Superman (2025): Radical Kindness

I have quite literally just walked out seeing James Gunn's Superman, and now that I'm back, I've gotta empty out every single thought in my head. I'm usually pretty longwinded on this blog (apologies) but my feelings about this movie are very simple: its perfect. It provided everything I want out of every kind of movie its trying to be. As a Superman film, it understands the character perfectly, and as a DC movie, its nails the looks and personalties of all the other heroes, and as the first entry in a new cinematic universe, it establishes a vibrant, textured world chock full of history just waiting to be seen on-screen. Below is my spoiler-free review, and when I get into the good stuff, you'll be warned.

This won't be a total glaze. I do have issues with the film, but I'll get into that in the spoiler section. I've seen many critics say that the film is overstuffed, but I just don't feel that way. Sure, its doing a lot at once, but I prefer this approach to the standard superhero film formula we've been using since Raimi's first Spidey flick. I love that there are multiple villains, heroes, and supporting cast members in play. It doesn't trim down Superman's mythos for the sake of general audience appeal, and instead, chooses to relish in every part of what makes the character fun. Metropolis, Krypton, Smallville—they all have a place—and so does the staff of the Daily Planet alongside Superman's super friends. Far too often have these movies had to amputate core parts of their character because of demands from on high, but Gunn's Superman is a firm "no" to that approach.

I, for one, loved the Justice Gang. Nathan Fillion as Guy Gardner is inspired casting, and while Isabella Merced's Hawkgirl doesn't get a ton of time to shine, she's certainly memorable. I suspect we'll see her more down the line in a future Justice Gang (or League) project. Edi Gathegi's Mister Terrific is a serial scene-stealer. Not only did they nail his comic book look practically 1-to-1 from page to screen, but also his character. I've seen some strange criticism about how he speaks, and I didn't know there was racism down to this level. I don't understand how one could not intuit how he's still an emotionally stunted super-genius just because he might say "hell yeah" once or twice. Is he not supposed to emote? To show how smart he is? Even if Michael Holt comes off as aloof in the comics, its a core part of his character that he does get frustrated being the smartest man in the room. He's a good guy, but he's got an ego. That's what makes him fun. DC has a new star on their hands, and I for one am looking forward to seeing more Mister Terrific in the future. A movie or series needs to happen, because Mr. T has a hell of a lot of new fans right now. Lastly, there's Metamorpho. Anthony Carrigan performed this character very well, I only wish that the voice and dialogue matched his macho tough guy attitude in the comics a little more. Otherwise, the depiction of his crazy powers really redeemed the character for me. A few years ago, this guy never would've had a chance being in a movie this big, and I'm just glad he's here.

(The Terrifics next, please Mr. Gunn?)

To praise more of the cast, David Corenswet simply is Superman, down to the bone. He has the warmth and strength needed for this character but believably sells when his anger and anxiety. Superman is dynamic, a fact that some interpretation forget about him. He's not a stoic, unfeeling demi-god, but a regular person who feels like we do. His dialogue incorporating goober phrases like "golly," "what the hay," and "good gosh" are also fun, and Corenswet sells the lines without making them jokes in and of themselves. And his chemistry with Rachel Brosnahan is electric. Brosnahan herself as Lois is another slam dunk. She's just got it. She's Lois come to life. The Daily Planet crew play a very minor role, but I also loved how Gunn went the lengths to cast them so the Planet felt like a real place. Nicolas Hoult is amazing as Lex. He brings such a seething, hateful energy that makes Luthor absolutely diabolical. I love that the narrative doesn't try to make him redeemable or try to absolve him. He's pathetic, and that's good. Finally, Krypto. The dog is entirely CG, and since he was featured so heavily in the marketing, I went in thinking he'd be in most of the film, and I was delighted to find that he's used sparingly, but to great effect. He doesn't overstay his welcome, and all of the comedy he brings out of the scenes he's in typically lands. I appreciated the bond Clark forms with him even if he's honestly kinda a bad dog. But like Guy Gardner, Krypto comes through when it counts.

One group of characters I'd like to shoutout are Lex's team, Planetwatch. The technicians that help him with his schemes, the black-shirted civilians, play very minor roles but serve to show that regular people, though they might be social climbers, buy what Luthor is selling. Ultra Man and the Engineer (Maria Gabriela de Faria) also give Superman some goons to punch. I don't think the Engineer really brings much to the table besides some a cool look and limitless fight scene potential. She's basically just an action figure. She's got no depth besides an offhand line about "throwing away her humanity" for Lex. Given how Gunn has gone back on his plans of The Authority, the future of the Engineer is unknown. (Also, Planetwatch was definitely supposed be named Stormwatch, right?)

