I enjoyed Batman vs Superman as a superhero movie. It was a little long, which I thought was due to Batman's back story.

There wasn't much to the plot of the movie. There was some effort to try to create a sense of mystery in the events unfolding but, Lex Luther is going to attack Superman somehow so you know the main driving force is going to have something to do with that relationship.

I could have done without Batman's back story because it didn't add much to the motivation of Bruce Wayne or Batman. We know how Bruce lost his parents when he was young. We know that Bruce turns into Batman to fight criminals. We didn't need to be introduced to it again. But, that is not the point.

The point is that I have an issue with critiquing a movie and saying that the Fundamental flaw is the director and NOT touching on anything about the story other than how the movie was shot. In his video essay, Evan Puschak does a good job of explaining why he thought the movie was flawed. It's a well put together essay, like all of his work. He makes great points about how Snyder sacrifices scenes that could increase depth in his characters to make moments that are designed to awe the audience. But, he doesn't say how another director would take the same script and improve the movie.

The fundamental flaw of a movie can be it's director. I am not arguing that. But, you can not critique a director's style as the flaw of the movie without talking about the movie, the plot, the character development, the acting, the dialogue, and everything else that makes up the movie. Because you are not critiquing the movie at that point, you are critiquing the director. As such your essay shouldn't be title, "Batman v superman: The Fundamental Flaw". No, it should be, "Zack Snyder: The Fundamental Flaw"