There are a lot of valid criticism about this movie. A lot. Whoever directed it should not direct movies. I mean, it's going to make a crapload of money, and I don't regret seeing it, but it is patently a bad film. It feels like a B-grade movie from a first-time author/director but with a AAA budget and cinematographer. And then a lot of crap got thrown in for no reason - especially the hallucination/dream sequences. There's maybe 20-30 minutes of those, and they don't impact the plot at all.
One of them is pretty cool - it briefly turns the movie into a post-apocalypse Fallout-ish wasteland, with Batman going around in a bat-hat and brown trench coat, fighting Superman's evil army (including soldiers in power armor with dragonfly wings). But it makes no sense in the context of the movie, is never explained other than as a dream of Batman's, and is never mentioned at any point by anyone. And I am being 100% completely and honestly serious with that characterization. That happens in the film, for about 5-10 minutes.
Also: There's going to be a 30-minute extended R-rated version of this!? WTF for?
It was already at least 30 minutes too long (and that's coming from someone who thought Avengers 2 should have been 30 minutes longer), and the only sequences I can think of that could have had an R-rated insert are a few scenes of violence and Lois Lane's gratuitous nude scene (in the film version, her naked boobs are covered by murky bath water and at one point a pan up when she sits up out of the tub; maybe they just don't bother panning at that point, add in 30 minutes of extra dream sequences including a re-enactment of 'Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex' by Larry Niven, and call it an excellent R-rated production).
Hmm. Or maybe they'll just put in a 30-minute scene of Batman Batmanning; at one point in the released film, Batman has to go Batman someone/something that we just had an extended sequence of him failing to Batman, but we're only shown the results of his Batmanning it successfully.
Again, I don't regret seeing it - there's a fair amount of fun action sequences, and the film is visually quite good. But the plot and direction are some of the worst I've ever seen in a released film. Definitely worse than Star Wars Episode I, by a mile.
Oh: The take on Alfred in this movie is genuinely great, though. Not necessarily the acting, but the idea that Alfred isn't just a butler. I don't think there's even a single scene of him butlering, really - but he gets to do some cool stuff to help Wayne out.
From Here On be Spoilers:
The take on Lex Luther is particularly terrible; he's a villain whose only motivation is that he's completely and utterly insane. I was fine with him being in the film, and even his creation of Doomsday (though the particular method - the mixing of Human and Kryptonian DNA in some weird way, and the whole spaceship deciding that Lex got to be its master, and even the military people guarding the ship not bothering to try to see what Lex was doing with the access to the ship that he got from some random guy who was following a Senator around by force-feeding him candy was all rather terrible) and general attempts to create anti-Superman stuff. However, Lex Luther shouldn't have been manipulating Superman and Batman into fighting - the movie would have worked much better if Batman was going after Superman because Superman is genuinely terrible about avoiding collateral damage. The idea that people would believe that Superman killed people with bullets and bombs is just patently stupid.
The decision for Superman and Clark Kent to die (and get funerals) at the end was pretty terrible, too, especially since they made it very clear inside the film that it's only a temporary situation that will be rectified the very minute the next movie comes out.
Oh, and the casual murder of Jimmy Olson in the first five minutes of the movie was handled even worse than Superman's death, especially since they didn't even have his character named by anyone, much less had his friends grieve over him. The only reason we know it's Olson is because A. he's Lois Lane's photographer and B. he's played by the same person who played Olson in Man of Steel.
All of this isn't to say there aren't good parts.
The aforementioned post-apocalypse dream sequence, while terrible in the context of the film, would have been a cool stand-alone project or advertisement.
A lot of the action sequences are cool, and I did like the idea but not the execution of the politics/philosophy regarding the Kryptonian 'savior'.
Superman has learned since the Metropolis Massacre that he can take the fight into space, which allows the military to attempt to nuke Doomsday - which of course doesn't work, because Doomsday is awesome and takes that nuke and turns it into evolving more power for himself. The nuke should have had an EMP effect, though that's a relatively minor quibble.