REVIEW Superman

I've been debating whether to write about the new James Gunn "Superman" film, as it was entertaining and I don't have a ton of issues with it. It was a nice summer distraction, a fun two hours, and I haven't seen anything like that in a while, probably since Barbie, so I wondered that maybe I should just leave it be.

Maybe.

Many have called the new Superman a true "comic book movie", but I'm not sure what they mean - the film is fast and overstuffed, and it didn't have a particular style. It was full of CGI and colors, and wasn't particularly believable. Is THAT what they are talking about??? Because comic books as I know them are full of strong character moments, strong plot points, compositions that break out of the frame and into 3D space, square jaws, and extreme moments of peril and joy. The best comics resonate as action, fantasy, and social commentary. And to be fair, this new film does have a bit of that, it's just not front and center or consistent.

I will admit, I went into the film with my expectations in the basement. I am not a huge fan of James Gunn's films, although I found his 2014 "Guardians Of The Galaxy" to be one of the best Star Wars films since the original trilogy. "The Suicide Squad" is also good if not particularly fresh, but 2010's "Super" might just be his best film. But for me, most of his films as director, writer or producer are hard to watch - he likes to drag his characters through the muck, to treat them as badly as he can. He pushes boundaries, pushes the limits of taste and comfort, and then redeems his characters with emotional moments, often invoking "family" and then everyone loses their minds, in typical fan fashion, using these emotionally manipulative moments as excuses to proclaim his films "great", just because they hit them in the feels.

I don't know, man. My family life was better than that. Maybe I had it too easy. Maybe I'm in the minority.

Superman 2025 is about...let's see, what is it about? At the start of the film, Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman has been live and performing super-heroics for about 3 years. He has just stopped a war between two countries and is suffering a crisis of conscience as those around him begin to question if he went too far by taking geo-political issues into his own hands. Meanwhile, Lex Luthor has plans to take down Superman and gain his own country in the process. Lois and Clark, just months into their relationship, are going through some bumps as well, dealing with the responsibility that is being Superman and knowing who Superman is and the fact that neither of them is perfect at this relationship thing.

In addition to these points, we are introduced to the "Justice Gang", a bare-bones version of what will become the Justice League, and sub-plots involving Jimmy Olsen (who women inexplicably seem to love), Eve Teschmacher, a "pocket dimension", Metamorpho, a "kaiju", a clone, White House back-door military deals, and a black hole. Wackiness ensues.

I have heard more than one friend and several reviewers say that the film needed about 20 or 30 more minutes to fully flesh it out and make it not feel quite as rushed. I think - and hear me out - the SCRIPT needed about 20 or 30 minutes LESS plot. And this is, admittedly, part of my personal feeling that films need to get back to a two hour or less run time, as rarely in the modern era has run time equaled quality.

Some films deserve longer run times, and other films earn it. I look back at some historical epics that needed an extra bit of time to tell their story effectively, or the Phase Three Marvel finale "Endgame", the 3-hour, 22nd film of an epic series that earned some breathing room.

But some of the most revered films in history do not break the two hour mark, and more often than not the run time in modern films is padded by endless CGI battles that just numb the senses. To be clear, Superman 2025 clocks in at 129 minutes, so just over two hours. But in a film so jam-packed, I suspect the script was probably written to be a longer film that was trimmed. And to that I ask, "why???"

Like the film says, "Brains over brawn", to which I counter, "Quality over quantity."

    Ok, ok, so what are my specific gripes with the film? Possible spoilers from here on out:

- There is a distinct lack of style. One thing I will give Snyder is that his films oozed style, dark and grim as they could be. The original 1978 "Superman" was sweeping and beautiful, with a sense of reality pervading every well-composed frame, even when they were ridiculous frames. Gunn's Superman is all brightness and motion, with no particular frame leaving an impression, no one image or moment becoming iconic. Extra credit points for giving us shots we've never seen, like a wind-blown camera desperately trying to keep pace with Superman as he flies - but it's not a particularly pretty shot. It's kind of messy and ugly. The film is perfectly competent, but it never excels at any one thing. Maybe that's a function of trying to appeal to the masses when you have hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, and I DO get that.

- There didn't seem to be one overarching story, but several that were forced to intertwine. Yes, it's about Superman, but it's also about Lex. And Superman and Lex. And Superman and Lois. And several other things. That's fine, but it all needs to tie up at the end, with all the elements complimenting each other EMOTIONALLY, not just to technically contribute to the plot machinations. It's as if they just kept adding bits in order to deal with loose ends, and the result was clutter, not a tighter plot.

