Review: Superman

Plus, how to find an honest take vs. a compromised one

Listen, before I go any further, I’d appreciate it if you subscribed to my Substack. It’s been a hot minute since I updated, and I can’t promise it’s going to get better, but the truth is that your support means everything and when people sign up, then I know people are reading, and if I know people are reading, then I’m going to write more.

That said, I’ve been writing like crazy, just not for free on the Internet. I just completed my first novel, a horror story called “Pinky” which I am so freakin’ excited about. I loved writing it, start to finish, and now that I’m getting into revisions, then beta readers, publication, it’s getting more exciting by the minute. So, keep your eyes peeled. You’re about to get sick of me in the best possible way, especially if you already love me. What a conundrum.

Okay, now that that’s out of the way, you’re here, most likely, for my Superman review. And, before I drop it (or you can just scroll ahead, but I think this context matters, so stick with me), I want to talk a little bit about influencers, reviewers, critics, etc. and how that can affect the initial reception you see for a film. I might know a thing or two about this, as I spent about ten years as a professional film journalist, and I think there’s a general mistrust when it comes to our trade these days and…it’s not unwarranted.

First, you need to watch this video from Patrick, a movie influencer type, who sums up the whole debacle rather perfectly. Check it out and then come back here to continue.

I have a much longer dive coming up for all of this when I start publishing my OTHER book, which is an autobiographical journey through my film journalism days. That will be published in chapters on THIS platform for Paid Subs, so stay tuned for that (and another reminder to subscribe).

But, the takeaway here is that, yes, absolutely, the people who work and depend on their livelihood as journalists and critics to have access to these sorts of things (set visits, junkets, early screenings, swag, etc.) can be compromised, so if you’re expecting a truly honest take each time, then you are putting your faith in a lie. Sometimes, sure, folks just love the movie, and believe me, they’re relieved when they do, because it makes it a lot easier to pimp it on your page.

Ultimately, the folks we’re talking about, and you all know who they are, are “access journalists”. And, I’m not vilifying them. I was one of them for a long time. Now, I get a screening here and there, but mostly I’m an audience member who buys his own ticket, makes his own choices, and shares his honest take afterwards. I don’t kiss the ring of anyone. I am my own voice, for better or worse.

I bring all of this up, because the discourse on X has called it into question many times before, and now it’s happening again on Superman, as many who are lauding it with early praise were literally marched through the streets of Metropolis. Is that a bad thing? Not at all. Again, I’ve worn those shoes. It’s part of the job and it’s a hell of a perk, and it’s damn good for business.

Is it good for getting an honest take on a film? No.

So, where do you get an honest take? From actual critics or people whom you tend to respect and/or agree with. Maybe that’s me. Maybe not. Either way, you’re getting what I thought, not a candy-coated take that promotes job security.

So, without digging any deeper into that, what did I think of James Gunn’s Superman?

It brings me no joy to tell you that I really didn’t like it. At all.

From the previews and promotional material, my gut feeling was that I’d at least be entertained and have a good time. After all, I love quite a few James Gunn films. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1 is a blast (the sequels less so), and I championed his The Suicide Squad, which I feel got killed at the box office by Covid (and that HBO Max release debacle). I dig Gunn’s earlier work, too, including Slither and Super, both of which represent his more twisted style. I feel those films are more “him”, even if his superhero stuff still has its highs (and lows).

Being put in charge of DC Films, attempting to be the new leader for the brand, a la Marvel’s Kevin Feige, is no small task. I don’t envy that for Gunn, trying to kickstart the brand, keep it connected, and then guide the entire wagon race to $1 billion per picture. Gunn says it won’t need that much to be profitable, but that’s the new magic number in Hollywood for spectacle films, like it or not (just ask Feige).

Superman represents an effort that sidesteps all the usual origin-building and jumps right into the action, accomplishing all of it with a few title cards at the beginning. Nothing wrong with that, as the fatigue of origin stories is a real thing, but instead of investing us in a deep, unfolding journey, Superman is all over the place, packing in as much as it can in establishing this “new DCU” so much so that it almost serves as a series of mini pilot shows trapped in a movie. It’s the equivalent of the Chinese Drone Carrier, showering the audience with everything from Mr. Terrific to Guy Gardner and the Green Lantern Corps to Hawkgirl to Metamorpho to Lex Luthor to The Daily Planet to Lois Lane to Jimmy Olsen to Eve Teschemacher and everything else that fits within the runtime.

