Pops Saw a Movie: OBSESSION

OBSESSION (SPOILERS AHEAD)

Every once in a while, hype works on me. Not big blockbuster hype, with films like that, I pretty much know what I’ll see and what I won’t (MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE, no no no no, SUPERGIRL, of course), but rather when something smaller bubbles up and becomes such a part of the conversation that I can’t ignore it. Such is the case with Curry Barker’s OBSESSION. 

I braved the multiplex to see OBSESSION by myself on an early Sunday afternoon, in a thankfully mostly-empty theater (nobody sat in front of me, so I had no distractions), and not only does it live up to the hype, it’s better. The plot is simple: A shy, introverted guy named Bear (short for Baron) uses a magical “One Wish Willow” stick to make his co-worker crush, Nikki fall in love with him. Like, deeply in love. Crazy love. And things do not go according to plan. 

As Nikki’s actual personality is sublimated under the artificial “Freaky Nikki,” helplessly bearing witness to everything that unfolds, and frequently struggling to escape, the craziness begins to escalate as Bear begins to understand that his wish might have been a bad idea. But this is the most horrific, aggravating part of the story: Bear’s immaturity, selfishness, and weakness keep him from doing anything…. ANYTHING to stop what’s unfolding in front of him, ultimately resulting in tragedy for everyone. 

Curry Barker (the writer / director / editor) is a YouTube creator who’s mostly made comedic shorts, and while some viewers of OBSESSION strongly disagree, I think this movie is fucking hilarious at points. I saw an Instagram video that was excoriating people for laughing during the movie, claiming that it was the height of antisocial behavior during a horror film (accompanied by the far more antisocial video shot on a cell phone during said screening). But I laughed out loud about a dozen times… it was uncomfortable, cringe laughter, to be sure, but… I genuinely cracked up. 

One big reason is the astonishing performance of Inde Navarrette as Nikki. Another thing many people are getting wrong about OBSESSION is thinking it’s POSESSION. Nikki is not taken over by an evil entity; she is forced to become someone she’s not, but her true personality remains. Navarrette manages an incredibly tricky balance of enough layers to dip a tortilla chip. In the same moment, you see both the artifice that’s in love with Bear and the tortured soul beneath. She can be screamingly (literally) over the top one second and chillingly understated the next and it all feels genuine. Mark my words, this is the birth of a movie star (and the funny thing is, one of the reasons I ponied up to see this in the theater is that she was up till now best known for being Lana Lang’s daughter in SUPERMAN AND LOIS). 

As Bear, Michael Johnston does well with a thankless role. He’s pitiable from the get-go, testing a Hallmarkesque profession of love for Nikki on a waitress. But apparently, one of the things people are getting wrong about OBSESSION is that he’s not to blame for his wish going wrong and that he’s just a nice guy in over his head (I’ve seen lots of people referring to him as “relatable,” which, ew). YouTube creator Maria McBain posted a video comparing Bear to other ostensible pop culture “nice guys” Ross Geller from FRIENDS and Ducky from PRETTY IN PINK, rightfully pointing out that these characters are primarily “nice” as means to an end to win the objects of their affections and that they’re actually fairly selfish, petty men. Bear is not a hero in any way. He mourns the cat (whose death was his fault for leaving Nana’s open oxycodone bottle in the kitchen) more than he does his recently departed grandmother (whose house he inherits and does almost nothing to make it his own other than tacking up a few posters and shoving a computer station in the corner of the living room). He has countless opportunities throughout the film to do the right thing and he always, ALWAYS chooses the coward’s way out, right up to the end. Anyone who takes Bear’s side is not only missing the point (spoiler alert: it’s about female autonomy), they’re displaying some at least slightly misogynistic tendencies. 

Visually, Barker shows incredible restraint when it comes to mostly eschewing horror tropes like jump scares, and the gore—while effective—takes a back seat to the darker, creepier moments. There are moments that I instantly wanted to rewatch, but then I reached for the remote and realized I was stuck in a damn movie theater (meaning I’m probably going to end up owning this on a shiny plastic disc). 

