Change Your Image
bearcatjb
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Wild Cards: Inside (Con)Man (2024)
It is at the point when writers use contrivances to return to the status quo, that a show jumps the shark.
It has now become a television cliché where the characters work within a supposedly temporary situation, working towards a goal, that as soon as the goal is almost reached, the writers and producers contrive to reset it to status quo.
In the case of this show, Max and Ellis had to temporary work together for a probationary period for them to reach their goal. No sooner is the probation nearly over, and the writers pull the rug our from under them. Returning to reset, and this temporary period seemingly becomes a permanent situation.
This was done in other series like "White Collar", where a conman was forced to work with the FBI to reduce his sentence. Every time his forced situation was to end, it was somehow changed back. It was also done most recently in the series "Fire Country", where the main character is about to get out on parole, and you guessed it...
I stopped watching these shows for this reason and will no longer be watching this show either. It just feels like the writers and producers take their audience for granted and treat them as if they are easily appeased idiots. There are so many great shows out there to waste time on a show that does this to its viewers.
If the Max/Ellis situation had been real, why would they let it just happen without protest or action?
Ellis would be consulting the Police Union and Police lawyers, and even pushing for transfers to other departments.
Max would simply need a lawyer to make the Police Department's situation hell for breach of contract. She would have a case for the department not honoring their side of the agreement by using the fact of her actions, while an innocent victim in a bank robbery, against her. Her lawyers would have a field day, that whilst being a hostage, she risked her life (initially under the orders of Chief Li) that led to a satisfactory conclusion to the heist.
BTW was this probation-period agreement in writing?
Lastly, if that wasn't enough to signal the "jumping of the shark", the last scene most certainly did it; just as the main characters are getting close, perhaps about to consummate their feeling towards one another with a kiss, there appears the mysterious man. Who correctly predicted what Max was about reply to Ellis' "Who is that?" before Max actually answered? I bet I wasn't the only one.
NCIS: Sydney: Doggieccino Day Afternoon (2023)
The biggest problem with this show is that Australia is not America.
There is no way that the bad-guy, Stone, would ever be able to get his hands on the explosives he required for the vest-bomb he made. This is doubly more difficult for someone like Stone, who is obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Explosives like firearms, are heavily regulated in Australia. In the extreme, incredibly unlikely event of a person robbing a bank followed by holding hostages in a nearby café, by use of a bomb-vest, were to occur, it would trigger an immediate national investigation. Political parties would be instantly under fire for allowing such a heinous event to take place under their watch. And new legislation would forthwith come under effect regulating explosives even further.
The point is, unlike seemingly in the USA, if something like this was to happen in Australia, it would just not be another weekday.
An investigation and federal inquiry would be in effect to work out how these explosives were able to get out into the wild.
Australian laws, Australian Federal-politicians responsibilities, and Australian public attitudes to guns and violence are not American ones.
Indeed, none of the NCIS, nor AFP, nor onsite police personnel, would just walk away from this, without every decision and action having been thoroughly scrutinized. Even at the cost of dissolving the NCIS-AFP task force.
Even Stone (and Louie, a 15-year-old kid) actually having access to pistols would be a near impossibility.
Robbing a bank and holding hostages by the wearing of a bomb-vest by the perpetrator, does not happen in Australia. And if it were to unconscionably happen, the consequences would be a lot more extensive than the attitude of the NCIS Sydney's team (in fact, of every USA police procedural's attitude} of just another day, just another case.
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Hegemony (2023)
Star Fleet Callousness?
They sent the saucer section of the shattered Cayuga to crash into the planet to destroy the Gorn jamming technology. Two questions:
1) Why would they assume that the Gorn would only have one machine, and not a second one they could just activate?
1b) Why did the Gorn only have the one?
2) They sent the Cayuga saucer crashing into the planet, with the bodies of Federation personnel in it. Now were the bodies all dead; it goes to reason that if Nurse Chapel survived, there would be other survivors? Yet never is this questioned.
