It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
BvS Ultimate Edition is the only version I watch, in fact I have not watched the theatrical version since watching it at the cinema. I can't even remember the majority of differences. Very much the same as The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit Trilogies, I only watch the extended cuts.
Then, most importantly, people seems to really love it, especially because the film is very good establishing the characters and their relationships. People seems to care this time. Plus, the action is monumental and the score is dynamite.
It's an unexpected triumph.
The reviews I've seen say it's an improvement but still not a great film (not a bad one though): triumph might be a bit much! :)
That's they way Snyder filmed it, apparently.
Snyder fell in love with the framing of the sequences shot in IMAX 1:33 for BvS, so he decided to shoot JL entirely in Super 35 so that the whole film could be projected onto IMAX screens rather than just select sequences.
I can sort of see why. 1:33 framing actually compliments the presentation of the team better than a more horizontal frame. Joss Whedon had the same logic applied to the first Avengers film though he opted for 1:85, but it was a notable switch from all the other MCU films being typically done at 2:35. Had Snyder stayed with JL back in 2017 he likely would have done 1:85 as well for wide release but reserve full frame 1:33 for IMAX screens.
It's Snyder we are talking about, arguably the MOST divisive blockbuster director of the past two decades. Given his past relationship with the critics, such a result it's a great achievement, especially since this beast is 4 hours long, which is totally crazy. Anyway a lot of reviews are describing it as a great film (Variety, Telegraph, Guardian, Roger Ebert.com).
The Telegraph review is 2/5 "This four-hour director’s cut has all the joys of watching meat being pulverised"
The Guardian's is 4/5 "Snyder’s film may be exhausting but it is engaging"
They're not negative, but they're not all saying it's 'great', no. I think the Telegraph's review sticks out as a bit of an anomaly in that it's more down on the side of it being bad where most aren't. Don't get me wrong, it sounds alright though and it's something I'm looking forward to at the end of the week.
I don't know much about screen ratios but I like watching IMAX films on my TV screen as it fills the screen more, but 4:3 won't unfortunately. It does seem like a bit of an odd choice to release at home in this format as it won't fit on anyone's screens, will it? Unless you've got an old CRT telly from the 80s still! :)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/zack-snyders-justice-league-mad-magnificent-four-hour-apocalyptic/
The Telegraph review is 5/5 and calls the film "mad and magnificent".
Variety says that ZSJL "accomplishes in four hours what those [Avengers] films did in nine".
Good for him.
Ah sorry, got mixed up with the Independent:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/zack-snyder-s-justice-league-review-b1817294.html
I guess it covers all the bases!
I can’t get past the way Eisenberg plays Luthor with his weird little tics. Having just rewatched it two nights ago, it’s hard ignore how utterly dumb both Batman and Superman come off as the script lays out. The confrontation is even absurd because there’s one point where Supes is like “I NEED TO TALK TO YOU” but then pushes Batman several yards down. For every opportunity Superman has to deescalate the situation he just lets them pass by or just willfully escalates the situation. And these are supposed to be the most intelligent people on Earth.
Considering all that, it shouldn’t be hard for JL to have a better plot/story.
I agree with your assessment, @MakeshiftPython! The way I always take it is that Superman is still young and confused at this point, while Batman initially has no clue where he stands regarding this 'alien'. As for Luthor, he doesn't have it together, that's true. They went for a neurotic idealist rather than a calculated capitalist.
To me the film is easily better than anything in the MCU ( Which i enjoy but are a little formulaic,safe,and kiddy friendly ).
That’s another thing the DCAU got right. I love the fact that they based that Luthor on Savalas from OHMSS. Just imagine if OHMSS Blofeld was played as Eisenberg’s Luthor from BvS. It would be unforgivable for Bond fans.
The running time doesn't surprise me considering that Warner Bros. actually announced JUSTICE LEAGUE as two films back in 2014 -- Part 1 was set to be released in November 2017 and Part 2 in 2019. Snyder was shooting both films back-to-back before he left. Warner Bros. then stepped in and cut the project down to a standalone film.
