The Last Son of Krypton
Jul. 31st, 2025 09:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cjlasky7Super/Fantastic, Part One: Superman (written and directed by James Gunn)
(This is part one of a two part post. I'll deal with Superman here, and Fantastic Four: First Steps after I see it next Friday. Spoilers galore!)
AS the inaugural movie of James Gunn and Peter Safran's revamped DC cinematic universe, Superman has two main objectives: reintroduce Superman/Kal-El/Clark Kent and his relationships with his supporting cast; and give viewers a taste of a wider and (wilder) world that creative teams will develop in forthcoming projects.
Gunn gets the job done at both ends--but not without cost. In order to squeeze everything in that he feels necessary to cover his bases, Gunn hits some points a little too hard and the actual plot gets a little too messy. The characters are basically fine--but the script needed another run-through to knock out some of the remaining kinks (and maybe drop some plot-lets that don't work).
Let's start with the good stuff. David Corenswet is a fine Superman, maybe not as charismatic as Christopher Reeve, but a well-realized embodiment of everything we love about the character. He's as corny as Kansas at harvest time, he's passionately dedicated to the preservation of life (to a fault), he has a sneaky sense of humor and he's appropriately sad about his status as Krypton's orphan. I like that we're seeing him fairly early in his career; he doesn't have the confidence and commanding presence yet, and we empathize with him as he's working out his role in the world.
He also has mad chemistry with Rachel Brosnahan's Lois Lane, which helps the movie a LOT.
Brosnahan is the definitive live action Lois Lane (so far). Lois is supposed to be the world's greatest investigative reporter and Brosnahan sells it. She's whip smart, prickly, relentlessly inquisitive, and doesn't back down for anyone--not even her boyfriend, the most powerful man in the world. The marvelously uncomfortable "interview" scene between Clark and Lois is a both a stress test for their relationship and an insight into Lois' relentlessly confrontational personality.
But Brosnahan also shows Lois' soft side. When she visits the Kent farmhouse near the end of the movie and walks through Clark's boyhood bedroom, you can see her affection for Clark deepen, with a deeper understanding of how he was raised and why he is how he is.
(Lex Luthor? I'll get to him later. Hang on.)
As for the broader aspects of the new DCU, this is James Gunn's bread and butter: an assortment of metahuman weirdoes who both lend Supes a helping hand and drive our hero to distraction. Of COURSE Nathan Fillion is here, having way too much fun as Guy Gardner, an arrogant douchebag with a hideous bowl cut and a Green Lantern power ring. (How much did Fillion have to pay Gunn to get this job?) But the standout here is Edi Gathegi's Mister Terrific, a scientific wizard who matches Gardner in arrogance but has the brains, skill and confidence to back that attitude up. (Look for his miniseries in a couple of years...)
As you may have heard, Krypto nearly steals the entire movie.
[Aside: I want to give Gunn my heartfelt thanks for faithfully recreating a favorite obscure hero from my childhood--Metamorpho, the Element Man. When he changed into gaseous form and floated alongside Supes, it was like a panel from his own comic book, drawn by the great Ramona Fradon. A truly awe-inspiring moment of comic book geekery.]
See? The characters are all good! But now we have to deal with the plot.
To put it bluntly, I don't think the political plotline works. It brings up a serious issue-- and leads into that wonderful Clark/Lois scene I talked about earlier--but Gunn doesn't deal with the implications in any depth. If Superman can stop pseudo-Slobodan Milosevic from slaughtering everybody in that poor, fake east Asian country, who can stop him from sticking his super nose into every conflict around the world? If HE decides how humanity settles its conflicts, isn't he the dictator--however benevolent--that Luthor claims he is?
[One of my all time favorite Superman stories is "Must There Be a Superman" (written by Elliot S! Maggin and drawn by the immortal Curt Swan). The Guardians of Oa--the little blue guys who sponsor the Green Lantern corps--summon Superman to Oa for a chat. They suggest that maybe Superman's constant interference is holding back humanity's evolution. And Clark really DOES think about it, and considers resetting his boundaries. That story blew my mind as a kid. Gunn could have used some of that thoughtfulness here.]
But beyond that, these real world-ish plotlines force the viewer to consider the Superman character's limitations. We know he isn't going to drag Putin or Netanyahu to the world court. We know he isn't going to free North Korea. So we're straining our suspension of disbelief. Superman works best confronting supervillains and world-level catastrophes, crises no one else could handle. And if the threat is a metaphor for a real life problem? Great! (Rod Serling made his legend doing exactly that.)
Speaking of supervillains....
Another problem with the Borovia plotline is that it's tied up with yet another Lex Luthor land grab.
What? Again?
