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.

[Tomato]

I think what's most telling about the movie is that I've had friends who famously do not care for Superman ("He's boring" "He's too powerful to be interesting" etc.) respond to Superman in this film with "I care about Superman". It's such a powerful and honest portrayal that it connects with people, even those that think they're above such a "simple" character.

Addressing some things:

Spoiler

So first of all, while Hawkgirl's murder is, I agree, the most explicit and gratuitous in the movie, two things I will say on it. First, I do think it's not fair to lay that purely on Hawkgirl, when it's clearly a flaw with the entire Justice Gang. There's a point much earlier in the film, I believe during the fight with the giant monster, when Superman tells them he's trying to figure out how to get it out of the city without killing it... and Mr. Terrific *rolls his eyes* before he and the Gang go on to kill the creature without any hesitation, and it was far more sympathetic than the dude was. I do not doubt for one second that any member of that team would have done any differently in that situation. If anything, as young as she is, I feel the blame is MORE on Terrific and Guy as "role models" than it is on Hawkgirl.

Second, let's be candid... this is a man that gleefully was committing genocide. I don't like heroes killing either, and I'd have much preferred him to get publicly humiliated and then sent to prison or sommat, but I don't think that was likely to happen given what we see of his country. Plus, while I don't think this Superman ultimately would have killed him, even he *clearly thought about it*. There's a point in the interview where Superman admits he told dead-guy to knock it off "or else" and even Lois is like "Or else what?" and Clark has to kinda sheepishly back down.

There's also clearly a certain wish fulfillment from Gunn there, what with the two figures this man was clearly standing in for, but we're not going to go further than that.

As for Metamorpho... eh, that one didn't bother me as much. We don't know how long Lex had him in captivity for, or if he'd been doing the Superhero thing before that. It's quite possible being around the Justice Gang will loosen him up a bit. I'm willing to wait and see where they take him, rather than relying on this movie alone.

[stumpy]

Recently released on streaming, we watched this tonight.

I agree that this movie presents a much more positive and bright Superman movie than we have seen recently and also agree that is a good thing.

I really have to disagree about the overall quality of the movie. I would say it is, at best, mediocre. To be fair, the live-action Superman movies of this millennium have set a low bar in many ways, primarily in misunderstanding the ethical outlook of the main character. This movie doesn't make that mistake in any significant way.

Spoiler

Though, let's be clear, Clark knows Lois' favorite dinner and wouldn't cook his fave for her pretending it was hers, a la Homer Simpson buying Marge a bowling ball...

But, this is the first among the recent movies where I doubted I could make it through the movie. Where I finished it in one sitting largely because I didn't want to admit to my wife how badly I had wasted our time. And, to be honest, I don't know that I could watch it again. Even with the Singer and Snider movies, there were at least some scenes I thought I'd enjoy watching again because they were moving or visually impressive. I can't think of any here, with the possible exception of one shot with Pa Kent. I will give it a few days and think about it again, maybe.

Spoiler

BTW, that scene is a nice one in what is otherwise a lamentable portrayal of the Kents. Ma and Pa Kent have always been straightforward, good people. Simple, but not simple-minded. Why the creative team behind this movie decided to go this way with them may reveal much about their opinion of the audience.

Perhaps I am getting less tolerant of certain things, in my dotage. It has always been a peeve when characters who are supposed to be smart, creative, and resourceful aren't portrayed that way. This movie has taken things a step beyond in not bothering to portray the characters as smart in the first place.

Spoiler

Superman's argument with Lois over his actions overseas is emblematic. He comes across as someone who has a child's understanding of what he did and its implications. The movie makes clear that he's 30+ years old and been acting publicly as Superman for 3, at least some of that doing international work, since Lex thinks people around the world are fawning over him. Are we supposed to think Superman has never even considered what would happen if he acted against a state protecting terrorists, a state hurting its own people, or a state warring with a neighbor? I don't suggest that he'd have the perfect solution figured out. But, he would at least understand that it is complicated. He does not appear to. Then he storms out like he's upset and doesn't understand that Lois is on his side. It would be bad if we were were supposed to believe Superman is an emotional child. It would be worse if the writers think we will sympathize with his view because ours is similarly simple-minded.

BTW, the setup for that scene is its own problem, since the premise is apparently that 1) Clark is a serious reporter at a top-flight newspaper and 2) Lois is also a serious reporter and he knows her well enough to be dating her and tell her his secret ID. But, he's shaken by the proposal that she (and possibly any serious journalist) would ask him any hard-hitting questions.

BTW, there were things that I thought were good ideas. But, even many of those were off-key or too silly for the scene.

Spoiler

Running a social media troll farm to smear Superman is definitely something Luthor would do. Creating a troupe of cyber-monkeys to do the job is... silly in a way that would have been cute in the 1970s movies, but today is just... ridiculous and over-the-top in a way that had me wondering if Lex was going to cackle maniacally and cry, "Post, my pretties, post!"

Anyway, I had some more specific points. But, I don't want to turn this into more of a rant than it already is. Maybe my opinion will mellow over time. Right now, I wouldn't be upset if the people behind this movie left the Superman movie business.

[Epimethee]

Just finished watching it. First half was assumed cheese, trying to be fun and succeeding a fair amount of time. Second half, though... undiluted 21th-century corporate (or should I say copro-rate?) Hollywood drivel.

Sigh. Maybe I'm just getting old, but then again, the flicks I remember enjoying as a kid had more solid plot, pacing and dialog... Is it just nostalgia?

