I know I've been pretty down on this film, based on what I've read and heard, much of which has confirmed some of my pre-release fears, but I do want to like this film (and hopefully will when I finally decide to see it). Thus, I think it's time to look for and post positive or mostly positive reviews and articles from across the web on the movie. Here's one I found, which I discovered due to its (positive references) to Batman Returns:
http://www.mtv.com/news/2858788/at-least-zack-snyder-knows-batman-is-deranged/ (http://www.mtv.com/news/2858788/at-least-zack-snyder-knows-batman-is-deranged/)
QuoteWhy the B v S director's interpretation best captures the deranged spirit of the Dark Knight
by Ira Madison III
Batman is a violent psychopath. He's shot villains in their sleep and starved someone to death. The idea that he doesn't kill his opponents is a fairy tale cooked up by Cold War–era pitchfork wielders. In 1954, the Comics Code Authority was formed to censor depictions of sex, gore, and violence in comic books. While horror titles like Tales From the Crypt and The Vault of Horror bore the brunt of censorship, Gotham City fell under the chilly hand of the CCA as well...
March 1955's Batman #90 marked the first issue to be affixed with an "Approved by the Comics Code Authority" stamp. Prior to that, Batman was a murderous son of a bitch. He was a gun-toting maniac auditioning for the lead role in Death Wish. He even lynched a mental patient in his 1940 debut issue. So, sure, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is one of the most critically reviled films to come out in a while. But that reception is unwarranted. The characterization of Batman in this film might have been the best since Batman Returns. Ben Affleck beautifully plays Bruce Wayne as equal parts cocky playboy and a man haunted — a man who refuses to give up his obsession with justice. This isn't the Christopher Nolan Batman who implausibly retired between films because he lost a lover. This is a man who can never stop putting on that mask because he has yet to extinguish his demons. Zack Snyder can be an aggrandizing director who has produced multiple films deserved of detestation, but if there's one thing Snyder understands, it's that Batman is a f***ing nut job.
There's a reason the deaths of Thomas and Martha Wayne are ingrained in the memories of anyone who's ever experienced a drop of pop culture, right alongside Darth Vader being Luke Skywalker's father and Spider-Man learning that with great power comes great responsibility. It's because we can't ever get a Batman movie without a flashback to their goddamn murders, but it's also because Bruce Wayne himself can't stop thinking about it. It's an event in Wayne's life that is so traumatic, so haunting that it turns him into the kind of man who dresses up as a bat and prowls the streets. You know who else has this kind of origin story? Supervillains. Every villain in every comic book since the dawn of time experiences a significant and traumatic moment in their life that eventually manifests itself in a murderous rampage. The last director to truly understand Batman was Tim Burton. In his masterpiece Batman Returns, Burton depicts damaged — and deranged — characters who unravel from personal trauma and target their tormenters. The Penguin targets the rich people who turned away a monstrous, deformed child and left him to die in a sewer. Catwoman's modus operandi is besting misogynists at their own game. And Batman sits in his high castle, sealed off from most of the world, except when it comes to picking off criminals one by one. Just like the villains he fights, it was a triggering event that led to his masked exploits. He's not an alien sent to protect Earth like Superman. He's not an Amazonian warrior like Wonder Woman. He wasn't already wearing a mask and using his powers irresponsibly until taught the error of his ways like Spider-Man. Batman suffered a breakdown after his parents' death, got cozy with a bunch of winged rodents, and decided to get like them in order to avenge his parents.
The opening sequence of Batman v Superman is Snyder's thesis on Batman. The brutality of depicting Martha Wayne being shot in the throat by a criminal and young Bruce fleeing his parents' funeral only to be lifted to the sky by a horde of bats is fantastic, twisted, and right out of Burton's playbook. There were complaints about Batman's carelessness for human life in Snyder's film, but why would we expect otherwise? He's a vigilante. He wears a mask to conceal his identity and answers to no one. For all of Batman's beef with Superman for having the ability to wipe out the planet on a whim, Batman brutalizes his own victims and brands them. The brand itself is a brutal act, but we're also told that the mark is considered a "death sentence" in prison.
Imagine for a moment that superheroes are real. Imagine that they dole out their own brand of street justice and protect us from psychotic and sociopathic criminals. Now remember that whenever a superhero accidentally kills someone or isn't able to save a life, we see scenes of them shedding tears over their mistakes, like when Spider-Man can't save Gwen Stacy or the Hulk levels an entire African village. But in reality, this is a man wearing an insane mask and costume operating outside of the law and allowing someone to die. In his book I Wear the Black Hat, Chuck Klosterman compares Batman to Bernhard Goetz, the man who shot four muggers on a New York subway in 1984. Taking that a step further, we live in an age where police are routinely in the news for murdering unarmed black men. If men who are charged to serve and protect can become overzealous and lose control, why can't a playboy with a savior complex dress in a cape?
The notion that he can't plays into the fantasy of the superhero who has to save the day and somehow manages to do so without any effort. In the campier versions of the Batman films, Joel Schumacher shows Batman knocking out villains with one punch while saying awful puns like "I'm putting you on ice" to Mr. Freeze. That works for Spider-Man, because he has super strength. But Batman is just a man. We see that even more in Batman v Superman when he pushes himself to the brink while training for his Superman fight. Bruce Wayne the man knows he can be broken. In fact, one of his opponents, Bane, did exactly that in The Dark Knight Rises. The Nolan films, however, had Batman in humongous, bulky gear that made it seem like he was indestructible. Snyder returns him to a sleeker costume (save for the Superman fight), because no one can run around the city with all the extra weight and not collapse from exhaustion. And when you're in hand-to-hand combat with criminals who possess the same strength as you, you're not going to knock them out with a single punch. You're going to have to keep going until you stop them, even if that means taking a life — and several city blocks — with you.
Take, for instance, James Bond: a man licensed to kill by his government. He stops murderers, terrorists, and assassins with a bullet if necessary. But we demand that our American hero be above that, even if he's as self-possessed as the monsters he fights. It's a fantasy that works for Superman. With his massive abilities, there's no reason for him to have leveled a city and killed innocent bystanders the way he did in Man of Steel. But for Batman, sometimes, we need to let him be a monster in a world where "zap" and "pow" won't appear over a criminal's head when he punches them.
Here is one positive review by film critic Armond White. Though apparently, this guy isn't very well liked because he tends to hold contrarian opinions to the majority, and delivers them in an inflammatory manner. I don't have time for critics, and I don't like this guy either because he once heckled several directors during an awards ceremony. Not cool.
