seen some very dark times. His partnership with Jeremy Irons adds some much needed lightness to the movie. Cavill delivered the dialogues during the fight scene with Batman in a near perfect way. Gal Gadot had a much bigger role to play than seen in the trailers. And Jesse was good in a complex way. Fans have to understand that his Luthor is not muscular as compared to what we have seen in previous Superman movies His Luthor is an evil genius who does a great job of pitting the two giants against each other. Jesse played the role to his strengths as he should have. Contrary to the popular perception especially after the third trailer that the whole movie was spoil-ed, the plot was way more deeper than we imagined. The only issues were a fight scene where CGI looked dull and maybe, just maybe a bit over stuffing. But overall, this is EPIC.

film with Batman. One comment on the latest BvS trailer said he fought like the Arkham video games from a scene they showed. That's a good comparison. He's incredible in fights. Also the way Snyder records him in action, you can actually see him fighting unlike the Nolan films, which I'd imagine would make many people happy. He also gets a chance to use his detective skills, do not worry. Also his relationship with Irons, who plays Alfred, is just wonderful in general. Irons was exceptional in the role  Its Jeremy Irons for Christ's sake, of course he nailed the role gets some witty lines and also gets pretty emotional later on. He didn't get a lot of screen time, just enough to be effective. Always passing advice to Batman.

This movie is art. It deserves Oscars. Also kudos to Zimmer. His score is both haunting and epic at the same time.The direction is absolutely fantastic. Zack masterfully blends shots in a poetic way. The pacing is absolutely better than other comic book movies; we see things build up to this great, epic, brawl instead of getting bits and spurts. It makes the overall payoff much, much better. This movie feels like a Greek epic come to the big screen. Terrio's writing style and Ben Affleck's assistance come shining through the screenplay, which will silence the Man of Steel haters. The flow of the narrative is smooth. There is humor, there is wit. There is mythos, there is sadness. There is even a lot of subtle political commentary that Terrio sneaks in. You will feel many, many emotions while watching this. I also have to mention that the third act is easily the apex of comic-book-dom. It feels like a hodge podge of some of the greatest moments in comics brushed onto the canvas of this movie. Zack's done it guys. He's made a darn masterpiece. We should thank this man. He's created this year's Mad Max. A blockbuster movie that exceeds even the strongest naysayer's expectations. It's everything we wanted in a comic book movie but more.P.S. Marvel's movies don't hold a candle to this one. D.C. has their Empire Strikes Back.

regarding super hero movies, so i ask to you to forget MU while watching the film. Despite this, you will end the movie thinking that it is a darker, better writing and more complex Avengers movie. The movie is amazing, and i hope you enjoy it.

