Superman (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: When Superman gets drawn into conflicts both domestic and abroad, his life is made harder by revelations about his parents.

For a long time, I was not a fan of Superman as a character. He seemed too perfect, like a superhero invented by a child: “he can fly, and he’s super fast, and he is the strongest, and all the women want him because of how good-looking he is”. Then I started reading some, specifically All-Star Superman, For The Man Who Has Everything, and Earth One, and then I got it. The important part of him isn’t his Kryptonian side; it’s his human side. What makes him different from other “cooler” superheroes is that, despite being an alien, he represents the best of humanity. You sense that even without his powers, he’d be doing his best to help people. The release of the Dark Knight trilogy made this attitude seem passe and naive, which led to a somewhat darker take on the character with Man Of Steel. This movie corrects that. It’s not gritty and dark, it’s bright, it’s colourful, it’s fun, and most importantly, it’s hopeful.

Which, of course, has meant that idiots have derided it as woke. The reactions to this movie seem like the kind of reactions the character gets in the movie, and from what I’ve seen of James Gunn, he’s probably making notes and is going to quote them in the sequel. Let’s get this out of the way, superhero movies haven’t BECOME political, they’ve always been political. From the days of characters fighting Russians, taking on corrupt governments, rallying against corporate greed, or even just saving their local village. They’ve ALWAYS had a message; the only reason you’re opposed to it now is because you support the villains. The presentation of Superman, the character, is almost identical to how the movie itself wants to be seen. A rallying cry of hope and kindness. There’s a moment that’s telling, when a country is about to be invaded by a US-backed government (which I’m sure has absolutely no real-world comparisons), in that moment, a small child raises a Suerpman flag, a desperate cry for help.

This is a movie that understands its characters. Not just the lead. You understand why Lois Lane is so good at her job, especially when she’s interviewing Superman, and despite knowing his real identity (and dating them), she doesn’t shy away from asking difficult questions. She is tenacious, desperate to get to answers. She provides Truth to Superman’s Justice and Krypto’s American Way (being a ball of chaos that destroys stuff). Krypto is a wonderful addition, too. There was a worry that he would come off silly, and he does, but it somehow works and will undoubtedly be many people’s favourite character. The Justice Gang are fantastic background characters, given just enough details to explain them, but leave enough out that there’s room to explore in a spin-off.

This is probably the best Lex Luthor in a while. Not just for his motivations, but his behaviour. A billionaire having a team of monkeys dedicated to trolling someone feels almost Musk-like. Keeping his ex-girlfriend in a different dimension always displays a particularly entitled form of cruelty. His behaviour is chillingly realistic, as is the fact that he has teams of people who follow him. When Superman gets the crap beaten out of him, Lex has workers who cheer, not out of obligation, but because they’ve genuinely been brought into his vision.

None of this would work without actors, all of whom are damn near perfect. Hoult continues to impress, and Corenswet easily steps into boots which others would find intimidating. I’m not familiar with Rachel Brosnahan, and it did take a while to sink in that she’s not Charlotte Ritchie from Ghosts, but once I got past that, which is entirely the fault of my own faceblindness, then I saw just how good she was. Her and Corenswet have fantastic chemistry, you can easily believe that they’re a couple. Every moment when they share the screen is electric.

Another factor that helps sell this movie is the world. It doesn’t depend on real-life celebrities. When the characters fight in a baseball stadium, it’s not the team of the New York Knicks; it’s the Metropolis Meteors. When they pass a road sign, it’s leading drivers to Gotham, and adverts for burgers are for Big Belly Burgers, not Burger King. News commentators are Peacemaker instead of Joe Rogan. This is a movie that sells its own reality, and it does it brilliantly.

It also sets up the situation well. This isn’t an origin story. We don’t see a world where Superman doesn’t exist, and then he’s introduced. The opening texts state that Superman is known, plus that he just got the crap kicked out of him. It’s a brave move for the opening of a Superman movie to show him broken, but it works.

I genuinely loved this movie, but it’s not perfect. The final third could be improved. Lex decides to cause a rift that tears across the city. I’m not sure why, but this didn’t really land with me. It felt unnatural. Yes, it was done to lure Superman into the open, but I feel there must have been a better way to do it. Earlier, Luthor shoots someone in the head just because they offered Superman food, and he then threatens to go after everyone associated with him. He could have just done that instead of tearing apart the world; it feels like he escalated it somewhat. Also, it’s a bit unrealistic that a billionaire would be arrested. There’s also an action scene which is impressively shot, but the impressive nature of it makes it harder to figure out what’s happening.

In summary. I loved this movie. It’s a film that’s sorely needed in times like these. It’s nice to see the message that in an age where people feel proud to be assholes, being kind is punk rock. Even if you can’t save the entire planet, you can still mean the world to someone.

