By Elijah Graymore (Y12)
With 2025 ended, and me being three months late, there’s been lots of talk about the ‘Film of 2025’, what film can be said to be the best released last year? There’s been two contenders: Marty Supreme and Sinners. Now having seen both of them, it does slightly astound me that people truly believe that Marty Supreme is the superior of the two, but what surprised me more was that the Superman movie that released last summer was nowhere to be found in the discussion. I can understand if I was more excited and enjoyed this movie more than the average person, but I really thought that superhero films had become far more mainstream due to the massive push from all the Marvel projects of recent years, but I digress.
Even still, I believe that Superman deserves its merits sung. Juggling world-building, political commentary, divisive costumes, and the potential start of a new franchise is no easy feat.
Before I finally stop beating around the bush, I will clarify that: no, I’m not writing this because of actual discussion I’ve heard, and yes, I am writing this because I rewatched it recently, got into an argument on Letterboxd about it, and am on a deadline to write this article, so really it just seemed convenient. But regardless of that, here is why I strongly believe that Superman (2025) is the best comic book to movie adaptation ever. I’ll break it down into 4 main arguments: Plot, Characterisation, Visual Design, and Message.
Spoiler Warning for the whole thing
Plot
If you haven’t watched the film but still chose to ignore the spoiler warning, I’ll catch you up on an abridged version of the story.
We join The Man of Steel after a recent intervention into international politics, where he stopped the fictional nation of Boravia from invading the other fictional nation, Jarhanpur. Billionaire Lex Luthor hates Superman and tries to use this action to convince the US government to allow Luthor to detain and kill him. The government remains unconvinced, so Lex journeys to Superman’s fortress of solitude, his secret Antarctic headquarters, and finds a message from his parents. Superman knew of the message and understood it as a mission to help and serve the people of Earth, however he could. As it turns out, the whole message is in fact a mission to dominate and rule over Earth, but Superman was unaware.
Lex uses this message to convince the government, and Clark Kent is captured, and the rest is fairly bog-standard. Clark escapes his prison, and with the help of friends he is able to stop the Boravian invasion of Jarhanpur, which had resumed during his detainment, and stop the giant universal rift that’s splitting the planet in half (sort of irrelevant don’t worry about it).
Now obviously, the detail of this story that sparked discourse en masse was the Boravian-Jarhanpur conflict, and its many echoes to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The movie not only features this conflict but also takes a direct stand, an unfortunately rare sight in the age of aggressively inoffensive Marvel films. There’s a brilliant scene early on that breaks down the view this movie holds, and why Superman was the perfect IP to express it. The scene features Lois Lane (reporter and Clark’s girlfriend) interviewing Clark as Superman. When Lois presses Clark on the legality of his actions, questioning the side he took, seeing as Boravia is an ally to the US and Jahanpur is not, they argue on the ethics of his actions.
Clark:
Whether Jahanpur as a country is imperfect doesn’t mean another nation has the right to invade them
Lois:
The government of Boravia maintains they’re freeing the Jarhanpurians from a tyrannical regime.
Clark:
Is the Boravian government, of all people, saying this?
This exchange is interesting to me because it changes my view on this fictional conflict. When James Gunn wrote this script in early 2023, it had been almost a year since the initial invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces. With this context, the content shifts. The conflict featured in this movie isn’t supposed to be representative of Israel-Palestine, but Russia-Ukraine. One country that has a significantly stronger military force, multiple alliances invading a smaller, militarily weak(er), without strong alliances, with vast oil fields under the guise of freeing the civilians from a tyrannical, or as Putin put it: neo-nazi, regime.
But I think this misunderstanding of the commentary is actually a real credit to the commentary itself. Competent, high-quality political commentary must be applicable to any number of situations. Being able to feature this kind of discussion in a superhero movie is absolutely commendable because it doesn’t just tell you why one view is right and the other is wrong; it’s a debate. The film gives the reasons why Superman (and you ideally) would be as against the Israeli invasion of Palestine, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as he is against the Boravian invasion of Jahanpur.
There’s more to this scene and other aspects of the story that I’ll discuss in the next section.
Characterisation
While the plot points make for a good movie, the re-characterisation of pre-existing characters is what makes for a good, or bad, adaptation.
Clark Kent
Upon its release, discourse was sparked on the characterisation of Kal-el (can you tell I’m running out of proper names to refer to him as), between the stoic, cold, aura-farming-at-the-cost-of-innocent-lives Henry Cavill portrayal and the kind, gentle, human David Corenswet portrayal. It won’t shock you to know that I’m solidly on the side of the latter.
In 2021, Superman’s official motto was changed from ‘Truth, Justice, and the American Way‘ to ‘Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow‘, and this version of the character is proudly built on that change. In this portrayal, Superman is driven by one goal: to help everyone he can. When we first see Superman, he has just lost a fight for the first time, he has 14 broken bones, and once he’s barely healed, he runs back into the fray as people are still at risk. In the aforementioned interview scene, Clark expresses, in a way far more emotive than I can write, that the only reason he did what he did is that people were going to die, and that is, and always will be, enough motivation for him to act.
