As a long-time reader of comics and lover of superheroes, I must admit that even I’m tired of all these cape-and-spandex movies that are dominating the cultural landscape. Many moons ago, the occasional super-movie was a welcomed event, even when the movie wasn’t particularly good. However, in this modern era, it seems like every other movie is about ______Man or Captain ______. My enthusiasm for comics and cartoons featuring these stupendous beings will never fade, but I’m afraid that cannot be said for their films. The vast majority of them have that same “Iron Man”-esque tone, along with the familiar style of snarky quips and overly detailed/colorless costumes. For a few years, it was fine. Unfortunately, it’s been close to twenty. But every once in a while, there is a superhero picture that reminds me of why I loved these costumed crusaders in the first place. This summer, we finally got a new comic book movie that brought the wonder and joy I associate with these heroes.
And that movie was “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” which went back to basics and gave us a hopeful adventure through a retro-futuristic world. Complete with Jack Kirby-style visuals and an obvious love for the source material, the new Fantastic Four flick is a triumph. But that ain’t the film we’re talking about. No, we are concerned with “Superman” (2025), another superhero outing with goals that are similar to those of “The Fantastic Four: First Steps.” Both were meant to generate excitement for a new era for their respective brand while hearkening back to the optimism of earlier superhero stories. The primary difference between the two is that I believe “First Steps” succeeded. (Although Robert Downey Jr. as Doctor Doom after a decade of playing Iron Man is a hard sell to me.)
James Gunn’s “Superman” comes from a noble place. No one on Earth will doubt Gunn’s obvious affection for comic books, and this film exhibits that devotion to even the silliest aspects of superhero lore. Never did I imagine I would see a Superman movie that so boldly references Superman’s hypno-glasses, but here we are. Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen are present at the Daily Planet, but so are Steve Lombard, Cat Grant, and Ron Troupe. The Justice League (or rather “Justice Gang”) includes Guy Gardner as Green Lantern and Maxwell Lord as their sponsor, bringing to mind those great Justice League International comics. Even the central conflict concerns Boravia and Jarhanpur, two fictional counties from the comics, If you are just looking for a bunch of references to DC’s past, “Superman” has you covered.
It’s hard to tell you exactly why this film does not work for me. On paper, this should be a winner. Superman/Clark Kent is the soft-hearted, sweet-as-apple-pie defender of the people he ought to be. Gunn and actor David Corenswet understand who Superman is, but there’s still something off about it. Not bad, mind you. Just off. I spent some time considering why this depiction of Superman is only good to me instead of great; the conclusion I reached is that it’s a little too aware of all the things Superman is supposed to be. Superman is very much in character; he just establishes that character in ways that feel inorganic. You can almost hear Gunn and his cohorts loudly discussing the qualities that make Superman who he is as you are watching the movie. Clark Kent states his philosophies bluntly throughout. His friends tell us why he’s a hero every chance they get. These feel less like authentic exchanges and more like the movie desperately trying to reaffirm Superman’s core characteristics after a decade of Zack Snyder’s dour take. I am no fan of Snyder’s DC universe, but “Superman” is too focused on distancing itself from those movies.
Because the movie is also meant to be the start of a new “cinematic universe,” “Superman” is filled to the gills with cameos, characters, and lore-accurate plot elements. DC’s newfound devotion to comic book weirdness should be applauded, but it may be too much at one time. “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” alludes to classic FF villains, showcases familiar sci-fi technology, and recreates locations from the comics, but it has the effect of creating a lived-in universe. These little references establish the Four and their world in a way that gives the impression that these heroes have been around for years. In “Superman,” the references seem to exist solely to get fans excited for future releases.
It’s ironic that the Marvel movie in this comparison is the positive example; Marvel Studios has been guilty of overstuffing for years now. But “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is a movie I believe can be enjoyed in isolation. (In fact, I would prefer to take it on that standalone level, considering everything we know about the MCU’s future.) “Superman” needs you to get excited for DC’s future. It very much wants you to know that Supergirl will star in her own movie next year. If you enjoyed Guy Gardner here, prepare to see him in “Lanterns,” the new series coming to HBO Max.
At the end of the day, “Superman” isn’t much different than all those Marvel movies many of us have been complaining about since “Avengers: Endgame.” I appreciate the more whimsical approach, but we have been seeing these characters and their ilk for so long now. A film promising years and years of more superheroes isn’t appealing to me at this moment in time. “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” was warranted in that none of us were really satisfied with the previous attempts at adapting the Four. Those are brilliant characters who deserved a proper adaptation, and “First Steps” delivered. Superman has been adapted many times. Some of those adaptations are among the most beloved superhero movies and cartoons ever made. Outside of setting up a new universe and serving as a rebuttal to the other recent Superman movies, this one didn’t add anything all that novel.
I don’t like being negative. I really don’t. Especially about a character who has brought me so much happiness over the years. Perhaps my love of the Big Blue Boy Scout is why I’m so hard on this movie. Superman should feel special, and this movie does not. It is the continuation of trends that have plagued recent comic book movies. Many people I respect love this movie, and I’m honestly a little sad I can’t join them in singing its praises. There’s much to like here, especially in terms of its cast. Nicholas Hoult is genuinely one of the best Lex Luthors we’ve ever seen. Nathan Fillion’s Guy Gardner is a rockstar; Rachel Brosnahan is a wonderful Lois Lane. Edi Gathegi as Mr. Terrific lives up to his name. Isabela Merced is a cool Hawkgirl. Even though she was only in it for a second, I enjoyed Milly Alcock’s party-girl Supergirl. And who could hate Krypto the Superdog?
David Corenswet does an admirable job as Superman. I appreciated that he and the script emphasized Clark’s Kansas boy corniness. The issue is that we have seen so many great Supermen over the years that it’s kinda hard to really stand out. Even the ones who were given weak material were generally well-cast. Considering everything, though, I did enjoy Corenswet’s portrayal. For a new generation, he’s a fine Supes. Though it does have some of the problems I mentioned earlier, the sequence in which he and Brosnahan do an “interview” was a highlight of the movie.
“Superman” (2025) is not a bad movie. Maybe if we hadn’t just lived through two decades of cinematic universes, I would have been kinder to it. There was certainly a time in which the inclusion of Guy Gardner and the Hall of Justice would’ve been enough for me to give this a rave review. But to quote Syndrome from “The Incredibles,” “When everyone is super, no one is.” That is where we are at with these movies. Again, a few may still stand out, but it may be time to give cinematic superheroes a break. At the very least, it’s time to do standalone pictures again. You don’t need to sell the audience on a shared universe every time. Sometimes, you just need them to believe that a man can fly.
