Warcraft Lacks Craft

I've played World of Warcraft for awhile.  I wanted to love Blizzard's newest franchise, Warcraft.  I wanted to like Warcraft. I don't.  It is a spectacular CGI movie, and the actors all did fine considering what they had to work with.  The battle scenes are huge although more than a couple of times I noticed CGI characters in the background that seemed to be set to attack, but they seemed to be caught in a kind of Gif-like loop.  You know like that one guy in the group fight scene in a kung fu movie waiting for his turn in the choreography?

The problem I had is that the movie wanted to be a broad and epic scope of Lord of the Rings, but it lacked important elements like story and character.  It was not from a lack of trying.  It had moments where there was an attempt at backstory, exposition, and other ideas, but after an attempt to reveal, it turns to just telling the viewer.  Then there is the sudden appearance of things like "a demon" or that the bad guy requires the help of the demon, but even after the demon is dead, the bad guy still glows green for some unknown reason.

Take for example the relationship between the main character Lothar and his son.  Lothar's relationship appears protective and somewhat strained.  Lothar finally just announces the history of his relationship with his son.  There is no story there, no reveal, no real feeling between the two.  The closest anyone comes to showing a relationship is between the Orc, Durotan and his wife but the moment is fleeting. Then it is announced that Durotan is a chieftain. As I said, the movie does try.

The ending, which I will leave spoiler free, is inexplicable.  Obviously set up for a sequel, it still makes no sense.

The problem is that the movie is the game. I've played World of Warcraft off and on for three or so years, and the game's storyline works because we are participants in the world.  The problem with the movie, Warcraft, is the story is now viewed from the outside.  The audience is not a participant as they are if they play, but the movie makes no allowance for this.  It's the game and unfortunately, the game is not enough of a story, and we have no feel for who these characters are or why they are important.

Sorry, but as much as I wanted to like this movie, I just didn't.  I won't be buying the dvd.

X-Men Apocalypse: Liking the Movie-Well, It's Complicated

For those of you have not seen X-Men Apocalypse and if you're a fan, I have one word: Phoenix.  If you're a fan, when you see it, you will get it, if not take a fan and have them explain it to you.  If you are reading critics who are negative on this film, chances are pretty good they are not comic book nerds or have not followed even the animated series.  For this movie, it's going to be complicated.  My wife complains that too often when she goes to these movies, she feels like she's missing something since she didn't follow comics when she was a kid or an adult. She was also not the one who got up and watched shows like Thundercats and X-Men on Saturday with our son.  I was the resident nerd and truth be told, I have always loved these things. 

So, going to see X-Men Apocalypse for those who haven't followed the series or is a neophyte to the X-Men movies, it's going to have a few gaps for you along with back stories.  The other problem is that it is pretty clear that Apocalypse is setting up the franchise for years to come.  It seeks to correct the feeble attempt of setting up what is called the Dark Phoenix saga in X-Men III: Last Stand at which X-Men Apocalypse takes a pretty good potshot. The timeline of the film is in the space between the last battle in Days of Future Past and Wolverine waking up at the school at the very end of the movie. (I would like to point out that Stryker being actually Mystique in Days of Future Past at the end of the movie makes no sense and that it still doesn't.)

The other problem a newbie is going to face is that the original Apocalypse story is huge.  I think the original storyline ran for something like 50 plus comics. The movie makes all kinds of references to that series, and I have to admit, I had to look some of them up. What this means, to some there may be some holes, but to others, there will be some awesome Easter eggs to discover.  I liked the movie, but I am a nerd and have followed X-Men for a long, long time.

If you haven't seen the movie, you may want to leave at this point and come back after you've seen it. There be spoilers here!

SPOILER ALERT!!  SPOILER ALERT!!  SPOILER ALERT!!

Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac), who was once worshiped as a god, is the oldest of mutants.  He has gained the ability of transmuting or transferring his consciousness to other mutants. With each change, he gains that mutant's power making him basically indestructible and immortal.  Now, he has found Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) who he wants for his ability to enter and control all minds, human and mutants alike. He gathers his four protectors, as he always has.  They are Psylocke (Olivia Munn), Angel (Ben Hardy) Storm (Alexandra Shipp) - yes that Storm- and Magneto (Michael Fassbender).  Apocalypse enhances the mutant ability of each.  Magneto has a whole new pain and hate to channel because it is in this movie that we learn of the killing of his wife and child. 