Why does every Superman movie with Lex have him angling for real estate? In the comics, Lex Luthor does not wake up, inhale the fresh morning air and exclaim: "Land!" (He's got bigger fish to fry.) It's an affectation from the Salkind movies that I hoped we could leave behind in the 70s.
Granted, Gunn does pull off that last minute swerve to reveal the underlying reason for Luthor's land dealings: Lex's burning envy of Superman (and his single minded dedication to Superman's destruction). But even that comes with some heavy handed exposition. Gunn should have just copied Grant Morrison (from All-Star Superman):
LEX: If it weren't for you, I could have saved the world!
SUPERMAN: You could have saved the world years ago if it mattered to you.
Short, and cuts to the bone.
Another leftover from the Salkind era is Eve Teschmacher, a character I had absolutely no desire to see again. I can believe that this version of Lex dates bimbos (they don't challenge him), but Eve just seems to be around to look pretty and excessively fawn over Jimmy Olson. (Why? Did Jimmy treat her with kindness and respect and she's really really grateful? The only other explanation is that Jimmy Olsen is an Unstoppable Sex Machine and my brain can't deal with that...)
************
My other major nitpick with the plot is the message from Jor-El and Lara. It's not the whole "Superman was sent here to rule" part; it's a relatively recent addition to the comics, but it's not a total shot from left field. No, my problem is that Superman, with all his advanced Kryptonian technology and after decades of trying, can't decrypt the message...
And Luthor does it in two seconds. (Who's the inferior species now, Jor-El?)
Besides, Supergirl is RIGHT THERE. She's part of the family. She probably could tell Clark that Kryptonians weren't all sweetness and enlightenment:
"Kara... did you know about this?"
"Well, yeah--everybody knew your dad was kind of a dick."
"WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL ME?!"
Minor nitpick: We could lose, oh, five minutes off the big Supermam/Engineer/Bizarro fight scene without much of a sweat.
***************
So, overall, a promising start. I'm actually now looking forward to the Supergirl movie next year. (Jason Momoa as Lobo! More Krypto! More partying under red suns!)
What would I like to see in a second Superman movie? Let's go cosmic! Bring on Brainiac (in its Kryptonian AI incarnation)! The bottle city of Kandor! The Green Lantern Corps! Have Mr. Mxyzptlk pop in to annoy everybody! Superman has over 80 years of fantastic adventures to draw on. We don't need Luthor every single time...
Let's go deep!
(This is part one of a two part post. I'll deal with Superman here, and Fantastic Four: First Steps after I see it next Friday. Spoilers galore!)
AS the inaugural movie of James Gunn and Peter Safran's revamped DC cinematic universe, Superman has two main objectives: reintroduce Superman/Kal-El/Clark Kent and his relationships with his supporting cast; and give viewers a taste of a wider and (wilder) world that creative teams will develop in forthcoming projects.
Gunn gets the job done at both ends--but not without cost. In order to squeeze everything in that he feels necessary to cover his bases, Gunn hits some points a little too hard and the actual plot gets a little too messy. The characters are basically fine--but the script needed another run-through to knock out some of the remaining kinks (and maybe drop some plot-lets that don't work).
Let's start with the good stuff. David Corenswet is a fine Superman, maybe not as charismatic as Christopher Reeve, but a well-realized embodiment of everything we love about the character. He's as corny as Kansas at harvest time, he's passionately dedicated to the preservation of life (to a fault), he has a sneaky sense of humor and he's appropriately sad about his status as Krypton's orphan. I like that we're seeing him fairly early in his career; he doesn't have the confidence and commanding presence yet, and we empathize with him as he's working out his role in the world.
He also has mad chemistry with Rachel Brosnahan's Lois Lane, which helps the movie a LOT.
Brosnahan is the definitive live action Lois Lane (so far). Lois is supposed to be the world's greatest investigative reporter and Brosnahan sells it. She's whip smart, prickly, relentlessly inquisitive, and doesn't back down for anyone--not even her boyfriend, the most powerful man in the world. The marvelously uncomfortable "interview" scene between Clark and Lois is a both a stress test for their relationship and an insight into Lois' relentlessly confrontational personality.
But Brosnahan also shows Lois' soft side. When she visits the Kent farmhouse near the end of the movie and walks through Clark's boyhood bedroom, you can see her affection for Clark deepen, with a deeper understanding of how he was raised and why he is how he is.
(Lex Luthor? I'll get to him later. Hang on.)
As for the broader aspects of the new DCU, this is James Gunn's bread and butter: an assortment of metahuman weirdoes who both lend Supes a helping hand and drive our hero to distraction. Of COURSE Nathan Fillion is here, having way too much fun as Guy Gardner, an arrogant douchebag with a hideous bowl cut and a Green Lantern power ring. (How much did Fillion have to pay Gunn to get this job?) But the standout here is Edi Gathegi's Mister Terrific, a scientific wizard who matches Gardner in arrogance but has the brains, skill and confidence to back that attitude up. (Look for his miniseries in a couple of years...)
