When I walked out of my local Alamo Drafthouse, I felt something I haven't felt in a while after leaving a theater; satisfied, but not full.
I think that's the best way I can describe the Superman movie from James Gunn. It scratched that touch-to-scratch itch that many superhero films nowadays can't, because we live in an era when we've been trained to see superhero films as disappointing, CGI-fests that too often carry "the message."
Indeed, Superman was thought to have carried that message thanks to Variety's red carpet reporter Marc Malkin, who was doing his absolute best to get the cast and crew to say something negative about MAGA and the fight against illegal immigration by tying superman to the immigrant crowd. Gunn wisely didn't bite on the question, but Malkin still grossly misrepresented his reply to fit his own narrative anyway. Conservative media bit on the bait, and before you knew it, talking heads were bashing the film as woke.
I'm glad to say it's not. Not even a little bit. James Gunn did an excellent job of doing exactly what he said he did, which was make a film that everybody can enjoy.
And here's where I'm happily going to leave politics aside, not just because I hate politics mixing with my escapism, but because I'm absolutely refreshed to not have to talk about politics in my superhero movies.
Now we can get down to the real question. Is James Gunn's Superman good?
Honestly? That depends on you.
A frustrating answer, I know, but I'm quickly learning that this Superman is something of a Rorschach test. You're going to interpret its quality differently from the person next to you. Someone you typically agree with when it comes to the quality of films may dislike it, while you may absolutely love it.
There are many factors to consider, I think.
For instance, how much do you like James Gunn films? How familiar are you with Superman comics? Were you in your youth when you saw the Richard Donner and Richard Lester films with Christopher Reeves? How sick are you of superhero movies?
These elements and your level of attachment to any of them may create the alchemical makeup for how you view this film.
Personally, I've never read many Superman comics, I've never seen the 1980s Superman movies, and I actually think superhero movies can still be a fun time in the theater if done right. Moreover, I love James Gunn films. I think the Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy is one of the best things Marvel produced during its heyday. I think his Suicide Squad take was right on the money.
So my judgment is that this particular Superman film is pretty good, but probably not the banger it could've been had Gunn not done so much Gunning.
Let's start with the things I loved.
Gunn's decision to cast David Corenswet as Clark Kent/Superman was an absolute brilliant casting choice. He does so well in the role that I never found myself trying to wonder how this would look if Henry Cavill was still wearing the "S." Not that I don't miss Cavill as the Man of Steel, but Corenswet brings his own magic to the role.
Corenswet manages to make Superman into someone you really want to like on a personal level, not just be astounded by because of his abilities. He does an incredible job playing a superhero just trying to do his best despite what's thrown at him. Moreover, he seems like he really cares, and I appreciate that from a character like Superman.
The same can be said of Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane. I kept expecting her to become the girlboss that is the ultimate hero, but again, Gunn knows how to write characters, and she ended up being integral to the plot without overshadowing anybody. Lois is still the intrepid reporter we all know and love, with an edge to her that compliments Superman's often gentle manner, which is odd to say given Superman's power, but it works very well.
In fact, Gunn's strengths of making an ensemble cast play well with each other to form a well-rounded story shines in Superman. While some may have said the story felt a bit bloated, I was actually satisfied with how Gunn wove each storyline into one another. Stand-outs include side-characters that actually felt like they absolutely moved the plot along despite their B-tier status, such as Skyler Gisondo's Jimmy Olsen, who ended up being the character the audience was laughing with the most.
Once again, Nathan Fillion can't help but steal the spotlight in every scene he's in as the Guy Gardener version of Green Lantern, and Edi Gathegi's tech-heavy Mister Terrific was every bit a James Gunn character that surprisingly works well with Superman's brawn.
Gunn's reverence through irreverence is on full display here, and that's both good and bad for the film. Superman is treated with the Gunn level of respect, meaning he's given a lot of heart, and a lot of humanity, but is often the butt of a lot of jokes. There are moments that could've been given more room to breath in order to drive home an emotional moment but are undercut by a quip or a joke that stops you from having to feel something too much.
This makes the film lighthearted fun, but also stops the heart that Gunn is capable of delivering to films from fully coming through.
I will say that it does sometimes mix well. For instance, a heart-to-heart scene between Superman and Lois is done to the backdrop of the Justice Gang fighting off an alien monster in the distance. Oddly, this works and doesn't actually distract from the conversation between the two leads. I'd even say it gives the world depth in that Superman can just sit and have a serious conversation while a huge green baseball bat crashes down on an interdimensional jellyfish/eyeball thing.
Then there's Krypto. I wasn't entirely sure what to think of him as a character until I left the theater. I felt like he could've been left out of the film, but then as it wrapped up, I realized that he couldn't have been. The super-dog's presence is definitely there for comedic purposes, but Gunn didn't just throw him in haphazardly for laughs. He ends up being the catalyst for a few events that end up giving Superman an edge, both to his motivations and his combat capability.
