Is it ever appropriate to critique a film for what it could have or should have been, as opposed to what it is? In most film criticism circles, the answer is generally no. A good critic has to judge the film based on what it sets out to do - even if it fails by conventional standards - not what you want from it. You wouldn't criticize a hangout movie like Dazed and Confused for not having a plot, or disparage Furious 7 for not being an Oscar contender. Those films wanted different things than you. But do we always have to follow this rule? I ask because I recently saw Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (BvS from this point on) and I think it’s one of those films that permits us to judge it for what it wasn’t. Let me explain.