Sunday, April 3, 2016

Discuss: Batman V. Superman -Spoiled

Karen: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice has been out more than a week and I did go see it last weekend. The critics were not kind to it. Knowing this going in, I tried to both keep an open mind, and keep my expectations low. Honestly, based on the trailers, I was already feeling that this was not going to be the versions of Batman and Superman I was hoping for. But I was hoping to be entertained.

Karen: After seeing it, I felt that perhaps the critics had been too harsh. Certainly, visually, it has flair. On some level, I was entertained. But thematically, it was far from what I would have liked to have gotten from a film featuring Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman. It is -like Man of Steel and the Christopher Nolan Batman films -unrelentingly dark. It's obvious DC/Warners has decided they want to be as far from the Marvel movies as possible, and they've avoided humor at all costs. The movie is not only dark in tone but dark visually. The muddy appearance is disappointing. 

Karen: But what's really disappointing for me is the direction they've gone with our two main characters. I'm getting into SPOILER territory here, so you may want to stop reading. After the massive destruction of Metropolis in Man of Steel, we're told the public is divided over what to think of Superman -some worship him, while others fear him. But Superman himself is uncertain what his role should be and seems removed from humanity -after an incident in Washington, he visits Ma Kent and she tells him that he doesn't owe humanity anything. Really? He has a little existential hike where he sees the spirit/memory of Pa Kent, who relates a story to him about how he saved the family farm during a flood -and caused another family to lose their livestock. Really? So every good act is ultimately futile? This is the same 'let 'em die' Pa Kent from the first film and I have to say it was one of the things I couldn't stand about that movie either. Superman saves people. He is not above mankind, he lives among us and genuinely cares about people. He has hope. He IS hope. This movie makes Superman look like a miserable chump.I really would have liked to have seen a standalone Superman film where he deals with the consequences of the first movie, making restitution for the damage and essentially earning his place. But no dice, because Warners/DC was so hot to get to the other guy.

Karen: Batman may be worse. Yes, he is an older, disillusioned Batman. I get that. But would even that version of Batman go around killing people? Make no mistake, this Batman kills people. He has guns mounted in the Batmobile, and he uses them. He blasts away at Luthor's men during a car chase, and he uses the winch in the Batmobile to sling a car on top of others, surely crushing them. But even worse, in one fight sequence, he yanks a gun away from a bad guy and uses it to shoot other bad guys. Yes, Batman uses a gun. With bullets. To kill people. Oh, and he shoots a guy wearing a flamethrower, exploding his gas tank, setting him on fire. Oh, and he brands criminals. And this is the dude who thinks he has the moral high ground against Superman? Even Miller's Dark Knight Batman made a statement against using guns (see our recent review of The Dark Knight issue 4).  There's the implication at the end of the film that he's changed his ways. I hope we see this in the next movie.

Karen: The whole tone of the film places these super-beings outside the human experience - they aren’t living in our world, they live in their own, and our needs and concerns are not theirs. It’s cold and unpleasant. Wonder Woman is actually a bright spot - she's the only one acting heroically. 

Karen: The film is also over-stuffed, like a super-burrito, with elements from so many comics, that nothing has room to breathe, and much doesn't make sense. It's almost like they threw everything in because they thought they might not get another shot. I mean, they've got parts of the Dark Knight Returns, Death of Superman, the new 52 stuff, Red Son...there are little bits in the film that are meaningless, I'm sure, if you aren't a comics fan, and do nothing to help the film. Some times this is fun, but a little goes a long way. I like the Red Son story, for example, but the dream sequence or message here that Batman experiences doesn't seem to have a payoff  -especially combined with an awkward Flash appearance (from Flashpoint or something else I haven't read apparently). I suppose maybe they'll be used in a future film? The vignettes with the other Justice League members were the worst examples of this. 

Karen: The thing that's so maddening is the feeling that a good film could have been made. I liked the actors -with the exception of Jesse Eisenberg as Luthor, who seemed to think he should be acting like the Joker. Batman has never looked better. Much  of the film is visually stunning (even with the muddy tones). But the story is so muddled, and the characters -I can't call them heroes -are so far from what I expect...I just feel frustrated, because I know we're going to get more of this from DC. 


Humanbelly said...

