• Welcome to the Devil May Cry Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Devil May Cry series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

The Snyder Cut

I wonder how, in many, many years from now, people will interpret this whole thing. It is a huge mess.
Everyone I know whose opinions I respect hated this movie. I don't get it. I don't know why. I have these movies in 4k so I dig the s**t out of them but I feel like I'm missing something when no one I know does, like I'm getting it wrong. I know when I like bad movies, I know what my guilty pleasures are, this isn't that. I sincerely thought this was one of, if not, the best superhero movie I've ever seen and I feel like I'm going crazy for thinking that.
Can they actually articulate what they don't like about the movie, or do they disagree with Zack Snyder on unrelated perceived political leanings (a.k.a. calling him "right-wing", "objectivist", etc) and regurgitate talking points that mysteriously appeared after March 2016? Serious question.

Because what I've found is that people who don't like this movie, or *any* of Zack Snyder's movies, when told to describe them, will reveal to you that they've either seen a different movie than you did, have poor media literacy and let the "cool" aesthetics cloud what the story was actually saying, or they're sourcing their arguments straight from YouTube.

See: "Clark doesn't smile", "Clark doesn't save anyone", "Cyborg helping a single mother was bad, actually, why didn't he think of the Economy and let her be poor", "slow motion is half of the movie", etc.

They're still probably mad about Batman vs Superman. Its whole underpinning is "two billionaires are upset that an honest, blue-collar worker is a better human being than they are and are afraid of him wielding power", "the USA doesn't approve of Superman getting in the way of their own state-sponsored attempts at destabilizing third world countries (see: CIA)", and "Fake News and tech CEOs having the government in their back pocket is a global catastrophe in itself", just couched in dudes dressed in tights and having a punch-up. But ask anyone why it's bad and they'll vomit up "MARTHAAAAAAA" and "their moms have the same name and they became friends LOL".
 
Can they actually articulate what they don't like about the movie, or do they disagree with Zack Snyder on unrelated perceived political leanings (a.k.a. calling him "right-wing", "objectivist", etc) and regurgitate talking points that mysteriously appeared after March 2016? Serious question.
Well, I can tell you that I don't hang with people like that. I am not so young that I still want to be around that BS. No. I wouldn't respect opinions like that.
The people I've talked to just didn't like the experience. They didn't mind the length, oddly enough, it was the story, the events, the characters, the filmmaking itself. They just didn't see what I liked about it.
 
Well, I can tell you that I don't hang with people like that. I am not so young that I still want to be around that BS. No. I wouldn't respect opinions like that.
The people I've talked to just didn't like the experience. They didn't mind the length, oddly enough, it was the story, the events, the characters, the filmmaking itself. They just didn't see what I liked about it.
.... I find it hard to believe they didn't like *all those aspects* and somehow didn't find the length objectionable. So they sat around for a 4 hour movie and thought "Yeah, the fact that I'm spending half of an entire work shift to watch this is cool, but everything else is bad"?

What did they think the movie was four hours long *for*, then?

They're not also MCU fans, are they?
 
"Yeah, the fact that I'm spending half of an entire work shift to watch this is cool, but everything else is bad"?
I made them watch it. They didn't do of their own accord. They probably wouldn't have.

They're not also MCU fans, are they?
Probably. I know more than a few of them are huge on a hand full of the MCU movies but I've also heard them come down pretty hard on the ones they didn't like so it's not as though they let biases slow them down.
 
I wonder how, in many, many years from now, people will interpret this whole thing. It is a huge mess.
Everyone I know whose opinions I respect hated this movie. I don't get it. I don't know why. I have these movies in 4k so I dig the s**t out of them but I feel like I'm missing something when no one I know does, like I'm getting it wrong. I know when I like bad movies, I know what my guilty pleasures are, this isn't that. I sincerely thought this was one of, if not, the best superhero movie I've ever seen and I feel like I'm going crazy for thinking that.
I guess people might reassess them like the Star Wars prequels.

Most of the hate I've seen comes from diehard DC fans in the States. That's anecdotal evidence more than statistics but it's an odd trend I've noticed.
 
I guess people might reassess them like the Star Wars prequels.

Most of the hate I've seen comes from diehard DC fans in the States. That's anecdotal evidence more than statistics but it's an odd trend I've noticed.
It is an observable trend, though. ZSJL has tons of international fans and the intl. market outnumbers the US one. It was at Number 1 on UK's Official Film Chart for at least 3 weeks in a row, and Chinese audiences racked up absurd streaming numbers in different platforms; on Bilibili they left annotations of "Thank You, Zack Snyder!" on that stream of the movie (rated 9.8 where Josstice league was 3.3 at the time).

It turns out people love a movie that doesn't pretend to pander to them the way Disney does. For example: Disney is totally ready to accuse Chinese audiences of racism and blame them for Disney itself making John Boyega smaller on a Star Wars poster or not showing Chadwick Boseman's actual face on a Black Panther poster. They'll roll with sensational headlines of "Chinese viewers thought Black Panther was 'too dark'" when the complaint was about the lighting of the movie. But they still want that country's money, so they'll remake Mulan no problem. Chinese audiences had no actual issue with ZSJL holding Cyborg as the heart of its story or the fact that it's as much an origin film for him as it is a team-up movie for the rest of the League, given his character development.

I insist that "diehard DC fans" in the States have a primary grievance over Snyder's portrayal of Superman, and everything else stems from there. Especially where MoS and BvS show no grand reverence for the US's way of doing things the way Marvel gives lip service to American heroes and politics. The military-entertainment complex is real, but where Iron Man was tooled to promote the US-Afghanistan war and sell it to a public that was losing trust in the US over it (so this rich American guy in a suit of armor flies over to some "Middle East" country and shoots ALL the bad guys! and that country is never mentioned again in the continuity because who cares?), something like Man of Steel blatantly shows the military making things worse at critical moments (jets spiraling into buildings when they get too close to the World Engine, etc.) and the best they do is a plan that results in more than a few of them dying in the attempt (phantom zone, etc). Clark flew to the Indian Ocean to disable that World Engine rather than the one in Metropolis entirely on purpose. One of the movie's final scenes is Clark showing disapproval of the surveillance state by spiking a surveillance drone in front of Swanwick.

BvS doubles down on the criticism as I described a few posts ago. Despite the fact that Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos exist and Zuckerberg is barely considered a human being as-is (and Elon is continually proving himself to be an idiot-- he bought Twitter just to be popular in the internet equivalent of a sewer, after all), people are still salty about Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal of Lex Luthor Jr because somewhere in their mind they're still invested in the idea that a rich billionaire who doesn't care about human lives is still inherently *better* than a normal person in some way shape or form. They want to believe that the billionaire has something to aspire to aside from their riches, so it makes them upset to see a dweeb who can't articulate a story about Prometheus when he takes the microphone to talk, whose plan revolves around bribing US senators where he can, leading the other billionaire by his Dick Cheney-style xenophobia, and blatantly denying a disabled person his compensation and exploiting his resulting destitute status; they want someone who has muscles, who "is" intelligent, who is in some way "right" about Superman, anything they can justify, whatever. And then fancast Bryan Cranston like a bunch of basic b*tches and revert to when they were young and can't let go of Clancy Brown.

ZSJL is less critical on the Overt American Values from what I remember, but "real DC fans" still swear Clark needed to spout something about "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" because he just has to and cling to the fact that some recent animated movie for literal children said it, because they're more concerned about a hero spouting off a catchphrase rather than the hero actually standing for something and being cognizant of the power he and his home country wields and how it behaves at the detriment of the rest of the globe. Clark saves those in need no matter where they are in the world. "DC fans" are still mad he's not wearing his underwear on the outside. They have their panties in a twist that his character was ever tested at any point and shown to be imperfect, they're mad that the type of power he wields is shown to actually mess up a city (the same way they do in the animated shows), they're mad that he isn't all powerful all of the time and unassailably right. They want comfort, not hope. Superman being confronted with terrible situations and handling them the best he can despite his own imperfections is offensive to them, but also him T-posing is bad, because something-something Jesus Christ, as if Jesus Christ is bad. As if Superman shouldn't be Christ-like.

But it's okay for Tony to T-pose on an Infinity War poster in a way that clearly signposts his importance to the MCU because IDK he's just that awesome. He's a rich billionaire who's good-looking and f*cks, so it doesn't matter if his character development behind the scenes and on screen feature him pushing Patriot Act-type inventions, inventing autonomous drones capable of deploying from orbit to strike highschoolers on a bus, or him spouting HYDRA rhetoric (see: him delusionally ranting about "precious freedoms" getting in the way of his plan). It's Marvel and they can get away with it. Just ignore where Infinity War admitted that the only good future without Thanos is the one where Tony also dies, not one where he lives. People don't actually care about what that means.