- There are way too many characters that are introduced but are not used or needed. We get Steve Lombard and Cat Grant at the Daily Planet, Rick Flagg and Flo Crawley at the White House, too many Luthor minions to name here, another version of Maxwell Lord, and new versions of Kal's parents Jor and Lara, versions we didn't need and I'm pretty sure I hated. I don't think that you HAVE to introduce every character you intend to use in the future - it's a big world, and being introduced to characters as you need them down the road is just fine.

- Most importantly for me, the villain needs to villain for his own reasons, not because the hero exists. Modern superhero films often tie the hero and the villain together - they are two sides of the same coin. In 1989, Batman and the Joker claim that they "made each other," and they did, literally. In 2004, Spider-Man saves Doc Oc which unintentionally joins Doc to his mechanical arms, creating a villain who is now obsessed with killing Spider-Man and creating havoc and destruction. And in 2013, Jor-El infused baby Kal with the contents of the "codex", ensuring that one day Zod will come to Earth looking for him. Thanks Dad, you just destroyed Metropolis.

In each of these cases, if there's no hero, then there's no villain, and vice-versa. Duality as a concept is fine, but I personally want my hero and villain to exist independently. If they develop a history and one becomes obsessed with the other, fine, but if the villain only villains because of the hero, then what good is the hero? In Superman 2025, it's hard to figure if Lex started his scheme before Superman made him feel inferior, or if the beauty of his scheme is that it allows him to defeat Superman. Either way, Superman lives rent-free in Lex's head, and it weakens Lex as a villain, making his seem more whiny than menacing. Heroes and villains need to be opponents, not obsessions. In the 1978 film, Lex was already a villain with goals, and Superman, who became a hero for his own reasons, got in his way. Lex then developed his grudge. That works.

Speaking of the 1978 film, it's time to leave that film alone and move on, as the 2025 film depends far too much on the earlier version. It seems to me that it would be difficult to create a "new and modern" Superman when you constantly call back to the original.

As the new film opens, we gets strains of the original John Williams theme, and then almost nothing throughout the rest of the film, just a whisper here and there. It serves to undermine how non-existent and unmemorable the score is in the new film, and how full it is of bombastic songs that don't fit, with all due respect to the "Mighty Crabjoys".

The film copies the title font style of the original film, and there are also several lines, postures, and scenes that are borrowed as well, including the aforementioned "Brains over brawn" line, which is a reworking of the original's "Mind over muscle" taunt.

Other little nods are the inclusion of Eve Teschmacher and Otis, both characters that were created for the 1978 film. Even Lex's scheme in this film is based on real estate - he will end up getting his own country. Land, Miss Teschmacher, LAND.

The Fortress of Solitude gets good and bad marks, as it features a huge door that feels like the comics to me, but also uses the crystal structure of the Donnerverse films. It also repeats the "Lex breaks into the Fortress of Solitude" plot that we've seen twice before in the Donnerverse.

But probably the biggest "borrow" (and one that I am ok with) is a scene where Lois interviews Clark/Superman at her apartment, the twist being that Lois already knows who Superman is, so it's a funny scene where they keep revealing things that they shouldn't and the tape recorder keeps getting shut off as they argue over personal issues. It is also one of the film's best and most emotional scenes, beginning with David Corenswet's Clark striking a pose very reminiscent of Christopher Reeve's at the beginning of the original scene. It is also one of the film's longest and most well-paced, and is nicely book-ended by another scene late in the film at Clark's apartment. The interview is probably the heart and soul of the film, where the most important moments and character traits are developed, which ultimately only serves to highlight just how manic the rest of the film is.

The 2006 film "Superman Returns" is a direct sequel to the 1978 and 1980 films, and you would expect that film to echo back to the original, yet sadly it ends up becoming just a less spectacular remake/reboot, complete with real estate plot. And since then the 1978 film has been pillaged again and again, including an ill-conceived "Donner Cut" of "Superman 2" along with films that have stolen the "turn back time" finale, including "Zack Snyder's Justice League" and "Wonder Woman 1984."

One nice nod to Christopher Reeve and the original film is a cameo by his son Will, playing a reporter. Now THAT is the kind of tribute I can get behind.

I should reiterate one more time that Superman 2025 is a romp. You should have a good time, and if you don't study the plot or motivations too closely it will all hold together just fine. And Gunn did not abuse his characters too badly in this one, although this might be the most pummeled you've ever seen Superman. And unlike the Snyder films, I didn't feel smothered by politics and darkness. But I also didn't believe a man could fly. 

-- Wyatt Weed
(July 22, 2025)