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.
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.
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.
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)....
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.
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?!?!
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).
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.
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!
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).
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.
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.
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.
After posting my thoughts on my Instagram page, The Daily Superman, regarding most (not quite all) of the many actors and actresses who've brought the Superman family to life since 1948 (see last post), I ranked every live-action Superman movie (excluding JUSTICE LEAGUE... either version) from favorite to least-, primarily because there's really no mystery over what would take the top spot.
At the age of 13, I saw Richard Donner’s SUPERMAN on its release date, Dec. 15, 1978 at the Wonderland Cinemas in Lancaster PA and it instantly and forever became my favorite film of all time (making it by default my favorite Superman movie).
It’s not perfect. There are some plot holes. A few effects are a tad wonky. The acting can feel inconsistent at times. But everything else… Jesus, what a miracle. Between Donner’s insistence on treating the material with respect and his smart, thoughtful direction, Tom Mankiewicz’ witty reworking of the patchwork screenplay, John Barry’s sumptuous production design, Geoffrey Unsworth’s gorgeous cinematography, the effects team’s groundbreaking work, John Williams’ magnificent score, Lynn Stalmaster’s impeccable casting, and of course, the indelible performances of the cast, SUPERMAN has become not just the quintessential gold standard of superhero cinema (Heck, even Kevin Feige’s stated its the template that Marvel followed while building the MCU), it’s inarguably a classic film in its own right.
SUPERMAN had spectacle, but it was the smaller parts that made it work. The movie remembered to show the audience that Superman’s not just about stopping global cataclysms or alien invasions. He’s also about capturing a petty cat burglar or saving a cat from a tree, letting everyone know that this most powerful being on the planet is not to be feared; he’s just here to help. Or, to quote our hero himself, he’s “a friend.”
SUPERMAN straddled the line between the nascent blockbuster cinema and the auteurism of 1970s film. Donner managed to create a big budget movie about a comic book character that felt like a work of art. And not only has it stood the test of time, it find new acolytes with each passing year. It’s also the only Superman movie to make me cry every damn time I watch it. So yeah, it’s my favorite. And I’m gonna guess it’s most of yours as well.
Our #2 favorite Superman movie has a two in its very title!
As excited as I was for 1978’s SUPERMAN, I may have been even more jazzed for its sequel. For the first time in live action, we were going to get a no holds barred superhero battle, courtesy of a creative team that already proved its mettle (with one glaring exception). And at the time, I absolutely loved SUPERMAN II, seeing it in the theater six times during the summer of 1981.
The conflict between the Salkinds and Richard Donner and his subsequent replacement with the far less reverent Richard Lester was not a secret, even if the full details of how that played out cinematically were not fully known in 1981. But I could tell that tonally, visually, and narratively, this film felt very much like the product of two different directors. Over the years, those differences have gained weight with me and there are parts of SUPERMAN II that make me wince when I watch it today (and not just Lester’s campy cheese, I also hate the revenge scene on Butch at the film’s end). But overall, it remains a great movie, filled with fantastic performances (has anyone ever chewed scenery more deliciously than Terence Stamp and Sarah Douglas as General Zod and Ursa?), fantastic set pieces, and a continuation of the romance between Supes and Lois (even if I can’t buy that Superman would trip over a bearskin rug, and there are some really dumb decisions made that sadly end the whole relationship).
But maybe the saddest thing about this movie (that, remember, I do still love) is that it was—again, my subjective opinion—the last good Superman theatrical film we’ve gotten. 44 years ago. Richard Lester may have been the first steward of the Man of Steel’s cinematic adventures to miss the point, but he would not be the last… nor even the worst.
Coming in at #3 on my rating of the 10 live action Superman movies is 1951’s SUPERMAN AND THE MOLE MEN.
A theatrical back-door pilot for the ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN TV show, this 58-minute movie entirely takes place in a small town (not Metropolis), has a rather thin plot, very little action, minimal, crude special effects, and the only other member of his cast to appear is Lois Lane.
So why is it my third favorite Superman movie? Well, in part because SUPERMAN AND THE MOLE MEN (note it’s not “VS”) introduced the world to George Reeves’ unforgettable version of the superhero, one who would define the character for generations. It also introduces Phyllis Coates as a very Golden-Agey Lois Lane (that’s a compliment). But mostly, I love this thing because of the kind of Superman we get here, one whose compassion outshines his powers, who despises bullies, and who fights for the persecuted.
