Superman fans have been eagerly awaiting another standalone Superman film since Man of Steel debuted in 2013. Unfortunately, that highly anticipated sequel never happened, due to a string of creative and critical misfires from the former DCEU. The final nail in that coffin was the theatrical release of Justice League.
But this review isn’t about the past; it’s about Superman (2025) and the beginning of James Gunn’s reimagined DC Universe. That said, the mistakes of the previous universe are still fresh in all of our minds, and there are valuable lessons from that time that Superman (2025) acknowledges or fails to. As such, I’ll weave those thoughts into this review, as they’re relevant to understanding how this film attempts to reshape the legacy of the Man of Steel for a whole new generation.
Unlike previous Superman films and television series, James Gunn’s Superman forgoes the traditional origin story. The film opens with a bruised and bloodied Superman (David Corenswet) lying in the snow, having just lost a battle. He whistles for help, and his loyal dog Krypto rushes to the rescue, dragging him back to the Fortress of Solitude. While recovering, Superman watches a recorded message from his Kryptonian parents, Jor-El and Lara Lor-Van, in which they explain their decision to send him to Earth.
See Also: ‘The Suicide Squad’ Review: The Scuzzy Dozen Delights
From there, the film jumps to Clark Kent’s arrival at the Daily Planet, where we meet Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan) and the rest of the newsroom staff for the first time. Similar to Superman’s origins, Clark and Lois’s relationship is also already established and Lois is aware that Clark is Superman. This leads to a scene at Lois’ apartment, where Clark surprises Lois with breakfast for dinner. As they bicker over whose favorite meal it actually is, Lois asks if she could ever get an exclusive interview with Superman. Clark reluctantly agrees, prompting a heated interview that quickly moves from light-hearted to intense as they debate Superman’s decision to interfere in foreign affairs and their views on journalistic integrity.
Meanwhile, Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult) infiltrates the Fortress of Solitude with the help of the Engineer (María Gabriela de Faría). Lex destroys everything in sight, including the robots designed to protect Superman’s sanctuary. While exploring the Fortress, the Engineer discovers the damaged video file featuring Superman’s Kryptonian parents. As the footage plays, it becomes clear it’s corrupted and incomplete. Lex instructs the Engineer to interface with the system and attempt to repair and decode the full message. Before leaving, Lex and the Engineer kidnap Krypto. At the same time, two of Lex’s henchmen unleash a monstrous creature on Metropolis to create chaos and distract Superman.
The next day, Superman and the Justice Gang engage in a massive battle against the now Godzilla-sized creature which feels like it was lifted straight from James Gunn’s The Suicide Squad. After the monster is defeated and the city is saved, Lex appears on the news where he releases the repaired video to the public. In the footage, Jor-El and Lara reveal that Superman was not sent to Earth as a protector, but rather as a conqueror. The video causes mass panic and sparks outrage, turning the world against the Man of Steel.
As the backlash towards Superman continues to unfold, an already violent conflict continues in the war-torn nation of Boravia, further complicating Superman’s image. What follows over the next 100 minutes is a multitude of intersecting characters, plotlines, and shifting alliances. There’s a lot going on—arguably too much—but I won’t go into detail, as I feel that many reviews give away spoilers before audiences have a chance to see the film and judge it for themselves.
To kick things off, let’s begin with the performances. I genuinely did like David Corenswet as the new Superman/Clark Kent. While comparisons to Christopher Reeve will undoubtedly be made, Corenswet manages to bring something fresh to both personas. His take feels unique in honoring the character’s legacy while shaping a new version that stands out on its own.
As for Nicholas Hoult, it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what he’s aiming for with his portrayal of Lex Luthor. He’s clearly having fun with the role, leaning into a performance that’s intentionally exaggerated. But the film’s wildly inconsistent tone makes it hard to grasp how the audience is meant to perceive him. In some scenes, he comes across as an over-the-top cartoon villain; in others, the film attempts to portray him as a calculating and menacing mastermind. The result is a performance that feels disjointed like many other things found in the film. Hoult is certainly committed, and he’s doing his best to make it work even though I’m not entirely sure it always does.
