Superman review — Flawed but heartfelt punk rock

Let’s get this out of the way. I love James Gunn’s Superman. This debut of DC’s cinematic revival possesses an infectious optimistic energy that had me smiling the whole way through. With that being said, is it a good movie? Well… not really. As stellar as many facets of this film are, there are plenty of fundamental issues that hold it back from being more than just decent. Yet despite it all, with a movie this loud and proud of its message and originating medium of comics, it’s hard to let its flaws get in the way of the giddiness I felt in the theater watching a kind man in red underwear be kind to others.

Superman’s heroic, action packed adventure begins with reading. Essentially this is the film’s way to speedrun the basics of Superman's origin without dedicating an entire film reiterating one of popular culture's most known quantities. Moreover, time is spent during this text dump to establish the geopolitical backdrop of the narrative, followed by an injured Man of Steel crash landing into the snowy tundra. Meanwhile Lex Luthor, played by Nicholas Hoult, takes advantage of this opportunity to concoct a nefarious scheme to get rid of and humiliate the alien.

It’s a relatively straightforward story that doesn’t really grow more complex than that. Although, the issues that have plagued James Gunn’s other cinematic comic book ventures are here in full force, arguably at their worst. The simplistic main story gets padded out by numerous subplots and tangential side quests that have paper thin connections towards the overarching political conflict. For example, did we need an extended fight scene against a Kaiju Lex used as a diversion while he scuttled off to enact his plot relevant schemes? Or multiple extended dives into Jimmy Olsen’s (Skyler Gisondo) love life?

To the film’s credit, there are narrative justifications and pay offs for these sequences occurring. It's just that said justifications feel flimsy, further exasperated by the sheer length of these sections. The narrative progression feels akin to the film looking at the audience and saying “Would it be cool…?” or “Would it be funny if this happened?”, rather than having the natural flow of the story dictate each subsequent beat. Admittedly, these sequences were pretty cool and funny, so I was having a good time regardless of their threadbare story connections.

However, unlike the ensemble focus of James Gunn’s Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy and The Suicide Squad, Superman being a film focused on a central lead creates issues unique to this DC solo movie. Issues that make it my least favorite out of Gunn’s cinematic comic book outings. With an ensemble cast, character moments are constantly in the forefront even when it cuts to another jumbled, messy plot point. Even when there is a central lead, the supporting cast still plays a substantial role. With the center stage of the flick being occupied by the Man of Steel, the film doesn’t have that luxury when the focus is not on the Kryptonian. Don’t get me wrong, Superman should be, and is at the core of the film titled Superman. But the byproduct of not having a cohesive plot to latch onto meant I was less invested whenever the film cut to the bloated supporting cast. 

Clark’s co-workers at The Daily Planet and the members of The Justice Gang, are well characterized and are given things to do to progress the story. And as various thematic foils to Superman, they function wonderfully. Edi Gathegi in particular as Mr. Terrific is an absolute scene stealer the plenty of times he’s on screen. It’s just that I feel the depth to screentime ratio of the side cast doesn’t quite justify the amount of time they take the spotlight away from the titular protagonist. 

Additionally, while I overall lean positive in their inclusion, there are some mixed feelings I have with the integration of the DC characters. The most I can say about Hawkgirl in this film is that she exists, and other notable DC names feel designed to make the audience point at the screen in recognition of the character. Their presence in the movie doesn’t majorly detract from the overall experience, as they are basically filling roles of what are essentially extras with recognizable characters. I just can’t shake the feeling on a meta level, their inclusion were designed primarily to tease future projects. 

That said, even if these characters feel tacked on from a narrative perspective, the biggest boon is how they make the universe James Gunn and DC feel alive. A whole cinematic world that feels lived in beyond what we see on screen. Metamorpho and the aforementioned Mr. Terrific being the two stand outs I cannot wait to see more of. And above all else, there is a thematic point to every character’s inclusion in spite of their shoehorned in plot roles. 

