Filmmaker James Gunn may be a creative wunderkind and the man who made GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY into a multimillion-dollar franchise, but it’s shocking how so many of his ideas about the Man of Steel in his new take on SUPERMAN feel like they aren’t guarding the property at all. Here are just five:
- His take on Superman is that he’s an alien who wants to fit in as a human being on planet Earth. That may be a metaphor for immigration today, but it feels wrong here. Kal-El knows that he cannot be human and that his purpose on Earth is to protect humanity and use his super powers to do so. He is more God than human and he’s not here to be anyone’s bro.
- Gunn believes, as is stated in the first titles on screen, that Earth has been hosting superheroes for hundreds of years. That may have become lore of DC as of late, but when you’re trying to re-introduce Superman as a special superhero, wouldn’t the last thing you’d want to do is make him into just another garden variety flying savior? (As Syndrome said in THE INCREDIBLES, “When everyone is super, no one will be.”)
- If Lex Luthor is such a genius that he can find a hidden universe sandwiched between layers of time, isn’t that enough to get him all the accolades from his fellow human beings? Why bother fighting Superman for top resident of Earth at all when such a phenomenal discovery would get you a Nobel Prize or Time’s Person of the Year for at least a few years running? Isn’t he smart enough to realize his prowess?
- Zack Snyder’s MAN OF STEEL in 2013 was dragged for its excessive destruction of Metropolis for the better part of an hour, so why do the same thing here? For that matter, why have the climax showcasing Superman in a fight with a cloned version of himself when that very idea stank up the ending of SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE in 1987? Oh, and making Lex Luthor a tech whiz when audiences and critics despised that take on the villain in BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE in 20016 and led actor Jesse Eisenberg to grumble that the take sank his career for a number of years…well, why would anyone want to repeat such an error?
- Why set up SUPERGIRL for her new movie/sequel at the end of this film by showing her to be little more than a profane, irresponsible party girl? Really? That’s the new take on Kara Zor-El? Who wants to see that?
James Gunn, apparently.
The heads at Warner Bros and DC Films too. Not to mention additional decision-makers in the C-suites who seem to have little regard for the heartfelt property created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster back in 1938, and perfected in the 1978 film by director Richard Donner and star Christopher Reeve. To all that earnestness, they seem to be giving one big, cynical, Bronx cheer.
Sure, some of what Gunn, et al. do in this film works. David Corenswet gives it his all as Superman and Clark Kent, even if his role is written as far too strident and angry. It also feels unseemly that the newbie is asked to play Supes as physically tortured and beaten down into the ground so much, but he’s at least convincing playing the excruciating pain. Rachel Brosnahan is a likably feisty Lois Lane who is given a lot to do in the story. The visual effects are very good and the up close and personal cinematography style for the flying Superman shots are quite nifty. Oh, and the rambunctious super dog Krypto steals every scene he’s in, even though there’s no explanation of how the pooch got here exactly from an exploding planet.
Additionally, there are genuine stakes in the war backdrop between two fictitious foreign countries as the B story. Jimmy Olsen (Skyler Gisondo) is funny and never wears out his welcome. And the action scenes are easy to follow with precise, crisp editing. There are even scenes filled with clever wit to them like when Superman saves a small squirrel from getting squashed or when an alien creature is defeated in the background while Superman has a heart-to-heart talk with Lois in the foreground.
But then why isn’t there any real wit given to the Lex Luthor character? Here, he’s written and played like he’s a cocaine-infused frat boy. Nicholas Hoult is a versatile actor who can be hilarious (THE FAVOURITE, MAX MAX: FURY ROAD) yet he’s not given one truly great quip or retort in the script. And why isn’t Miss Teschmacher (Sara Sampaio) funny? Instead, she’s played as a silly bimbo character straight out of the sexist pre-war Forties. Valerine Perrine may have been built like a pinup in the role back in ’78, but her character was one smart cookie, a moll who could hold the interest of the smoothly sinister Lex Luthor essayed by Gene Hackman. A clever take like that is so, so far away from the one in this new outing.
Such missed opportunities feel not just surprising, but almost shocking. Even more egregious is that this Superman spends so much time grumbling and slumping about like a burnt-out New Yorker. He doesn’t even need to pretend to be Clark Kent; he’s already a hapless Joe, arguing every chance he gets with his girlfriend Lois. And if this whole take of Gunn’s is supposed to be a re-invention, why bring back John Williams’ famed score? It wasn’t enough that director Bryan Singer did the exact same thing in his SUPERMAN RETURNS back in 2006?
Look, when Nathan Fillion’s Green Lantern character spends more time on screen taking victory laps than Superman does, something is wrong with your approach to the property. When acclaimed stage actor Wendell Pierce is cast as Perry White and doesn’t have any real lines until the last 20 minute of the film, something is off in your approach to the property. When Ma and Pa Kent are treated like backwoods rubes that feel like they tumbled out of a Lil’ Abner panel, something is wrong with your approach to the property.
And why is the true message from Kal-El’s parents in the Fortress of Solitude this time a direction for their son to enslave the weak and inferior people of Earth and lord over them as their master? That feels way too cynical even for these political times, let alone this superhero. It’s positively depressing.
Perhaps, it felt too naïve or “heart on your sleeve” for Gunn, et al. to approach all this as bright as the golden sun that rejuvenates Kal-El, but I missed the sunnier, earnest take of ’78. We already have Batman being down-in-the-mouth, and other darker takes on Superman from the last 20 years on the big screen, so why give us more of such bitterness? SUPERMAN is the one major superhero whose alter ego is that of a human being, not the other way around like Batman or Spider-man. Thus, his mission should be one of upbeat confidence, fighting the good fight for truth, justice and a better way. Couldn’t one filmmaker in Hollywood try to present that take, even in these fractured times of 2o25?
I’d like to think so, because for my money, this SUPERMAN never soars.