Point 2 is the one I have the biggest problem with. They had no way for scanning for life signs, for scanning for survivors, yet they still sent the destroyed saucer on a collision course, even after the evidence of a very much alive Nurse Chapel meant that their may be other survivors.
Now, it has been made clear in the past that Captains may have to ask/command crew members to sacrifice their lives for a greater good, but it has always been shown as a poignant, regrettable last-resort decision.
Here, it feels like it was done callously, and the importance of the sacrifice never considered.
Indeed, the fact that they were consigning what they believed to be dead bodies of Star Fleet personnel to utter destruction, to never be able to be retrieved and given decent burial, without a thought, also seemed callous.
Lastly, the slap-in-the-face of Federation hardheartedness for me, was the joy and celebration they all had to the realization that Chapel survived, as I kept thinking that they would not have acted this way if the sole survivor was a nobody-no-name lieutenant.
If the animated STAR TREK LOWER DECKS proves anything, even in its predominantly comedic base, it is that the lives of every crew member on a star ship is important. The loss of anyone is felt to the core of the whole ship, and even takes a little part of the Captain and command crew, as this person was in their charge.
How I Met Your Father: Not a Mamma Mia (2023)
How was Valentina's treatment of her "fiancé" funny?
Is anybody else sick of sitcoms where main characters are true, loving and kind to their inner-circle, or at least to their chosen few, but are outright mean, narcissistic and horrible to everyone else?
I first noticed this personality trait for some sitcom characters way back in SCIENFELD. Here the four core characters were generally okay with one another, but to the rest of the world they were horrible. In fact, they were douche-bags, and it made the show unwatchable for me.
Think as well, Barry, Erica and Beverly in THE GOLDBERGS. Or Sheila in CALL ME KAT. Or nearly any character Christa Miller plays in any of her sitcoms. These are just a few examples from the top of my head. I'm sure there are many others.
In HIMYF Valentina and Sophie fit the bill here, (not to mention the future Sophie with her obvious narcissism and borderline alcoholism.) In their dealings outside their circle, these two often come across as self-centered, self-absorbed, selfish, and outright nasty.
Neither of them would themselves pass the test they proposed for Sophie's maybe-Dad.
HIMYF seems to pride itself as an ensemble show, but despite this more-often-than-not the main story line revolves around these two characters. (HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER did a better job at being an ensemble.) And as such, as these two have terrible personalities, I am about to give up this show.
Would it have been funny still if what Valentina was doing to her woe-begotten "fiancé", she did to Charlie instead? Treating people badly, just because they are not part of the core group, just isn't funny to me. And it's bad comedy-writing.
So if no effort is made to make these characters less distasteful, I really won't be spending any more time on them or this show.
The Rookie: Feds: Bloodline (2023)
In shows like this how is it that the bad guy so easily finds where the good guys live.
In every law enforcement procedural, the good guys spend whole episode after episode searching for the whereabouts of their current suspect. And even with the technology and equipment at their disposal, even with a crack team on the case tasked with this very endeavor, it still takes pain-staking time.
Yet when the perp switches the tables, and looks for the good guys, it's as if they are able to do it by osmosis. They find their target in their personal home, at their workplace, at other places they are visiting, or even when they are off running during their off-hours. And the suspects do it on their own without benefit of a team, and without equipment.
From one phone call, here, the suspect knew the heroine's full name and somehow her address to her newly bought house (and happened to be there when the target by "coincident" had to go out on an errand.)
Think back, not only to this show but all other cop shows, when the bad guy is looking for the good guy, they just turn up where the good guy is. How?
Why is it always so hard for the good guys, yet nearly always so easy for the bad guys?
The Endgame: Happily Ever After (2022)
The need to set up season two ruined all of season one, and the series has now become unwatchable.
The producers "Game-of-Thronesed" this series within one season. This last episode was so bad, it ruined every episode before it.