Anyway, Aquaman 2's post-credit has Ocean Master eating a burger, watching a massive roach crawl by on the table, and sticking the roach on top of his burger and biting into it.
 
The new Superman movie has a rumored plot leak involving
Drunk Sorority Supergirl who left Krypto in Clark's care for the week, Superman and Lois playacting a discussion that turns into an argument about politics, Jimmy Olsen rizzing up Lex's henchwoman, Lex decoding a Jor-El message that portrays Superman as a conqueror and turning the public against Supes, and Lex having a dimensional portal where he locks away people he doesn't like including his exes. Lex reportedly takes Krypto (a dog whose behavior and appearance is now modeled after James Gunn's own dog) to this dimension and has the dog beaten up.

The latest rumor involves Superman being exposed to Cancel Culture when the internet blows up with the #SuperSh!t hastag and makes him sad, but the hashtag is being boosted by Lex's mutant monkeys all typing up manufactured hate.

It all sounds ridiculous, but this is the exact kind of silly Silver Age nonsense people are claiming to love, fueled by nostalgia and the image of Superman as hopeful and invulnerable to the world's problems—even though the teasers and footage the new Superman has been in have all featured him frowning, scowling, and hurt.
 
It all sounds ridiculous, but this is the exact kind of silly Silver Age nonsense people are claiming to love, fueled by nostalgia and the image of Superman as hopeful and invulnerable to the world's problems—even though the teasers and footage the new Superman has been in have all featured him frowning, scowling, and hurt.
Yeah, silly is a word. It's good word. A word that describes this pretty well.

Still, I'm a big advocate of presentation. I really think that you can take something preposterous and, if done right, you can make something great out of it. It's all in the execution. I'm not big on James Gunn. His humor isn't to my taste, but I'm willing to give him a chance... On matinee... or whatever cheapest thing the theatre offers. It's just really expensive to go to the movies these days.
 
Yeah, silly is a word. It's good word. A word that describes this pretty well.

Still, I'm a big advocate of presentation. I really think that you can take something preposterous and, if done right, you can make something great out of it. It's all in the execution. I'm not big on James Gunn. His humor isn't to my taste, but I'm willing to give him a chance... On matinee... or whatever cheapest thing the theatre offers. It's just really expensive to go to the movies these days.
You are way more generous than me. I'm not planning on paying any money to watch this movie, if I ever see it at all. I just don't trust James Gunn.

The preposterousness of this that can't be escaped is that modern fandom is currently pretending to be "Atheist" (as well as "apolitical") but they don't recognize that a conception of God who placidly reinforces an existing status quo is what they're clamoring for every time they want to see a Superman that smiles at everything, always has a way out from hard decisions, and no one needs to question his actions because he exists and works in mysterious ways and is thus unassailable, like a concept of their daddy from when they were five years old.

They're clamoring for this, but they complained that Henry Cavill's Superman T-posed too many times and so Zack Snyder made him too much like God (but also they hate Cavill Supes because he has flaws) and Snyder is a terrible man and needs to be deplatformed because of his Christianity; his Christianity combined with control over the fictional character of Superman is what "corrupts" some imagined "true essence" of what Superman is meant to be in nerds' minds. (somehow he's also a "Randian" "fascist" "objectivist" all at the same time). He "doesn't get" Superman, he "has bad politics", he has an "evil essence" to him that permeates every single work he touches. And the people claiming to know and see that his "bad politics" are obvious in his movies turn around and watch films made or funded by known pedophiles and perverts.

Don't pay attention to how Creature Commandos has James Gunn's Superman shown actually crucified.

James Gunn gives them what they think they want; every tweet that mentions Superman: Legacy (now just "Superman") at one point in time used the same exact All-Star Superman picture that made Supes look like he's peeking at you naked.

And that story (All-Star Superman) is just self-congratulatory nonsense that relies on being different from the other Superman stories at the time and having a definitive ending while hearkening back to the 1960s (currently 60+ years removed from the current time) where Superman is basically God and can do no wrong, ever. But people call it the best Superman story ever so it must be the best and copying it transfers its bestness over into the movie.

In no specific order,

Clark pretends to be unable to see without his glasses and intimates to Lex that he can escape jail and avoid execution while Clark isn't watching (even though Lex is rightly charged with crimes against humanity and has refused to be good), then at Lex's refusal to escape and insistence on going to the electric chair, Clark is more upset that Lex Luthor won't be Superman's friend than he is about the number of times Luthor has murdered people (and again, Lex was already convicted and sentenced to electrocution). Like, Clark literally says, "I can't believe you're getting ready to die like this. You and Superman could have been friends!" and Lex rightly points out, "Are you insane? I'm a born dictator!". Clark is willing to aid and abet an unrepentant and convicted criminal because he's smart and could've been friends. This charity is not extended to any other convicted criminal.

Superman's comfort to a depressed girl about to commit suicide is "you misunderstood your therapist, he really did get held up in traffic, life isn't as bad as you think it is" which relies wholly on Superman being able to hear the therapist struggling to reach the girl via phone in the first place, otherwise he'd have nothing to say to her and reassure her with. His reassurance ignores that maybe life is that bad for that one girl, has he actually asked her what her life is like? What if she's being ritualistically abused at home? Superman just talks at her and she has no dialogue of her own (also no reason to actually believe him but whatever). It also implies that the girl would be entirely correct to kill herself if her therapist did hate her and didn't want to have this session, and it doesn't address that she's still not getting adequate mental/health care if this is her tipping point, all in favor of the comics equivalent of "I see you and you're valid"/"thoughts and prayers".

He can lecture Lex about how "You could've saved the world if you cared" and the fans turn a blind eye to the fact that this all-powerful, all-good Superman can get miniature Kandorians to cure an entire cancer ward full of children, but he never tried that at any time before he contracted super sun poisoning. So please ignore that this Superman with all his power has allowed people to suffer and die from what are now preventable conditions. Also why doesn't he just cure that suicidal girl's depression the same way? F depressed people, I suppose! Also, does he intervene on every other suicide or was that a special case?

Superman hits Luthor with a gravity gun, which forces Luthor to see everything the way Superman sees it and for a moment Lex experiences ego death as he sees how alone we are in the universe, and within that realization is a brief brush with Superman's inherent goodness and why Supes acts the way he does (goodly). We know in reality that isn't how things work, because Jeff Bezos went to space to experience the same thing and is still a terrible human being. Also, this suggests that Goodness is an ontological property that can be mechanically adjusted (via gravity gun).

Lois Lane, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, is told straight-up by Superman that he's Clark Kent but she just doesn't believe him, because it's "more fun" (i.e. less threatening to their sensibilities) that Superman doesn't lose his secret identity, because secret identities were just a thing back in the Silver Age and there were funny comics covers about how far Superman would go to pretend he and Clark were two different people. She's so skeptical of the truth that she thinks Superman has some ulterior motive for doing this and then tries to kill him. (Remember, people were mad Lois Lane learned Clark and Superman were the same person back in Man of Steel. She's not allowed to be intelligent or investigative if it gets in the way of nerd fantasy.)

Superman is good, so ignore the part where even when he intervenes from the future, he is occupied with the Chronovore and trying to contain the Chronovore takes away three minutes. Within those three minute, Jonathan Kent dies of the fated heart attack and Superman can't save him. But actually it's a good thing that Pa Kent dies, because if he hadn't died, Superman simply wouldn't move to Metropolis at all and the legion of Supermen from the future would never come to be, implying that Superman's goodness is contingent on where he lives and he could ever be complacent in Smallville at the farm with his superpowers just to fix a tractor while the world around him goes to sh!t.

But like, Superman smiles a bunch in the comic and tells people everything will be okay if they just believe in it hard enough (and he takes on fantastical challenges that have nothing to do with the real world so the people reading don't have to interrogate their own beliefs), so fans love it.

James Gunn is said to "understand" the comics, but he simply mimics the aesthetics, so people can watch a whole trailer and sneak peeks of his Superman frowning all the time, being hurt, getting cans thrown at his head because people hate him, but the colors are saturated (but somehow muted, in that Joss Whedon way), a pretend-Middle Eastern boy implores for Superman while raising a flag with the S logo, Supes saves some girl from some pipes that she somehow wasn't aware were exploding behind her, and the trailer used a cover of John Williams' Superman theme from the 1978 movie, so by transitive property it means this Superman is "Hopeful" because Christopher Reeve made people feel a certain way.

None of the trailers shown has Superman actually talk outside of "Krypto, take me home" (or whatever he said) and we have no idea what Lois or Lex sound like. (Compare the teaser for this movie to the teaser for Superman Returns, they have a vastly different use of their runtime) And there are like a dozen other characters to keep track of, but movie casts being loaded was a problem only when Batman v Superman did it for a few minutes.