The film’s very unhappy ending is a fait accompli, but it still carries weight. We don’t know what Nikki’s final fate is, but she ain’t living happily ever after (reportedly, in the original script, Nikki kills herself, but this ending is somehow even more tragic). 

Ultimately, OBSESSION is one of those films that’s become a sensation almost despite itself. It’s way more than just a well-made horror film. It’s smarter, funnier, and mostly darker than most people even realize, and I think it’s destined to be considered a classic of the genre.

Pops Read a Book: CRUMB: A CARTOONIST'S LIFE

I finished CRUMB: A CARTOONIST’S LIFE (Scribner, 2025), Dan Nadel’s intensive (and intense) biography of arguably the most iconic underground cartoonist of all time, and one of the most polarizing, complicated figures in not just comics, but culture. I’ve always had a tangential relationship with Crumb, recognizing his genius, but often put off by the ugliness that his work at times displays (there’s also beauty, for sure). CRUMB (even more than Terry Zwigoff’s 1995 documentary) spends an awful lot of time trying to parse the artist’s misogynistic and racist works as sociological studies of human nature, and I’m sure that’s true to some extent. But as this book often lays bare, Crumb is also frequently just a raging id, both on the page and in real life, and I’ve never been comfortable with people who justify selfish, harmful behavior as artistic expression (being when separating the artist from the art is as impossible as removing their flesh). Then again, my relationship with much of the most important work of the 1960s is cultural appreciation more than subjective enjoyment. 

CRUMB is riveting (although the extended family becomes a bit tough to keep track of, making me wish for a family tree for reference), alternately enlightening, aggravating, inspiring, and heartbreaking. But I didn’t come out of it with a burning desire to add more of the man’s work to my library. I’m good with what I have already (a few collections, some anthologies of underground work, and oh yeah, every issue of WEIRDO), as well as the arm’s length at which I keep it. 

Pops Watched TV: DTF ST. LOUIS

 For the past month or so, I’ve been proselytizing HBO’s DTF ST. LOUIS to friends, praising it as being something truly unique in an ocean of streaming television: A pitch black comedy / murder whodunit about sex in the suburbs, middle age ennui, and identity crises that was simultaneously twisted and unexpectedly sweet. Jason Bateman, David Harbour, and Linda Cardellini play friends caught in a complicated three-way affair that ends in the death of Harbour’s character, Floyd Smernitch. Two detectives, a grizzled older white man played by Richard Jenkins and a young African American woman (Joy Sunday) investigating the case focus on Floyd’s wife, Carol (Cardellini) and best friend, local meteorologist Clark (Bateman), and what initially seems like a typical tale of suburban infidelity leading to murder (for reasons financial or jealousy?) unravels as the details of the three lives are slowly laid bare (literally). 

Harbour is particularly moving as Floyd, a tortured, gentle soul desperately trying to find human connection. His relationship with his stepson, Richard (Arlan Ruf) will rend your heart in all of the ways it can be rended. Bateman evokes middle age weariness in a way that will make anyone who grew up watching him on TV feel every ache and pain they’ve ever endured. Cardellini’s Carol often comes across as cold (particularly towards the climax), making her rare moments of warmth and love have real resonance. The performances are all great, and often startling in their honesty. Which makes the ending (it’s not a spoiler, it’s the setup of the show) all the more painful. 

But not the good kind of dramatic painful. As the show’s final moments played out, I was left asking, What’s the Point? DTF ST. LOUIS goes to great, at time excruciating lengths to show us the complexity in these three characters (Clark’s wife, Eimy is barely in the series, presumably for a reason, although I can’t help but think having her more fleshed out would’ve helped us understand Clark’s situation more), but in the end, all we get is sadness. There’s no catharsis for anyone, no greater understanding of why life is so fucking hard, no silver lining woven into the tragedy. Everyone is just suffering (unless you count the detectives, who grow closer as a result of the investigation). 

