MPAA Rating: PG-13
Reel Rating: 3.5 out of 4 reels
Superman is one of pop culture’s best-known Christ figures, and now comic book juggernaut James Gunn has released the third great cinematic adaptation of the Superman story. This new film also serves as a reboot of the DC cinematic universe, which never really found its footing.
The 1978 film, starring Christopher Reeves, was a triumph of innocent fun and visual effects, and the 2013 version, with Harry Cavill in the starring role, was a masterpiece of Christological-themed mythology (and one of my first reviews for Catholic World Report).
This entry, starring David Corenswet, fits nicely between the two. It’s definitely entertaining, but not as campy as Reeve or as sober as Cavill. Only time will tell if Superman can successfully launch Warner Bros’ efforts.
Superman is a classic example of “in media res,” where the audience is thrown into the middle of a story without much background. Nothing is said about Superman’s childhood, career as a journalist, or current relationship with Lois Lane. Instead, he lies bloodied in the middle of Antarctica only to be rescued by his trusty dog Krypto (Jolene).
Superman (Corenswet) has fallen on hard times. Despite stopping a major war and saving Metropolis from multiple otherworldly threats, he is unpopular in many circles, especially with Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult), who has created the supervillain Ultraman to defeat him. Yet his ultimate undoing may come not from his enemies but from a sudden revelation deep within his origins that threatens to turn the whole planet against him.
From the first scene, it is evident that Gunn, who directed the Guardians of the Galaxy films, has taken a firm grasp of the reins. The film has all the hallmarks: catchy songs, witty banter, oddball characters, bizarre in-jokes, and a Nathan Fillion cameo. Most importantly, it is endlessly entertaining. He understands that any superhero film, no matter how dark and brooding, is a little silly, and isn’t afraid to acknowledge the genre’s inherent nature.
For example, this is the first time Krypto has graced the silver screen. I was skeptical when I saw him in the trailer, but in Gunn’s tongue-in-cheek world, he works. It’s not that Gunn doesn’t explore the rich history of Superman’s philosophy—only that it first must be fun. The film also stays clear of obvious political leanings, aiming instead for more universal appeal. Anybody claiming the film is too “woke” or “based” is missing the point.
When I was at film school, a professor once stated that if we wanted an audience to immediately hate a character, “Have them kick a dog.” It’s trendy in the genre today for metahumans to be morally ambiguous or complex; in this sense, Superman is a breath of fresh air. Even if his actions are sometimes rash, his motives and values are always pure. When confronted with the unintended ramifications of interfering in an international conflict, he just yells, “People were going to die!” Lex Luthor not only kidnaps Superman’s dog, but he also tortures him. He also uses an alien baby as ransom to keep Superman imprisoned. When freed, Superman saves the child at great cost to himself (and the special effects team). The point is basic but refreshing: defending the innocent is the most basic quality of a superhero.
In the climactic scene, Superman and Luthor square off in a classic monologue scene in which both characters reveal their hidden intentions. Luthor admits, despite his enormous wealth, that he is envious of the Man of Steel. But it runs deeper than that. He finds Superman’s existence offensive because he believes it brings down the collective worth of humanity. If Superman can lift a building, why do humans need to engineer a crane? Nothing we do then matters.
Superman admits his powers are daunting, but insists it is his humanity that defines him. He didn’t learn about good and evil from his biological parents, but from the simple Kansas farmers who raised him. Superman also knows that he makes mistakes and is limited in his scope, which also puts him in the same boat as everyone else.
There is a way to interpret Superman’s vision as negative. Human nature, on its own, is stained by original sin and prone to evil. Before the Incarnation, paganism reigned as the preeminent philosophy, which disdained the poor and valued power, although there were, as C. S. Lewis noted, “gleams of celestial strength and beauty falling on a jungle of filth and imbecility.” We do not need our heroes to “be human” but to rise above.
However, understood as a Christ figure, Superman’s speech to Luther represents not the fallen nature of humanity but the love of God, who willingly took on “our weakness.” He became human to save humanity. It could be either, but I’m betting on the latter.
In a deeply divided culture, it is vital to have popular art that provides simple enjoyment. I don’t think Superman will be as well remembered as its predecessors, but it is an entertaining, competent summer blockbuster that doesn’t overstay its welcome. It affirms basic Christian values without allowing itself to be claimed by a political ideology. That’s pretty super in 2025.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Why would CWR run an advertisement for anything Hollywood? It doesn’t matter how good any film is (and other commenters are less inclined to treat it as benign, let alone edifying) it feeds a corrupt and disgusting industry.
Moreover, imputing Christine characteristics to a fictional character is at best disturbing.
It’s not an advertisement, it’s a review. Many of us watch movies and appreciate reviews.