Quote
Batman v Superman Returns Soul to Superheroes
Zack Snyder dares to infuse the comic-book genre with moral and political substance.
Fanboys do not own the franchises of Batman and Superman movies, so director Zack Snyder went against the mob and dared to raise the genre to a level of adult sophistication in 2013's Man of Steel, the most emotionally powerful superhero movie ever made. (Fanboys hated it.) Snyder's sequel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice adds politics, bringing to the fantasy some contemporary, real-world concerns. This is not conventional comic-book allegory; rather, Snyder uses the figures of Batman (Ben Affleck) and Superman (Henry Cavill) walloping each other to give visible substance to social and moral issues, much as Greek tragedy does. He takes the wildest, Bizarro World fiction — of two superheroes turned super foes — and uses the premise to explicate our current dilemmas concerning power, principles, and divinity.
It helps that Snyder is also visionary, inclined to extravagant spectacle and gifted with a signature erotic touch. An early montage equates violence, wealth, loss, and grief through symbolic images of bullets, pearls, blood, and tears. It is witnessed by the young Bruce Wayne, a paranoid orphaned millionaire who misconstrues Superman's involvement in the previous film's battle that devastated Metropolis (and traumatized nearby Gotham City), and so he vows a vigilante's revenge. With its legal-brief title, Batman v Superman reflects the confusion that pits secularists against believers, and the partisanship that inhibits national alliance. This tension is so visually amped up that the opposition of Batman to Superman feels revelatory: Man versus the god in Man.
Snyder's opening sequences interweave the origin stories of these mythic heroes and their alter egos. What has become overly familiar through years of repetition acquires new dynamism — and new understanding — that particularizes and personalizes each wounded man's suffering. Not only are these time-shifts audacious (movie marquees announce the 1940 The Mark of Zorro and the 1981 Excalibur — implying the evolution of history), but so is Snyder's proposition about the nature of heroism and vengeance: Both stem from the way individuals react to and comprehend their experiences. Snyder's thrillingly intelligent use of interior conflict and political antagonism vastly outclasses Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy: Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises — all noxious — which were bellwethers of our culture's decline.
Fanboys prefer the Nolan films for their "darkness," which emphasized the sophomoric, pseudo-tragic elements of the Batman graphic novels. But Snyder's more adult treatment finds the material's emotional core. This displeases the fanboy/hipster whose adolescent embarrassment about feelings was exploited through Nolan's emotionless violence and post–9/11 nihilism. Snyder counters that cultural crisis and (through the script by Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer) visualizes the millennial moral struggle as pop myth. His essential subject is mankind's struggle to discover compassion as well as common obligation — or dare I use the non-political term: brotherhood?
The pain of post–9/11 as reflected in Nolan's Batman films was a paradigm shift. But fantasy cannot conscientiously be enjoyed Nolan's way, without any sense of social, historical, or moral consequence. Snyder manipulates this new paradigm so that mankind's sense of mortality is embodied by Batman, Superman, and their arch-nemesis, Lex Luthor. (All three characterization performances are, well, perfect.) When Superman's motives are questioned, the skepticism and vilification create an antagonism between him and Batman that Snyder lays out as an ideological conflict and that Luthor exacerbates. Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg, who played Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network and thus personifies the craven millennium) cynically whines about "The oldest lie in America: that power can be innocent." He even threatens a senator (Holly Hunter) who heads an investigation into Superman's guilt. Luthor's obsession with Superman ("He answers to no one. Not even, I think, to God") reveals envy that is unmistakably demonic; a development that coheres with Snyder's spiritual-social vision of post–9/11 grief and desire for salvation. He creates the year's first great movie image by examining Superman's "divinity" when he is surrounded by Day of the Dead multitudes. The image echoes our current desperation regarding "populism" — and that's truly audacious.
Among today's outstanding American filmmakers, Snyder has an eccentric interest in the spiritual expression of his characters' conflicts. From the erotic antiquity saga 300 to the anthropomorphic fable Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole, Snyder demonstrates a caricaturist's knack for elaborating Good vs. Evil. It takes just such dreamlike moral clarity to reprove the Nolan trilogy's chaos. Look at Snyder's second high point: Batman's nightmare of battling Superman plus his own enigmatic demons imagined as Stymphalian wasps. The scene spins agonizingly slowly (though not in slow motion), becoming ever more hallucinatory. It fuses comic-book imagery to the oldest Western myths.
In this age of petty Marvels, most comic-book movies merely perpetrate fantasies of power, but Snyder, enacting his personal aesthetic, braves a film that examines those fantasies. He boldly challenges popular culture's current decay. Man of Steel was a magnificent, hugely satisfying response to what's often missing in pop culture, and Batman v Superman raises more ideas without (yet) resolving them. An attempt to invoke other superheroes from the DC Comics stable, starting with Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot, accompanied by tribal drums that recall Snyder's overawed feminist fantasia, Sucker Punch), ultimately goes unfulfilled. And Snyder, obliged to placate the Marvel hordes, lets a couple of fight scenes devolve into Avengers-trite turmoil.
Still, the equation of moral myth and contemporary political catastrophe marks an important advance. Snyder intends to resolve the conflict between commerce and art, power and morality. "Knowledge with no power is paradoxical," one character says. "Man made a world where standing together is impossible," frets another. With Batman v Superman, the battle for the soul of American culture is on.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433246/batman-v-superman-culture-war-gets-mythic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKRmMQaLZz8
Posted this in the Spoiler thread but thought this was worth adding since it made me see the parts I already liked in a new light and has a heartfelt message on applying the movie's themes to real life.
I thought I'd share this
***SPOILER FILLED*** positive review from Forbes.com. Ignore the part where the writer said he already wrote a review, I've read it and it's nothing but box office estimates. This is his real review and analysis of the film.
Quote
Zack Snyder Loves Superman, And 'Batman V Superman' Proves It
by Mark Hughes
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has sparked a great deal of debate among fans, critics, and audiences. The film broke records with its massive $420 million worldwide opening weekend, the largest ever for a superhero film and fourth-largest global opening of any sort of film in history. Some audiences — notably, the under-18 crowd and parents, as well as most 25-and-under viewers — gave it very high scores and are recommending it to family and friends, while overall audience scores averaged out to a "B" at Cinemascore. The critical reviews at Rotten Tomatoes have been highly negative, with a 29% overall score. My own review is very positive, as I loved the film and feel the negative reviews are wildly off-base.