Quick question, Karen-- did you view it in 3-D? The sort of sepia-infused palette is clearly there already in the trailers and publicity photos and such, which means those darned glasses are going to make everything even darker. (Which is my biggest complaint by far with the current 3-D trend. There's simply no question that the on-screen image is dimmer. . . harder to make out. HBSon & I have given up on that particular "upgrade" entirely, as it's impossible to fully surrender to a movie you can't actually. . . see. . . y'know?)

Nah-- I'm not gonna see this. I'd already figured that out. Didn't see Batman 3, and TRULY hated MAN OF STEEL (for some of the same tonal and thematic reasons that you've mentioned, in fact). Superman's side of the story sounds almost like an extended "What If-?"--- What if John & Martha Kent weren't nice, salt-of-the-earth folks after all? Sheesh, you get a morally unmoored, isolated, conflicted Superman. Which. . . hunh. . . may have been completely planned, now that I think of it. 'Cause in theory that would make him a deeper, more interesting character for a writer to mold-- but yuck. He's also WAY less inherently sympathetic that way.

Of course, I'm waxing critical about a movie I haven't seen at all--- so my voice isn't a legitimate one here at all-! Ha! I should be a theater critic!


Anonymous said...

Karen: I've never seen Man of Steel, but I read a critique of Batman v. Superman that said this is basically "Man of Steel Part 2" and that it clears up some questions from the earlier movie, but leaves a bunch of new questions unanswered (presumably for the next movie to clear up); would you say that Man of Steel "makes more sense" now that you've seen B v S?

Other than that, most critiques I've read seem to agree with you, that Wonder Woman is the bright spot in the movie. Maybe her standalone movie will be better than this Zach Snyder dark n' gritty stuff.

Mike Wilson

J.A. Morris said...

I agree with just about everything Karen wrote. I'll admit that it wasn't quite as bad as I expected, maybe slightly better than Man Of Steel. Overstuffed is right, just like X-Men:The Last Stand and Spider-Man 3 and Amazing Spider-Man 2.

It's just a mess. Did Batman need to have two dream sequences? And one even featured a dream-within-a dream. One dream sequence featured someone in a costume. My wife asked me if the costumed character in the dream was one of the Outsiders (I had no idea). I've since learned that was supposed to be the Flash, because Snyder mentioned it in an interview. But moviegoers shouldn't have to read interviews to understand what's happening in a film.

Here's a question:When the bomb explodes in the Senate hearing, why does Superman just stand there looking sad? Most incidents have some survivors, why didn't we see Superman jump into action and try to help? He just stands there looking angry. Maybe he was supposed to look sad? Is he more concerned about how the public will react to the bombing and blame him than he is about saving people? Are we supposed to see him as feeling guilty about surviving? In any event, Snyder didn't do a good job making me care about Superman.

Batman seems like a villain here, going after Superman because they're might be a 1% chance he could turn on humans? Talk about Batd!ckery! And why didn't Superman just blurt out "Luthor's got my mother" since he had no problem saying other stuff to Batman?

Wonder Woman was okay, and I thought her lasso looked pretty cool when she used it on Doomsday. But by the time she arrived, I had stopped giving a damn, having guessed that Snyder would be giving us the death of Superman. Because Snyder employed "idiot plot" devices just to give us the big brawl. I also thought Superman gives in to Luthor way to easily when he learns Martha Kent has been captured.

William said...


I was wondering when/if you were going to review this. I saw it last Saturday, and I liked it better than I thought I would. (But that might partly be because I was expecting to totally hate it.) But, some of it was fun. I especially thought that Wonder Woman was very well done. Loved her "can do" attitude in the final fight.

I personally thought the movie was too dark in tone, but when I think about it, it wasn't really any more dark or grim than Frank Miller's original "Dark Knight Returns" story. In fact this seemed like a fun little romp compared to most of that dystopian nightmare. And people seem to think DKR was some kind of masterpiece or something. DKR came out in 1986, and it was extremely dark, and extremely popular. And then the even more dark, hopeless and cynical "Watchman" maxi-series came along, and fans ate that up as well. So I don't know what everyone is complaining about. This is what everyone asked for by making those comics the "gold standard" of what a supposedly "good" comic is. So if this is what you ask for, then this is what you get! I don't like it any more than you, Karen, but then I didn't like (or buy) DKR or Watchmen. (I have read them in TPB form though, but I don't own those either).