A man who auto-deletes his tweets every 6 months so that he can't be referenced or called out on a lie is somehow the person to trust with Superman. He's incapable of posting photos of the characters he's bringing to screen without having himself also be part of the photos, and also every character he talks about is his favorite superhero ever. The Behind the Scenes look has the actors going "In James Gunn we trust" (like "In God We Trust") and he sets up a photoshoot where they're all "reading" an old comic, so certainly he "understands comics".

The same guy that called The Flash the greatest superhero movie ever is the guy we should trust with Superman. His go-to in most of his comics movies is having a cute animal (bonus if the animal gets hurt), and none of his characters think in anything but personal feelings and don't believe in big picture heroism, "[I wanna save the galaxy] because I'm one of the idiots that lives in it!". His Suicide Squad lost $100M in the box office and the extent of his politics is that the Squad killing a bunch of freedom fighters is a funny scene that he enjoyed, because he's a mushy centrist that thinks being a freedom fighter from Fake-Venezuela is the same thing as being a fascist, and helping the CIA stage a right-wing coup is how his Squad gains approval from people. He tries to pretend every date he posts things in or sets things to release in is serendipitous as if God smiles on him and guides him to specific dates, but in his pretense he casually admitted he didn't know his own dad's birthday until his brother told him, but he swears he and his dad are super close and they specifically bonded over comics.

But like, yeah, he's not Snyder so people really wanna see this movie.
 
Here's an example of what I mean.

On today, Henry Cavill's birthday, Zack Snyder posts about Henry Cavill and shows Twitter a picture of Henry, because it's his birthday.

James Gunn posts about his goddamn dog.

rendercombined.jpg


A lot of Gunn's time on Twitter is spent pretending he posts things coincidentally, but it's always self-promotional bulls### on other people's important dates or cheap copies of things Zack is posting about (Zack promotes a ZSJL shirt? Gunn posts his cast wearing shirts with his face on it).

Don't forget the time he linked directly to a crypto scam while alleging that he wasn't affiliated with it, when the site is freely using his and his dog's likeness.

image.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That is way too much to respond to. I can see you're keeping up with the projects.

Warner Bro. as a company has been pretty garbage to its properties. They want the success of others without the work, they bury potentially great projects for no discernible reason, they don't seem to know why things work so they make them not. They're all over the place. It's not just Gunn.

I'm more forgiving because I've been here so many times over the years I've lost count. The Snyderverse is not the only thing I've had to see thrown out because of 'circumstances.' This is pretty threaded ground for me.

I've never read All Star as an English speaker. I read it many, many, moons, ago and I remember the gist of it. I did see the movie but I don't remember how much of it was accurate to the comic.

It's funny you bring up people bitching about Snyder turning Superman into a god. Some guy on a podcast was comparing something to that situation. He was actually yelling about how Superman is not a god but an average man and Snyder f'kd the character by not understanding this very basic principle. Well, first off, Snyder was not the first person to make Superman a god figure, he wasn't even the 10th, and, even more importantly, second, he wasn't deifying Superman. He was deifying the Justice League. Even Batman was made to look like something beyond man. These criticisms are shallow and one sided. Not hard to believe since it's comics fans. Not the most centered and logical group.
 
It's funny you bring up people bitching about Snyder turning Superman into a god. Some guy on a podcast was comparing something to that situation. He was actually yelling about how Superman is not a god but an average man and Snyder f'kd the character by not understanding this very basic principle. Well, first off, Snyder was not the first person to make Superman a god figure, he wasn't even the 10th, and, even more importantly, second, he wasn't deifying Superman. He was deifying the Justice League. Even Batman was made to look like something beyond man. These criticisms are shallow and one sided. Not hard to believe since it's comics fans. Not the most centered and logical group.
Comic fans aren't logical in the least and their arguments are the same tired opposites over and over.

"Snyder made Superman into a god" eventually becomes

"Snyder made Superman too fallible, I'm supposed to be *inspired* by Superman not dragged down by him having problems! He's supposed to make me feel hopeful and like everything will be okay!"

Snyder actually treated the Justice League and modern superheroes with some level of gravitas, like mythology (evidenced by the promotional art of each hero resembling a historical art piece).

Meanwhile Gunn is on record, like Taika Waititi, saying he thinks comic books are the dumbest things ever written. Taika said he couldn't get through a single issue of classic Thor, and also disparaged the VFX team for his movies at a time when VFX workers were opening up at how horrible the conditions were (especially at Disney). And both men have turned heroes into a joke. It's why Thor: Love and Thunder is overall less intelligent a piece than Thor: Ragnarok.

But given the track record of the type of fandom and creators that Superman somehow tends to attract, the hatred of Snyder is specifically that he's a good person, and people no longer recognize what a good human being is. These "Superman fans" complain that Superman was too mean and merciless to Zod, and that Lex Luthor needed to be a more attractive person overall, when Eisenberg's Luthor was no less intelligent and menacing in the time we saw him than any other iteration. (Also, he was modeled after Max Landis in mannerisms).

James Gunn is a weirdo and was best friends with two predators, Max Landis is similarly a predatory pest to multiple women, Joss Whedon's crimes have already been published at length, Geoff Johns supported Whedon and probably has skeletons in his own closet. There's no shortage of Supes fans who think it's funny to make fun of a young woman's suicide or believe themselves righteous when they call people slurs for liking the early DCEU.
 

Gunn's Superman. So confident in how right he is at all times that when his own girlfriend, Pulitzer Prize-Winning reporter Lois Lane, is *doing her job* and presents him with questions he's apparently never considered before in his life, he loses his composure and starts yelling at her like a 13-year-old mad at his mom.

Comparison of clips is here: https://x.com/kgcrossov3r/status/1922706099423113708

Notice, Cavill Supes does not need to yell at his girlfriend to get his point across.
 

AV Club: Warner Bros. puts kibosh on Batman Forever "Schumacher Cut" Screening


The comic book movie world is lousy with director’s cuts. There are the Donner cuts of Superman and Superman II, a version of Daredevil with Coolio in it, and, of course, the Snyder Cut, which Warner Bros. paid $70 million to finish so that it could dump it on HBO Max Max HBO Max. But as Suicide Squad fans wait for WBD to invest money in David Ayer’s cut of that 2016 Oscar winner, hype surrounding a mythical “Schumacher Cut” of Batman Forever has grown. Alas, that one is going to stay locked in the Batcave a bit longer.

Earlier this month, Cinefile Video in Santa Monica, CA, planned a screening of the lost version, which supposedly includes Val Kilmer squaring off against a very big bat, an image that has haunted promotional photos for the film since the mid-’90s. Unfortunately, news of the screening had spread far enough to reach the water tower doorstep of Yakko, Wakko, and Dot, who promptly sent a legal request to the store. “Our planned screening of Batman Forever has been cancelled,” an email from the store to its members. “This follows a legal request from Warner Bros. regarding the rights to the version of the film we intended to show. While this was a free, members-only event meant to celebrate a unique piece of film history, we respect the rights of studios and creators, and have chosen to withdraw the event accordingly.” The store did not immediately respond to a request from The A.V. Club for comment.

Most Popular


Speculation surrounding the Schumacher Cut reached a fever pitch in 2020, when Variety reported that a 170-minute, “much darker, more serious” version of Forever was being considered for release by Warner Bros., which was unsure if there was an audience for the film. Who would ever want to see an extended version of a Batman movie? Kevin Smith, for one, discussed the cut on a 2023 episode of his podcast Fat Man Beyond, bragging that he has a copy of the director’s cut, which he described as “longer.” That year, one of the film’s screenwriters, Akiva Goldsman, claimed to have seen the cut. “There’s definitely about 35% more psychological realism—more about guilt and shame,” Goldsman told The Playlist. “Joel’s first cut had all that, but preview audiences weren’t ready for it. They just wanted the humor and the action, so a lot of it got trimmed down. Still, it was a cool film.”

You have to wonder, by whose order was this Cease and Desist sent to Cinefile Video to stop a screening of a movie that wasn't in direct competition with any current releases or properties?

And why haven't we seen the David Ayer Cut in all the time its been teased, despite the current CEO of DC Studios claiming to be in support of this movie being released?

Hmmmm...
 
In Case You Missed It:

June 14 was the anniversary of Man of Steel's release. There was much rejoicing, people probably rewatched Man of Steel and posted about how much they enjoyed it and love Henry Cavill, and "rEaL dC fAnS!!" who should be excited for the newest Superman movie continued to cry about Snyder's entire existence and how much imaginary brand damage he did to DC, even though My Adventures With Superman and Superman and Lois have come out since. But mentioning those require that "real DC fans" actually watch the media they claim to love.