Horse manure.
Prior to going to see ‘Superman’, I had been warned by Newsmax that it is ‘Woke’, but, given the hyperbolic tendencies of Newsmax, I decided to go anyway.
It’s not ‘Woke’, but it is really, really bad. None of the characters are even remotely interesting, the plot is absurd. The special effects are quite special, but that is predictable. The dog Krypto is mildly interesting.
To sum up – a few hours of escapist entertainment in a cool theater in the midst of a hot, uncomfortable summer day. The buttered popcorn was nice and hot, the small coke ok, for a total of $10 gone – senior rates ($5 for the actual ticket) at a small theater in central Maine.
As for Superman being a ‘Christlike’ figure – gimmeabreak.
Olszyk says, “Superman is one of pop culture’s best-known Christ figures,…”
A Christ figure in pop culture does not, by definition or nature, equate to Christ for Christians. We have the Eucharist, the Holy Spirit, Scripture, Tradition, the Church and our faith. Pop culture has Superman.
I’m willing to cut the reviewer a break.
Also saw the movie, it was not good, rather silly. It involved way too much reliance on special effects, instead of creating an interesting story. Only thing I say that is nice about it, is that it was a reason to get out and see a movie. This version of Superman lived off the the previous ones which I liked. Bring back the first Superman Movie, that is much more worth watching than this one.
Uh, the director himself says it is a political statement involving immigration.
I can see that. Superman arrives on Earth and ends up living in the US without a visa, and yet becomes a valuable member of society.
Message: not all illegal immigrants are despicable.
Some people can overlook all the bad elements of a movie and enjoy it anyway, but I can’t. Here is what I would notice about Superman. (From http://www.kids-in-mind.com)
Language: – At least 15 scatological terms… 9 mild obscenities…1 religious profanity (GD), 7 religious exclamations (e.g. oh my God, oh God, I swear to God, Holy [scatological term deleted]).
Sex: A woman wears short and low-cut dresses in several scenes (we see cleavage and bare legs to the upper thighs)…A woman wears a low-cut top that reveals cleavage.
If Hollywood wants my money, the movie can’t break the 2nd commandment even once. It doesn’t sound like this is the case in Superman, but if a woman’s breasts are exposed even once, it’s basically pornography and should be treated accordingly.
It’s really tough in this generation to see a new movie that is any good. May the Christians some day find the resources and desire to make movies.
Women’s breasts are not pornography. There is some great art which features breasts. I cannot define pornography but I know it when I see it. Scatological terms? Oh the horror. Listen to 12 year olds talking to each other. Conversation is filled with such language.
William – That is part of the problem. The 12 year olds are reflecting the entertainment and culture of today.
I am surprised that a CWR reader would think that is an acceptable thing.
12 year olds are not as innocent as you think. As a 12 year old Boy Scout, I even had a ribald sense of humor (and still do).
William – You seem to take the fact that 12 year olds are not so innocent as a laudable thing. I see it as very unfortunate.
Are we not called to redeem the culture by our lives and our works? Archbishop Fulton Sheen used the then new medium of television as a powerful platform for evangelization.
Also, as an example, the heroes in J.R.R. Tolkien’s trilogy, “The Lord of the Rings”, had different virtues associated with Christ. Aren’t we called to be “Christlike”?
I wrote my initial comment in response to Pitchfork Rebel’s comments, when there were no other comments. I have not seen the movie, and was taking the review at face value. I stand by my comments in general, but by the subsequent reviews of you who have seen it, it sounds like this movie is not one to seek out for being inspired in our Christian walk. Thanks.
For another view, see “The Traditional Judeo-Christian Values in ‘Superman’” by Dr. Kody W. Cooper on the Word on Fire site.
Thanks for the link and I might see that movie. However, I would disagree with the term “Judeo-Christian” –which is an oxymoron, at least if “Judeo” is in reference to that Christ-denying religion which began in 33 AD.
Read Nostra Aetate again.
Mr. Olson;
I read the review you referenced and then read it again. IMO reviewers like Dr. Kooper take this movie entirely too seriously, granting it a gravitas which it clearly does not warrant.
It is a few hours of escapist entertainment, at best silly – and that is all it is.
Save your money and waistline. These prices are out of this world these days.
IMO ‘Superman’ is at its best merely silly, as in not to be taken seriously, as in nothing more than a few hours of escapist entertainment, which it surely is.
2 movies I’ve seen recently of real value are ‘Taking Chance’and ‘A Hidden Life’.
Have not seen the movie, so therefore, I cannot critique it.
However!
Superman 1978 and Superman II were awesome, and this new film HAS to better than Reeve’s Superman 3 and 4.