Website and all contents thereof property of Maren Wasser
Contact me - marensdasein@gmail.com
I'm going to be up front. I'm not a comics person. I sorta tried to be when the mainstreaming of comics characters started to gain momentum in the early 00s, but I always stayed resolutely on the outside looking in with the rest of the normies who saw the Spider-Man, and X-Men movies and maybe caught the occasional episode of Smallville. So, Superman, in my mind, was always epitomized by the titanic 1978 Richard Donner adaptation. A truly incredible sweeping epic that pushed the boundries of both cinema and my childhood imagination. Surely a film worthy of the god-like status of "The Man of Steel". Superman (2025) is not that.
Right from the start it telegraphs this by beginning not with Superman's origin or Clark's childhood, but with a movie serial-esque text introduction explaining the status quo and that Superman just lost a fight for the first time. The very next thing we see is a battered and broken Superman crater in the arctic ice. It's not often a movie begins at the end of the second act of a whole other movie. What follows is far from the sweeping epic of Donner's film. Every prior cinematic iteration of Superman has tried to be titanic. From Zack Snyder's alien deity, to Bryan Singer's cathedral to nostalgia, and of course Donner's unapologetically classical epic. Gunn seems to conspicuously ignore that legacy here. Opting instead to make a movie about Superman the character. The very powerful man trying to navigate how to do the most good he can. That approach makes for a much better Superman film than we have yet seen.
Not that I can say with confidence that Superman (2025) is better than Superman (1978). The newer film lacks in spectacle with much of the action boiling down to Superman punching someone or some thing really hard, or lifting a heavy thing just long enough for someone to get out from under it. It also doesn't give us a lot of time with Clark Kent: the reporter. We have a decent amount of time with Clark: Ma and Pa Kent's son, and Clark: Lois's boyfriend, but it feels like an important part of Clark's life is left out almost entirely. This is compounded by the fact that Lois already knows Clark is Superman so we don't really have an exploration of secret identity or alter-ego at all. It also asks a lot of an audience, not unreasonably, assuming they know somthing about the basics of Superman and the DC universe. While not a problem in our cinematic landscape heavily saturated by superheroes that could severely limit its longevity as an enduring piece of art.
And I want this art to endure. A movie, even a superhero movie about Superman doesn't have a responsibility to be epic, or explore complexities of leading a double life. It has a responsibility to Superman: the blue boyscout. The midwest farmboy with amazing powers who uses them to do as much good in the world as possible. This is where Superman (2025) soars. Gunn has given us a Superman who loves humanity; a Superman looks for the best possible outcome; a Superman who saves people. Not because it is his job or his destiny, but because it's the right thing to do. Superman's character shines through as a blinding beacon in even the smallest moments; when he breaks away in the middle of a fight to save a squirrel; an animal that is thoughtlessly run over by people by the hundreds of thousands every day. Why? because it's the right thing to do and he can. That is Superman, not a god, not a monster, not even an alien, but a good man with the power to make a difference.
Gunn counterpoints this human Superman with the best Lex Luthor the screen has ever seen. With respect to Gene Hackman, 78's Luthor was just an arrogant mad man; which isn't wrong for Lex but its not the whole story. Lex, at his most interesting, has a specific narcissistic, borderline solipsistic, philosophy. He truly believes that Superman is an affront to humanity, because Lex himself believes he is the peak of humanity, so if he can't beat Superman then humanity is powerless. What better way to create a story where Lex is definitivly wrong then a world where Superman is human.
The film also takes a solid stance on what made Superman human: the Kents. Although they aren't in the movie a lot, their presence is hugely impactful. The love they express for their son is felt so strongly in their few moments that you can fully believe that it has shaped Clark into the man he has become. Both times I have seen this film in theaters I have fully sobbed at a specific scene where Clark and Pa Kent talk. Remembering it now I still feel the tears welling up. Every prior live action Superman film has really missed out by largely disregarding the Kents beyond an orgin point for Superman, and 78 now feels a bit foolish to me for killing off Pa Kent early on.
I haven't even discussed any of the major supporting characters yet: Krypto, The Justice Gang (featuring The Guy Gardener Green Lantern, Hawk Girl, and Mister Terrific), Lois Lane, and Jimmy Olsen. Unsurprisingly, given Gunn's prior successes, he executes an ensemble of supporting characters perfectly. Every character feels like they could carry their own film or TV series (and in the current landscape of film and TV might do so). Mister Terrific is the real MVP of the Justice Gang and even the movie. For about 10 minutes of the movie, while Superman is incapacitated, Mister Terrific basically gets to be the co-lead along with Lois and pulls off the "smarter than you, and annoyed by the dumb people around him" arrogance without being insufferable. Quite a trick for a movie where the primary antagonist is insufferably arrogant. Krypto steals every shot he's in. The animation team deserves every award for making him feel like a real very poorly trained dog. He exhibits a perfectly tuned balance of endearing doggishness and bad behavior that feels instantly familiar to anyone who's had to train (or merely deal with) a puppy. We mostly see Lois in how she relates to Clark and right from the bat their romance has a believable passion counterbalanced by believable stressors. They've been together a few months when the movie begins and we see them still figuring out and navigating the boundaries of a workplace relationship complicated by Clark secretly being a public figure and Lois being a journalist. I wound up believing their passion just as much as their fights. Later in the film we get to see more of Lois independantly as an investigative journalist and she feels just as sharp as she should. She works well with the Jimmy Olsen who is not treated as joke for once. To the contrary Olsen is depicted as very competent and attractive. It was quite refreshing given his almost complete absence from prior big screen adaptations.
Superman (2025) shows us the Man of Steel, and the people around him, as people in a way other adaptations have ignored. People that want to do good; not as a burdensome duty but because it is what is right. This is the essence of superheroism, and the feeling every character calling themself a superhero should strive for, and somthing that has been missing from the big screen for close to a decade. Not since Raimi's Spider-Man films have I felt like I've seen a superhero be a superhero, and not since the Raimi films have I seen a superhero that feels as human. Is Superman (2025) a titanic achievement that will endure through the decades as a classic? No. It's a Superman movie and that is its greatest strength.