulhu
    May 29, 2016
    I don't think the film was screwed up at all. I 'did' gather the said great film
    and I did see it. (For the record, I wasn't dissing BvS. I don't agree with Mr. Irons. It was only muddled because the critics 'felt' so.)
    This is the kind of movie that can't be appreciated in a single viewing, and a single viewing is what most people judged it off from. Even every single slo-mo shot has a good reason to it. People didn't like Lex's jittery portrayal? Well, if they connected his slo-mo walk into the crashed ship and a much later scene where he asks Keelex to 'teach him' about a hundred thousand worlds ... it would make sense. "The bitter-sweet pain among men is having knowledge with no power ..." That scene is where he's completely unhinged. You could see the restlessness in his face when he privately meets Senator Finch in his dad's office. I guess most people scoffed at the slo-mo walk as an excuse for style over substance and never noticed the same suit in the 'teach me' scene.
    I hope the Ultimate Edition clears things up for those who didn't get the film.
DCEUrebootnowordieaslowdeath
May 29, 2016
to be honest i dont like the title of this article...
"Jeremy Irons agrees with critics",really?
i mean it should be pretty clear that its not only the critics that hated this film,look at this site,alot of the usual posters changed their tune once they saw the travesty that snyder dropped on us.
anyone see the movie idiocracy,basically the usa after years of inbred humping and pumping get so stupid that the best movie they watch is called ass,which just has an ass in the main screen for like 2 hours,and its considered a blockbuster.
same here,bvs made the money it made not because of the quality of the film but more because of the names of the heroes in it,they could have released a 3 hour film of just an ass on the main screen with the logo of superman on the left cheek and the logo of batman on the right one and the movie would have made the SAME ammount of money.
ReallyYesReally
May 29, 2016
Game 7!
Shawn J.
May 29, 2016
He's speaking the truth.
gol gul
May 29, 2016
eh, I read entire article, but it seemed not that harsh as described.. He has great personality. hope JL would be better quality.
Flo Motion
May 29, 2016
I hear what you're saying Sean…but with the recent changes that Warner has made to the "brain trust", by establishing DC Films, and putting Geoff Johns and Jon Berg in the division heads; i'm feeling much more optimisitc about the DCEU future. Plus with the other films being helmed by different directors and such the creative look and feel of this universe will expand. The problem is we've only had one persons vision so far, which has been greatly divisive amongst fans and critics alike.
1. Dee Stabilizer
  May 29, 2016
  Buuut... wasn't the Ryan Reynolds Green Lantern movie Geoff Johns' baby?
  1. Hmmm
    May 29, 2016
    Yes. Yes it was.
    1. Flo Motion
      May 29, 2016
      Not entirely…he didn't have that much creative control…he was there as a consultant….this completely different
    2. The RBH
      May 29, 2016
      Guggenheim's fault.
  2. Eric Boles
    May 29, 2016
    No, he came in way late on that project. He gets a lot of undeserved blame for that movie.
2. Ace20xd6
  May 29, 2016
  If Justice League sucks then we'll more likely get a Flashpoint movie.
hussle simmons
May 29, 2016
Call me crazy but I'm actually glad irons and Affleck and some of the others behind the scenes didn't like it cuz those are the ones who I HOPE know what needs to be done to turn the DCEU around
Snyder and co. on the other hand, I'm not sure where their minds are at...it seemed like they really thought they had gold with BvS, even after the critics slammed it
1. ernest schoenmakers
  May 29, 2016
  But in fact, is that important to know who's to blame? we the audience wanna watch a good movie which is executed well.
2. neodymium
  May 30, 2016
  Who said he didn't like it? He was said it wss overstuffed and muddled. The editing is responsible for that
  1. The Dark Knight
    May 30, 2016
    Lmao! Yes, he should've outright said "BvS fucking sucks, it deserved the rotten tomatoes"
Shawn J.
May 29, 2016
He also said that he hasn't seen the film.
Rust
May 29, 2016
I'm disappointed as a viewer who prefers complex movies, but I understand too. Excited either way. :)
David Sebastian
May 29, 2016
And he is right. Some fan may argue that it was ''complex'' and it is good to have complex film... But there is complex and complex. This movie was overstuffed mess with unbearable Lex Luthor.
