Superman (James Gunn, 2025)

Can Superman, as a cultural artifact, a symbol, still be relevant?

Soon after it was announced James Gunn was taking over responsibilities overseeing DC Comics film and television, he posted on social media that Superman would be the first film in his endeavor to create a new DC universe. Film sites and social media discourse immediately began speculating about what barriers a new Superman film faced, most of them focusing on the failures of the previous attempt at a DCU, the state of the movie business as a whole, and the state of the comic book sub genre, with audiences apparently wavering interest in it.

There's been discussion, since at least the 1960s, about whether or not Superman still has relevance as a cultural icon and symbol. It's a question that's been around so long, it seems almost as passé as the character himself is claimed to be in those arguments saying he isn't, can't be or shouldn't be relevant. But, characters like Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, Captain America, The Hulk and the X-Men have all been around in multiple forms, across generations at this point. A Study in Scarlett, the first Sherlock Holmes story, was published in 1887. A BBC series based on the character, made Benedict Cumberbatch the kind of star who is sought by some of the best directors and biggest studios in the world, by finding a large, rapacious audience for the character. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus was published in 1818. There are at least two new films based on Mary Shelley's iconic Creature coming in the next year, one from Guillermo del Toro, a closer interpretation of the original novel, and another from Maggie Gyllenhaal, taking The Creature and The Bride (wholly an invention of Universal Studios) into a new different story. Interestingly enough, one of the first projects Gunn oversaw from script to screen was the first season of the DC animated series, Creature Commandos, with other iterations of The Creature and The Bride playing a significant part.

The question about whether a beloved, iconic character can still be relevant ends up being less a question about the character, and more a question about whether the storyteller can find a way to craft a story that is relevant with them, while holding on to some vital pieces of what the public has come to see as essential to the core of their understanding of the character. A fair percentage of the public would be surprised to learn Superman didn't fly until the Max Fleischer cartoons in 1941. "Faster than a speeding bullet and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound," were descriptions of how fast he could run, and how high he could jump, but he couldn't fly. I don't think audiences would be willing to accept a Superman that didn't fly, at this point.

So, the question ultimately was, "Can James Gunn write and direct a good film, centered on Superman, that is relevant to today's audiences?" My opinion is that Gunn has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt he can. Audiences are certainly interested in finding out the answer to that question, as the film is doing quite well at the box office. I don't seem to be alone in feeling Gunn succeeded, as the available evidence says it's being received well by both critics and audiences.

I haven't been any more enthusiastic about so much of Hollywood attempting to follow in Marvel Studios footsteps than some of its more cynical critics. At the same time, the slavering, drooling, spiteful prayers for the failure and disappearance of comic book/superhero films rubs me the wrong way. The older I get, the more I find it true that the crowd with their noses raised at whatever today's equivalent of "pablum for the unwashed masses" is, are as lacking in imagination as the masses they castigate as too unsophisticated to understand real art. It has a scent similar to the combination of stultified moralism and intellectual incuriosity that, for more of my life than not, claimed films like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre or Night of the Living Dead can't have any artistic merit, and therefore can't be real art. In the case of "comic book movies" and "superhero films," the claim that all they can do is infantilize the audience is either a purposeful or ignorant erasure of the fact that censorship is the reason the comic book and the super hero were restricted to being stories for an audience of children, until very recently. The behemoths of the industry, Marvel still submitted to the Comics Code Authority until 2001, and DC didn't abandon it until 2011.

It seems to me, one of the reasons Gunn's Superman succeeds where some of his predecessors have failed is that he's not interested in changing the minds of those who feel the superhero doesn't and can't have anything relevant to say. Superman is an unabashed, gleeful embrace of comic book superheroes, and their very weird worlds. There are no apologies for it. There's no sense of shame of it in the film. There's no attempt to slow walk it to convince the naysayers to come onboard. It's also relevant to and has something to say about the world as it exists today.

The evidence of Gunn's growth (or maybe his access to a budget) as a visual director is all over Superman too. His action sequences are ahead of the competition, from a visual standpoint, by a fair distance. There's an action sequence in the center of this film that marries the best aspects of Gunn's sense of fun and the embrace of comic book imagery, for a visual presentation among the best the genre has produced. It's simultaneously cinematic and stylized in a way that inspires the same sense of visual engagement as great illustration work in comics.

One of the most common criticisms I've seen is that Superman is overstuffed. I'm at an odd impasse with this. There is a whole lot happening in the film, and it's a big cast of characters. Would I have wanted more time with many of them? Yes. At the same time, I can't say this took away from how invested I was in the story or the characters, which is one of the most common consequences when I encounter a film with too much going on. It may be that the material is there, but the very lithe pacing isn't giving us, as an audience, much time to sit with the characters.