Here we had a series about a criminal mastermind, Elena Federova, who orchestrates an intricate plan, whereby every nuance and variable was covered in sophisticated detail, ensuring that the corrupt individuals who destroyed her family where brought to light, exposed and punished. All that is, except Natalia the main instigator of the actions that destroyed her familiar and her main co-conspirator, the president (despite 3 full episodes being spent on this aspect of Elena's plan, when every other co-conspirator was brought down in just one.)
And even then, after all this flawless, meticulous planning, every contingency covered, the female villain was able to get the upper hand. I was actually waiting for Elena to reveal that this was all part of her plan to get Natalia showing herself and get her close, to finish her off once and for all.
This wasn't to be. And why was this so? Why did Elena's elaborate complex plan have this one and only blind spot? Why did Elena have such a great big unforgivable lapse in her indicate plan?
Answer: So she could call Val Turner in the last scenes and say, "I need your help," thereby setting up season two.
It was more important for the producers to rather than give us an organized, organic, satisfying conclusion to the season, giving us instead an unsatisfying, unreasonable, unfathomable ending of a cliff-hanger.
And the only thing that this served is that I, and other viewers like me who hate been taken for a ride by producers, will not be watching season two.
Law & Order: Severance (2022)
How is pleading not guilty due to mental illness any kind of advantage for a defendant?
Indeed, if a defendant is found at trial not guilty of serious crime due to mental illness, just like not guilty due to insanity, the defendant is not then automatically released.
If someone commits a heinous act and is considered by a court of law to not be responsible for their actions due to mental illness (or legal insanity) then the court mindset is that society still needs to be protected from them. Moreso given that they have already committed this terrible thing due to their affliction, then there is a very good chance they may do so again.
The defendant is then locked away in an insane asylum, or some kind of mental hospital, for as long as they are deemed dangerous to society. That is, until they are cured. No set time is given, and the defendant will remain "locked up" until a professional-mental-health-body has deemed that the defendant will never commit such a violent action again. Then this body will need to petition the courts, and convince the courts of such, before the defendant is released back into the world.
It is well document that defendants who have been found not guilty due to insanity/metal illness, have actually sent more time in a mental-illness facility than other defendant found guilty of the same crime actually spent in prison.
"Not guilty due to mental illness" does not equal "innocent"
Indeed, the defendant in this case, if he had actually been found not guilty due to mental illness (not stating what the actual verdict was in this episode, not to spoil it), and by some unlikely chance was then free to just go home, the next morning, CPS would be at his door to take away his children from such a potentially dangerous household.
Pleading, "I did the dreadful thing I am accused of, but I was not responsible as I was not aware of my actions, due to mental illness" can garner a worse end result than just pleading guilty, as no court will allow an otherwise murderer back into society just because he was found not guilty due to mental illness.
Cobra Kai (2018)
Adult Hypocrisy
For all the adults continually telling the kids to put aside the past, and look to the future afresh, none of the adults actually do this themselves. All four seasons have been about the adults continually fighting a 30-year-old battle, and now using children/minors as their soldiers.
Other than Daniel and Johnny (and Miguel's mom) where are all the other parents that are allowing their minor children to be used in this way?
Indeed, for all the street fights that take place, and home invasions, where are the cops? In the real world adults would not be allowed to behave in this way, and if they did, legal suits would be abound, as would criminal charges.
Chicago P.D. (2014)
Is Marina Squerciati married to the producer?
Nearly every episode seems to center around. Burgess, and if not, she plays a major part.
She is my least favorite character, as I find her overly sanctimonious and extremely annoying.
How many times per season is she going to be in a life or death situation, requiring the rest to pull all stops to find her?
I now find myself hoping every time it happens that she is not found in time, just this one last time.
Almost Paradise (2020)
Why isn't Alex Dead? - Episode 2 Review
Alex walked into a nightclub, and shortly thereafter had an attack, his watch red-lined and he fell into unconsciousness.
He later, wrongly, blamed this occurrence on the stress of finding sex-trafficked children, but it actually happened before he was even aware of the children. So it begs the question, if the noise and lights and general chaos of a nightclub caused this extreme physical reaction, why didn't his finding out about the abused little girls actually kill him?