1. royal emperor
  May 29, 2016
  correct dude. lex luthor is suppose to be a genius, complex villain. a villain whose opinions on aliens are morally wrong but logically correct. in BVS they somehow jokerized him to some extent.
  1. Schuyler Finley
    May 29, 2016
    But Lex is that complex villain in BvS. He wants to have power metahumans by destroying the thing that can inspire them: Superman. He couldn't just outright kill Superman though or else Supes would just end up being looked upon as a martyr. So he planned to have Supes' image be ruined, and have the people of the world hate and fear him. His plan to have Supes and Bats fight to the death was to prove his ideology: If God is all-powerful then He can't be all-good, and if God is all-good then He can't be all-powerful. Doomsday was just his endgame if Superman survived or, as one guy from another site said, it was his endgame to destroy Earth after Lex learned about Darkseid.
    1. OGmacrazy
      May 29, 2016
      That's a good copy paste from another website... But in all seriousness, it doesn't excuse the movie's flaws and the poor attempt at a lex luthor, yet again.
      1. Schuyler Finley
        May 29, 2016
        In my opinion this is the best Lex we've seen on film. Yeah he's not imposing, but Eisenberg's Lex is still threatening. He's a manipulator and still sees everyone else as merely pawns his game. Hackman's and Spacey's Lex were just typical real estate businessmen. Eisenberg's Lex didn't care about building the Lexcorp empire, because as he said: it has his father's name. He only cared about destroying God.
      2. OGmacrazy
        May 31, 2016
        Sure, but when the only shred of development hehad was a throw away line about how he was abused by his father, he does not make for a good villain. He's just crazy, and I think they dropped the ball immensely. Frankly, I'd just like to see his father on screen at the moment. I like Eisenberg as an actor, but he did nothing special here. Just upped the crazy factor with not much actual writing to support it.
      3. Schuyler Finley
        May 31, 2016
        But it's just like with how Loki started in the MCU. It took multiple movies for him to become the popular villain that he currently is.
        Lex slowly started to become insane as the progressed. Yeah, there were bits and pieces where you can clearly see that he was ticking time bomb, but you are also looking at a guy who runs a billion dollar cooperation. Also, his lines about his father tell how his world view came to be: that those with power are monsters. However, he contradicts this when he seeks knowledge.
      4. OGmacrazy
        June 1, 2016
        Loki is the only mcu villain worth any damn, but further movies have kinda deteriorated his development. In his first movie, Thor, he was good. From the get go. This Lex Luthor started off pretty badly, for most people at least. And again, yeah, you can make interpretations like that all you want, but by that logic, and when you are looking so deep to find development or motives, then you can find that for almost any kind of character in any movie. He was poorly handled, and they definitely should have been more subtle about him, not spill his entire raison d'etre when he was laying down the exposition like crazy.
      5. Schuyler Finley
        June 1, 2016
        Loki's goal was to earn father's love by doing the exact same thing that Thor got banished for trying to do. Lex wanted to prove his philosophy, and he almost succeeded if it weren't for Lois. And Lex didn't spill his plans until before the big fight. The only person who was suspicious of him was the senator, and we saw what Lex did to her when she didn't want to play ball.
      6. OGmacrazy
        June 1, 2016
        Sure, but he never was menacing. He never felt powerful. He just rambled on and on, and that scene on the rooftop could have been so much better, if they would have developed him before, but no. They just spilled everything they had planned on the character right then and there. His motivations were all told via exposition instead of subtelty and actual good writing. I wouldn't mind Eisenberg's performance if at least the character was well written, and while he did have the screen time, he never shined. And he had so many stupid scenes that went nowhere (the cherry part, which is now one of the many jokes this movie produced, or the part where he was with Zod's body in the kryptonian goo, for example)... Lex may have wanted something to do with his philosophy, but it was never explored nor well executed. It's just an over interpretation of an actual very simple piece of work that failed to deliver, what you are talking about.
      7. Schuyler Finley
        June 1, 2016
        His motivationson were told almost the exact same way Ultron's were told. Almost every villain we've seen within the last six years alone, we're told and/or shown what their motivationsite are. There was no subtlety being done with them. Most villains usually tell the audience what their motivations are anyway. The cherry part was supposed to be funny, and to me, it should just how little he cared about that official guy. The part where he was with Zod's body led to Doomsday being created. His philosophy was explored many times throughout the movie. Thete was the lines about his father, his talks with the senator, the painting, and his talk with Superman and Lois. All of that, the movie was outright explaining why Lex was so against Superman.
