Superman (PG-13)
04/08/25 20:35 Filed in: 2025
Starring: David Corenswet
July 2025
Warning! This is NOT a movie review. This is a critique of the film. Intended to initiate a dialogue, the following analysis explores various aspects of the film and may contain spoilers. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. Ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!
Shocker: Superman (David Corenswet) loses his first fight!
Superman’s super-canine sidekick, Krypto, drags his broken body back to the Fortress of Solitude, where an army of robots tend to his injuries.
Meanwhile, on some foreign continent, a war is brewing between the Russian-esque Boravians and Middle East-style Jarhanpurians.
In Metropolis, the recuperated Superman battles a Godzilla-sized, fire-breathing alien that’s wreaking havoc on the city’s citizens and skyscrapers. The Man of Steel is assisted by the Justice Gang, comprised of Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi), Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced) and the Green Lantern (Nathan Fillion).
Atop a skyscraper in a different part of the city, supervillain Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult) plays overzealous puppeteer to dozens of computer experts, who work in tandem to devise a way to destroy Superman.
Later, over at the Daily Planet newspaper, Clark Kent (Superman in his ordinary citizen guise) and Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan) bicker over the ethics of journalism. When Lois returns home at the end of the workday, she finds Clark cooking dinner in her flat. We learn, as they make out, that they’ve been dating for a few months.
Huh?
Yep. You’ve guessed it…this isn’t your father’s Superman movie (much to its detriment).
Spoiler Alert!
The latest film—simply named Superman—based on the eponymous, indestructible Kryptonian created by comic book legends Jerry Siegel (writer) and Joe Shuster (artist), is an absolute abomination. Aside from the meaningless “Godzilla-esque” sequence, ill-advised love story involving Clark/Superman and Lois (a sure-fire way to kill romantic tension is to have the couple finally get together—reference TV’s Moonlighting), stereotypical “country folk” portrayal of Ma (Neva Howell) and Pa Kent (Pruitt Taylor Vince), high-flying/low-IQ dog Krypto, incongruous sci-fi trappings (Lex’ high-tech setup that operates the movie’s mystery villain Ultraman, robots in Superman’s Fortress of Solitude, Mr. Terrific’s ball-like spaceship, a black hole, a pocket universe and an antiproton ribbon), goofy Justice Gang that constantly upstages Superman, panoply of generic villain sidekicks, low-stakes action sequences, thinly-veiled political commentary, aimless plot, utter dearth of star power, and instantly forgettable soundtrack by David Fleming and John Murphy (that only features a few minor refrains of John William’s masterful OG main title), one of the movie’s most controversial aspects is Superman’s morally reprehensible parents, Jor-El (Bradley Cooper) and Lara (Angela Sarafyan).
The key story element missing from this movie, that always worked in previous iterations of the Kryptonian myth, is Superman’s origin story. Here, we jump into the action with no context and no real reason to sympathize with Superman—especially since he’s portrayed as a loser right out of the gate, and does little to change that opinion during the rest of the movie.
Why did director/writer James Gunn eschew Superman’s powerful backstory? Maybe he didn’t want to commit the extra screen time, or maybe he felt the origin tale is passé, or maybe he felt others had already done a better job than he could. Whatever the reason, this movie starts out in a hole, with respect to audience empathy for the title character, that it never quite climbs out of. A massive narrative misfire by Gunn.
Nitpicks, you ask? The movie’s packed with ‘em. For starters, the Man of Steel now bleeds? And needs to pop his elbow back in place? Totally daft and inconsistent with what’s been established in earlier movies (I know nothing about the comic books).
And when is Superman going to install a better security system in his Fortress? Seems like Lex waltzes into the crystalline palace in every other movie. Maybe Baldie found the hide-a-key behind the third crystal pillar on the right?
Then there’s the well-worn contrivance of Metropolis being ravaged by some outside force. Here, an expanding rift cuts a swath through city streets. But the good guys figure out how to reverse the effect (with computers?) and the city is made whole once again. Huh? No structural damage to any of the buildings? No possibility of the loose soil creating sinkholes under the streets?
