INTRODUCTION
This is a quick review of the newly released film Superman. Please note that this is just one of the many movies I will have watched each year, and my initial grade for this film may change over time, for better or worse. To stay up to date on my thoughts about other movies and any potential changes in my opinion on this one, follow me on Letterboxd.
If you enjoy these reviews, I’d greatly appreciate it if you could share this newsletter with family and friends who might love receiving film reviews, classic movie lists, and Oscars projections straight to their inbox.
PLOT
Via Letterboxd: Superman, a journalist in Metropolis, embarks on a journey to reconcile his Kryptonian heritage with his human upbringing as Clark Kent.
REVIEW
While the Marvel Cinematic Universe is now going on damn near two decades of existence, Warner Brothers’ attempts to replicate that success with the DC Comics brand have been, to put it kindly, a rollercoaster of mixed results. A few genuine triumphs do shine through the wreckage such as Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy, which redefined how serious and artful superhero films could be; the original Wonder Woman in 2017 (though I’ll admit, I was in the minority that didn’t love it); James Gunn’s The Suicide Squad, a well-reviewed and entertaining soft reboot; 2022’s critically acclaimed The Batman; and of course,2019’s Joker, the only other comic book superhero film besides Black Panther to ever snag a Best Picture nomination at the Oscars.
But those are the outliers. The majority of DC’s cinematic universe, to some the so-called “Snyderverse”, or more officially, the DCU, was a hot mess of mediocre outings, tonal inconsistencies, studio interference, and a general lack of direction. Eventually, DC threw up its hands, scrapped the whole thing, and hit the reboot button.
Enter James Gunn. Fresh off his hat trick with Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy and his DC debut with The Suicide Squad (one of my top five fav films of 2021), Gunn was brought in to clean house and rebuild the DC universe from the ground up. His first move? Start with Superman, a character whose cinematic track record is much more checkered than his brooding Gotham counterpart.
Admittedly, this decision put me in a weird spot as a fan. I’ve never been big on Superman. Where Batman has this noir grit and psychologically rich and twisted rogues gallery, Superman has always felt a little too squeaky clean for me. A near-invincible alien in tights who stands for truth, justice, and the American way? Not exactly my cup of tea. Still, the immigrant metaphor at the heart of Clark Kent’s story is one of the more genuinely compelling elements in superhero lore. Plus, unlike Bruce Wayne, Clark actually manages to hold down a real romantic relationship; bonus points for not scaring off every woman who isn’t a leather-clad cat burglar.
But Gunn is one of my favorite working directors in the genre, and if anyone could give us a Superman movie worth remembering, I thought it’d be him. Unfortunately, my excitement began to cool when the marketing dropped. I couldn’t quite get a grip on the tone, and I wasn’t sure what the film was really trying to say. Then the early reviews came out and they were glowing. Still, no press screening for my market, so I had to catch it on preview night with the general public.
Visually? Gorgeous. Metropolis pops with color and optimism, a welcome contrast to the usual grim-and-gritty DC aesthetic or Snyder’s rain-drenched, desaturated gloom. The visual effects are polished and clean, and Gunn undeniably nails the golden-age comic book feel. His signature character humor even made me chuckle a few times. On that level, I can’t say the movie is a total loss. Techs wise, this might land in certain categories on my personal year-end ballot.
But as a dyed-in-the-wool Gunn fan, it pains me to admit this is the first time one of his films truly missed the mark for me in a big way. If this is the tone and direction for the new DC universe, then I need The Batman 2 to arrive ASAP and remind me what a great DC film actually looks like. I walked out of the theater in disbelief. Not because my expectations were sky-high, but because I genuinely didn’t think I could dislike a James Gunn movie.
At the heart of Superman is a solid premise. A man torn between his Kryptonian origin and his farm land upbringing. Is he the savior his alien parents intended, or the humble farm boy raised by the Kents? That conflict has potential for real emotional resonance, but it never fully materializes here for me. The movie feels choppy, like entire scenes were left on the cutting room floor. Instead of a cohesive story, it plays like a sequel to a movie I somehow missed. We’re thrust into arcs that lack context, and that lack of setup robbed the big moments of their emotional payoff on my end.
The Clark and Lois romance? It just exists. There’s no real spark or build-up to make me root for them like in past adaptations. Lex Luthor’s motives are undercooked and barely worked on by the script. Save for Jimmy, Clark’s co-workers might as well be named Background Extra #1, #2, and #3. And then there’s the “Justice Gang,” a group of added-on superheroes who show up out of nowhere with little explanation, as if Gunn tried to fast-forward us into ensemble territory without doing the groundwork. He’s a master of balancing large casts (Guardians Of The Galaxy, The Suicide Squad), but here it feels overstuffed and underdeveloped.
That bloat kills the pacing. This is, hands down, the worst-paced film Gunn has made. The narrative feels episodic at times and rushed at others. There are storylines that barely connect and scenes that feel like set-up for payoffs we never get.
And yeah, I’m already lukewarm on the rosy “righteous justice” tone of the Superman mythos, but Gunn’s immersion into it here leans way too far into cornball territory for me. There’s a scene where Superman saves a squirrel! Kids grinning and giving him thumbs up? I get it, he’s supposed to inspire hope. But I need something a little less Hallmark and a little more human. Maybe I’m just a cynical grouch given how much evil is happening around this country right now, but those scenes were cloying instead of charming.
As for the cast…they’re fine. David Corenswet has the look, but his delivery of dialogue occasionally veers into cartoonish territory for me. I wanted more Clark Kent and a little less cape. Rachel Brosnahan edges close to being the best on-screen Lois Lane we’ve had, but their chemistry felt half-baked; again, not due to performance, but due to the missing connective tissue in the script. And Nicholas Hoult’s Lex Luthor? He’s better than Eisenberg’s version, sure, but hardly a commanding villain. He didn’t intimidate me like past Luthors have. A shame given he was on an impressive run of performances with me.
So what are we left with? A visually rich but narratively incoherent film that feels like a rough draft of something better. The humor, the ensemble dynamic, the editing - it’s all the weakest I’ve seen from a Gunn film. And that’s hard for me to say. He’s one of the few directors who has consistently delivered in the superhero space, at least for me.
I almost slapped this with a C-, but the craftsmanship on display and the occasional laugh push it up a notch. So it’s a C+ from me, at least initially. I really, truly wanted to love this. Instead, I walked out playing Lex Luthor to every one of my fellow critics’ Superman.
GRADING
