Don’t get me wrong…I’m a huge fan of movie critics like the Critical Drinker, Nerdrotic, Jeremy Jahns, and even a lesser known (but super funny) critic like Thorias Unlimited…but as a fellow writer, I have to say James Gunn’s Superman was really good and I’m glad I was able to see it in theaters.
Trust me when I say, I came into this movie fully prepared to be disappointed. Henry Cavill’s “Man of Steel” is literally one of my top 5 movies of all time. I was stubborn. I went into the theaters thinking to myself, “there’s only one Superman, and it’s Henry Cavill…”
Then I saw the movie. Brace yourself…spoiler alerts are coming. And cutting to the chase, as a Christian Conservative myself, I can tell you that I don’t think this movie was “woke”.
Points Discussed:
- Beware the Movie Critics – We are Jaded and Biased:
- Hit the Ground Running – No Origin Story
- Not Every Character Needs to be “Fleshed Out”
- Lois Lane is an Awesome Journalist who Loves her Man!
- Lex Luthor was Great and His Evil Made Sense
- David Corenswet Had Some Big Shoes to Fill:
- The Focus on Goodness and the Sanctity of Life
- Superman is not a Woke Movie:
- My Three Small Negative Critiques
Beware the Movie Critics – We are Jaded and Biased:
Sometimes, I think Critics have become too spoiled in the sense that they already have a notion of how a story should go, and when it doesn’t go the way they selfishly think it SHOULD go, they call it bad and stupid.
Think about it. Brad Pitt’s “F1” just came out and I saw critics praising how great and amazing it is. However, I suspect this is the case because most of those critics went into the film not truly knowing what to expect. How many of them really know anything about F1 Racing? But Superheroes…thanks to the MCU, damn near everyone’s an expert.
I say “Beware the Critics” because last year, my wife and I missed out on some really awesome movies because almost every critic said they sucked. The biggest one was Chris Evan’s “Red One” with the Rock.
Sooooo many people said this was a bad movie. But when my wife and I watched it…it was amazing! It was funny, action-packed, and kept us entertained from start to finish. We regret that we didn’t see it in theaters.
Was it a little predictable? Yes. But who cares! I’d take predictable and wildly entertaining (like Red One and Gladiator 2) over unpredictable and deeply intriguing (like Tenant, Inception, and Oppenheimer).
No, I’m not saying those other movies suck, but I’m just cautioning readers that you gotta take their criticism with a grain of salt.
As a fellow writer, I can tell you that all of us Screenwriters are in some ways jaded because our minds are trained to see what others don’t. Things like plot armor, foreshadowing, Mary Sues, and exposition dumps are lost on the initiated. And that’s okay.
If filmmakers are honest with themselves, they aren’t offended when critics call out predictable writing, IF…they know it’s not their primary focus to come up with provocative and clever dialogue because the MAIN focus of entertainment will be in the fight choreography (like Raid), style (like John Wick), or special effects (like Transformers).
Alright…now let’s get into Superman.
Hit the Ground Running – No Origin Story
First thing I liked…is that it dropped us right there in the middle of the story. No, it’s not a “non-linear” movie that presents events out of order, which a lot of my old classmates were big fans of in Film School, almost to a fault…Superman simply starts the movie with Superman having just been beaten from a recent battle.
The story starts from there, and I like that. Just drop us in the middle of the action and keep going from there! We the audience will figure out what’s happening as you continue. I like that!
Some critics have slighted the movie for that. They wished it started with a huge first act about Superman’s origin story…but that’s been done soooo many times! It would’ve only added to its 2-hour run time. And since the character is so widely known, it’s unnecessary.
If you look at Matt Reeve’s Batman, his movie was like that too. It just starts off on a random night where Batman is out on patrol fighting crime and goes on from there. Love it!
Not Every Character Needs to be “Fleshed Out”
Speaking of that 2-Hour Run time, I saw some comments criticize about how this isn’t enough for each character to get fully fleshed out. You’ll read that the movie is a “mess” because there’s too many characters in it, like Hawk Girl, Mr. Terrific, Green Lantern, and so forth.
IMO, James Gunn’s Superman gave each of these side characters just the right amount of time in relation to the main story.
What I mean is…I came to watch “Superman”. I didn’t come to see Mr. Terrific or Nathan Fillion’s Green Lantern. Don’t get me wrong, it was cool to see those side characters and I think they were awesome in the movie. But I actually would’ve been upset if the writing’s direction pulled from the main plot to side-track into all these characters that I couldn’t care less about.