One of the loudest complaints from some critics and fans has been the claim that Zack Snyder hates Superman, and that Batman v Superman proves it. This assertion hinges on such a dramatic misreading of the film, I'm frankly stunned that even some otherwise typically smart and insightful writers have bought into this myth and perpetuated it. So now, I'm going to completely debunk the claim, and explain to you how Batman v Superman in fact makes Superman's goodness and idealism the centerpiece of the story, and how Zack Snyder clearly loves Superman's character and honors him in this film.
Be warned, I'm going to discuss a lot of spoilers in this article, out of necessity. So if you've not seen Batman v Superman yet, read no further — but go see the film, and then come right back and finish reading!
The gist of the "Zack hates Superman" claim is, Superman is disliked and distrusted by society, is shown to be reckless and ineffective, is too brooding, and is widely mocked throughout the film. Perry White tells Clark Kent, "It's not 1938, apples don't cost a nickel," Batman beats Superman into submission, sneering that Superman's parents probably told him he was sent here for a reason. Superman tells Lois the "S" on his chest was a symbol of hope on his world, but that his world doesn't exist anymore. These, then, are the examples of supposed proof Snyder hates Superman — the Perry White speech gets the most play when this argument is put forth, because it seems the clearest literal example of the film disparaging Superman's idealism.
And of course, that's precisely what it is, as is Batman's violent attack against the Man of Steel and his little speech to him; as is the world's skepticism in the film, and the anger so many characters feel toward Superman. Yes, those things are all meant to criticize Superman and what he stands for. The trick is, you're supposed to realize they're all wrong, because that's the actual point of the movie — everyone mocking and criticizing Superman is wrong.
The world is cynical, skeptical, and jaded. War, poverty, violence, hatred — these are the daily realities for so many people, and even those in positions of so-called power realize how helpless they are to stop most of it. Lex Luthor's remark about a person with knowledge being smart enough to realize they are powerless in the world is a crucial hint into his own psyche and how the scars of this lesson were beaten into him from a young age, for example. He articulates a truth, a knowledge about the powerlessness of mankind in the face of our own destructive impulses, and that we pretend toward power and knowledge to shield ourselves from those realities.
Bruce Wayne knows this as well. His entire arc is that of a man whose life is defined by feeling powerless, beginning as a child watching his parents murdered in the street for no reason at all and growing up to dedicate his life to fighting crime as Batman. He became a gardner, pulling up weeds in a garden already overrun by them, and now as an aging man he faces the harsh truth of his ineffectiveness, of the terrible losses despite his best intentions and best efforts. He has the knowledge to understand now that he's always been powerless, that he never escaped that alley where he watched helplessly as his parents died. That's why he's become cruel, more violent, crossing lines he didn't cross before. The world didn't become better and safer, it just fought back twice as hard to remain corrupt, and so Batman keeps fighting harder in return, even as he feels his battle is hopeless in the end.
And now comes a man from the sky to put a fine point on all of it, a man who can stop suffering and injustice, a man of near limitless power. Superman holds up a mirror to Bruce, to Lex, and to the world, showing us what real power is, and showing us how the application of real power can be in service to absolute good if only we will allow it. But there was no Superman, no absolute good power, to rescue Lex from the abuse and perversions of his father, so why should the world now have a Superman? A good power that failed him, that left him to suffer, and that tries to represent hope in a world Lex sees as hopeless, is not a power he can trust or accept. It makes him all the more aware of his own powerlessness, and to overcome that feeling he will raise himself up like a God and drag the God down to the dirt, destroying the absolute good that Lex believes never existed in the first place.
Bruce meanwhile sees Superman in much the same way as Lex. There was no Superman to save Thomas and Martha Wayne, no Superman to help Batman pull up the weeds overrunning Gotham. Every "good" Bruce saw over the years, every person who supposedly fought for hope and justice, either died or became corrupted, or just gave up. He doesn't believe in absolute good anymore, and so all he can see in Superman is absolute power that cannot be trusted because it exists in a world too cynical and damaged to allow such power to be good. Superman is a symbol of all of Batman's failures, of his greatest fears come to life, and if all good has become corrupted eventually, then this absolute symbol of Batman's helplessness and failure cannot be allowed to exist anymore. Superman will be destroyed, because Batman has become another of the "good" people who couldn't remain good in a world this bad, even if he doesn't (yet) realize he is one of those people he was talking about.
Lex and Bruce represent the world itself, a flawed and distrustful place that feels unworthy of absolute good and so cannot let itself dare to hope such good really exists. Idealism has been replaced with cold disillusionment even among the youth who are far too inexperienced and immature to truly feel as faux-jaded and cynical-chic as they pretend to be. Power always, inevitably becomes corrupted and used to perpetuate inequality, violence, oppression, exploitation, and other ills in our world, we say. So we reject hope, we reject the idea of a common good, because it's not 1938 and apples don't cost a nickel and the "good ol' days" were never good for everybody after all.
Superman stands in stark contrast to that cynical world. He wants to be a symbol of hope, he wants to use his powers for good, he wants to inspire us to overcome our skepticism and learn to have faith again, to believe there will be good ol' days in our future after all. So he gets up every day and goes out to save us, to redeem us all by himself, even when we tell him to stop and to go home. Superman is idealistic, and Batman v Superman demonstrates this time and again.
Clark Kent/Superman notices Batman's vigilantism is mostly confined to the poorer neighborhoods, and that police mostly ignore Batman's actions precisely because his targets are primarily in those poorer areas. Clark wants to raise awareness, to give voice to those people, because he feels it is the responsibility of society to stand up for those who need mercy and whose voices are ignored. He's not just fighting for idealism and absolute good as Superman, he takes his lessons seriously and is trying to fight for the same idealism in his everyday life, and to inspire others to do so both as Superman and as Clark Kent.
When the world keeps questioning him, he says he will not stop fighting for what's right. Are there unintended side effects of his actions? Yes, but we know the real truth — those side effects are caused by humanity, either as a conspiracy precisely determined to undermine the world's trust in Superman, or as actual human reactions to Superman. When Superman intervenes around the world to help people, we all have a choice about how we can react. When countries choose to react with anger and violence against their own people, that is not because Superman's good actions were at fault, it is because he didn't fully appreciate how rotten humanity can be. He has faith in us, which is why he assumes we will eventually learn to have faith in him. He holds us in much higher regarded than we deserve, convinced in our basic goodness deep down in our hearts. The question is, will we be inspired to try to live up to his faith in us?