With the taking of Professor X, the audience sees the rise of the young X-Men.  The ones that director Bryan Singer has been promising since First Class.  There is an adventure where Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), Beast (Nicholas Hoult), Quicksilver (Evan Peters) and the CIA human Moira Mactaggert (Rose Byrne), who was the love interest of Professor X in First Class, must all be saved by young X-Men from the evil Colonel Stryker.  Of course, in the saving, we get a sampling of Weapon X which was the time that Wolverine was turned into a killing machine. We are given the first X-Men who are Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), Cyclops (Tye Sheridan), and Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee).  By the end of the movie the full team is assembled with the X-Men now joined by Quicksilver and Storm who has realized the error of following Apocalypse. The X-Men are trained by Beast and Mystique but under the watchful protection of Professor X.  No, it's not all the X-Men.  We still are missing Rogue, Gambit, Iceman and Jubilee, although Jubilee does make a small appearance in the movie. There is also the return of Havoc who is Cyclops' brother. 

I do want to take issue with Mystique being an X-Men leader.  Mystique has, in the comics, always been sort of nebulas as a character. No one seems to know her age or allegiances.  There was even once a story line that she was the mother of Nightcrawler.  We all love Jennifer Lawrence but creating all this storyline just so she can appear more in the movies in her latex lack of clothing is kind of getting in the way.  I have never been sure why Mystique doesn't wear her trademark white dress from the comics.  There is actually only one costume that needs to make its appearance, and that is Wolverine's yellow spandex costume. Mystique is a fun and interesting character. She should not, however, become the lead character.  

I also loved the best sequence in the movie which steals the show.  Quicksilver's saving of the students at Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters.  It is truly a wonderful scene.  There is also the wonder of the costumes that Quicksilver wears especially his tee shirts.  When we see the speedster again, he wears a Six Million Dollar Man shirt.  In the saving seen he wears a rock tee, emblazoned with RUSH on the front.  What a great selection.

A word about Apocalypse:  In the comics, Apocalypse is an imposing and fear-inspiring person.  While Oscar Isaac is a strongly centered actor, the character just doesn't have quite that awesome visceral reaction.  Yes, the movie does talk about Apocalypse's incredible power, but other than his traveling ability, he doesn't come off quite as fearsome in the movie. Overall, though Apocalypse is a great introduction to the story arc which may be happening, given the events at the end of the movie. It's just that he isn't well developed. 

X-Men Apocalypse is well done, but may be a bit confusing for the uninitiated. Is it the best X-Men ever? No but it is a long way from the worst. I enjoyed the movie, and it is a good follow-up for Days of Future Past.  There are plenty of homages to the comics of the 80s and pop culture in general. The 3-D is probably not worth the extra cost. I look forward to the next one.  I will buy the Blu-ray. 

The Battle for Bucky

 

Captain America: Civil War is the third installment in the Captain America movies, and it also as much of an Avenger's movie as it is a Captain America.  Of all the comic book movies out floating around, the Captain America series remains a favorite.  It has action and humor and continues the ideas established in the first two movies about the dangers of unchecked power and that not all right and wrong is black and white.

 

 DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!...DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!

THERE BE SPOILERS HERE.

The Civil War or tearing apart of the Avengers centers on Captain America's lost friend Bucky Barnes who was turned into the Winter Soldier by the evil organization Hydra in the second Captain America movie.  Bucky is accused of a bombing of a United Nations meeting, and Captain America knows that if he doesn't bring in the Winter Soldier, Bucky is going to be killed.  So Captain America, Steve Rogers, must choose between his loyalty to The Avengers and to his friend who saved his life and says he is innocent. Add to this mix is a United Nations accord that wants to control the Avengers because of the damage by their battles in the previous movies.  Unlike their much darker brethren in the DC movie universe, the heroes of the Marvel universe feel the death and destruction that results in their battles.  Never mind that those battles saved the planet, the casualties of war still create holes and problems and hurt for those that are left behind.  Tony "Ironman" Stark worries that the Avengers should not be unchecked while the old warrior, Steve "Captain America" Rogers worries that the Avengers will become as much a political tool as an instrument of salvation for people.