For instance, Superman is mild-mannered for the most part, only displaying real rage toward Lex Luthor when Krypto is in obvious danger. I felt this was necessary because Superman is such as super guy and his strength and speed cause very little to be a threat to him overall, but attacking something innocent does get his fist clenched. Add to that the innocent thing being attacked is one of the last pieces of his home world and a personal companion of his, and now there are stakes. Krypto was needed to activate that part of Superman, which is refreshing, because usually it's Lois and we've seen that a thousand times now.
Now let's talk about the negatives, and this brings me to Lex Luthor. Nicholas Hoult is, in my opinion, one of the greatest actors today and there's nothing I've seen him in where he was bad yet. That said... he did his best with Luthor, and I just wasn't completely sold. Hoult's capability of playing a villain was on full display here, but perhaps not this particular villain.
Luthor always struck me as someone who was conniving, always two steps ahead, and willing to go to great distances to win. Hoult does this to a great degree, but this Luthor just seems excitable whereas I feel the man should be calm, and deeply sinister with an easy smile. This Luthor wears his rage on his sleeve, and that kind've dampened the character for me a bit. Hoult knocks it out of the park in almost every way except for this one detail, and I put that on Gunn.
*SPOILERS AHEAD*
I'm going to get into spoiler territory, so if you've already seen it or don't care to see it, then read on. If not, come back after you watched it.
They change up Superman's origin story a bit to a degree that I feel was a bold choice, and I'm still not sure if it was the right one by Gunn.
As many of you know, Superman is sent to Earth by his Kryptonian parents Jor-El and Lara Lor-Van as a way to help Superman escape the destruction of his home planet. Traditionally, his parents were benevolent and good, but in this one, it's discovered that they actually sent Kal-El to Earth to rule over it and breed with Earth women to create a new Kryptonian species.
This causes Superman to have something of an identity crisis that he's snapped out of by his earthly parents Jonathan and Martha Kent, who are depicted brilliantly and realistically. They're not Hollywood interpretations of middle-America good guys, they actually seem like they'd be someone you'd want to return home to from time to time.
The settings can range from incredible to boring. Metropolis is a pleasure to look at and feels vibrant and alive. The people who reside there feel like they belong in a way that is honestly kind of odd when you stop to think about it. They're so used to monstrous alien threats that they run when they need to, but go about their daily lives, sometimes even watching from their offices as massive fights go down.
However, the film does venture to foreign locations such as the fictional lands of Boravia and Jarhanpur. Again, the Rorschach test comes into play here. Gunn made it clear that these places were just fictional and he did not intend for them to be interpreted as anything but plot elements, but one nation is invading the other which has caused people to make it a part of their favorite cause, especially because the invaders are considered the bad guys in this film.
They declare that these are obvious allusions to the Russian/Ukraine war, or the war between Israel and Hamas. Again, Gunn said this wasn't what he was doing, but you're going to interpret it how you want.
The war between these two nations ends up being part of Luthor's plan, but I do think it was kind of a long-winded way of carrying it out and probably could've been rewritten to focus more on the point of the movie which is that your origin doesn't have to determine who you are and you have a choice to be whoever you want. This is still pulled off, but the war felt distracting. You don't learn enough about the nations to truly invest in them either, so it just felt kind of hollow.
Cinematography-wise, the film is shot beautifully with one exception. The fight scenes in the movie go from being an absolute blast to watch to you asking "what is Gunn doing with the camera?" He loves to do this camera-tracking spin move that works in low doses, but when it becomes the entire way you view a fight scene, it becomes tired very quickly.
Luthor has a pocket universe where Luthor keeps prisoners, from dangerous aliens to people who wronged him. Judging by this setting and "The Collector" in the MCU, I feel like Gunn has something for keeping prisoners in glass boxes as if they're on display. There's also one moment where we're shown a bunch of monkeys rage-baiting on the internet, with the sole intent of making Superman look bad, which I considered a ham-fisted attempt at coming down on anti-Gunn trolls.
The last thing that bothered me (at least on my intitial watch) was that Gunn front-loaded the movie with a ton of exposition. I get why he did that to a degree. We are picking up midway through Superman's journey, not at the beginning, and there are a lot of elements that should be explained to catch you up, but the exposition is so heavy that it entered "tell don't show territory." I personally hate that, and I feel like maybe Gunn kicked off Superman at the wrong starting point.
Overall, I personally enjoyed the movie and will probably want to watch it again when it hits television screens on streaming platforms. Your mileage may vary, but if you're not sure about it, it's safe to wait till then. This wasn't a massive must-see movie quality-wise, but it was a good time.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member