My biggest fear for the film was that I wasn't going to love its overall look. I enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3's wacky cinematography, especially for the action, but appreciated it in small quantities. Surprisingly, I wasn't bothered by the exaggerated action in Superman, and in fact, really grew to enjoy it. I love how Gunn uses the camera to capture Superman's physics-defying movement. Sure, it can look like a video game at times, but if that's the prize to pay to watch Superman do his thing, then I'll gladly pay it. Seeing him not just punch hard, but grapple with Ultra Man and spin around with his laser eyes was a joy. And that's not to mention the sheer creativity of Metamorpho's powerset, and Mr. Terrific's badass application of his T-spheres.

It was the lighting in the movie that most interested me, as there's always warmth and color even in dark and cold places. I know the film (at least its trailers) has some of the blue values toned down, but I still love how bright the Fortress of Solitude is lit, the colors of Lex's pocket dimension, and the saturation of Metroplis' colors. Its a beautiful film to behold.

(Spoilers Below)

My one real critique of the film is the Ultra Man twist. I don't take any issue with teh fact that Ultra Man was a clone of Clark, only how predictable and underwhelming it us. The film has the foresight to not make Ultra Man's indentity a huge mystery, so really, the stakes were quite low for whatever reveal it ended up being. I was able to predict the twist, down to a hair being used for DNA, with just some comic book knowledge and a general sense for the rhythm and flow of a story. This isn't a true flaw of the film, as this is clearly set-up for DCU's Bizarro, but its something worth mentioning.

Also, while we're in spoilerville, let's talk cameos. The two big ones are John Cena's Peacemaker and the first appearance of Milly Alcock as Supergirl. Both I felt were tastefully done. Peacemaker's is basically a throwaway gag while Supergirl's feels like the cherry on top, a victory lap. Unfortunately, I saw the set photos a day before viewing, but I thought it was for the Supergirl film, so I was pleasantly surprised seeing her here. I'm not entirely sold on Alcock's Kara, but I enjoyed the general characterization they're going for. The DCU planning on making Supergirl the "fourth pillar" of the universe is a much more interesting plan to me than more Suicide Squad (which is definitely happening now that Lex is in Belle Reve).

I also wanted to address the fact that Superman doesn't show up at the Boravian border. At first, I didn't like this, as I wanted to see Gunn put a point on the fact that Superman should interfere in these geopolitical events, but I loved the Justice Gang showing up because it carries on a sub-theme of Superman inspiring others. Clark's love inspires Lois, who, in turn, inspires Mr. Terrific to help her save Superman from the pocket dimension, which frees Metamoprho who turns up at the Boravian border. He doesn't even go here! Its all one ripple effect, an affirmation of the idea of heroism itself. The act of kindness is framed a radical, destiny-defying concept in a hostile, Darwinian world where apathy is the natural predatory of empathy.

Brace yourselves, as now we get into the political messaging of the movie, since its caused some controversy. Firstly, James Gunn caught some flak for calling this an "immigrant story," which only annoyed people entirely unfamilair with Superman as a character. That element of the story is definitely present in this movie, as Clark agonizes over the true purpose for which his Kryptonian parents sent him to Earth. I don't mind Jor and Lara being evil because they don't always have to matter. This version of Clark's story is about his choices making him who he is, and he chooses to embody the values of his adopted parents rather than his birth parents. To champion the oppressed over the oppressors, which is thematically in line with the film's values. I don't think that negatively affects an immigration read. One could see it as Clark denying his heritage, but in truth, him continuing to be Superman is already an amalgam of Kryptonian and Human values. Sure, the film doesn't really have time to delve into its own version of Krypton, which is a shame, but there's not enough textual evidence to this is some "America first" rhetoric. Krypton is likely to be fleshed out in the Supergirl film, which I hope answers some other questions, too. Like, why wouldn't Kara tell Clark his parents were Kryptonian supremacists? I don't think its a "plot hole" per se, only a question begged after Kara's introduction.