Enter the Bucky Barnes storyline.  One of those people, Helmut Zemo has lost everything as a result of the Avengers' battle with Ultron. He has determined to destroy the Avengers by creating strife in the group.  If there is a fault with the movie, it is the logic of the writing.  Even as egotistical as Tony Stark is he would see that Zemo is doing before the final battle at the end of the movie.  Captain America is trying only to defend Bucky from the vengeance-driven Ironman. Still the friendship and the loyalty that should have been formed in the battles done by the Avengers seem easily breached and paper-thin.  We are reminded that it is Captain America and the Winter Soldier and the Iron Patriot that are the old warriors. 

The movie introduces a few new characters. The first is the security head Everett Ross whose job it is to take care of first Bucky Barnes and then later Helmut Zemo.  He is actually originally a character from the Black Panther comics who is an ally of the Black Panther and an expert of the fictional kingdom of Wakanda.  He is played by Martin Freeman who has mastered the art of the quiet hero in his stints as Watson in Sherlock and Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit.  With Ross, of course, there is also the hero, Black Panther or King T'Challa of Wakanda.  What ties Black Panther into the story is that Wakanda is the place that the mysterious mineral added to Vibranium which makes up the Black Panther's costume armor as well as creating Captain America's trademark shield.  Black Panther too is driven by vengeance for the death of his father in the UN bombing.  It is the Black Panther who delivers the statement or another theme in the movie about the cost of revenge. Black Panther is played by Chadwick Boseman who does quite well with the role.  

We are also introduced to the Marvel Universe's new Spiderman, played by Tom Holland.  He is one of the truly enjoyable aspects of the movies.  Marvel has determined to return to the teen Peter Parker who chatters on incessantly and is filled with youthful exuberance.  Holland is, at least from the glimpse we get, perfect as Spiderman. I am not so sure that the "hot" Aunt May played by Marisa Tomei is a choice I agree with, but it makes for an interesting take. 

The villain, Helmut Zemo, is played by an actor, who every time I see him, my appreciation grows.  Daniel Brühl manages to play comic book villain Baron Zemo as both evil and sympathetic at the same time.  We understand his pain but also despise his quest for vengeance at all cost.  There is also the introduction of a possible new villain, Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross who is that power-hungry political functionary that we have come to expect in the Marvel world. Ross is played perfectly by William Hurt. 

The fun of the movie is clear.  We have heroes who we can cheer for who still find some joy in life.  The honest and good Hawkeye or the "just trying to find my place in the world" Scarlet Witch or the all too gentle and human machine called the Vision all make us understand the price that our heroes must pay. The battle between the Avengers is fun and at the same time unsettling because we know that they are friends on different sides who are simply trying to do what is right. Still moments like Captain America driving around in a Volkswagen bug with the Falcon and The Winter Soldier is a visual that I will not soon forget, especially as the Winter Soldier complains to the Falcon who won't move his seat up. This is a problem that anyone who has ridden in a VW Bug will understand. 

The movie is a good one and quite enjoyable and fun.  At almost two and a half hours, it was easy to sit through.  I don't think that the 3-D did much to add to the movie and a few of the battles used that blurry motion effect so "popular" in the Transformer movies.  I didn't like it then, and I am still not a fan in Captain America: Civil War.  The Marvel movies continue to remind us that superheroes must also be folks that offer more than just protection but hope too.  I will buy the Blu-ray. 

Panthers, Tigers and Bears and Mowgli too...

Disney's new "live" action The Jungle Book, produced and directed by Jon Favreau, is clearly a work of love. It is a live action only in the sense that Mowgli played by newcomer Neel Sethi is the only non-CGI character in the movie. It is an amazing film that while maintaining all the charm of the 1967 movie intensifies the plot and characters with incredible details.

All, well most of the songs, you may have loved in the original are there.  You haven't heard anything until you've heard Christopher Walken sing "I Wanna Be Like You" as King Loui.  There are some small or large changes depending on what kind of purist you are.  Kaa, the snake, is truly creepy and the animals are incredibly real, if not a bit over-sized.  Just don't go in expecting to see elephants marching in a line under the gaze of a British colonel with a riding crop. They are instead majestic and noble creatures who have become a part of the creation myth of the jungle animals. 

As I said, the animals are CGI and if there is one flaw, they are huge.  They dwarf Mowgli on the screen.  I don't know the actual size of jungle animals well enough but Loui, for example, could hold Mowgli in the palm of his hand.  Even the baby elephant towers above the man-cub.  Kaa's length is larger than any snake you've ever seen in a Hollywood horror movie.  Symbolic? Perhaps.  For the animals are strong and glorious but even Shere Khan knows of the dangers of what could happen when the man-cub becomes a man.