Blue Beetle (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: Jaime Reyes finds himself the unwilling host of an alien symbiotic host. Why, yes, this is very similar to Venomn, why do you ask?

I am not really a comic book guy. I enjoy them, and I know a little bit about them, but there are just so many of them that I have to be honest, I don’t know where to start. I read the ones I have heard are important, or are super fucked up (Hello Gail Simone’s horror graphic novel Clean Room, you delightfully terrifying bitch. The book is a terrifying bitch, Gail Simone is a treasure who must be protected at all costs). So I’m not that familiar with Blue Beetle as a character. Let’s be honest though; that shouldn’t matter. A lot of people won’t agree with me here but I think the only thing that matters in these films are the movies themselves. If it doesn’t happen in the movies/TV shows, it doesn’t happen. You shouldn’t need to do research to watch a film, it should all make sense in its own universe. “oh, but that plot point is actually easily explained if you read issue 155 of the original comic from 1948”, nope, fuck that.

All of that is my long-winded way of saying I went in relatively blind as to the character. It didn’t matter though, he was written well enough that you knew what he was like very early on, the same goes for the background characters too. The family could be annoying; they’re loud, boisterous, and pushy. But they’re all written and played with just enough warmth and reality that they work. At different points they’re almost all highlights. Belissa Escobedo provides an almost Aubrey Plaza performance in her role as Jaime’s sister Milagro. George Lopez has his moments, giving a lot of the best lines. Adriana Barraza gives a kick-ass performance as Nana, starting off exactly as you expect her to be, but then evolving into a character you want to know more about; if anybody from this series deserves a prequel comic book it’s her; her backstory is rich with possibilities. It’s a shame the future of the DCEU is up in the air because I want to see more from these characters.

So, that’s the characters, but is the film itself any good? It’s…..good. That’s all it is. It’s probably in the top half of the DC films but that’s only because a lot of them have been pretty shit. It faces the problems that a lot of DC films have had lately; it’s just “there”. There’s not much about it that’s new or surprising. Yes, it is important to have a non-white superhero, and the stories involved in that do need telling. But it would be useful if the story being told was being told in a good way. The hints of gentrification etc are great, but it’s never really given enough focus. It’s also quite sad that (just like Green Lantern), when he’s given a power which involves “creating whatever you can think of” the results aren’t more creative. There is also an issue with one character’s geography in the closing third. He seems to change locations quite a lot, randomly going from one set of characters to the next with no indication of how close the two locations are.

Overall though, it is a fun watch, and you will enjoy yourself while watching it. The moment where the scarab enters Jaime contains great body horror moments, and if we were shown more creativity like that it would be incredible. As it is, it’s just good, but a month after you watch it, will you be dying to watch it again? Probably not.

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

I really enjoyed the first one. Probably one of the best all-round superhero movies of the last few years. When I saw the trailer for this I thought it looked a lot of fun, it brought to mind Thor: Ragnarok. I felt sure that this would be incredibly fun, just balls out insanity and slickness. Then it came out, very quietly, in December, I think. That was not a good sign. If it was a film the studio had faith in, they would have delayed it until the cinemas were open (like what happened with A Quiet Place 2), or made a bigger deal of what streaming sites it was on to purchase (like Disney+ have been doing with their stuff). The way they released it had all the hallmarks of a “let’s quietly put this out and hope nobody notices”. I delayed watching this as I was certain it was going to get an actual cinema release when they re-opened.

So yeah, that put a few worries in me, and then those worries increased when I heard people talk about it. Well, they didn’t talk about it much, which was the problem. The only time I’ve heard it mentioned was when I made a reference to The Monkey’s Paw in an earlier review and someone asked if it was about this film. The fact that nobody talked about this film is not a good sign. Now I’ve seen it has my opinion changed? Well I’ll say this, the fact that I knew NOTHING about the post-credits cameo is a sign of how few people discuss this film. I’ll spoil it here, it’s not really relevant to the plot so I think it’s okay. It has Lynda Carter do a cameo, the original Wonder Woman, she turns up, saves a child, says she’s been doing this a while, then winks to camera. Holy crap the implications for this and the future of the DCEU are huge, yet nobody talks about it.

Turns out there’s a reason for that, this film is not great. It seems like the type of sequel that was made by completely different crew from the original, which is weird as it had same director for both. Although it has to be said that Patty Jenkins only directed the first one, she didn’t write it, whereas she did write this one, so maybe that’s the problem. The script is just so poor, full of logical inconsistencies. A big issue is that it is a prequel, yet the events of it were not mentioned in Justice League or Dawn Of Justice. Nobody seems to have remembered the time a guy gave everybody in the world a wish and how it led to chaos. It doesn’t seem like everything from it was forgotten, just the effects reversed (although considering a few people died due to wishes, do they come back? The film doesn’t say). Also, she doesn’t use some of the things from this film again, and they would have come in very useful.