As soon as the suits step in, WB loses. It's always been that way. I'm honestly surprised they gave Nolan carte blanche after BB didn't exactly make a lot of money.
According to Snyder that’s not the case. The JL film that we are now getting was what was supposed to be part 1, and it ends on a cliffhanger that would have lead up to Part 2 which he never filmed.
The reason it’s four hours is because he was able to get away with that for HBO Max. This is a version of JL that would have never been in theaters. It likely would have had a similar running length of BvS.
Yes, I watched that last week and it's so hard to think 'why have you stopped trying to talk to him? Your mum is in deadly danger and suddenly you're more interested in beating this guy up?'.
Also I'm not even sure I understood why Lex wanted him to kill Batman. Batman hasn't really got involved in Lex's affairs (as far as Lex is aware, anyway). I guess maybe it was to make Superman look bad or something, but even then it's not terribly clear (unless I missed something, which I may have).
Ah is that right? I didn't know that, thanks.
Oh, now I'm confused! :) How come he shot that much? Or did they do an hour's worth of extra material in these reshoots?
Nope this is not true. They scrapped the Part 1 and 2 idea only because WB wanted a more standalone JL1 after the BvS debacle. Even back in 2015 Snyder planned JL as a trilogy of films. The original idea back then was filming Part 2 (2019) and Part 3 (2020) back to back, but the JL that was filmed in 2016 has always been intended as one movie. You can find the scrapped 2015 storyboards of Part 2 and 3 online, Snyder put it on display recently for a JL exhibition in Dallas.
Were the storyboards for a big CGI fight in darkness by any chance? :D
Lex as counting on Batman killing Superman with the kryptonite. When that didn’t work, he used Doomsday as his backup (though the way the movie presents it, Doomsday would have been born anyway?)
Actually, no... ;)
Anyway Snyder himself doesn’t even consider those storyboards “spoilers”, since those arcs and plans were scrapped back in 2016...
Besides, Lex wants Supes to kill Batman to prove to the world that he’s not a God. He literally says it in their confrontation: “They need to see the fraud you are, with their eyes. The blood on your hands”.
“If God is all powerful he cannot be all good, and if he’s all good, then he cannot be all powerful. And neither can you be“.
Then @mtm Lex create Doomsday for many reasons: he wants to play God since he’s a psychopath, he needs a backup plan just in case and more importantly because he can’t accept the fact that with all his knowledge he doesn’t have the power Superman has. This is established early in the film, at the library speech: “Books are knowledge and knowledge is power, and I am… no. Hm, no. What am I? What was I saying? The bittersweet pain among men is having knowledge with no power because… because that is PARADOXICAL.”
Oh okay. How does he know Batman has Kryptonite? In fact, how does Batman get Kryptonite? I only watched it the other night and I don't remember :D
He also doesn't act like "my plan is foiled!" when Superman turns up after the fight to meet him in the spaceship- he just mentions how he hasn't got Batman's head and seems more gleeful that he gets to kill Martha. I guess there's a bit of poker face going on, but poker face isn't great storytelling in a movie.
Why does he create Doomsday? As you can see I didn't really follow most of it :)
Okay, that makes more sense. I do think he needed to be disappointed or annoyed or angry when Supes turns up after the fight though: we need to understand that his plan hasn't worked there (although why he wouldn't think Superman would just talk to Batman I'm not sure. Maybe the plot should have been Lex actually framing each of them in some way to engineer their confrontation more?).
Okay: I don't find a baddie who wants to destroy things just because he's mad to be very satisfying.
Batman stole the kryptonite from Lex’s lab.
As for Doomsday, I THINK it was meant to kill Superman if Batman failed, but I could be doing more work for the film. It certainly didn’t look like Lex could even control Doomsday, so that plan was dumb.