Anyone who was frustrated by the conclusion of OZARK will feel familiar pangs of longing for a more just ending with DTF ST. LOUIS, but, as with Bateman’s crime drama, there’s more than enough good here to make it worth watching. But goddamn, it’s not an easy watch.

Pops Saw a Movie: JOHN CANDY: I LIKE ME

 Colin Hanks’ new documentary, JOHN CANDY: I LIKE ME is a true rarity in Hollywood biographies in that… there’s no dirt. Nobody’s telling secret, behind the scenes stories of what a jerk Candy was. There aren’t tales of rampant drug use and racist, misogynistic rants in the makeup chair. Nobody’s talking about how he was a raging egomaniac who abused his co-stars and took advantage of his fame to trample the little people. The worst they can come up with is that he was kind of a perfectionist who didn’t take care of himself and that one time, he got mad that he wasn’t making as much money as his SCTV co-stars. But that’s it. 

Nope, it seems as if this is one of those rare instances where a beloved celebrity was, well, just like you’d hoped he’d be: a super sweet guy. Sure, there’s drama surrounding how people’s reactions (both positive and negative) to his weight affected him (and his career), an ongoing undercurrent of sadness related to early loss in his life, and a bit about how his inability to say no to friends resulted in some poor movie choices, but mostly, this is a heartfelt celebration of John Candy… and if you’re old enough to have been affected by his untimely death in 1994 at the age of 43, make sure you’ve got something handy to wipe away a river of tears. 

Haven and I watched this Sunday night, and within the first few minutes, we were both sobbing. The film opens at Candy’s funeral, and a montage of images of the actor play under Dan Aykroyd’s emotional eulogy, which—I’m not being hyperbolic—is one of the most beautiful arrangements of words I’ve ever heard. An A-List of talking heads (Including Tom Hanks, Bill Murray, Mel Brooks, and Steve Martin) share memories of working with Candy, but it was stories from his SCTV compatriots that moved me the most, as that is the context in which I’ll always think of John. 

I remain of the mind that SCTV, while certainly hit-or-miss, was the greatest sketch comedy television show of all time, and when I was in high school, it was as important to my sense of snark and rebellion as Bugs Bunny and the Clash (way moreso than SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE, which rather quickly became a victim of its own success and lost much of its anarchic spark). SCTV was smarter, took more chances, and somehow managed to be both intellectual and absurdist. Its pop culture references were often obscure (teaching me about things like OCEAN’S 11, Rusty Warren, and William B. Williams), and its recurring characters felt real (none moreso than Candy’s Johnny LaRue, whose drunken wish for a crane shot in episode 94 never fails to elicit tears from myself and my kid brother). Seeing Eugene Levy, Catherine O’Hara, Martin Short, Dave Thomas, and even Robin Duke (sorry, Robin) reminiscing about those turbulent, at times taxing, but creatively enervating times got me choked up way more than discussions of PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES (which is fine, but, you know… John Hughes). 

Anyway. If you dig Hollywood biographies for seedy showbiz salaciousness or to get a sense of schadenfreude out of watching the mighty take a fall, then I LIKE ME is not for you. But if you’re one of the legions who watched John Candy in STRIPES or SPLASH or UNCLE BUCK or NATIONAL LAMPOON’S VACATION or SPACEBALLS (et al) and thought, “Man, I like that guy,” then make sure to check out this heartfelt tribute.

Live Action Superman RE-Rankings!

 So, with James Gunn's SUPERMAN now out long enough for me to have seen it numerous times and have the initial rush of excitement (which always makes me like things more than I usually do after objectivity is allowed to settle in) abate a bit, I've re-evaluated my rankings of the live action Superman movies and portrayals to put the new film and its cast in their places. Where does David Corenswet fit in? How about Rachel Brosnahan? And the movie overall? Here's my new placements (as originally posted on my Daily Superman Instagram page).... 

Pops Saw a Movie: FANTASTIC FOUR: FIRST STEPS

 Maybe THE FANTASTIC FOUR: FIRST STEPS suffered from coming out so soon after SUPERMAN (review here), as comparisons are inevitable and I think I might have liked this movie a bit more had I seen it first. 