That said, this is definitely my favorite on-screen version of Batman. Surprisingly loved Affleck's portrayal, and I loved his costume. I hated the killing and branding stuff, but I got the impression that was a recent development in his character. The reason I think that is because Alfred was chastising him for the whole branding thing and basically said "Well this is something new." (Or some such as that). I think maybe the writers and director were trying to say that Superman showing up kind of drove Bruce Wayne over the edge, and he just quit caring because he figured mankind was doomed or something. But by the end of the movie, he seemed to get a spark of hope back.

Also, this movie finally gave us the one thing that not even one of the previous 7 Batman films ever gave us, and that is an awesome fight scene where Batman opens up a major can of whup-a$$ on a bunch of goons!! Finally, the scene I've waited more than 20 years for. And yes, he may have grabbed a bad-guys gun, but I'm almost positive he only used it wound those other guys. And I believe he threw a batarang at the gas tank of that flame-thrower that caused it to explode, but he didn't really have a choice, because the guy was about to light up Martha Kent. However, he did strafe a lot of dudes with the Bat-plane's machine guns. -sigh-

Superman is another story. I can't really get into this version of the Man of Steel. There's just something off about the whole way he's done. He just doesn't seem like Superman. He's too brooding and mopey or something. And he's very distant from the people he's trying to help. In these movies, they definitely treat his character like more of a God than a Super "Man". Again, that said, I still liked him a lot better in this than I did in "Man of Steel" (which I pretty much hated).

William said...

It's me again. MAJOR SPOILER ALEART (again).

Another thing that I've heard a lot of people say is that the heroes in this movie aren't very heroic. But I have to disagree.

First of all, there was a montage that showed Superman performing about a dozen different acts of heroism, and saving lives all over the world.

And as for Batman. Near the end of the movie when he says to Superman "I promise you, Martha won't die tonight." That's was pretty awesome, because you knew he meant it.

And then when that guy is holding the flame-thrower on Martha Kent and Batman is standing there and the guy says "Back off man! I'll do it! You better believe me, I'll do it!" and Batman says "I believe you." and then batarangs the gas tank. I got chills! I couldn't believe they went there and paid homage to one of the most memorable scenes in DKR.

Then Batman (the regular mortal human) goes back and joins the fight against Doomsday (the indestructible killing machine). Pretty heroic stuff there if you ask me.

And then Superman actually gives his life to stop Doomsday's rampage. Can't get much more heroic than that.

And then there's Wonder Woman, who jumps into the Doomsday fight with no real knowledge of what's going on, and no regard to her own safety. Again, very heroic stuff.

So, I'm not sure what people are complaining about there either.

Doug said...

I'll begin by stating that I have not seen the film, and will not at all feel deprived if I never do. I paid to see Man of Steel, and the further I get away from it the more I want my money back.

When school resumed from break this past Monday, several of my students asked if I'd gone to see BatmanvSuperman. When I said "no, and I won't" there were some in disbelief. "But it was sooooooooo gooooooooood!!" "Man, Batman was all bada$$!!" I simply told them that the film did not contain "my" Batman and Superman. After a brief explanation, they accepted my position.

Jump to this photo, please.

What's wrong with that? Nothing is wrong with that, save there is apparently no room for it in this version of the DCU. You know, thinking back, the last good DC film was Tim Burton's first Batman flick. After that, the rest of that series devolved. I somewhat liked Batman Begins, and while I appreciate Heath Ledger's very scary Joker, The Dark Knight was a bit too intense at times, and the inclusion of Two-Face in the third act seemed like it should have been saved for the next picture.

Marvel has consistently given us what we expect in their MCU pictures (their properties controlled by other studios? Not so much). Their casting has been impeccable -- Robert Downey, Jr. is Tony Stark, Chris Evans is Captain America, and so on. Hey, I get it that director's are "artists"... but they should more view themselves as "caretakers", because I'm really not interested in some young buck thinking he's a better artist than Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, etc. It's all there, man... Just bring it to life! I don't need someone with a "different vision" reinventing the wheel.

