A new DC universe begins with Clark Kent working to define himself under intense scrutiny In James Gunn’s Superman.

Cinematic adaptations of Superman begin at a disadvantage, overshadowed by Christopher Reeve’s indelible portrayal. Comparisons are unavoidable given his iconic performance, but it’s far from the only valid take. Superman has been adapted successfully across film, animation, and television, sometimes lovingly nodding to Reeve’s version, sometimes charting new territory. Still, that shadow lingers over every attempt. As time passes, it may hold less sway with younger audiences unfamiliar with what came before, but it remains very much present in the minds of those behind the adaptations.

James Gunn’s interpretation of Superman leans heavily into comic book eccentricity, throwing him into a world where pocket universes, dimensional imps and Kaiju attacks are routine. While other superhero films typically introduce such elements gradually, grounding them in a recognisable real-world framework, Superman unveils them without preamble and expects viewers to accept the full-blown absurdity without question. This bold approach may alienate those seeking slower immersion, but for fans of the source material or those open to such excess, Gunn’s vision remains cohesive, even if occasionally overwhelming.

The film opens with a brief text crawl before thrusting the audience into a world where Superman is already three years into his superhero career. He’s fully formed, complete with hallmark features like the Fortress of Solitude, his disguise as a bespectacled Daily Planet reporter, and an unwavering commitment to helping others, motivated solely by a belief in doing good.

David Corenswet steps into the role with conviction, delivering an excellent performance that balances physical presence with emotional nuance. His Clark Kent/Superman is confident without being cocky, earnest without veering into cheese, and consistently commands attention. Yet the script offers him too few chances to explore the nuances of his disguised persona; there’s only one scene of him at the Daily Planet. His vocal shifts and mannerisms are convincing, but limited screen time makes it hard to assess how well he inhabits Clark’s everyday identity. By sidelining that duality, the film misses a chance to tap into a key emotional axis that traditionally grounds Superman’s mythology.

Much of the film toggles between Superman and the “real” Clark Kent, a version only seen by those who know his secret, including his parents and Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan). His confidence is often a mask; Superman is still a work in progress, uncertain whether his choices reflect the hero he wants to become. Unlike earlier iterations, he doesn’t have all the answers. He makes well-intentioned missteps, sometimes acting on impulse, but he stands by his decisions and acknowledges the ongoing challenge of learning how to inspire while still growing himself.

What grounds him, despite everything, is his unwavering sense of right and wrong. He stands for doing good, using his powers to preserve life. Those ideals consistently shine through in both his words and actions. His arc begins with a desire to honour his biological parents’ vision, but ultimately he embraces self-definition, committing to forge his own path, one not dictated by anyone else’s expectations.

The subtext is so unsubtle it’s practically text: a clear acknowledgement of Superman’s immigrant identity. He embraces the opportunities his adopted home provides and reflects the best of what it has to offer. A powerful speech toward the end of the film crystallises this theme, positioning Superman as a symbol of inclusivity, not just treating it as a virtue, but as a gift that can be paid forward.

David Corenswet delivers an excellent Superman; confident, principled, and compelling. But his performance deserves a stronger story. One of the film’s biggest flaws is its refusal to settle on the kind of story it wants to tell. The focus constantly shifts, with new plot threads thrown at the audience so rapidly that even the Man of Steel himself would struggle to keep up. There’s a topical narrative about Superman entering a war without considering the ramifications, a revelation about his origins that turns public opinion against him, and Lex Luthor’s plans that connect these ideas while also veering off in their own direction. Clark’s attempt to define his heroism runs through all of this like an anti-proton river, destabilising every narrative particle in a film already overflowing with plot. It’s a lot to absorb, and the film doesn’t juggle these threads particularly well, leaving viewers exhausted rather than engaged.

There are clear attempts to engage with topical themes. Superman’s immigrant status resonates with current social discourse, and the film gestures toward the weaponisation of social media by powerful actors seeking to undermine reputations and ideas. A plot involving two warring nations evokes real-world tensions, encouraging reflection on their scope and complexity within a superhero narrative. Good science fiction remixes real-world concerns into heightened realities that invite examination. But, the treatment here lacks depth. The geopolitical plot is presented simplistically, and Clark never confronts the consequences of his intervention, leaving the theme underdeveloped and emotionally inert.