On June 15,
  • a post on the SnyderCut subreddit with 8 comments and 0 upvotes made a list of "actions" to discredit the newest Superman movie. Most if not all comments were disavowing this course of action and calling the OP names.
  • the post got brought to James Gunn's attention for him to comment on it, despite the fact that the post had no upvotes and only 8 comments.
  • Variety had an article ready to report on this for Monday morning, literally the next day.
  • The post was deleted.
Since then, it's come to light thanks to the account SomeHorseAround:
  • The post was created by a 15-year-old Snyder-hater with mental health issues.
  • Over a year ago, this user made sockpuppet accounts with a "kill list" of Snyder fans, but was outed when he failed to log out of his accounts while replying on another alt.
  • This 15-year-old (14 at the time) was outed by a school friend as someone who co-opted the school friend's trauma and family life as a cover story, as well as the owner of the "Church of Snyder" account, copycatting a previous "cultist fan" account.
  • This follows a long trend of James Gunn being terminally online and replying only to specific "fan accounts" or "hater accounts" that are obscure with little or no followers and no natural traction in the algorithm. He responds specifically to them in order to address specific gripes or praise, while ignoring bigger named accounts with more pertinent (or truer) commentary. The smaller accounts are then never seen again/deleted but exist long enough for a screencap or a publication.
More in this video:


In other news,

  • Rachel Brosnahan, the current Lois Lane, put out an interview where at some point she rags on actors and actresses who participate in superhero films only to complain about them later instead of standing by their flops. This appears to be a shot at Dakota Johnson, the lead in Madame Web who specifically complained about movies being made by "executives who don't have a single creative bone in their body", which is true. Not only does Brosnahan's remark sound like a self-report in the making, she avoids calling out directors who complain about studios after having made their money off of them.
  • Totally unrelated to the above, James Gunn complained about Marvel Studios and why their movies are bad, after he's stopped making movies for them. ;)
  • The DCU_Brief account posts a 30 second video captioned "James Gunn reading a DC Rebirth omnibus at his DC Studios office". In the video, James picks up the omnibus, opens to a random page, appears to flip multiple pages at a time (skipping them) while maintaining eye contact with the camera, puts it back, and the camera pans upward. This is considered "reading".
  • Regarding The Batman 2, it was reported in Entertainment Weekly on September 20, 2024 that Matt Reeves was finished with the script. It was amended months later in December 19 to Reeves clarifiying that he's "finishing the script," saying, "We've given big parts of what we've written so far to DC and they know what we're doing". James Gunn then recently stated in May that the script is still not done and called Reeves "slow". Included was an admission that "We just killed a project. ... It was greenlit, ready to go. The screenplay wasn't ready. And I couldn't do a movie where the screenplay was not good."
  • This admission directly contradicts his previous statement that "We won't greenlight a film until we have a finished script we're happy with". There would be no project to trash if he'd never greenlit it, and he wouldn't have greenlit it if he'd noticed the screenplay wasn't good. So he greenlit a bad screenplay and then realized how bad it was? Also ignore all of these other projects he keeps announcing.
  • A clip of Superman and Lois's interview was revealed on The Kelly Clarkson show. In it, Superman refers to himself in the third person, Lois calls that out as silly, Superman reveals he doesn't know what "off the record" means or how it works even though he's a reporter, and acts like a petulant child surprised that his girlfriend, Pulitzer Prize-Winning reporter Lois Lane, doesn't let her status as his girlfriend keep her from doing her job, which is to conduct the interview he literally agreed to do.
  • Gunn fans used AI to doctor an image of David Corenswet as a child, taking an image where he wore a shirt with a train on it and turning it into the Superman logo to manufacture a kismet/"he was destined to play Superman"-type moment.
  • James Gunn has made a statement that he doesn't mind Superman not making a profit, and will be satisfied with the project simply making its production budget back. This is in direct contrast to the publicly filed application found in the Ohio Motion Picture Tax Credit site. The Superman film applied for $36,972,289 in tax credits, putting the budget close to $363,845,386 dollars. While James Gunn has attempted to "debunk" this by asking "How in the world do they think they know what our budget is?" and suggesting someone at Cleveland made a typo, and while some other publication tried to state that the budget was more like $225M based on effectively hearsay and no evidence, The Hollywood Reporter has published that "one longtime financier says the $363 million figure isn’t incorrect. And sources say DC and its parent could spend as much as $200 million on the global marketing campaign, compared with the usual $150 million for an all-audience summer tentpole", which has not been debunked or stated to be incorrect by Gunn. In other words, this movie will need to make a billion before it's ever considered to sell well. This is what the current DC fandom deserves after claiming that Batman v Superman needed to reach over a billion because both heroes were each billion-dollar properties, despite no Superman movie ever grossing close to that amount.
 
The reviews are coming. John Campea has posted two videos citing an unnamed "Film Pundit" that called the latest movie "Sloppy, Messy, Convoluted".

It's being compared to Superman II "on steroids". Superman II very infamously was butchered by studio mismanagement having two directors, Richards Donner and Lester, on the project—and their varying tones clashing in editing (serious and loony, respectively), which prompted the fan campaign to release the Donner Cut. This was the Snyder Cut before the Snyder Cut.

I suspect Campea, by his description of the "unnamed Film Pundit" as reasonable and middle-of-the-road in terms of fandom and sentiment towards comics and comic book movies, is at best trying to describe Grace Randolph without officially outing her and burning potential bridges, or at worst is making up a person in order to test the waters by floating the notion that this film isn't 100% beloved. It's only when the permission structure changes for these people and they feel they're "allowed" by their audience to express a true opinion on something that they will do so.
 
An interesting phenomenon with the reviews for the latest Superman movie: the trades are actually slamming it, but Rotten Tomatoes is already frontloaded with early reviews from "access journalists"/influencers who were essentially bribed to come see the movie (gift packages, screening, "first-looks", etc.), and "fresh" reviews whose comments suggest they don't like the movie or that the movie is heavily flawed. Numerical scores and commentary such as “Never quite soars,” “Not a great movie,” and “I remain unconvinced,” are getting "fresh" logos applied where they would've been "rotten" if applied to other movies.

First: the leaks are true.

The movie does start with Superman being beaten up for the first time in three years.

Lex does have a pocket dimension where he keeps people he doesn't like, including ex-girlfriends. And he's described as having tortured Krypto in the pocket dimension.

There are mutant monkeys that spam hate for Superman over the internet, with the tags "Supersh!t" and "Secret Harem".

Supergirl is a drunk sorority girl and the true owner of Krypto, and she calls Superman a "b!tch".

Clark and Lois have been dating for three months, and Lois is still unsure about their relationship, but Clark tells her he loves her and that he should've "told [her] a long time ago". Three months is not a very long time at all, which insinuates that he'd have told her he loved her before they even started dating. That's dumb.

They do playact an interview that devolves into an argument; this is the first time he's ever been honestly pressed by a real reporter after using his own secret identity and superhero persona in tandem to boost his journalistic career with puff pieces. She even brings up the hashtag "Supersh*t," which makes Superman fly off the handle and whine about how it makes him feel, treating it as an utter betrayal of her to bring it up.

Jimmy Olsen is a chick magnet, bagging everyone including Eve Teschmacher, but he has her saved on his phone as "Mutant Toes" and doesn't seem to care if she lives or dies despite her being terrified by Lex and putting herself in mortal peril to deliver sensitive information about Lex.

Lex does decode a Jor-El message that portrays Superman as a conqueror. The leaks said, almost in disbelief of the whole concept, that Lex corrupted the messages. This is wrong. In the movie itself, Jor-El and Lara Lor-Van fully intended for Kal-El to infiltrate Earth and impregnate the Earth women to rebuild the population and rule over humanity. Mr. Terrific, one of the smartest men in the multiverse, confirms that the message is legitimate. The full message being,

Jor-El: "The people there are simple, and profoundly confused. Weak of mind, spirit, and body. Lord over the planet as the Last Son of Krypton."
Lara Lor-Van: "Dispatch of anyone unable or unwilling to serve you, Kal-El. Take as many wives as you can, so your genes and Krypton's might and legacy will live on in this new frontier."
Jor-El: "Do us proud, our beloved son. Rule without mercy."

And the same people that thought the leaks were "written by a Snyder die-hard using ChatGPT" watched those plot points unfurl in the movie and are probably lying to God and everybody when they say it's actually good. Either that or they're full into their delusion.

Secondly: Gunn appears to be doing a wannabe "progressive" grift by loudly calling this movie an "immigration story" to trigger the conservatives into branding this "woke" and refusing to watch it on principle, which will gather all the people who do brand themselves "woke" to watch the movie and rate it solely on perceived politics, ignoring the deeply cynical plot in which James Gunn's idea of an 'immigration story' is to have Kal-El on an explicit mandate to infiltrate, then outbreed and subjugate humans. The "positive message" of the movie is that he disavows his roots because his native culture is inherently predatory and genocidal, in favor of full assimilation into 1950s mid-Western American Values. But also, Ma and Pa Kent are portrayed as mentally slow rednecks that can barely string two sentences together. And the marketing for this movie plastered the imagery of some child(ren) in a fake Middle Eastern country raising the flag with the El crest, praying for Superman to arrive and save them as one would to God. And both The Engineer and Hawkgirl are played by Latina actresses, but since Engineer is a villain working for Lex, she throws in some random Spanish curse words to establish her Latinidad early on, but Hawkgirl who's on the good side doesn't say a single word of Spanish and spends her time screeching and being a sociopath. Nice way of signposting who the bad guys are, I guess!