William, as to the hero comments. Again, I've not seen the picture so I'm making a generalization here. From what I've heard and from what you've detailed, I guess I'd view BatmanvSuperman as I would a basketball game. There's a plus-minus chart there -- you score 20 but your guy gets 15, you're only a plus-5. Oh, but you turned the ball over four times? Now you're a plus-1. Wait, you got 6 rebounds? Now you're a plus-7. But then you had four fouls. Now you're a plus-3. So two or three heroic acts don't automatically get it for me. Machine guns on the Batmobile and branding criminals? That's starting in a very deep "minus" hole as far as I am concerned.


Martinex1 said...

I too have not yet seen this movie. So I can only comment on why I have no urge to see it.

I think Doug may have hit the nail on the head with his comment about artists. There may be a lack of respect for the source material by some making these films. Comics have long been considered a secondary art form, and have not been considered true literary art historically. While we here would disagree with that, many others would dismiss the source material..knowing better. Marvel seems to have embraced its catalog as best as it could while others like DC feel a need to rethink it, modernize it, make it more gritty. Maybe they don't realize that the comics resonated because they were developed under years of talent and thought and a clear vision and that perhaps folks like Lee and Kirby knew what they were doing. I believe that their sensibilities coming out of WWII and understanding what heroism and sacrifice meant really shaped their comic heroes; and that their hope for the future shaped their wondrous adventures and worlds; deconstructing that sense of honor and hope may be what I find distasteful in some of these modern films.

This particular movie has advertised itself as the antithesis of what I loved in comics. The world is bleak enough without adding its grimness to what should be escapism. It all has a rather nihilistic perspective and that comes through in its color pallet, its seriousness, it's surface philosophy of cynicism. Reading Karen's review, I cannot believe what Ma and Pa Kent are saying. What a selfish, self-serving, and uncaring approach. It is the same thing that bothered me in Man of Steel with the "maybe you should have let the school bus sink" comment. I believe most people are good, and that most people encourage their children to be kind and help people in need. Are Americans really starting to encourage the opposite; help yourself first and if it's not too much inconvenience help others? Did the Kents raise Gordon Gekko and Clark Kent? And do our heroes really feel that life isn't precious, we should just shoot away? So where is the Justice that is so prevalent in the title? Or is it really vengeance? I don't want to see a movie that paints heroes with that mentality. Me... I'd rather watch an episode of Superfriends.

I don't feel the same way about Marvel's upcoming Civil War. Maybe I'm just a Zuvembie, but I think it is simply that there are hints and glimpses of true honor and sacrifice and humor and sunlight. Just having Ant-Man in it gives it a sense of fun and hope...even if the heroes are fighting.

Rip Jagger said...

I loved this movie. I have more to say and I said in this review:

I know I'm in the minority on this one, and I appreciate what everyone says, but I found the movie exciting, and the disparity between the heroes in the comics and on the screen doesn't seem that strong to me. No less so than the Marvel version which gives us the team already altered for film by way of The Ultimates.

Rip Off

J.A. Morris said...

I'll add a positive comment:Best thing about this movie is that the opening credits say "Batman created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger." About time Finger got some credit.

Doug said...

Rip --

Point well taken about the Ultimates.

Wonder if we'll see Ultimate Valkyrie on film?


Anonymous said...

This is an awesome movie. The most humane and appealing depiction of comic book superheroes to date! Yea, Batman kills! Get over it! He should kill the scum!
No, Superman does not owe humanity a damn thing! Get over it! It's about time a director had the courage to put superheroes on the screen as realistic personas.
This movie is a refreshing departure from the borderline campy crap that Marvel has been putting out!

Anonymous said...

And, Doug, by the way, NO - Evans is NOT Cap! Downey is NOT Stark! The movie personas are a departure from the comics. The comics have followed the movies. Your perspective is confused, at best!

Doug said...

Well I do believe one of my 17-year old students has found me on the BAB!


Martinex1 said...

Fair enough Rip. I will let you know what I think if I do see it. I like your site by the way.

Anonymous said...

Doug, Maybe your 17 your students have a better grasp on reality than you do.

Karen said...

I suppose one of the questions is how far can you deviate from an accepted characterization and still retain the essential core traits of the character? For me, both Superman and Batman in this film have gone over the edge. If this were some sort of 'Elseworlds' film, I suppose that would be one thing. But this is being presented to the public as the company's idea of who their characters are -and it just doesn't jibe with years and years of established characterization. True, much changed with the new 52, but you'd think they'd want to make something that appealed to a mass audience, in particular to families. I know people who are not taking their kids to this movie, because they've heard about Batman killing and the general dark tone. And I think they're right, but that's a shame.

