Superman (2025) Review

Intro

First, I would like to speak on some of the enjoyable aspects of my theatrical experience of Superman (2025). The acting performances were decent; there were no characters who I felt stood out as carrying the movie, nor any characters whose performance felt like they were lagging.

Nicholas Hoult’s Lex Luthor, which was my favorite performance of the movie, for the most part held frame as a sharp-minded and daunting character, which attempted to bring gravitas to the movie.

Additionally, there was a scene where Rachel Brosnahan’s Lois Lane and
David Corenswet’s Clark was in an interview setting, and the dialogue had a pleasant flow. There was a whimsy to that conversation that I enjoyed, and an ethical concept at play that was mildly interesting.

The action scenes were easily the best part of the movie. They were fast and legible but also creative enough to enjoy them from a pure choreographed standpoint.

Having said that, this review is primarily going to be a criticism of the movie, so let’s get into that.

A Lackluster Romance

At the center of this movie was a romance between two of perhaps the most well-known and time-tested characters, Clark Kent (Superman) and Lois Lane. I did not fully comprehend Lois and Clark’s connection in this movie, and it made a lot of presumptions. I believe the purpose of this was to grant people’s desire to see Lois and Clark together doing Lois-and-Clark-things based on notions that existed before this movie was ever conceived, without having to explain, justify, or ground it in some kind of reality. They substituted a broader human connection in their relationship with merely a physical one, which is consummated with the occasional glance or kiss, which they do on two notable occasions. The issue in this movie is that the romance did not permeate the totality of the characters’ interactions, didn’t feel rooted in any shared experience between the two, which a bad faith argument could easily explain away as being the reasonable cause of the movie taking place after the two had already been in a relationship for some time. There was no “chemistry” for lack of a better term. The fact that these two specific people are together didn’t feel justified in practice. What is more, even during the moments when Lois and Clark shared a physical romance, there was always some kind of ironic and insincere overtone, particularly in the final flying kiss scene, where even that moment was victim to the oft-repeated and tired old trope of the snarky remark cutaway.

My only explanation was that perhaps the story knew that the audience believed Lois and Clark were supposed to be together, like Peter and Mary Jane, Bruce Banner and Betty Ross, Romeo and Juliet, and so making it feel rooted in reality wasn’t important as long as the conclusion that people desired was granted. Which fits, as the movie regularly, superficially, and cynically plays to the nebulous idea of what Superman ought to be without ever confronting it. Which leads me to my next point.

Sincerity vs Sentimentality

Pa Kent has served as a heavy source of heart for past adaptations of the Man from Krypton, and this one was no different. This rendition of Pa Kent was not all that bad when he and Martha were not busy being portrayed as abrasive country folk caricatures hee-hawing on a FaceTime video chat with Clark. What I found cynical, however, was the last-minute burst of sentimentality starting from the scene where Clark is recovering at the Kent Farm. This was the key moment of the movie that confirmed for me how deeply cynical, hollow, and derivative this movie was going to be. Specifically, this version parrots back to us the conclusion associated with a similar scene in Man of Steel (2013), where Pa Kent is teaching his son a lesson on moral responsibility. Paraphrasing the 2025 Jonathan Kent speech:

"Parents aren't for telling their kids what to do. They're here to give them the tools to make fools of themselves all on their own. Your choices, Clark, your actions. That's what makes you who you are. And son? I couldn't be more proud."

This is what the 2013 Jonathan played by Kevin Costner meant by his controversial "maybe". The key difference is not what was said, but how it was said, which in the 2025 version is a decidedly more accessible, spoon-fed, and pithy sentiment that plays to a broader audience. After this scene, the movie intentionally leads you to believe that Superman will then use this inspiration to save this little foreign boy, favoring someone of Middle Eastern nationality, who was the subject of a foreign conflict. A conflict that had so little consequence for Superman aside from what was verbally related to the audience as happening before the opening credits, and could easily have been removed from the movie altogether. The boy was seen earlier clutching onto a flag of the titular namesake, repeating Superman’s name, tears streaming down his face as he was almost about to be mowed down by a group of invading armed soldiers. Toward what was this culminating? Superman does not save the desperate child crying his name; Alas, it was the nonchalant corporate superhero gang. At this critical moment of potential sincerity, in came the off-putting, bowl cut, comic relief big Corpo stand-in, throwing the bird with his giant CGI middle fingers because why? We live in a backwards world where irony is sincerity and sincerity is cringe. Some really do just want things spelled out for them, and that is for whom this movie is tailor-made.

The last-minute sentimentality after the Kent Farm scene also reveals the movie’s shallowness and detachment from the rest of the movie. What does Superman’s decision say about him? About the story? The answer, compared to a tear in space-time that will consume the planet, is that the life of the individual is less important. Which is not an idea that I have a problem with a movie toying with. In fact, that is quite interesting. What it shows me, though, is that a movie that goes out of its way to create opportunities to flaunt Superman saving the individuals that it puts in harm’s way (aside from the one compulsory “the villain is getting serious moment”), is its goal to show Superman prioritizing them only when it is “fun”, the notion of greater good only when it deems convenient and the two never conflict because that would be a drag.

A Long History of Bathos

Moving on to other ways that the movie avoids sincerity is the humor, in which Gunn utilizes all of the time-tested tools in his toolbelt to nuke any semblance of gravity. There are many examples, but here are a few.

· In general, every character, regardless of their role in the story or their own personality, is forced to engage in some form of narrative irony. Even characters like Mr. Terrific played a parody of a stoic character rather than just being stoic.

· The movie attempted to make everything feel as mundane and ineffectual as possible, and engaged in bathos at every opportunity, as I mentioned in the final kiss scene.

· Krypto the Superdog attacking a squealing Lex Luthor as everyone in the room fell silent, Clark downplaying the situation as a small puppy misbehaving, equivalent to the famous scene of Hulk Smashing Loki to take the piss out of a serious antagonist.

· The many Lex Luthor-induced disasters felt incredibly inconsequential.

· I frankly don’t know where to begin with Supergirl, but to be fair, she was as integral to this movie as either of the two end credit scenes.

Even when the movie is not actively using humor to bury sincerity, it is simply unfunny. There were at least two ongoing “Dumb Bimbo” stereotypes in this movie (which on principle I’d have no problem with if it was funny), an unexplained green CGI alien child that perplexingly disappears by the end and a CGI dog which shares a lot of the same purpose as the alien baby, just for longer. It was simply more of the acceptably weird James Gunn gimmick.

All things having been said, Superman (2025) is merely a recycled MCU movie. Not much more, not much less.