Indeed, why didn't the subsequent shootout, and physical exertion thereof, kill him?
In my review of episode one I wrote, "Alex Walker may as well not be sick at all, for the actual lack of any real effect it will have on his life and adventures on the island", and that episode one already set the status quo of Alex's illness causing "mini cliff-hanger moments at the worst possible times, but in the end will actually lead to nothing of any real lasting consequence."
Episode two followed true to form.
Is this what we can expect from each episode: Alex will have a "moment" due to his illness, but then in the end nothing really comes of it, and he would be ready for his next adventure next week?
In reality, if a person's illness is so life-threatening it causes him to collapse unconscious in a nightclub, despite him not engaging in any physical exertion, then a gun fight (and physical fight) should kill him outright, even if the bullets aimed at him miss.
Alex's illness is just used to push fake artificial drama, and is a cop-out and gimmick for the writers; it would not be allowed for Alex to die of his illness. A hero with this kind of handicap only works in a one-off movie, and not in a continuous series.
(And even then, movies recognize that the hero can't continue to have the same illness if the movie becomes sequel-ed; There is a reason why Rocky's illness in ROCKY 2, retinal detachment which could cause him to go blind if he ever re-entered the ring, was never mentioned again in every other ROCKY & CREED movie thereafter. It would be ludicrous.)
In a continuous series a hero with this kind of life-threatening illness but which only causes a momentary lapse but nothing permanent, each and every time, it becomes ridiculous.
Almost Paradise: Finding Mabuhay (2020)
The sickness gimmick could prove to be more a hindrance than a help for this show.
Nice to see Christian Kane back, as he has a sanguine onscreen presence which I've liked since I first noticed him in ANGEL.
He, nor the show, is done any favors by the bad acting of co-star Samantha Richelle, who let both down with her rote speech about the "five blocks". This scene required real raw emotion beyond her acting chops. Hopefully experience and time will allow her to become more than the show's pretty face, enabling her to deliver her lines with some believability.
By the way, does her character, Kai constantly wear a bikini under her clothing in preparation for the occasion she may need to be undercover, or perhaps regularly carry one in readiness in her handbag. It was tiny enough to fit.
I do find issue with the premise of the show: sick ex-DEA agent Alex Walker comes to an island in the Philippians for his health, but finds that he doesn't get the rest and peace and quiet he needs to convalesce, as he is continually drawn into dangerous life-and-death situations.
This illness then just becomes a gimmick to get him to the island, and really will only come into play either for dramatic, or even comedic, effort, and nothing else.
Alex Walker may as well not be sick at all, for the actual lack of any real effect it will have on his life and adventures on the island: His illness will slow him down in certain scenarios, will cause him to be in danger in others, and will cause mini cliff-hanger moments at the worst possible times, but in the end will actually lead to nothing of any real lasting consequence.
This will be the status quo of the show (which the audience could get really bored with really quickly), that episode one has already established.
I predict, though that season one will end in a cliff-hanger with Alex Walker collapsing unconscious, and the audience will have to tune in next season to find out if he survived. And then, if the show is renewed for season two, for the audience to find out that it actually wasn't as bad as we all thought. Alex will then get the same reminders and cautions as he did from his doctor at the start of this episode, and for the rest of the season continue on his merry way, following the status quo already established in season one.
SEAL Team: Last Known Location (2020)
Another episode of S.E.A.L. Team
Sniveling.
Emotionally-stunted.
Always cry-babies.
Limitless Whining.
Team
When did SEAL stand for something different? I can't stress this enough, as I've written in past reviews: writers you are depicting tier 1 SEALS the best of the best, not basic grunts. Have them comport themselves as such.
SEAL Team: Objects in Mirror (2020)
The Vic Situation following from last Week's episode
Didn't a season or two back, Ray actually make a similar mistake as Vic? He lied to Jason and the rest of the team, telling them that his shoulder was healed when it wasn't?
