After nearly three years of fan theories, trailer breakdowns, and unjustified hate, James Gunn’s Superman film is almost here. While the general public will get to gander at the latest attempt at telling Clark Kent’s story on July 11, film critics and content creators have already shared their opinions. The verdict: a flawed but thrilling re-imagining of one of our most legendary superheroes.
GQ Senior Editor Frazier Tharpe described the movie as “one of the most distinct superhero films in a long time” in his cover story on Superman star David Corenswet. Tharpe highlighted how the film stood out in the superhero genre by striking an honest tone unique to the Superman ethos.
“Gunn’s approach is colorful, in both its palette and the costumes; proudly fantastical, with flying orbs, robots, portals, and giant monsters; and at times endearingly, intentionally corny (see: Krypto the super dog). But late in the third act, Superman delivers an impassioned monologue about himself that essentially states Gunn’s thesis about the character and his core values. You won’t find any controversial neck-snapping here.”
A large swath of critics applauded Gunn’s bold choice to ground Superman in political tensions, using the conflict between two warring countries—Boravia and Jarhanpur—as a central plot point. New York Times movie critic Alissa Wilkinson noted in her review that her own superhero movie fatigue was no match for Superman’s goofy yet sincere take on the Man of Steel. Vulture critic Alison Willmore, meanwhile, emphasized that the hero is “the creation of two Jewish American men whose families fled the pogroms and who gave their extraterrestrial defender of the planet a background as a refugee himself.” To her, this somewhat politicized superhero film is a welcomed reflection of our world, and our real-life supervillains.
At the time o this article’s release, the movie holds an impressive 86 percent approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with journalists like Associated Press film critic Jake Coyle calling it “something quite rare in the assembly line-style of superhero moviemaking today: human.” That feeling of being reminded why many of us fell in love with comic books in the first place was a common sentiment among those who enjoyed it. To them, Superman was a trip back to their unjaded, zealous youth, when a man leaping tall buildings in a single bound still amazed them.
Unfortunately, all is not well in Metropolis. A number of critics took issue with what they see as the film’s uninspired plot, lackluster performances by some of the cast, and Krypto, Superman’s adorable dog, outshining some of the human characters. Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian didn’t pull any punches when he characterized Corenswet’s performance as “square-faced soullessness,” and derided the movie for its “pointless and cluttered new backstory.” Even some critics who enjoyed the film felt that it had its share of issues. Variety’s Owen Gleiberman placed the movie in his “next-level good” tier alongside movies like Batman Begins, Iron Man, and Thor, But, due to what he sees as Superman’s busy cluttered pacing sometimes preventing the film from slowing down and giving the characters moments of growth and reflection, it fell short of the lofty perch of The Dark Knight and 1980s Superman II for him.
A few others had much harsher critiques.
I can almost guarantee Gunn couldn’t care less about the negative reactions, though. He publicly scoffed at the notion that the film would be considered a flop if it didn’t gross over $700 million—roughly what Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel earned. Gunn is playing the long game, and Superman is just the first film in what he’s calling Chapter One: Gods and Monsters. Buckle up because we’re just getting started.