My immediate reaction is, it’s fine. The story is serviceable, the effects are pretty good, the elevation of Sue to the most powerful member of the quartet (as she’s been portrayed in the comics for years) is long overdue. Both Galactus and Silver Surfer look and sound great (I am a huge fan of both Julia Garner and Ralph Ineson, and they make the most of their roles despite being buried under CG). It was a nice surprise seeing Natasha Lyonne as Ben’s not-blind-sculptor love interest, Roz (named after Jack Kirby’s beloved wife, a sweet tribute). The movie’s stakes feel high, and while the forced “it’s all about family” theme is usually wince-inducing to me, it makes sense here. I actually like that the sweater-like costumes look like they were made by J. Crew (who knew they had access to unstable molecules?). And hey, Franklin looks like an actual baby. 

But some of the casting feels off. I love Pedro Pascal, but he just doesn’t evoke the somewhat detached cerebral nature of Reed Richards, he’s more of a socially-inept, reluctant celebrity. Ebon Moss-Bachrach’s Thing feels a bit insubstantial, with a pointless beard and an oddly-unaltered voice (I know, I know, the actor doesn’t want to totally get lost in the performance, but it just feels off). Joseph Quinn’s Johnny (now also a genius for some reason) is pretty dull. 

I was surprised that I enjoyed the presence of H.E.R.B.I.E. (Created as a replacement for the Human Torch in the 1978 animated series), but why does Reed call him “Herbert” when the robot’s name is an acryonym? Was that and ad-lib from Pascal or was that in the script? Was it supposed to show that Reed’s so buttoned up he can’t use nicknames even when it’s not a nickname? *(I fully acknowledge this is a supremely nerdy nitpick.) 

But the film’s biggest problem is also one of is strengths… the retro-futurism of the alternate universe 1960s is one of the key elements to differentiate this from other entrants in the MCU. And it’s all pretty striking. But it’s so overwhelmingly art directed that it rarely feels organic (I'm gonna guess that many of the designers had to research the MCM esthetic), I always felt like I was looking at props rather than parts of the Fantastic Four’s world, to enormous distraction (the fake TV show that serves as an exposition dump is the worst example of this). And the rampant product placement is sadly typical, but still annoying. Ironically, it was this aspect of the movie—something to which I was really looking forward—that kept me at arm’s length more than any performance or plot point. 

I dunno. Like I said, it was fine. But it certainly didn’t feel like the kind of fresh restart for a universe that’s been struggling to regain an audience. Maybe when I see it again (which will not be in the theater), I’ll feel different. 

BUT WHERE WAS WILLIE LUMPKIN?!?!

Pops Saw a Movie: SUPERMAN

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

On my Instagram page, The Daily Superman, I did a series leading up to the release of James Gunn’s SUPERMAN rating the previous live-action portrayals of the characters along with every motion picture. As I revisited the 77-year history of movies and television starring Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster’s creation (aka my all-time favorite pop culture icon), I had the sad realization that there had not been a good Superman movie since SUPERMAN II, which came out 44 years ago (with everything since then ranging from just okay all the way to terrible).

And despite my fervent desire to keep my expectations for Gunn’s reboot in check, it hit me that if I didn’t like this latest attempt to bring the character to life, I might have to give up on ever getting a good Superman movie again (which honestly, I kinda did after MAN OF STEEL). 

Thankfully, that decades-long bad streak ended on July 11th when SUPERMAN came out and completely blew me away. Is it perfect? No. Is it my new favorite Superman movie? Nah, that top spot will always go to ‘78 (let’s face it, despite some flaws, Donner’s original is a classic, and there will never be a more perfect Superman moment in any medium than when Christopher Reeve answers Margot Kidder’s query of “Who… ARE you?” with a smiling, simple, “A friend.” Gets me every time.). But this new movie is a damn close second. 