I want to give particular recognition to the portrayal of the Kent's. They're introduced with a bit of generational comic relief that could have become tiresome and trite, but the portrayal Gunn ends up giving them, in full, is something other filmmakers have fallen flat in attempting. They look like people you'd see in 90% of the grocery stores in the United States, and not notice. In a film filled with people who are Hollywood attractive, they genuinely look like average people. It's so rare to see on the big screen these days, it was a little shocking, and I appreciate it. Beyond that, they are an integral part of this group of people around Superman, helping him achieve the best outcome he can. That group of people includes super humans (metahumans in DC language), a genius intellect, Lois Lane (the star reporter in one of the most important cities in the DC universe), Jimmy Olsen (a reporter for the same outlet), and these two farmers from Kansas. Other filmmakers would have leaned into the instinct to continue using the Kent's as comic relief, playing them as bumbling, ignorant bumpkins. Instead, Gunn makes it clear there's no distance between the Kent's and the rest of this team, and in a scene between Superman and Pa Kent portrays the elder Kent as someone who has spent enough time thinking about complicated constellations of ideas, that he can distill them with concision and clarity. It's a very subtle distinction between understanding the virtue of simplicity, and being a simpleton, and the writing and performance demonstrate it elegantly. What ties all these people to Superman is a shared sense of values, his faith in their fundamental decency, and they all contribute to his effort to overcome what he's facing in the film. It's interesting to consider, in the context of right wing talking heads attempting to create controversy prior to the film's release, about Gunn's statements that Superman is an immigrant and the film is about the value of kindness.

Gunn stitches together different iterations of Lex Luthor from throughout his appearances DC comics, to give us this multi-billionaire owner of the Lexcorp conglomerate. He has his hands in tech, defense, various forms of scientific research, and can get the Secretary of Defense and high ranking military officials to give him a sit down audience, with a phone call. In this, Luthor draws parallels to no small number of public figures. Unlike what we've all been observing about so many of the character's real life analogs, Luthor does possess a genuinely exceptional intellect.

It's through this, that both Superman and Lex Luthor are exceptional, Gunn brings out what's timeless about Superman, giving him relevance today. Superman possesses this range of exceptional abilities. He is the physical equivalent of a god, but because of a basic humility that gives rise to his bottomless decency, it's his use of these that makes him a symbol, and a character the world of DC comics looks to for hope and as a guiding light. Luthor, with this exceptional intellect, is a character of bottomless arrogance, veiling the insecurities born of his belief in superiority and need to be recognized for it, which produces callous, careless sadism that treats the lives of the people of the world with the importance a billionaire treats pennies.

On top of all this, the cast is excellent. David Corenswet brings a sincere, youthful earnestness to this version of the character that is endearing and warm. Rachel Brosnahan brings the sense of intelligence, acuity and worldliness to her Lois Lane that makes her not so much a foil to Clark Kent and Superman, but a necessary partner. Nathan Fillion's Guy Gardener is a good bit of comic relief, and Fillion's ability to play smug without veering over into utterly insufferable is a testament to his natural charm. Isabela Merced's Hawkgirl and Neva Howell's Ma Kent are the two characters who get short shrift, but carry the quick moments they do get admirably. I've missed seeing Pruitt Taylor Vince on the big screen, and as he has throughout his career, he makes his few minutes as Pa Kent memorable. Nicholas Hoult's commitment to Lex Luthor as such a detestable character, is admirable.

Edi Gathegi as Mr. Terrific, who as a third or fourth tier character movie audiences may not be at all familiar with, not only gets a chance to show what makes the character unique, but Gathegi manages to subtly communicate a fun range of cold intellect, strong comedic timing and warmth through a steely exterior. He's a surprise standout, and makes the most of every second he can, including being hung with some of the more exposition heavy scenes.

Finally, there's Krypto, the dog you may have seen in the marketing. I was honestly a little worried Krypto's inclusion was going to total up to an addition of cheap sentiment, but given Guardians of the Galaxy 3, I should have known better. Gunn manages to make Krypto more than a cheap gimmick, in a handful of ways, and he's a delightful part of the film. He also looks great, as a fully CG character. There are points when he's indistinguishable from a real dog.

All in all, I'm surprised I enjoyed this as much as I did. It's a testament to Gunn as a filmmaker, that he was able to make a film this packed, this fast paced, with characters as well worn as these simultaneously refreshing and like a welcome return.