"Hey buddy. Eyes up here."

My thoughts on James Gunn's Superman film, which will launch his DC Cinematic Universe

As I’m out of school and my days are not filled with teaching, I’ve been making some time to get out to see some films. Spending time in darkened, air conditioned movie theaters is an excellent choice in Tallahassee in the summer given that we’re seeing high temperatures approach 100+ degrees. One movie that got me out of the house and into a seat with popcorn in hand was the latest depiction of Superman on the big screen. This adaptation, directed by James Gunn (the man behind the Guardians of the Galaxy films in the MCU) set out to launch the DC Cinematic Universe, hopefully giving DC an answer to Marvel’s seeming dominance.

I enjoyed the Guardians film, so seeing Gunn helming a film about a major super hero like Superman was an exciting prospect. Admittedly I’m more of a Marvel person than a DC person and I do think the character of Superman is… tough because he’s so great and powerful and virtuous (that doesn’t always make for entertaining narrative). But the positive reviews and sentiments coming out about Superman intrigued me and got me to check it out. What I saw was pretty good (not always great) and sets up the DC Cinematic Universe for success. It’s the best Superman film since Superman II and is an example of the comic book/super hero film done well.

Gunn’s visuals in Guardians were stunning, which continues into Superman. It’s been said before, but Gunn certainly has a firm grasp on the aesthetics of comic books and translates that to the movie screen. Bright colors, grandiose images, you get it all. The battles with the kaiju and Ultraman, for example, have the visual panache you expect to see on the comic book and the tone is bright but not in a way that makes things feel fake.

I also very much enjoyed that Gunn starts in media res with the narrative. At this point, the idea and story of Superman is basically an American myth so we don’t need to have it set up for us. It’s also in keeping with these stories about super heroes, which are the modern myths. But, and most importantly, it allows him to start telling a story rather than having to set up and provide context. We get some text at the beginning of the film to set the scene and then information is delivered within the story itself. The way Gunn (who was also the screenwriter) handled that was probably what impressed me most.

David Corenswet does well playing Kal-El and Clark Kent, and probably gets the closest to Christopher Reeve’s ideal cinematic portrayal of the Last Son of Krypton. He both communicates the kind of sincerity and idealism essential to the character while providing some degree of emotional depth. Nicholas Hoult is also perfect as Lex Luthor, providing effective contrast to Superman’s virtue while making it clear there are motivations (not just a proverbial mustache-twirling villain) and Rachel Brosnahan provides a modern portrayal of Lois Lane. I’d also like to call special attention to Nathan Fillion’s portrayal of Green Lantern and Edi Gathegi as Mr. Terrific (a character with which I was unfamiliar). Also, there is a surprising amount of Krypto in the film. I wasn’t prepared for that.

I’ll avoid getting into a plot summary, but you have many of the themes of the latter-day Superman content with questions about if a seemingly all-powerful alien being is good and can be trusted (we saw this in Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice). What Gunn brings is some quite timely commentary about the ethics of intervening in a conflict and what it means to be…. an American? A human? Sometimes, this kind of engagement with timely, real world questions in films about super heroes doesn’t work but, somewhat surprisingly, I found Gunn’s use of these topics and themes in Superman was quite effective.

I also think there’s interesting stuff going on about privatization and the role of capitalism and science going on that I don’t have any really clear and coherent thoughts on, but I found myself noticing and thinking about. The same goes for questions about what does it mean for someone like Superman, or Clark Kent, to be both this figure who is “greater" (stronger, more powerful) but also decidedly human. Though Superman was created as a character by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, two Jewish men creating during a time when the Jewish people were being targeted and exterminated in Eastern Europe, there are these elements that feel very Christian too (as with Jesus, what does it mean to be both fully God AND fully man?).

I do think some of the issues with the Superman character—what do you do with a character who is so seemingly all-powerful—emerge and I do think parts of the film lapse into the fighting and building/city destruction we’re used to seeing. The stakes feel a bit more real in this version (we see Superman bleed, for instance) and that the fighting has consequence. But we do hit those stretches where one’s brain goes numb and takes in the destruction and combat.

Though these issues pop up and the film does drag a little bit when Superman is sent into Luthor’s phantom zone/pocket dimension, ultimately James Gunn’s Superman works. It’s entertaining and fun without feeling insubstantial and features stellar performances in the lead roles with actors taking on and doing justice to characters that we (who consume this comic book and super hero media) have pretty strong senses of. Above all, it made me want to see what was next in Gunn’s DC Cinematic Universe, which is not something I expected to say. That, I believe, is the greatest testament to the quality of what Gunn has created in Superman.