Been drinking, so bear with me:
The wife and I do a x/10 score for any film we see, initially, to establish a baseline for discussion in regard to what we liked/disliked (we're not robots - I promise). Hers was: 8/10; mine: 4.5/10. To put those scores into context, I consider a 5/10 to be a work I wouldn't discourage a person from seeing, but also something I wouldn't recommend - 5/10 being the middle-ground, the "meh" (not bad, not good, just...it exists). As for the discrepancy...well, she works for Warner Bros. Discovery.
So, although I believe her score to be a bit biased (company-girl and all that), I don't think Superman (2025) is a "bad" movie. It just isn't very good.
I'm also a heretic because I think Man of Steel is the best Superman film-adaptation. We rewatched the Donner films in the last few days as a fun prep for this new movie - and they are...pretty f*cking stupid. For those of you who still hold those in high-regard, I encourage a "take off the rose-tinted glasses" re-viewing. Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, and Gene Hackman are great - despite the silly characters they're required to play. But, to paraphrase Logan, the '78 film and its sequel are: "Ice cream for bed-wetters."
So, getting to the point: I'm an adult (or I pretend to be). I do like fanciful things (entertainment is escapism). I ask two things of a particular piece of entertainment: (1) present, to me, an interesting story and (2) don't insult my intelligence. That's it.
Superman (2025) does not meet these requirements...though, not for lack of trying.
Let's start with: "an interesting story." This isn't it. The film establishes an overly complicated border skirmish between two fictional countries with comical names (BUT, BUT: THAT'S FROM THE COMICS!) and then uses this as some kind of basis for Lex Luthor marketing his bad guys as a solution to the supposed Superman problem. No one cares. The silly scenes with not-India/not-Pakistan's citizens gathering in the middle of nowhere to...repel the invasion, I guess?...are goof.
"Ultraman," alternatively, should have been named, "Bingo." Then, at least, when announcer-booth Luthor is calling out his fighting moves, maybe Ms. Rosencrantz (not in the movie) could have won a prize after all the punchy nonsense. "B-26! C-34! F-11!" "F*cking BINGO!" Here's $200...don't spend it all at the slot machines.
Like it or not, it's the "job" of this film to establish Superman - WHO HE IS - in this new continuity. On that note, it (the film) should be fired. Superman, here, is easily defeated and ultimately inconsequential. The Justice Gang do most of the heavy lifting in this story and, as they are supposed to be considered sub-par and not-up-to-the-task, the impotence of our protagonist forces the viewer to ask: What the f*ck is Superman's purpose in this story? If bad-haircut Green Lantern and his crew can handle most of the heinous shit in Metropolis, why should we care about Kal-El?
My major complaint in regard to this film is: it seems to be the manifestation of: James Gunn having a laugh...or not having anyone to answer to. No one in the production had the balls to question one man's approach to this particular adaptation.
I LOVE Guardians of the Galaxy. It manages tone - the humor is weaved into the seriousness of the plot BRILLIANTLY. That isn't the case, here. Kal-El is bested by: Luthor, The Justice Gang, Alien Guy with Baby, Bingo, The Engineer (I hate nano-crap...sorry, irrelevant personal critique), HIS OWN FUCKING DOG, oh, wait: not his dog: his drunk cousin's dog, etc.
WHAT the hell is this film?
WHO is this SUPERMAN?
The latter question is the only thing the movie absolutely needed to answer...and it doesn't, or, at least, it doesn't provide a meaningful response.
Casting-wise, David Corenswet is great - and this is coming from a Henry Cavil fan-person. He's got it - unfortunately, the film doesn't give him what he needs to fully convince the audience of his talent. I want to see this guy as Superman in all kinds of stories...this (the plot of the film) just isn't one of them.
Lois has always been a bit of a bitch (oh dear) and I feel Brosnahan handles the role, perfectly, in that regard - Lane is the best at what she does and doesn't suffer fools. Yet, the character's task in this film is a silly side-show.
Long story, short: There is too much irrelevant crap (irrelevant to Superman, the character) happening in this film to really give the audience what they want, or at least what I think the audience wants: a reintroduction to one of comics' greatest characters.
This brings about another issue: I see a lot of "You don't GET who Superman is supposed to be!"-comments from internet people.
Get over yourself. There are those of us who don't GET what YOU think Superman is supposed to be. There is not a definitive answer. I think Superman is one thing, you think something else. There is no more validity to your interpretation than mine.
I mention this because: I'm not criticizing this new film based on what I think Superman should be (I welcome all interpretations; Allah loves wondrous variety). I'm criticizing it because (rule no. 2): DON'T INSULT MY INTELLIGENCE...and this film is, well, kind of stupid.