Secondly, I firmly believe this film is discussing the Palestinian genocide at the hands of Israel via allegory with Boravia and Jarhanpur. Some critics wanted to see Superman stopping the original Boravian invasion before the start of the film, but I found the image of it in my head to be enough. Its a powerful enough image to persist in my mind everytime they talk about it. I loved how Lois and Clark's interview demonstrates this real life debates people have. Playing devil's advocate, Lois brings up the "complicated nature" of the conflict, while Clark knows that people are dying, that what Boravia is doing is wrong, and someone needs to stop it. Specifically, when Lois brings up the state of Jarhanpur, Clark says that Boravia perceiving Jarhanpur as "unjust" doesn't entitle them to invade it with the intent to colonize. What I love about this scene in terms of writing is that Clark might be right morally, but not inter-personally. Clark is is secure in his righteousness, and the audience is likely to side with him here, but Lois still has the right to ask her questions. They're both speaking truth to power in their own ways, and that's punk rock.

The American government and American capitalists being involved in the war (Boravia and America being allies) is another allusion to the real life subject its discussing, and I found that its able to do this all while delivering a great Superman story. Lex says that Superman is "destroying us" while he sells arms used in ethnic cleansing. What's more, he does it only have an excuse to kill an alien. Its all very resonant, and with Superman being the most prominent Jewish-created character in fiction, it would be remiss not to discuss this.

That's what makes me uneasy about a lot of the behind the scenes info about this movie. For one, Jimmy Olsen's actor is commonly cited as a Zionist online. From what I could find, he liked one of Noah Schapp's Instagram posts, which isn't a great look, but hardly as far as other Hollywood weirdos have gone in support of Israel. Not excusing it, just giving some perspective. I just wouldn't know how comfortable I'd be if I were James Gunn and I was making an anti-Zionist movie (allegedly) with a (potential) Zionist on my payroll. One could argue its simply an "anti-war" film in general, but honestly, that's not helping ole Jimmy Pistol.

One of the most contributing creatives to the DCU will be writer Tom King, who has a pretty contentious reputation amongst comics readers. He's very divisive, in that people either love him, hate him, or concede that they find he has a 50/50 batting average. I bring this up because Tom King is ex-CIA, and has, on record, discussed how he helped plan America's invasion of Iraq, and has implied he's tortured Iraqi people. So, uh...I thought we were anti-war around here? I mean, the Supergirl movie is directly based on King's Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow book, and he'll be showrunning the Mister Miracle animated series based directly on his own title. I just want it on record that I love Mister Miracle as a character but hate Tom King's rancid book. I used to say that that I felt 50/50 on King's writing, as his Vision mini-series for Marvel was one of my very first comics, but I can't honestly engage with his work knowing that what's he's (possibly) done in real life. And he keeps writing about it! Every story he writes has to be about men traumatized from war, so don't give me any "seperate art from the artist" bullshit.

He's a hack writer, a bad person, and one of James Gunn's closest creative partners on the DCU. We lost.

Woman of Tomorrow might be one of the best Supergirl stories ever written, and its a shame I'll never get to read it, but I'm never reading anything made under Tom King's pen. Its unfortunate that he'll be part of the DCU going forward, but its not just his projects. It takes a village to make a movie, and its unfair to boycott based on one man's actions, but, man...he's a really, really bad guy, though. I want to see Supergirl when it comes out, but I don't want to support this guy. My goal here isn't to ruin the film for you if you enjoy, but I can't praise the film as anti-Zionist wholeheartedly. How can one truly be anti-Zionist if you enlist a guy like Tom King for script notes? I feel conflicted, I think the allusions to Israel and Palestine are textual enough for people to feel affirmed. Sure, it could be about Russia and Ukraine, but there's no reason it can't be both. Its in the text. Its there for all to see, its just that reality is far more disappointing.

On this subject, I can't give advice. I'm not going to tell you how to feel, I only want to inform you. Is this a JK Rowling situation where ignorance makes you complicit? I don't know. Comics are a very niche circle. You probably didn't know who Tom King was before reading this, but now you do, and our choices make us who we are. I choose to see this movie for what it does well and condemn the people who made it for what we know they've done. Will I watch the Supergirl movie? Maybe. Does that make me a hypocrite? Probably. But I won't stop talking about this. Tom King is practically a war profiteer with how high he's climbed in entertainment, and I feel that he has no place being anywhere near a character nicknamed "the Champion of the Oppressed."

I hate to end on a sour note. I really do think this is a life-affirming film. It will make so many people, adults and children alike, love Superman and what he stands for, and that's valuable. That's magic. James Gunn's Superman is a nearly perfect film made by less than perfect people, and that's the price of fantasy; returning to reality.

Stay safe out there, gang, and don't forget to look up. You might just find some hope up there.