The marketing of the film promised a stark departure from Zack Snyder’s dark and dour DC Extended Universe, but I simply was not prepared for it to be such a complete 180. It’s not just the bright colors and the trunks and the dog, SUPERMAN is a comic book movie that—finally—is not ashamed of its roots; In fact, it embraces them with a grand, gloriously goofy sincerity, mostly lacking in Gunn’s usual wink-wink piss-taking on the genre. The new cinematic DC Universe is not deconstructionist, it’s not trying to show what superheroes would be like IRL (cough), it’s not trying to give a pseudo-scientific explanation for everything (except, for some inexplicable reason, throwing in the lame “hypno-glasses” reason for Clark’s successful disguise, taken from an instantly-undone 1978 issue of SUPERMAN). 

For the layperson to click with SUPERMAN, you have to accept that this is a world In which superheroes (or “metahumans” to use the current nomenclature), aliens, monsters, and other fantastic phenomena are just a part of normal life. It’s why the citizens of Metropolis are just as likely to stop and take pictures of a rampaging Kaiju as run screaming for cover. If you can get with THAT program, then you’re in for a ride. If not, well, there’s another season of THE BOYS coming at some point that I’m sure you’ll enjoy. 

The story is stuffed, but straightforward: As Superman embroils himself in an international conflict (which doesn’t help Clark Kent and Lois Lane’s struggle to define their complicated romantic situation of three months), Lex Luthor has hatched a rather elaborate plot to not only make himself the ruler of what would be a newly-established techno-autocracy in Eastern Europe, but also eliminate the one person whom he feels undeservedly has more power, fame, and veneration than he (three guesses). Luckily for Lex, he discovers something that turns the public against the hero, who now (in addition to being caged and kryptonite-poisoned in an other-dimensional gulag) faces an existential crisis regarding his place on Earth (but thankfully—unlike ALL of Superman in the DCEU—it doesn’t last long). 

There are lots of sprinkles on the cupcake: Superman’s altruism is put in stark contrast with the corporate-funded, less-humane Justice Gang (not their name), comprised of the brilliant but irascible Mr. Terrific, the violent, short-tempered Hawkgirl, and Green Lantern Guy Gardner, who’s just an asshole. Lex forces Metamorpho, the Element Man to do his bidding by kidnapping his son, Joey. Superman’s got robots who downplay their sentience but in fact really care about him. The staff of The Daily Planet actually gets to do journalism! And the super-powered dog that Superman’s watching is a fucking nightmare. The pacing is somewhat frenetic, but there’s room to breathe, and it’s all in aid of world (and character!) building that doesn’t feel rushed ala the DCEU, but fresh and full of promise.

Visually, SUPERMAN is stunning, but I’ll admit that I’m not the best arbiter of good and bad CGI… as someone who doesn’t play video games, I’m usually not distracted by VFX that look like they’re being controlled by a Nintendo Switch. But Gunn’s usage of more practical effects and makeup than these films usually employ added to the movie’s impressive action and immersive feel. You really will believe a man can fly… really fast!

But (as with Donner’s first film) none of this would work without good casting, and MAN, did Gunn and his casting director, John Papsidera nail (almost) every character. Nicholas Hoult SEETHES with hatred, hubris, and disdain in every scene as Lex Luthor (aside from the curious choice of a few tears at one point). Edi Gathegi makes Mr. Terrific an instant breakout character. Nathan Fillion was born to play Guy Gardner. Anthony Carrigan looks exactly like Metamorpho even without makeup (although his personality doesn’t match the cockiness of the comic book version). The entire Daily Planet staff (who actually have things to do here) not only feel fleshed out (granted, I knew all of them from the comics, so your mileage may vary), they’re believable as not just coworkers, but actual journalists! 

And, of course, David Corenswet and Rachel Brosnahan are not only both absolutely pitch-perfect as Clark / Superman and Lois Lane, but their chemistry—whether they’re bickering, consoling, or canoodling—is electric. I do wish they’d had MORE to do together, but we’re just getting started here. 

