“Superman”: The Resurrection of DC or its Belated Funeral?

James Gunn’s take on the most popular superhero arrived in theaters last week. Does this new Superman fly, or crash down? Let’s find out.

I doubt there is someone on the planet who is not aware of it, but a Superman movie directed by James Gunn came out last week. I understand that promoting your movie is essential for success, but the marketing campaign for this was so heavy, so tiresome, that I can’t help but be glad it’s over. For the past weeks the internet has been inundated with videos of the cast doing silly things, and I saw a lot more of James Gunn than I wanted.

Even though I’ve never been a fan of the DCEU (in fact, I did not become interested in superhero films until a couple of years ago), everything surrounding its collapse has been pretty interesting. I’m also not a fan of Gunn as a creative. So more than excited, I’d say I was curious to see the results of a project that has been so divisive to the DC fandom. And after watching it, I have a lot of thoughts.

A little disclaimer: I’m not a comic fan; my opinion is based exclusively on the movies I have watched.

What is The Movie About?

The film begins with a screen full of text, explaining us a lot of things. We learn that Superman is in a difficult position after intervening in a military conflict between two fictional countries. One of whom is an ally of the U.S. We learn that he has been using his powers and name for only a couple of years. And that he just got his butt kicked in a battle. This start makes you feel like you missed half the movie, even though you arrived at the theater on time.

Villain Lex Luthor has taken the time to study our protagonist and create a sort of program that can predict his every move in a battle. This allows his other creation, Ultraman, to beat the hell out of Superman every time. Luthor also has this whole plan to destroy his reputation via social media. Yes, he wants to get Superman cancelled with #supershit. I’m not kidding.

Those are the most coherent plot points I can sum up for you. There are plenty of other random subplots happening during the two-hour running time that are difficult to make sense of. I’ll get into some of those aspects in more detail later on.

The New Superman

David Corenswet is alright in the role. He does not hold a candle to Christopher Reeve, but he is charismatic, he put in the work to look the part, and he has great chemistry with Rachel Brosnahan. He is just not given the space to show his full potential.

The marketing campaign gave me a clue where this was going. As I mentioned, the promotion of the film was about James Gunn, not Superman as a character or even David Corenswet. I think I saw more of Gunn and Broshanan than of him, even though he is the alleged protagonist of the movie.

Even though the project has his name, Superman is part of an ensemble cast of characters that are not all that interesting and have next to no development. Lois Lane, Lex Luthor, the Justice Gang, Jimmy Olsen, the Engineer, and Krypto—everyone is more relevant than Superman himself.

More than honoring a legacy character, the film seems to dumb him down, making him way too emotional. When people think about Superman, they think about resilience, strength, and confidence. This new Superman has the same emotional control as a teenager. He is always angry and frustrated, he screams a lot, he loses most of the fights, and no one really respects him.

Gunn even took the liberty to change his origin story: instead of sending Kal-El to Earth to save his life and let him be a guide to humankind, this film reveals that Jor-El and Lara wanted him to conquer Earth and continue the Kryptonian legacy. On screen it’s Bradley Cooper in a white tunic, telling his son to form a harem and procreate with as many women as possible to fill the planet with little Kryptonians. I cannot decide whether this is outrageous or funny. Why would you include it? What was the need?

Gunn also brings along his sense of humor, which is not a great fit for a character like Superman.

Were We Supposed to Laugh?

Personally, I prefer superhero movies with a more dramatic and realistic approach; that is why if I have to pick a favorite Superman film, I think I’d go for Man of Steel. Say what you want about it, but despite its flaws, when you compare it to most modern superhero films, you appreciate it.

However, Richard Donner’s Superman had a more lighthearted vibe that allowed itself moments of comedy, and I love it. But this film in particular had a much simpler and more charming sense of humor, something innocent and comforting. James Gunn’s project has nothing to do with that, and that is one of the main points that prevented me from enjoying the film.

Humor is subjective, and some people may have found Superman amusing, but to me 95% of the jokes fell flat. With the plot and character development already being questionable, the humor in the film can only be described as dumb, unsophisticated, and loud. I would have found it funny when I was ten years old, but as an adult watching it in a theater, I could only cringe by myself in the dark.

And again, it’s Superman. The character demands more solemnity. This is not The Suicide Squad.

I suppose Gunn wanted to make the movie appealing to an audience as big as possible and decided to direct his project towards a younger demographic. The type of humor, the addition of social media to the plot, the brighter colors, the short scenes—everything seems to have been done to cater to Gen Z and Gen X viewers. I don’t think these people are interested in cinema, but… alright. Maybe for some it will count as a family movie. 

