Superman

Superman (2025) aims high but ultimately falls flat. While it offers a few flashes of visual spectacle, the story feels disjointed and the pacing drags. Characters lack depth, and the emotional beats never quite land. It’s a disappointing entry that struggles to capture the magic fans expect. Sadly, it’s more forgettable than fantastic. 4/10.

JPV852

Just a fun time watching this iteration of Superman. David Corenswet and Rachel Brosnahan were absolutely wonderful together and Nicholas Hoult played a great Lex Luthor. Not perfect by any means, but a solid start to the DCU. This was a delightful time with crowd-pleasing moments. Also my first time watching a movie in one of those D-Box seats, pretty nice but don't need to do it again. **4.0/5**

Well, I enjoyed it. The writing felt a bit all over the place but most of the jokes were on point, the action was very enjoyable, and I think giving Superman a more classic comic feel and less of the apocalyptic Snyder vibe was a good change. Everyone here does a great job with the acting. Lois and Jimmy are, in my opinion, the standouts. Nicholas Hoult wasn't a great choice for Luthor, with his more manic energy. Personally, I enjoyed Hackman or Cryer's cold, cunning version more. And, y'all, Krypto is in it. Finally we got a dog! TLDR: It's good but not great. With that said, I still think you'll have a great time watching it. Also, DEFINITELY SEE IT IN 3D. ***SPOILERS BELOW*** I have two complaints. They give us two of Superman's coolest villains: Lex Luthor and Bizarro, but lame versions of both. I was expecting something on par with Iron Man vs Ironmonger circa 2008, but Lex never dons his suit. I was pretty sure the masked villain was Bizarro, and later he's revealed to be, but it would have been so much better if the authentic version had been written in.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://talkingfilms.net/superman-review-james-gunn-gives-the-man-of-steel-a-soul/ "Superman isn't perfect. It struggles with pacing, has too many characters, and offers some clunky narrative solutions. But as the official cinematic introduction to the new DCU, it succeeds where it matters most: establishing the central pillars of the saga, giving us a worthy protagonist, and showcasing a filmmaker with a clear vision. David Corenswet is the Superman this generation needs: a symbol of kindness, hope, and - above all - conviction-led action. Rachel Brosnahan and Nicholas Hoult round out a high-quality central trio, and even with its flaws, it's hard not to leave the theater satisfied. James Gunn delivers a clear statement of intent: DC's future is in good hands. Bring on the rest of Chapter One: Gods and Monsters. If this is the path forward, maybe - finally - DC can fly as high as its greatest hero." Rating: B+

Considerable chatter has been devoted in recent years to the question of whether the movie industry is producing too many superhero/action-adventure films. Much of that talk has specifically focused on whether certain franchises/mythologies have been overdone. That’s particularly true where the “Superman” mythos is concerned, a body of work that has assumed multiple forms on TV and the big screen since the 1970s. And, after viewing this latest iteration involving this storied and much beloved character, I can’t help but concur with the opinion that the man from the planet Krypton needs to be given a serious rest for a while. In my opinion, what has been called the biggest disappointment of this summer’s blockbuster season is an assessment that’s, unfortunately, right on target. In short, writer-director James Gunn’s latest is a hot mess that strains viewer interest not long into its overlong 2:09:00 runtime (a duration that honestly feels even longer than the official tally) and never manages to get it back. The biggest problem here rests with an overstuffed narrative that at times becomes challenging to follow, thanks to a screenplay that’s loaded with incongruities, rampant assumptions and a noticeable lack of back story; film editing tediously in need of much-needed snipping; overreliance on comic relief that grows progressively tiresome (especially with Superman’s annoyingly overzealous canine pal, Krypto); and an overall production whose vision is both tedious and not particularly original (especially in the rather ho-hum action sequences that we’ve seen so many, many times before in better films, most notably those from the Marvel Universe). In addition, the picture’s attempts at updating the nature of the Superman mythology for the present day are uneven at best, including some elements that are sufficiently contemporary with others that are woefully anachronistic (e.g., why are elements involving The Daily Planet newspaper portrayed in much the same way as they were in the past, given that today’s journalism business is a very different animal from what it was years ago?). To its credit, the film’s attempts at evolving the protagonist’s character into a paragon of “wokeness” (a source of much criticism in some circles) provides an intriguing spin on the nature of the Man of Steel – one very much in line with Superman’s traditional embodiment as a champion of “truth, justice and the American way” – even if it is somewhat excessive on occasion. That’s especially true where matters involving “aliens” (like Kal El himself) are symbolically demonized as threats to society, a less-than-subtle allusion to how many perceive today’s immigrants. However, the attempt at making the film’s hero more socially relevant is at times undermined by inconsistent character development, a problem that plagues many of this release’s other players, too. And that’s unfortunate in light of the performances on display, including a capable Christopher Reeve-esque portrayal by the film’s lead (David Corenswet), as well as fine supporting characterizations of mythology staples Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan) and Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult). In essence, though, “Superman” regrettably feels like an offering created by committee, a production that desperately should have gone through several more rounds of revisions before being committed to a final print. What’s more, if this picture was meant to lead off a new franchise involving this character, it comes up short all around, a prospect that doesn’t bode particularly well for the artistic future of this series. Superman deserves better than this, but that’s noticeably lacking in this release, one that, over time, is likely to become forgettable, particularly when measured against its superior predecessors, films that commendably and authentically depict its protagonist as a genuinely super-man.

