PG-13 | 2h 9m | Action, Superhero | 2025
Introduced 87 years ago in “Action Comics #1,” the alien metahuman Kal-El—commonly known as Superman (“Man of Steel,” “faster than a speeding bullet”)—became a symbol of hope and justice in America.
Superman has appeared in countless media adaptations. Film versions alone count more than a dozen, and this new DC Universe entry installment stars David Corenswet.
The Classic Super-Setup
Superman’s alter ego Clark Kent (Corenswet, looking a bit like a Henry Cavill clone) is a journalist at the Daily Planet who works alongside his love interest, Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan, looking like a bit of a Margot Kidder clone).The strapping young man, still quaintly wearing the bookish glasses that were probably plausible as a “disguise” in 1938—occasionally ducks out to fight crime and “leap tall buildings in a single bound.”
The New Guy
I always thought Christopher Reeve was the be-all and end-all Superman in terms of having the archetypal Superman looks and demeanor until Henry Cavill came along, and then I immediately jumped ship to Cavill—the bodybuilding was better. As a former personal trainer, I think cinematic superheroes are all about the bodybuilding—don’t even get me started about why Spider-Man needs bigger lats, forearms, and calves. I was skeptical about the new guy, Corenswet. But as a Cavill clone, he does an admirable job. Brosnahan is fine as Lois Lane.
While Lex Luthor has always been evil and conniving, Hoult doesn’t have the gravitas for the role. His raging yet smarmy, tantrum-throwing man-child is fairly lightweight.
Throwback
That said, this is really a “Superman” for 10-year-old boys. As such, it’s not half bad. It attempts to bring back a certain innocence, what with an overly cutesy Krypto the superdog and the original, big-red-underpants-on-the-outside-of-blue-pajamas Superman costume. That getup must have seemed exceptionally cool in 1938. In this context, a not particularly scary Lex Luthor makes sense.I almost made the mistake many critics make: demanding that material intended for a much younger demographic also be exciting for adults. Sometimes movies can just be for kids. At the press screening, a balding, middle-aged film critic sat in the front row, reading a comic book. Not Superman related. You see how the mindset can come about.
‘Superman’
The main problem, besides this not being particularly interesting to adults (the best kids’ movies are also enthralling for adults) is the lack of stylistic cohesion. After seeing “Guardians of the Galaxy” (2014), I thought, “That was fun, and funny, but what a visual hodgepodge of disparate, tasteless kitsch.” I had the exact same feeling with this “Superman.” Then, I remembered it’s the same director.And so, in “Superman” 2025, while the special effects are as polished as kitschy CGI can be, and there are flashes of engaging storytelling, it’s not enough to offset the tonal whiplash and random, visual, digital junk-heap.
Also, with DC’s new leadership, I'd hoped the studio would start to rival the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Not happening. And I see they’ve adopted the MCU’s Doctor Strange-type, swirly, sparking tunnels that create portals to other time-space dimensions (called “pocket dimensions” here). I’m not happy about that either. I eventually figured out that the proliferation of this multidimensional storyline (to quote myself) is due to the following:
My guess is that “Superman” will open big—the curiosity factor will be high, and the Rotten Tomatoes score is high. I’m giving it a 3 out of 5 stars for kids, and a 1 1/5 out of 5 stars for being stylistic Kryptonite and a multiverse portal to adult boredom. Three minus 1 1/2 equals 1 1/2. On second thought, let’s just go ahead and give this one to the kids: 3 stars. But also a green tomato.