During the U.S. Capitol sequence, a crazed bomber destroys Congress to punish Superman and send the message that hatred and cynicism will always strike as long as Superman continues trying to inspire us. This is the moment where Superman's true doubt about his role on Earth begins. His doubts arise because he has thus far insisted he won't stop helping people and fighting for good, just because people blame him for side-effects caused by bad people. He cannot, he felt, predict such things and he cannot plan his actions based on assuming the worst in humanity — that's contrary to his entire purpose, obviously.
Now, however, he realizes that the bombing is just a symbol of a bigger problem. He didn't see the bomb that was right in front of him, he says, because he wasn't looking. He didn't assume the worst, he didn't believe the world when the world tried to tell him repeatedly that it was cynical and rejected hope. He didn't want to believe it, because he believed in his ideals. And he still does, but he no longer has the same level of faith that humanity can come to embrace his idealism too. He hasn't entirely lost faith, but he's struggling with it, and with the decision about how to respond. When Lois says the "S" is a symbol of hope to people, Superman replies, "It was on my world... but my world doesn't exist anymore," and he's not simply talking about Krypton. He's talking about the world he knew right here, the world as he saw it, the world he chose to have faith in during the film Man of Steel (a significant recurring theme in that film).
The question is simple: will the cynical world change him, or will he change the cynical world (the way Batman was changed by it, remember)?
Clark leaves, to think and explore his own heart and worldview. A Superman forced to confront his idealism amid a cynical world is not an abandonment of the traditional characterization, it is a reinforcement of it. It shows that yes, Superman can have his beliefs and idealism challenged, and in the end even in the face of a world that doesn't want to change Superman will refuse to give up on us. In Batman v Superman, he wonders about the consequences of his actions and whether it is possible to stand for absolute good when the outcomes can often inevitably created complicated side effects.
When Clark sees his human father, Jonathan Kent, we get a story about how faced with a rising flood threatening to wipe out the family, Jonathan helped dig a trench and block the floodwater's path. He was a hero for those actions, he saved the family farm, but the digging redirected the floodwater to another farm and destroyed it. Remember that this is in Clark's mind and memory, so when he asks his father if he ever got over the bad dreams about the unintended consequences, Clark already knows the answer, because this conversation is all about Clark talking to himself. His father says yes, he was able to live with the consequences of his actions because he found faith again when he met Martha.
What is this about? It's pretty straightforward, really — Jonathan couldn't refuse to act, to save his family, and he did so without any expectation that saving his family would create a flood of action elsewhere that harmed other people. The flood did that damage, not Jonathan, and all he could do – all any of us can do — is act to do good and save people when we see it. If we know possible consequences, then we must think through our actions and make sure to consider those consequences and how to either divert them or live with them and continue having faith. Love, and having a life to live that shows us why we must act to do good, helps us have faith in ourselves and in the world. Because however dark the world becomes, however hard it can be to accept consequences of our actions when we know we're doing the right thing but the world will blame us for it, we can have someone who makes it all worthwhile, someone who represents the good we know exists in this world. And that good is always, always worth fighting for.
Superman knows he cannot give up, knows he must always act and use his powers for good, and knows that Lois is the love of his life and represents all of the people who do look to him as a symbol of hope and goodness in the world. It is a simple message, but it resonates as clearly to me as anything in the film. So he comes back, and his return coincides with Lex putting his final evil scheme into motion. Lois is thrown off the building, but Superman is already back in town and saves her. He has come back, and immediately his choice to return presents him with a final challenge to his idealism — his mother will die unless he kills Batman.
It seems an impossible choice, and he remarks that no one stays good in this world, but this is clearly not literal since we see his true intention is to convince Batman to help him. He never tries to kill Batman, making it clear by literally saying it out-loud. In the end, he will die trying to convince Batman to help save Martha, rather than do Lex Luthor's bidding and murder a hero he (Superman) has finally come to understand as a good man being corrupted by a cynical world (something Superman has been struggling with himself, which is why he now understands Batman).
Batman's arc is that he finally is able to see Superman for who he is, as a man with a name and someone he loves and a mother he cares about. It's one thing to objectively know that a living being has parents and an identity they use day to day, but that doesn't mean we perceive them as a true person with whom we sympathize and empathize. Batman couldn't see Superman that way, because of all of the pain and fear and sense of helplessness obscuring his vision. That was stripped away in that moment when he had to cross the final line and kill Superman — standing over Superman, ready to deliver the fatal blow, Batman tells himself, "You were never even a man," a means of justifying the act. But instead, he stares down at a Superman rendered mortal and vulnerable, a man who's final words are a plea to save a mother, and the words, "Save Martha," resonate in Batman's brain for obvious reasons (it is his own mother's name).
That moment of confusion forces Batman to instantly relive his mother's death, to feel that helplessness again for the ten thousandth or millionth time, and then the confusion gives way to realization and understanding that Superman is indeed just a man with a life and a mother he is trying to protect, and Batman's world comes crashing down. He now knows that yes, he was the villain, he was another "good person" who didn't stay that way. He was standing astride a man who represented hope and goodness, blaming that man for all of humanity's failings and cynicism and hopelessness.
It's quite a thing to look into a mirror and see your greatest enemy staring back at you. That, it turns out, was Batman's true greatest fear, that instead of becoming a symbol to change the world, he had become another good person corrupted by that world instead. Now he knew it, without a doubt, and it almost drove him to murder a hero. Batman had to chose, in that moment, between continuing to be cynical and reject hope, or to have faith again and believe — having faith is something he hadn't done in a long time, obviously, but here now is a small bit of hope to cling to, a lifeline, and he grabs it.
Superman and Batman have come full circle now, two heroes embracing hope, having faith that good will triumph over evil, and committing to fight for that idealism. Superman gives his life for it, dying for this world because he had faith we were worth the sacrifice — a powerful absolute force of good dying for a flawed world, to try to save us from ourselves (which is what Luthor of course represents, the side of the coin where we cannot be redeemed, versus Batman as the side that can be redeemed).
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2016/03/29/zack-snyder-loves-superman-and-batman-v-superman-proves-it
Very good points well made in that analysis.
Some positive review links:
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-20160322
Mostly positive, giving the film points for being bold and risk-taking in it's story:
http://kutv.com/news/entertainment/the-world-is-not-ready-for-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice
https://youtu.be/wZxzsMBIhRY
Here is one analysis from somebody on Screen Rant who is praising Superman's arc in BvS, titled Batman V Superman: How Zack Snyder Told One of Superman's Greatest Stories.
Source: http://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-best-story-movie/
The same author wrote another analysis on Batfleck, titled How Zack Snyder Finally Got Batman Right.