One unexpected miss of this flick however, was how shockingly atrocious the writing was. No, it’s not because of how over the top and corny the script felt. That particular facet I quite enjoyed. Furthermore, James Gunn’s signature style of humor, while present, feels restrained compared to the Guardians trilogy. The issue is how artificial exposition is delivered. With a film that takes place at the prime of his life, Superman attempts to catch viewers up on the Kryptonian’s backstory as well as world building of this new cinematic rendition of DC.

Characters stop talking like actual people and instead feel like they're reading Superman lore factoids off a wiki. The prose reminds me of narration text boxes you would find in a comic book; text meant directly meant for the audience to inform them of information. Because Gunn makes these bits diegetic to the world, exposition heavy conversations feel incredibly stilted, especially when information is being relayed to characters who already have prior knowledge of these bits of info. 

Normally, I have a pretty high tolerance for sub-par dialogue. It typically comes with the territory for a lot of comic book movie screenplays. But the frequency and context of these artificial deliveries made these typical issues of the medium much more glaring. This applies to a few of the plot contrivances in certain moments. The script crafts genuinely tense scenarios, only for some sort of convenience to nullify or contradict what was stated. The screenplay needed a few more passes to make conversations and the various story beats feel less messy. 

Yet despite all of these critical issues I have with the film, I want to reiterate: Outside of the sloppy writing, none of these are exactly new gripes I have for James Gunn’s films. All of which I adore. Because Gunn’s greatest strength as a writer nails the most important component of fiction to me. Even if their plots may drag or implode on themselves, the characters and their emotional journeys reign supreme. Each film’s scattershot plots serve as a vessel for these characterizations and growth to occur.

Superman embodies one of the driving factors that drew me to superheroes as central characters for storytelling. Fighting adversities with the tenacity of love and kindness. Optimistic hope rising against cynicism. How the compassion of one singular person, one man, can inspire that same level of warmth to millions of others. Superman triumphantly soars regarding these fundamental facets. David Corenswet delivers a knockout performance, capturing the affectionately awkwardness of Clark Kent, and the gentle, yet powerful strength of Superman. All while incorporating the tender, heartfelt purity that drives his character.

Most of my minor and major misgivings regarding the writing and narrative construction were unable to diminish the sheer elation I felt seeing the unshakable will of a man’s desire to do the right thing. Witnessing the blue boy scout rush in to save a child, or mourning the destruction of a robot had me swept up with a tender feeling of warmth. 

While I was critical about the supporting cast cannibalizing the screentime of our titular hero’s, their implementation overall is a net positive towards adding emotional weight to the Man of Steel’s character. The stakes of the story rarely feel bleak, but there is a degree of apathetic complacency present within the side cast and on a larger scale, the world of Metropolis. An apathy, born out of feeling powerless to make a difference. Each character’s integration in each story beats allows us to see the pessimism of their ideologies clash against Clark’s. It’s the film’s greatest, and most compelling strength. 

Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan) in particular, was a character I adored seeing evolve through the course of the film. Despite overall not being fleshed out as I would like, what’s there is still solid. She is the link the film utilizes to explore the idea of heroism on a more intimate scale within Clark’s daily life as a journalist and partner. In particular, an argument between her and Clark towards the start of the film was easily the best written, and most riveting interaction of the entire film. It is the thematic groundwork the rest of the story spring boards off of.

Lex Luthor encapsulates the complete thematic opposition of Superman’s strength through kindness. So basically being a douchebag. His plans are maniacally evil simply to fuel a feeling of narcissistic self-empowerment. His position as a tech billionaire allows him to meddle with government affairs and the media, making him a slimy little weasel that I loved to hate. Holt leans a tad too much into the manic twink energy for my liking, giving me Jesse Eisenberg Batman v. Superman Flashbacks. But thankfully it’s never to that dire degree, and Holt chews each scene by channeling that chaotic and technological nature into being a terrifying foe against a nearly indestructible hero. 

Luthor’s plans intersect the film’s geopolitical plotline with the subject matter of optimistic, and empowering compassion. Gunn achieves this by cocooning the narrative with a conflict that parallels current, real world events. This is a gamble that risks dating the movie, especially when a major vehicle that moves the story along is Superman’s greatest weakness yet: social media comments hurting his feelings. In practice, framing the story in this direction results in making the film more timeless. Not in spite of it, but because of it.

