New Superman Movie

[BentonGrey]

Howdy folks!  So, I saw the new Superman movie this week, and I thought I'd share some thoughts.  Here's my non-spoilery review:

It's fairly good, but not great. It's an exciting, highly entertaining, extremely comic book-y movie (in both good and bad ways). More significantly, it's a hopeful, optimistic, and somewhat uplifting Superman movie, which is cause for celebration by itself in context of recent history and the current state of our culture. But it's also over-stuffed, uneven, and makes a lot of weird choices, especially in portraying certain characters (Hawkgirl and Metamorpho chief among them, and the general composition of the Justice Gang, who are an odd grab bag of characters).  The whole thing feels like a Grant Morrison comicbook, with big ideas, epic scope, lots of whimsy, and all accompanied by the feeling that you're missing about one page in four.  Yet, it moves at such a break-neck pace that it's usually possible to get swept along and not mind the gaps, at least not in the moment.

Gunn is clearly trying to conjure the same magic he managed in his Guardians of the Galaxy films, and he's partially successful.  He unapologetically presents us with a colorful, energetic, and usually interesting world, one that is inhabited by at least a few other heroes and where the fantastic doesn't seem out of place, even if it isn't as commonplace as it is in the Guardians' setting.  He even manages to create a world that can support Superman robots and Krypto the Superdog.  That's a beautiful accomplishment.  The movie and Gunn himself benefit from the increased tolerance and taste for the fantastic in film that he himself helped create through the MCU.  There's no trace of concern that audiences aren't going to accept the fantastical elements or over-the-top characters.  Thankfully, we seem to have finally moved past the "grim and gritty," scowling or moping Superman of the last 20 years.  Even when this Superman struggles and fails, he holds on to that inner light that defines the character and has a supporting cast that elevates and inspires him, unlike, for example, Pa "maybe you should let children die" Kent from Man of Steel.

However, while the weird world of the Guarians, with its oddball characters and outlandish setting, is perfect for Gunn, I wonder if perhaps the character and setting of Superman are instead a bit too restrained for him to manage to best effect, despite his embracing of some of the Silver Age silliness of the character.  To make up for the deficit of strangeness and humor, he sometimes forces more of both into characters and moments where neither fits entirely comfortably.

The film handles its themes competently but shallowly, gesturing toward more meaningful moments and even providing a sketch or a taste of them, but if you're familiar with the source material, you'll likely be reminded about other stories that have done it better.  This movie hits the right notes, though, even if it hits them more softly and briefly than I'd hoped.  Superman is a symbol of hope, both in his on-screen world and in the overall film as well.  Lex Luthor is more than just a scenery-chewing cartoon character, embodying the selfish brilliance that defines the character in his best interpretations. 

Yet, the key moments often feel a bit rushed or underbaked.  The ingredients are there, but the proportions are off.  We have a heroic Superman holding on to hope in the face of modern cynicism, check!  We have the Kents, playing the supportive, grounding source of Superman's humanity and heroism, check!  We have an actual love story with Lois and Clark, where they have real chemistry and a reason to care about one another, check!  We have all of these elements, and they're generally done "correctly," in sharp contrast to the previous films of the 21st century. 

However, they are sharing the screen with so many other (often quite delightful) elements that none of these pieces has quite enough room to breathe or to be fully explored.  Many of the other elements are great in their own right and worthy of further attention, like the Justice Gang, Clark and Krypto's relationship (I imagine everyone with a soul wants more of this), Luthor's plans and experiments, Metamorpho, and on and on and on.  That's this film's greatest weakness.

Gunn has given us a movie that is so absolutely stuffed full of ideas and characters that all of them are fighting for space.  And yet, it's a testament to his skill as a director that none of them is so incomplete that it ruins the film.  In contrast to other overstuffed superhero movies, like The Dark Knight, all of the pieces of this movie do hang together, and, somehow, miraculously, Gunn manages to weave the 1001 threads together into a coherent whole, even if none of them is fully explored. 

In terms of casting, the film is mostly on very solid ground.  In fact, most of the Superman characters are the best versions we've seen since the original films...although that's really not saying much, considering the competition.  Nonetheless, these folks are generally well chosen and put in good-to-great performances. 

David Corenswet is great as a very young and inexperienced, and strangely neurotic, Superman, even if the portrayal might feel slightly off to fans.  They managed to make him feel human, while still making him heroic, and even if I don't love everything about the portrayal, I'll take that over previous morose and miserable attempts all day.  Gunn makes Superman the straight man of the film, which is an obvious choice for his comedy-centric approach, but he also manages to give him some depth and some heart, even if Supes is the butt of the joke more often than I'd like.  Even though Clark can be naive and impulsive at times, he never comes across as stupid, and that's key.  Most importantly, this is a Superman who captures the heart of the character, his passionate desire to do right, his dedication to virtue, and his commitment to preserving life.  In contrast to the callous destruction of earlier films, this Superman works hard to save everyone, and I mean everyone, even while fighting giant monsters.  Even dealing with gargantuan problems, he never loses sight of the little guy.  And that's the way it should be.