As you may have heard, Krypto nearly steals the entire movie.
[Aside: I want to give Gunn my heartfelt thanks for faithfully recreating a favorite obscure hero from my childhood--Metamorpho, the Element Man. When he changed into gaseous form and floated alongside Supes, it was like a panel from his own comic book, drawn by the great Ramona Fradon. A truly awe-inspiring moment of comic book geekery.]
See? The characters are all good! But now we have to deal with the plot.
To put it bluntly, I don't think the political plotline works. It brings up a serious issue-- and leads into that wonderful Clark/Lois scene I talked about earlier--but Gunn doesn't deal with the implications in any depth. If Superman can stop pseudo-Slobodan Milosevic from slaughtering everybody in that poor, fake east Asian country, who can stop him from sticking his super nose into every conflict around the world? If HE decides how humanity settles its conflicts, isn't he the dictator--however benevolent--that Luthor claims he is?
[One of my all time favorite Superman stories is "Must There Be a Superman" (written by Elliot S! Maggin and drawn by the immortal Curt Swan). The Guardians of Oa--the little blue guys who sponsor the Green Lantern corps--summon Superman to Oa for a chat. They suggest that maybe Superman's constant interference is holding back humanity's evolution. And Clark really DOES think about it, and considers resetting his boundaries. That story blew my mind as a kid. Gunn could have used some of that thoughtfulness here.]
But beyond that, these real world-ish plotlines force the viewer to consider the Superman character's limitations. We know he isn't going to drag Putin or Netanyahu to the world court. We know he isn't going to free North Korea. So we're straining our suspension of disbelief. Superman works best confronting supervillains and world-level catastrophes, crises no one else could handle. And if the threat is a metaphor for a real life problem? Great! (Rod Serling made his legend doing exactly that.)
Speaking of supervillains....
Another problem with the Borovia plotline is that it's tied up with yet another Lex Luthor land grab.
What? Again?
Why does every Superman movie with Lex have him angling for real estate? In the comics, Lex Luthor does not wake up, inhale the fresh morning air and exclaim: "Land!" (He's got bigger fish to fry.) It's an affectation from the Salkind movies that I hoped we could leave behind in the 70s.
Granted, Gunn does pull off that last minute swerve to reveal the underlying reason for Luthor's land dealings: Lex's burning envy of Superman (and his single minded dedication to Superman's destruction). But even that comes with some heavy handed exposition. Gunn should have just copied Grant Morrison (from All-Star Superman):
LEX: If it weren't for you, I could have saved the world!
SUPERMAN: You could have saved the world years ago if it mattered to you.
Short, and cuts to the bone.
Another leftover from the Salkind era is Eve Teschmacher, a character I had absolutely no desire to see again. I can believe that this version of Lex dates bimbos (they don't challenge him), but Eve just seems to be around to look pretty and excessively fawn over Jimmy Olson. (Why? Did Jimmy treat her with kindness and respect and she's really really grateful? The only other explanation is that Jimmy Olsen is an Unstoppable Sex Machine and my brain can't deal with that...)
************
My other major nitpick with the plot is the message from Jor-El and Lara. It's not the whole "Superman was sent here to rule" part; it's a relatively recent addition to the comics, but it's not a total shot from left field. No, my problem is that Superman, with all his advanced Kryptonian technology and after decades of trying, can't decrypt the message...
And Luthor does it in two seconds. (Who's the inferior species now, Jor-El?)
Besides, Supergirl is RIGHT THERE. She's part of the family. She probably could tell Clark that Kryptonians weren't all sweetness and enlightenment:
"Kara... did you know about this?"
"Well, yeah--everybody knew your dad was kind of a dick."
"WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL ME?!"
Minor nitpick: We could lose, oh, five minutes off the big Supermam/Engineer/Bizarro fight scene without much of a sweat.
***************
So, overall, a promising start. I'm actually now looking forward to the Supergirl movie next year. (Jason Momoa as Lobo! More Krypto! More partying under red suns!)
What would I like to see in a second Superman movie? Let's go cosmic! Bring on Brainiac (in its Kryptonian AI incarnation)! The bottle city of Kandor! The Green Lantern Corps! Have Mr. Mxyzptlk pop in to annoy everybody! Superman has over 80 years of fantastic adventures to draw on. We don't need Luthor every single time...
Let's go deep!
no subject
Date: 2025-08-01 02:07 am (UTC)Your review reminds me of John Scalzi's review. (NOT his daughter's). Their reviews convinced me to wait and watch on HBO MAX. Both said it was a very busy and overly ambitious movie. Scalzi liked it with reservations, his daughter didn't like it at all.