In the film (directed by Lee Sholem and written by Robert Maxwell), a race of “mole men” (played by little people in makeup, carrying a modified vacuum cleaner) climb up from an oil well into the western town of Silsby, where, despite no foul intent, cause a man’s heart attack, play glow-ball with a little girl, and frighten the populace into forming a lynch mob to get the creatures. But Superman’s having none of it, calling out their knee-jerk hatred for the ignorance and fear it is, defending the beings and fighting off the riled-up townsfolk.
Any Superman movie that gives him the line, “I’m going to give you one last chance to stop acting like Nazi stormtroopers!” is okay in my book. Is SUPERMAN AND THE MOLE MEN more spectacular or exciting than some of the films that are lower on my subjective list? Absolutely not. But it understands him more than most of them do.
The #4 selection on our top ten Superman films is 1983’s much-maligned SUPERMAN III.
Christopher Reeve’s third outing as the Man of Steel is a misfire that’s become a textbook lesson in how not to make a superhero movie and a reminder to not lose focus. When Richard Pryor stated on THE TONIGHT SHOW that he’d love to be in a Superman movie, the producers jumped on the offer, and turned (or at least tried to turn) the next installment of the series into more of a showcase for Pryor’s comedic talents than the hero’s never-ending battle. Add to that Robert Vaughn as an utterly uncharismatic industrialist villain, an ill-used Annette O’Toole as a downtrodden single mother version of Lana Lang, and another campy directing job by Richard Lester (oof, that opening), and you’ve got a super disappointment.
And yet, 1983’s SUPERMAN III does have enough going for it to make it not a total loss. First and foremost, Reeve continues to own the role(s), and a literal and existential battle between Clark Kent and an evil version of his alter ego is the film’s highlight. There are a few nice set pieces, and a final battle with a supercomputer contains maybe the most terrifying scene in any of these films when Annie Ross turns into a computer-human hybrid. Richard Pryor’s charm is in evidence despite the quality of the material he’s given. There’s even an implication that evil Superman got it on with Pamela Stephenson (which apparently doesn’t count)!
Let’s put it this way: A mediocre Superman movie that stars Chris Reeve is better than one that stars someone else in the suit. That alone makes it worth watching. And while still not good, as Michael Bolton (not that one) sagely opined in 1999, it’s actually not as bad as you remember.
At the halfway point in our survey of live action Superman movies, and coming in at #5 it’s 1950’s ATOM MAN VS. SUPERMAN.
The second Superman serial ups the ante on its 1948 predecessor by bringing in Lex Luthor as the enemy and introducing some new elements to the story, including a predecessor to the Phantom Zone. Kirk Alyn plays Superman with a devil may care bravado, while his Clark Kent adopts the meek and mild-mannered persona that his successor would forego. Noel Neill and Tommy Bond are fine as Lois and Jimmy, while Pierre Watkin continues to be a perfectly annoyed Perry White.
Lyle Talbot plays a Lex Luthor who’s closer to the comic book version than any other live action adaptation. A scowling, evil scientific genius who invents both a transporting device and synthetic kryptonite, he takes on the dual role of Atom Man to keep Superman from discovering his true identity (Supes thinks he’s still behind bars). Additionally, the producers came up with ways to show Superman in flight besides just turning him into a cartoon (see next Tuesday’s [spoiler alert!] post).
The limitations of both the time and the serial format mean that AMVS (directed by Spencer Gordon Bennett) probably couldn’t be considered “great,” and maybe its enjoyability comes more from a nostalgic place than anything (even if you were born—like me—decades after this series was released). But really, is that the worst thing in the world?
Coming in at #6 is the second-mopeyest (is that a word?) Superman ever, Bryan Singer’s ill-fated Reeve-reboot, SUPERMAN RETURNS.
When SUPERMAN RETURNS came out in 2006, I rounded up a group of friends to come watch SUPERMAN and SUPERMAN II at my apartment before going to see the new film in the theater. When the end credits finished and we all stood up, I humbly apologized to the group and we adjourned to a nearby public house to drown (mostly my) sorrows.
I’d hoped that continuing the most beloved take on the character could work, even if I wasn’t convinced the leads had the juice to embody those formidable mantles (they did not) and would’ve preferred if Singer maybe just took inspiration from Donner’s films rather than crafting an actual continuation. But I wasn’t prepared for such a boring, creepy, downer of a flick.