When I went and saw the recent “Jurassic World” with Scarlett Johansson…I immediately got upset when the movie turned its attention from the main plot, which is a group of mercenaries going to retrieve Dino DNA…to this annoying-ass family that’s sailing their boat in Dino saturated waters.
As soon as I saw that family, I wanted my money back and I wanted to leave. That’s not what I came to see.
In superhero movies in general, I think nerds and all these fandoms have a part to play in the side-characters ruining the movies. Not every character needs their backstory told and fleshed out.
I know y’all might be fans of Nathan Fillion as Green Lantern, but the name of the movie is “Superman”. All I care about is Superman’s story. Not how Green Lantern came to earth or what else he has going on in his life.
Thus…I thought James Gunn’s Superman did an awesome job with the side-characters and the run time.
Lois Lane is an Awesome Journalist who Loves her Man!
Before seeing this film, I saw an Instagram reel revealing how much each actor and actress was getting paid. I’m not sure how true it is, but the reel noted that David Corenswet was getting paid $1 million while Rachel Brosnahan’s portrayal of Lois Lane earned her $2 million.
Not sure how true it is, but that bugged me a little. I went in thinking, “great…feminism is going to run rampant. She’s going to overpower the film with her girl boss attitude and how much better she is than other men.”
Bro…I loved Rachel Brosnahan’s portrayal of Lois Lane so much, that it actually boosted my respect for women and…not going to lie, I was almost moved to tears.
This Lois Lane loves her man. Not just Superman, but Clark Kent.
That’s not to say Amy Adam’s portrayal of Lois Lane didn’t love Superman, but Rachel Brosnahan’s just felt more genuine.
Amy Adam’s portrayal of Lois Lane in Zack Snyder’s films…it was a lot of tell-me instead of show-me. We’re “told” she’s an award winning journalist.
Amy Adam’s Lois Lane is given a lot of special privileges and is afforded interviews with high-ranking officials, but it’s not explained why, nor does she demonstrate any remarkable journalistic skills to show you why or even IF she’s a good journalist.
I think it has a lot to do with the screenwriting and directing. You see, in the beginning, you can tell that Rachel Brosnahan’s Lois Lane is a real reporter that takes her profession as a journalist very seriously. She isn’t a girl boss or out to prove how better she is than other men, nor is she overly sexualized and relying on her looks to get ahead.
She just has integrity for truth and the ethics of what it means to be a journalist, so much so that she’s willing to ask the hard questions…questions that make Clark Kent/Superman feel uncomfortable but needs to be asked, not as a girlfriend, but as a journalist.
So, when it gets to the third act where she finally tells Superman that she loves him too…it felt real. You could tell this character had to overcome so much internal doubt, other priorities, and emotional obstacles to embrace her love for the man.
I appreciated that so much, because it’s a far-cry from a lot of today’s modern female leads in movies, where women are almost encouraged to prioritize their careers and worldly aspirations above of their love for men.
Seriously…thank you! This was the best portrayal of Lois Lane I’ve ever seen. I actually liked when she was on screen.
Lex Luthor was Great and His Evil Made Sense
As much as I loved Zack Snyder’s “Man of Steel”…one of the worse decisions I think producers made with that universe was casting the dude from “Social Network” to play Lex Luthor.
Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor was so cringe. His motives and reasons for being a bad guy weren’t clear. The scene with him playing basketball and putting jolly ranchers in people’s mouths were stupid and had the opposite effect of making us afraid of this guy as a proper villain.
Thus, it was difficult to take him seriously as a threat. Not to mention, optics wise…it’s difficult to believe he’s really a billionaire, tech genius, or someone who really poses a threat. He just came off as a more joker-esque Mark Zuckerberg who often showed flashes of frustrated insanity…I hated it.
Nicholas Hoult’s Superman, however…Awesome! Even before I saw the movie, just seeing him buttoned up in a professional suit, tall, in shape, like he could mess up at least 3 dudes without any powers, already put him leagues ahead of Jesse Eisenberg’s portrayal.
Yes…I’ll even go so far as to say, I think he was best portrayal of Lex Luther. Even better than Gene Hackman’s. Yep, I said it.
When you listen to guys like Critical Drinker, they’re good at picking apart storylines…and I don’t want to say they don’t “completely” understand motives, but I think they missed the mark with Lex Luther.
