"Superman" Is an Enjoyable but Flawed Reboot
James Gunn gets his DC Universe off to an admirable start despite some stumbles and pointless controversy.
Foreign Perspectives is a mix of free and paid content. Certain columns such as these are free for all subscribers, but other articles will be exclusive for paid subscribers. If you enjoy the work I do, please consider upgrading to a monthly or yearly subscription. Your support is greatly appreciated and ensures that this Substack can continue to deliver high quality pieces.
I’m currently running a 10% off sale until the end of July. Details here.
Note: This column is spoiler free.
In his lukewarm review of Tim Burton’s Batman, Roger Ebert called the 1989 cinematic take on the Caped Crusader a “depressing experience” and poised the question if the opposite of comic book is a “tragic book.” While I disagree with Ebert’s assessment of the film (I’m personally a big fan of Michael Keaton as Batman), I’ve always kept his review in mind with how seriously the superhero film genre has taken itself in recent years. Marvel and especially DC have opted to portray their characters in as drab a light as possible, following the same predictable story templates and seemingly forgetting that people read comics back in the day for their colorful worlds.
While it can’t escape all the tired modern tropes of the genre, James Gunn’s Superman is unapologetically a classic superhero movie that comes closest to the vision Richard Donner had for the Man of Tomorrow back in 1978. I wouldn’t consider myself a Zack Snyder hater by any means, but this brighter take is definitely what I prefer seeing of Superman. It gets the rebooted cinematic DC Universe off to a promising start, and the overall vibes are much closer to how most of the world views the iconic American hero. Well, it’s pretty debatable now if Gunn and DC still even consider Superman quintessentially “American” apart from scoring some culture war points, but more on that controversy later.
To get the good things out of the way, Superman wisely chooses to not waste the audience’s time with yet another origin story or a first act full of tedious exposition. Like any comic book you would take off the newsstand, the opening text brings everyone up to speed with this universe’s superheroes (referred to here as “metahumans”) and we cut to the action straight away. Arguably too much is happening, but I appreciated how Gunn sets up the lore and characters. The costumes look fantastic, the CGI is pretty good, and “fun” is the first word that came to mind as I was leaving the cinema. That’s what a Superman movie should be, right?
I wish I could end the review there, but the culmination of enough small nitpicks results in Superman being only a good superhero film instead of a great one which can be put in the same conversation of Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight, Logan, and Richard Donner’s two films featuring the Man of Steel. The biggest flaw is ironically with Superman himself. David Corenswet looks the part visually with his rugged good looks, Hollywood physique, and the character’s trademark hair curl, but I felt taken out of the moment as soon as he opened his mouth. Apart from the voice being too husky and something off about the cadence, Corenswet in my eyes is closer to a good Superman cosplayer as opposed to an actor who convincingly embodies the character.
Like Sean Connery to James Bond and Hugh Jackman to Wolverine, Christopher Reeve will always be the definitive version of Superman. That’s obviously an impossibly high bar to follow, but what made his performance so memorable was Reeve convincingly pulling off the duality of the character. Many have argued that Batman is the real person and Bruce Wayne is the mask, but in the case of Superman, Clark Kent is indisputably the assumed persona. Kal-El is an alien from the planet Krypton and whatever civilian form he takes on Earth is meant to disguise that. Reeve certainly understood that assignment, but so did succeeding Supermen over the decades like Tim Daly and Henry Cavill.
In Gunn’s Superman, Clark Kent is only on screen for a few minutes and the ease in which people seem to accept Lois Lane dating Superman almost makes you wonder what the point of the character’s secret identity here is in the first place. I don’t think Corenswet is a bad actor, but I don’t buy him as the timid news reporter in what little we see. Even as Superman himself, he’s not necessarily that convincing as a the do-gooder boy scout either. He has his moments, but in other scenes Corenswet’s Superman comes across more as a whiny teenager who sulks and needs help from others rather than someone full of boundless positivity and optimism. A few of his lines could have benefited from additional takes.
Superman is admittedly difficult to write since he’s essentially a near-invincible demigod, but James Gunn seems to have wanted to be the opposite extreme of Zack Snyder in having him get beaten up as much as possible. The film was supposedly inspired by Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely’s All-Star Superman comic, though I don’t see much resemblance apart from a few aesthetic choices. Having read it in full before writing this column, I can confidently say that the two works are vastly different takes on Superman. Morrison understood the character’s psychology and personal flaws much better than Gunn did, which makes me wish it was closer to the film we ultimately got.
Instead, we’ve been delivered another James Gunn superhero movie warts and all. Taking a page from his Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy for Marvel, you can expect quippy dialogue, humor that lands about two-third of the time, fast-paced editing, and charmingly bubblegum retro aesthetics. Gunn leans dangerously close to annoyingly cringe Gen X writing when his excesses aren’t reigned in, but Superman thankfully avoids having any notable eye-rolling moments. The Justice Gang (essentially the spiritual successor to the Guardians) consisting of Hawkgirl, Mr. Terrific, and Guy Gardner’s Green Lantern provides most of the comedy. Kendra Saunders, Edi Gathegi, and Nathan Fillion all have great chemistry together and I ironically enjoyed them considerably more than the titular protagonist.
