Hudsons_Skull

This movie has a multitude of problems, most notably is Warner Bros. attempt at catching up with Marvel in one fell swoop by having this movie needlessly set the stage for a multitude of movies to come. It's the same illness 2014's The Amazing Spiderman 2 suffered from, so why didn't Warner Bros. learn from Sony's mistake? As for the cast, aside from Gadot's wooden performance and inability to pronounce words properly and Eisenberg's over the top ridiculous performance, I have no major complaints, Cavill and Affleck get the job done, the thing is, it's one thing to look and act the part but if the part you are playing isn't well written (I'm looking at you Goyer) it doesn't matter how good their performances are. Doing away with the fundamental aspects that make these two iconic superheroes of the DC universe who they are is (for me at least... IDK about the rest of you) what's most disheartening about this movie. Superman is a virtually indestructible being, and because of this, his compassion for humans and respect for the fragility of human life is what makes him who he is. These virtues were absent in Man of Steel and are again missing in BvS. He is portrayed as being burdened by humans, saving humans has become an everyday chore like doing the dishes, you don't want to do it but it has to be done. As for Batman, he is supposed to be continuously teetering on a precipice, the fear of crossing the line and becoming the very thing he is fighting against is the very essence of Batman. That essence is completely lost when you have him going around SNAPPING NECKS and BLOWING PEOPLE UP. His hypocrisy in this movie is undeniable, he sees Superman as a threat to humans but he doesn't seem to mind needlessly killing people himself. These aren't anti-heroes like The Punisher or Lobo, these are supposed to be HEROES!!!

Contrary to most, I don't lay all of the blame on the director. Snyder has proved that he can be a good director in the past (Watchmen, Dawn of the Dead), just give him a decent story to direct and you will get a good movie out of him. However, I do find it funny how no one ever blames the writers for these turds, in this case, studio hack writer David S. Goyer. With the exception of Blade and Batman Begins, Goyer has never written anything (on his own) that surpassed a 5.6 rating on IMDb. Just look at his résumé... Death Warrant written by Goyer, 5.6/10 -- Kickboxer 2: The Road Back, written by Goyer, 4.4/10 -- The Crow: City of Angels, written by Goyer, 4.5/10 -- Nick Fury: Agent of Shield, written by Goyer, 3.7/10 -- The Unborn, written by Goyer, 4.8/10 -- Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, story and screenplay by... you guessed it... Goyer, 4.3/10, and now he shares writing credits with Chris Terrio on BvS. What did Terrio do before BvS? Additional screenplay material for the movie Heights in 2005 and a screenplay for Argo in 2012. WOW! With writing expertise like this, what else would you expect? Snyder, Goyer and Terrio chose to cherry pick some of the best stuff from two of DC comics greatest works (The Dark Knight Returns and The Death of Superman) and merge them into one movie instead of adapting both movies onto the big screen separately. The result is a movie riddled with nostalgic moments guaranteed to give fans of the graphic novels a hard on but lacking any specific plot line, resulting in a two and a half hour long trailer for future movies.

Warner Bros. have great writers who are already on their payroll and who do great work on their animated movies. So why can't they assemble a team with people like Paul Dini, Alan Burnett and Bob Goodman to write these live action movies instead of going back over and over again to a hack with a mediocre track record when it comes to writing movies without the help of someone like Chris Nolan? If anyone would like to watch a great movie with Superman and Batman, check out The Batman Superman Movie: World's Finest, Superman/Batman: Public Enemies, Superman/Batman: Apocalypse and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1 and 2, any one of those animated features are far superior in comparison to this crap.

Warner Bros. you blew it big time.

They have managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and successfully reboot George Lucas' original masterpiece. Much like Senator Palpatine (Darth Sidious), Disney's plan to overthrow the gullible Star Wars fans (Galactic Republic), was devious and ingenious when you think of it.

I started having doubts when I first saw the name they came up with for this movie "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" appear on IMDb. "Wait, where is the Episode VII part in the title?" I thought to myself. Every other movie from the franchise listed on IMDb has an episode number associated with it in the title; so why isn't there an Episode VII in this one?

Then the first teaser which featured a desert planet that greatly resembled Tattoine, hit the web. I said to myself, OK cool, they're going back to Tattoine, but afterwards, I found out the planet was named Jakku. Why introduce us to another desert planet called Jakku, instead of using one that was already established in the Star Wars universe and familiar to everyone? My doubts about this movie continuing the saga started to resurface once more.

Then when I saw the official poster, my doubts were not entirely confirmed, but they sure as hell got another kick in the wrong direction. Nowhere on the poster do we see Episode VII. The official posters for the other movies since the prequels first came out, even the newly remastered original trilogy, all have an "Episode" number, so why not this one?

Then I saw the movie and all my fears were confirmed. They rebooted Star Wars. Even after watching the movie, people aren't entirely convinced (maybe it's shell shock from all the explosions going on throughout the movie), but all you have to do is replace the names of the characters in the plot synopsis of Star Wars: Episode IV with those of this movie and there is your proof.

