Post positive reviews

[The Laughing Fish]

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

[The Dark Knight]

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.

[The Laughing Fish]

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.

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

[The Laughing Fish]

Here is one article analysing the political subtext of the film, from FHM, of all places.

'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

[johnnygobbs]

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.

[thecolorsblend]

with 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.

[The Laughing Fish]

I found this positive review/analysis from a site called CantStopTheMovies.com.

What 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.

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.

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.

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/

[The Laughing Fish]

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.

[The Laughing Fish]

Here's a blog entry arguing how BvS has stood the test of time than Captain America: Civil War.

BATMAN V SUPERMAN HAS OUTLIVED CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR

Looking back, the Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice vs Captain America: Civil War fight had a clear winner.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Captain America: Civil War both debuted in theatres around the world in 2016, and eight years later, the former has had a far more long-lasting impact.

Batman v Superman and Civil War were released in very close proximity, with the former debuting on March 25th, 2016. The latter, arriving on May 5th of that year, and their close release to each other stoked the DC vs Marvel fandom war to its boiling point. This was in large part due to the two films, each being the big "heroes vs. heroes" chapters of their respective cinematic universes.

When all was said and done, Civil War emerged as 2016's biggest box office hit with a largely positive reception. Batman v Superman, meanwhile, instantly became one of the most divisive superhero movies ever made. While it was a huge hit with its $873 million worldwide haul, the fact that it did not join the $1 billion club, along with its love-it-or-hate-it reception and never-ending lampooning of the "Martha" moment, gave Warner Bros. cold feet about Zack Snyder's vision for the DCEU.

While all of the above factors gave Civil War the crown for 2016, eight years later, it is Batman v Superman that has cemented a much greater legacy in the long run. Ironically, the polarized reception to Batman v Superman itself helps explain why that is.

THE SNYDER CUT PHENOMENON

The divisiveness of Batman v Superman led directly to Warner Bros.'s decision to pivot away from the tone Zack Snyder had started the DCEU within 2013's Man of Steel, with the studio bringing in Joss Whedon to extensively reshoot and rework 2017's Justice League. However, the massive retooling of Justice League (along with the seedy behind-the-scenes situation during the reshoots) lit the fire of the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut campaign, which eventually led to Snyder's version of the film being released as Zack Snyder's Justice League in 2021.

Amid the Snyder Cut fan campaign, the debate about the themes of heroism, power, corruption, and sacrifice in Batman v Superman raged day in and day out online, a trend that still continues to this very day. By itself, that is testimony that Batman v Superman has maintained a presence within the zeitgeist seldom achieved by most superhero movies. Even with a split audience reaction, Batman v Superman has done anything but recede from the public's memory.

CIVIL WAR: A PASSING CHAPTER?

By contrast, Captain America: Civil War has arguably come and gone even within the context of the MCU itself. Despite its generally positive reception and box office triumph in 2016, Civil War has not left a comparably visible pop culture footprint. After all, when was the last time you saw nerds furiously debating whether they would fight on Captain America or Iron Man's side? Within the MCU, Civil War also has not been referenced or returned to much, if at all, especially after Thanos showed up to threaten the entire universe, effectively forcing the divided Avengers to put their baggage from the Sokovia Accords aside and team up again.

In measuring the impact the two films had, Batman v Superman has survived years of slings and arrows and simply seared itself into the collective consciousness. Moreover, the push for the Snyder Cut also bolstered the legacy of Batman v Superman even more.

Since its 2021 release, Zack Snyder's Justice League has enjoyed an all-around positive reception, with even many detractors being won over and the public stock of Batman v Superman noticeably rising due to the pay-off its follow-up brought – even to the point of many still hoping to see Snyder's intended conclusion to his five-movie Justice League story concluded at some point.

None of that is to say that Civil War is a bad movie or didn't help move the MCU's larger story forward. However, with eight years for both films to embed themselves in the public's consciousness, nerds and the general public alike continue to talk about, debate, dissect, and ruminate over Batman v Superman far more than Captain America: Civil War.

However many Martha jokes it may have had to overcome, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice may have lost the battle of 2016, but it has clearly won the war.

https://www.fortressofsolitude.co.za/batman-v-superman-has-outlived-captain-america-civil-war/