Source: http://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-affleck-best-version/
https://vipmovieclub.org/2016/06/04/why-batman-v-superman-is-the-greatest-superhero-movie-of-all-time/
Some critics who were sorely disappointed by the theatrical cut were very impressed by the Ultimate Edition on this movie show called Collider. One of them said he felt really bad for Zack Snyder because his true vision for BvS had been "neutered" when it had to be condensed into two and a half hours, and claims he'll never watch the theatrical cut ever again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSI2w1Q_PXk
They weren't bought or biased like was implied by some.
Mark Hughes from Forbes chimes in for a positive review for BvS again, though this time it's for the Ultimate Edition.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2016/06/28/review-batman-v-superman-ultimate-edition-expands-story-and-wins-praise/#510b0ba06225
I bought the UC on Blu-ray today. I had been dreaming of walking into the store, picking it off the shelf and getting out my wallet. The video transfer quality is top notch. Sounds nice and loud too. People will be pleased with its audio/visual presentation.
This isn't a review by a critic, but a reflection by Midtown Comics marketing manager Gregg Katzman, who has found appreciation for the film after watching it for a second time.
Quote
Batman v Superman: From disappointment to appreciation
2016: The year I spent way too much time thinking about BvS
Movies play a huge role in my life. I remember being afraid as I watched the first ant scene in Honey, I Shrunk The Kids when I was just four years old, and I remember the excitement of watching the Ninja Turtles take on the Foot Clan when I was six. Whether a film turns out to be a personal favorite or a disappointment, it has the potential to stick with you for the rest of your life. After all, you're dedicating around an hour and a half to two hours or so of your time to focus solely on a single story. It has your complete attention and you're investing time in it - not only the time you spend watching the movie, but often the countless hours you'll spend thinking about it afterwards. One of the worst things a movie can be is forgettable. Love or hate it, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is by no means forgettable. Now that we're in 2017, I want to share just how much my thoughts have evolved on one of 2016's biggest comic book movies.
Just like so many of you, several movies are on my "must-watch" list each and every year. In 2016, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was easily at the top of my list. I loved 2013's Man of Steel (how many people just stopped reading?), so you can imagine how thrilled I was when BvS was announced at 2013's San Diego Comic-Con. That means my interest in Batman v Superman was building for about three years before I saw it. That's a whole lot of time to speculate and generate more and more anticipation. 2014's SDCC brought about the first image of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, as well as a brief teaser of Batman - in his iconic The Dark Knight Returns armor - having a stern staring contest with Superman. There was plenty to love from 2014's SDCC, but that was definitely my highlight, as well the highlight for many others out there.
Let's fast forward to 2015 - a huge year for promoting the second film in the DC Extended Universe. Due to a leak, the trailer was released a little early, and I was lucky enough to see it at the IMAX fan event, which included a few seconds of extra footage, two posters, and a ticket to see the movie for free in IMAX before it opened in theaters! Some time later, there was also another trailer that was full of fan service, like the first footage of Wonder Woman and Batman using his grappling gun - with a blink and you'll miss it nod to TDKR, too! I loved this trailer.
Later that year, Jimmy Kimmel Live debuted a new trailer - a trailer that would receive very mixed reactions, and understandably so. This is the trailer that included the first look at Doomsday (a villain who wasn't quite as fearsome looking as his comic book counter-part) and DC's Trinity (Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman) all standing on the same side, ready to take on the powerful enemy. Some people feel this took away from the weight of the conflict between Batman and Superman and ruined a surprise (Lex Luthor creates Doomsday). Given all of the rumors and amount of time we had to think about the film at that point, it just felt like it was confirming the obvious to me, so this didn't bother me one bit. In fact, it had the opposite effect on me. This trailer brought me so much joy. I couldn't believe I was seeing Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne taking verbal jabs at one another or the Trinity ready to face one of DC's most dangerous fiends. I was so excited that I ran into the bedroom - unaware that my wife was already asleep - and exclaimed something like "that trailer was so good!" It was a total fanboy moment, and I couldn't resist dropping an all caps tweet sharing just how much I loved it.
When 2016 rolled around, my expectations for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice were absurdly high. With about three years of speculation, I pretty much had my own version of the movie playing in my head. I thought about how thrilling it would be to see Batman test Superman's limits, and how it would now deliver a more vocal and optimistic version of Superman after the events in Man of Steel. With Aquaman getting his own collectibles (the Funko POP is immediately to the left of my laptop as I write this), I was so certain that he'd make a jaw-dropping debut as the Trinity struggled to defeat Doomsday. I wanted a brutal Batman - one inspired by Frank Miller, Klaus Janson, Lynn Varley, and John Costanza's The Dark Knight Returns - but he still wouldn't cross the line. I even remember defending the film before it released - I was so certain that Batman wouldn't do anything that would take a life! When the Batwing gunned down those trucks full of criminals in the trailer, I was confident that Lex Luthor hacked into the Batwing and was using it to fuel Superman's actions against Batman. And with the guns on the front of the Batmobile, I remember reading somewhere that it fired non-lethal rounds. I recall telling people that Batman wouldn't kill, otherwise he'd just be the Punisher cosplaying as the Caped Crusader.
I knew what I wanted from the film, and I brought all of that with me when I finally got to see the movie. My job (Midtown Comics' Marketing & Events Manager) comes with some great perks and I regularly collaborate with movie studios and marketing agencies to give fans in the NYC area some fun opportunities. For Batman v Superman, we gave some lucky fans the chance to attend the U.S. premiere of BvS at Radio City Music Hall, and I was able to attend with a few coworkers as well. This experience made me even more excited about watching the movie - this was my first time at the famous venue! Since you've read about my previous expectations for the movie, you can obviously tell by now that I was feeling pretty disappointed immediately after seeing Batman v Superman for the first time.
There were several things I really enjoyed - like the beautiful cinematography, witnessing Parademons on the big screen, Wonder Woman's cinematic debut, the costume designs, the warehouse fight, and Ben Affleck's performance - but that didn't matter to me right when I walked out of Radio City Music Hall. All I could think about was Batman taking lives whenever he was in one of his vehicles, and Superman's noticeable lack of dialogue. Both things were incredibly disappointing and I couldn't get them off my mind. "Why'd they make Batman act like that whenever he's in a vehicle? He was really going to kill Superman by stabbing him in the chest?! And why didn't Superman talk more?! He barely tried to talk to Batman during their fight!" I was okay with the unexpected ending in Man of Steel, but now that the cinematic universe is a bigger place and has more surreal elements, I found myself thinking about how things should have been handled - or at least how I think they should have played out. I know live-action versions of Batman have killed before - especially Michael Keaton, which is the version I loved as a child and still do love - but why couldn't they show a darker, more violent Batman who still holds on to his code? Why couldn't Superman's actions in their fight prove to Batman that they should become allies?
