Superman (2025)

"Good gosh, there's gotta be a better way to do this!"

Director

James Gunn

Cast

David Corenswet - Clark Kent / Superman
Nicholas Hoult - Lex Luthor
Rachel Brosnahan - Lois Lane
Nathan Fillion - Guy Gardner / Green Lantern
Edi Gathegi - Michael Holt / Mister Terrific
Isabela Merced - Kendra Saunders / Hawkgirl
Anthony Carrigan - Rex Mason / Metamorpho

Superman movies of recent memory, starting way back in 1983 with "Superman III" and including "Supergirl" from 1984, up to today have been met with many unfavorable reviews. 

When news of another Superman movie broke, I heard the same comment from various people. "Another one?" 

With James Gunn in the director's seat after directing other comic-based movies "Guardians of the Galaxy" vols 1 through 3 and "The Suicide Squad," it definitely drew in a ton of attention. 

Some friends of mine say they like "Man of Steel" from 2013 better than this new movie. I haven't seen that since its release. All I remember thinking about it was that it started off slow. I'll have to rewatch it and refresh my memory. 

So, in this new movie, Superman (David Corenswet) once again goes up against Lex Luther (Nicholas Hault), while also facing the evil wrath of fake news and a little cancel culture along with finding himself and coming to terms with who he is.   

Like the 2022 movie, "The Batman" with Robert Pattinson, a lot of audiences seemed to gush over this new Superman movie, treating it as though "Superman" has reached the pinnacle of cinematic art. "Superman" and "The Batman" are, evidently, the greatest of comic book movies to date, so some fans believe.

But, for me, "Superman" is just... alright. I don't see it (nor "The Batman") as being so much different from previous comic book movies. I don't see it as having such depth and highly insightful insight into this well established and largely appreciated comic book character as some claim it does. There really isn't any of that in this movie. 

While I was generally entertained by James Gunn's "Superman" just as much as I enjoyed my popcorn, I wouldn't get so high on its fumes to call it a cinematic masterpiece nor even a great movie. 

But there were some things I did like, such as Lex Luthor's room of brain-controlled monkeys writing mean Tweets and TikToks about Superman. Take your criticism, Gen Z! 

However, that's not to say "Superman" is a terrible movie. Like I said, James Gunn's "Superman" is simply o.k. 

I live in a small town, and the nearest movie theater only shows one film each Friday, Saturday and Sunday. So, "Superman" arrived a bit later than everywhere else. And the theater was only showing it in 3D. I don't care about 3D at all, and my few experiences watching new releases in 3D have been very underwhelming. The theater I went to had the 3D setup perfectly. 

The flying scenes in the movie were great and best experienced in 3D. This movie nailed the shots of Superman in flight. Seeing these shots in 3D was amazing and probably the best parts of the movie for me. Shout out to the Murphy Theater in Stuart, Neb., for a great 3D experience! 

When he's not flying in this movie, it seems Superman spent a lot of time healing in some way. There are one or two moments with Superman fighting to save Metropolis. Otherwise, he's constantly being tortured and beat up, laying down to get better, or coming to terms with himself. Even Lois Lane has a scene where she's questioning Superman to the point of nearly berating him and then criticizes him for getting up to leave and not taking her verbal thrashing.  

Also, Superman's adoptive parents, Jonathan (Pruitt Taylor Vince) and Martha Kent (Neva Howell) aren't portrayed as wise as they've previously been portrayed in past depictions. 

Instead, they're much frumpier, coming across as more country bumpkins than common sense, learned and sensible people. 

In one scene after Superman discovers what his true parents from the planet Krypton really intended for him to do while on Earth (that's a big twist in the film so I won't spoil it), Jonathan Kent tells Superman that the role of parents, referring to Superman's real parents, isn't to tell their kids who they are. Personal choices determine that. That's kind of true.

Well, I think that's a bit too watered down when it comes a parent's role. Sure, we have free will and all that. 

Still, the role of parents is to tell their children who they are. Educate them. Guide them. If that isn't the case, then what's a parent's role? 

Granted, Superman doesn't have to be like his real father from Krypton. But his real father will always be a part of him and continue to have some influence. 

I think Richard Donner's 1978 movie sets the standard for what a Superman movie ought to be. Hollywood has certainly deviated from that thanks in large part of Hollywood's left-leaning political mindset. 

Superman is a figure of Americana who has been lifted up in American pop-culture as being a symbol of American strength, righteousness and morals. Superman is super! So, he fits right into the American way of life. He needs to maintain his stand for truth, justice, and the American way.

In this movie, Superman, "the man of steel" isn't as "super" as we've previously seen him. He's a little too lacking in that major detail. Oh, he's still the man of steel. Despite that, Superman gets pummeled more times than I've ever seen him get pummeled. The moment he appears on screen right at the beginning of the movie, he's knocked down for the count. It's that scene in the trailer where Superman crashes into the ice and snow, and then whistles for Krypto the Superdog to save him. 