CrazyJekyll

First of all i would like to say that this isnt a bad movie by any means. In fact there's actually a lot to enjoy here and is easily the BEST live-action Superman movie since the Christopher Reeve era. Corenswet as Superman/Clark is fucking amazing and the characterization of Supes would've been perfect if it weren't for that one plot twist (more on that later). I also like that thay made a point but its more on his ACTIONS that define who you are. Hoult is also spectacular, you can just feel his hate and anger and those nasty little evil smirks everytime he wins against our boy in blue. Rachel Brosnahan is also fucking perfect as Lois Lane and her interactions with not only Clark but also the Justice Gang is pure comic Lois. And to top it all of, the action, score, and visual imagery are all very much comic book-esque and just straight up fucking beautiful to see. (Mr Terrific and Metamorpho are both so good and entertaining). BUT there is one big twist here that 90% of the general audience won't care about, but as a comic fan the twist just brings this movie down from like a 8-9/10 to a 6-7/10. That twist is just that BAD atleast for someone like me who is a big big Superman comic fan. SPOILERS FROM NOW ON: Now for the big plot twist. Making the House of El (Jor El and Lara) evil and Superman believing himself to be more human than alien was a really really bad choice. As i mentioned before, i know that the whole point is that Kal or Superman or Clark is more defined by his ACTIONS rather than his heritage. But to make them completely evil and have clark reject his heritage at the end (completely replacing his krypton parents with footage from his earth parents) just really sucks. FIRST OF ALL the decision to make them evil just ruins the immigrant allegory. If you've read the comics you would know that Clark is a deeply lonely guy. Having to grow up knowing you're an alien, is different from everyone else and would constantly need to hide his powers and true self. He is afraid of being REJECTED and is the reason why he constantly yearns for his home planet krypton, a place where he could actually feel like himself and not some outsider. So to make his whole origin planet evil?? is not really helping the immigrant allegory. Like imagine if your an immigrant to the USA and suddenly in the news everyone says that your home country and everyone from there is fucking evil. STRAIGHT UP XENOPHOBIA. And to say that Clark wouldn't care about his parents and origin planet because he didnt know them is stupid. I think that Learning your father was a man who tried but failed to save a world that wouldn't listen to him would definitely have an impact on a guy who's trying to save the world everyday. A comic issue that showcased his loneliness and fear of rejection from humans is ACTION COMICS #794 where we see Clark in his adolescence watching a film with his friends, wherein the aliens are the villains and everyone around him js cheering for the aliens to go back to their planets. Imagine the pain and loneliness you would feel knowing that everyone around you even your friends just want you to go the fuck away. Also this is exactly why his origin needs to be truly adapted because thats where his character, morality, and such really shine. It's not only where his identity crisis and loneliness are explicitly explored but also where we see that it is not only his actions that define him but also the synthesis of all his experiences juggling his alien and human side. It also adds layers to his eventual rivalry with Lex, and shows his relationship with other super powered beings like the Legion. In relation to that, this is also why SUPERBOY is important to be shown/adapated because its with his heroics as a teen that led to him meeting other heroes mainly the Legion of Superheroes. His adventures with the Legion is where he truly finds who he is, because like him they're also teens going through the same problems. With the legion he finally got a community where he doesn't have to hide anything, can share his problems that no other human can get and most importantly feel less LONELY and feel VALIDATED knowing that a future where superpowered beings are accepted actually exist. (Also quick side note, this is also why him dating and losing his virginity to mermaid Lori Lemaris is so important to me. Sex and Intimacy is often done with someone you can be vulnerable with, and a mermaid or another kryptonian Lyra Lerrol be his first time is just so fitting. ADAPT SUPERBOY AND LORI PLEASE) Him yearning for his kryptonian heritage also doesnt make him less human. Because why else would he still choose and create his secret identity/persona Clark Kent if he wants to reject it. Clark is his own guilty little pleasure of living as a human because even if he is an alien it shows that he still enjoys earth and cherishes humanity and its culture. He is supposed to be the BEST of both worlds and having him be one sided makes him a FAR LESS interesting character. Again im going to reiterate this making him more human just removes too much LAYERS. Another reason why his origin needs to be adapted is his relationship with Lex Luthor. In Smallville and other iconic comics such as Birthright, Secret Origin, and most recently Last Days of Lex. In these stories a young clark is often shown to have a brief childhood friendship with Lex. Like Clark, Lex always felt alone as a child. He was a science nut and was always interested in the larger universe of extra terrestrials and the like. People constantly saw and bullied him as a weird freak, and everytime he tried to help others people would just reject him. Clark was the only one who tolerated and protected him leading to their "friendship" But Lex's obsession with the larger universe led to his failed experiment and eventual downfall. He tried to create a machine to find and/or communicate with extra terrestrial life but it exploded and almost killed a ton of people. This led to further rejection from the people of Smallville and made him think that people would always see him as a freak just because he thought bigger and wanted to create science for a better tomorrow. This rejection then of course made him angry, resentful, and didnt care who he stepped on as long as he got his way. And Clark feels guilty, because if Clark just told him who he really was then maybe Lex wouldn't have turned out evil. If Lex just had a friend who not only matched his intellect but also understood his experiences of being outcasted and then maybe, just maybe both of them together could have used their powers to save and create a better tomorrow for everyone. With this context in mind the rivalry becomes more complex. Superman isnt trying to just stop Lex simply because he's evil. He's also just trying to save his friend. There are a lot more things that i dont like in the film but this where my main points really stop. My other complaints like Jimmy not being a weird lovable dork enough (he's just too regular) and most of the Daily Planet just being caricatures of their comic selves and Clark just having one scene are all really minor nitpicks that can be solved with future movies and adventures. But again as i said in the beginning despite all my long ass complaints there's still a lot to enjoy in this film. And i cannot deny that there is clearly heart in here and is easily still the best Supes movie since Christopher Reeve. It's just the Evil Els that really ruined it for me. LASTLY Kara having a cameo at the end kinda breaks the movie in half. Like bro, if you really think the El's are evil then why do you still like your cousin? why do you still wear the House of El logo? like bro your cousin is a living example of the footage being straight up wrong lol. Look, it may look like im a hater right now but i genuinely just wanted to love this movie. There are so much scenes here that made the comic book fan in me just smile and cheer like crazy. But the flaws were just way too big for me and it really muddled my experience. I just want Superman, my favorite comic character of all time to be adapted well. And yes while this is definitely the best Adaptation since 1978, it just didn't hit for me. If you're a comic fan or just a movie fan in general im sure you'll still find enjoyment in this because the whole movie is still very fuckin endearing and action packed. But yeah for now, im sticking to the comics. Peace.