If I sound overly harsh toward David Corenswet, I will say that I think there’s still plenty of time for him to get more used to the role in future DC films. He is by no means an awful Superman and I see further potential in him. What will undoubtedly be more offensive to purist audiences is a certain storytelling decision around Superman’s Kryptonian parents. I won’t get into it for the purposes of spoilers, but you can count me in the camp of fans who strongly disagree with what route Gunn chose. While it isn’t anywhere as bad as what Rian Johnson did to Luke Skywalker in The Last Jedi, it follows a similar pattern of Hollywood’s tedious obsession with “subverting expectations” and deconstruction.
On a more positive note, Rachel Brosnahan is exactly what I would expect from a Lois Lane and Nicholas Hoult even moreso as Lex Luthor. While I wish we could have seen more of Clark Kent, this version of Lois has excellent chemistry with Superman. Hoult’s Lex is also a classically evil comic book villain with his piercing expressions and long monologues of wanting to destroy his nemesis. Morally complex antagonists are fine, but sometimes you just need a bad guy who is unapologetically a scoundrel just because he wants to be one. I look forward to seeing future Superman villains like Brainiac, the Toyman, and Mister Mxyzptlk appearing in this universe one day. Krypto as Kal-El’s canine sidekick is pretty cute too. He’s entirely a CGI character like Eagly in Gunn’s Peacemaker, but the effects are convincingly lifelike and a testament to how far the technology has come.
Despite all the genuinely good things Superman has going for it, the film couldn’t avoid controversy in the weeks leading up to its release. Coverage initially focused on the backlash from Zack Snyder stans who hilariously attempted a “boycott,” but I would chalk that up to a loud minority of teenagers and immature young adults having nothing better to do. The greater dispute came after James Gunn decided to turn his film into more fodder for a culture war via a comment to the press:
“We love our immigrants. Yes, Superman is an immigrant, and yes, the people that we support in this country are immigrants and if you don’t like that, you’re not American. People who say no to immigrants are against the American way.”
This unsurprisingly caused the MAGA movement to decry Superman as “woke,” even though the movie itself really doesn’t contain any kind of notable political posturing or preachiness. At the same time, something has to be said about Gunn attempting to have his cake and eat it too. Despite claiming that immigrants are “the American way,” Superman has no such references to the character’s iconic catchphrase and in recent years DC has moved toward eliminating it entirely. Both sides of this debate have a kernel of truth to them, but they’re missing the bigger picture.
Gunn is correct when he calls Superman an immigrant. The original creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were both from Jewish immigrant families, and Kal-El being a literal alien outsider raised on American values makes the parallels difficult to ignore. You can find works analyzing Superman with that lens from decades ago, so it’s hardly a new concept. What Gunn and other liberals seem to be missing, however, is that Superman is an immigrant who assimilates. Endless compassion for outsiders is not a viable policy and as someone who has extensively written about immigration issues before, I’m not swayed by meaningless calls for “empathy” from elite celebrities who don’t have to deal with the consequences. It was a boneheaded move on Gunn’s part to wade into this debate in the first place.
You can’t go on about the “American way” when your film is quite lacking in the American way department. Gunn’s Superman follows DC as a whole trying to turn the character into a more universal, global hero. To give the MAGA side their dues, an argument can be made that too many in liberal Hollywood have become tone deaf and out of touch with the average American. You can certainly be critical of your own country, but you’ve lost the plot when it devolves into self-flagellation and this idea that one should erase Superman as an iconic hero representing the pinnacle of American values. As an American living abroad, I can confidently say that the rest of the world still associates Superman with the United States. That’s even one of the perceived reasons why the film is only showing modest box office returns overseas.
With all of that said, I’ll praise Superman for being an optimistic mainstream Hollywood picture after so much nihilism and cynicism. The pacing moves a bit too quickly for my liking and I’m not the biggest fan of Gunn’s ADHD-like approach to jumping from scene to scene, but his crowd-pleasing tone is what the character needs right now. I’m in general agreement with Chris Gore over at Film Threat that despite the film’s imperfections, it’s refreshing to see Superman spark some old fashioned comic book nerd debates over its storytelling decisions and that it will likely be most successful with younger audiences.
It’s also worth noting that it wouldn’t be a Superman movie without some blemishes and faults. Richard Donner’s Superman has an incredibly stupid ending and Superman II was infamous for being the odd Frankensteined result of two starkly contrasting visions because of its director switch, yet both are still regarded as classics. The less said about Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, the better. Superman Returns and Man of Steel have their dedicated fans, but few would argue them as being masterpieces. So really, James Gunn’s Superman is just following tradition. I’m glad that the new DC Universe has arrived with a generally respectable introduction. Whether it can stick the landing from here though is another question.
Foreign Perspectives is a reader-supported Substack. If you like my work and have come this far, consider opting for a paid subscription so I can continue writing in-depth articles such as these on a regular basis. Your support is greatly appreciated!
Being more of a DC fan than Marvel, and being rather tired of all of Marvel's recent movie offerings apart from Gunn's Guardians films, I am looking forward to this one, sounds like it's worth seeing.
How do you think it stands up in terms of the cinematography and do you think it's worth seeing in theatres? I have decent home theatre system for gaming, and I'm curious if you think it's worth going to an IMAX or large screen theatre to see or would a home setup with surround sound and a decent TV prove sufficient once it's streaming or on Blu-ray?