Another related point was the introduction of Superman’s dog. Usually, if the protagonist has a dog or cat, I’m 50% more likely to like a film. In this case, the whole Krypto situation left me quite indifferent. Yes, he’s cute, but not for a moment was I capable of forgetting he was CGI. Krypto participates in the events of the movie somehow, but his presence struck me as a tactic to charm the kids and sell plushies.

The New Lois Lane

Of all the Superman movies I have watched, the only Lois Lane I have liked is Margot Kidder. Kidder and Christopher Reeve build an amusing dynamic: she does not give Clark the time of the day, but when he takes off the glasses and deepens his voice she is mooning over him. The tone of the film allows that to happen, and it’s adorable!

In Man of Steel, on the other hand, even though we are supposed to care about that love story, Lois and Clark’s bond is almost nonexistent. It’s not with Amy Adams; I love her, she is Princess Giselle. But the film presents a Superman that is very conflicted about his purpose and going through a hard time. Lois knows that Clark is Superman and is aware of everything, and she comes out as completely indifferent to it. She doesn’t seem to that into him, the movie does not take the time to build a bond between them. So when her life is in danger… I don’t care all that much. The new Lois gave me the same vibes. Maybe she is like that in the comics, and the movies are just being accurate?

Rachel Brosnahan as Lois

Rachel Brosnahan is fine in the role. I know she is a much better actress than what this film shows. Her Lois is already aware of Superman’s identity, and they have been dating for three months, but she is not so sure about the future of the relationship. As we don’t get to see them meet, and they don’t have a lot of scenes together, I find it hard to connect with that love story. The chemistry between the actors is good, but again, the script gets between them.

Even though the film does not go for the self-explanatory “female empowerment” we are used to seeing, it is there in the background. Lois is professional, intelligent, and has a strong character. Which is not a problem in itself, but it contrasts with all the men in the movie, who are emotional and whiny. Stoicism, bravery, and testosterone left the chat. I think that is why I don’t like her very much: they dumbed everyone down, except for her. That is not an accident.

At the end, after not experiencing any relevant changes, Lois decides she is in love with Clark after all. So good for Clark, I guess. It gave me the same emotional satisfaction as a visit to the dentist.

Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor

Hoult is hands down the best actor of the project. I was not surprised by this, for I’m yet to see a project where he does not do an excellent job. But his talent is thoroughly wasted in Superman.

This versión of Lex Luthor is an improvement from Zach Snyder’s take on the character. He is cold and evil; he has Superman’s every movement figured out. But for all his evilness, his motives end up being kind of stupid. He is jealous of Superman because he wants people to pay more attention to how brilliant he is. He has many opportunities to kill his enemy, but he doesn’t for some reason. And then he cries when his evil plan is ruined. Again, why are all men so temperamental in this film? Stop weeping, you’re supposed to be threatening!

Box Office and Critical Response

The critical response has been enthusiastic, as expected, but general audiences have also received Superman quite well. The comparisons with Man of Steel have been an unavoidable topic of conversation, and a battle between Snyder fans and Gunn fans has ensued. Which was also to be expected, I think. So let’s leave our opinions aside and focus on the one objective factor: the numbers.

I was expecting this to be either a big success or a scandalous flop. But curiously, at least so far, Superman is none. It is trapped in limbo.

The results of the first week are not bad, earning $272.000.000 worldwide until now (Friday). But we should not forget that there were more early screenings than usual: some people could watch it as early as Monday of last week. I myself managed to get tickets for Wednesday, with my country’s release day being Thursday. So the first week of Superman ended up being more like a week and a half.

And if we watch closely, a substantial part of that money is coming from the domestic box office. When it comes to international markets, the movie has not even reached $100.000.000. Blockbusters rely on the international box office to hit huge numbers. If there is no interest out of the U.S., that is something to be worried about.

And we should also be considering that Superman was an expensive movie. The official production budget is said to be $225.000.000, which does not account for the bestial amount of money they spent on marketing. Let’s pretend for a moment that we believe them; the movie would need around $600.000.000 just to break even. Any less than that, and we are looking at a disaster.

Will DC Survive this?

The media is still selling it as one of the hits of the year, but this second weekend will be crucial to define whether James Gunn has managed a modest success or dug DC’s grave for good. The next week Marvel releases The Fantastic Four: First Steps, and while I have no faith in the project, it will represent some competition. If there is not an improvement by Monday, Superman is cooked.

There is at least one more film announced for next year (that is Supergirl, who makes an unappealing cameo at the end of Superman), but after that… God only knows what will happen to the DC Universe.

To sum things up, Superman is nothing special, and whether you can enjoy it or not will depend on your expectations. It’s brighter and more lighthearted than Man of Steel, but does not capture the charm of Richard Donner’s films. The humor is lousy, the plot is nonexistent, and the protagonist’s origin is destroyed. In my opinion, it’s not a good movie, but I have seen worse projects in 2025 alone. If you wait a couple of months and watch it at home, you will not be missing out on much.