[Tomato]

I'm... surprised you both feel that way, to be honest. Like, I don't feel like this is a perfect film by any means, it's overstuffed and the pace is way too fast, but I really like it for what it is. As an introduction to a new DC universe, I feel like Gunn and the team did a decent job establishing the character and the world.

Spoiler

As for him feeling a bit childish... I get it, and he is, but I feel like you're being a bit harsh. For one, he's been active as a hero for 3 years, but I also feel like this is the first time he's dealt with a PR issue at this scale. Like, if he's spent all this time just saving Metropolis (and maybe the earth, who knows), the press on him has probably been mostly positive. Oh, I'm sure there's been the Lex-supported "Who is this alien" BS, but the tide was likely otherwise in his favor.

And then he steps into this Boravia mess, and suddenly the tide shifts. And now he's dealing with this wave of public backlash, which he's likely never had to deal with before at this scale, AND he just got beaten for the first time in a very public way... and he takes what he assumes will be a softball interview from his girlfriend and she pokes that very raw nerve.

Now, she was fully right to do so, he was behaving childishly and she needed to give him that wake up call. But as someone younger, who has seen a fair few minor celebrities go through social media dumpster fires over the years for stuff much less controversial... Seeing this young Superman who hasn't yet learned to tune out the noise take all that stuff WAY too personally is fully realistic.

As for him not getting that it's complicated... Again, I think that's a generational thing. I'm trying not to get into it too deep, but there are pretty clear real world parallels in this movie to certain events going on in the world right now, and there is a frustration from my side of the fence, particularly from my generation and younger, that someone hasn't just taken certain world rulers and shoved them against a cactus. I'm old enough to know that wouldn't magically solve the problem, that the situation is more nuanced than "ruler bad", but even I'll admit if I had Superman's power, I'd have to seriously fight down the urge to do some Batman style mid-air dangling of more than a few world leaders, damn the consequences.

[Epimethee]

Hey, I'm happy you enjoyed it, Tomato! And... fully agree on the mid-air dangling wish-fulfillment part.

[stumpy]

The cactus incident just doesn't work for me, in much the same way that the truck stop incident of Snyder's Man of Steel didn't. It's a gritty response that misunderstands the character. At least, in MoS, Kal hadn't yet decided to make a public life of superheroing at that time.

Spoiler

This scene is an example of getting it wrong, whether the rationale is that he's young (but not really that young, by superhero standards) or that the target of his ire deserved it, or whatever else. And, to be clear, dragging someone who isn't able to resist out into the desert and pushing them against a cactus is a violent, torturous act, especially when done by someone who then goes on to make it clear he's willing to do worse. I don't know what sort of guidelines the writers used when judging their proposed scenes. But, I would suggest that if it's something Tony Soprano might do to an antagonist, then maybe it isn't right for Superman.

Ironically, that scene flies in the face of what this movie largely gets right: Superman represents our better angels. Superman isn't Superman because he's some rando with amazing powers punishing evil-doers. He's Superman because he uses his amazing (and easily abused) powers to do good every time. He may not be able to stop all of the bad things, but he isn't doing the bad things. But, the Superman who sees the best in everyone and tries to save the cute Kaiju isn't also the Superman who deliberately inflicts pain on someone and threatens his life because they had it coming.

And, even a Superman who has only been at it for a few years is going to have dealt with these issues, regardless of whether it's come up in an international context. Where do you draw the line when dealing with a non-superpowered bad guy who's likely to want to do bad things again? If it's okay to treat him like a pincushion and make him fear for his life, is it okay to break his arm? How about a tap to the forehead that puts him into a coma? And, again, where he draws the line matters in terms of what kind of Superman he's supposed to be, but the bigger problem isn't about where the line is drawn. As I said, they got much of that pretty much right for Superman, though not for that incident. The bigger problem is that Superman apparently hasn't thought about where to draw the line enough to deal with a basic question about it. And, his reaction to the question is so disturbingly immature that it's hard to believe he hasn't done something worse before.

Anyway, it's easy to get caught up thinking about one scene. But, my disappointment isn't really with the wrongheadedness of this or that scene. It's that the whole movie struck me as being dumbed down. And, I think that's largely the difference that bothered me. I had plenty of criticisms of Snyder's three Superman movies. But, I didn't often feel, "This scene I don't like was done that way because the writers thought the audience wasn't smart enough to follow a more nuanced or realistic portrayal." I felt that repeatedly in this movie. BTW, I understand that simplification is a necessary part of telling a story and maintaining the pace of the movie. But, the audience shouldn't notice it. I find things like that distracting, particularly with characters who are supposed to be smart. (And, uhh, "Luthoria"... Really?)

Once again, this is just me. I assume the movie has done fine commercially and that lots of people are enjoying it. Nothing wrong with that.

[WyldFyre]

I believe I read somewhere that Gunn was a fan or student, don't really remember, of the golden age. He may have been trying to give a nod to the earliest Superman stories where Supes would terrorize and let criminals die with little or no remorse. I don't remember if he actually killed anyone. (I don't think so.) He definitely let a multitude perish saying things like "they got what they deserved". He also had a penchant for hurting mere mortals who were hurting others. There is definitely a domestic abuse story where he has no problem hurting the abuser.

I haven't watched the movie yet. (It was only in town here a week.) I look forward to seeing it soon. You all have given me some things to think about while watching though.