Then in the heat of battle, due to this injury, he mis-threw a grenade, accidentally killing an innocent little boy, a non-combatant. Then the whole Team and hierarchy, all the way to the politicians in Washington covered it up, and just paid off the parents.
Unlike Vic, Ray didn't get the whole team against him, nor was he fired from his job (and now he is to become a Warrant officer).
I guess the life of an adult C.I. (therefore a combatant of a sort) is worth more than that of an innocent little Arab boy who was just proudly trying on a suit.
Supergirl: Blurred Lines (2019)
So Kara can tell when William Day is lying but not when Lena is?
Even when Lena is overacting so badly that a normal, non-super person, a person without Kara's abilities, would be given pause, and just ask themselves, "What is going on?"
How convenient.
But "convenient" marks the theme of the series for season 5.
Isn't it just so convenient that Lena has this incomprehensible rage towards Kara, motivating her every questionable action, because Kara dared to keep a secret from her. A secret that was Kara's right to keep, and the keeping of had no impact on the quality of Lena's life, nor on her well-being nor to her happiness.
It is one thing keeping a secret from someone who has every right to know, especially if the keeping of said secret makes their life worse, but keeping a secret that has no ill effect, nor is really any of their business unless you choose make it so?
Juxtapose Kara not telling Lena her secret, which Lena didn't really need to know, with:
1. Nia telling J'onn a secret she found out, that he needed to know; and with
2. J'onn not telling said secret, to the rest of the team, which arguable they should know to get a better grip on their new enemy; and with
3. Nia finally telling Brainy how she felt about his smothering ways.
The Supergirl/Lena scenario is pretty trite in comparison.
Then convenience number 2:
Isn't it convenient that Andrea Rojas is able to rule Catco like a despot by holding non-compete contracts above employee's heads? Non-compete contracts that in reality are impossible to enforce, especially if it means a person is prevented from working at their livelihood in order to make a living? (Yet no one questions this!)
Kara accuses William Day of being unethically, but as far as I can see, SHE is being extremely unethical if she chooses to stay and work under Andrea's conditions, and not quit and walk out. Perhaps she could then work on her own blog, as she did a few seasons back when the then editor didn't want her. In her secret identity, Kara is Supergirl, this should mean something to her as a person; she shouldn't allow herself to remain in a work environment that is so morally reprehensible, dishonourable and unprincipled.
Kara, you are Supergirl, you stand for something in the community, now stand for something to yourself, and as a consequence, to all your co-workers at Catco. Supergirl/Kara represents a higher standard than William Day. Be true to yourself.
(Jimmy had no problem doing so, but Supergirl, for all her wholesome and goodness, and morality and ethics, can't? Huh!? Kara should have been out the door before Jimmy, and setting up a competitive - yes "competitive"- news-blog"!)
(Or even her own newspaper! - If Iris can do it in THE FLASH, so can Kara- Imagine if in her own newsblog/newspaper, she had a personal interview with the inspirational Supergirl once a month or so?)
But this would be inconvenient for the writers.
Writers all these seasons past, you set Supergirl (and Kara alternatively) as a moral community voice, a symbol of peace love and hope, an affirming voice in the midst of darkness, chaos and despair, proffering inspiration to do good, to be better, to change the world in a better, more positive way. Then you have Kara kowtowing to Roja's standards, and willingly remain in this toxic and immoral work environment: For the viewer, seeing this, it is hard to keep the bile from coming up to the back of our throats.
This is especially so when Kara -the voice that spoke against discrimination, against everything Agent Liberty stood for, the voice that used the power of the press to set things right after Lex Luther's machinations, last season- whines and moans to Lena, to Jimmy, to her sister about it, but then does nothing to change it.
These writers are using the aforementioned "convenience" to create artificial, forced tension and conflict, purely contrived storylines that wouldn't exist if our heroes actually behaved true to themselves.
The answer: get better writers who can give us real, organic, natural tensions and conflicts, within the contexts of the characters being real to themselves.
