7 Things That Worked In James Gunn’s Superman (And 3 That Didn’t)

It’s not an exaggeration to say that it’s been a long time since we had a truly exceptional Superman film. Following the first two fantastic Christopher Reeve “Superman” movies, the iconic creation of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster has struggled in cinemas, with disappointments like “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace” being particularly memorable. More recent portrayals of the character haven’t had much success either, as films such as “Superman Returns” and “Man of Steel” grappled with finding a suitable modern interpretation of Superman’s appearance and personality in the 21st century.

It’s fantastic news for Superman fans worldwide that James Gunn’s “Superman” has hit theaters everywhere, offering an enjoyable and captivating experience. This new installment unapologetically brings out the optimism and goofiness inherent in the character, making it the first truly satisfying movie of the franchise since the 1980s.

James Gunn’s directorial take on Superman/Clark Kent (David Corenswet) delves deeply into his personal struggles such as his romance with Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan) and his purpose on Earth, demonstrating exceptional artistic merits. Highlighting the elements of “Superman” that excel superbly offers a film that surpasses expectations by offering both thrilling action and heartfelt emotion to the audience. It’s true that this densely packed movie has its flaws, but three specific instances of error are particularly glaring, serving as regrettable missteps in an otherwise self-assured creation. Examining what worked and didn’t work in “Superman” reveals that while it’s not a flawless production, it remains an engaging film deserving of acclaim and accolades.

Worked: David Corenswet as Superman

John Papsidera and Gunn skillfully curated an impressive ensemble cast for “Superman”, with a range of captivating choices. Unforeseen cameos from independent film artists, such as Zlatko Burić (“Triangle of Sadness”), added intrigue, while Edi Gathegi and Sara Sampaio delivered instantly memorable performances as Mister Terrific and Eve Teschmacher respectively. This cast is exceptional, with each member making a lasting impact.

At the core of everything, David Corenswet shines brilliantly in his debut as Clark Kent/Superman, a role he carries with the same authenticity as Christopher Reeve did before him. With an infectious charm, Corenswet embraces Superman’s earnest demeanor wholeheartedly and convincingly. Unlike a parody or jest, Corenswet portrays this character not as a stereotype but as a multidimensional human being that viewers can connect with emotionally.

Enjoying the way Corenswet skillfully navigates between Superman’s strongest and softest moments on screen is quite captivating. The actor convincingly uses his heat vision to annihilate armies of enemies or soar through the air, but he also convincingly portrays the awkward Clark Kent at the Daily Planet and shares tender scenes with Pa Kent and Lois Lane. No matter what aspect of Superman’s personality Corenswet is tasked with embodying, he does so passionately. There’s a natural charm to the actor’s on-screen charisma that makes it effortless to believe Superman genuinely cares for all living beings. It isn’t just anyone who can fight computer-generated adversaries, but Corenswet’s Superman stands out due to his emotional depth and tangible humanity.

Worked: The relentless cruelty of Lex Luthor

Over the past few years, many comic book movies have been attempting to replicate the success of Erik Killmonger from “Black Panther” by creating complex villains with tragic backstories. However, productions such as “Captain America: Brave New World” have struggled to capture what made Killmonger effective while also falling short in delivering truly detestable antagonists. On the contrary, “Superman” has chosen to present Lex Luthor (played by Nicholas Hoult) as an unsavory character from the start, which is a refreshing approach.

In simpler terms, Luthor in this movie isn’t given a sad past or softened up as a character; instead, he’s portrayed as an extremely hateful individual who hates Superman intensely. He’s a despicable liar, capable of causing harm to dogs and spreading malicious lies similar to the harmful “Replacement Theory.” His unapologetic wickedness adds an exciting element to the film, complementing its classic tone.

In this atmosphere, Hoult truly shines as an artist. Following a diverse set of remarkable performances in the 2024 films “Juror #2,” “The Order,” and “Nosferatu,” Hoult’s Lex character showcases the actor’s versatility by delivering a particularly sinister and loathsome performance, unlike anything he’s portrayed before. Hoult is candid about his villain being the most detestable person alive. This level of commitment (similar to what he demonstrated for radically different roles in movies like “Juror #2”) makes him captivating. Moreover, it means that his Luthor is more entertaining to watch than many other modern comic book movie antagonists.

Didn’t Work: Elements of the cinematography

In terms of untapped potential, it’s clear that the visual aspect of “Superman” could benefit from more exploration. While the storyline, performances, music, costumes, and other elements are immersed in captivating chaos, the cinematography remains rather conventional compared to the distinctive, expressionistic backdrops seen in Tim Burton’s “Batman” films or the imaginative visuals of the “Spider-Verse”. James Gunn and cinematographer Henry Braham (who have collaborated five times with Gunn) opt not to infuse this movie with a uniquely heightened aesthetic. Instead, the color grading leans towards consistent blue and yellow tones as the closest approximation of a distinct identity.