According to Scalzi - Fillion insisted on the haircut.
2. I'm think Salskind and Gunn both met Trump, and thought - "I know, we should base Lex Luthor completely on Donald Trump, the insane power mad real estate mogul". And did. It certainly would explain a lot.
3. Wasn't Miss Teschmacter into Jimmy Olsen in the first film? I can't remember? I remember she saves Superman in exchange for him saving her mother - so he chooses to save her mother before Lois, and then has to turn back time to save Lois - so he can do both. That was the ethical issue in the first film.
4. I haven't seen it - but the descriptions of the political conflict Superman interferes with, along with Lex, sounds uncomfortably like the Ukraine/Russia conflict, with ahem the Doofus making real estate deals on the side. Apparently a new golf course went up in the Ukraine, with a luxury resort. (I've been corresponding with a Ukrainian (living in the Ukraine, on DW, and he mentioned that this happened and was complaining about it. Actually his posts put a whole new spin on what the news is stating - which makes me not think highly of the Ukraine's leadership.)
5. I do agree - they need to move on from Lex Luthor. Although - as I was explaining to mefisto in an unrelated post - or trying to - you need something familiar to pull in the non-comic book audience.
They expect Lex, so they give them Lex. But honestly, it would be nice if they veered away from him for a bit? The comics did.
The difficulty with Superman - is it is well-traveled ground, much like Batman, and kind of difficult to have a new take on it. OTOH - they do have a wealth of content via the comics to draw on. It's kind of already there. And Superman much like Captain Marvel is a cosmic superhero. He can travel in space without a space ship. And is powered by a sun. Taking it cosmic is more interesting and hasn't really been done before, or not repeatedly at any rate.
6. Yes, if you cast Bradley Cooper as Kor-El or Superman's dad, he's going to be a dick.
On Lex Luthor (and other comments)
Date: 2025-08-02 12:31 am (UTC)I was struck by her reaction to Luthor's minions, because I had the same reaction: pure cringe. But I think we're SUPPOSED to cringe. How can supposedly decent people come to participate in such brutality with enthusiasm, even joy?
It's surprisingly easy.
I think with all my bitching about international crises and land deals, I wasn't giving Gunn enough credit for his pretty dead on take on late period capitalism and the modern billionaire class. We often comment about how guys like Trump or Bezos or Zuckerberg distort our sense of reality with their money and power...
Well, Lex LITERALLY distorts reality by creating pocket dimensions, where he can do whatever the fuck he pleases. (It's an ingenious metaphor.) With that kind of control over reality, it would be child's play to indoctrinate his staff against "that alien menace".
That said, I would have loved for Lex to give his staff a speech after Jor-El's message went viral--you know, really pump them up:
"You heard it everyone. WE WERE RIGHT. They didn't believe us. We were mocked and shouted down. But WE WERE RIGHT. Ladies and gentlemen, this is our time. We will destroy this alien menace once and for all, because nobody takes our world from us! NOBODY!" [cue cheers]
Nicholas Hoult would have killed that speech. (But do you know what's sad? Lex obviously didn't need it.)
More on Nicholas Hoult: his Luthor is utterly terrifying. His intensity burns a hole in the screen. None of the other Luthors make you feel the hate the way he does--not Hackman or Rosenbaum or Clancy Brown (S:TAS). Midway through the movie, Hoult's Lex actually shoots an innocent man with a GUN in front of a helpless Superman. At first, I thought that sort of crude violence was out of character. But then I realized: he chose that very method because IT WOULD MAKE SUPERMAN FEEL WORSE.
That is hard-core hatred.
If you cast Bradley Cooper to play Jor-El, he's going to be a dick.
Heh. Heard.
Re: On Lex Luthor (and other comments)
Date: 2025-08-02 04:49 pm (UTC)It sounds like you fall in between Scalzi and his kid's reviews, opinion wise. I was more struck with the style - one is obviously a professional film review, the other an amateur blog review that rambles.
I even got lost in your discussion above - because I've not seen the film. But I don't think I'd like it all that much. Considered seeing at Cobble Hill today and passed, it's a beautiful day - and I'd rather enjoy the sunshine. I will wait for it to pop up on streaming, which should be in a couple of months.
From what I read in your post and the other reviews - Gunn definitely took a political stance and a strong one against Trump and his ilk. It's a controversial film - a lot of the MAGA were upset by it. Dean Cain was very upset with the film apparently. They've all been fighting over it on social media platforms...(I'm only mildly aware of it). But Lex should be based on those billionaires. He always kind of was? Even Hackman and Spacey played that version. I can't remember who played Luther in the Snyderverse - I think it was that guy who played the FB founder in the Social Network - who was doing it as a take on well the founder of FB, Zuckerberg.