Aside from the pointless navel-gazing, repetitive plot (another real estate scam? Really?), reused beats and dialogue, marked lack of action (Superman is REACTIVE in the entire film, he catches and deflects things, but that’s it), murderous offspring, and utterly implausible finale (no way he’s lifting an entire freaking continent made of kryptonite, even if he’d have donned that gray radiation suit from the beginning), the movie is (I have to use the word again) creepy. There’s super-eavesdropping, attempted infidelity, elder abuse, and that’s not even taking into account the discomfiting veneer that coated the film in the wake of allegations against some of its principals.
Certainly, the film has its moments, most notably that amazing plane rescue, and some of the flying scenes are gorgeous, but overall, RETURNS was just… sad. Although not nearly sad as our next entrant…
We’re at #7 with the most polarizing take on the character ever to hit the big screen, 2013’s grim-n-gritty reboot, MAN OF STEEL.
As with a few others on this list, MoS is a bad movie with enough good parts to make it not altogether unwatchable. So, let’s start with the positive: First, Henry Cavill makes for a pretty solid Superman; he’s charming and imposing at the same time and looks good (albeit in a bad suit). The scene on the burning oil rig is the film’s best (with the action on Krypton in the opening of the film coming in second). Some of the effects are pretty spectacular. And, um… wait, let me think…
Nope. Writer David S. Goyer and director Zack Snyder’s decision to go dark and have Superman perpetually suffer an existential crisis regarding his powers and abilities (thanks to adoptive parents who taught him it’s probably better to hide rather than help people) just runs counter to everything that makes Superman work. And while Michael Shannon makes for a formidable Zod (shoehorned in way too soon), the chaos and destruction that their clashes cause are so over the top that they’re not at all fun to watch (unless you’re one of those people who thought 9/11 was “like a movie”).
Additionally, Amy Adams and Cavill have zero chemistry as Lois and Superman (their weirdly-shivering “kiss amongst the rubble” scene is so cringe I can’t even watch) and pretty much all other supporting characters are reduced to cameos at best. There’s just nothing to latch onto with this film.
Oh, and Clark totally could’ve saved Jonathan from that tornado without revealing himself. That’s just one of so many dumb choices in this thing.
I’d like to say I don’t get the fervent, even hostile ardor that some people hold for this iteration of Superman, but sadly, I do. Like Snyder, these people think that in order for superheroes to be cool or interesting, they have to be dark and brooding. Which works for Batman, but you know… Superman, not so much. But hey, if it’s your bag, knock yourself out.
#8 on our list of live action Superman movies is the original 1948 SUPERMAN serial from Columbia Pictures, directed by Spencer Bennett and Thomas Carr, and starring Kirk Alyn as Clark Kent, Noel Neill as Lois Lane, Tommy Bond as Jimmy Olsen, and Superman as himself (or so the credits stated).
After a very Golden Age origin chapter, the tale gets under way as Superman takes on the menace of, uh, the Spider Lady (played with little enthusiasm by Carol Forman), the mistress of crime! Also, Superman encounters kryptonite for the first time (then again, everything in this is for the first time, as this is the inaugural live action Superman). As I mentioned the other day, the leads are fine (Noel Neill is much more feisty in the serials than the later television series).
In fact, it’s the seminal nature of this serial that most makes it worth watching. You may wince at the cartoon Superman taking flight and stock footage menaces, but if you can keep things in perspective, there’s enough going on here to make for an enjoyable Saturday morning.
Just don’t watch the whole thing in one sitting.
The next-to-worst (IMO) Superman movie has has come to define diminishing genre sequel returns and what happens when a would-be blockbuster is shot on a shoestring budget. And after all these years, it still hurts to dislike a Chris Reeve outing.
1987’s SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE (directed by Sidney J. Furie) had a noble intent: Superman tackles nuclear proliferation. But as SI/II script doctor Tom Mankiewicz warned, putting the superhero in a real-world context is a tricky proposition, one that might have worked in the right hands. But when the Salkinds sold the rights to notoriously cheap Cannon Films, the project became doomed from the start.