In fact, everyone and everything with a red cape in this flick seems like a dunce. Krypto is an annoying pain in the rear. And Supergirl (Milly Alcock), who shows up at the end of the movie, is a bratty drunk girl. Oh, spoiler. Sorry!

I took a lot more interest in the rest of the "Justice Gang" - Green Lantern (Nathan Fillion) and especially Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi). There's also Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced). She's a part of things, too. Hawkgirl got annoying real fast, though, as she screeches like a hawk in practically every shot of her flying through the air. I get it. She's a girl hawk representing both girls and large birds within the bird community. Did she need to screech like one (a hawk, I mean) in every scene?  

Anyways, Green Lantern, Mr. Fantastic and Hawkgirl acted much more "super" and really took care of business when Metropolis was under threat. Even Green Lantern, in one scene, calls out Superman for being weak. That's not the word Green Lantern uses, but that's pretty much his point. 

I don't know, nor do I care, how many people were involved with the script, but the plot feels like many writers had their fingers in it all trying to pull it in different directions. And the whims of different writers all found their way into the story. In other words, "Superman" borders on convoluted. 

James Gunn doesn't make Superman that interesting. He doesn't dive into what makes Superman an remarkable hero. Instead, he relies on the hope that audiences already know all about Superman's story and then takes this iconic hero in his (James Gunn's) own personal direction, leaving Superman's greatness to the past. 

He also tosses in a bunch of his own style of humor on top of a lot of plot points and action. I'm not above humor and campiness, even in a Superman movie. I enjoyed that style of humor in "Guardians of the Galaxy" vols. 1 and 2. 

And Superman has to be a bit campy because a character as powerful as he is would certainly appear more frightening for audiences without any of it, more so than what the IP intends. Check out the movie "Brightburn" which shows how terrifying a character like Superman can be if he were to use his superior powers to dominate the entire world. It was produced by James and directed by his brothers, Mark and Brian. 

In this case, the humor was inserted in places where it doesn't belong, and distracted from any necessary insight into Superman's motivations and desires in this story.

In one scene where Lois Lane and Superman are making up after an argument earlier in the movie, as they talk and have a serious moment, Gunn decides to include a giant monster in the background attacking Metropolis while Green Lantern, Hawkgirl, and Mr. Fantastic fight it off. As they're in this serious moment, the audience can see this huge monster in the background destroying everything. It's also destroying a golden moment for the audience to gain any understanding into Superman and Lois. 

Gunn does delve into Lex Luthor's (Nicholas Hoult) motivations, that being jealousy (I guess) of Superman. That's about all the audience gets in regard to character exploration. 

Thankfully, the politics in this new movie is very minimal. There's some slight social commentary referencing the current political climate. But this isn't a movie about all that, especially illegal immigration. You know, because Superman is from another planet and crash lands in the American Midwest rather unexpectedly.  

At least audiences still cheer Superman on for reducing crime. That depiction certainly doesn't reflect today's reality. Reducing crime in our major cities isn't met with the same enthusiasm these days, at least not from one political side that revels in taking to wrong side of insanely dumb arguments. I digress, though. Now, here I go bringing politics into it. 

In another scene Superman and the Justice Gang attack a giant monster unleashed on Metropolis by Lex Luthor and his goons as a distraction while Lex infiltrates Superman's Fortress of Solitude. While the Justice Gang attack this thing, Superman is more interested making sure they don't kill it but rather take it to some space zoo or something to study it. Meanwhile, he's trying to make sure civilians clear the area, which they don't because they're stupid, and even swooshes down faster than a speeding bullet to rescue a random squirrel. That's were Green Lantern calls Superman out for pussyfooting around the situation. What did James Gunn do to you, Superman?     

To be fair, I enjoyed "Superman" as much as I enjoy any other Saturday night popcorn flick. I just don't see what there is to gush over. For me, the best Superman movie is "Superman II" from 1980. In fact, I prefer it over the first Superman movie. That's another discussion for another time.  

The worst is still "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" but that's also another post for another time. 

Audiences need to know the story behind Superman when coming into this movie as it starts in media res. 

What I did like about the movie, other than the spectacular shots of Superman flying, was the acting. The casting choices are great, especially Nicholas Hoult as Lex. He did a phenomenal job and really put in a convincing performance! Rachel Brosnahan as Lois is also fantastic. And, despite my issues with Superman's portrayal, David Corenswet in the lead role did really well with what he was given to work with. 

James Gunn's "Superman" is mediocre. It did pull me in and kept me invested, albeit disappointed at times. At least it's not worse than "Superman IV," so there's that but that's not saying much. 