Also the way the film plays with the wishes is inconsistent. At one point the villain says he can give out any number of wishes he wants because he is the wish-stone, yet before that he asks someone to make a wish on his behalf. And some of the wishes only seem to work in a way that advances the plot, it’s like it knows it has a narrative to fulfil. It’s a shame as it could have been interesting, if they made it smaller. Having it all over the whole world makes it TOO big. If it was focused on one city it would have allowed the audience to get a better look at the effects of the negative side of the wishes. Instead we spend way too much of this film in watching people travel. Plus, it would have given plausible deniability for this film never being mentioned again. You’re telling me that a worldwide event like this wouldn’t have caught the attention of Mark Strong’s character from Shazam?

Here’s the thing; if I wasn’t thinking, I might have enjoyed this film. It looked good enough and the performances were good. But as soon as you think about this movie for more than a second, the flaws are too apparent to ignore. Some are just basic storytelling mistakes like how the main villain had a difficult childhood, a fact which informs a lot of his decisions during the movie. Also a fact which isn’t properly explored until right near the end of the film, bit of a weird choice, and not a good one. Also the opening scene isn’t needed. There’s a whole opening set during an athletic event in Wonder Woman’s childhood where she got caught “cheating” and admonished for it. seems to be just so they can tell her about the dangers of not putting effort in, but there must have been a much more natural way to do that, and one that doesn’t take about twenty minutes. The film is two and a half hours, and does not justify that length at all. I could have forgiven the film not making sense, but I can’t forgive how dull it is a lot of the time. Looks great though.

So in summary; see it if you must, but there’s nothing saying you must.

Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020)

I should preface this with the following disclaimer: I don’t like Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I think she tries to hard to be “crazy” and it hurts the performance as it seems incredibly cartooney. It reminds me of “crazy” pro-wrestlers in the 80’s who would just sit in the background and pull funny faces whilst their manager spoke. It hurts films like this as she’s essentially a cartoon character in a realistic world, and I personally don’t think those two worlds mesh well together. It’s my big issue with Jared Leto’s Joker too; the instant that character has “damaged” tattooed on himself he’s no longer that character as, it’s done for stylistic movie effect rather than in-movie reality. Basically, it makes it seem like he’s doing everything for the benefit of an audience, and it hurts the character. That’s my issue with Robbie’s performance. So if you’re a “OMG Margot is SOOOO perfect and wonderful” then you might want to skip this review.

I wanted to like this film, I really did. It received a lot of hate for having the sheer audacity to be a film which features women both in front and behind the screen. I wanted to write this review and be like “no, support women in film, go see this movie”, but I can’t (and not just because all the cinemas are shut now). My biggest issue is it reminded me of Suicide Squad, like they didn’t learn their mistakes. The complete tonal mess? That’s present in this film. The fear that the film wasn’t comfortable with silence so filled everything with unnecessary noise? That’s here too. The fact that a group of people go from complete strangers to bestest buddies forever? Yup. The Birds Of Prey don’t even really occur until the final scene. So much of the film is about Harley Quinn that it forgets about the group, and not in an effective way. It doesn’t make me want to see more of them (with the exception of one character who I’ll get to later). Harley Quinn is all over this film, which when you’re trying to use the film to introduce a 3-person group for a future movie, seems like a mistake. You know how people felt Captain America: Civil War was more like an Avengers movie than a Captain America movie? This is the opposite, it feels more like a Harley Quinn movie than a Birds Of Prey one. Actually that comparison isn’t really apt, this is more like if Age Of Ultron was called “The New Avengers” based on the final scene. This is a terrible sign for the future because nobody will go see a Birds Of Prey movie without Harley Quinn now, why would they when the studio has done such a terrible job of introducing the characters? Although considering how little money this is making, that’s unlikely (personally I think it was a huge mistake to market this film towards teenage girls and then have it R-Rated so they can’t go see it).

The lack of characterisation hurts none of the characters more than it hurts the villain. Ewan McGregor is clearly having a lot of fun, but he’s not really given enough to do. His character isn’t given anywhere near enough detail, which is a shame as when he is on-screen he’s terrifying.

So yeah, I wouldn’t recommend seeing this film, unless you loved Suicide Squad, in which case what the hell is wrong with you? If it’s part of a box set or if it’s on Netflix then check it out, but it’s just not for me. As I said before though, that might be because I don’t like Margot Robbie’s performance in this (LOVED her in I, Tonya though), so that’s definitely tainting my view of the film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is perfect in it though, and is the only reason I would see a Birds Of Prey film. Her performance, her character, everything is just so wonderful.