The story’s just okay (a potentially engaging subplot about a tabloid takeover of The Daily Planet get the short shrift and could’ve given Lois some meaty scenes), but from the cartoonish opening credits, you can tell how cheap and slipshod the production is going to be. The effects are wonky (with certain shots reused throughout the film). They barely even try to make the suburban UK Milton Keynes shooting locations look like the bustling Metropolis. Gene Hackman’s lost his devilish enthusiasm for Luthor (and says “nucular”), Reeve and Kidder both look tired, but not as much as a painfully gaunt Jackie Cooper. Jon Cryer’s valley dude nephew of Lex is wince-inducing. Mark Pillow’s Nuclear Man is felled any time he’s out of direct sunlight (now THAT’S a kryptonite). Superman’s “Great Wall of China Rebuilding Vision” may be the most egregious made-up super power of them all. Oh, and humans survive in space with no protective spacesuits and Lex cuts a strand of Superman’s indestructible hair with a bolt cutter. It’s that lazy.
BUT (along with a terrific score by Alexander Courage) it’s still a Chris Reeve Superman movie, so even with all its faults, it bests what is to my (and many others’) mind, not just the worst Superman movie of all time, but also the tied-for-worst Batman film (that’s a hint), and proof that a big budget doesn’t equate quality...
We wrap our list of favorite-to-least Superman movies with as much of a no-brainer for #10 as STM was for #1: Zack Snyder’s BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (2016), a film for which a litany of pejorative adjectives can be applied: Dour. Joyless. Dumb. Pointless. Wrongheaded. Convoluted. Overstuffed. Cynical. Exhausting.
Batman considering Superman a threat because of the rampant destruction he helped incur in MoS isn’t a bad springboard for conflict (I mean, he’s got a point). But, taking it to a Snyderesque extreme, Bats decides to put all his resources towards eliminating the alien threat, to which Superman responds with a schoolyard-taunting, “Oh yeah? Well I don’t like you either!” And then the worst Lex Luthor of all time plays them off each other and then they fight until they discover that their moms share the same name and now they’re besties who team up to battle Sorta-Doomsday and Superman dies (along with lots of other people… again) and Batman is sad. Oof.
I’d say that Warner’s rush to create the DCEU by cramming in other superheroes hampered the movie, but the introduction of Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman is the sole highlight of this slog.
Snyder spends two full films portraying Superman as a tortured soul who’s not sure of his place in the world, then suddenly at the end, Batman spins 180 degrees and mourns Superman as “a beacon of hope.” To whom? Fans who hoped that he’d snap the fuck out of it and embrace who he’s supposed to be? Because he sure didn’t inspire any hope in these films. Even Hans Zimmer’s score sounds like it belongs to a horror movie (seriously, there’s not one rousing moment).
Sigh. Again, Cavill’s likable (despite the script) and Affleck’s not a bad Batman (y’know, aside from the murdering). But this film, man. It is just the worst.
==========================================
After a week of writing mostly negative things about disappointing Superman movies, it thrills me to no end to say that James Gunn’s SUPERMAN is everything I’d hoped it would be. It’s a rousing, heartfelt adventure that boasts (mostly) impeccable casting, a solid story, incredible action, humor, and effects, and a comic book esthetic unlike anything we’ve ever seen in a motion picture.
The previews hinted at the tone and look of the film, but trust me when I say it’s just a hint. I was simply not prepared for how deeply Gunn and his cast and crew would lean into the source material. This is not to say it’s a rehash; it’s fresh and modern while paying homage to all eras of Superman. David Corenswet inhabits the title role, playing him as goofy and sincere and yet still imposing. Rachel Brosnahan is (as I’d surmised) absolute perfection as Lois Lane, portrayed here as an uncompromising journalist (with a punk rock background!!). Nicholas Hoult absolutely seethes with malevolence as Lex Luthor. The rest of the supporting cast is likewise solid (for the most part). The pace is excellent and it’s only a little overstuffed.
The film’s not perfect. I have a few complaints that I’ll eventually point out (let’s just say Gunn found a workaround for fans of anti-heroism, the cutesy factor is a tad high, and yeah, I still dislike the costume). But I left the theater feeling enervated and satisfied and… well, HAPPY (something I couldn’t say about any Superman film in over four decades). If this is the foundation for the new DCU, I am incredibly excited for what SUPERMAN portends.
In fact, I’d even go so far as to say that the very catharsis Siegel and Shuster’s original Superman provided to a Depression-suffering audience in the 1930s is analogous to what Gunn’s Superman offers to those of us struggling to find something good in the Trump era. (And for the record, the character’s been “woke” since 1938.)
I’ll have more to say later. Oh, but please stop calling Krypto a good boy. He’s really not.
Originally posted on Instagram, July 1-10, 2025
