By Nithilan Balachander (26A01C)

Superman is the original. The first. The archetype of all superheroes. Debuting in 1938 with a cape and emblem, a secret identity, and an unwavering moral compass, he started what is now the most culturally dominant genre in all of entertainment.

Yet, while the MCU has established itself as a seemingly invincible box office behemoth, Superman—and DC in general, for that matter—has only declined further and further into irrelevance and insignificance.

Now, tasked with reimagining the oldest superhero and resurrecting a dead universe to go with, writer-director James Gunn (“Guardians of the Galaxy”, “The Suicide Squad”) delivers the silliest Superman feature in all of cinematic history—and it is exactly the treatment Superman needs.

Back to Basics

What defines the first solo Superman movie in over 12 years?

Let’s start with the antagonist—who else could play the villain but arch-nemesis Lex Luthor? Portrayed respectively and brilliantly by David Corenswet and Nicholas Hoult, the contrast between Superman and Lex is all but subtle. 

Superman, the epitome of kindness and goodness, is also Clark Kent, an endearingly awkward farmboy-turned-journalist, in his free time. Lex Luthor, the cartoonishly evil billionaire CEO of the modestly named LuthorCorp, seeks to destroy Superman out of pure jealousy. It is the archetypal Superman storyline—and to no surprise, it works beautifully. 

Next, Lois Lane. Rachel Brosnahan brings energy, charisma, and chemistry to one of the most iconic couples in all of fiction, qualities sorely missing from 2013’s “Man of Steel”. Notably, the other side characters in The Daily Planet were also not sidelined. From Ma and Pa Kent to Krypto the Dog, Gunn’s worldbuilding develops the Superman mythos exceedingly well and with flair.

Yet, even with solid and simple Superman mythology underpinning the film, Gunn is far more ambitious. Viewing its barely two-hour runtime as a challenge rather than a constraint, the film is sprawling and filled with subplots, ranging from kaiju to geopolitical crises to artificial pocket dimensions…

Still, even with a long string of characters introduced, some having absolutely nothing to do with Superman, the film scarcely feels bloated. The subplots are purposeful, and the worldbuilding is elevated through the stunning visuals.

“Superman” is very much a movie rooted in classic Superman concepts. But, it is also a refreshingly epic spectacle, which is the exact treatment Superman deserves.

Why So Serious? 

Most interestingly, “Superman” succeeds where other films like “Thor: Love and Thunder” or “Black Adam” may have struggled—making a silly movie without losing the plot.

Despite the weight that comes with a character like Superman, Gunn does not in the least compromise his chaotic style of filmmaking. Below is a list of selected fun things I could remember from the film, presented without context:

• A giant “demonic imp” in Metropolis
• Robot butlers in Superman’s house
• Clark Kent’s hypno-glasses
• Superman saying “What the hey, dude!” to Krypto the Dog
• Krypto the Dog
• Green Lantern’s bowl cut
• Lex Luthor having his… own personal pocket dimension?
• Superman’s trunks

Despite all of that, “Superman” somehow pulls off a balancing act of delivering genuine depth within its unabashedly goofy tone. One subplot sees Superman stopping the fictional country of Boravia from invading the equally fictional Jarhanpur—suspiciously similar to certain real-life military conflicts—and also explores his ethics regarding interventionism. 

After all, a billionaire of questionable ethics trying to buy off the U.S. government only seems all the more relevant today—an irony perhaps lost on those it is most applicable to. But at the end of the day, while admirable, these ideas still serve largely as plot devices rather than areas for meaningful engagement.

Still, “Superman” stands out in a crowded field of superhero films. Compared to an MCU where every movie seems to have the same colour filter and a DCEU where the main villain might as well be Rotten Tomatoes, Superman is the rare comic book movie that actually feels comic book-y.

The film’s colour grading is saturated, its costume design eccentric, and its wordbuilding outlandish and unconcerned with any sort of realism. These elements never detract—instead they elevate “Superman” into one of the most stylish superhero films in years. Who would’ve thought that comic book movies should actually feel comic book-y?

What’s So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?

As the archetypal superhero, Superman is also perhaps the most simplistic. Yet, it is that simplicity—and the perceived blandness that comes with it—that has made him so difficult to adapt.

But the way James Gunn’s “Superman” neatly packages the hero’s supposedly straightforward ideals may also be what makes it the most compelling as a story. When questioned by Lois about his intervention in the Boravia-Jarhanpur war, Superman replies bluntly: “People were going to die!”

While comic book superheroes were often created as uncomplicated characters with unflinching morals, they have grown into far more complex and morally ambiguous characters, reflected in films like “Man of Steel” and “Captain America: Civil War”.

In such a landscape, Gunn leaning into Superman’s innate good and Lex’s cartoonish evil is something that genuinely feels refreshing.

All in all, “Superman” brings back the Man of Steel to the big screen with what he has been sorely missing for so many years—joy, energy, and a sense of humour. The result is an absolute delight to watch.

“Superman” is currently in theatres.