I saw the movie a second time shortly afterwards (an IMAX screening). I went with a good friend (he liked it) and, before going in, I told myself that I'd watch with an open mind, unlike my first viewing. My first viewing was loaded with preconceived notions - no matter how scary he may be, Batman doesn't kill, and Superman is friendly face who inspires us. So, during my second viewing I did my best to let go of these thoughts and judge the film based on what it's trying to tell me instead of what I wanted from it. Obviously, I enjoyed it a lot more this time around. It didn't completely shake my disappointment over Batman taking lives and Superman's limited dialogue, but they bothered me less because with the initial shock cast aside, I better understood why things went that way.
With the initial disappointment out of the way, I could finally watch the movie with a clear mind. I better understood that Batman's pain and anger transformed him into the very thing he spent decades fighting against. It wasn't what I wanted, but it made sense and will likely solidify Batman's moral code as we move forward. He was so blinded by his hate that it took a reminder about the tragic loss of his parents to finally snap him out of it. The "Martha" scene isn't as simple as their moms having the same name - it's about taking him back to the very last thing his father said and how that drastically changed his life and set him on a path that was so very clear to him; however, he was no longer the Batman that he should be, which is likely how many fans - including myself - felt while watching the movie. Superman's sacrifice in the end (by the way, he can't give Diana the spear because she's holding Doomsday with the lasso, and wouldn't it be out of character from him to want someone else to risk their life?) blatantly makes Batman realize that he needs to change his ways.
I better understood that Superman wanted to help but faced a stunning amount of conflict as his mere existence led to the suffering of others - you can tell he wants to as he smiles while saving a child from a fire. Can you really blame him for experiencing doubt, though? He tried to the do the right thing by meeting politicians, and in doing so, many lives were lost - this came after the world questioned whether he helps or hurts, too. However, his sacrifice reminded much of the world that he is on their side and a symbol of hope. This will likely give him more confidence as he returns in Justice League, which hopefully means he'll have more dialogue as he interacts with his fellow heroes. I also realized that Superman tried to talk it out with Batman but quickly realized there was no reasoning with the vigilante, so he tried to end the fight swiftly and then talk some sense into him - but, as you know, it quickly became a fight for survival once he inhaled some kryptonite.
The more and more I think about it, the more I believe that what I wanted would have been a very safe approach and not nearly as interesting. Entertaining? Absolutely, but I can't help but feel like it wouldn't have stuck with me nearly as much as Batman v Superman has. The comic book counter-parts of these iconic heroes have decades and decades of history, so I don't mind these brand new live-action incarnations being developed differently as long as they organically end up becoming more like the characters we expect them to, and I do believe that Batman v Superman's story accomplished that. In my opinion, I think Batman going after Superman - especially after the loss of a Robin - with so much hate in his heart is an organic conflict given the devastating event in Metropolis; it makes sense that someone like Superman would be so polarizing in the modern era, and that would absolutely make him wonder if he's making things better or worse.
Batman v Superman didn't give me the story I wanted, but it's one that I've come to appreciate more and more with every viewing, and the director's cut definitely enhances Superman's story - I strongly recommend it if you're willing to give the movie another chance. With this darker movie out of the way (which is fitting because it was loosely inspired by TDKR, after all), I'm feeling optimistic about 2017's DC movies, especially with Geoff Johns being so involved. Up next: Justice League and Wonder Woman! Happy New Year, everyone.
Source: http://greggkatzman.blogspot.com/2017/01/2016-my-year-with-batman-v-superman.html
Here is one article analysing the political subtext of the film, from FHM, of all places.
Quote
'Batman v Superman': Why Its Political Message Makes It the Most Powerful Superhero Film Ever
By Jed Pressgrove
For boldly reflecting the darkness of U.S. politics, "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" is the most powerful superhero movie yet. With two of the most overexposed superheroes in pop culture, director Zack Snyder draws frequent attention to an anti-immigrant, God-doubting crisis, transcending the more superficial, marketable goal of connecting comic-book characters through a "universe" of films. Most U.S. citizens, if they look hard enough, can recognize the fruit of their political sentiments in one or more of the main characters or plot points in "Batman v Superman." This mirror effect is what makes Snyder's concluding moral image of diverse people standing together so resonant.
The conflict in "Batman v Superman" begins by revisiting the climactic battle in 2014's "Man of Steel" (also directed by Snyder), this time with greater focus on the collateral damage. In a scene evoking the 9/11 terrorist attack on NYC, Batman's millionaire alter ego Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) watches one of his buildings collapse before spotting Superman fly away from the destruction. As this vision contributes to Wayne's descent into violent paranoia, Superman (Henry Cavill) struggles with doubt about his status as savior of the world, as he is under public scrutiny for his interventions into human affairs (one protestor spray-paints "False God" on a statue of the caped hero). What follows is a collision of cynicism (Batman) and good will (Superman), with hipster philanthropist Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) agitating the situation as a self-proclaimed rejecter of God's power and altruism.
This set-up allows Snyder to craft the most audacious personal statement on post-9/11 America in recent blockbuster history. It's specious to say Snyder is just riffing on Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" comic book series, which also puts Superman and Batman at odds. (Besides, Snyder's sense of awe and prophecy is more reminiscent of work by "Kingdom Come" painter Alex Ross.)
With constant references to an alien operating outside of the law, a man in the sky, and the Messiah, Snyder makes Superman represent both the immigrant and the Christian deity (God/Jesus), presenting an obvious target for the xenophobia and atheism of Batman and Lex Luthor.
This type of symbolism for Superman isn't new, but "Batman v Superman" is the first film to so blatantly use superheroes to explain the times we live in. Snyder doesn't pull any punches in spelling out the understandable rage that supports bad-tendency philosophy and law like The Patriot Act. At one point Affleck's Batman suggests if there is a one percent chance Superman can destroy the world, society must take it as an absolute certainty. In contrast, Christopher Nolan's allusion to increased surveillance in "The Dark Knight" doesn't articulate the emotions behind U.S. policy; it merely tries to turn a plot device to catch the Joker into a topical ethical dilemma.