cinematic debut. People either loved it and called Zack a genius, or hated it and called him a hack. Me, personally, I found myself with middle of the road feelings, for sure, but more leaning towards the negative side with subsequent viewings. The theatrical cut of the film showcased amazing performances, incredible visuals, and action set pieces that seemed like comic book panels come to life, in a good way. However, when it comes to its narrative structure and more technical aspects like editing, the film was seriously flawed. More plot holes than Age of Ultron, questionable character decisions, random editing that lacked cohesion and focus, and forced dramatic moments that lacked any impact because the attempts at character development ranged from limited to nonexistent, especially when it comes to Superman's character. I thought it was a 5/10 movie at best. As such, I was kind of skeptical about the idea of a 30 minute longer version. I say kind of because I know how Zack works. I remember Watchmen being vastly improved with its director's cut, so in a way I was expecting BvS to perform in a similar manner, but I also feared those 30 minutes wold be just there to amplify action and discredit storytelling issues. Oh boy, I'm so glad I was proved wrong. The ultimate cut of the film was infuriating, but not because it was awful, but because it questions the sanity of WB executives and editors and makes you wonder what were they thinking during the editing process. What I got out of the Ultimate Edition was a thought-provoking deconstruction of two very iconic superheroes that gave spotlight to the struggles both of them face when they aren't fighting crime. What I got was an extremely well produced character study on both Batman and Superman in a cynical world, a world dangerously close to our own. We meet Batman as a ruthless, worn out hero that has seen the failure behind his ideals and witnessed some truly horrifying things in his life. Superman, on the other hand, is portrayed as a godlike figure that seeks to do good in the world, but finds himself emotionally conflicted once he realized that every good deed he does leaves behind a trail of destruction most of it due to Luthor's antics . In my opinion, this is a hugely original approach, one that distances itself from the rest of the competition and delivers a dark, somber, yet relevant superhero movie that understands both characters and gives them real human struggles to deal with. I felt invested in both of them, and hoped that by the end of the film both could find a way to redeem themselves. Their character arcs were very well established during the first two acts of the movie, and by the time we get to the titular climactic battle the emotion behind the jaw-dropping action is intensified. Lex Luthor as a villain was also given more time to develop with this new edition. One of the main criticisms with the original version was the fact that his plan relied too much on conveniences, and the character's mannerisms and mad-scientist attitude was annoying, and that goes without saying his motivations were unclear. Not only do we spend more time understanding his hate for any godlike figure and thus his hatred for Superman, but the added scenes allowed us to witness his entire plan come to fruition. It sells the cold, manipulative, calculating attributes of his comic counterpart. The acting is spot on. Every actor owns his/her role, from Cavill's Superman, to Ben Affleck as Batman, Eisenberg as Luthor, and Gadot as Wonder Woman, whose scenes are brief, but are more than enough to sell the strong and ferocious warrior that she is. Cinematography is stunning, and miles above that of Man of Steel's. And the soundtrack by Zimmer and Junkie XL? Perfect, just perfect. When it comes to flaws, the film still has some of those. The Martha moment, while serving as a pivotal character moment for Batman, felt off in execution, and its understandable that many people got mad at it. If your main complaint about BvS the first time around was its bleak tone and subject matter, this film is still not for you. I understand most were expecting to see the heroes being the most iconic versions of themselves, clashing in an elongated battle and evoking the same feelings The Avengers gave audiences back in 2012. In that sense, the film will remain divisive, but at least I have the comfort of saying that, at the very least, the film is competently made.

allowed to be funny and charming as Bruce Wayne. And please, please allow Superman to be the sunshine of the world again, full of joy, charisma and unbreakable good mood. Stop making him look so sad, frustrated, confused, etc. This is not him, Superman is Light, the ultimate ambassador of kindness, justice and hope! Actually, he is pretty much the PR of the Justice League, so please no more unnecessary conflicts as the basis for the Justice League films anymore! Must say, that the action scenes are brilliant. Way better than both Avengers films. please do notice that I am just a huge fan of both DC and Marvel . Please Warner, do not kill any projects for the DC universe, but please, add Humor, and less boring political conflicts!

Bale's Batman whose fighting looked really dumb. For real, though, Affleck needs to win an Oscar for Best Actor. Eisenberg's performance as Lex Luthor was brilliant. Cavill's performance as Superman was pretty much the same as his performance in Man of Steel. His performance as Clark Kent was very accurate to the comics. Every other member of the cast did great, too, but those were the performances that stood out Irons was great as Alfred, too .The movie is ACTION PACKED. The fight between Batman and Superman was amazing. The way the fight was choreographed was beyond anything we've ever seen before. It's any fanboy's dream come true. As for the length of the fight: The true fight is longer than the Hulkbuster vs. Hulk battle in "Avengers: Age of Ultron." The reason I say TRUE fight is because there are technically two fights sort of . One is a Batmobile chase the end of it was the "Do You Bleed?" scene we saw featured in Conan , and the other one is the Dark Knight Returns-reminiscent fight yeah, the one where Batman fights Superman in the armor . I'm not going to spoil who wins, but they both throw some pretty devastating punches at one another.In the middle of writing this review, I forgot to mention Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman. I was a little worried about the accent, but she managed to hide it so that she gave us the Wonder Woman performance we've all been waiting for. She was pretty damn good not as good as Eisenberg or Affleck, but good .No crucial part of the film was revealed before the screenings or the movie's release. The visuals look amazing except for one particular scene, where the CGI looked like trash . Overall, definitely a 10/10 film.