Also, Superman focuses on saving individual things: a single squirrel, a single dog, a single little girl, a single woman running away, a single woman in a car. And he advocates to subdue and study the Kaiju terrorizing the city rather than kill it, only for the Justice Gang to blatantly ignore him and kill the Kaiju anyway. But then he allows Hawkgirl to kill a man without a lecture about it, and he himself kills Ultraman by letting him fall into a black hole. Ultraman is his identically genetic clone who's deemed "less intelligent" so it's okay that Superman lets him die, but the same people fine with that have been whining for the last 12 years about Cavill Superman snapping Zod's neck.

It's PG-13, so anyone overly concerned about a child younger than that watching the movie (on a family outing, etc.) should stay away unless they want to explain the concepts of Superman is being called a "b*tch," him having a "secret harem," "Supersh*t," and characters playing Russian Roulette.

If you're overly concerned about yourself watching the movie, you should stay away unless you want constant wide-angle lens and hyperactive camera, awkward editing and scene blocking, a poorly disguised Justice Gang movie with Superman vaguely there, Superman being a condescending PoS about his liberal interventionism in foreign countries but also getting beaten up constantly, the subversion of Superman's parents from being well-meaning adults who sent Kal-El as a refugee, in favor of turning them into galactic violators who sent their son on a mission to kill men and r*pe women, and a farcically dumb setting where news travels instantly and the world can flip from one opinion to another at the drop of the hat, and the movie constantly telling you that a city of tens of millions of people can be evacuated cleanly within minutes, and Superman lasering dozens of people out of the sky (as shown in trailers) but literally none of them die from this - they're shown writhing on the ground hurt.

The Standard: New Superman movie struggles to soar as critics voice disappointment and director sparks debate

The first reviews are in with some calling the latest incarnation of the Man of Steel ‘woke’ and ‘pointless’

The new Superman reboot, directed by James Gunn and starring David Corenswet as the iconic superhero alongside Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane, has landed with a mixed reception from critics.

Set for release on July 11, the film marks the opening chapter of the newly branded DC Universe but early reviews suggest that audiences might struggle to connect.

Ahead of the release, Gunn sparked controversy by describing Superman as “an immigrant” in an interview with The Sunday Times.

“Superman is the story of America,” the filmmaker explained. “An immigrant that came from other places and populated the country… for me it is mostly a story that says basic human kindness is a value and is something we have lost.”

Despite Gunn’s heartfelt intentions, many critics were unimpressed.

Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian called the film “a dim reboot,” describing Corenswet’s Superman as “square faced” and “soulless.”

Bradshaw lamented the familiar formula, asking: “How many more superhero films… end with the same spectacular faux apocalypse in the big city with CGI skyscrapers collapsing? They were fun at first … but the thrill is gone.”

Empire magazine was equally blunt in its two star review, saying the movie simply “didn’t work.”

Reviewer Sophie Butcher praised the chemistry between Corenswet and Brosnahan but felt the film’s climax was mired in “CGI chaos” and a “restlessly intermittent tone.”

She criticised the flick’s focus on secondary characters at the expense of its core leads.

The Times labelled the film a “migraine of a movie,” with Kevin Maher finding Corenswet “serviceable” but faulting Gunn’s direction as “indigestible mush,” as if the director were “a giddy amnesiac” unaware of recent superhero movie trends.

The BBC gave a slightly more generous three stars, describing the film as “glib and flimsy,” with Nicholas Barber noting the rushed storytelling left Superman’s true heroic nature unexplored.


There were some brighter notes.

David Rooney from The Hollywood Reporter called the movie “fun, pacy and enjoyable,” praising its “winning trio” of lead actors and affectionate tone.

Peter Hammond of Deadline highlighted the film’s ambition to explore “who we are, what we are becoming, and what we should aspire to,” even if the story sometimes “suffers from overload.”

Other reviewers were less convinced.

Toronto Star’s Peter Howell called the film “all over the place,” overwhelmed by too many characters and plot threads that felt more like a “preview of future DC Universe delights” than a standalone story.

Amy Nicholson of the Los Angeles Times found the film “not quite the heart soaring Superman” she hoped for but said it left her curious about where the saga might go next.

Meanwhile, IndieWire’s Dave Ehrlich praised the leads but criticised the film for “overcorrecting” from Zack Snyder’s darker Superman movies, saying it was “too busy reacting to the world at hand to create one of its own.”


With a reported $225 million budget, Gunn has downplayed box office pressure, telling GQ the film “doesn’t need to be as big a situation as people are saying.”

This version of Superman is presented as a young, established reporter balancing his double life, joining a cast of familiar DC characters including Mister Terrific, Metamorpho, Guy Gardner, Hawkgirl, and the beloved Super Dog Crypto.

The film’s underwhelming reviews come amid increasing signs that superhero fatigue may be settling in with audiences.

After years of CGI heavy blockbusters filled with similar storylines and citywide destruction, many viewers are craving fresh narratives or new genres.

Critics have noted that repetitive tropes are wearing thin, making it harder for even iconic characters like Superman to stand out.

While superhero films continue to draw significant audiences worldwide, there is growing demand for originality and emotional depth beyond the typical spectacle — a challenge this latest reboot appears to struggle with.

As the DC Universe seeks to reboot itself, it remains to be seen whether this new Man of Steel can rise above the crowded superhero landscape and win over fans.

Superman review: David Corenswet and Rachel Brosnahan soar, but the script is kryptonite

The James Gunn era at DC Comics begins, but "Superman" is less super-powered than we'd hoped.

It's a bird, it's a plane...it's a new Superman.

The latest version of the caped hero from Krypton has finally arrived, marking the start of the James Gunn era at DC Studios. It's got a superb bunch of actors — anchored by its exquisitely cast trio of David Corenswet, Rachel Brosnahan, and Nicholas Hoult. But no amount of super-strength can lift the gifted actors from the muddled mess of Gunn's script.

Gunn chooses to forgo another Superman origin story, which seems wise taken at face value. Instead, we're plunged into a story where Superman (Corenswet) has just lost his first fight after three years defending Earth. Superman has fallen to a figure dubbed the Boravian Hammer, who is really more a billion-dollar LARP suit controlled by Lex Luthor (Hoult).

This Superman, out July 11, isn't about a hero discovering who he is; it's about a hero discovering why his humanity, the core of who he is, is his best asset. If only that narrative weren't mired in paper-thin geopolitics, a carousel of characters whose names we barely have time to register, and an assumption that superhero shorthand will do the work of good story development.

Superman feels like the second or third entry in a franchise where new characters and increasingly wild twists are thrown at the hero for lack of inspiration. Hardly what one might expect from what's been touted as the calling card of a new era of the DC-Warner Bros. partnership.

Superman is backed up by a cadre of other metahumans, known as the Justice Gang (*maybe) — Guy Gardner (Nathan Fillion), Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced), and Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi), but we learn little about them beyond their powers (which include snarky one-liners).

Lois Lane (Brosnahan) and Clark Kent are already dating (and she is familiar with the secret of his identity, eliminating any stakes in that respect). But half of the fun of that relationship is watching it blossom. As we saw on The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, Brosnahan has the makings of an ideal girl Friday, a zippy, fast-talking, wisecracking reporter. Very little of that gets to shine through here, with "not really being good at relationships" being her defining character trait. (Why? There's no time to explain it beyond being a quick way to establish conflict between the lovers.)

Indeed, there is dismayingly little of the Daily Planet here, particularly of Clark Kent's role within it (which is a shame since Corenswet is the first Superman since Christopher Reeve to nail the adorable nerdiness and effortless charm of Superman's alter ego). Jimmy Olsen (Skyler Gisondo in yet another stroke of genius casting) gets a fun side-plot investigating Lex Luthor, but the verdant possibilities of the role of journalism and media in the story are side-stepped for TV reporter montages and winky cameos (perhaps that in and of itself is a commentary on the modern state of journalism).

Corenswet is a marvel as Superman/Clark Kent, seemingly born for the role (remarks upon his resemblance to Reeve far predate his casting). He layers a patina of boyish charm with a quiet intensity and intelligence, making Superman's All-American, cornfed upbringing a symbol of his genuine decency. He believably plays Superman's earnestness and kindness, leaning into the traits that could make the character feel old-fashioned in a cynical world. We don't deserve his Superman, but we sure as hell need him.