"The plot focuses on the Rebel Alliance (Resistance), led by Princess Leia, and its attempt to destroy the Galactic Empire's (the First Order's) space station, the Death Star (Starkiller Base). This conflict disrupts the isolated life of farmhand Luke Skywalker (scavenger Rey) who inadvertently acquires a pair of robots known as droids (a droid known as BB-8) that possess stolen architectural plans for the Death Star (a map to the location of Luke Skywalker). When the Empire (First Order) begins a destructive search for the missing droid(s), Skywalker (Rey) agrees to accompany Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi (Han Solo) on a mission to return the Death Star plans (map) to the Rebel Alliance (Resistance) and save the galaxy from the tyranny of the Galactic Empire (First Order)."

How is this "not" a reboot? It's a facsimile of Lucas' original crowning achievement. To me, and many other real Star Wars fans (the Rebel Alliance if you will), Star Wars died many years ago when Luke Skywalker removed Darth Vader's helmet. As Vader breathed his last breath of air without the help of his respirator, so did Star Wars. Everything after Return of the Jedi just falls flat on it's face, including this plagiarized copy.

Years from now, once they are done killing off the remaining "original" cast members, if they haven't already planned it, I'm sure some suit and tie guy in an office at Disney Studios will get the great idea to go back and remake all the other movies that came before this one, including the original trilogy, thus erasing George Lucas from the equation all together.

Where do I start?

I'm a huge fan of the original movies and I admit, I enjoyed the 2009 film. Why? Because the well got dry and it seemed there wasn't anywhere left to go with the franchise. So, seeing as Abrams alluded to everyone that by taking the franchise back to where it all began and altering the time line, it was his intention to re-tell stories from the original "series" and breathe new life into them. Naturally, I thought he was talking about the original "TV series" from the 60's. Fine by me, because the original TV series was cool, but it's pretty much outdated.

This latest movie has shown me that it's obvious he just wants to do the "films" of the 80's and 90's all over again, but in his own image, which is... an abundance of lens flares and people who are only good at looking pretty on screen. And that, in my opinion, is not what Star Trek is about. He even stated in an interview with Jon Stewart recently on The Daily Show, that he never was a fan of Star Trek as a child because he didn't get "the philosophy" of Star Trek. This movie is proof that he still doesn't get it. If he wants to make flashy sci-fi movies with no depth or substance, fine, there are plenty of scripts out there for him to make this kind of bland movie that attracts dimwitted people. So please Mr. Abrams, leave Star Trek alone, you are only making it worse.

Abrams might be trying to get "non-Trekkers" to enjoy the franchise, but in order to do so, he is replacing everything that made Star Trek what it was in the first place. I'd love for more people to get into Star Trek, but not at the expense of my enjoyment of it. This movie has nothing more to offer than Transformers did, snazzy special effects and a story line riddled with plot holes and love/hate relationships between the characters that seem forced and unauthentic.

Which brings me to my next point. Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof. Where did these men learn to write? They use the technology of Star Trek only to advance the plot or create tension when needed. For instance, a transporter that the enemy uses can transport him light years to another planet, but the transporters on the Enterprise have a hard job locking onto a person on the planet they are orbiting, a hand-held communicator that can call someone in a bar on Earth from the Klingon home world light years away, infiltrating a top secret military base with a shuttle craft without being spotted by sensors, and the list goes on.

The last part of the movie they just got so lazy that they re-created the whole death scene at the end of Wrath of Khan, but mirrored it by reversing the roles. And if that's not enough, the writers blatantly do a copy/paste of most of the dialogue like "If we go in there we'll die, the radiation will kill us" and "The decontamination process is not complete, you'll flood the whole compartment."

Later on they even forget that the attributes that makes Khan's blood special, and which is needed to revive Kirk, also flows through the veins of the other 72 augments sitting in cryogenic tubes in McCoy's sick bay, the same cryogenic tubes that McCoy himself says earlier in the movie he could not risk opening without possibly killing the person inside, which could have been a solid reason to send Spock chasing after Khan in a foot- chase through downtown San-Francisco to retrieve a sample of Khan's blood, but instead, they have McCoy open a cryogenic tube and remove it's occupant in order to freeze Kirk so he can preserve his brain functions, I believe his exact words were "Get this guy out of the cryo-tube, keep him in an induced coma." but still, poor McCoy doesn't realize he could use that person's blood to revive Kirk. So now we are led to believe that McCoy, the same McCoy who based most of his arguments on ethics throughout the series and movies, is perfectly capable of opening one of the tubes, risking another being's life in the process, all to save another man? A little unethical if you ask me. These guys obviously don't know what the hell they are doing when it comes to writing Star Trek movies.

This movie is, in my opinion, the worst in the entire series. Yes even "The Final Frontier", because at least Shatner had the guts to go where no other writer or director had gone before or since with that movie, by doing a story about God.