Snyder's blunt commentary is amplified by the most striking imagery of his filmography. Snyder has become a more sophisticated visual storyteller since experimenting with slow motion with an amateur's enthusiasm in "300" and "Watchmen." The deaths of Bruce Wayne's parents, for example, have never been more provocatively framed than in "Batman v Superman." In this scene, Snyder uses short depth of field to evince the anxiety of being at the wrong end of a gun, with morbid emphasis provided by slow-motion shots of the gun's slider and a shell hitting the ground. This is topped by another first-person shot of the gun barrel, this time with the weapon inside of the mother's pearl necklace. With pearls raining down after the gun fires, Snyder captures innocence and hopelessness, two concepts connected to the loss of power and control that Americans experienced as they watched planes strike the World Trade Center. Wayne's tragedy in "Batman v Superman" is not just another origin story but parallels the outrage and trauma that fuel contemporary U.S. in-fighting.
"Batman v Superman" astutely identifies the yearning in the United States for social solidarity. Batman reminisces about a simpler, almost mythical time of "diamond absolutes." Wonder Woman sums up a common sentiment on the futility of partisan politics ("Man made a world where standing together isn't possible."). The most powerful reminder of America's moral confusion comes from newspaper editor Perry White (played with a perfect no-bullsh*t tone by Laurence Fishburne): "The American conscience died with Robert, Martin, and John."
"Batman v Superman" is unlikely to provide inspiration to a sociopathic murderer (see James Holmes and Nolan's "The Dark Knight") because it doesn't ultimately imply goodness is unfashionable or must be compromised. Earlier in the film, Batman states to his butler Alfred, "We're criminals," as if there is no political alternative. But after seeing Superman sacrifice himself, Batman shares a more profound self-reflection: "We can do better. We have to." These lines show an urgency that can be felt in all corners of Election Year 2016.
Source: http://www.fhm.com/posts/batman-v-superman-why-its-political-message-makes-it-the-most-powerful-superhero-film-ever-100241
Good find TLF.
Having seen and enjoyed BvS recently, I did appreciate some of the political subtext referred to in Jed Pressgrove's piece, and I found the film to be much more progressive in its perspective than many of its critics were willing to concede. As an agnostic with some theistic-leanings and Christian Socialist sympathies, I also appreciated the way Superman was presented as a Godly and literally otherworldly figure unfairly besieged by twin forces of atheism and xenophobia, embodied by both Lex Luthor and Bruce Wayne/Batman, the latter of whom finally comes to see the error of his Rumsfeld-like "if there is a one percent chance Superman can destroy the world, society must take it as an absolute certainty" perspective.
And yeah, I can't stand hipster philanthropist new-atheists myself, and I know there are many here on both the political left and right who feel a similar way.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 4 Jun 2017, 08:40with hipster philanthropist Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) agitating the situation as a self-proclaimed rejecter of God's power and altruism.
Very insightful review. The reviewer articulates his appreciation of the film from the standpoint of his own political views. While his implied political outlook isn't anything I agree with, I do find it interesting that he and I see identical aspects of the movie and even recognize the same implication of them but go in two different ideological directions with them.
This may not be the best place to discuss this next thing. But here goes anyway. The whole trend of hipster atheism is bothersome to a lot of people. And whatever, it's not my business to tell them they're wrong. Speaking as a Catholic (and therefore obviously a theist), what I find far more infuriating are the hipster Christian types exemplified by Rachel Held Evans, Donald Miller and that crowd.
I mention this to ask if perhaps the balance of hipster atheism (which stands for little more than vitriolically tearing down others in a borderline nihilistic way) is this hipster Christianity, which stands for little more than a general
feel-good theology in a vaguely affirming way.
I found this positive review/analysis from a site called CantStopTheMovies.com.
QuoteWhat are we talking about when we talk about Clark Kent? We're all going to answer the question a different way. Are we going to be discussing the paragon of All-Star Superman, the one who is able to take time for a woman contemplating suicide before giving Lois Lane superpowers? Or maybe it's the flawed Clark of Kingdom Come? This one couldn't handle what his symbol was inspiring, escaped the world to live only as Clark, and when he returned as Superman created a prison for those who wouldn't play by the rules. My favorite, and the one who came to mind the most watching Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (BvS), was the Clark of Superman for All Seasons. The one who was manipulated to feel he couldn't make a difference, but when the time came to save a flooding town he put the cape back without question because, "...all I needed to know know was Clark."
Zack Snyder understands Clark. He understood Clark was a boy raised in a humble, loving, and not always correct family. Clark had abilities which made him unlike anyone else, and with that the pressure of becoming a symbol for something we as a species aren't capable of. Man of Steel put Clark through the wringer, presenting him an impossible situation and a public suspicious of him, and still Clark found the strength to do what good he could. Snyder's Clark is not like Grant Morrison's, Mark Waid's, or Jeph Loeb's. You may recognize bits of those other Clarks, but Snyder's is aware that he can't save everyone. But still he tries.
If Man of Steel was Snyder embracing the optimism of a superhero in our troubled times, BvS positions itself as the critique that Clark's best is not good enough. I don't agree with that, and thankfully neither do screenwriters Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer. This is because the critique comes in the form of Batman, whose perspective skews the moral lens of BvS, and exposes the virus of modern American society. If Batman is what our policemen aspire to, the one's who are supposed to be protecting us, then they aspire to become careless xenophobic men of power who can hurt who they want - when they want. Batman is not someone we should aspire to be. Clark is.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cantstopthemovies.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F03%2FI-see-the-dead.jpg&hash=fca55d2831ed8b33ec11b28b157bd307dc1ee99c)
Zack Snyder's never one to shy away from a bold image to make the ethics of his films clear, and BvS is packed with them.
The venom of Batman comes from a much-maligned decision to cast Ben Affleck as the Dark Knight. Affleck puts all of those preemptive criticisms to rest with a terrifying performance. He presents Batman as a monster, born from the darkness which he mistakenly thought would bring him to the light, and has abandoned any pretense of being Bruce Wayne. When Affleck asks Clark (Henry Cavill), "Do you bleed?" it's not from evil, but from a profound sense of anxiety that his efforts to shape the world through force could be brought down by seemingly indifferent gods. Affleck makes himself a muscular brute who doesn't even try to engage his long-suffering aide Alfred (Jeremy Irons) when Alfred criticizes Batman. Instead, Affleck makes Batman go deeper into a nihilistic mania while molding his body into the kind of monster he imagines Superman to be. It's not all darkness, but the levity comes from the moments when Batman has to be Bruce, and Affleck makes these attempts so bumbling and transparent it's a wonder he pulled off the secret identity at all.