There are clear parallels to contemporary politics here, with Lex Luthor mounting a smear campaign against Superman's identity as an "alien," someone who doesn't belong. What has made Superman endure culturally since 1938 is his humanity — his fallibility and compassion — a fact which Corenswet gets to elucidate in a moving, climactic speech.

Superman's foil comes in Hoult's Lex Luthor, a man proudly consumed by envy, who, as Lois deduces, wants to be king (who said comic book allegory needed to be subtle?). Hoult joins Brosnahan and Corenswet in ceding character beats and development to a chaotic, teeming plot.

On The Great, Hoult played narcissistic villainy with a deranged glee — there are shades of that here, but he never gets the chance to fully unleash it. And forget about any explanations of LexCorp's rise, or purpose, as well as any sense of why Luthor hates Superman. Gunn relies on the fact that the audience knows who these characters are and what they stand for, forsaking interpersonal storytelling for a shorthand that diminishes the gifts of his stellar cast.

While the action scenes are fun, well-staged, and thrillingly photographed set pieces, they are also erratic, cutting between a fight and Luthor's crew of IT staff pulling the strings. Why do these people and his own metahuman, The Engineer (María Gabriela de Faría), subsume their humanity for him? Unclear.

It's the quieter scenes that shimmer with the greatness of what this could've been — an argument between Clark and Lois in the guise of an interview, a heart-to-heart between Clark and his Earth father, Pa Kent (Pruitt Taylor Vince). In these (sadly few) moments, we see Superman's singular humanity and universal foibles, his charisma and virtue glimmering with all the facets of the gem that he is.

In these moments, we also bear witness to the genuine, crackling chemistry between Brosnahan and Corenswet. Their kissing scenes are more electric and sensual than many more intimate scenes in recent cinema. The swoon-worthy element of the Lois and Clark relationship is potent once more, if only there were more scenes that let it soar.

For all of Superman's messiness, one has to praise Gunn for restoring light, humor, and romance to the DC universe. His signature quippy wit injects welcome levity to this world that, at its core, is, and should always be, fun. That's particularly evident in Gunn's knack for creating unforgettable animal sidekicks, which comes here in the form of superdog, Krypto.

Superman's scruffy mutt is instantly relatable for any dog owner who has pleaded with their pup to "leave it" in vain (thankfully, we don't have to coax our pets to drop super-powered technology). Gunn gives Krypto all the cute, frustrating traits of the best of man's best friends, furthering Superman's compassion and the film's playfulness.

Buried under heavy-handed shots of children awaiting Superman's salvation, scientifically opaque explanations of a pocket universe, and an ensemble of characters large enough to populate a Kansas small town, there are flickers of a good, maybe even great, movie.

Whether Gunn fell victim to the kryptonite of excessive studio notes, his desire to populate the film with his stalwart company of actors, or the hubris of not needing to offer reasons to be invested in these characters beyond the mere fact of their existence is unclear. Because there is an unquestionable love for the material and a passion for the goofier, larger-than-life scenarios of comic book lore.

With a cast this excellent, there's a capacity for something truly super in a future film — if only Gunn chooses to put the characters' humanity first. Grade: B-

Superman (2025) Review

Three years after announcing himself to the world, Superman (David Corenswet) gets caught up in a brewing war — while Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult) sets out to destroy him.

It may be the first film in the newly established DC Universe, marking the beginning of James Gunn’s reign over a new comic-book behemothian franchise — but with his Superman, the Guardians Of The Galaxy writer-director chooses to start in the middle. Krypton is gone, Kal-El (David Corenswet) is all grown up, and Superman (plus other metahumans and monsters) are part of everyday life for those on Earth. Clark Kent already works at the Daily Planet, is already dating Lois Lane (who already knows his superhero secret), and is already throwing himself into international affairs in the name of saving lives. We’re told all this in the first minute via on-screen captions, and the sense of being dropped into a story having missed the crucial first half never really goes away.

To catch you up, here’s the situation: Superman interfered in an attack from the fictional nation of Boravia on the fictional nation of Jarhanpur — draw whatever real-world parallels you like here — without any consideration for the geopolitical ramifications. As a result, he’s the target of global suspicion as to his reason for being on Earth, and retaliation in the form of genetically enhanced soldiers created by evil baldy billionaire Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult), whose ultimate goal is to take Superman down. It’s at this moment — just after Superman has lost his first ever fight (off-screen) — that the story starts.

It’s not that retreading the Kryptonian’s origin story would have been better — but the way Superman is constructed requires us to care about a war we have no context for, and the downfall of a hero whose ascension we haven’t seen. We’re given no sense of who Kal-El is before this, or the world’s sentiment towards him, and so aren’t equipped to feel any stakes in what happens next.

For all that feels off in the set-up, the performances are solid. Corenswet clearly fits the bill looks-wise, but also manages to convey the deep sense of duty that Superman feels towards Earth. Rachel Brosnahan is spiky and engaging as Lois, breathing life into a role with minimal dimension otherwise. The pair have clear chemistry; an early scene where Lois interviews Clark as Superman in a passionate clash of perspectives is one of the best in the film. Elsewhere, Nathan Fillion is amusing as Green Lantern, egotistical leader of the so-called ‘Justice Gang’, and Barry breakout Anthony Carrigan conveys some heart through a mountain of prosthetics as the element-manipulating Metamorpho. Hoult is having fun as Luthor, dishing out witty comebacks and maniacal screams, as well as genuine flashes of emotion.

But there are problems in the writing. Luthor lacks depth, portrayed simply as an abusive sociopath who’s targeting Superman out of spite, and indulging in “reckless science” at the cost of destroying the world entirely. Supes himself, meanwhile, is almost the pure-of-heart hero you want him to be, the one that Richard Donner and Christopher Reeve so masterfully achieved in their iteration — but some clunky dialogue and a cocky edge means the character never quite meets the mark.

As shown by the MCU’s Captain America: Civil War, the question of how governments might try to control superpowered beings, and the morality of decision-making under that kind of regime, can be the basis for blockbuster brilliance. Here, the aforementioned interview scene is the only time Superman really digs into that, otherwise treating it as a convoluted foundation on which to build a fantastical but flat final showdown. The conflict between Boravia and Jarhanpur is a clangingly on-the-nose representation of current events — but while the movie’s stance is commendable, the inclusion of real-life humanitarian crisis as a side-plot in a film this bombastic and snarky feels a little icky.

Visually, Superman is bold and bright and full of colour and cosmic invention — an area in which Gunn excels, and a nice change from the desaturated palette of Zack Snyder’s interpretation. That keeps the film entertaining for the first hour, but the final act sinks into CGI chaos, with an unsatisfying climax, an eye-roll-inducing reveal, a restlessly intermittent tone, and an insistence on prioritising things and people we don’t really care about over core characters.

The biggest saving grace? Krypto, the cheeky, cape-wearing canine sidekick. Superman may not be a great movie, but one thing’s for sure: Krypto is a very good dog.

David Corenswet takes on the blue-and-red mantle admirably, and glimpses of Gunn’s signature sense of fun shine through — but a lack of humanity, originality and cohesion means the movie around them just doesn’t work.

‘Superman’ Review: James Gunn’s Reboot Is A Painfully Mediocre, Super Generic Mess Of A Movie

There are a handful of questions I ask myself after I’ve watched a movie. Perhaps the most important of these is whether I’d like to see it again.

Sometimes – though rarely -- I enjoy a film so much that I know I’ll be back to the theater a second time before the theatrical run ends. This was the case with Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves. Other times, I hop online to pre-order the 4K Blu-Ray, like I did after seeing the How To Train Your Dragon live-action remake recently, and Ryan Coogler’s Sinners.

The other question I ask is whether or not I’d recommend that my friends and family go see the movie in theaters or wait for it to come to streaming (unless it’s a streaming movie, obviously). In some cases, of course, I simply don’t recommend it at all. I’m sure you could map the various stages of my enjoyment and recommendation onto a star chart. One I’d see again gets 4 stars. One I pre-order to watch at home, 3.5 stars. One I suggest you wait to stream, 3 stars. Anything below that . . . well.

I really wanted to love James Gunn’s Superman but I won’t be going back to the theaters to see it again, and I won’t be pre-ordering the 4K Blu-Ray and I won’t tell any of my friends or family to go see it, and honestly I can’t even recommend that you wait for streaming. This is one that you can safely skip. Go watch the 1978 movie again instead. That nearly 50-year-old movie flies where this one limps along, unsure of what exactly it wants to be, what tone it should adopt, and why it even exists in the first place. It has its moments. It has some good laughs and fun action, but the more I think about it the more I’m genuinely baffled at how this came to pass, how Gunn and DC could so utterly drop the ball.

