An unequivocal summer movie, James Gunn’s “Superman” (2025) graced the big screen on July 11, 2025, bringing a fresh taste of hope to moviegoers. The movie brought with it energized excitement from fans of superhero movies that had been lacking for years. “Superman” managed to break out of the rut that the genre has been in since Marvel began dominating superhero movies in the 2010s.
Gunn brought color back to the screen in “Superman” (2025), and it was refreshing to see a movie shot full of vividness and light. There are multiple shots in “Superman” (2025) that show its characters backlit by the sun, gleaming through windows or over open fields, which adds a beautiful and hopeful shine to its rawest scenes and makes the setting pop visually, especially Superman’s home of Metropolis City. In fact, Metropolis is a masterclass in set dressing. Most superhero movies set their heroes in nondescript cities that could easily stand in for New York City or Chicago, but Gunn’s Metropolis is bright and glossy, with a classy retrofuturistic aesthetic that gives the city itself a distinct visual character.
David Corenswet gives an incredibly endearing performance as Superman. His dorky charm, bolstered by Gunn’s classic quippy writing, gives our hero his full depth. This Superman is far from a stoic god; he is just a guy trying his best to do the right thing. Corenswet’s Superman is not stripped of his majesty or awe, and he still pulls off the same incredible feats of strength, but he is also a little goofy, awkward and very clearly human.
A common criticism of many earlier superhero movies is that, while these heroes and villains are smashing cars and buildings, it is hard not to think about the world around them. When Zack Snyder’s Superman punches his villains through presumably populated buildings in “Man of Steel” (2013), one wonders whether he has any care for saving people, or if he is just there to be Snyder and the audience’s power fantasy. Gunn went out of his way to avoid this criticism. “Superman” (2025) is still, in some ways, a masculine power fantasy, but it is also a moral fantasy. Gunn made sure to include scenes of Superman saving innocent bystanders in almost every fight scene, even going so far as to show him rescuing a squirrel from getting crushed in the movie’s mid-act fight against a kaiju-like monster. It is notable that in the majority of the scenes where Superman heroically swoops bystanders out of danger, the one being saved is a woman. In this way, the male fantasy persists, but perhaps in a way that is potentially important and essential. The Guardian and The Washington Post have both pointed out that young men are becoming increasingly conservative and hateful. In fringe spaces like the manosphere, many idolize the type of edgy anti-hero that Snyder tried to turn Superman into. At such a time, a movie like this, where a man’s empathy and kindness is so openly valorized, may be exactly what we need.
Where “Superman” (2025) falls short is where many other superhero films do. At its worst moments, Superman is overloaded with CGI action sequences that can make you feel like you are the one getting punched between the eyes, especially in a movie theater. There is little contained in these scenes apart from the spectacle of it all. Watching Superman punch CGI goons while protecting a CGI baby in a CGI-generated alternate dimension does not really give you anything to chew on; the action sequences become gratuitous after the 30th punch. The mid-act fight between Superman and the kaiju in Metropolis is the only one that does not suffer from this, largely because there is more to it than the punches being thrown. Superman is joined by a supporting cast of superheroes—Mr. Terrific, Green Lantern and Hawkgirl—which allows Gunn’s writing to shine, with more quips and character moments than any other action sequence in the movie.
But even its flaws are indicative of what makes “Superman” (2025) better than any other superhero movie in recent years. “Superman” (2025) knows exactly what it is and does not try to be anything more. It is a comic book movie, and it embraces all the ridiculousness that comes with that. For years, ever since the popularity of Christopher Nolan’s “Dark Knight” trilogy, “realistic” superhero movies have been the norm. We have seen many characters stripped of their colorful comic book suits, replaced by dark leather with only a literal shadow of their original designs. The edgy takes of “Man of Steel” (2013) are held in Henry Cavill’s abs and the cold gray and blue color grading, and Superman is more god than man. Perhaps, this was what audiences wanted in the 2000s and 2010s. Especially after Sept. 11 and the War on Terror, superhero movies lost their silliness and became more about superheroes beating up racially ambiguous terrorists and stopping alien invasions. Just compare Tim Burton’s 1989 “Batman” villains to Heath Ledger’s Joker in “The Dark Knight” (2008).
But for a modern audience, seeing superheroes work with shady government operatives to fight foreign threats in Eurasian countries is not particularly relevant or impactful. “Superman” (2025) knows this and has left these themes behind. Lex Luthor, the main antagonist and Superman’s nemesis, is the viewer’s Elon Musk stand-in: a corporate tech billionaire who funds a foreign invasion and literally tears the planet apart in the third act. It barely needs pointing out that a main point of tension in the film, Boravia’s invasion of Jarhanpur—two fictional countries Gunn made up for this movie—reflects the current conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine.
Superman himself becomes a projection of us, the 21st-century viewers—someone who sees all of this and just wants to do the right thing. He is someone who shows the best in us, not in his superhuman abilities, but in his honest and caring nature; he is an ideal of what we could be. “You’ll believe a man can fly” was one of the taglines for the original Superman movie back in 1978, but “Superman” (2025) will make you believe that people can be kind to one another, and challenges us to do so.
Thank you for this super interesting and informative article!
The historical perspective was intriguing, I would want to know more about Tim Burton’ 1989 film.