So if Affleck is the surprise backbone of BvS, then Jesse Eisenberg is its pulsing id. Eisenberg seems to draw inspiration from our outgoing technological entrepreneurs, like Elon Musk, the '90s version of Lex Luthor with wild red hair and a daddy complex, and men with too much money and too little restriction on what they can and can't do. Like, say, Donald Trump. Eisenberg's Luthor is every bit the villain for our times, manipulating social media and corporate profits alike to make our heroes lose a bit of their luster, all while Luthor is free to do what he wants. It's in this unpredictability that Eisenberg's Luthor becomes so compelling as he's just as likely to violently tap his fingers on a desk when not getting his way as he is to launch into angry retellings of deistic origins. Eisenberg's Luthor is the flip side of the same dirty coin Affleck's Batman is on. Both are men who see the system as a tool, one for Luthor to utilize in any way he sees fit and one Batman brutalizes those who stray from it.
Where, then, does that leave Cavill's Clark? Once again, Cavill proves to be the conflicted moral center of the DC cinematic universe. Cavill does not present Clark as someone who is impervious to the public scrutiny placed on his actions. He may have the most one-note performance in BvS, but it's an essential one, as Cavill rarely lets the pain of the innocents escape his face. There are bright moments, especially when he and Lois Lane (Amy Adams) have their time alone. But Clark is someone who lives the words, "I feel your pain," and it's the pain of those he can't save that Cavill brands into his expression.
Clark's pain, Batman's rage, and Luthor's megalomania are the crucial character and performance-based components of BvS. None of the performances or character work would be worth a damn without Snyder's direction. He builds the ideological argument about what Superman is, and what he should be, not through the dialogue but a series of excellent sequences that only end when the credits roll. The introduction is the stuff of nightmares as a boy is carried into the air by bats, an acknowledgement that Batman thought he could be the hero Superman is through darkness. As Batman says early on, it's a lie, and when we first get a glimpse of Batman he is scurrying along the ceiling like a diseased spider. When an officer shoots at the bat his superior condones him, "Don't shoot the good guys." The "good guys", as Snyder shows us, who leave foreigners terrified and the guilty branded and bleeding. Clark, by comparison, emerges slowly from a crowd whose faces are painted as skeletons, reaching out for him after he carried one of their own to safety. Then he slowly drifts to a woman reaching out to him, toward the sun, desperate for hope.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cantstopthemovies.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F03%2FThe-symbol-descends.jpg&hash=c659ad50a5e074393e7fcafbdebb670be354754e)
If Batman preys on criminals in costume because they are a cowardly and superstitious lot, what does that say about his decision to strike from the shadows as a bat?
This is not subtle film-making, but the idea that a story concerning superheroes with the subtitle Dawn of Justice should be subtle is misguided. Snyder is operating at a level of myth-making beyond the flawed narration which framed the violent desires in 300. If Superman represents hope to these people, Snyder shows Clark providing that hope when he can. If Batman terrifies, then Snyder shows how Batman creates and perpetuates the criminal terror. Most appropriately, if a man like Luthor imagines himself a mortal god among literal gods, then Snyder shows Luthor as a towering and cocky man entering the Kryptonian spacecraft as a conquering deity. These are powerful images painted in the faces of the terrified and the dangerous, and it's in this terror Snyder makes his ideological case.
Snyder tones the mythic film-making for other aspects of the ideological argument when observing what Superman and Batman mean to people of different races and economic classes. When Clark attends a party celebrating Luthor, Snyder shows Clark ducking out of the mostly white attendants to be with the mostly Mexican laborers while Batman hobnobs with the rich whites. The division is clear - Clark understands that to better the system he has to help those ignored by it, and the "American way" hurts more than those in America. This focus on how the "American way" hurts those not fortunate enough to be rich white Americans is reflected in the dialogue, where Clark challenges his boss Perry White (Lawrence Fishburn) with, "Don't the poor buy newspapers?" Batman, in contrast, pays a black man to be beaten and then savagely beat another so Batman might find the information he needs to advance his own agenda. For those who have found our "American way" of justice brutal to minorities and offering little in the way of rehabilitation, is Clark or Batman more inspiring?
With that question in your mind, it's good to remember that Snyder isn't all ideology when it comes to his touches both big and small. When Wonder Woman (an underused Gal Gadot) pops into action she does so with a metal cello, courtesy of Tina Guo, that puts the most kickin' '80s cock rock guitar solo to shame right before she charges a monster with the intent to cut its Achilles tendon. It's brilliant character building both in Snyder's way of defying expectation as the guitar used to signal the likes of Jean-Claude Van Damme, and suggesting Wonder Woman's combat prowess by showing how focused she is in her strikes. Even then, one of the big flaws of BvS is the way women are pushed to the sidelines or used as pawns. Wonder Woman may create a vision of powerful women who don't pander to men, but it comes long after Lois and Martha Kent (an also excellent, and little seen, Diane Lane) have been moved to being tools of Snyder's own cinematic machine.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cantstopthemovies.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F03%2FA-lone-pillar-of-strength.jpg&hash=d9dcd0f898d289b0a761cb611984ba57d6823301)
Wonder Woman's onscreen time is minimal, but Gal Gadot and Zack Snyder's confident direction make her a potent force.
Which brings me to a question I'm seeing a lot. Is BvS fun? No.
I was enthralled from beginning to end, and I was brought to tears by the sight of Clark helping those in need while the media breaks him down. BvS is an excellent movie, but it is not fun. That said, I reject the idea that superhero movies have to be fun. What the Marvel Cinematic Universe has shown me since its inception is that "fun" comes at the cost of ignoring the system which oppresses others. There is sparse redemption in fun, and what BvS does is provide us a painful balm to the narcissistic evils which dominate the American airwaves. I cried, I smiled, I forgot to blink for such long stretches I cried some more, and I saw someone inspire the best in others. But I didn't have much fun.
Movies are more than fun. Superhero movies, especially, grow empty if the ethics of their universes are left unexamined in the spirit of fun. If all we want is to see the pages of our favorite comics reproduced in faithful fidelity then we should ask why those very comics still leave a longing for more. This more has come in the form of callous superheroes who eat shawarma after thwarting an alien invasion. Clark doesn't eat shawarma, he works to inspire and hopefully redeem us all. Look no further than Batman for proof.
Man of Steel was the best movie of 2013. As it stands, BvS is every bit its equal in 2016. I stand awed and filled with hope to work for better days to come.
Source: http://www.cantstopthemovies.com/2016/03/batman-v-superman-dawn-justice-2016/
Here are three videos by this guy on YouTube, including analysing and addressing the common criticisms of the film, his love for the Ultimate Edition, and why it's better than JL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKnZFGGkLYc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnbnAU956Ss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKgKbxoFICA