Batman v Superman: L'aube de la justice

Well In my opinion this was a good movie and definitely way more than 6.4/10, the direction is good, the cinematography is very good, tho the comic relevance is somewhat dicey to have opinions on but after this movie ben affleck was required to have a solo film to atleast just show his batman and that too Snyder's whole depiction of batman.

The extended cut is definitely the way to watch this movie. That being said, I'm going to explain to everyone the highly criticized "Martha" scene.

The reason Batman ultimately stopped short of killing Superman had nothing to do with both mothers having the same name. While Clark saying that name caught him off guard, once Lois explained it's his mother's name, Bruce realized in that moment that Superman was as human as anyone else. Remember, right before"Martha", Batman said he probably isn't even human. But by having a mother, Bruce realized Clark was as human as anyone else, since all humans have a mother. That's what that scene is all about.

If you've only given Batman v Superman, BvS, once, or havnt given it a shot due to divisive reviews give the directors a shot. This film fills in the holes and expands the story and characters enough that certain scenes mean alot more and certain views are more understandable. It's not crazy different from the theatrical version, but enough warrant a better score and ultimately make BvS a better film. Man of Steel, BvS Directors cut and Zack Snyders Justice League, when viewed in the order are a decent trilogy in their own right and enjoyable for the fans of DC comics...

A film too layered for casual viewers, yet too muddled in execution to guide them through its depth.

This is a review for the Ultimate Edition extended cut, not the theatrical release.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a film caught between brilliance and miscommunication-a grand, operatic story about fear, power, and manipulation that was tragically misunderstood by both critics and audiences. Many dismissed it as a chaotic superhero clash, failing to grasp that Lex Luthor orchestrated the entire conflict as a commentary on how ideology, trauma, and mistrust can turn saviors into enemies. Yet the film also shares the blame; its dense symbolism, nonlinear storytelling, and lack of narrative clarity left casual viewers alienated. What could have been a modern myth about the fragility of heroism and the corruption of faith in power instead became a victim of its own ambition-too intelligent for those seeking a simple comic book movie, yet too convoluted to communicate its full vision.

A lot of film critics and audience members keep asking why Batman and Superman are fighting in Batman v Superman. Alright, let me break it down for you:

The conflict between Batman and Superman in the film was orchestrated entirely by Lex Luthor. Clark Kent was investigating Batman, believing him to have become a brutal vigilante acting as judge, jury, and executioner in Gotham. In truth, it was Luthor's mercenaries-working with corrupt inmates-who were killing criminals marked with Batman's brand, framing him as a murderer. Luthor, already aware of Clark's true identity as Superman, manipulated events to turn the two heroes against each other.

On the other hand, Bruce Wayne had personally witnessed the destruction caused by Superman's battle with Zod-the deaths and suffering of his employees and innocent people during the collateral damage. After twenty years of fighting crime in Gotham, Bruce had grown deeply cynical. His experience taught him that even the noble can be corrupted, controlled, or coerced. Seeing Superman's unchecked power and the devastation it brought, Bruce's fear and skepticism were justified. As Alfred warns, "It starts with the fever, the rage... that turns good men cruel."

Meanwhile, Luthor also preyed on Bruce's guilt by manipulating one of his employees, Wally. Luthor intercepted and returned Wally's disability checks, making it appear as though Wayne Enterprises had abandoned him. Crippled, bitter, and desperate, Wally lost faith in both Superman and Bruce Wayne. Luthor then used him as a pawn in the Capitol bombing, framing Superman as an accomplice and deepening Bruce's belief that Superman's existence invited chaos and destruction.

Luthor in Batman v Superman more of a philosopher than a villain. Lex's bitterness isn't random jealousy - it's existential outrage. His logic is brutally consistent:

"If God is all-powerful, He cannot be all-good.

If He is all-good, He cannot be all-powerful."

Superman, to him, embodies that contradiction. Here's a being who looks like a man yet wields godlike power, and everyone calls him a savior. But Lex sees the flaw - if power like that exists, and it's not given to all, then divinity isn't fair. God, or fate, chose sides.

It might have helped if the story were told in a more linear, straightforward way-after all, it's a comic book movie, and casual viewers make up most of the audience. Then again, one could argue that films shouldn't have to dumb themselves down just to be easily digestible.

It may come across as pretentious to critics and audiences who lack the intellectual capacity to grasp the plot and symbolism.

The duty of a filmmaker is to elevate the audience, not to conform to a society that's grown intellectually complacent - just as audiences must raise their own intelligence to meet halfway.

I loved almost everything about this movie.

I really like Henry Cavill as Superman, and really enjoyed his continued storyline.

I never thought Ben Affleck could pull off Batman, but he rocked it! Until now, I thought Christian Bale made the best Batman, but he just got bumped from being my favorite (although I still love the Christopher Nolan Batman films).

Gal Gadot? What can I say... Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman was my first love, but Ms. Gadot sure caught my eye when she started playing WW.

Really, I'm a big Jesse Eisenberg fan... but I'm not sure he was right for Lex Luthor. He seemed a little too... uhm... "juvenile" in the role. Personally, I would have liked to have seen someone with a little more age and poise about them who could also pull of arrogant and sinister... like Neal McDonough. McDonough can pull off a villain... Eisenberg not so much. This was just a minor complaint in what was still an outstanding movie!