Otherwise, if this movie indicates the direction Superman is going, then he needs to turn around and go back the way he came. He needs to be that symbol of strength and integrity. He needs to get back to standing for not only truth and justice but the American way because compared to the rest of the world the American way is still magnificent and truly ideal. Simply put, Superman needs to be super again.   

Scavenger Hunt (1979)

"Play to win!"

Director
Michael Schultz

Cast
Vincent Price - Milton Parker
Richard Benjamin - Stuart Selsome
Cloris Leachman - Mildred Carruthers
Roddy McDowall - Jenkins
Tony Randall - Henry Motley
Cleavon Little - Jackson
Meat Loaf - Scum
Scatman Crothers - Sam
James Coco - Henri
Ruth Gordon - Arvilla Droll
Robert Morley - Charles Bernstein
Richard Mulligan -Marvin Dummitz
Richard Masur - Georgie Carruthers
Arnold Schwarzenegger - Lars

The 1979 comedy "Scavenger Hunt" is a movie made in the midst of a subgenre trend I call "chase and race" flicks. I don't know if that's the right term, but that's what I call them.

These "chase and race" movies are generally comedies with a cast of big-name actors, maybe some celebrity cameos, and a story involving characters divided into groups racing for an ultimate prize or goal of some kind. 

Movies such as "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World," "The Cannonball Run," "Midnight Madness" and "Death Race 2000" are perfect examples of these chase and race comedies. 

"Scavenger Hunt" has all the elements of a chase and race movie, beginning with its star-studded cast being divided into groups and then competing against each other. 

The reason "Scavenger Hunt" jumps out at me and why I wanted to watch and review it, is because of a 1983 Milton-Bradley board game also called "Scavenger Hunt." 

My family owned this game during my youth, and I remember enjoying it. So much so that a few years ago, I ordered the game online and didn't have to pay much for a complete copy.

My kids and I play it from time to time, and they enjoy it, especially my daughter. So, "Scavenger Hunt" has come full circle in my family. 

It's a fun game in which players need to strategize in finding a variety of random items such as trombone, a comic book, a wooden Indian, a birdcage, and other various objects located in different parts of various houses in a neighborhood. Players use cards to maneuver through front yards and rooms, find the items they selected in a particular order, and then race back to their own house to win. The game requires players to make a list of their objects in the order they're picked before game play and then find those objects in the order they've listed them. 

Cloris Leachman, Richard Masur, and Richard Benjamin in "Scavenger Hunt." 

It's worth mentioning that the box art is designed by one of my favorite comic artists, Jack Davis. His caricature artwork was and still is found in practically every issue of MAD Magazine. That's a big plus for me!

I had never heard of the movie "Scavenger Hunt" until I was looking into another movie for a previous post on this blog and stumbled upon the title. 

Of course, I was intrigued. I wanted to know if the board game is based on the movie, or the movie is based on the board game. The answer to both is no. But the game does have enough similarities to the film, aside for the title, to make me wonder if the game which was released in 1983, takes some inspiration from the movie. 

For instance, my kids and I spotted most, if not all, of the objects from the game within the movie. And the center of the movie's plot centers around a board game creator. Also, the characters are given a list of objects which they have to fund in order, if I'm not mistaken. And the characters have to return to a house to finish the hunt. The similarities are there. 

In this movie, Vincent Price plays Milton Parker who's an immensely wealthy game inventor. While playing an electronic game with his nurse, he drops dead. Or, rather Milton Parker passes "Go" for the last time! 

No sooner does he croak that his relatives come barreling to his estate in the hopes of getting at least some inheritance. 
Parker's lawyer, Charles Bernstein (Robert Morley) informs them that Parker's Will states that his $200 estate will be given to whomever wins a scavenger hunt. The rules to this scavenger hunt are all laid out in the Will. 

The beneficiaries will have to form five teams, with each team given a list of 100 items they'll have to find and bring back to a partitioned section outside Parker's house. 

Each item on the lists are worth different points, ranging from five points up to 100 points, depending on the item. 

They can obtain their respective items through any means necessary except purchasing. So, aside from buying the items, anything goes!

Each team has until five pm on the day of the hunt to get as many points as they can. Whichever team has all their items unloaded in their team section and scores the most points by 5:00 will inherit Milton Parker's estate. Let the laughs ensue!

There's a lot of slapstick action followed by more slapstick action. It starts to get exhausting to watch, leaving the audience with an eagerness to see the movie hurry up and end. 

The movie has its funny moments, got some laughs out of me, and has a cast that make the general experience of watching "Scavenger Hunt" engrossing. But none of the celebrity cast manage to save the movie, not even the legendary Vincent Price. He's only on screen for a few minutes at the beginning of the movie. As for the comedy, the humor is thin and repetitive. 

Speaking of cameos, Arnold Schwarzenegger shows up for a cameo as a body builder named Lars. That's a trip!

