A fan-made social media graphic promoting the new “Superman” film made the rounds in the days leading up to its theatrical release. Blue, red, and yellow like the colorful suit he wears when he is out saving the world. The graphic’s text reads, “I cannot wait to watch an illegal alien absolutely ruin the plans of a billionaire.” No doubt inspired by current events and writer/director/new DC Studios executive James Gunn’s assertion in interviews that Superman, an entity that crash landed on Earth in a fictional Kansas-esque town, is an immigrant, and not one who went through the “proper” channels.
Though just as hopecore and liberal-leaning as Gunn’s other work for the distinguished competition at Marvel, something is daring about positioning the film this way. For the last two decades, Warner Bros has struggled to meaningfully build a cinematic universe with their DC Comics IP in the way that Marvel has. They have no real difficulty selling audiences on Batman, but Superman, the original superhero, is a more challenging sell for modern audiences. Popular culture has proliferated dark pastiches of Supes, from Omni-Man and Homelander in Amazon’s adaptations of “Invincible” and “The Boys,” respectively. Even WB’s last major attempt, 2013’s “Man of Steel,” shied away from the bright-eyed optimism that made the 1978 “Superman” such an enduring classic.
There’s a real risk in politicizing a film establishing a new multimedia franchise.
So, there’s a real risk in politicizing a film establishing a new multimedia franchise. If the film flops, it’s unlikely Warner Bros. Discovery will move forward with the big road map Gunn unveiled two years ago. A cursory glance at the film’s plot would reinforce the idea that this will be on the incendiary side. (There’s a conflict between two fictional countries at the narrative’s center that could easily be interpreted as Russia and Ukraine, or more pointedly, Israel and Palestine.)
But Gunn is not that kind of filmmaker. His quirky but wholesome approach to the source material brings out his foibles. Most notably here, overstuffing the project with too many characters, too many ideas, and insufficient runtime to appreciably pay attention to them all. Perhaps one was hoping for “the” definitive Superman film, one that will unite the character’s detractors and die-hard fans while also effectively tangling with the relevance of his status as an assimilation myth. In that case, this “Superman” might be a letdown. But for anyone who just wants “a” Superman film, a good one that restores some faith in the superhero genre and humanity itself, it’s a particularly nourishing experience.
As children, many of us would pick up a random issue of a comic book from a grocery store’s spinner rack, without knowing what came before or could come in the future. We would be plunged into a pre-existing world of fantasy and not want to leave. “Superman,” beginning in media res, a few years into the titular hero’s public career, is the first superhero film to capture that inimitable experience.
Though the supporting cast is full of rich and interesting turns, especially Nicholas Hoult’s megalomaniac Lex Luthor and Rachel Brosnahan’s pitch-perfect Lois Lane, it’s David Corenswet at the picture’s core who sucks us in. He doesn’t have the same regality Christopher Reeves possessed, nor does he repeat the past mistakes of Henry Cavill’s solemn, stoic Supes. Instead, he’s a well-meaning goober, in and out of the cape, who wants to do good. Some may find his dedication to “aw, shucks” wonder hokey, but it’s the beating heart of what has made the character last nearly a century.
Much of the film’s charms come from seeing this fully realized vision for Superman, the character, and watching him interact with various people.
Much of the film’s charms come from seeing this fully realized vision for Superman, the character, and watching him interact with various people. Whether it’s the robots who maintain his Fortress of Solitude, the superpowered dog he’s babysitting (Krypto steals a lot of scenes), his challenging journalist girlfriend, or the hooligan superheroes in the corporate-backed “Justice Gang,” Superman is a consistent delight throughout. All the things that seem to make people who find the character boring and cheesy are the same things that make the movie feel like such a breath of fresh air. It is so sincere, earnest, and often goofy that it is hard not to smile ear-to-ear at a movie that comfortably drops concepts like “pocket dimension prisons” and kaijus like they’re no big deal.
As legendary comics scribe Grant Morrison was recently quoted as observing, Superman didn’t first appear in “kindness comics, it was Action Comics.” And by that metric, the film doesn’t rest on the laurels of centering niceness. Gunn creates some of the most infectious and endearing spectacles on the big screen. It’s not on the technically proficient end of blockbuster filmmaking like the “Mission Impossible” films, but it imbues each set piece with a cartoonish sense of joy that feels unique compared to some of the slop the genre has been known for in recent years.
In times of real-life strife, escapist entertainment can feel like an opiate, a childish crutch we rely on to avert our gaze from the work that must be done to build a better world. Maybe the omnipresent repetition of “superhero fatigue” in modern movie discourse isn’t that people are sick of superheroes, but that they’re sick of stories about them that don’t accomplish what their source material always has. As a movie, “Superman” is far from perfect, but as a delivery system for hope and wonder, fuel to remain positive in the difficult times to come, it is a resounding success.
“Superman” is currently playing exclusively in theaters everywhere.