I wanted to love Superman despite being concerned after every single new trailer released for the flagship DCU film. This was hailed as a return to form for DC after years of mediocrity. The Synderverse experiment had gone badly and DC and Warner Bros have struggled ever since to cobble together a cohesive cinematic universe to rival the MCU. Even as Marvel’s cinematic oeuvre slid into increasing irrelevance, DC floundered. Only the rare non-DCEU effort seemed to stick the landing: The first Joker film, Matt Reeves’s The Batman, the stellar HBO series The Penguin. Notably, all Gotham-flavored projects. Elsewhere, outside of reasonably decent efforts like the first Wonder Woman or Peacemaker, we were treated mostly to an incoherent mess, from The Flash to Black Adam. One box-office disappointment after another. So much money spent on everything but a good script.

Gunn promised to fix this with Superman, the first in a wider reboot of the DC cinematic universe that would involve recasting all but Gunn’s favorites – like John Cena’s Peacemaker, who makes a brief cameo in Superman. But this is far from the triumph that DC needed to restore faith in the comic book movie. Rather than soar, Superman crashes and burns despite the best efforts of its sprawling cast.

Some spoilers ahead (though I won’t spoil major twists etc.)

So Many Characters, So Little Time​

Mostly, this is a problem with the writing. David Corenswet is excellent as a younger, less gritty Man Of Steel. I enjoyed Henry Cavill in the role, but was never among those fans who insisted he should return, that noone could ever replace him. At his best, Corenswet is exactly the gosh golly gee wiz American Superman of old, determined to protect innocents and save lives. I wish we’d gotten more of this and less of the brooding, hunched over, down-in-the-mouth Superman this movie insists upon at every turn. I’m also not convinced of his chemistry with Lois Lane, played with sturdy confidence and just enough pluck by Rachel Brosnahan. However good both these actors are in their roles, whatever sparks fly are as artificial as the overbearing CGI. (More on that in a minute).

Nicholas Hoult does his level best with the billionaire corporate supervillain, Lex Luthor, but the antagonist in this film plays more like an angry frat boy than a scheming mastermind. For all his scientific brilliance – he’s found a way to create a pocket universe to use as a combination research facility / secret prison for bloggers and ex-girlfriends / warehouse for his angry social media propaganda monkeys – Luthor has very little in the way of memorable moments or lines. He’s a classic mustache-twirling villain but lacks substance and gravitas. His super evil plan to annex half of a third-world country and create his own kingdom is goofy more than anything. And no, “It’s just a comic book movie” does not excuse how ludicrous his motivations are. Alas, Lex Luthor is as generic and forgettable as the rest of the film.

The rest of the cast is, well, massive. Bafflingly massive. There are so many characters in this movie we never get a chance to care about any of them. Outside of one good scene between Clark and Lois, almost every frame is constantly packed with characters, whether this is the (admittedly very funny) Justice Gang (Nathan Fillion’s Green Lantern, Isabela Merced’s Hawkgirl and Edi Gathegi’s scene-stealing Mister Terrific) or Lex and his lackeys. Superman is overstuffed, both in terms of cast and plot. (The Justice Gang feels troublingly similar to Black Adam’s Justice Society Of America also, and honestly it’s even more troubling how similar the two movies are). Mister Terrific was a very fun character, though probably the entire Justice Gang should have been saved for a different movie. Same goes for Superman’s cousin, Supergirl, who probably should have been left to a post-credits scene.

Many of these characters are either underutilized – Wendell Pierce’s Perry White basically chews on a cigar, that’s his character – or weirdly mischaracterized. Ma and Pa Kent are the most stereotypical country bumpkins imaginable. Worse, Lex’s girlfriend, Eve Teschmacher (Sara Sampaio) is a ditzy blond straight out of an 80s’ movie. It’s shocking to see a woman portrayed this way in 2025, and I’m not one to usually get too ruffled over these things. Her “relationship” with Clark and Lois’s colleague Jimmy Olsen (Skyler Gisondo) is frankly bizarre, and mostly left unexplained in the film. But she’s ultimately responsible for the key information that leads to Lex’s downfall, so why portray her as such a stereotypical (and wildly dated) dumb blond?

I did like Krypto the dog, however. I really liked Krypto a lot. Perhaps the best line in the movie is Clark telling Lois “He isn’t even a very good dog but he’s out there alone and scared. I have to find him.” It was the one moment I felt anything at all during the film, at least any kind of real emotion. Maybe this should have just been Krypto & Superman, a movie about Supe and his puppy. I’d watch that movie again.

A Totally Generic Superhero Movie​

The overstuffed cast finds itself in an equally overstuffed, badly-paced plot. We begin, in media res, three years after Superman has made his true nature known to the world, three weeks after he’s stopped a war between a powerful Eastern European nation and its weak Middle-Eastern neighbor – a war we later learn was aided and abetted by Luthorcorp. The movie picks up three minutes after Superman lost his first fight, and we learn quickly that it was Lex’s mysteriously masked goon, Ultraman, who gave him the beating – largely thanks to an incredibly gimmicky strategy where Lex feeds Ultraman the “moves” he needs to use to beat Superman at his own game (a gimmick that returns in the final act, leading to an incredibly silly fight scene between the two metahumans). I have mixed feelings about skipping the origin story.

From here, the movie only stops once or twice to take a breath. The story moves from one action sequence to the next, racing forward at a breakneck pace that leaves little room for character development. Lois Lane gets a few scenes, but she’s quickly overshadowed by Mister Terrific. Superman is lost in the shuffle, less a hero with agency forced to make hard choices and more of a reactive force, hurtling between one crisis and the next. The one time he’s presented with a hard choice of any kind, he’s able to easily hand off his savior duties to the Justice Gang.

The movie falls into so many superhero genre traps it almost plays like accidental parody. Everything is chaos, but also too neat and tidy. There’s a major calamity that threatens to end the world in the third act, but of course, as with all conflicts of this type, we know the world will not end, so there’s very little tension or suspense. It’s a foregone conclusion that Superman will stop Lex and save the day, and even if that’s always going to be the case with Superman, making the stakes so impossibly huge ultimately makes them feel like no stakes at all. Smaller, more intimate and personal conflicts always work better for this very reason.

The structure of the plot falls into a narrative trap we see in all sorts of movies. Events happen and then other events happen. The movie moves from one event to the next not because there are consequences, but because that’s what Gunn needs to have happen to get from point A to point B. When a story progresses because characters make choices that lead to consequences that lead to conflict that lead to more choices that lead to more consequences, we end up caring about the characters and what they do a lot more. We become invested. (Matt Stone and Trey Parker note that the most important thing you can do in script-writing is avoid “and then” between beats. What should happen instead, between every single beat, is either the word ‘therefore’ or ‘but’. In Superman, every beat is connected by “and then” resulting in very little sense of causality or consequence whatsoever).

Meanwhile, events constantly transpire that feel forced and unrealistic. When the Daily Planet crew finds real dirt on Lex, they publish the damning article from Mister Terrific’s flying saucer as they escape a collapsing Metropolis. The news breaks everywhere almost instantly, despite world events like the total destruction of Metropolis and the outbreak of a new war also taking place at the exact same time. Perhaps I’m overly familiar with how news cycles work, but you only publish a story like this during the destruction of one of the largest cities in the country if you want to bury it, not if you want the truth out there. And perhaps I’m too familiar with the power of oligarchs, but I don’t see a news article leading to the downfall of Lex Luthor. I just see him spinning it as fake news, lawyering up and getting out of jail free, with his army of monkeys working overtime to change public perception.

A Tonal Disaster​

Of course, you might think this means that Superman is just an example of poptimism the way the Man Of Steel always has been. But Gunn not only overcorrects when it comes to redirecting the dark and gritty Synderverse, he can’t seem to settle on a tone. If this is an upbeat Superman movie, why does it feel so grim and cynical still?

If anything, the optimism of Corenswet’s Clark Kent feels wedged into the plot in spite of itself. Most of the time, Superman is depressed or angry or getting beat to a pulp or having cans thrown at him or getting arrested. We learn that his biological parents on Krypton weren’t actually good at all. They were basically just Viltrumites (the Krypton-like alien species from the excellent Prime Video series and graphic novels, Invincible) who sent their son to Earth not protect its people, but to rule and dominate them. He’s supposed to “take as many wives as possible” to spread his superior genes. This leads to a running “secret harem” joke that falls pretty flat.

The weirdly cynical nature of the movie stands in stark contrast to its purported optimism and the incessant jokiness only makes matters worse. Sure, it has lots of funny moments, but the humor is all wrong for Superman. I loved Guardians of the Galaxy, but where constant snark and Gunn’s sense of humor work so well with Star-Lord and his crew, it feels wildly out-of-place in a Superman movie. Tonally, this movie is all over the place. The fact that you never really get to care about any of these characters the way you did for Rocket or Groot or Gamora or Drax doesn’t help matters.