In the movie, some vibrant costumes and sets appear unnaturally artificial due to a mix of overly bright lighting and digital camera work. This doesn’t pose a problem for the film’s intentionally stylized sets, but when depicting realistic locations like a foreign leader’s palace, it becomes significant. The standard 1.85:1 aspect ratio for non-IMAX screenings also results in less defined framing compared to the detailed compositions found in classic comic book illustrations. Consequently, the cinematography of “Superman” fails to match the film’s overall theatricality.

In a charming blend of traditional and modern elements, the characters and storyline hold on to classic sensibilities, but the cinematography and lighting tend towards contemporary blockbuster styles. Adopting visual techniques similar to those seen in Ang Lee’s “Hulk” or the “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” series would have greatly enhanced the visual appeal of “Superman”.

Worked: Pa Kent’s big scene with Clark Kent

In contrast to many other live-action portrayals of Superman, the character of Jonathan Kent (played by Pruitt Taylor Vince) lives long enough to witness Clark Kent’s transformation into Superman. This longevity allows for a standout scene in the movie, where a troubled Clark comes to seek solace on Jonathan’s porch. Clark is struggling with public hostility and learning that his original reasons for coming to Earth were false. This leads to a poignant exchange where Jonathan tells Clark, “Parents aren’t very good at telling their children what to do,” while also reminding him, “Parents equip their children with the tools they need to make mistakes,” before reassuring Clark of his love.

This deeply emotional exchange is astonishing in numerous ways. Firstly, it’s surprising to think that the creator of “Slither” could also pen something so heartfelt and without a trace of sarcasm. Vince’s portrayal, on the other hand, is remarkable and crucial for making this dialogue convincing. The way he delivers these nuggets of wisdom to Clark is filled with frequent moments of brief pauses and unfinished thoughts. This isn’t a well-rehearsed speech, and those verbal imperfections poignantly emphasize the human side of Pa Kent. He’s just an ordinary man trying to remind his son that we all shape our own futures. The raw realism permeates every frame of this unforgettable tearjerker scene, a conversation that deeply influences the core of “Superman.

Worked: The varied dialogue styles

One reason characters such as Mister Terrific and Eve Teschmacher are enjoyable to watch in “Superman” (due also to the excellent acting by their respective performers) is that Gunn’s script gives each character a distinctive voice instead of turning every “Superman” character into a one-liner machine. For instance, Mister Terrific speaks with a serious tone, whereas Teschmacher clearly articulates her thoughts. Lois Lane and Clark Kent, on the other hand, have distinct verbal styles; Lois is practical and faces reality head-on, while Clark’s words are saturated with optimism that seems eager. The stark contrast between their personalities makes even their quiet moments together all the more captivating.

In the diverse cast of large-than-life characters in “Superman”, James Gunn skillfully infused his script with a wide range of amusing dialogues. From Nathan Fillion’s arrogant quips as Guy Gardner/Green Lantern to Jimmy Olsen’s baffled remarks while unraveling LuthorCorp mysteries, the dialogue was rich and varied. The humor in Gunn’s comic book movie scripts truly shines due to the vivid portrayals of these characters.

Distinct differences in dialogue significantly enhance the enjoyment of watching “Superman”. Unlike some films where every character sounds identical, this one offers variety in language use throughout the DC Universe’s first movie. What makes it even more appealing is the diverse speaking styles present, which sets it apart from previous Superman productions like “Superman Returns”, where characters lacked any discernible personality.

Didn’t Work: The Daily Planet crew’s extraneous climactic role

In Gunn’s “Superman” script, there’s a stronger focus on unusual comic book superheroes such as Metamorpho rather than the ordinary citizens of Metropolis, like the Daily Planet staff including Olsen, Perry White (Wendell Pierce), and Cat Grant (Mikaela Hoover). For large parts of “Superman”, these characters are absent from the storyline. However, this becomes a concerning issue during the climax of the film.

In the midst of Superman fighting Ultraman and Engineer throughout Metropolis as a fissure tears the city in two, Lois Lane rounds up Olsen, White, Grant, along with other Daily Planet staff members onto one of Mister Terrific’s spacecrafts. They plan to release an expose on Lex Luthor’s sinister motives from their position above a collapsing Metropolis, which seems like an unusual storyline suggesting Lois Lane, an ordinary human, might play a role in the film’s climactic ending.

It seems odd and distracting that Clark Kent’s colleagues, including his love interest, are kept completely separate from all the action in the film, even when they witness their homes being destroyed. These brief scenes to Daily Planet employees feel disconnected from Superman’s battle, making it seem like the focus keeps shifting back to them unnecessarily. It would have been better if significant characters like Lane and Olsen were more effectively incorporated into the climax of the movie. In a thrilling finale filled with comic book chaos, the awkward portrayal of these Metropolis residents is regrettably a misstep in an otherwise captivating storyline.

Worked: A story that functions as a standalone movie

The initial text sets the scene for “Superman” by implying that the arrival of metahumans on Earth 300 years ago marked the beginning of an era known as “Gods and Monsters,” a reference to the first chapter of the DC Universe. This might lead one to assume that the movie would be packed with hints and setup for future installments in the franchise, but thankfully, this isn’t the case. Instead, “Superman” offers a mostly independent story designed to entertain audiences. Characters such as Hawkgirl, Metamorpho, and Mister Terrific play significant roles within the plot. Unlike recent superhero films like “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania,” the storylines in this film are satisfyingly complete, without leaving any loose ends for a future HBO Max series to wrap up.