Nicholas Hoult does quite a good job as Lex Luthor, finally bringing the villain to life on the big screen in a way that feels true to the core of the character and escapes the gravity of Hackman's cartoony performance from the original movies.  He's the brilliant, obsessive strategist he should be, ten steps ahead, but utterly consumed by his own hubris.  Interestingly, he feels like a more successfully up-to-date version of the character than the weird, creepy, and self-consciously of-the-moment attempt to update him from the Snyder films.  Hoult comes close to the gold standard of Luthor, Clancy Brown's performance from the Timmverse cartoons, capturing some of that version's unmatched presence, all smooth charisma and superiority covering a well of ruthless rage.

Rachel Brosnahan plays a good Lois, the best we've had since Margot Kidder.  She feels tough and competent, and appropriately cynical, which provides a nice contrast to Clark's hopeful optimism.  We don't spend as much time with her in her professional life as I'd like to develop those elements, but Gunn manages to make her an active participant in the adventure in a very natural and believable way, which is excellent.

It was also a real delight to see the whole supporting cast from the Daily Planet, who are all presented surprisingly faithfully, with less race switching than I expected these days.  Skyler Gisondo is particularly enjoyable as Jimmy Olsen.

Of course, Nathan Fillion is delightful as Guy Gardner.  He's clearly having a great time, and the only real problem with him is that you can't help but want more of him, and his weird group.

Visually, the movie is much more Guardians of the Galaxy than Snyderverse, thank goodness.  It's colorful, cheerful, whimsical, and shines with four-color wonder.  However, in what is becoming increasingly common with these films, we seem to be moving backward with CGI technology.  The visuals look rather fake and cartoony, often being pretty noticeable in the breaks from live-action to CGI.  It doesn't look bad; it just looks animated rather than realistic.  It's so noticeable, I wonder if Gunn steered into the aesthetic intentionally.  I found it a bit distracting at times, but your mileage may vary. 

Despite the weird quality of the visuals, the movie itself still looks good, and despite its overstuffed script and crowded cast, it still presents us with a surprisingly coherent and entertaining story with a recognizable and effective portrait of Superman at its center.

So, ultimately, Gunn's Superman is definitely worth seeing.  It's a good summer popcorn flick, even if it isn't quite the revelation I was hoping for.

As an adventure movie, an A-, as a Superman movie, a B+, and as a DC movie in general, a B-.


Now for some specific and spoiler-y thoughts:

Spoiler

Let's start by talking about some of those weird choices I mentioned.  This is actually the source of a bit of a dichotomy in my view.  The movie is really two different films to casual audiences and to fans.  For fans (and a minority even of those), it's frustrating at times, because some characters are picture-perfect visually but utterly unrecognizable in terms of characterization.  More casual moviegoers won't recognize or care about the characters in question anyway, so these changes won't affect them, except in instance where they produce something actively annoying. 

And there are examples of such changes, like Hawkgirl, who, for some inexplicable reason, they decided to have screeching in what feels like every second of her screentime.  Literally, if she's in action and not actively speaking a line of dialogue, she's screaming like a banshee.  Clearly, it's meant to be like a hawk's screech when diving on prey, but the effect is just plain obnoxious, as well as being part of a generally weird departure from the comics in terms of her portrayal. 

However, the bigger issues are departures in terms of characterization.  Let's start with the most egregious.  It's one thing to age Hawkgirl down (she looks like she's a freaking teenager) or to cast someone without the presence and gravitas the character should have, but it's something else to have her be a casual murderer.  This is one of the most shocking missteps of the film. 

In a movie that goes out of its way to correct the errors of previous Superman movies (and DC movies in general), and which is actively trying to present a course-correction for the DC cinematic universe as a whole, it's astonishing that Gunn would still give us a hero who kills, and who does so with such callousness.  Hawkgirl casually drops one of the villains to his death at the end of the film.  One intention behind this choice is obviously to draw a contrast between the other heroes and Superman (she even says, "I'm not Superman"), but it comes at the expense of Hawkgirl herself and puts us right back into a superhero universe where the "heroes" are willing to take a life, and not just in a fight.

I was also really annoyed by the portrayal of the Kents.  Gunn tries to inject some humor in the film by presenting them as absolute bumpkins, robbing them of the simple dignity that accompanies better versions.  This is a relatively minor problem, as the Kents still play the thematic role they should, but it's an odd choice that I found unpleasant.

Finally, Metamorpho.  Poor Metamorpho.  We're a long way from the bold adventurer from the comics with this guy's weird portrayal.  What annoys me is you could have accomplished the exact same plot beats if you presented him as the audacious, somewhat selfish character from the comics.  He's make the same choices if his son were in danger; he'd just be less whiny about it.