Generally speaking, as much as I love super-heroes, when people start going on about bringing 'reality' to them, I just shake my head. We are talking about people running around in costumes with names like 'Superman' who can fly and shoot beams out of their eyes. It's fantasy. It's intended to be taken and enjoyed on a different level. I enjoy a dose of reality -the idea of these people living in our world -but they are called super-HEROES. I want to see them behave heroically. I want to see them overcome the moral failings most of us have and rise above it to show that sacrifice, that doing the right thing, is important. I don't want to see a Superman who indiscriminately destroys a city to get at his enemy, killing thousands in the process. I don't want to see a Batman who is so angry and bitter he starts torturing and killing criminals. Otherwise, what's the point? Whoever is the most powerful gets their way? It reminds me of when the slasher flicks started glorifying the killers, turning them into the stars of the films. I never got that, at all.

Batman and Superman aren't heroes in this film. But then, what else could you expect from a director who doesn't see why we should have a problem with the destruction at least partially caused by Superman in Man of Steel because the Deathstar in Star Wars killed a whole planet's worth of people? When you live in a world that's morally grey, heroes don't exist, there's just people with different viewpoints.

Redartz said...

I haven't seen this film yet, and hadn't planned to do so. My sentiments lean towards Doug's, and I have a taste for lighter (even, at times, positively humorous) material. I applaud the variety of approaches found in comics today, with the accompanying variety of subject matter. Thus I've no problem with a film taking a 'different approach', with the caveat that it should remain true to character. Many good points have been made above; Doug, Karen, Rip, Martinex1 all have convinced me to see the film. At least give it a fair shot, 'tis the least I can do. Although I will wait for the DVD (money for cinema is limited in our humble budget, and my coin is held in reserve for Civil War)...

Anonymous said...

Well, Karen, I suppose a morally superior tone is just what our society needs? What's wrong with realistic personas? Snyder's Batman and Superman are relatable. They find themselves pondering questions and in the end make a choice. Superman dies! He sacrifices! Batman has an epiphany! How are they not heroic? When you ask how "far can you deviate from an accepted characterization and still retain the essential core traits of the character," I can only respond: Have you been reading Batman and/or Superman as currently depicted in DC Comics? No, of course not. So keep "shaking your head" and continue to moralize, pontificate, etc. Truth to tell: There's nothing wrong with what Superman did in Man of Steel. He had no choice. He had to stop Zod. Would you prefer he had a conversation with him? Should Batman allow criminals to run amok? Should he risk civilians in order to protect the sanctity of a thug's life? For the most part, those that dislike this movie, dislike the portrayals - probably fall into the camp of Bernie Sanders supporters - the give me free college and pizza crowd.

Anonymous said...

And, Karen, Superman did NOT indiscriminately destroy a city to get at his enemy, killing thousands in the process. Not sure what you were viewing, but it surely was not Man of Steel.

J.A. Morris said...

Yeah, I can remember when I had my first beer.

Anonymous said...


I'm sure you can.

pfgavigan said...


And after an afternoon of trying to think of something witty to say I concede that the rest of you are much better at that than I am, so I'll keep this simple.

I was entertained. I had problems with the film, the Batman and Superman of my youth wouldn't have done what they did, but that I'm OK with that. These are the characters for a new era, changeable as they always have been or they would have vanished with the rest of the Golden Agers.

Now get off my lawn.



Hey Humanbelly, I got a lead on authentic bomber jackets. How high can you go??

tetrahedron said...


Rarely do I commment due to being in another timezone (so I always miss the action as it is unfolding), but I do read every day....

I liked the movie. I did not like Man of Steel.
I did not like the Nolan films.

But I did like BvS.
Maybe because I went in with reduced expectations.

But I found it to be less overstuffed and maddeningly and confusingly twisting disparate storylines together than, say, Age of Ultron for example. I'll never understand why the BAB crowd in general were not extremely frustrated with how they mangled those beloved characters and storylines for that trainwreck of a poorly scripted movie. That felt like a grave injustice. They ruined the entire Ultron concept and distorted the storylines until they were unrecognizable and flatly inferior to the source material.