In Drinker’s assessment, he slighted Lex Luther and the story when he said, “You’d think having the ability to create a pocket universe would negate the need to fight one man for control of a tiny fraction of one planet. But again, whatever. Just don’t think about it too much.”
…maybe he should think about it a little more.
Now, maybe it’s because deep down I’m also an evil megalomaniac, but I understood completely why Lex Luther instigated a war so he could take over and have his own country, as opposed to some “pocket universe.” The movie even spells it out.
…Envy…
Lex wants to be praised, worshiped, and admired by everyone. It does him little good to have a “Pocket Universe” where barely anyone exists. It’s much better to have your own country where millions will look up to you.
That envy and need for recognition and praise…I get it. The point of a proper villain is that they have our negative qualities…but to the excessive degree that turns them into criminals or “super villains.”
For instance, in the early 2010s when Lena Dunham of HBO’s “Girl” fame was called the voice of my generation (I’m a Millennial)…that pissed me off to no end! It lit a fire in me as a writer to produce stories that would one day be so great that I’d overshadow her and the whole world would forget about Lena Dunham.
So, when I see this Lex Luther, I understand how it feels to believe you’re great, want everyone else to recognize your greatness, but instead, they pour all of their praise and admiration into someone else who came from nowhere and you don’t think they deserve it.
That’s Lex Luther. Awesome job!
David Corenswet Had Some Big Shoes to Fill:
As I mentioned…Henry Cavill’s “Man of Steel” is one of my top 5 favorite movies of all time. And yet, as my wife and I were leaving the theaters, I had to nod and say, “I think that Superman was better than Man of Steel.”
David Corenswet’s portrayal definitely had more “personality” than Henry Cavill’s. What I mean by that, was there was a greater range of emotions. Not just anger, happiness, sadness, doubt, regret…but also humor, bad humor, a down-to-earth frustration, naivety, hope, and relief.
Corenswet’s mannerisms as both Clark Kent and Superman felt more human than Henry Cavill’s portrayal, lol, sad to say. It’s almost like Henry’s Superman had no fears or aspirations for life, other than losing Lois and saving the world. Which is noble…but not a lot of depth there.
Meanwhile, Corenswet’s Superman has a very human condition of caring what people thought about him. He gets annoyed. He talks crap about his own dog. He has his favorite music (punk rock). He likes friends and cherishes his earthly parents.
I’ve seen Better Bachelor’s Thumbnail about the “Death of Stoic Heroes”…and of course, I roll my eyes at that, that and every guy who narrow-mindedly believes all men should be stoic John Wayne figures at all times, in every situation, especially with their women (mainly because that’s how they naturally are and believe all men should change to be the same).
Trust me, as a 90s kid who was raised to be tough and overcome bullies instead of crying and expecting people to fight your battles for you…we’re still human. We can still cry.
I think the real problem is when you have movies where it’s ONLY the men that cry while the women appear more strong, stoic, and masculine than the men. There…yeah, it’s pretty obvious what agenda’s being pushed.
Superman’s not just an “alien” or immigrant or refugee…you fully immerse yourself with the idea that Superman is really is just a normal human who wants what every decent American man wants…peace, the love of a woman, and to enjoy the fruits of our labor.
A criticism some people have of James Gunn’s Superman is that he gets beat up a lot.
I actually appreciated and thought that add to his character in so many ways! The greater the challenge, the greater the triumph.
Anyone who knows the art of a good fight in action movies and choreography understand that there’s ebs and flows. There are moments where it seems like the good guy is going to lose. If you don’t have that, then you really don’t feel anything because you know there’s nothing at stake.
And the problem with some portrayals of Superman, even Henry Cavill’s version when you see “Batman v Superman”…is that he’s so overpowered that it feels pointless to get to invested.
For instance, an iconic shot that so many laud from 2006’s Superman is when a bad guy is shooting bullets from a Gatling gun at Superman. Then the bad guy gets up close and shoots Superman right in his eye. The bullet merely bounces off his eye with no pain or damage inflicted.
If a bullet to the eye won’t even get your Superman to flinch…there’s no risk. And yeah, people will say, “But that’s why Kryptonite is so important…”
I say, “It doesn’t have to be.” The writing and directing of Superman can dictate what hurts him and what doesn’t.