character is and how wonderful of a job Eisenberg does as Luthor. Wonder Woman is fearsome. The action is epic, the story is rich and I can happily say I will be seeing this again and again, hopefully I did not spoil anything as I want to everyone to have as good as a time as I did.

balanced realistic ideas and concepts and seamlessly merged them into the characters' story arc allowing them to develop in a more realistic and comic accurate manner. The amount of depth and thought put into this film is unseen in previous comic book films. This movie focuses on more mature themes to drive the story, as a result, it feels more real and enhances the general feel of the movie because it has a greater sense of realityIt's a shame most of these elements went straight over people's heads. They're biased against the movie because they didn't like these versions of characters. They can't express their opinions in a constructive way because those opinions full of blind hatredSnyder made something so controversial that the DC's own fanboys turned against this universe. Casual moviegoers probably bored by the dialogues. But the dialogues were the most important thing in this movie. They didn't care about them, so they decided to hate the movie and call it boring disregarding its cinematography and soundtrack. Critics didn't like the movie because... Yeah, why? Maybe because they expected the sun to come out. Maybe because they expected something light, or funny, or casual. 'Cause clearly today's blockbuster movies needs to be all about these materials for the critics. But just because a movie didn't follow the procedure doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. Just because a movie is dark doesn't mean it's bad. Maybe those critics haven't seen 'Schindler's List' yet. Or maybe they've seen it and now they're being hypocritical by saying that this movie is too dark. "But tHeir genres aRe not tHe same, you can't cOmpAre the tWo" noMovie's Extended Cut didn't make the pace more fluid but it gave characters more depth and understanding, it fixed plot holes, and it created a cohesive film even though its story hasn't completed yet. But nobody cares about this so let's just continue with some answers that you don't want to hear."The Movie's name"-Because 'V' is in the movie's name, you guys expected a fight between Batman and Superman throughout the movie - you thought the whole movie was building up for this fight so you didn't care much anything else and when it finally happened you disappointed it because of certain reasons. But some of you misinterpreted the title. Although there is no difference as both are abbreviations for the same word, 'v' is used when one party has a grievance against another. Snyder said that they used "v" instead of "vs" because they didn't want people to think the whole movie was just one big fight between the two. Well, I guess that was in vain-Actually, the whole movie was building up for ''Martha'' scene. Batman's dream, the one that had bad CGI. Batman's brand, his new rule. Opening scene which created Batman's PTSD, his trigger word. Batman's past. It all for that scene. Of course, I understand if you don't want to look at it this way. They could have come up with something better. But don't just say ''poorly executed'' You just heard that somewhere"The movie is incoherent''No, it's not, you're just an idiot. And yes, I am, an intellectual, smarter than all of you."Why Lex want to kill Superman"-Because of what he represented.-Also, Luthor isn't just want to kill him. First, he wants to show the whole world how much fraud Superman is with his plan, and then have him killed."Superman has no remorse for the destruction he caused in the first movie"-You can't know that because this movie tells about events that happened 18 months after the first movie-Also, Superman's destruction made this story. If Superman didn't cause that destruction or didn't kill someone, Batman wouldn't go against him in the first place"Batman is the greatest detective in the planet but he still can't figure it out Superman is a good guy"Blind hatred. He doesn't want to figure it out. He doesn't want to know if this movie is good or not. He just doesn't care because he saw some bad reviews and then watched the movie with prejudice, of course he doesn't want to figure it out if it's good or not. He have a preconceived notion"Thousands are probably killed, but Superman only saves Lois Lane"Because she is Superman's world. He also didn't save those people where Luthor's henchmen burned them after killing them all"Superman threatens Batman that he can easily kill Batman, twice"-What should he do to warn him then-Also, this Superman is a whole new take on. He's not Superman that you know of from the comics. But of course, this is the main problem with Superman for most of the people"Batman STEALING from Lex Luthor"-What's wrong with STEALING? Was it you who create him? His arc in this movie fit to STEALING."Batman uses guns to kill. He even dreams of gun battles."