With BvS, I had no childhood love for the base storylines which they could destroy.
So I just watched it for whatever it was going to be.
And I liked it.

Re: Batman using weapons...well, most of the using a gun and shooting people action was done in a dream sequence (or was it a future vision?)...
Furthermore, Affleck does plainly state in one scene that he and Alfred are criminals.
So if the Batman character as presented in this movie is different or going through a learning process for his own development, so be it. I had no issues with seeing a different take. I was entertained.


R. B. said...

I have not seen the film but I can tell you this. The comments I've heard are both positive and negative on both sides. More and more I am choosing to forgo the theatrical release and wait for the DVD. The last few super hero movies I've been too have too many kids making noise in the theater when they shouldn't be there because it's film that isn't for kids. The theater is in a very nice area of town and I've found audience members talking at the screen, throwing popcorn and kicking the back of my seat. I save more on gas money and snacks when I just get the movie on Amazon or Walmart and watch it as many times as I want without interruption. So I'll be waiting this Tuesday to watch Star Wars: A Force Awakens for the first time on DVD because I didn't want to wast my money by watching it in a theater where there are a couple of hundred screaming kids and fans with no respect or manners. I get tired of going to a very nice theater and not being able to enjoy a simple movie without distractions.

Edo Bosnar said...

Man, the word campy is being thrown around here like that's a bad thing; as Karen said, we're talking about people with superpowers running around in spandex suits. At least a bit of camp is in the genre's DNA.

And Doug, c'mon, that's a low blow insulting your 17 year-old students like that...

david_b said...

Yeeeeah, sorry. No interest in seeing it at all. Just seemed to be (concept-wise) to be simply a big-budgeted fanboy-flick.

After reading some of the comments here.., I tend to side with Doug as to it's failure to really, effectively steer the DC movie franchise into anything I'd actually want to spend money on, now or in the future.

I liked the first Burton film as a splendid masterpiece of story-telling and visually an effective mood-setting genre. Like Miller's first Batman tale.., they took that one-off film and emulate it for the rest of the franchise, to include other characters.., and the devolving process started. Much like that regrettable Green Hornet attempt a few years back.., once-interesting concepts are used, perhaps mocked, then thrown aside as mistakes.

Some of the Marvel flicks haven't been all that good either (FF and Spidey to name the worst.....), but at least Whedon created a good template for story-telling in the Marvel Universe, which DC is somehow still too busy ignoring.


I ponder..: Supposedly I (or my tastes) are too old or 'old-school' for today's DC..?

I recall an era forty- to fifty-some years ago when my feelings towards was just the opposite way 'round.

All my love to Long Ago...

Humanbelly said...

Oh man, RB, yer singin' my song as far as the modern-day movie-watching experience goes (although I believe that sort of thing may be kind of cyclical-- I believe the 1930's was also a period known for its "lively" audience behavior, IIRC).

"Tetrahedron" is a very cool blog/pen name--! Yeesh, why couldn't that have popped into my head at the spur of the moment, rather than "Humanbelly"--? One sounds cool & flashy & heroic. . . the other sounds like the socially outcast next door neighbor in a failed sitcom. . .

Wow, PFG-- really? Like, with the Avengers logo and all? Hmmmm-- I'm definitely an XL. Two kids in college (or at the cusp), so a collector's price would likely put me on the outside of the fence, but. . . hey Doug, when you've a minute, if you felt like being the contact info arbiter--? (You guys are true pals--)

Ahhh yes, and to ALL the kind folks here, can I just add a knowing smile, a nod, and an appreciative salute to your collective maturity and reserve.


Doug said...

HB --

Done! You and PFG should receive a troll-free email very soon.


Pat Henry said...

I have the same problems with this film I had with the last Star Trek film—which I have no desire to ever see again. It is all a rehash, reassemblage of past stories with no commitment to telling either an original story or retelling of a fondly remembered story.

Watched the original Superman movie the other night, and the special effects are so dated it is almost unwatchable. But they got the character exactly right. They got Ma and Pa Kent exactly right. They got the tone—the wonder and duty of Superman—exactly right. I found myself wishing for a remake of *that* movie, with better effects and perhaps higher stakes. Apart from its stalkerish deadbeat dad aspects, Superman Returns got at least some of the beats right.

spencer said...

Excellent job.

Related Posts with Thumbnails