Our one encounter with "man" is when Mowgli seeks

fire.  It is clear that man is not in tune with nature.  They build a fire in their village that is far larger than it needs to be.  Perhaps it is a view of man from the animals or perhaps an indication of how little men understand the natural world surrounding them. The scene is disturbing as the only "men" we see are mostly in silhouette.  The only other man we see is Mowgli's dad who once made his way into the jungle where all creatures learn to defend their "people" which is how he dies, defending Mowgli against Shere Khan.


The voice acting is, for the most part, well done.  I have to admit, of all the characters the one I still remain least enamoured of is that of Bill Murray as Baloo the bear.  Don't get me wrong, I love Bill Murray and the actor he has become.  I understand why he was cast as the charming con-bear.  There was just something that occasionally didn't quite fit.  The only other issue I noticed was Idris Elba's gritty British street accent did creep through a bit at the end as Mowgli faced Elba's Shere Khan.

Overall, The Jungle Book is intense and moving and wonderfully done.  The oddest thing in the movie was the strange "thank you for coming to see the movie" from Jon Favreau before the movie. The young actor Neel Sethi held his own as Mowgli in what would have been a tough role even for a seasoned veteran FX movie actor.  I liked the movie. It is perhaps a bit intense for younger viewers, but it is well worth your time.  Even the end credits were entertaining.  

Dark Musings for Nerds

A friend posted an article on losing Superman as an icon because of the more recent Batman v Superman and Man of Steel.  The author of the article bemoaned the loss of clean cut superhero played by Christopher Reeves in the late 70's mentioning that he saw the movie when he was four. He even mentioned that Superman Returns with Brandon Routh had more of that clean-cut, wonderful feeling of the 70's movie than the much darker Batman v Superman.  He's right the recent incarnation of Superman is darker, but it is not the death of an American icon.  That ship sailed with the comic book Death of Superman series.  There is also now the multi-verse which has every kind of Superman.  The waking nightmare that Batman has in Batman v Superman is a set up that has nothing to do with the movie and was inspired by one of those universes.  Batman fears Superman so that enters his dream, but he also gives us a glimpse of the arrival of Darkseid the ultimate villain. Batman comes awake to see the time traveling Flash.  It is a confusing sequence, but one of the issues the movie has and why it probably seems so disjointed is simply the impossible was asked.  In one movie, Christopher Nolan, who has been given the reins of the DC Universe, was supposed to set up the entire slate of movies Warner Brothers intends to make over the next several years.  Mistakes were made.

I don't actually intend to defend Batman v Superman. It clearly has its problems.  What the discussion by the article and the comments on my friend's post did was start me to thinking.  Is Zack Snyder, as one commentator put it, lazy and a bad storyteller and is Batman v Superman and Man of Steel just a culmination of DC and Warner Brother's dark vision.  I don't actually believe that Nolan or Snyder hate Superman as the article states.  I think there is more here.  Maybe, we just don't want to see our heroes through rose-colored lenses with a dash of Pollyanna anymore.  The fact is that action movies, including comic book movies, are getting darker as are the comics themselves.

I for one was thrilled when Tim Burton returned the dark to the Dark Knight. Batman the movie was the first video I ever bought.  It's not that I don't wax nostalgic when I see or hear about the Adam West Batman, but the fact is the Batman TV series of the flower power days was silly, over-the-top goofiness but not really even close to the original comic book Batman who uses a gun, by the way.  You see Batman in the comics and Batman in films and TV is actually pretty complicated and so is Superman, who used not fly but jump in his original appearance and was a little less discerning about who he killed until the 1950's.  (BTW Reeves killed Zod in Superman II.)The idea of them not killing or using guns was not really a "let's give our superheroes as a squeaky clean image or a call to nobility." Actually, it was more of  "how do we bring back popular villains if we let our heroes kill them off?" moment. It's not that Batman, Superman, Daredevil, or others haven't killed or will kill; it's that it is more convenient if they don't.

Horror movies and action movies have been darker and getting darker really since the late 60's or early 70's.  The Exorcist, Jaws, Star Wars, Freddie, Jason, even Zombies were far darker than killer ants or gigantic women affected by atomic radiation. I remind you that The Werewolf with Lon Chaney Jr. is a different movie from the dark comic overtones of American Werewolf in London.   Bella Lugosi's Dracula was not nearly as dark as was Bram Stoker's Dracula with Gary Oldman. Movies are darker, even edgier in many a case.