Initially, what drives his actions from the birth of the hero was this message from his parents telling him to serve the people of Earth, however he can. But when the message is revealed to have a darker, more malicious intent, Clark feels lost, like he doesn’t belong. This is Superman to me; he’s caught between two worlds, two families, and he struggles to belong. Every day, he literally pretends to be human, and he doesn’t always convince himself. And by the end of the film, and after a couple of heartwarming conversations with Lois and his parents, Clark delivers a beautiful monologue about what it means to be human.
I love it. I get scared. And each day I wake up and, despite not knowing what to do, I try to put one foot in front of the other and make the best choices I can. I screw up all the time. But that’s being human, and that’s my real strength.
Everything, down to the fact that swears are replaced with darn, frick, and ‘what the hey dude’ in Clark’s vocabulary, works to dispel the ‘mary-sue’ aspects of the Big Blue Boy Scout’s reputation, and builds Superman into a flawed, realistic character, but one that tries his hardest to do the best he can because it’s the right thing to do.
Beyond characterisation of any specific individual, the characterisation of the vaguely put ‘Superman Story’ is on point. The overall tone of the film is bright, hopeful, kind, and inspiring. As it should be.
Lois Lane
As one of DC’s first characters ever, Lois Lane has changed many times since her first appearance. Currently, she is a bold, put-together, competent reporter, and originally being any woman written by a bunch of men in the 30’s. So not exactly nuanced.
However, in the comic series that inspired many aspects of this movie, All-Star Superman, Lois is naive, overzealous, and headstrong, and if the movie version of her character were absolutely faithful, it would definitely leave a lot to be desired.
This is the difference between a faithful adaptation and a good one. A good adaptation will stay loyal to the good parts of something and not be afraid to amend the bad parts. This is especially poignant with comic adaptations. Because even if most inspiration came from All-Star Superman, that isn’t what you’re adapting; when making a comic book adaptation, you need to find the best version of the character you’re writing, or at least the version most fitting for your story.
This Lois is smart and capable. She is the one who drives the force to free Superman from his prison. When she interviews Clark, she asks him real questions; there is no sense of softening the blow. She’s a reporter for a reason. She is consistently an important and impactful character who doesn’t just serve as a motivating force for the male protagonist but is a driving force for the story throughout.
Ironically, that’s all I’ll say on her. I’d like to excuse myself by saying I don’t know as much about her character in the comics, which is partly true, but unfortunately, the truth is I’ve written far too much, and I need to finish this tonight, and I have about a quarter left. Sorry Lois.
Visual Design
Alright, this is going to be a super short section for that same reason.
Visually speaking, this film is perfect. So many stills can be pulled and looked at like a piece of art. Most importantly, though, is the costume design. Superman’s costume is a brightly coloured, incredibly vibrant suit with his underwear on the outside.
This decision from the creative team was a decisive one, but one that was so worthwhile. Objectively, he looks a little silly, but in many ways that was the idea. The decision was partly for comic accuracy, but there was this interview clip that was circling around about another reason: Superman doesn’t want to look serious. Being silly allows him to be approachable and kind. He already has super strength, flight, and laser eyes; there’s no reason to make the people he seeks to protect afraid of him.
In fairness, this isn’t really just a development from this film. In recent years, we’ve gotten a number of vibrant, comic-accurate suits: Deadpool & Wolverine, and the Fantastic Four, to name a couple. This is an exciting development, as gone are the days when studios were convinced that superheroes needed to be serious to be likable, and thought everyone, with no exception, would look better in a skin-tight, incredibly bland and colourless leather suit.
Message
The message of the Superman movie is really what makes it the perfect comic book adaptation. This wasn’t just a movie for entertainment’s sake; James Gunn wanted to say something, and he knew how to use Superman to say it, and choosing Superman as the vehicle for this message makes sense for his character. If I see one more IG reel about how Superman would vote for Trump because of ‘Truth, Justice, and the American Way’, despite the fact that Superman is literally an illegal immigrant, I will crash out. Mark my words.
Now, there is obviously another message present in this movie, one that’s a lot more personal, about family and some other stuff, I guess. But I haven’t really discussed anything other than the political aspects, and there’s a good reason.
Politics in the Critics Corner?? Never been done before!
Last week, Paramount purchased Warner Brothers (the studio responsible for all DC films) for $110 billion, outbidding Netflix. In truth, this purchase scares me.
The studio that created Superman and all its nuance and political commentary is now owned by a production company that is currently creating Rush Hour 4, directly under Trump’s request. The same production company that has a list of actors who are black listed for being ‘overtly antisemitic’ (Mark Ruffalo, Emma Stone, Olivia Coleman, any one whose spoken out against Israel, you get the idea). The same production company whose CEO, David Ellison, has strong ties to Trump.
There’s even speculation that the administration played a role in reaching a deal between the two companies, with possible hopes at access to the Warner Bros. owned CNN.
The point being, we are currently seeing an alarming increase in direct political involvement in cinema. I understand that it may seem hypocritical for me to sit here and praise Superman for its political discussion and then express concern when the other side of the political spectrum starts to get involved, but there’s a strong difference between the political nature of an artpiece made by anyone, and the direct involvement of a federal government body becoming involved in the creation of widely consumed media.
I’m not exactly presenting new ideas about the Trump administration here; I’m just trying to highlight an additional symptom of a controlling regime. The limitation or influence of the media by a government is never a good sign.
The next article is an attack piece on Christopher Nolan’s Batman films.
All images sourced from Superman (2025)