Supergirl: Event Horizon (2019)
What is wrong with not telling someone things that don't directly affect them, and to some extent are really none of their business?
Wow, Kara didn't tell Lena she is Supergirl! Big Whoop!
In keeping secrets we are not doing anything wrong. As human-beings we are entitled to our secrets and our own private thoughts, and are entitled to keep them to ourselves. And we are entitled to reveal such secrets if we so choose, to whomever we choose, and to what extent we choose. And I think this is normal.
What is abnormal is what this first episode pushes us to believe: keeping of secrets is abnormal, and once someone finds out you dared to keep them, they are entitled to be angry and spiteful towards you, even after the keeping of said secret had no real ill effect on them at all.
When someone finally comes out of the closet, for example, after years of keeping it secret, you don't just say, "I feel hurt that you never told me before now", then swear revenge.
So wow, Kara didn't tell Lena she is Supergirl! Big Whoop!
Lena, get over yourself, not knowing Kara is also Supergirl had no direct bearing on your life or your happiness. And writers, producers you do so too; you are making mountains out of molehills. And just creating artificial, forced drama.
SEAL Team: Theory and Methodology (2019)
Cry baby Jason and Procrastinating Clay
Is this an elite SEAL Team? A group of Tier 1 elite operators? More than just wearing the uniform of military service, they are wearing the uniform of the most elite, more disciplined, most well-organized fighting unit that exists. Bravo Team is the best-of-the-best.
Yet, when it comes outside of actual battle they are portrayed as cry-babies and procrastinators, even too cowardly to do the right thing, or do what needs to be done.
Firstly Jason. Writers please get him out of this self-indulgent wallowing in self-pity stage, where, as soon as he is no longer on a mission, he becomes a morose and miserable cry-baby.
I wrote in my review of season 1, episode 1: "I immediately lost respect for the David Boreanaz character, 'cos he is such a manly man, a top-notch soldier, but too cowardly to concede that he has been negatively affected by the death of his friend and team mate, and so too cowardly to do anything about it, even though he must surely know it could prove detrimental to his Team."
Season 3, episode 3, 2 seasons later, here we are again. Here we have a manly man, who just isn't man enough to stand up and say, "I have a problem", too mucho to get help.
Jason told his daughter that he was glad in her schooling she was taking subjects she doesn't like because, "...if it doesn't hurt, he wouldn't be getting his money's worth". Hey Jason, how able you take your own advice, seek some help, even if you don't like it, then we know we are "getting our money's worth"?
Then there's Clay, a smooth operator in the field, but in the real world at a loss. "What should I do?" he laments like a directionless toddler, "I don't want to risk not being an operator". Hey Clay, you are a SEAL; more than just instilling a need to be an operator, it should instil a strong sense of right and wrong, something that will benefit you in all facets of life. So stop being a, use your moral code!
Then there's Ray. If for the benefit of your family you have to undertake steps that will lead you to outranking Jason, so what? He is a big boy, and even more than that, he is a SEAL! And as such, he should be above all that.
So it shouldn't be a problem.
Yet, this is cry-baby Jason we are talking about. Maybe it will be a problem.
The writers seem to forget that they are writing about SEALs. Have them comport themselves as SEALs!
Batwoman (2019)
Batman would never abandon Gotham in its time of need!
It shows a lack of cultural understanding of the DC Universe, by the writers and producers in portraying a distressed Gotham without a Batman. In the comics, not "No Man's Land", not "Battle for the Cowl", not "Cataclysm", not Joker's "Endgame", not Gotham's "Zero Year", not "Contagion", not "A Death in the (Batman) Family", and most certainly not "Knightfall" when Bane broke Batman's back, and Azrael took over until Batman rehabilitated himself and returned, caused Batman to turn his back on his beloved City.
The old BIRDS OF PREY television series suffered from this same issue, Gotham City in catastrophe and Batman nowhere to be seen.
