As a general rule of thumb, I try to watch new movies unaware of the critical reception or early fan response. As a critic myself, I want to judge the flick without any preconceptions. But in the case of “Superman,” that was pretty much an impossible task.
Even though I booked tickets for opening night, I had already seen fawning praise from comic book fans, knew its online viewers' scores were close to perfect, and had heard glowing things from my colleagues who caught an early preview screening. But after seeing the James Gunn DC franchise starter for myself, I’m left wondering:
Did we see the same movie?
Is “Superman” a Snyderverse-scale disaster? Most certainly not. But a new era for DC on the big screen? Not in my book. I’d go as far as to say the Man of Steel’s much hyped return is about the same quality as the majority of recent Marvel efforts like "Captain America: Brave New World." In a word: Mediocre.
Now, clearly, this is something of a hot take. The movie holds an impressive 93% rating from viewers on Rotten Tomatoes, and my aforementioned colleagues were less than impressed by my reaction. However, before you write your anger-fueled comments telling me I should be banned from ever writing about movies again, allow me to explain my five major issues with “Superman.”
(And then feel free to tell me all the reasons I’m wrong down below in the comments section.)
My 5 major issues with "Superman"
1. Way too many extra characters
For me, the biggest sin in the majority of recent comic book movies is how often they’re overstuffed with additional superpowered characters, and “Superman” leans into this annoying trend hard.
I had hoped, as the foundation for the new DC Cinematic Universe, that the focus would be squarely on fleshing out Superman (David Corenswet) himself and key characters Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan) and villain Lex Luthor (Nicolas Hoult). But nope, the blockbuster is distractingly crammed with unnecessary extras.
Alongside getting acquainted with the new Clark Kent, we also meet new heroes in the form of Green Lantern (Nathan Fillion), Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced), Mister Terrific (Edi Gathegi), and Metamorpho (Anthony Carrigan).
Then there’s Jimmy Olsen (Skyler Gisondo) and the rest of the Daily Planet editorial staff, and a bunch of peripheral villains. Then, if that wasn’t enough, we also get teasing cameos like Supergirl (Milly Alcock).
It’s character overload, and it means that in Superman’s own movie, a startling majority of the time, he feels like a background extra as we’re introduced to yet another new face who presumably will have a spinoff movie in the future.
2. Superman is upstaged in his own movie
Speaking of Superman feeling like an extra, it’s probably not a good thing that the one action scene I’ve seen people talking about most doesn’t even involve him.
Instead, it’s the mid-movie sequence that sees Mr Terrific defeat a squad of goons to the jaunty tune “5 Years Time” by Noah and The Whale. And I’m not surprised as it’s the film’s best moment. Gunn flexes his filmmaking muscles, deploying neat camera tricks and creatively playing with the soundtrack. I came away from it thinking maybe Mr. Terrific should have been the star.
I’ve also seen a lot of love for Green Lantern’s arrival in Jarhanpur, where he uses oversized green middle fingers sprouting from the ground to flip over armored tanks without even a glance. It’s the type of pure comic book heroism that Superman himself never manages to display.
In “Superman,” the headline hero doesn’t even appear to be the Man of Steel.
3. Superman is less than super
“Superman” begins with a cute title card that explains, “3 hours ago Superman lost his first battle ever,” but frankly, based on what we see in the rest of the movie, I find that hard to believe. This incarnation of Superman doesn’t seem capable of punching his way out of a wet paper bag.
Look, cards on the table, I’ve never been much of a Superman fan. His Boy Scout attitude doesn’t warm my cold heart, and the fact that he’s blessed with seemingly every power under the sun makes him sort of bland. So, I’m totally on board for a Superman who isn’t presented as completely overpowered in all situations, but Gunn completely oversteers.
Throughout the movie, the only time we really see Superman go to town on a group of bad guys is when he faces off against a flying horde of generic robot goons. Otherwise, he gets his butt kicked by basically everything, or has to call in some assistance from the Justice Gang (or his best pooch pal).
And this could be okay if this were an origin story, about a Superman still grappling with his powers, but he's supposed to be years into the role, and according to the introductory cards, had previously never lost a fight.