-There is more behind his story. His and movie's story hasn't completed yet. We haven't told much-That dream wasn't a dream actually. It was a different timeline where Superman turned evil-It's really sad that some people define Batman off of one aspect and act as if Batman kills someone "he's not Batman anymore" or "they ruined him". You don't know what kind of universe is this. Some versions of him kill, some versions don't. This version of Batman is just unheard of"Why Wonder Woman joined the last fight. She didn't save the world from Hitler before, why now?"Because of the emails sent by Batman"Luthor comes up with the idea that since the ship has a biometric security, he can use Zod's body to gain access. It did not cross anyone else's mind"-Maybe it did cross it but she/he didn't have the power to do that kind of thing-Also, why would cross someone else's mind that kind of thing?"There is no villain to solve in the story"-There's always two kinds of villain; there's the soldier villain - who fights the hero with his hands; and then there's the real threat - the brilliant and evil archenemy - who fights the hero with his mind. Unbreakable -I know this wasn't your typical superhero. But does the movie really need to pinpoint the villain? If you wanna a villain super bad, then just choose it. Anybody can be a villain in this story. You don't have to bash the movie for it"The all powerful Kryptonian key has no security"Why would it need security?"Kryptonians have banned the technology to create Doomsday. It's so dangerous, they decide not to remove it"-Maybe they are not able to remove it?-And this ''Kryptonians banning the technology to create Doomsday'' also signs that the real Doomsday is out there somewhere. Which means they didn't kill off the real Doomsday. But of course this doesn't matter anymore."Doomsday appears so that Snyder can once again have a city-leveling battle."That was Luthor's second plan to kill Superman"How does Luthor know what Batman has planned?"Luthor made possible that fight. What do you mean ''how does he know''"Batman finds Martha in a jiffy because he is"Batman didn't find Martha, Alfred didSome of these ''small plot points'' are just pointless. It's like you just wanted to hate the movie before even saw itI saw a review from a "top critic" on Rotten Tomatoes saying that opening scene was needless, Lois Lane was completely useless, there were a lot of characters, there is no focus on one thing. These comments are just biased with his fanboyism. And she doesn't care if the movie full of emotion or not. He says ''opening scene was needless because we've all seen this before'' but can't comprehend its depth. I mean how can a "professional critic" look at something like this one way. She doesn't care if there is more meaning in it. He says ''Lois Lane was completely useless'' but doesn't know what emotion is. I mean If Lois Lane wasn't there to be saved, then there wouldn't be any big emotion in Superman's death. She already down to criticize the movie. He says ''there were a lot of characters, there is no focus on one thing'' and criticizes away. But when she comes for the "Infinity War" review, he says "This is probably the best movie in the MCU" and declares it's a freshOther than that critic, another critic says that the characters' tone wasn't right. Like, really? Who are he to make a comment like that? Just because he has a big name and a big degree doesn't mean he's right. He has only a title and a dependent opinion, nothing else - nothing to prove what he's saying.Some of these so called critics criticizing those movies that don't follow the procedure is a little hypocritical, right? Considering every time when they watch an old movie that has the same formula, they write a puff piece editorial about how good and perfect it wasSome people think that "entertainment" is what makes a movie great. Those people are probably a hypocrite, or they haven't seen a lot of movies other than Disney's. Just because you enjoyed or hated a movie doesn't mean it's good or bad. We can still discuss its strengths and flawsWas this movie perfect? Of course not, it had flaws, but it never deserved a criticism like this.Did this movie worked? No, it didn't. That's why it has rejected by the general audience. It was too controversial and there were too many unexplained things to care for them. But this doesn't mean the movie is