Left: David Corenswet as Superman. Right: Movie Director James Gunn.

Let’s rip off the band-aid: Director James Gunn’s Superman is a steaming pile of you-know-what. Critics proclaiming this film to be “great” or even “good” are being disingenuous or have a pillock’s palate for cinema.

If you’ve already endured the full 129 minutes of Gunn’s super misfire, chances are you're already nodding along in agreement. You might even want to chime in with your own choice takes — perhaps something along the lines of; the visual assault was only rivalled by the insult to the audience’s intellect!

For those who haven’t yet bought a ticket and suffered through this convoluted mess – don’t! And yes, I can already hear the objections — “Surely this is just another cynical critic out over his skis—he’s being hyperbolic! After all, James Gunn has a proven track record. This was supposed to be DC Studios’ big relaunch, their flagship film, the cornerstone of an entire cinematic reboot!”

Exactly! — and that’s what makes it all the more disappointing. With everything in his favor — full creative control, a generous budget, even the freedom to skip the obligatory origin story (complete with the usual flashbacks) — Gunn had the opportunity of a lifetime.

What’s it about?
The film picks up three years after Superman — Earth’s most powerful “meta-human” — has revealed himself to the world. His alter ego, Clark Kent, is already working at The Daily Planet and dating his in-the-know colleague, Lois Lane.

Having recently averted a war between two foreign nations by destroying military assets and making veiled threats, Superman has become politically controversial — not just for interfering in international affairs, but for committing the greater sin of actually succeeding. While world leaders stop short of condemning or endorsing his actions — since peace was the desired outcome — questions linger about his unchecked power.

Superman’s biggest detractor is titan-of-industry Lex Luthor. He isn’t pleased with Superman’s recent actions and there’s also a new, masked meta-human on the scene—one that’s just beaten Superman, forcing him into retreat halfway around the world, where he crash lands onto an icy tundra not far from his Fortress-of-Solitude.

Despite this promising setup, what follows is a truly bloated, convoluted mess that squanders both the audience’s goodwill and DC’s opportunity to launch a compelling new era for the franchise.

Asked to Suspend Disbelief:
We get it — in modern cinema, audiences are often asked to suspend their disbelief. After all, we're talking about a Superman: a man who performs impossible feats: lifting buildings of incredible weight, firing laser-beams from his eyes, flying without wings.

What James Gunn fails to understand is that you can’t spell extraordinary without ordinary. Superman is extraordinary because he exists in a world filled with the ordinary — a world where even garden-variety-heroes are often hard to find. Unfortunately, Gunn’s take on Superman is one big spectacle focusing on the “extraordinary,” without the grounded storytelling that has made Superman’s narrative so special and relatable to audiences over the years.

And it’s not just the audiences that have become numbed to the endless CGI spectacles. Even the fictional citizens of Metropolis appear jaded — often staring blankly on as Green Lantern, Mister Terrific, Hawkgirl, and Superman battle yet another over-sized monstrosity that’s threatening to flatten Metropolis’ skyline. Whether it’s a Godzilla-sized beast, a giant inter-dimensional eyeball, a nanite-infested employee, or some other threat du jour – nobody— inside or outside of the film seems to care anymore.

And we’re just getting started! Enter Metamorpho, yet another hideous character with a face for radio—rather than the silver screen. Brought to life by James Gunn, Metamorpho is a meta-human who can transform his body into any material — including, rather conveniently, a certain other-worldly, green, crystalline-structure he’s never encountered before.

Beyond Belief:
Lex Luthor has been busy! He’s created his own pocket-universe — yes, his very own dimension — populated with monkeys. Not just any monkeys, but brain-wired monkeys typing away on keyboards, trolling Superman on social media (apparently, the Wi-Fi signal in the inter-dimensional pocket-universe is excellent). Down the road from this neuralink, monkey-bot farm—Lex is holding dozens of individuals, including his ex-girlfriends captive.

Still with me? It gets better:

Also within this bizarre pocket-universe runs a river of, wait for it — “protons” — that flow like a torrent into a black hole. Where does the atmosphere come from in this pocket-universe? The gravity? The physics? At this point, does it even matter? And the film only gets more bloated and convoluted from there. I’ll spare you the spoilers, just in case you have a ticket and terrible taste in films!"

