Here is what large editions about the "League" say:
Washington Post:
Everyone who took part in the filming of the "League of Justice", and all who will see it sooner or later deserved a lot of best than this.
NEW YORK POST:
The meaningless messenger of expensive (and, nevertheless, surprisingly cheaply looks like) CGI, which is not saved by the jokes, nor the starry charm of the Gadot.
SPLICE TODAY:
A significant increase for DCEU - with just catastrophic to just flawed.
Vanity Fair:
The film, speaking in a simple, terrible, and I feel sorry for all those who spent their time and money for its production - and it is a pity that the audience is asked to spend their time and money on his view. [...] If you do not have a clear idea how to build a franchise, so that she worked, not to mention that it was interesting - maybe it's time to stop developing it until this presentation will appear!
Chicago Daily Herald:
This is probably the most stupid large-budget film about the superheroes of them all that a large Hollywood studio has ever imposed on any suspect.
British Daily Telegraph:
Whatever the reasons, the end result is an unsuccessful film, replete with poor-quality CGI and a passing action, which would not save any emptying or script scripting.
The Film File:
It is almost shock - how bad it turned out the "League of Justice". If your movie makes the audience to miss the content and connectedness of the plot of the "fantastic four" in 2015 - this is a sign that something clearly went wrong.
Associated Press:
Although the League of Justice is a little better than the "Batman against Superman" and the "suicide detachment", the new creation of Zack Snider still constitutes a meaningless mix of muscles, incoherent action and amazingly terrible CGI. It is a big, loud and incredibly stupid film, which is terribly looking. The feeling like this seems to be simply the messenger in any way unlited among themselves, for which there is no common idea - in addition, the fact that the film had to come to know the audience with the characters, whose "Solniks" have already promised shareholders. Start re-and still think about it is not too late. Just leave, please gadote.
The Star-Democrat:
Years later - a, perhaps, already now, while you read all this - cinematographers will use a film-skinned DCEU as a major example, as the franchise do not need to develop.
THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE:
The sad reminder that the "wonder-woman" was an anomaly, not a new norm.
Slate:
Even a superman with all his strength could not turn this ship in the right direction.
COMINGSOON.NET:
The film's tone is constantly changing, instead of a connected plot - a messenger, and Batman must be forgotten forever.
THE DAILY REVIEW:
All the visual effects of the world do not help hide the fact that Ben Affleck does not want to be here, once again reminding us by meme about the "sad Afflek". We also hurt, Ben.
Toronto Star:
Yes, the film is a little better than last year's "Batman against Superman", but it's like saying that the removal of the dental nerve is better than the elimination of kidney stones.
Arizona Republic:
In any quality superhero film, there must be someone, against whom we will be happy to hurt. The villain drawn on the computer, which is looking for some boxes, is clearly not applied to such characters.
A source