Even if a shot to the eye won’t kill him, demonstrating that it would still cause him a tremendous amount of pain would get us invested in him. It also demonstrates how great he is because you now know what he’s risking every time he throws himself in front of a bus to save someone or flies out to confront an enemy.
Another thing I liked about James Gunn’s Superman was…
The Focus on Goodness and the Sanctity of Life
One of the reasons why I think Batman may be more popular than Superman is because Superman tries to be “good”.
A lot of people (especially these days) don’t like the goody-two shoes because it puts them to shame. That’s why Superman is often referred to as the “boy scout” almost in a derogatory sense, because he’s constantly trying to help people.
If you look at a movie like “Joker”…it is kind of ridiculous that a movie like that was made. It’s a story about a sociopathic villain who gives into his evil nature. It earned over a billion dollars and was praised by many of the critics.
I think that goes to show how far our society has declined. Deep down, I think people enjoy movies like Joker because secretly they wish they could indulge their evil natures as well. It’s why games like Call of Duty and GTA are also super popular. They aren’t called “outlets” for no reason.
Meaning, instead of forgiving and loving your enemies as Christ encourages, people really want bad things to happen to those they personally don’t like, or those who wronged them, or those they secretly deem to be the worse of society.
I can say that, because deep down…I’m one of them. I’m ashamed of those thoughts. I’m wrong to have those thoughts. Never would I want to indulge or live vicariously through a character or movie who’s giving “society what’s coming to it”.
That’s why Superman is a great movie and a great character. When you have the ability to take over the world and rule, but you choose not to, but you deliberately diminish yourself to make others feel comfortable, or to sacrifice yourself for the sake of others…that’s actually very Christ like.
In James Gunn’s Superman, there’s an awesome juxtaposition between Superman and Lex Luther. While Lex is obsessed with killing Superman, Superman is obsessed with saving lives. Not just Lois or human lives, but even the lives of his enemies and monsters…he even flies out of his way to rescue a squirrel. It was an awesome touch.
As a Christian, I appreciated that display when it comes to the sanctity of life, because all life is created by Jehovah God.
Superman is not a Woke Movie:
Trust me, I walked into this movie prepared for the worse. I heard talk about how “Superman’s an immigrant,” or some called him a refugee…so I was prepared of a lot of “messages” talking about how Orange Man is bad and the current ICE raids are inhuman.
Pleased to say, I didn’t see any of that. It wasn’t preachy (unless you wished people were more selfish and less self-sacrificing). There wasn’t a lot of girl-bossing, no obvious feminism, no orange man bad…I think blonde bombshells might take umbrage with a certain character, but other than that…NOT WOKE!
Yes, Superman does insert himself in foreign conflict that maybe hints at Russia’s invasion of Ukraine…but even there it wasn’t too “on the nose” and in your face that this is what they were going for.
I like Nathan Fillion’s red carpet response when he’s asked if it’s a film about immigrants, Fillion said, “It’s just a movie, guys.”
And that’s what it is. It’s a movie. Movies are escapism. It’s just two hours designed to take you to an action-packed adventure where the city is in danger, a man is trying to understand his purpose, wants to be loved, and no matter what, he refuses to abandon his principles when it comes to cherishing the sanctity of life.
So yeah, overall. I’m glad I saw it in theaters. I hope it beats the breaks off of Jurassic Park when it comes to being the highest grossing film of the year (because that film was garbage).
And yeah…don’t take us critics too seriously. Understand that we’re writers. We can see a situation and see like, five different angles of how a situation can play out and have a habit of thinking you’re stupid if you didn’t pick the angle we’d pick.
Thanks for reading!
My Three Small Negative Critiques
1. Worship of Superman as a savior…That’s always a pet peeve of mine as a Christian. It was admittedly worse in “Man of Steel” with all the crucifixion imagery and verbiage of Superman being a “savior for mankind”…but yeah, Superman, superheroes are not saviors. Repentance and accepting Christ is.
2. Absence of God…I barely saw any acknowledgement of God in the film. Maybe they wanted to just keep it neutral to keep from offending anyone. But it would’ve been nice to see at least his Smallville, Kansas parents talk about God. I mean…one wonders where values and emphasis of protecting life came from?
3. Pacing Issues in the first act…went a little long. This is not really a big deal. But in the first act, when Clark and Lois are having a conversation in their apartment about the ethics of Superman getting involved in a foreign conflict…it went a little long. Other than that, my only negative points.
Stage In The Sky 