James Gunn’s Superman – One Month Later

For all its notoriety as the worst Superman movie, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (partially written by Christopher Reeve himself) evidently felt a certain stewardship was necessary when entrusted with this character. There’s a scene in the beginning where Superman, speaking to the UN, makes an executive order to rid the world of nuclear weapons, something “our governments are unwilling or unable to do.” Yes, the film is messy, nonfunctional, straight up bad, but in this moment, it’s hard not to sense Reeve’s passion for the cause and a genuine, aspirational message trying to get through. If we just had a Superman in charge, someone who extols virtue, maybe we could have world peace!

Lenny Luthor, Nuclear Man, and double dates with Clark Kent make Superman IV as overstuffed as any of the latest studio tentpoles, yet still it boggles the mind how simple and naive 1987 seems in 2025 – global crises after global crises in the real world and interconnected multimedia cinematic universes in the movie world demand that there has to be more than that. Superman alone can’t fix everything wrong with the world.

So, in 2025, that means it’s Superman (feat. Krypto and The Justice Gang).

James Gunn’s Superman is not mindlessly devoted to Christopher Reeve’s version (and, if general audience reception is anything to go by, it’s the only one to escape his looming shadow). Though the fanfare of John Williams’ theme is used as a signature leitmotif, this is a Superman for our modern times. Mythic morality and strength are traded for hyper-relatable beat-ups and fuckups. He relaxes at the end of the day by sunbathing in his Fortress of Solitude. His (well, actually, his cousin’s) dog is small and crusty, and you can put him in your pocket and take him anywhere except he barks at everything and doesn’t listen to anyone. His relationship status with Lois Lane: it’s complicated. The most unrealistic part of it all is how the Daily Planet is still a bustling newsroom and Clark can afford a nice apartment on his salary. David Corenswet’s Superman is us!

It’s curious that Corenswet is the only big-screen Superman that actively attempts to represent his generation. Despite its lightness, Gunn understands that Superman has a gravitas no other character does – Donner’s Superman is one of the first superhero movies and still one of the best. It’s a platonic ideal from a bygone era where Superman could be written without wondering who’ll be playing Batman. This reverence is expressed rather irreverently through a Corenswet’s sheer lack of pretension throughout a story that’s trying to do everything. Compared to other Supermen, Corenswet is portrayed as a younger and hotter version of the character which helps to distinguish him. Brandon Routh in Superman Returns is a continuation of the Reeve interpretation, and Henry Cavill plays Superman as a disconnected alien figure, both lending to the perception that Superman is meant for a different time. Superman as a cultural object is so fascinating (more than his peers Batman and Spider-Man) because he’s both highly symbolic and highly malleable at the same time. Every little tweak made (and the reactions to it) reveal something about the time, adding to his mythic appeal.

It’s no secret that Superman’s relatability has been a sticking point of the character for decades. In comics, John Byrne’s Man of Steel reboot is perhaps the most (in)famous, laying the foundation for the Triangle Era of Superman comics that brought us the oft-adapted “The Death and Return of Superman” arc. And while Superman Returns and Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel are not that concerned with “relatable Superman”, the small screen has this in spades: Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman is a romcom with Lois Lane, Clark Kent, and the Daily Planet, Smallville filters the mythos through a teen drama ethos, and Superman and Lois is a drama about the titular characters as parents. (Only on TV could a show be about a character at a specific life stage… but it’s Superman!) Superman’s powers lend themselves to big-budget special effects spectacles that TV isn’t capable of producing, so they have no choice but to write about his personal life.

The effect of Gunn’s appeals to Superman’s humanity in the face of years of “the boring one” allegations is twee, giving us Kents that are strangely out of touch in the “I can’t even use a phone” sense, and t-shirt slogan sentiments like “kindness is the real punk rock” (I’m only mildly paraphrasing). Admittedly, the concept of Superman is already a bit twee. “Champion of the oppressed”, “It’s about what you do, it’s about ACTION!”, “truth, justice, and the American way” (“and a better tomorrow” if you want to be pedantic, but evidently the distinction is meaningless to international audiences). He’s a character filled with t-shirt slogan sentiments, and Gunn leans into this inherent corniness by making it intrinsic to Superman’s personality. He swears, but not profusely, and throws out a “what the HEY” and a “golly” for that country boy-to-Metropolis transplant affect. It’s not with the same ease as Christopher Reeve’s “it’s swell” and “Miss Lane’s”, but the self-consciousness is the point. Superman has internet, after all.

James Gunn has internet, too, evidenced by how much his film seems to address various points of contention with Superman that you’d be privy to if you were close to these discussions.

“Why doesn’t Superman just save people all the time?” Don’t worry, the Justice Gang can handle it.