      8. OGmacrazy
        June 2, 2016
        What a shitty comparison. Ultron was a garbage, throwaway villain. And what you said does not excuse it one bit. They should be striving for good writing, i.e., being subtle and trying to be realistic, like they say this universe is. Everything about Lex was exposition and crazyness without any kind of 'layers' they talked about previous to the movie's release. I think they can develop him firther in future movies, but in this one he was a disappointment. There are plenty of great villains in movies, recently or otherwise, and plenty of good super hero movie villains (green goblin in Spider Man, Doc Ock in Spider Man 2, the three main villains in Nolan's trilogy, etc.) and I really liked Zod in Man of Steel. He had actual motivations and was well written. But Luthor simply wasn't.
      9. Schuyler Finley
        June 2, 2016
        Why did Osborn become a villain in Spider-Man 1?
        Answer: He went crazy after been injected with that serum.
        Why did Doc Ock become a villain in Spider-Man 2?
        Answer: He went crazy after listening to the voices in his head.
        And Joker is crazy too. It's just that he wanted to prove to Batman that anyone can become just like him. Which is similar to what Lex was trying to do in BvS. With Joker, we don't what exactly made him insane. With Lex, we know why he became crazy, but some people don't think that reason is enough. However, both characters had a similar agenda: they wanted to prove that their ideologies were right. Joker talked about what people would do if shit ever hits the fan. Lex talked about why we worship gods/monsters.
      10. OGmacrazy
        June 2, 2016
        Difference is Joker does not need an explanation and that's what makes him different. Luthor's motivations and explanation were all just exposition in the movie, and never actually explored. I wouldn't mind the performance if it was well written. Alas, it was just a poor attempt at Lex that looked more like a Jim Carrey's Ridller impression. It had potential, but much like the movie itself, it wasn't properly executed.
    2. royal emperor
      May 29, 2016
      yes, but except for the part where he puts a bomb during the hearing. he does not do a very good job . luthor in comic books is a cold calculating evil. he influences government through charms and manipulation. he makes you believe he is right . he does not force feed you cherries. although i liked the part where he subtly manipulates the senator in his room. but that's it. rest of the movie he acts crazy. and luthor in comics never wanted to destroy earth he wanted to rule it.that trait made luthor so relatable in comics he wants to protect earth from aliens .
      1. Schuyler Finley
        May 29, 2016
        The Senate bombing was to not only further stain Superman's image, but to also mess with Supes' mind. This Lex sees everyone as pawns. If you don't follow his idea then he removes you like what he did to the Senator. And even if you do follow his ideas, he won't hesitate to remove you if you're a loose end like with what he did to Mercy. This Lex only cares about one thing: power; and if someone else has it then he will either make them submit to his will or kill them.
      2. royal emperor
        May 29, 2016
        you are right about lex's personality. but in the movie it was not portrayed properly. that's my point . he was not a cool, suave, villain
      3. Schuyler Finley
        May 29, 2016
        He didn't have to be. This interpretation doesn't have to be the suave type just like Bruce and Clark weren't their usual counterparts in the movie.
      4. royal emperor
        May 30, 2016
        exactly!!. i was not ready for a new interpretation, as the comicbook character is quite good. they changed a lot of things without being able to justify them.
      5. Axxell
        May 30, 2016
        It may not HAVE to be...but they could've tried to do a calm, calculating villain instead of trying to ape Heath Ledger's performance.
      6. neodymium
        May 30, 2016
        Who said he had to be a cool sauce villain? He was a freaking mad scientist, and has been in the comics many times
        The problem is people going into this film wanting to see their own expectations instead of allowing filmmakers to create the story of their choosing. Christ.
      7. royal emperor
        May 30, 2016
        yes the filmmakers can create their own story. and we can have our expectations too. but if you are claiming to make a batman movie, be true to the character else it is not a batman movie.
      8. Troy Terry
        May 30, 2016
        He hasn't been a mad scientist since the 80's(you know the same era Jason Todd was ALIVE) a lot has changed since then. You don't see anyone breaking their necks to make Batman the way he was in the 60's.