David Corenswet is the shining light of the film, and thankfully, he wins over the audience enough that we’d like to see him again, hopefully in a better film. I wish I could say the same for everyone else, who don’t rise to the challenge, and, in many cases, don’t even have one to rise to.

Superman is overstuffed with a whole lot of illogical silliness. A lot of folks are championing it as a true comic book film, but I have to question if they have ever actually read a comic, or, y’know, read comics regularly since the third grade and have an actual understanding of how it all works (or doesn’t). Sure, many things in Superman feel “comic-booky”, like a giant, stupid-looking Kaiju that shows up for Superman to fight at random, or the robot helpers at The Fortress of Solitude. Or the gee-whiz of Luthor’s interdimensional prison, or the made-up names of countries that are representing real places in an attempt to make the audience connect.

Unfortunately, the attempts to get political in the film are much deeper than I anticipated, and it’s one of its biggest missteps. I’m not even going to try to regurgitate the made-up names for what amounts to Russia, Syria, Gaza, Israel, etc., but it’s so cartoonish that you have to wonder why they even bothered to include such things. The film poses some interesting questions early on when Lois Lane “interviews” her boyfriend, Superman, asking him why he thinks he should’ve been involved in stopping countries from invading one another, to which he naively replies, “People were going to die!”

It sounds noble and idealistic, perfect for Superman, right? Except, if you know anything about how the world works, you know that a metahuman kidnapping world leaders and threatening them if they invade or take any kind of military action isn’t just a slippery slope; It’s a downhill slip and slide. It made me pause to think about what Gunn was trying to present (who wrote and directed Superman) to us. If Superman is intervening on behalf of these made-up countries because people were going to die, at what point does he get involved in U.S. policy and leaders? And if he doesn’t, why not? And if he does, is Superman actually just “ruling the planet?”

I guess it’s as silly as the premise of Superman IV, which starred the late Christopher Reeve in a dismal final effort that had him rounding up all the nuclear weapons on Earth and chucking them into space. A goofy premise that exposed the problem with Superman’s naive nature. We’re just supposed to accept, both in the Reeve film and in Gunn’s, that Superman is just “trying his best here” and that we should all be grateful that someone is “stepping up”. Y’know, like Antifa rioters.

As good as Corenswet is (I still prefer Cavill and it’s not even close), he spends much of the movie having outbursts, crying, and being generally wimpy for someone who’s supposed to be a decisive hero. When fighting a giant Kaiju in the heart of Metropolis, Supes saves everyone, from fleeing old ladies to cute little squirrels. It’s fine, I suppose, but it also verges on dipping into the Reeve era and being goofy, nostalgic fan service. Bryan Singer already did that for an entire film with 2006’s Superman Returns, which was also a tremendous letdown.

The villain at the center of it all is, of course, Lex Luthor, this time played by Nicholas Hoult, who brings a manic, obsessive energy to the role, but feels tremendously miscast. Hoult is a talented actor, and he’s more than proven he can deliver strong performances (and hilarious ones if you’ve ever seen The Great), but he feels like a petulant manchild here. The enigmatic persona that Gene Hackman brought to the role is nowhere to be found, nor is the menacing version played by Kevin Spacey. To date, the best version has been Michael Rosenbaum on Smallville, but you could argue he had a lot more time to build the role. Still, his take had the right balance and intensity, and I kept wishing it was him instead of Hoult on the big screen.

Rachel Broshahan is stunningly beautiful and has a look that’s more in line with Margot Kidder, but it’s a mostly thankless role, as she has more of a girl power vibe going on, albeit with a struggle to connect with her boyfriend. The relationship she has with Superman is, naturally, already in play when the movie begins, and they’re dealing with their differences as a “secret” couple. At one point, Lane says that she and Superman are “very different,” and it made me wonder what they had in common at all, as it never shows in the film. They just kind of kiss and hug, and all is well, just…because.

There’s no reason for this, though, as the film is called Superman, and we should be fully invested in that character throughout, but we’re not. Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi) seems to take up a lot of time in the film, so much so that I started just to wish it was his. The same could be said for Skyler Gisondo’s Jimmy Olsen, who has a whole subplot of having an unwanted romantic entanglement with Sara Sampaio’s Eve Teschmacher, who serves as a selfie-taking girlfriend to Luthor, but is secretly fawning over Olsen and serving as an informant. She’s obviously attractive, yet Olsen treats her like a troll, even having a nickname for her “ugly toes”. Olsen has a whole entourage of women who seek his attention, but he acts like none of them can measure up. It’s just an odd direction, as it’s impossible to believe that someone like Olsen wouldn’t jump at the chance to be with a woman like Eve Teschmacher.