Superman's Storytelling Goes Awry:
Traditionally, Superman’s story has followed a Christ‑like archetype: turmoil in the heavens on a distant—but technologically and morally superior planet — unto us a son is given. He is sent to Earth to live among us, to embody goodness, to show humanity a better way, to save us from ourselves. Not so in James Gunn’s Superman!

Early in the film, a mostly corrupted message from Superman’s Kryptonian parents is reconstructed—eye roll—revealing their true machinations. Viewing humanity as weak and simple, and knowing their son Kal‑El (Superman) will be as a god among men — the restored transmission urges him to seize dominion over Earth and take unto himself as many concubines as possible to ‘spread his seed,’ thus ensuring a global Kryptonian dynasty.

Is James Gunn’s Superman political?
Cinema has long been a powerful medium for propaganda—whether for good or for ill. Before its release, there were concerns Director James Gunn would inject his politics into Superman—and sure enough, he made nods to the Russia‑Ukraine War, Middle East conflicts, and even the U.S.–Mexico border. Lex Luthor even refers to Superman as an “alien”—a thinly veiled reference to the now politically charged term “illegal alien”.

Unfortunately for Gunn he wasn’t able to fire off any coherent allegories or meaningful commentary. Superman offers no memorable one‑liners and leaves audiences with nothing of substance to ponder—no take‑home insights or witty quips audiences might expect from the flagship installment of a rebooted franchise.

Performances: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The acting in Superman spans from two‑dimensional to downright dreadful—and it’s not the actors’ fault. On paper, the casting choices were solid. Yet James Gunn, like a true Hollywood vampire, seems to have drained the life out of nearly every performance, set piece, green-screen and costume design.

David Corenswet (Superman):
Expectations were high for Corenswet, and he delivers a mostly likeable, occasionally believable Clark Kent/Superman. Unfortunately he was hampered by a garbage script and an off-the-leash director who prioritised spectacle over character development.

Nicholas Hoult (Lex Luthor):
Hoult’s portrayal of Lex Luthor was petulant and unconvincing — hardly the image of a powerful industrial titan with access to god‑like technology. His casting was a mistake.

Rachel Brosnahan (Lois Lane):
Brosnahan’s Lois Lane lacks the class, tenacity, and spark of previous incarnations. Her performance was bland and unremarkable with costuming to match.

Skyler Gisondo (Jimmy Olsen):
Known for his boy-nextdoor charm, Gisondo is another casualty of Gunn’s vampirism. As Jimmy Olsen, he failed to bring the teen appeal often excepted from the roll.

Michael Holt (Mister Terrific):
Holt finds brief moments to shine, delivering some genuinely entertaining scenes and earning more screen time than most supporting players.

Nathan Fillion (Guy Gardner/Green Lantern):
Fillion, best known for his iconic role as Captain Malcolm Reynolds in the cult classic TV series Firefly, brings energy to his role as Green Lantern. He adds humour to the film and avoids making the character feel too shoehorned into the story. Fillion makes the most of a bad situation.

Overall, promising talent is wasted here—not because of poor casting, but because the material and direction leave little room for nuanced performances.

Final Thoughts:
In conclusion, James Gunn’s latest film may say Superman on the tin, but once you crack it open, what pours out feels more like a failed Avengers spin-off fused with the worst parts of the Terminator franchise. It completely misses the mark—failing to capture the essence of Superman, the prestige of The Daily Planet, or the heart of the characters that make the mythos meaningful.

This was a hollow offering—one that foolishly rejected the ordinary in favour of nonstop, over-the-top spectacle. It felt less like a bold reboot and more like the dying gasp of a franchise out of ideas. In the end, Warner Bros. and James Gunn threw everything they had at this film—even the neighbor’s kitchen sink! The one thing they didn’t have was insight. It’s about the ordinary world around Superman—the mother pushing-a-pram, the cabby honking his horn, the kids playing jump-rope in the street — this ordinary humanity is what allows Superman to truly be super.