      9. Troy Terry
        May 30, 2016
        How was Mercy a loose end? She knew about all his evil shit(minus the bombing).
      10. Schuyler Finley
        May 30, 2016
        Exactly. She knew what he's been doing, and he needed to remove her after it seemed that she became useless to him.
      11. Troy Terry
        May 31, 2016
        Yeah but Mercy always knows what Lex is doing she's his right hand woman. She's supposed to be like any very loyal henchmen. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
      12. Schuyler Finley
        May 31, 2016
        But he has killed her in other iterations, especially for the same reason in Superman:Doomsday.
    3. Troy Terry
      May 30, 2016
      Yeah but why was Doomsday already done being created before Alex knew the outcome of the BvS fight. Batman could have showed up instead of Supes and he would have had to fight Doomsday which would have resulted in instant death for earth. Lex's plans were fucking stupid and his personality was so off.
      1. Schuyler Finley
        May 30, 2016
        Doomsday was being before the fight started. It was just Lex needed to distract both heroes until the process was finished.
        Again, Doomsday was his endgame. He didn't create Doomsday until after he had learned about Darkseid. As the guy from the other site said, "Once he initiated Doomsday he knew he was caught. The crash site would be surrounded, his helicopters wouldn’t be allowed into its airspace, and all he could do is commune and wait for the authorities to arrive and arrest him. Whatever Lex learned gave him the conviction that was fine with him."
      2. Troy Terry
        May 31, 2016
        Lex learned about Steppenwolf I don't know about Darkseid. And you aren't really making sense. Lex says in the movie that he created Doomsday to defeat god(superman) and he also wanted Superman to fight Batman to the death because if Superman wins he is a murderer and Doomsday will kill him but his plan doesn't account for Batman winning which he gave the tools to do when he let him steal the kryptonite. If Superman didn't pull Martha out of his ass what hope would there be to stop Doomsday? Surely not Darkseid. Darkseid has never in the comics gone to a planet to kill a beast that destroyed it's population so it would be stupid to make him do that in the movies.
      3. Schuyler Finley
        May 31, 2016
        If Lex learned about Steppenwolf, then there's an extremely high chance that he learned about Darkseid. While we don't know hat Darkseid goal is yet, we can assume that he's looking for the Anti-Life Equation. If he suspects that it is on Earth, then he won't be stopped by something like Doomsday. And again, Lex whatever Lex had learned had made see Doomsday as the lesser evil. Lex didn't care about what happens afterwards once Doomsday was unleashed.
2. ShatteredWorld
  May 29, 2016
  Or he's not "right" or "wrong" and opinions are subjective?
  1. Knight-Errant
    May 29, 2016
    How so? We can disagree on an opinions. Facts are what can be right or wrong.
    If an opinion can be "wrong" then the person deeming the other opinion is pompously placing his/her own subjectivity above the dissenter's.
  2. ShatteredWorld
    May 30, 2016
    But in terms of quality of a work of art? No, they cannot. They can be informed or uninformed, but they cannot be "wrong". Don't be a brick lol
3. Wolverine
  May 29, 2016
  Lex Luthor was great, Even the underwear model did an ok job.The problem wasn't the cast or script, It was Zack Snyder.
  1. Alan Conn
    May 29, 2016
    Agreed
NostradennASS
May 29, 2016
AFAIK, he also claimed he hasn't seen the movie. Also, he's referring to the Batman, not Justice League.
isaaclian11
May 29, 2016
Zack Snyder fanboys are going to somehow find a way to justify this. In all seriousness, Scar is right.
1. Jaime spenser
  May 29, 2016
  Just ignore them, the worst is andore he hates Nolan films and him for some troll reason.
2. OptimistPrime99
  May 29, 2016
  Of course he's right. But still, Scar could've given a PC answer, instead of creating more negative press for DC movies. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
  1. Shawn J.
    May 29, 2016
    No thanks...we've got enough PC answers from plenty of people already.
3. Axxell
  May 30, 2016
  Who's Scar?
  1. isaaclian11
    May 31, 2016
    Jeremy Irons is the voice of Scar from The Lion King.
    1. Axxell
      May 31, 2016
      You learn something new every day...
Jaime spenser
May 29, 2016
I can't wait for civil war HISHE and x-men apocalypse.