This contradiction could have be overcome in the DC Arrow-verse if in this universe Batman actually didn't exist. Batman abandoning Gotham either willingly or by force (though what could actually force Batman to abandon Gotham, without his having 6 different plans to thwart it?) just beggars belief. And the series already starts on a sour note.
This very premise of Gotham in upheaval and Batman gone, shows lack of respect, lack of understanding; in DC's comics universe Gotham and Batman are synonymous. Any infliction on Gotham is tantamount to an infliction on Batman.
During last seasons' Arrow-verse crossover, whenever the subject of Batman came up, he was spoken about as if he was a myth, therefore (despite the Batwoman-Supergirl tête-à-tête) he may not actually exist, so perhaps the producers can get away with this incongruous situation of Gotham City in crisis and no Batman. But the first episode of BATWOMAN shows that this is not the case, therefore it is an immense mistake to have a Gotham in peril, sans a Batman.
Batwoman, no matter how good she is, is no Batman replacement in Gotham's hour of need
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Not what expected, but that's a Good Thind
The critics have missed the point of the Batman Vs Superman movie. The movie isn't representing an origin story (as the first superheroes movies tend to do) or a Batman '66 story. This is the story of heroes who have been at the game for many years.
The Batman here has been through the ringer and come out on the other side. He is even more damaged than when he first donned the cape and cowl when he witnessed his parents being killed. He has had at least one Robin murdered on his watch, and he is angry and bitter, and no matter what he does or the sacrifices he has made, he realises that he hasn't made a real difference. As he said, criminals are like weeds, every one he pulls out another grows in its place.
The Superman here isn't the Boy-scout portrayed in the comics, he doubts himself, he has moral qualms –especially after having killed Zod to save humanity- and he is confronted by a world that alternates between worshiping him and fearing him. As a result, he second guesses himself. The only thing he really understands amidst the chaos, is sure of, is his feelings for Lois, his relationship with her, and to his own detriment will take action to preserve this without clearly contemplating the consequences.
Batman's ire has been fully directed at this non-human, this alien, who has shown how dangerous and destructive he can be, to the point of obsession – something that anyone who knows Batman can ever accuse him of not being.
These aren't the Batman and Superman of comics at the peak of their careers, these are Superheroes who have been in the trenches for far too long, disillusioned, taken for granted, questioned insistently, and perhaps in Batman's case at least, suffering from PTSD.
Who said that the movie would be an exact representation of the characters in the comics? The thing that ended the fight, the name of the mutual mothers, rather than weak, was poignant because it served 2 purposes. Firstly it humanised this so-believed uncontrollable alien monster, helping Batman to break through his obsession and see Superman differently. And then it brought Batman back to where it all started, the cause of his first becoming the Batman, where he was more innocent, maybe just as angry, but less bitter. The point where he first donned the mask with purer intentions.
It seems to me that people were expecting a Marvel-type Superhero movie, but this is a DC one, where in their respective movie universes Marvel and DC have swapped roles: In comics the Marvel universe is generally grimmer, more serious, where the Superheroes (as Superman put it in the Avengers-JLA crossover) have to work harder. Superheroes aren't respected, and the people who they try to protect are forever trying to curtail them, register them or hunt them down. In the DC universe, the Superheroes are generally loved and respected, the world is less serious and not so grim. You will never have a Flash-type museum for any Marvel hero in the Marvel universe.
In the movies, Marvel and DC have largely swapped roles. The Marvel movie universe is less serious, more fun, less taking itself seriously. Whereas, contrary to this, the DC movie universe is totally serious, darker and grimmer than any DC comic, or Marvel comic for that matter.
Zack Snyder has made no bones about this; he has stated from the beginning that this Justice League universe is dark and grim, that the Flash series of current TV for example, has no place in it. I wasn't expecting a Marvel movie, I was expecting a movie more akin to the Watchmen movie, perhaps one of the darkest, grimmest Superheroes representations in cinema, in which the main villain turns out to have been one of the heroes and another hero is killed by his team-mates in the end to keep from revealing the truth.
People, give the movie a break.