Similarly, the idea of social media being weaponised against Superman is mentioned in passing, then swiftly resolved without impact. The film rarely depicts a world that responds or evolves based on his presence. There’s little evidence of shifting public perception, no visible consequences rippling through the social or political landscape. It’s as if Superman exists in a vacuum, separate from the reality he’s supposed to influence. This feeds into the broader issue of narrative congestion, where ideas are introduced and discarded before they can resonate. There’s fertile ground for an entire film about Superman rebuilding public trust after digital sabotage, but that’s not the story being told, nor is it clear what story is being told. Ultimately, the film feels clumsy, never anchoring itself in a reactive, living world.

The film struggles noticeably with tone. It’s most effective when it leans into sincerity and emotional clarity, but falters when it veers into forced comedy. Many comedic beats feel awkward or misplaced, though a handful of jokes do land. Recurring gags like Krypto the Superdog’s destructive affection offer levity without disrupting the mood, but these are exceptions. Tonal inconsistency is a persistent issue, likely born from the film’s fractured structure; with so many shifting narrative threads, it never settles into a stable emotional rhythm.

Clark’s relationship with Lois Lane helps stabilise the film’s breakneck narrative momentum. As the story begins, the two have been quietly dating for around three months, with Lois already aware of his secret. While Clark is fully committed, Lois harbours doubts about the relationship’s longevity, prompting them to keep it hidden from their coworkers. She frequently challenges him, forcing moments of self-reflection and pushing him to consider the consequences of his actions. The interview scene, prominently featured in the marketing, ranks among the film’s strongest, showcasing both actors’ strengths and their electric chemistry. But despite that spark, the film underutilises their dynamic, limiting their screen time more than expected.

Regrettably, Lois is short-changed as the film spends a surprising amount of time trying to find something meaningful for her to do. The potential is there. Rachel Brosnahan devours the material she’s given, crafting a Lois who deserves to stand alongside the strongest portrayals of the character. At a minimum, more scenes between Clark and Lois were needed. An unexpected narrative pivot gives Jimmy Olsen (Skyler Gisondo) more of the ace reporter mantle, which undercuts Lois’ significance in both the plot and Clark’s development. This shift displaces the emotional centre of the story, leaving a noticeable void where her sharp journalistic lens should help anchor both hero and audience.

Most supporting characters are deployed effectively. The contentiously named Justice Gang, comprised of Green Lantern (Nathan Fillion), Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced), and Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi) are prominent without being overused, adding texture to Gunn’s emerging, fully functioning DC universe. Clark’s parents, Jonathan (Pruitt Taylor Vince) and Martha (Neva Howell) Kent, provide wholesome emotional grounding and are perfectly used at a pivotal moment. Daily Planet colleagues like Perry White (Wendell Pierce) and Cat Grant (Mikaela Hoover) are underserved, yet manage to leave an impression in limited screen time. Lex Luthor is the exception. Hoult’s performance ticks the expected boxes, but the character remains shallow. His motivation is clear, his hatred for Superman deeply entrenched, but he lacks complexity or ideological heft. He isn’t a philosophical adversary so much as a single-minded disruptor, robbing the conflict of the layered tension it might have had.

Visually, the film is striking, though its clean, bright digital aesthetic won’t appeal to everyone. The lack of contrast leaves many set pieces feeling overly artificial or cartoonish. Superman’s powers are realised with flair and used effectively, but the action itself is uneven. Unexpectedly, the most visually memorable sequence belongs to Mr. Terrific, an impressive highlight that draws attention away from the character the film is meant to centre. For all the spectacle, Gunn’s Superman lacks a defining visual moment; something mythic that burns itself into memory. There’s no definitive ‘Superman scene’, just a stream of competent, occasionally impressive action that struggles to leave a lasting impression. Variety is certainly not in short supply, and viewers are rarely left waiting for the next set piece, but they risk becoming visual noise. The third act climax introduces time-sensitive stakes, but narrative detours and pacing choices counteract that urgency, blurring tension when it should intensify. Gunn might have served the film better by focusing less on abundance and more on crafting a few truly iconic sequences that crystallise his version of the character, and grounding the climax in personal consequence rather than slipping into the world-ending default that dulls so many superhero finales.

---

Verdict

An entertaining yet uneven debut for the new DC universe, elevated by excellent central performances that deserve a stronger and more coherent story.

We’d love to know your thoughts on this and anything else you want to discuss. You can find us on Facebook, Twitter, BlueSky and Discord or just leave a comment in the comment section below. You’ll need an account for Disqus but it’s easy to set up. Don’t forget to share your rating in the “User Review” box.