1. Knight-Errant
  May 29, 2016
  Any chance they'll do something different & be funny for a change?
  1. Troy Terry
    May 30, 2016
    The BvS one is hilarious unless your sensitive
    1. Knight-Errant
      May 30, 2016
      Nope, zero sensitivity. I just find them similar to Borat. I get the jokes, they just aren't humorous
OptimistPrime99
May 29, 2016
LOL Thanks for piling on, Jeremy Irons! Way to be a team player! Even George Clooney waited a few years before ripping Batman & Robin. You don't f*ck with Zack Snyder. He will Jimmy Olsen your @$$, right out of the Justice League movie. "It's okay Lois".....BANG! Your DCEU days are done!
1. AquaCthulhu
  May 30, 2016
  'If' he was offered money, he'd have accepted it. You could take that just from this interview. Or maybe you haven't read all of it.
Schuyler Finley
May 29, 2016
It's just irritating that most of the people are agreeing with Irons' statements are the one's who hate BvS.
1. Schuyler Finley
  May 29, 2016
  .....I didn't say that I disagree with Irons' statement. I agree with his points about the movie being overstuffed and muddle.
2. Schuyler Finley
  May 29, 2016
  I've seen it twice, and I enjoyed it both times. Yeah it's not the best movie of the year, but I feel like it gets way too much hate from people just like what the latest X-Men movie is getting right now.
  1. Schuyler Finley
    May 29, 2016
    I'm just comparing how two films are getting a lot of hate from critics and people, but I think that some of hate is not warranted.
    1. Knight-Errant
      May 29, 2016
      I think Theresa line between "hate" & "criticism". I think critics have been just that; critical of both films. I don't believe any critic hates both/either film.
  2. ernest schoenmakers
    May 29, 2016
    X-men is irrelevant to BvS but Apocalypse was meant to be a God but he got defeated too easy in the end without striking back hard, a big flaw if you ask me.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      May 29, 2016
      Again, I'm just comparing both movies' reception from fans and critics.
      1. ernest schoenmakers
        May 29, 2016
        Nevertheless you gave your opinion about the X-men and i gave mine.
  3. Troy Terry
    May 30, 2016
    X-Men is a much better movie than BvS. X-Men at least makes sense and is way more cohesive.
3. Alan Conn
  May 29, 2016
  Hahaha! Right?!
Saudefh Sauri Denis
May 29, 2016
finally someone with common sense. thnx Irons!
Im kind of worry, that thing about simpler and linear it means just one thing; just a simple movie for the general public. I really dont like those movies with lot of heroes, there´s nothing great about it, tired of the avengers, movies for kids. Heroes against many foes.
1. Alan Conn
  May 29, 2016
  Dont worry ur gettin power rangers soon... And yeah teenagers are always so great in movies.
  1. Knight-Errant
    May 29, 2016
    I always thought it was influenced by Voltron.
  2. Troy Terry
    May 30, 2016
    Bruh I don't think you realize that there are millions of teenage super heroes who are very dope
2. Saudefh Sauri Denis
  May 30, 2016
  yes, but the problem its that the film has more limits, and I dont mean by nudity or violence. But it has to be understandable for kids. and must of the time it jus focus in merchandizing for kids. thats why I hate the avengers, they make this story about the evil villain who wants to domminate against the good heroes, and everything its about fighting, end of the story. Avengers age of ultros was the same but with a lot of overstuff, side stories, new heroes, more fighting and a lot more evil. I hate when some people think that an adult film its beacuse theres more violence in it. Im talking about the psichological drama, real life adult issues and problems
  1. Troy Terry
    May 30, 2016
    "Im talking about the psichological drama, real life adult issues and problems" Sounds like your describing Civil War.
  2. Axxell
    May 30, 2016
    Avengers had plenty of adult issues and problems; dealing with egos is a pretty real part of life.
Mark
May 29, 2016
I love this bit from the story...
"I had dinner a few times with Paul Getty, who was a neighbour of mine in Oxfordshire.
"You’d arrive for dinner and there’d be a very nice man to open the gate, a very nice man to park your car, another very nice man to take your coat and another very nice man to give you some champagne. They were all ex-SAS. So the whole place was surrounded by this level of threat, and I thought, “Yeah, that’s Alfred.”
For those who don't know who he's talking about, look up J. Paul Getty on Wikipedia.
