Superman Review: Fun but Overstuffed and Shallow

TL;DR

The new Superman is entertaining and well acted, but Ben Shapiro judges it a mediocre adaptation because its crowded plot, constant jokes, shallow characterization, and subversive treatment of familiar mythology undermine the hero. He considers the political interpretations overstated and places responsibility primarily on James Gunn's writing and directing rather than on the cast.

Transcript

All righty, folks. So, I watched the new Superman and I have many, many thoughts. This video is sponsored by our friends over at ExpressVPN. You know, I I went with my wife. My wife and I always have an interesting time watching movies together because when I go, I'm very analytical about what I think of the movie. My wife sort of gets an overall g... Read More

Key Insights

• The overall verdict is that Superman is fun enough for many viewers but only mediocre under closer analysis. Shapiro separates his wife's positive emotional reaction from his own analytical judgment, acknowledging the movie's accessible entertainment value before outlining his objections.
• The cast is not the review's main problem. Shapiro praises David Corenswet's charm and physical presence, approves of Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane, sees good chemistry between them, and explicitly directs his criticism toward James Gunn's script and creative decisions.
• The central creative criticism is that James Gunn applies his familiar fast, jokey, subversive sensibility to material that requires greater respect and depth. Shapiro compares the result to Guardians of the Galaxy with Superman placed inside its crowded ensemble formula.
• The film's Superman is portrayed as unusually vulnerable and frequently defeated. Shapiro argues that Green Lantern and Mr. Terrific achieve more visible success, leaving the title character in victim mode and weakening his stature as the story's primary hero.
• The movie reverses familiar elements of Superman mythology for surprise and comedy. Shapiro highlights the Kryptonian parents' revealed intentions, the characterization of the Kent parents, Krypto's unruly behavior, and Supergirl's brief portrayal as examples of deliberate subversion.
• The supporting characters are presented as thin sketches rather than developed individuals. Shapiro says viewers learn little about Green Lantern, Mr. Terrific, or the other heroes, while Lex Luthor's jealousy of Superman supplies a motivation he considers simplistic and uninteresting.
• The storytelling is crowded enough to undermine emotional scenes. Shapiro cites Clark and Lois having an intimate conversation while Green Lantern, Mr. Terrific, and Hawkgirl battle a giant eye-like monster outside, arguing that the background spectacle makes the central exchange less effective.
• The political controversy is overstated according to Shapiro's reading. He does not interpret the film primarily as commentary on illegal immigration, ICE, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, or the Palestinians, and instead identifies incoherent plotting, shallow characters, and tonal mismatch as its decisive flaws.

Questions & Answers

Q: Is the new Superman movie entertaining despite its flaws?

The movie is entertaining enough to produce a simple reaction that it was fun, and Shapiro says many viewers appear to be responding that way. He also recognizes the charm, physical presence, performances, and chemistry of the principal cast. His harsher judgment comes from analyzing the film's structure, characterization, mythology, and tone, which leads him to call the overall result mediocre rather than wholly unenjoyable.

Q: What does Ben Shapiro think of the Superman cast?

Shapiro responds positively to the principal performers and does not blame them for the movie's weaknesses. He finds David Corenswet charming, physically convincing, and acceptable as Superman. He considers Rachel Brosnahan good as Lois Lane and believes the two actors share convincing chemistry. He also says he likes Nicholas Hoult's work, while directing his criticism at James Gunn's screenplay and handling of the characters.

Q: Why does Ben Shapiro think James Gunn was wrong for Superman?

Shapiro believes James Gunn's creative instincts are centered on subversion, jokes, fast pacing, ensemble chaos, and striking aesthetics rather than close examination of an individual character. He argues that this approach worked as Gunn's recognizable sensibility elsewhere but does not suit Superman's place in American culture. The result, in his assessment, resembles Guardians of the Galaxy and does not give Superman, Lois, or Lex sufficient depth.

Q: How does the movie change familiar Superman mythology?

According to Shapiro, the film repeatedly overturns expectations about Superman's world. The revealed message from his Kryptonian parents gives him a mission of domination and reproduction rather than moral guidance. Both Kent parents remain alive and are portrayed as plain, unpolished people. Krypto is unruly, Supergirl briefly appears as a drunken teenage brat, and Superman himself is frequently beaten, imprisoned, or rescued.

Q: Why does Ben Shapiro call the Superman plot a mess?

Shapiro finds Lex Luthor's scheme difficult to follow and internally inconsistent. Lex works with a foreign politician connected to an invasion, seeks part of another country's territory, tries to turn the public against Superman, and imprisons him. Shapiro questions why a character intelligent enough to create his own universes would prioritize that territory and why he leaves Superman alive while explaining plans instead of eliminating him.

Q: Does Ben Shapiro interpret Superman as a political movie?

Shapiro does not view politics as the movie's central problem and thinks some commentators exaggerate or deliberately misread its political content. He rejects the claim that it is fundamentally about illegal immigration, ICE, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, or the Palestinians. Although viewers with politics on their minds may perceive references, his criticism concentrates on the crowded storytelling, plot holes, weak characterization, and unsuitable creative tone.

Q: How do the supporting superheroes affect the story?

The supporting superheroes contribute to the movie's crowded quality without receiving enough development to become compelling characters, according to Shapiro. Green Lantern functions largely as comic relief, while Mr. Terrific appears more effective and heroic than Superman despite viewers learning little about him. Their presence also distracts from personal moments, especially when a large battle unfolds outside during an intimate conversation between Clark and Lois.

Q: What standard does Ben Shapiro use to judge Superman movies?

Shapiro identifies the 1978 Richard Donner film as his preferred standard for Superman, rather than Zack Snyder's Man of Steel. He does not insist that every adaptation use grand, solemn mythology, but he believes the character and property deserve a degree of respect. His dissatisfaction comes from feeling that Gunn moves too far toward comedy, subversion, visual clutter, and constant reversals of established expectations.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Ben Shapiro finds Superman broadly fun but ultimately mediocre. He praises David Corenswet's physical presence and charm, Rachel Brosnahan's performance, their chemistry, and Nicholas Hoult's abilities. His negative verdict focuses primarily on James Gunn's creative approach, which he considers poorly matched with an iconic piece of American popular culture.

• Shapiro argues that the film resembles Guardians of the Galaxy with Superman inserted into it. He describes an overstuffed production filled with superheroes, monsters, rapid jokes, competing plotlines, and thinly developed characters. In his view, intimate scenes lose their impact because visual comedy and background action continually distract from them.

• Shapiro rejects claims that the story is fundamentally about illegal immigration, ICE, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, or the Palestinians. His main objection is structural and mythological rather than political. He believes the confusing villainous scheme and deliberate reversals of familiar Superman traditions prevent Clark Kent from becoming a compelling central hero.