In simpler terms, the ending of “Superman” focuses more on emotional depth and resolving existing storylines instead of hinting at future villains like Darkseid or Brainiac. This trend continues in the post-credit scenes which offer glimpses into the ordinary lives of these beloved heroes, rather than serving as previews for upcoming DC Universe projects. Unlike many modern superhero movies that often prioritize teasing upcoming characters, “Superman” stands out by being a genuinely enjoyable experience, rather than just a promotional tool for the DC Universe.

Didn’t Work: Realizing Baby Joey as a CG creation

In the series “Superman,” it’s uncovered that Metamorpho (Anthony Carrigan), who initially seems standoffish, is actually forced to work for Lex Luthor. This situation arises due to Luthor kidnapping Metamorpho’s son, Joey, a green-skinned child. If Metamorpho fails to comply with Luthor’s demands, there’s a risk that Joey could be harmed by one of Luthor’s minions. However, the presentation of Joey on screen is problematic as he is entirely computer-generated, which gives him an unrealistically smooth appearance. Considering Metamorpho is brought to life through impressive makeup effects and the show has limited humanoid computer-generated characters, having Joey be a fully digital creation seems strange. It’s puzzling why they didn’t opt for using a puppet, like in “Hellboy II: The Golden Army,” where the ‘baby’ or tumor was portrayed as a puppet instead.

Joey is intended to evoke audience empathy right away, but he comes off as a plastic imitation of one of Shrek’s children instead. His design is excessively cute, which works against him; the character could have benefited from more rough edges and unattractive features to make him truly endearing. Instead, Metamorpho’s cherished creation appears overly prepared to become a Beanie Baby or Funko Pop! figure. Using only a computer-generated infant weakens the emotional intensity of scenes where Superman shields the child. Moreover, relying on CGI for a baby pushes “Superman” perilously close to repeating the mistakes of recent DC film flops. After all, didn’t “The Flash” demonstrate the drawbacks of digital infants?

Worked: John Murphy and David Fleming’s score

This year has been fantastic for electric guitars in film music, especially between the scores of “Sinners” and “Superman.” While John Murphy’s score for “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” was a bit disappointing, his collaboration with David Fleming on “Superman” has truly shone. Working within Superman’s unique universe has allowed Murphy to showcase his best work. The electric guitar-dominant tracks are full of life and intensity, and thankfully avoid becoming overly trendy or clichéd like, “This isn’t your grandma’s Superman!” Instead, the electric guitar adds a musical undertone that echoes Superman’s unwavering commitment to do what is right. A standout track, “Speeding Bullet,” captures the vibrant energy associated with classic Superman imagery, such as him flying across the sky at high speed.

In these electrifying tracks, the bond-like vitality that powers “Speeding Bullet” is consistently present, while others shift between distinct audio personas. The quality of being multifaceted is particularly showcased in “Justice Gang vs Kaiju”, where its structure sometimes mirrors Hans Zimmer’s scores before transitioning into quicker elements reminiscent of a giant beast’s eye getting poked on screen. Tracks such as “Raising the Flag” encapsulate the theatricality fitting for this blockbuster, with the “Superman” theme’s rendition on “Flag” standing out. Although their interpretations don’t surpass John Williams’ “Superman” compositions, Murphy and Fleming create a remarkable duo in their “Superman” musical ventures.

Worked: Superman’s ultra-sincere atmosphere

The essence of authenticity radiates from every aspect of “Superman.” This is a work that unapologetically showcases its love for vibrant, traditional superhero attire, as well as the script’s message emphasizing unity among humanity, and it doesn’t shy away from touching, heartfelt scenes. For those eagerly anticipating action on the big screen, this first DC Universe film certainly delivers in that regard too.

Despite the intensity, there’s an unyielding kindness that permeates this story, making it deeply touching. At one point, Lois Lane comments to Clark Kent, “You see the beauty in everyone,” a sentiment that encapsulates the essence of this film. Gunn’s portrayal of Superman’s diverse inhabitants exudes warmth, whether they are peculiar-looking aliens or endangered children and squirrels. The director’s heartfelt enthusiasm for these characters is hard to resist, particularly when coupled with compelling performances.

Embracing a genuine, sincere demeanor devoid of cynicism, this film beautifully showcases Superman’s heroic nature and emotional depth. Without self-conscious attempts to be witty or humorous, it allows for extended scenes of tender moments between Pa Kent and his son, Clark and Lois sharing intimate moments, and Krypto saving the day at crucial instances. Most notably, this earnestness is a refreshing change from the recent trend of ironic superhero films like “Deadpool,” “Wolverine,” and “Black Adam.” The heartfelt nature and compassion portrayed in this film perfectly align with Superman’s character and offer a unique take on modern blockbusters.

2025-07-11 22:32