“Superman can’t kill!” It’s okay if it’s his clone.

“Superman is an IMMIGRANT REFUGEE!” Yup, and we’ll juxtapose him with these poor brutalized brown people at home and abroad to really drive the point home (especially since his parents want him to take a “harem” – played completely for laughs).

“How does Superman hide that he’s Clark Kent?” Hypno glasses!

Once you notice it, the cuteness becomes unbearable. The film aims not only to tell a superhero story but also to appease a certain subset of fans who require these cutesy moments for social media posts. (And, again, it seems to be working, if general audience reception is anything to go by.)

There are moments that hint at a more interesting film if Gunn weren’t so aware of his audience (as his seeming need to make new statements on his film every day makes apparent). The “interview with Superman” in Lois’ apartment is perhaps the only part in genuine conversation with Donner’s film. While Margot Kidder’s Lois Lane was absolutely giddy with girlish fervor at the chance to interview her crush (a delightful innuendo-laced scene), Rachel Brosnahan’s Lois is taking her interview deadly serious, quipping about Clark’s journalistic ethics and asking him the hard-hitting questions. She becomes an audience avatar, speaking what we always wished we could say to our little-s supermen. Ethical concerns with Superman’s vigilante intervention in world affairs is a surprisingly realist approach to superheroism when the rest of the film is anything but.

Lex Luthor’s land development scheme, on the other hand, does not receive the same modern refresh. Hoult is just as cartoonish as Gene Hackman’s Lex, but instead of greed, Lex has been playing 4D chess the whole time, and it’s all part of his true plan to kill Superman…!? Not that Hackman’s Lex was a particularly deep character, but I fail to see how the simplistic “kill Superman” – even with amusing imagery like Lex controlling Ultraman like a video game character – is a better motive than merely seeing Superman as a roadblock. His treatment of Eve Tessmacher is still played for comedy, except this Lex is so much more outwardly violent that it’s like we are being made to laugh at physical abuse. It also feels weirdly regressive compared to Donner’s Eve, who directly saved Superman from Lex’s Kryptonite. But everyone’s poor treatment of Eve is justified by her own lack of emotional intelligence – she is simply too stupid to see that Jimmy (who keeps her in his phone as “mutant toes”) only cares about her connection to Lex. For a film that wants to emphasize the importance of being kind, these scenes with Eve seem especially mean-spirited.

The film’s biggest departure from the other big screen adaptations is the characterization of Jor-El and Lara, where instead of sending their son away from Krypton out of love for him, he was specifically sent to Earth to conquer the human race. (Gunn isn’t the first to do this – Smallville and My Adventures with Superman use a similar twist as well.) No longer is Jor-El the father God to Superman’s Jesus as he was in the Donner film, but instead the Raditz to his Goku. Many people aren’t happy with this change, but it’s another thread that hints at something more interesting. Superman is fighting Boravia’s encroachment on Jarhanpur, yet he comes from a lineage of genocidal conquerors himself. If we’re taking Superman as a symbol of America, this is fascinating. He may just be a Wholesome Kansas Boy trying to do good, but his appearance as a white, blue-eyed, red & blue-wearing man is loaded – he will never be wholly neutral. And if we wanna talk about “immigrant Superman,” how many of us do have complicated relationships between our blood family and chosen family and the “homeland” while trying to hang onto the good parts (like our cousins, the family dog, or traditional cultural architecture)? It’s not perfect, but it’s a narrative decision ripe with potential. Unfortunately, the road to this conclusion is a bit too convenient, even for a silly sci-fi story. The restored message and its translation is unquestionably correct, but Kryptonian should be deader than Latin. For all of Lex’s villainy, framing Superman is apparently a step too far? Perhaps I’m giving logic too much credit; real life people can turn that quickly.

If it sounds like I thought this was one horrible mess, you’d probably be right. And yet, something about it keeps nibbling at the back of my mind. These various inklings of bigger ideas, the type of philosophical ponderings Superman lends himself to, are obfuscated by James Gunn’s comic book-y obligations and strangely specific-yet-not-borderline-offensive political commentary. It’s a hit with general audiences, who seem to not notice any of these shortcomings. And it’s also refreshing to get a superhero film that leans into various aspects of comic books, such as the feeling of picking up a random event issue and not quite understanding everything that’s going on and being hit with a barrage of nonsensical characters and places. Superman is a strange thing to do for a “fresh start,” especially for a studio associated with releasing bad movies. Gunn threw everything at the wall to see if it would stick, and for the most part, it did. Perhaps all that’s necessary for a film to succeed is a charming cast and a well-known hero.

PS: Another similarity between Reeve and Corenswet – they know their way around Muppets.