We even see the Justice Gang tackle a multiversal jellyfish while Clark natters away with Lois about how "punk rock" he is, proving that even in-universe, other heroes don’t feel the need to call on Superman. Probably cause they knew he’d just get his clock cleaned by the oversized sea monster.
4. Krypto is used as a crutch
Another increasingly common sin in modern blockbusters is the inclusion of something “cute,” usually a small animal or creature of some sort. Think of Dolores in the recent “Jurassic World Rebirth.” I guess every movie studio now wants its franchise to have a Baby Yoda moment.
In “Superman”, this comes in the form of Krypto, and yes, the official Krypto plush is now available for just $22 (or why not pick up a Krypto Funko Pop! for just $15). Merchandising, baby!
Putting to one side that Krypto’s inclusion feels like a cynical ploy to sell soft toys to kids (and big kids), he boils down to the movie’s “get out of jail free” card. Superman is about to be defeated? Have Krypto swoop in at the last second and save him from harm.
This cheap trick is used twice, with both major villains defeated not by Superman’s own guile or superior strength but because his unruly hound is on hand to save the day. Plus, as a CGI construct, Krypto regularly crosses over the uncanny valley and looks completely fake.
5. Lex Luthor is anything but threatening
I’m not a comic book reader, and the few issues I’ve cracked open in my life have all been on the Marvel side of the fence, so correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that Lex Luthor was DC’s answer of Marvel’s Doctor Doom — an ultra-intelligent foe, always one step ahead of the game, and capable of intimidating even the most powerful heroes.
I guess not, as the Lex Luthor we get in “Superman” is anything but threatening. He’s a whiny tech-bro billionaire who is so insecure he literally calls in a troop of monkeys to post mean tweets about Superman — no, seriously, that’s an actual plot point in this movie. Oh, and he also locks his ex-girlfriend in a pocket dimension prison like a pouty teenager.
Even in the grand finale, when he should be at his most intimidating, Luthor is reduced to comic relief as he’s thrown about his flying headquarters by Krypto.
If he’s to be the anchor villain of the new DC universe, then he’s going to need a major character intervention to seem a worthy threat for a fully-stocked Justice League. Or maybe he’ll just write some mean comments on their Facebook profiles from his prison cell, and that’ll be his grand plan.
Ironically, Hoult’s version of the character has an awful lot in common with Jesse Eisenberg’s infamous one from Snyder’s maligned “Batman vs. Superman.” Granted, there’s no grating personality tics here, but both come across more like a sulky manchild than a calculating supervillain.
I guess all it really took to get DC fans on board with an ultra whiny version of the character was a shaved head from the very start.
But there are green shoots of hope
OK, so I’ve written a lot of negative things about “Superman” above, but there's some positives.
David Corenswet, Rachel Brosnahan and Nicholas Hoult are all well-suited to their roles. And while I don’t love Lex’s characterization, I see that as a writing issue rather than a failure of Hoult himself. Give this trio better material, and I’m convinced they’ll soar to new heights.
Plus, the movie’s emotional arc, which sees Superman struggle with his true reason for being sent to Earth, is remarkably well-handled. It all culminates in an ending that feels emotionally earned, and had me briefly considering forgiving all the movie’s other sins.
Not to mention, "Superman" might be the first tentpole blockbuster in history to feature a scene where a journalist uploads a story to their publication's CMS (content management system), which had me hollering in my cinema seat.
And if nothing else, unlike some of the efforts in the now-defunct DC Extended Universe, “Superman” is a coherent movie. Sure, I believe it to be flawed, but I chose the word mediocre carefully here. It’s not a total trainwreck, or even unwatchable, it’s just not the breath of fresh air for the genre that I’d hoped or expected, considering the overwhelming positive viewer reception.
Oh, and Milly Alcock’s cameo, while probably unneeded, does have me intrigued to see more of the character when she headlines her own movie next year. So I’m going to stay optimistic that perhaps the upcoming Supergirl solo outing will be the movie that gets me fully invested in this new DC world.
More from Tom's Guide
You must confirm your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.
