James Gunn summons that iconic “Superman” score for his DC Comics do-over.
He needn’t have bothered.
There’s little Gunn brings to the DC Comics reboot that demands John Williams’ golden touch. Gunn’s “Superman” is frantic and eager to please, a lackluster story made smaller by forgettable banter.
It’s good to see the aw, shucks Man of Steel again, but Gunn can’t escape the shadow of Christopher Reeve’s 1978 classic.
To be blunt, Gunn and co. never come close.
A text scroll sets the story in motion. No origin story. No trips back to the planet Krypton.
Our hero (a well-cast David Corenswet) is lying on a snowy landscape, blood trickling from his mouth. He’s rescued by Krypto, a CGI-powered pup who drags Supe to his Fortress of Solitude to mend.
The film is only a few minutes old, and we’re in a very different DC Comics landscape. It’s frothier than anything in the SnyderVerse, with Gunn setting a lighter tone more appropriate for heroes in tights.
We’ll allow it. Heck, it’s overdue.
An early sequence where Superman’s alter ego has a flirty “interview” with Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan) also lands. The two have fine on-screen chemistry, but the frantic story leaves little room for them to grow.
Big mistake.
RELATED: THE CRAZY SUPERMAN-HOWARD STERN CONNECTION
Blame Lex Luthor. Nicholas Hoult looks too young for the role, but he does all he can to make this supervillain his own. Ol’ Lex has it out for Superman, and he targets him on two fronts.
Luthor’s team of meta-humans offers a physical challenge worthy of the Krypton native. A secondary plot has Luthor tied to a clash between a powerful Middle Eastern country and its impoverished neighbor.
Is this an Israel/Palestine riff from oh, so tolerant Hollywood? Likely no. It’s still a clumsy narrative filled with cartoonish figures and one-dimensional politics.
Call it a missed opportunity, and those stack up fast.
We haven’t gotten to the Justice Gang, a smug trio of meta-humans who occasionally rush to Superman’s side. The standout here is Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi), who slinks away with every scene in his superhero tights.
View this post on Instagram
Gunn’s penchant for subversive comic book takes is mostly missing here. His approach is earnest and sweet to a fault. It still lacks the Man of Steel’s essential depth. This isn’t your ordinary hero. He’s the strongest character around, an eternal Boy Scout who captures his homeland’s core values.
Truth, justice and … eh, you know a Hollywood movie won’t go near that tag line, right?
Corenswet has that Superman swagger, and he looks the part in every way that matters. He still feels small, a God-like character uncomfortable in his own skin. He’s the main attraction, at least on paper, but he never lives up to the billing.
Gunn’s film offers many inventive twists, from fascinating set pieces to wild secondary characters. It’s fun at first, a diversion that eventually fades. He’s swinging for the fences, but the whiffs pile up quickly.
Why should we care about this reboot again?
Jimmy Olsen (a bland Skyler Gisondo) has a cringe-worthy romance with a selfie-obsessed Ms. Teschmacher (Sara Sampolo) that doubles as a dopey plot device. How that storyline made it to the final cut of a movie meant to restart the DC Comics universe is beyond this critic.
Far better is the Clark/Lois romance. They’re having relationship issues, which is understable for all the obvious reasons. Yet Gunn has little interest in this meaty theme. He’d rather stuff in another generic action sequence.
Modern FX makes it easy to believe a man can fly, but “Superman” leans so heavily on ones and zeroes it takes the human touch out of the yarn.
RELATED: ‘BATMAN v SUPERMAN’-WHY SO SERIOUS?
Another potentially juicy theme left in the dust? Superman obsesses over not killing anyone with his heroics, going so far as to save a squirrel from certain doom.
That’s a bit much.
So is the film’s reliance on Krypto to repeatedly save the day and stitch plot threads together. It’s bad enough to use an obviously CGI dog. It’s a new level of disbelief to inject him so heavily into the saga.
Rough.
“Superman” is never dull, features stars dialed into their roles and reminds us why we loved Superman in the first place. Try revisiting Reeve’s pitch-perfect original before being let down by yet another bland remake.
P.S. The two post-credit #Superman scenes are as weak as anything we’ve been served up until now. Oh, and the brief introduction to Supergirl (Milly Alcock) is even more embarrassing than Jimmy Olsen’s love subplot. If that’s possible…
HiT or Miss: “Superman” gets the key casting decisions right, but the film itself doesn’t live up to the pop culture legend.
This movie was made for China, I didn’t leave the DC universe… The DC universe left me.
I liked it! And I seldom like reboots or superhero movies. Although it may have been a couple glasses of wine!
Shockingly, the CGI for didn’t bother me. I thought it was funny and it had to be CGI, they couldn’t have used a real dog.
Gotta say, it’s the first time in a long time I didn’t think Hollywood just stole my money.
I do agree, Lex Luther was too young. It was my first thought when I saw him.
I liked it!!!
Ok. Toto and Dan don’t feel it’s woke so I’ll give it a go. I refuse to spend money on woke garbage anymore and the “I’ll see it so you don’t have to” concept is saving me a lot of money. No guarantees that I’ll like it, but it sounds like Gunn left the woke in his head and on the red carpet but didn’t put it on screen.
But I’m out on Fantastic Pascal.
Christian, I can’t believe you didn’t love it just bc Rotten Tomatoes loves it. Thank you for a fair review. If I find a cheap showing, I might see it in the theater. Yet, I might not watch it at all.
My friend, I couldn’t agree less.
In short, I guess I’d have to say that everything that didn’t work for you, did work for me.
I found it by turns fun, funny, touching, tense, and (again) fun. It contained cool callbacks, surprises, fresh elements.
The elements people call on about ICE and Musk and MAGA and all may well me and probably are in Gunn’s head, but they’re not on the screen. What is on the screen is a fun story about a character I’ve loved since the early 60s.
I think my two biggest gripes are (1) too much foul language for a Superman movie; and (2) while I liked the fresh take on the elder Kents, they do seem (as one reviewer put it) borderline brain-damaged. But what they bring is vital to the movie; I just wish the hickiness of their portrayal had been dialed down a couple of notches.
I’m a politically rabidly-conservative Christian, and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.
Yes, it’s not political or woke at all. Refreshing. Do check out my story on why Clark’s parents sound like they do. It makes more sense given that background. I don’t know enough Kansas natives to know if that cadence is accurate or condescending.
Ah, in “The Crazy ‘Superman’/Howard Stern Connection.” Interesting, thanks.