Haven't seen the film yet (thought it looked shit from the start and am not a fan of Snyder, so no surprise to me), but:
1. A few - Cooter in particular - need to be made aware that a 33% does not mean that this film is being rated 3.3/10. It means 33% of critics deemed this film a decent use of their time. Its average rating is 5.2.
So when people are going, "man I loved this film, 8/10, it isn't a 3!" - that isn't what they are saying. If your opinion was added to the tomatometer, it could go up to 34% and, more importantly based on your rating of it, a 5.3 or whatever.
2. A lot of you already like Snyder's films, or are happy for any action, or don't expect anything other than two superheroes punching each other. So don't put so much stock in critics' opinions!
3. Railing on critics because they love Marvel and that's all they want... especially citing Thor 2. Come on guys: that got an average score of 5.6 or something. The RT just means more people deemed it to be a decent watch. The RT is such a misnomer and it's mad to see people so invested in it.
Plus, the most critically appraised superhero films ever are Nolan's Bat films, and not because they follow Marvel template. It's because they're good, well-acted, well-written (for the most part) movies, something that I and many people think Snyder struggles with. It isn't a "we love Marvel" thing. I don't love Marvel. I would struggle to say any of them is better than a 6 or 7 out of 10. But painting it as that is highlighting fanboy insecurity that you're all better than.
Just say: critics don't like this film, I do/don't like this film. The two don't need to correlate.
only redeeming parts was the Batman action and Gal