We also have another issue that faces movies, the anticipation factor.  We know more about an upcoming movie and rumors about upcoming movies than we ever did before.  There was outrage when Ben Affleck was cast as Batman.  Imagine what it would've been like on Facebook if Star Wars: A New Hope had been made today.  We do have The Force Awakens, though. We got every rumor, every detail of these two movies, every injury, every casting idea and theory from "Jar Jar is a Sith Lord" to "Sad Batman memes."

The anticipation of movies, especially in the nerd realm, is, I think, devastating at times.  Marvel, DC, Star Wars, Star Trek, have all had to survive the pre-judgement, theories and second-guesses of every nerd site, nerd with a basic knowledge and nerd without taste on the internet.  All I know is that Michael Keaton was the only thing we discussed when he was cast as Batman, and we may have spent all of 15 minutes worrying about it and reading the one or two articles in fan magazines.  Over-anticipation of any film is not a good thing.  I was disappointed by E.T. the Extraterrestrial not because it was a bad film, but all I had heard about and read about it was how wonderful it was. It had been out a while by the time I got to see it, and all I could see was a boy and his dog story with Eliot and the alien.  Imagine how difficult the secret would be to keep these days if everyone knew Bruce Willis was dead in the Sixth Sense or Rosebud was a sled in Citizen Kane. I honestly wonder how some movies survive Twitter and Facebook.  Batman v Superman has had a heap of hate put on it and not because of the problems it has but for problems the critics had.  It was getting bad reviews before it had actually opened and there is little doubt that some of those "reviews" were by people who hadn't seen the movie.

Think I am wrong? Imagine movies like Dead Pool being made even 10 or 15 years ago. There was the adaptation of Blade in 1998, but R-rated movies just weren't discussed much in comic book world.  Now with Dead Pool, there will be R-rated Wolverine III and an R-rated director's cut of Batman V. Superman. Even Star Wars: The Force Awakens is PG-13 and if Star Wars: A New Hope had the PG-13 available, it would still be barely a PG movie today.

Unlike the person who wrote the article that started all this, I didn't see Superman in 1978 when I was four. I saw it when I was 21, so my point-of-view about the clean cut Christopher Reeves movie is not as a child but as someone who grew up reading the grittier comics of the 60's like Savage Sword of Conan and Luke Cage, Hero for Higher and Silver Surfer.  I found the chemistry between Reeves and Kidder as frequently awkward.  Don't believe me? Watch this scene. I trust you'll see what I mean immediately.  I didn't read Superman or Batman because how hokey and silly they'd become in the "feel good, I'm okay, you're okay" 60's and 70's.  I wanted harder and troubled hero's.  I was thrilled as those harder edged comic book writers came of age in the 80's and  90's.  Really, if the rumor is to be believed, the whole Death of Superman was actually an attempt to reboot the Man of Steel to someone who wasn't quite so completely indestructible.

My point is that to expect movies to do the television, comic book or movie we saw when we were younger is both unrealistic and unfair to the modern filmmakers.  I believe movies or movie series stand on their own merit and that is why I may seem more forgiving.  I am not a Marvel v DC guy. I look at movies or movie series as they are.  To compare Ben Affleck with George Clooney as the Knight, would be wrong as wrong as not giving Affleck a chance because he played in oh say Dare Devil or blaming Ryan Reynolds for Green Lantern and missing that he is the quintessential Dead Pool even if he was stuck doing Dead Pool in Wolverine Origins. Moviemakers make decisions. Actors make decisions. Studios make decisions. Scriptwriters make decisions. Producers make decisions. Directors make decisions. Not all of them are good. Not all of them are bad.  Movies grow and change according to what sells and vision.

Batman v Superman: A Dark Tale of Power

If you read that Batman v Superman lacks the uplifting heroes and storylines of a movie like The Avengers, then two things are true: 1. What was written in that statement is true and 2. Comparing DC to Marvel is plain wrong.  DC comics and media has worked hard to build a darker world than that of Marvel comics and media.  Even television shows like The Flash are darker.  There is actually only one fluff DC show out right now and that is Supergirl. So if you go and see Batman v Superman expecting the wit of an Ironman or nobility of Captain America, you are in for disappointment.  DC left that Batman and Superman in the sixties and early seventies.  They returned to the darker edge even in the 80's with Batman and have sought a darker edge, particularly in that series since that time.

THERE BE SPOILERS HERE.