r96sk

'Superman' is the best Supes film that I've seen - and I highly enjoyed 2013's 'Man of Steel', so that is actually saying something. I was surprised at how great this 2025 edition is, like at no point was I ever doubting what I was seeing - it's a fab 2hrs. I had seen snippets from a few trailers for this and, in truth, wasn't really vibing with it back then. The lead actor seemed a bit underwhelming, the dialogue felt lousy and Lex Luthor came across over the top. I'm pleased to say, none of those things are true. David Corenswet is an ace Superman, he fits the role to perfection. Again, I did like Henry Cavill's stint as the eponymous Kryptonian, though I do reckon Corenswet does ever so slightly outdo him. It's silly of me to even compare to be honest, given my appreciation for both. For me, Nicholas Hoult is just as big a plus. This is the best of him I've seen, given I've never been fully convinced. Don't get me wrong, I've liked performances from him, but almost always with an asterisk of sorts attached in my mind. No such issues here, he is fantastic as Lex. Rachel Brosnahan and Edi Gathegi also dazzle, the latter's character is especially interesting as I never knew he existed before this - hope to see more! Anthony Carrigan, Nathan Fillion and Isabela Merced also manage to stick out, which is impressive. All those onsceen are good. The story is a surpremely entertaining one. I like how they skipped over the origins of Superman, the vast majority of viewers already know the backstory so it's not needed - and for those that don't, a simple short overview, as seen here, is more than enough to get the point across. As for everthing else? The pacing, the visuals, the special effects, the music... all excellent. I, somewhat unexpectedly, have zero issues with this one, I thoroughly had fun with it and would happily revisit it at any time.

Putting all else aside, James Gunn's "Superman" succeed's because it adopts a comfortably familiar, wholly "likeable", approach. This film borrows heavily from the 70's Superman franchise. Its look, its feel, right down to costumes, harks back to that era. As does, the very simple, down to earth main character, capably played by David Corenswet. I personally, could not but recall Christoper Reeve, in his performance. This is Superman as he was mean't to be. No cynicism, no divisive woke politics, just a good guy doing his best. Its this innately appealing character and those around him, that make this film function. Because lets be honest, whilst its an entertaining romp, the script is, in my estimation "chaotic". Its literally all over the place, doing too many things at once. That said, if you view those scenes in isolation, a good portion, are both enjoyable and amusing. For example, Lex Luthor, getting his comeuppance, from Superman's cousins, kooky Superdog. In summary, no "Superman" 2025 is not a perfect film. That said, in a world that's become cynical and divisive, the simple, honest, likeability of this film shines though in a way that's impossible to ignore. For my money, well worth a look.