Editor’s Note: This article is a review and includes subjective thoughts, opinions and critiques.
This review contains spoilers.
How do you even begin to make a “Superman” film? He just might be the most iconic superhero of all time. We’ve seen the Christopher Reeve version, the Henry Cavill version and, probably most famously, the Nicolas Cage Superman. Now it’s time for David Corenswet to don the red undies in “Superman” (2025).
But it’s not just Corenswet’s moment, as eyes fall on James Gunn, the film’s writer and director and co-head of DC Studios. After seeing “Superman” twice in theaters, I have some thoughts… 1,400 words worth.
The film picks up a few weeks after Superman (David Corenswet) apparently defied national security interests by stopping the fictional country of Boravia, a U.S. ally, from invading the neighboring (also fictional) nation of Jarhanpur. Capitalizing on the controversy, billionaire Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult) convinces the U.S. government to allow him to take Superman prisoner.
Meanwhile, Superman, whose real name is Clark Kent, has dinner with his girlfriend Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan), who works with him at Metropolis’ leading newspaper, The Daily Planet. As Lois criticizes his journalistic ethics and involvement in Jarhanpur, she starts to doubt their relationship. Superman allows himself to be taken prisoner with the hopes of finding his canine superpet, Krypto, who was kidnapped by Luthor.
After rescuing Krypto and breaking free from Luthor’s pocket dimension prison, Superman once again jumps into action to save the city of Metropolis from being torn apart by Luthor. At the film’s climax, Luthor reveals he orchestrated the conflict with Boravia so that he’d have an excuse to kill Superman. However, Superman prevails: Luthor is defeated and arrested, with Lois and Superman left happy as ever.
This film’s storyline leaves much to be desired. At times the plot feels pointless, lacking a dramatic drive. Superman is mainly a reactionary force and has a different goal each act — making the plot feel utterly disjointed. In the first act, his goal is to convince Lois that his actions in Jarhanpur were justified, while she questions his actions like a proper journalist. In the second act, his relationship is sidelined as his mission becomes rescuing Krypto and escaping Luthor’s prison. In the third act, his goal is simply to defeat the central antagonist, Luthor, and his superpowered allies.
There is no throughline to Superman’s story — instead, the audience is bounced from one storyline to the next, with the hope that everything will be wrapped up at the end. The film feels more like three episodes of a television series that lead to a season finale. If you’re searching for a throughline, look to Luthor, who, unlike Superman, has a single goal he’s continuously working towards. You could argue “Superman” is Luthor’s story, as Superman acts mostly in reaction to him.
Story is hard, but casting isn’t a piece of cake either. The director John Frankenheimer once said, “Casting is 65% directing.” This is probably most true for superhero films, where celebrity casting turns great characters into soulless husks. That’s why it’s so incredible that here, Corenswet steps up. He perfectly plays up Superman’s wholesomeness, awkwardness and naiveté. He expertly navigates all sides of the character, from anger to grief to heroic conviction.
Plus, his chemistry with Brosnahan is astounding. This is exemplified in a scene demonstrating the differences between Clark and Lois as she schools him on journalistic ethics. Gunn makes an effort not to fridge Lois, “fridging” being the infliction of harm on female characters to serve as motivation for male characters. Given how common this trope is in the superhero genre — in fact, the term originates from the comic book in which Green Lantern’s girlfriend was killed and stuffed into a refrigerator — I’m happy that Gunn lets Lois be a character and not a plot point.
On the antagonistic side, Hoult approaches Luthor with ferocious commitment, delivering monologues with the authoritative might and emotion of a Shakespearean actor, his loathing for Superman emanating throughout his scenes. Corenswet was excellent casting, but Brosnahan and Hoult were strokes of brilliance.
Beyond the three major players, the rest of the massive cast did an excellent job, in large part thanks to Gunn’s writing. He gives everyone a specific role to play — no character is just there to sell toys. The only exceptions to this are Luthor’s two goons, Ultraman (Corenswet and Albert Valladares) and the Engineer (María Gabriela de Faría), who have no purpose other than giving Superman somebody to fight in action sequences, since Luthor lacks the strength to go toe-to-toe with him. I can forgive Ultraman because it’s revealed at the film’s climax that he’s a clone of Superman, created by Luthor who feeds him instructions from a distance. Superman is forced to defeat Ultraman’s brawn and Luthor’s brain combined, which is a compelling matchup.
Another notable stroke of genius from Gunn: he managed to write a Superman movie without using traditional kryptonite, a mineral that has historically served as Superman’s primary weakness. I’m tempted to argue Gunn did this to spite the common critique that Superman is boring because he only has one weakness. Gunn crafts numerous ways to defeat Superman, such as restricting his access to the yellow sun (from which he derives his power) or filling his lungs with nanobots. Kryptonite does make an appearance in the film, but not because Luthor is rich and can just acquire it in bulk. Luthor kidnaps Metamorpho (Anthony Carrigan), a metahuman with the power to change his body into any element, and forces him to turn himself into kryptonite so Superman can be kept prisoner. When it comes to kryptonite, Gunn refuses to take the easy way out — forcing us to watch how vulnerable Superman can be and how brilliantly evil Luthor is.
When adding to a canon as massive and legendary as that of “Superman,” people will naturally ask what this film has to offer. Why does this story need to be told? How is it different or special? I believe Gunn’s “Superman” serves the same purpose as “Spider-Man: Homecoming” (2017) and “The Batman” (2022). All three films approach their protagonists with an untraditional origin story that sidesteps how they got their powers and centers on how they craft their superhero ideology.
“Spider-Man: Homecoming” focuses on Peter Parker becoming the “friendly neighborhood Spider-Man,” rather than an Avenger wannabe. “The Batman” tells the story of Batman becoming a protector and a crusader for justice rather than a vengeance-obsessed vigilante. We get to see the heroes in their developmental years, their awkward phase. Spider-Man flounders around looking for crime while Batman glides into train platforms. If I may throw in a minor spoiler for “Fantastic Four: First Steps” (2025): that film, too, rushes through the Four’s origin story to get to the core theme of family.
In a similar vein, “Superman” (2025) gives us a Superman who’s just getting his footing. He’s noticeably weaker than his previous portrayals. His landings are sloppy, Luthor can easily get a rise out of him and he spends his time working on superhero soundbites. When working with the Justice Gang, he has the makings and soul of a leader as he tries to spare the life of the creature they’re fighting, but ultimately he’s powerless to command the situation. He simply soars around saving people and muttering the old infomercial adage: “But there’s gotta be a better way!”
He’s not the mature, seasoned leader of the Justice League that he’ll surely become. For most of the film, he isn’t quite the Superman we know and love because he’s still becoming the Superman we know and love. The film is Clark’s journey of accepting he’s as flawed as any Earthling, and that’s what makes him a true human: he fails, he’s unpopular at times and what’s super about him is that he’s a man. This is the core of Superman’s character, and Gunn’s understanding of this gives me faith in his DC universe (although I never had doubt).
This is why I can excuse the disorganized plot: it’s a character film. Luthor’s story matters because Luthor is a static character. It’s okay for Clark to be reactionary because his story is internal. It’s not a film where you wonder if Superman is going to save the day, because he kind of always does. Gunn decides to focus on the question of who Superman is.
It’s safe to say that Superman stands as a symbol of hope for the cinematic future of DC. Gunn’s worldbuilding and respect for his characters predict great things to come. Welcome to the Hall of Justice, Superman. The other Super Friends should be arriving shortly.
Author’s Note: Long live the Mighty Crabjoys.