Speaking of female entourage’s, at one point Superman’s Kryptonian parental message is interpreted in a very “Invincible” kind of way, as missing fragments are made to show that they intended for their son, Kal-El, to rule over the people of Earth and take on a harem of women to spread his seed. A perplexing choice, that gets dragged out over and over again, without the intended laughter, I think it was aiming for.

The humor is another big issue with the film. While Superman’s affable charm and dim-witted logic are one thing, there are so many lines, jokes, and one-liners in the film that simply don’t land. I saw Superman as part of the Amazon early access screening, and my theater was packed with people in Superman attire, excited to revisit the DC hero, but you wouldn’t know it while the movie played. Almost none of the jokes landed, and I chuckled maybe once or twice. And, I’m not a humorless shill. I love to laugh. I love all types of jokes, raunchy, clean, clever, or slapstick. But, Superman cannot find any of the comedic footing that Gunn managed to land with his Guardians films. I was genuinely surprised, as I felt like that would be the easy part for him. Apparently not.

The ending of the film features a walk-on from another superhero character, and the interaction in that scene is a pretty weird one as well, which just didn’t hit the way I think Gunn intended. It veered way too far into “what the hell?” territory for my tastes and seemed like an odd way to introduce the character.

Alas, we need to talk about the scene stealer of the movie, Krypto. If you love dogs, as I do, then you’ll probably love Krypto. But, then again, I love dogs, and I did not love Krypto, mostly because he’s kind of a menace. Much of this is because Gunn used the likeness of his dog, a rescue, who was also a menace when he got it. It’s cool that Gunn had that experience and bonded with his pet, but the oversaturation of that affection bleeds into Superman far too much.

Some will vehemently disagree with me on this, and that’s fine. At the end of the day, I wanted more Superman and less of the dog. It got to be so much that I wondered why the film wasn’t called Superman and Krypto.

The other characters who did not work for me were Ma and Pa Kent. They’re more in-line with the older couple in Richard Donner’s Superman, but way more redneck. It’s hard to top Schneider/Costner or O’Toole/Lane, but this is an epic-level downgrade. Nothing wrong with the actors, of course, but as characters, they feel like a trailer park couple that stumbled upon an alien baby. It just didn’t take, and maybe I’m just spoiled with what came before.

Speaking of what came before, the comparisons of Gunn’s Superman to Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel are inevitable, and I’ll spare you a long list of them. From my side of the fence, MOS is a far superior Superman film. It’s the gold standard of Superman films. Top to bottom, Man of Steel checks all the boxes for me, which doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy another take, but that take had better be fire in its own right. Gunn’s Superman is not that.

The messaging of Gunn’s Superman seems to be about making Superman “human” and highlighting his fallibility and naivete, but also, hey guys, he’s trying really hard here and at least he’s doing something…by basically invading foreign countries and screwing with foreign policy, being neither elected or appointed to do so. It’s hopelessly hopeful in that way, which makes it feel disingenuous and half-assed. And yes, sometimes superheroes go down a political road. Sometimes it works, but mostly it doesn’t. As a rule, it’s best to avoid it, especially these days, when everyone is already going for the throat over that stuff everywhere else. We’re supposed to be escaping that noise with a Superman film.

As for the action and VFX portion of the film, it’s nothing you haven’t seen before and lacks any real gravitas in terms of leaving the audience with unforgettable moments. No new ground is tread and I found myself baffled at times by how “TV” the film looked. When the fighting and action kick in (which isn’t much), there simply isn’t anything done that pushes the genre, the character, or the vision of the DCU. It’s paint-by-numbers battles, a city being destroyed, all while being adorned in bulky, leather-clad costumes and bad haircuts.

I don’t discredit Gunn for shooting his shot. They hired him to do a job, and he, along with producer Peter Safran, did what they do. Unfortunately, for me, this is not the banger of a beginner we needed with DCU, but rather a misguided, half-cooked hodgepodge of a starter kit that’s more confusing and overstuffed than earnest and entertaining.

So, while I didn’t enjoy Superman and was shocked at how little I cared for it, I’m still like a passenger on a plane with the DCU. I’m rooting for the pilot. I want to get to my destination safe and happy, so it doesn’t make me feel good to feel bad about a movie. I don’t pay to be tortured, but sometimes it works out that way. Here’s to hoping the next DCU entries fare better, or I fear it will be a long, long time before the cape flies across the screen again.