Superman

Let me say this up front: I'm not a fan of Superman as a superhero, but I do enjoy James Gunn's work (especially his «GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY» trilogy, which I absolutely love), so I was genuinely curious and looking forward to his new film about the Man of Steel.

Unfortunately, this time James Gunn left me disappointed. The biggest issue is the script. For some reason, the director chose to throw the audience straight into the middle of the action, with almost no background or introduction for the main character. Some might argue that Superman's origin story is no longer necessary, but in my view, it's absolutely essential for a full-fledged reboot. This is David Corenswet's first appearance as Clark Kent, and the film clearly lacks at least 30 minutes of emotional buildup to help us connect with him. Without that foundation, it's hard to truly care about his character.

The same goes for the rest of the cast. Lex Luthor lacks a clear motivation: he wants to destroy Superman right from the start, but there's no deeper reasoning behind it. Clark's relationship with his adoptive parents is barely shown - they appear only in a few short scenes. His connection with Lois Lane also feels shallow. There's no real chemistry between them, and their relationship seems to develop entirely off-screen. As a result, it feels more like we're watching the second installment in a franchise rather than the first.

Another serious flaw is the overload of secondary heroes. The audience is thrown into a new world packed with characters: Green Lantern, Mister Terrific, Hawkgirl, Metamorpho, The Engineer, Ultraman - all of whom show up, but almost none receive meaningful screen time (Mister Terrific is arguably the most developed). They're hard to remember, let alone care about. For the average viewer unfamiliar with the DC Universe, it's genuinely overwhelming. «BATMAN V SUPERMAN» was heavily criticized for a similarly chaotic structure, yet despite sharing the same flaws, Gunn's latest film is somehow receiving mostly positive reviews. I just don't get it.

So, for the first film in the rebooted DC Universe (DCU), I expected a more coherent, emotionally rich, and self-contained story. For many viewers - especially newcomers - this movie might feel chaotic and overcrowded. And, in essence, that's exactly how it is. In just two hours of runtime, Gunn packed in so much that it could have easily been stretched out into an entire season of a TV series.

6/10

P. S. I'm not a Zack Snyder fan, even though I'm aware of his massive fanbase. Personally, I see him as a strong visionary but a weak writer and director. Still, I have to be honest: his «MAN OF STEEL» left a far deeper impression on me than James Gunn's new «SUPERMAN». As disappointing as that is - especially given how much I admire Gunn's previous work - I have to speak frankly about how I feel.

I honestly don't see how this movie could impress anyone older than 10. Sure, it's colorful, lighthearted, and has a few crowd-pleasing moments - but underneath the cape and charm, it feels more like a Saturday morning cartoon than the cinematic relaunch of an iconic hero. For a character as emotionally rich and symbolically heavy as Superman, this version felt oddly flat, even juvenile.

The movie opens with a tone that hints at something deeper - maybe a layered origin story or a grounded emotional arc. For a moment, it feels like James Gunn might give Superman the complexity he deserves. But that promise fades fast. Instead of evolving into something meaningful, the story flattens into a series of lighthearted moments, cheesy one-liners, and safe, predictable beats.

It's like the film is afraid to take itself seriously for more than five minutes. Every time it flirts with depth, it quickly retreats to humor or surface-level charm. That approach might work for younger audiences, but for anyone hoping for a mature or compelling Superman narrative, it's a letdown.

Most of the cast did a decent job - nobody was outright bad, but no one really stood out either. The performances felt safe, almost like everyone was playing within tight creative boundaries. Even characters who are supposed to command the screen - like Superman and Lex Luthor - felt surprisingly muted.

David Corenswet as Superman checks the boxes visually, but his performance doesn't leave much of a mark. There's no real emotional weight, no moment where you truly feel what Clark is going through. And Nicholas Hoult's Lex Luthor, while an interesting casting choice on paper, lacks the menace or charisma that makes the character memorable. He's just... there.

It's frustrating, because these are some of the most iconic roles in comic book history - and yet the film doesn't give the actors enough material to make them feel iconic.

Are bright, the costumes pop, and some of the early shots are eye-catching - at least for a second. But once you settle into the movie, it all starts to feel a bit stale. The CGI is fine, but nothing we haven't seen before. The action scenes are clean but lack intensity or creativity. There's no real visual identity that sets it apart from every other superhero film.

It's like eating candy with no flavor - it looks fun, but you stop caring pretty quickly.

Superman (2025) feels like a movie made to play it safe - colorful enough to distract, light enough to entertain kids, but ultimately hollow for anyone expecting more. It had the opportunity to bring real depth and emotion to one of the most iconic heroes in fiction, but instead settles for a flat, overly sanitized version of the character.

If you're under 10, you might love it. For everyone else, it's just another cape in the crowd.

Superman is moody, angry, insecure, and immature in this. Nothing like the stoic ideal we all know him as. They made Jimmy Olsen an unexplainable ladie's man, Hawk Girl was way young and had comical closeups of her screeching like a hawk (which she doesn't do), Nathan Fillion would've made a better Hal Jordan than Guy Gardner, Ultra Man was reimagined as a clone who dresses like Black Noir from "The Boys," and the plot was a convoluted mess. I will give kudos to Mr. Terrific and ... That's it. One thing for sure is James Gunn cannot portray Superman for the big screen. I give it a "D" at best.

If boredom had a cape and could fly, it would be this movie. Superman: Legacy manages to do the impossible: make the Man of Steel feel like a soggy paper towel.

Let's start with the plot-if we can even call it that. It's less of a storyline and more of a loosely taped collage of clichés, half-baked ideas, and scenes clearly written during a lunch break. We're introduced to a Superman who has all the charisma of a DMV employee and the emotional range of a brick.

The villain? An AI-generated placeholder with all the menace of a wet sock. The stakes? About as high as deciding between decaf or regular. And don't even get me started on the forced "emotional" moments, which had all the subtlety of a freight train and none of the impact.

The dialogue is painfully robotic, as if the characters are reading fortune cookies to each other while pretending it's Shakespeare. Clark Kent spends half the movie brooding like a sad influencer who lost his Wi-Fi, and the other half giving awkward pep talks that somehow manage to be both boring and unintentionally hilarious.

Visually, the CGI would've looked impressive back in 2006. But in 2025? Watching Superman fly looked more like someone struggling with a green screen TikTok filter.

And finally, the pacing: glacial. Entire civilizations have risen and fallen in the time it takes this movie to move from one dull scene to the next.

In summary, Superman: Legacy is less a cinematic experience and more a two-hour exercise in wondering what went wrong. If you're a fan of Superman, avoid this one to preserve your sanity-and your childhood.

Superman arrives as a patchwork of borrowed ideas-some lifted from other franchises, others recycled from earlier Superman films. Once again, the creative deck is reshuffled in a futile attempt to reinvent a character who has remained essentially static across nearly 50 years of cinema and over 80 years in popular culture.

The film suffers from a miscast or underwritten Lois Lane, a serviceable but unremarkable Superman, and a Lex Luthor plan that veers into the incomprehensible. While it nods to Luthor's original land-grabbing schemes-both from the classic films comics-it fails to give them any credible motivation or coherence.

There are moments of originality and even a few flashes of wit (particularly from Mr. Terrific), but they're lost in a film that never quite finds its purpose. Combined with the often drab visuals and boring music(a few bars of classic William's score excepted), this is a miss.