"Superman" Means Well, But Ultimately Doesn't Fly

On the one hand, James Gunn’s “Superman” is just the kind of movie we need right now. The story of an immigrant coming into our world to help people in need while a gazillionaire tries to discredit him using every technical and scientific resource available to him (and only him) while conspiring with a deranged world leader in hopes of both of them taking over the world (one of them becoming King) is the kind of storyline that gets the right people all upset and everyone else thinking to themselves, “boy, if only we could have such heroism in real life.” And if only actual journalism had the kind of power to take down such villains, as happens in this film. “Superman” was written before the reelection of Donald Trump, of course, but many will marvel at how prescient and in-the-moment the film ended up being. Had Trump lost (oh god, if only), “Superman” would simply be a talking point for the pundits over a weekend, but instead we all live in the current timeline where this movie will likely be “investigated.”

So, yeah, a movie where the key political figures in our everyday lives get their comeuppance is needed right now. On the other hand, I just wish it were a better movie. Gunn’s version of the Man Of Steel opens with captions to get us situated and that we won’t be going through the motions of origin story fatigue once again. Smart move. Yet, we meet our Superman (David Corenswet) at the end of a battle, in the middle of a barren, icy landscape, looking battered and beaten to a pulp. He whistles into the void and soon he is aided by his dog, Krypto the Superpup, an equally superpowered, good-boy doggie with red cape and all. The Fortress of Solitude springs out of the ground and the dog drags Superman’s seemingly crippled body through the snowy tundra for some much-needed aid. 

This happens a lot in “Superman.” The dog, I mean. Of course, it’s an adorably rendered piece of CGI, but it becomes Gunn’s crutch as Superman finds himself in one perilous situation after another and the only way he can get out of it is by having his dog help him out. I’m not suggesting that Superman always got himself out of every jam without anyone else’s help (what if he never appealed to Miss Teschmacher’s  sensitive side in the 1978 film? How else would he have gotten the Kryptonite chain off?). The dog is too easy, though. It feels more like a means of getting cheap applause from the audience than as a clever solution to a sticky problem. What heartless person wouldn't applaud a dog every chance they get? 

Of course, we’re also meant to applaud the eventual demise of our villains. As Lex Luthor, Nicholas Hoult seems like the perfect choice and he certainly looks the part, but Gunn practically introduces him in mid sentence. “Superman” is so eager to keep the pace brisk that we’re not quite given a sense of who Lex Lothor is or what he ultimately wants. When we do find out, it’s disappointing to learn we’re dealing with another tired trope whereby a black hole could conceivably swallow up most of humanity and the plan centers on a portal leading to another universe altogether. Lex’s other motive for destroying Superman (a psychological one) is less convincing. Hoult is a great actor, one of our best, but I kept waiting for his performance to surprise me. Maybe Gunn’s script didn’t allow for that. 

The film also makes the mistake of bringing in another gang of superheroes for Superman to either compete with or join up with, depending on the needs of the script. Gunn succeeded with this type of thing before with his “Guardians Of the Galaxy” movies (less so with “The Suicide Squad,” though many disagree). Here, the “Justice Gang” (they can’t decide on a name)--consisting of Michael Holt/Mr. Terrific (Edi Gethergi), Guy Gardner/Green Lantern (Nathan Fillion) and Kendra Saunders/Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced)--becomes another distraction in a film that seems to function solely on distraction, although admittedly, they also have the funniest moments (their big fight in the background of an otherwise dramatic moment, is the film’s funniest bit). One guesses that these three will earn their own movie someday, but here, they make this film feel overstuffed. 

As for the Daily Planet, it sadly feels like another world that is not our own, but that is not Gunn’s fault. Any movie about the importance of concrete, investigative journalism is going to feel like something out of a bygone era, even in a comic book setting. Corsenswet and his co-star, Rachel Brosnahan, as Lois Lane, have good chemistry in their biggest scene together. In this version of the story, Lois and Clark are already dating. She knows his secret, but pretends not to while they’re at work, where Clark seems to always land an interview with Superman to have ready to be printed on the front page. In this scene, he grants her an interview with Superman, with him never changing his outfit to suit the occasion. He reveals too much and she keeps having to remind him “this is on the record!” It’s a very good scene that belongs in a better movie. 

Yes, “Superman” has heart and its optimism will no doubt be a big part of its appeal this summer, but one of the biggest moments of the film rings too hollow. When Superman confronts Lex on being an alien to planet earth, he does so in a manner that feels shoehorned in and inauthentic, as if the events of the past six months prompted a quick re-shoot. Superman preaches to Lex about his virtues as an outsider. The sentiment is all well and good, but it comes off awkward and stilted. That is the film’s overall problem: In trying to be different from other comic book movies, it ultimately ends up in the same place as many before it: a well-meaning mess that doesn’t leave a long lasting impression, except maybe for potential dog owners.