Through generations of various iterations and interpretations, Superman is a character whose message and ideology have stood the test of time for almost 100 years. The movie doesn’t modernize the core conceit of Superman’s character. Instead, it utilizes the contemporary time period as a backdrop to examine the role of the Kryptonian in a contemporary time period. If someone as compassionate and loving as Clark even has a place in an apathetic, cynical world.

The movie’s optimistic approach to this question is simplistic, idealistic, and arguably unrealistic. Yet that’s what I find so moving about it. James Gunn’s Superman is a beautiful lie that whisks me to a world where feelings of doom can be beaten through love and kindness. How anyone has the capacity to do the right thing, and how that hope can, and has already inspired hundreds of millions of people for almost 100 years to turn that lie into a truth.

The timeliness of the story only serves to show how timeless the message is. That is a superheroes greatest strength that this film revels in. It’s not how hard they can punch someone or how fast they can fly, it’s about how their desire to do good gives us a chance, literally and metaphorically, to live another day. How that desire can, and is never too late to come from anyone. 

This is the throughline that threads the characters in the wider DC universe into their story role. The Justice Gang may be hit or miss in terms of individual character depth, but as an entity who represents a jaded and commodified beacon of heroism, they serve as an exceptional foil to Superman’s blindingly optimistic form of heroism. The other characters’ desire to help others, perverted by a pessimistic world, compellingly clashes with the Man of Steel’s pursuit of that same desire through purity and warmth.

Seeing Clark in his journalist and hero life change others by bringing out their dormant kindness and compassion is nothing short of cathartic. As an aside, I find it utterly inspiring that DC’s recent cinematic ventures of their two heavy hitters, Matt Reeve’s The Batman and now Superman, embody that moving facet of heroism. Superheroes save people, they bring people together with kindness and compassion, and give them hope. 

These components specifically shine during the multitude of action set pieces. While their contrived narrative framing may be more fractured than a Kryptonian smashing into a building, how the cast’s various characterizations play off each other creates an enthralling ideological conflict that is the driving thematic force of this film. How should one do the right thing? What even is the right thing? Friend or foe, each fight serves as a progress report of where each character stands regarding these questions.

Their current emotional and philosophical state informs the actions they perform to help, or get in the way of the fight. Gunn has crafted joyous, and cheer worthy moments of Clark staying true to his ideals. Whether rushing in to save a squirrel under falling rubble, or trying to neutralize a monster instead of killing it. As a result, tension is formed between the heroes; drama that extends beyond the action into the quieter moments. And consequently, those developments thus inform the next stage of their arcs in the subsequent fights. 

As for the battles themselves, each action set piece has the same imaginative energy as a smashing as a child mashing their action figures together, dreaming of one inventive scenario after another. Seeing all these superhero brawls on the larger IMAX screen was a feast for the eyes. Visual clarity is the biggest achievement; Swift camera movements keep track of the frenetic clashes between gods flying at astounding speeds, while also capturing a clear view of the exhilarating action thanks to medium and wide shots with minimal cutting to get a clear view of the brawls.

Gunn’s usage of slow motion and close ups, are effective at accentuating the impact of the powerful punches, or the thrilling speed of flight. Although, there are admittedly some usages that looked too goofy for my liking. In particular, a random close up shot of Hawkgirl shaking her head had me burst out laughing. 

The only distracting aesthetic qualm I have is how washed out Metropolis frequently looks. The dull grays often make for a lifeless looking playground for DC’s gods and monsters. It’s such a shame, because the color palette of the interior sets, and especially the otherworldly environments are striking. At the very least there’s no visual parallels comparing the Man of Steel to Jesus. 

One aspect I wish I was more impressed by was the soundtrack. It gets the job done to match the tone a scene is going for, but I found a good deal of it forgettable outside the main theme. Fortunately, it’s such a fantastic main theme, capturing a triumphantly powerful and optimistic mood that made me feel uplifted every time the melodic motif was sprinkled through the film. Unsurprisingly, Gunn’s usage of licensed music is superb; never distracting, but always catchy and fitting to the scene at hand. It’s punk rock, as Clark would say.