But even more egregious than all these tenuous story elements or oversights is that the characters are just plain lazy. Superman doesn’t even lift a finger to help the Justice Gang in their efforts to defeat a dimensional imp because he wants to spend a romantic evening with Lois. Lois listens to Cat Grant (Mikaela Hoover) gab on while watching the gigantic alien demolish a section of the city on TV. What? The real Lois would grab her tape recorder and head into the fray faster than you can yell, “It’s a bird!” Then there’s Jimmy Olsen (Skyler Gisondo), who refuses to spend time with his ex-girlfriend, Eve Teschmacher (Sara Sampaio), even though she’s willing to give him an exclusive scoop on Lex’ many illegal activities.
These people aren’t heroes. They’re self-centered twits. Unfortunately, as awful as the characters are, the actors portraying them are equally abysmal. I normally don’t disparage actors, but the only cast members who turned in halfway decent performances are Brosnahan and Fillion. As the star of the show, Corenswet is singularly horrendous, and doesn’t deserve to wear the cape and tights. Hoult is pathologically melodramatic. The other cast members walk through their scenes like cardboard cutouts (Exhibit A: Wendell Pierce looks lost and bored as the normally-fiery Daily Planet editor, Perry White). Whoever played the mustachioed tech nerd on Lex’ team should go back to waiting tables.
The cringe-worthy acting makes enduring this rudimentary story even more unbearable. Granted, all of these Superman movies contain cartoony elements, but this film lowers the bar to a ridiculous level. Put simply, this isn’t a serious film. Or to flip the coin, it’s utterly silly.
And what’s even more silly than the movie itself, is the pre-release comments made by Gunn. Clearly intended as a dig against ICE agents, who are currently rounding up criminal non-citizens in our country, Gunn referred to Superman as an “immigrant.” The comment caused a firestorm in the media and, when given the opportunity to revise or retract his remark, Gunn doubled down, claiming the moral high ground.
This is a colossal unforced error. Why would you intentionally alienate (pun intended) half your audience with a controversial statement before the movie even opens? It wasn’t that long ago that studios produced movies that appealed to the broadest demographic possible, to make as much money as possible. Today, in the age of Dylan Mulvaney, ideology and advocacy are more important than money—perhaps because such in-your-face social experiments are being underwritten by moguls of the Soros ilk. Is this why Gunn didn’t flinch in the face of conservative backlash over his statements…because he’ll make his millions no matter what?
Another problem with Gunn’s comment is that it’s based on a flagrant misnomer. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, an “immigrant” is “a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence.” No part of that definition applies to Superman. He isn’t a person from Earth (human). He didn’t come to Earth—or America—of his own volition. Also, Superman takes up permanent residence on Earth because he has nowhere else to go.
Which brings us to a much more apropos word to describe Superman’s plight…orphan. Again, Merriam-Webster defines “orphan” as “a child deprived by death of one or usually both parents.” In Superman’s case, he lost his parents and planet in one tragic event. So, why does Gunn use the less accurate “immigrant” rather than the more accurate “orphan?” Because “orphan” doesn’t fit his political agenda as well as “immigrant.”
As for Gunn’s directing, it’s nothing earth-shattering. The shots of Superman flying through the air are much more kinetic than those in earlier movies. The wind whips through his hair and the camera moves around to reveal different aspects of his chiseled physique. The slo-mo shot of Superman protecting the little girl from flying projectiles is well done, but certainly isn’t a pioneering visual. Another slo-mo shot, when Superman punches a villain and his teeth fly toward the camera, looks like something you’d see in a video game. Superman cutting down an army of enemies with his Heat Vision is a gratuitous, jeopardy-free yawn-fest. Way too easy.
So, what’s this movie about?
According to the summary on IMDB, “Superman must reconcile his alien Kryptonian heritage with his human upbringing as reporter Clark Kent. As the embodiment of truth, justice and the human way he soon finds himself in a world that views these as old-fashioned.” (Note: “human way” not the traditional “American way.”)