In advance of the movie, there were a few things that gave me hope, primarily the casting of Lois Lane. As a huge fan of THE MARVELOUS MRS. MAISEL, I was thrilled to see her take a stab at the part. Brosnahan’s got the pluck, wit, and brains to slip right into that purple sweater (it’s canon), and man, is she perfect. In fact, my favorite scene in the whole movie might be one in which she tries to explain to Clark that pop punk is NOT, in fact, punk. God, I laughed so hard at that scene (and it was an absolutely brilliant shorthand to explain the difference between them). 

David Corenswet (the doomed projectionist from PEARL), like Christopher Reeve, understands the delicate balance of charm, strength, and humility required to portray the world’s most powerful man as just a sincere (if kinda nerdy) nice guy. Sure, he’s not quite as indestructible as previous versions, and maybe the squirrel scene was a bit over the top, but goddamn, I’ll take that over Routh and Cavill’s mopey Christ figures all day long. 

Not every portrayal worked for me. I am decidedly not a fan of Bradley Cooper, and even though his perpetual smugness kinda worked for this version of Jor-El, it still made me wince. And it took me two viewings to accept Pruitt Taylor Vince and Neval Howell’s country bumpkin portrayals of Pa and Ma Kent (thanks to the fact that my old bladder made me miss the pivotal scene when Lois brings the injured Superman home to them when I saw it the first time).

One of my issues with James Gunn as a filmmaker is his propensity to play to the Funko Pop crowd by inserting some cutesy characters into his movies, and SUPERMAN’s no exception. Both the baby Kaiju and Metamorpho’s son, Joey (the worst thing in the film) seem designed to placate the toy companies (there are figures of both of them). But one character that could’ve been too cute and overused actually ended up adding a brand new dimension to the story: Krypto. While I was initially excited to hear the superdog would be making his actual live-action (well, CGI) debut (we’ve seen Kryptos before, but they’ve always been Earth dogs sans powers), early marketing for the movie had me a bit nervous that he’d be Rocket-Raccooning the shit outta this thing. Thankfully, the digital doggo not only serves numerous important functions in the plot, but I love that he’s actually “not a very good (dog),” which makes perfect sense (as a side note, if you dog lovers didn’t like Krypto’s treatment in this movie, you may want to skip next year’s SUPERGIRL, at least if it follows the pup’s arc in the movie’s comic book inspiration).

But maybe my biggest issue with the movie was my first one from a year ago… I’m not nuts about that costume. I mean, I appreciate its brightness and the presence of the red trunks (without which Supes just ain’t Supes), and I don’t really care that it’s not skintight with painted on muscles… but it could fit a LITTLE better, and lose the “New 52”-inspired piping and high collar (and once again, the cape is way too long), the rectangular belt buckle, and mostly, that goddamn shield. With a Superman suit, people seem to forget that less is more, and that the classics never go out of style. I wish Gunn had trusted the iconography a bit more. 

When the first leaked image of the new \S/ was hinted at in a social media post showing actor placeholders at a read-through, I refused to believe that the film was going to actually employ the KINGDOM COME-inspired shield, not just because it’s actually REALLY “not an S” (more resembling “banned” signage), but because (at least in the source) the design has meaning, being that of a Superman who no longer feels connected to humanity… If Henry Cavill had worn it, sure, but everything James Gunn had said about the version of the character he was writing felt anathema to that. So, I guess it had more to do with giving the marketing department something unique to license. Wait, is there merchandise for the movie? I hadn’t noticed. 

I’m kidding of course. Everything from T-shirts and action figures to Keebler cookies and milk bones bear that new glyph. And if there’s a silver lining in my distaste for the design, it’s that I am currently saving a LOT of money on merch. To date, I’ve purchased exactly two tie-ins (three if you count a Metamorpho figure), being a McFarlane Toys action figure (which I refused to open until I saw the movie, even though I’d still have kept it for historical reasons) and those sickeningly sweet “Strongberry” Fudge Stripes (that impulse purchase was a mistake). 