Vulpini
May 29, 2016
I had no problem with the score, it was well balanced just like in Man of Steel.
The only thing that bugged me was the editing. Saw it twice, and it was pretty obvious the 2nd time too. The movie got butchered in the editing room in a very bad way.
Having a 4 hours cut to get a 2 and a half hours movie out of it must be a nightmare I guess.
1. Ryan Keith Allen
  May 29, 2016
  Some scores where too harsh and loud for a particular scene .
krampe1995
May 29, 2016
well zack now has to prove us that jl will be awesome. Irons is right about the movie, sometimes less is more. I really liked mos and watchmen so i hope he finds back but after such a backlash its hard to get people ready for the sequel
Virgil Scott
May 29, 2016
I agree. I usually go by a ten scale. Some days I say 7, while other days I go 7.5. Which would be the equivalent of the 3.5 (I believe that was the rating; or was it 3.25?) out of 5 that you gave it. An okay film. Sometimes I think we now live in a culture where something is either deemed complete crap or "This is the most amazing thing I've ever seen!". A 10-or-1 culture. What happened to movies being just pretty good? Or just good? We end up with either overrated or underrated movies. We can't perceive a middle anymore.
col42
May 29, 2016
Totally agree, love Zimmer but my god that score was irritating. Couldn't take some scenes seriously because of how on the nose and loud the soundtrack was. What were they thinking.
1. Richard Bachman
  May 29, 2016
  That's what I thought with TDKR, mainly with the music that was playing during the 'epilogue' of the film.
BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
May 29, 2016
http://pulpklatura.tumblr.c...
Quite the read it is...
1. Alan Conn
  May 29, 2016
  This is a great read and makes it much more interesting.
Awpwn
May 29, 2016
"Deservedly so." He just said that he agreed with the critics' consensus that the movie was bad and that the film was overstuffed and muddled.
1. Rust
  May 29, 2016
  He said overstuffed and muddled, but he never said bad.
  1. Awpwn
    May 29, 2016
    Sigh. They asked him about the mixed to negative response to BvS and he responded saying that the film deserved it. In other words, he did not like the film and agrees with majority of the critics that it was a bad film.
    1. Jonathan Rizo
      May 29, 2016
      no he didn't, that's what you think he meant.
      1. Awpwn
        May 30, 2016
        The interviewer asked him if the negative/mixed response to the film was justified, he said it was. Why is it so difficult to accept the fact that he wasn't satisfied with the film?
      2. Jonathan Rizo
        May 31, 2016
        that doesn't mean he agreed to their scores jus that it got criticism for a reason. Until he actually says bvs is terrible you can't state that as fact, get over it.
      3. Awpwn
        May 31, 2016
        "Get over it." I am over it. You guys are the ones in denial that keep prolonging this discussion.
      4. Jonathan Rizo
        May 31, 2016
        So we are in denial but you can't be exaggerating. Nice talking to you lord of us all.
      5. Axxell
        May 30, 2016
        He meant the movie was bad. That's the only way you can interpret someone calling his own film "overstuffed and muddled".
      6. Jonathan Rizo
        May 31, 2016
        so overstuffed= bad now got it.
    2. neodymium
      May 30, 2016
      The sky is also purple and Santa Claus is real, right?
      1. Awpwn
        May 30, 2016
        The interviewer asked him if the negative/mixed response to the film was justified, he said it was. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that he wasn't satisfied with the film?
      2. Jonathan Rizo
        June 2, 2016
        Yeah because he knows fanboys are the reason and not just marvels, dc too.
    3. Rust
      May 31, 2016
      Having criticisms is different from calling something outright bad. The world does come in shades of gray, too.
      This is a reach for confirmation bias.
BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
May 29, 2016
Direct and to the point...the man is just honest..bvs is what happens when snyder tries to be Nolan..
BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
May 29, 2016
A small roll...perhaps a visit from Bats or Steppenwolf if rumors are true in his cell..
Kerk Lastnameless
May 29, 2016
He can afford to say such things. He is a humble and honest man, and he said many times that he has much more than he needs. So ruining his relationship with WB would not be a big deal.
1. Zoom
  May 29, 2016
  They would not touch him anyway. Man is a veteran oscar winner.

Browse By Topic

Browse By Year

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com