Okay, so what’s the movie about?
This reveals the film’s inherent identity crisis. The story is a jumbled mass of heroes, villains, plot strands and action sequences that ultimately have nothing to say about anything. What’s painfully obvious here is Gunn’s insatiable desire to mold one of the greatest heroes in pop culture into his own image.
How ironic that the movie’s Kryptonite is Gunn’s bloated ego.
Though the movie’s main theme is a muddled mélange of moral messages, there are a few ancillary topics that can be plumbed for meaning, such as…
Anger
Clark/Superman and Lex are angry for much of the movie. They shout their dialog and frequently resort to violence, which makes it hard to decipher which is the hero and which is the villain. After Lex ransacks Superman’s Fortress, a hostile Superman crashes into Lex’ office, violently tosses Lex up against and desk and smashes furniture and computer terminals. Strangely, Superman isn’t riled up over Lex invading his arctic retreat, but because he mistakenly thinks Lex stole his dog. What was this Superman like as a teen?
Aside from such petulant behavior, unbefitting of a hero, the most disturbing aspect of this scene is that it holds up a mirror to our society at present. Seems like everyone is outraged these days. Some may be fired up over a specific cause, but many are just mad because it feels good…their amygdala has been hijacked by fearmongering news outlets that pit one half of the country against the other and frequently use words like “racist” and “Hitler.”
Anger is the easiest emotion to default to when things are going bad. That’s why infants and kids throw temper tantrums when they don’t get their way. But when adults regress to childish behaviors, society starts ripping itself apart at the seams…as we’ve witnessed in our inner cities in recent months.
Slavery
The movie uses the term “metahumans” to describe any individual living on Earth that exhibits superpowers (this includes Superman, the Justice Gang and Lex’ superpowered cronies). In the X-Men universe, these individuals are referred to as “mutants.” And, just as the mutants are rounded up in one of the X-Men movies, so too are the metahumans in this film. Of course, the subtext here is that deporting undocumented migrants is inhumane. But there’s a huge difference between Superman (not an alien, but an alien lifeform) and the millions of people (including thousands of criminals) who’ve illegally entered our country over the past few years, right?
The metahumans are transported to the pocket universe, where they’re incarcerated in translucent cells reminiscent of those in Escape Plan. When Superman finally escapes his cell, with the help of fellow metahuman Metamorpho (Anthony Carrigan), you’d expect him to do the heroic thing and release the other captives. Instead, this self-serving Superman flees the pocket universe and leaves the other imprisoned metahumans to fend for themselves. Just another head-scratching scene in the aimless movie.
So, is Superman the worst film in franchise history? Without a doubt.
As awful as Superman IV: The Quest for Peace is, this movie still edges it out. And before you bring up Superman III, consider that it actually had some semblance of a plot, a diverting return to Smallville, one of the most compelling subplots of any Superman movie when the Man of Steel turns evil, and, as an added bonus, many of Richard Pryor’s jokes are funny—unlike the “humorous” lines in this film, which land like lead balloons (I only laughed once).
Superman III was a serious attempt at making a lighter, more comedic (counterbalanced with the dark subplot) film. This Superman seeks to modernize the franchise, and in its wholesale attempt at appealing to Gen Zers, the movie is unwittingly reduced to something far worse than silly…it’s utterly meaningless.
Though this certainly isn’t the first vacuous action flick ever made, it’s disappointing that someone of Gunn’s directorial eminence would churn out such a soulless movie; rife with misguided messages that masquerade as the truth.
Gunn has given us the kind of self-absorbed hero our narcissistic society can identify with…and deserves. His version of Superman seethes with anger, lacks moral courage, is indecisive when faced with simultaneous crises, is overly concerned with his self-image (he spends his downtime thinking up soundbites he can use in interviews), is selfish (he chooses a romantic evening with Lois over defending the city) and incompetent (he gets beat up by himself).
In fact, this Superman, much like the movie itself, is anything but super.
Rating: 2 out of 4