The true standout of the film is Rachel Brosnahan, whose portrayal of Lois Lane is full of wit, charm, and razor-sharp confidence. She effortlessly takes over every scene she’s in, making Lois feel competent, capable, and refreshingly modern. Her chemistry with Corenswet is undeniable, which was hinted at in the film’s trailers and TV spots, but fully realized on screen, making their love story the beating heart of the entire movie. My favorite scene between them was the one where Lois and Clark are arguing about who is more punk rock. Again, this is something that would only stem from James Gunn’s mind, but it was brilliantly executed and quite humorous to watch.
In terms of the supporting cast, there are far too many characters to name, so I’ll focus on a few that are critical to the plot. Let’s start with Krypto. He’s cute and gets plenty of screen time. I would argue too much. I’m not sure an entire subplot needed to revolve around him, but as I will discuss later, this is James Gunn’s fully realized vision. So if you’re a Krypto fan, rest assured—you won’t feel short-changed.
The Justice Gang, while occasionally amusing, often feels like a significant distraction. Their exaggerated antics, especially those of Nathan Fillion, tend to detract from the main narrative. About halfway through the film, the spotlight shifts so abruptly to Mister Terrific that he starts to feel like the lead character. It’s a jarring pivot that doesn’t quite feel organic, more like a convenient excuse to give Mister Terrific and Lois additional screen time.
Then there’s the Jimmy Olsen and Eve Teschmacher subplot. Skyler Gisondo plays Jimmy, and Sara Sampaio plays Eve, who is infatuated with him, though the feeling clearly isn’t mutual. Eve is also obsessed with taking selfies, and this dynamic plays out as a recurring gag. But then there is a twist to this wannabe love story, one that genuinely made me roll my eyes. I won’t spoil it, but it is so damn silly and yet somehow absurdly crucial to the story.
All that being said, Superman is unapologetically a James Gunn film. His interpretation of the Man of Steel is, at times, refreshingly fun but just as often baffling. The narrative often feels uncertain about its direction, shifting wildly between tones, characters, and themes. More than once, I found myself asking, “What the hell am I watching here?” There’s simply too much going on: too many characters, too many subplots, too many setups for future stories. In his eagerness to lay the groundwork for the new DC Universe, Gunn seems to forget that this is supposed to be a Superman movie.
The tonal whiplash doesn’t help either. One moment, you have Nicholas Hoult’s Lex Luthor hamming it up with cartoonish flair, and the next, the film is trying to grapple with serious issues like immigration and the ethics of war. While Superman clearly aims to be a story about hope, the execution is messy. Gunn was clearly given carte blanche to build his vision, but that only resulted in a film that feels more chaotic than cohesive.
And with that sentiment in mind, one can’t help but wonder: what if every filmmaker who previously worked within the DC universe had been given the same creative freedom? What if Zack Snyder, David Ayer, Patty Jenkins, and even some of the lesser-known directors had been allowed to fully realize their visions without studio interference? Would those films now be seen in a different light, judged for the movie that each of these directors intended them to be, rather than a watered-down version by a studio?
Or does studio oversight, even with all of its pitfalls, serve as a necessary evil to help to shape, streamline, and sometimes restrain the ambition of filmmakers to deliver the best version of their story? These are questions that Superman raised because so many of my colleagues have said, “This feels so much like a James Gunn film,” which it clearly is. This Superman film is clearly the vision of its creator, but it raises the question of whether giving a director total creative control in a shared cinematic universe is the right approach. Will this ultimately pay off? We won’t know the answer to that question for a few years.
In terms of the film’s look and feel, I must admit that, similar to its narrative and tone, it is somewhat inconsistent. Certain scenes in this film are absolutely stunning to look at, but others are marred by excessive CGI and appear cheap. The scenes that took place within the pocket universe seemed particularly bad. There is even a CGI baby in this thing.
Ultimately, Superman feels like James Gunn tossed all his previous films into a blender, along with several decades’ worth of Superman comics, cartoons, movies, and TV shows. The end result is a chaotic, overstuffed mess that is, at times, fun and oddly entertaining. It is a film that I found to be somewhat disappointing, but surprisingly never boring. If I had to compare the movie to other DC films that came before this one, I would say it’s James Gunn’s The Suicide Squad mixed with James Wan’s Aquaman, but with a little Guardians of the Galaxy sprinkled on top for good measure.
Superman opens in theaters and IMAX on July 11, 2025.