I wanted to love Batman v. Superman, but that just didn't happen.  I liked the movie.  I liked it a lot, but it was at times a bit muddled and perhaps overly long coming in at just over two and a half hours.

There are two things that I think may cause this problem.  One is the inclusion of "nightmares" and the other is trying to join two of the greatest storylines. One is from Batman's mythology and the other from Superman's while trying to ensure that the movie is the introduction to the beginnings of the Justice League.  The Batman story comes from Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns which gives us the older and much grimmer Bruce Wayne/Batman. The other story is from Superman's Doomsday series which, if you know what happened to the Man of Steel in the comic book story from the mid-90's you will also understand the reset that came for Superman from the kinder gentler one of the 70's too.  If you don't know what happened in Doomsday, I will just say that its final issue in the series became the best-selling Superman comic of all time. 

Batman v Superman is first and foremost a Christopher Nolan film.  Nolan who directed the Christian Bale's stint as the Dark Knight and is executive producer of Batman v Superman is well-known for his dark tales and often complex storylines.  Zach Snyder who directed this movie and The Man of Steel is also no stranger to edgier works which also includes 300 and The Watchmen.  Expecting some happy spiritual movie is just not in the cards. 

 Its theme is a reminder of ideas about power and vengeance.  We meet an older Batman, who has defeated most criminal geniuses who have come his way.  He is driven still by vengeance and knows that he too as a self-described vigilante is a criminal.  His brand of justice is not some grand vision of heroism, but a necessary evil.  Ben Affleck finds redemption from his round as Dare Devil in taking on the Batman mantle.  He is strong and unassuming as the older Wayne.  Henry Cavill returns to his Man of Steel role and is a capable Superman.  He is filling the role as Christopher Reeves once did.  As I said earlier, that kinder Superman is gone.  In its place is a hero who can destroy the world should he decide to do so.  It is the conflict between these two ideas that sets up the conflict between these two iconic heroes.  Superman sees only sees the vigilante justice of Batman. Batman fears the corruption of absolute power.  Both feel he must stop the other.  Both badly misjudge.  

Enter into this mix a psychopath named Alexander Luthor. "Lex" Luthor is not the Lex who was Superman's nemesis in comic books, but the son of that Lex Luthor.  We are not sure if this lunatic version hates Superman because he caused the downfall of his father or he just hates anything he cannot control.  Luthor, played by Jesse Eisenberg, is one of the weaker problems in the movie.  Like the Joker, he is someone who just likes to watch the world burn. Luthor is more lunatic and less super-villain. Eisenberg's typical repetitive and overly speedy delivery of lines also doesn't really make him a unique villain.  It is hard to believe that any corporate board would leave such an obvious madman in charge of a huge company like Lexcorp.  

Besides the nightmare sequences of Batman which illustrates his fear of Superman's rising power, we also have a secondary storyline of Senator Finch played by Holly Hunter.  The plotline loosely accomplishes two things. First, it causes Superman to question his dream of a hero of hope which he already seems to be questioning, and second, it gives Luther something evil to do until he creates Doomsday from General Zod's corpse.  It is these elements that tend to muddle the movie.

Remembering that the title of this movie is actually Batman v Superman: The Dawn of Justice, we are also introduced to Wonder Woman played by Gal Godot.  We are hastily told a brief backstory of the Amazon warrior but little else is revealed except that she shows up to help fight Doomsday. If you are expecting much more than a quick introduction of other Justice League members, you are going to be sadly disappointed.  Much has been made on comic book movie sites and nerd world of the appearances of the Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg in this movie, but that is all the audience will get is literally a brief appearance of these members of The League.  You are going to have to wait for more in future movies if you want more.  

With all that said, I do like the movie. I have always liked the darker tones of the DC world.  The action sequences are intense.  Gone is the silly fake voice of Bale's Batman and in its place is the older and more cynical Affleck's Batman.  Superman is not some infallible hero but an alien in a world where he must tread as a man but could easily become a god.  He loves and is troubled by the consequences of his actions. He is still learning what his future might hold and what sacrifice he must make to become the hero of hope dreamt of by a Kansas farm boy.  While the plot is muddled and it's villain far from "super," the movie has strong enough performances and characters to keep the audience's interest.  It is intense and the PG13 rating is well placed. For a comic book fan, it is a good entry into the comic book movie realm.  Is it the best one? No.  I am glad I saw it and will buy the DVD.