But If the glyph is (as retconned by the 1978 film and made canon) a symbol of the House of El, then wouldn’t Kal’s discovery of his family’s shitty intentions make the family crest a mark of shame? Perhaps a shift to a more traditional, classic \S/ might be in the cards? Hm? And less piping? Maybe? Please?

So, let’s talk about that controversial twist: I was one of the Superman nerds who was so wedded to the notion that Jor-El and Lara had to be selfless and noble that I didn’t listen to the MULTIPLE times the film tells us that the message they sent along with their son’s ship was indeed real; That they actually DID want him to grow up to take advantage of his powers by ruling the planet and spreading his Super-seed amongst a harem of wives in order to bring upon a New Krypton! Yikes! 

Gunn is insistent that this message is not faked, so we have to deal with this enormous change to the mythos. But how will it play out in terms of Superman’s important relationship with his heritage.. I mean, Pa Kent didn’t help build that Fortress (and what does it do to Supergirl’s origin? Will we find out if her father shared his brother’s eugenicist attitudes?). I get that anyone who tackles this nigh-90 year old property wants to bring something new to it, but it’s going to take me a while to get used to Jerk-El and Lara (although it did perfectly set us up for the “nurture-over-nature” message and that beautiful, emotional final shot of the film).

In pretty much every interview with James Gunn that I’ve seen, he diplomatically insists that (aside from “kindness is the new punk rock”) there’s no intentional political metaphor in SUPERMAN, which is about as believable as Alan Moore denying that Batman murders the Joker at the end of THE KILLING JOKE.* I mean, I guess it’s possible that Superman being an “illegal alien”/refugee, Lex Luthor illegally imprisoning people in an other-dimensional gulag without due process, the Boravia / Jarhanpur conflict, the army of monkey Internet trolls, and Superman Robot #4 deciding he wants to be called Gary all just coincidentally align with real-world issues. Then again, it’s more possible that Gunn would rather show than tell (the guy’s gotten enough shit from the Right as it is). 

But let’s talk about that. 

This past month, as I’ve watched right wing pundits whine about this film’s “wokeness”  (seemingly not understanding that superheroes are INHERENTLY “social justice warriors,” Superman particularly, and for his entire history), anti-Americanism (just because the anachronistic slogan, “truth, justice, and the American way” is not invoked), and Superman’s “weakness” (because he bleeds, struggles, shows emotions, and saves a squirrel), I’ve been painfully reminded not only how much the Right really doesn’t understand SHIT, but also of the seemingly permanent rift in society and how the discourse is beset with culture war distractions.**

Which is why I believe this movie is not just fun, it’s genuinely IMPORTANT right now. It gives an audience of people who are exhausted by the vitriol, duplicity, and selfishness that defines America in 2025 something ridiculously cathartic. It gives us someone with ultimate power for whom we can actually CHEER because he’s not a bad guy. 

And, as a lifelong fan (to put it mildly) of the character, I’m also ecstatic that, with this movie, it seems as if people (well, most of them) FINALLY understand Superman. They finally get what’s made him mean so much to me as someone who can’t relate to much of humanity and often feels that we’re careening towards a well-earned extinction and NEEDS the escape of adventures starring a character who’s the opposite of the people who vex me on a daily basis. They finally see that Superman’s  power doesn’t make him boring, it’s what makes him so fascinating precisely because it’s actually NOT what defines him. It’s his humanity. 

So, nerdpicking issues aside, GodDAMN, am I in love with this new film and so, so excited for what comes next. SUPERMAN is bright and bold and silly and exciting and maybe most of all, it’s heartfelt and sincere. In fact, I recommend SUPERMAN to not just fans of the genre who are understandably suffering superhero fatigue, but to anyone who needs a balm for the insufferable reality in which we currently live.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Read it again. The entire book is utterly pointless without this ending and it was originally intended to be an Elseworlds book for a reason.
** The pathetic, small but loud army of screaming Snyder trolls pretending that this film is a flop and nobody loves it are a whole different issue that’s not even worth discussing.