Superman (2025) Review: A Radiant Rebirth of Hope or Just Another Reboot? Deep Analysis of James Gunn’s Man of Steel
Watch on YouTube
Posted by: Rasesh Patell | Date: October 12, 2025 | Category: Film Reviews
The Burden of the Cape
Hello, fellow cinephiles and truth-seekers. Rasesh Patell here, welcoming you back to CharotarDaily.com.
Let’s be honest with one another: we are living in the age of superhero fatigue. The market is oversaturated with multiversal stakes, green-screen sludge, and cynicism disguised as deconstruction. When it was announced that James Gunn—the man who made a talking raccoon cry—was taking the reins of the DC Universe with a brand new Superman, the skepticism was palpable. Could the director known for irreverent humor handle the earnestness of the Big Blue Boy Scout?
I walked into the theater with my notebook in hand and a heavy dose of skepticism in my heart. I walked out two hours and forty minutes later, having witnessed something I thought was extinct: a blockbuster with a beating heart.
This isn’t just a movie; it is a cinematic thesis statement. Superman stars David Corenswet, Rachel Brosnahan, and Nicholas Hoult in a narrative that forces the Man of Tomorrow to reconcile his Kryptonian biology with his Kansas morality. But does it fly? Let’s deconstruct this beast.
James Gunn’s Pivot to Sincerity
James Gunn has spent his career celebrating the misfits, the outlaws, and the broken toys. With Superman, he faces his biggest challenge: directing a character who is perfectly whole.
Gunn’s direction here is a masterclass in tonal balance. He resists the urge to "Marvel-ize" the narrative with undercutting humor during emotional beats. Instead, he leans into a Spielbergian sense of wonder. There is a specific sequence early in the second act—let’s call it the "First Flight" 2.0—where Gunn chooses not to focus on the sonic boom or the physics of flight, but on the sheer joy on Corenswet’s face.
Gunn frames Superman not as a god hovering above us (a la Zack Snyder), but as a friend walking—or flying—beside us. The camera angles are often at eye level, grounding the fantastical elements in human reality. He treats the source material with a reverence that feels less like fan service and more like a religious restoration of the character’s core ethos.
A Technicolor Dream in a Drab World
Cinematographer Henry Braham, a frequent Gunn collaborator, has made a bold choice here: he turned the saturation up.
In an era of muddy, desaturated color grading, Superman pops with primary colors. The blues are cerulean; the reds are crimson. This visual language is crucial to the film’s thematic argument. The film presents Metropolis not as a dark, rain-slicked Gotham counterpart, but as a shiny, retro-futurist Art Deco city that feels like the cover of a Golden Age comic book brought to life.
A standout visual moment occurs during the film’s midway point—a montage of Superman performing "small" saves. Not catching falling airplanes, but fixing a bicycle chain or getting a cat out of a tree (yes, they went there). The lighting in these scenes is warm, bathed in the "magic hour" glow, contrasting sharply with the cold, sterile, fluorescent lighting used in every scene involving Lex Luthor’s Corp. The visual storytelling establishes the conflict before a single punch is thrown: the warmth of humanity versus the coldness of corporate cynicism.
The Struggle of "The Human Way"
The screenplay, penned by Gunn himself, tackles the prompt’s central conflict head-on: Reconciling alien heritage with human upbringing.
The script avoids the tired "origin story" tropes. We don’t see Krypton explode. We don’t see the rocket land. We start with Clark already at the Daily Planet. The genius of the writing lies in the dialogue. Gunn writes Clark Kent not as a bumbling disguise, but as the real person. Superman is the mask; Clark is the soul.
The thematic meat of the film is the clash between Superman’s "old-fashioned" values and a modern world that views truth and justice as subjective commodities. There is a brilliant exchange between Clark and Perry White regarding a news story where Perry demands "the angle," and Clark insists on "the truth." It’s a meta-commentary on modern media, handled with surprising nuance.
However, if I must critique, the third act suffers slightly from "CGI Army Fatigue." While the emotional stakes remain high, the screenplay falls into a conventional beat-em-up resolution that feels slightly at odds with the pacifist philosophy established in the first two acts.
The Holy Trinity
David Corenswet as Superman/Clark Kent
The elephant in the room is Henry Cavill. Comparisons are inevitable. But let me say this decisively: David Corenswet is the Superman we need right now. While Cavill played the burden of being a god, Corenswet plays the joy of being a helper.
Corenswet utilizes his physicality beautifully. As Clark, he slouches, making himself small, flashing a goofy, farm-boy grin. As Superman, he expands, his posture radiates authority, but his eyes remain gentle. In the scene where he confronts his Kryptonian holographic father, Jor-El, Corenswet delivers a monologue about choosing Kansas over Krypton that is so raw and vulnerable, it anchors the entire CGI spectacle in human emotion.
Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane
Brosnahan is a firecracker. Channeling the fast-talking energy of 1940s screwball comedies (and yes, a bit of Mrs. Maisel), she makes Lois Lane the smartest person in the room. Her chemistry with Corenswet is electric. It’s not just a romance; it’s an intellectual partnership. She isn’t a damsel in distress; she is an investigative journalist who happens to date a demigod. Her performance proves that Lois is not Superman’s weakness, but his tether to humanity.
Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor
Hoult offers a chillingly different Lex. He is not the campy Gene Hackman or the twitchy Jesse Eisenberg. Hoult plays Luthor as a tech-bro narcissist with a messiah complex. He is calm, softly spoken, and terrifyingly pragmatic. Hoult plays the jealousy perfectly—he hates Superman not because he is an alien, but because Superman gives things away for free (hope, help, safety) that Luthor believes should be sold. It is a villain performance for the late-stage capitalism era.
Contextualizing the Legacy
To truly understand this film, we must look at where it sits in history.
Vs. Donner (1978): Gunn borrows the optimism and the score’s grandeur (referencing Williams without copying him) but strips away the camp.
Vs. Snyder (2013): Man of Steel asked, "What would happen if an alien landed in the real world?" (Answer: Fear). Gunn’s Superman asks, "What would happen if a truly good man landed in a cynical world?" (Answer: Inspiration).
This film feels most akin to Captain America: The First Avenger, but on a galactic scale. It proves that a character doesn't need to be "edgy" to be interesting. In the context of Gunn’s filmography, this is his most mature work. It lacks the nihilism of The Suicide Squad and replaces it with the found-family warmth of Guardians Vol. 3.
Final Verdict
Superman is a cinematic miracle. It is a sweeping, romantic, action-packed epic that dares to be uncool in its pursuit of kindness. While the third-act action gets a little busy, the emotional through-line never snaps.
Rasesh Patell’s Rating: 4.5 out of 5 Stars.
James Gunn has not just rebooted a franchise; he has rebooted the idea of the superhero. He reminds us that while it’s fun to see a man fly, it’s more important to see a man stand up for what is right.
Who Should Watch This?
The Jaded Fan: If you felt burned by the DCEU’s inconsistency, this is the apology letter you’ve been waiting for.
Families: Finally, a superhero movie you can take your kids to without worrying about excessive grimness. It’s a true four-quadrant film.
Cinema Purists: If you appreciate visual storytelling, color theory, and distinct directorial voice, there is plenty here to analyze.
David Corenswet Skeptics: Go watch it. You will be converted within the first 15 minutes.
