Part 2 is surprisingly much better than 1. It appeared political, the plot immediately played with colors. In the frame at once a lot of villains: an incredible woman with fascist peaches, the good old Joker (where else without him), some robots-stuffed, the antihero was Superman, flashed an elderly and absolutely not cool cat woman,
more
Part 2 is surprisingly much better than 1. It appeared political, the plot immediately played with colors. In the frame at once a lot of villains: an incredible woman with fascist peaches, the good old Joker (where else without him), some robots-stuffed, the antihero was Superman, flashed an elderly and absolutely not cool cat woman, a new female detective. Some scenes were traditionally strange and ridiculous: The Joker somehow and for some reason twisted his neck with one turn of his head, Batman fighting with Superman could spray him with kryptonite at any moment, but for some reason relied on ... a one-armed archer who does not have winter clothes ... They only succeeded because of luck. Other scenes were strong, however: Superman being hit by a nuclear bomb, the final fire in the city. So some pros at the end balanced the initial set of banalism and stupidity, but didn't pull it out completely. How Batman rose in the end was completely incomprehensible... and that’s even superfluous. I really liked one thing – the psychiatrist suggests that in fact the reason for the existence of supervillains in Gotham is Batman himself, who creates a cult of evil spirits in his own way. That is, in fact, the psychiatrist guesses that they are all cartoon characters, because this is how scriptwriters work. First, a hero is created, and then his many opponents are made under him.
|