None of this feels like Superman. Superman never feels special. You could replace him with any number of other superheroes in this movie and it would work about the same. Whatever attempts to make this “alien” a stand-in for immigrants ultimately fall flat, a political message inserted without any conviction whatsoever. There is little in the way of conviction here at all.

An Assault On The Eyes​

Indeed, the only thing Gunn seems committed to in Superman is the oversaturated aesthetic. While some of the action scenes are fun and well-choreographed, I found the overall look of the film distracting. I’m glad that it’s colorful, but it has that cheap, plasticky “this is a commercial” color pallette that I find incredibly jarring. There are too many dizzying, wide-angle shots. The CGI is aggressive and overused. Some scenes, like a fight that takes place in an antiproton river in the pocket universe, feel almost more like a cartoon than live-action, and not in a good way.

Reusing the John Williams music from Richard Donner’s 1978 film felt a little hokey as well. I think I would have enjoyed just having it in the trailers and getting a totally original score for this movie. The needle-drops were pretty mixed as well, especially compared to Gunn’s past films, though I did really like the closing song, “Punkrocker” by The Teadybears featuring Iggy Pop. That’ll be in my head for days.

Between the overwritten plot, the sprawling cast, the neat-and-tidy resolution to the conflict and the glaring visuals, this is a Superman reboot that screams generic superhero movie at the top of its lungs. DC needed a Superman that could truly soar and instead we got a predictable, run-of-the-mill, weirdly pedestrian movie that’s mostly just painfully mediocre. James Gunn’s fingerprints are all over this one, and I think that’s the biggest problem. We needed a more straight-laced director to help Superman soar, and a script that tapped more earnestly into its universal themes of goodness and heroism, rather than just another superhero movie riddled with half-baked one-liners and the same-old same-old plot we’ve come to expect from the genre.

What a crushing disappointment. Here’s my video review: Superman (2025) Review – It’s Worse Than You Think

Terrible New ‘Superman’ Is Final Nail in Superhero Cinema’s Coffin


Just as the seemingly indestructible Man of Steel is fatally weakened by kryptonite, so too is the once-unbeatable superhero genre gravely threatened by audience fatigue.

Tasked (alongside Peter Safran) with reinventing Warner Bros’ DC movie brand with an all-new “DC Universe,” director James Gunn strives to combat such lethargy with Superman, a rambunctious reboot of the Action Comics icon that, tonally and narratively, is the exact opposite of Zack Snyder’s grimdark predecessors. It’s a big swing in a polar-opposite direction, and one that, alas, turns out be as big a whiff, resulting in a would-be franchise re-starter that resembles a Saturday morning cartoon come to overstuffed, helter-skelter life.

Superman’s hero is no brooding Snyder-ian Christ figure; rather, he’s a sweet and sincere do-gooder who uses the word “dude,” takes time out of fighting behemoths to save squirrels from harm, and believes that viewing everyone as beautiful is “punk rock.”

The same goes for Gunn’s film, which is set on an Earth overrun by metahumans, the most powerful of which is Superman (David Corenswet), who at outset crash lands in the Arctic after losing his first-ever fight to an armored adversary known as the Hammer of Boravia—a country whose attempts to start war with neighboring Jarhanpur was recently thwarted by Superman.

Dragged to the Fortress of Solitude by his caped canine companion Krypto, Superman is nursed back to health by his lair’s robot minions, all as he listens to an incomplete recording made by his parents that accompanied him on his initial journey to our planet.

Superman is soon back in the fight, although he doesn’t initially realize that his true enemy is Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult), whose unparalleled knowledge of the Kryptonian’s moves and instincts allows him to successfully direct the Hammer of Boravia in their clashes. Following this battle, Superman wrestles with growing political and public outrage over his rash unilateralism, and bristles at the nasty social media campaigns ruining his reputation.

He receives merely moderate support from Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan), his Daily Planet colleague as well as his girlfriend, whom he grants an interview only to immediately regret it. Everyone has doubts about the noble titan, including Green Lantern Guy Gardner (Nathan Fillion), who dubs him a “wuss” for wanting to study rather than kill a fire-breathing goliath, and who is partners with genius Mister Terrific (Edi Gathegi) and warrior Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced) in a trio he’s desperate to dub the “Justice Gang” (and whose headquarters is the classic Super Friends Hall of Justice).

Luthor is in league with the president of Boravia, whom he visits via portals through a “pocket universe” that he’s created, damn its potential to beget a reality-destroying black hole. He’s also determined to turn humanity against Superman by executing a scheme that raises nature-vs.-nurture questions this tale doesn’t seriously address.

Despite his enmity for metahumans and, particularly Superman, Luthor is aided in his quest by two superpowered minions, the nanotechnology-enhanced Engineer (María Gabriela de Faría) and the mute, masked Ultraman, who partake in some of Gunn’s elastic, hyper-speed skirmishes.

Superman doesn’t skimp on the high-flying action, to a fault; the film is so awash in over-the-top CGI insanity that its slam-bang mayhem loses its punch. Not helping matters, the charming Corenswet looks the part but, in the shadow of Christopher Reeve (whose son Will cameos) and Henry Cavill, he comes across as relatively slight—a situation exacerbated by the all-over-the-place nature of his saga.

Superman doesn’t establish its scenario so much as it situates viewers in media res and then asks them to hold on for dear life as it whiplashes about from one out-of-this-world locale and incident to another. While verve isn’t in short supply, substantiality is; by not first building a foundation for its fantasy, the film feels as if it’s operating in a comic-book sandbox devoid of any (literal or figurative) gravity.

That continues to be the case as Superman finds himself at the mercy of Luthor and is compelled to partner with the Justice Gang as well as Metamorpho (Anthony Carrigan), a shapeshifting creature whom he meets in an interdimensional prison that boasts an “anti-proton river,” and who asks him to rescue his giant-headed infant son from Luthor’s minions.

DC Comics die-hards may delight in Superman’s endless geekiness but everyone else is apt to feel adrift or, at least, along for a frenetic, flimsy ride that only feigns interest in actual emotion. Superman and Lois’ relationship gets about as much attention as do sequences in which the Daily Planet reporter flies a spaceship. And interjected into the middle of colorful chaos and madness, a trip back to Smallville to visit Ma (Neva Howell) and Pa Kent (Pruitt Taylor Vince) is too sketchy to generate aww-shucks pathos.

Unfortunately, the proceedings aren’t better when it comes to humor; though Gunn continues to be adept at balancing multi-character concerns, his script—unlike his superior Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy and 2021’s The Suicide Squad—delivers scant amusing one-liners or gags, save for cute Krypto’s habit of excitably wrestling and licking Superman at the least opportune moments.

With a chrome dome and a cocky sneer, Hoult makes for a faithful Luthor. However, as with Brosnahan and Skyler Gisondo as Jimmy Olsen—who has a straining-to-be-funny subplot involving Luthor’s selfie-loving girlfriend Eve (Sara Sampaio)—his performance is overwhelmed by the material’s endless sound and fury.

Zipping this way and that, Superman gets tangled up in fanciful nonsense that soon renders the entire affair superficial and silly. Similar to Snyder and Joss Whedon’s misshapen Justice League, Gunn’s spectacular overpopulates itself with heroes and villains it has neither the time nor the inclination to develop. Consequently, everyone and everything is two-dimensional, no matter that the director’s imagery is sharp and vibrant.

John Williams’ classic theme from Richard Donner’s 1979 Superman is heard (in different forms) throughout, yet it’s incapable of lending the scattershot film the magic it needs. Biting off more than it can chew, Gunn’s wannabe-blockbuster eventually resorts to setting up future franchise installments via quick-hit appearances from Maxwell Lord (Sean Gunn) and Supergirl (Milly Alcock). That’s not to mention by highlighting second-banana figures like Mister Terrific at the expense of fully establishing the altruistic heart of its protagonist, whose path toward self-actualization is mostly an afterthought.

Looking ahead rather than focusing on the here and now, this attempt at reimagining DC’s movie series ultimately proves to be more of the same old interconnected-universe bedlam that, at this point, is perilously close to going out of fashion.

The post Terrible New ‘Superman’ Is Final Nail in Superhero Cinema’s Coffin appeared first on The Daily Beast.

Variety broke its review embargo by proxy, prior to the embargo's lift date, in a review of Heads of State. A previous copy of the review stated,

You could be forgiven for writing off 'Heads of State.' But then, you would miss a movie that’s no sillier than 'Superman' and a lot more entertaining (a comparison worth making, since both adhere to a mythical sense of heroism).

but was since edited to the current version,

You could be forgiven for writing off “Heads of State.” But then, you would miss a movie that’s no sillier than big-studio superhero fare (a comparison worth making, since both adhere to a mythical sense of heroism).
 
Back
Top