It's constant movement from start to finish that's all combined into one confusing cluster of cinematic catastrophes. I couldn't keep up with what teams found what objects, or what their schemes were, or what subplots the movie was jumping to. 

The dialogue is just as jumbled as the comedy. The flow shifts around so much, the movie ended with me slack jawed and glassy eyed. There's no room for anyone to pause a moment and catch their breath. 

Its nearly two-hour run time didn't help in that regard. There's just a lot packed into that near two-hours with insane dizzying scene after scene of non-stop goofiness as if it doesn't want the audience to pause from laughing, even for a moment. 

Even the final scene with all the points being counted dragged on. 

"Scavenger Hunt" is an unforgettable film but largely for the wrong reasons. At least the board game allows players to take their time. 

The Out-of-Towners (1970) - Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau movies, with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, or one or the other

"You're not getting away with anything! I got all your names and your addresses!"

Director
Arthur Hiller

Cast
Jack Lemmon - George Kellerman
Sandy Dennis - Gwen Kellerman
Robert Nichols - Man in Airplane
Philip Bruns - Officer Meyers
Johnny Brown - Waiter on Train
Billy Dee Williams - Clifford Robinson
Anne Meara - Woman in Police Station
Sandy Baron - Lenny Moyers

The two best things that the 1970 comedy, "The Out-of-Towners" has going for it is that it's written by comedy playwright, Neil Simon, and it stars Jack Lemmon. Double win! Or is it? 

I think "The Out-of-Towners" story best simplifies Neil Simon's comedic style. 

Comedy happens amidst the most mundane of human activity, and even amidst the frustrations of common activities. 

Traveling encompasses both the mundane and frustrative. The light at the end of that tunnel is the final destination. Everyone can relate to the stress of travelling. And I mean everyone! It's one of those necessary evils where travelers just know before setting out that something is surely going to go wrong. Simon certainly knew that and used the comedy within to write "The Out-of-Towners."  

This movie is the kind of scenario that matches Simon's knack for seeing the comedy in everyday life amidst ordinary and truly relatable characters. As far as I'm concerned, Neil Simon is a titan among comedy writers. I've praised him quite a bit already in previous posts.  

In this movie, George Kellerman (Jack Lemmon) is heading to New York City as his job invited him to interview for a promotion. He takes his wife Gwen (Sandy Dennis) along so they can make the business trip into a getaway for the both of them. 

Beginning with their flight out of Ohio to New York, their trip turns into a situation where issue after issue ruins all their plans. 

Heavy fog causes their flight to JFK Airport to circle around the city for hours before landing at Logan Airport in Boston. That reroute ruins their fancy dinner plans in the city. And, as expected, their luggage gets lost. Of course, the airline is going to lose their luggage! Unfortunately, George's ulcer medication is in his suitcase. 

Regardless, the couple still has to get to New York City. So, they book it to Boston's South Station only to just miss the train. Of course!

They get a cab and try to outrun the train before it gets to the next station. They make it and are able to board. However, the train is overcrowded. George and Gwen have to wait two hours just for a table in the dining car. 

Sandy Dennis and Jack Lemmon as Gwen and George Kellerman in Neil Simon's "The Out-of-Towners."

Once they're able to get a table, all that's left on the menu are peanut butter sandwiches, green olives and crackers. They can't even get a cup of coffee. Their only choices are tonic water and clam juice. And neither of those are served cold. 

With a belly full of peanut butter and an olive pit, they get to Grand Central Station at 2 am. However, they can't get to their reserved room at the Waldorf-Astoria because subway, bus and taxi drivers are all on strike. So are the city's sanitation workers. George and Gwen have to walk eight blocks to get to the hotel in the pouring rain. They don't have an umbrella. Garbage is piled all along the wet city streets, stinking to high heaven. 

They make it to the hotel. Their smelly eight-block trek in the pouring rain is met with the hotel giving their reserved room to someone else. The reservation was guaranteed until 10 pm. It's now 3 am. And on top of that, the hotel is booked solid thanks to all the strikes in New York. 

Nothing continues to go as planned through the night. It's the worst luck New York has to offer versus George and Gwen Kellerman of Twin Oaks, Ohio. 

The comedy in this movie is running on rinse and repeat. Travel plans are thwarted by unforeseen issues that can't be helped, as Gwen often puts it.

Each mishap has the same pay off. George flies off the handle as only Jack Lemmon knows how, swearing with more and more sincerity that he's not going to take it anymore, until the next mishap falls in his path. And his wife Gwen is there to just take it and be the voice of reason that her husband can't hear because he's too busy not taking it anymore. It does become too monotonous by the final act.  

He's even kicked out of a church by a camera crew setting up to film some upcoming Easter services just after his wife suggests he go in to pray for relief. 

The laughs are there. And the premise isn't unreasonable. What is unrelatable are the bad decisions of Jack Lemmon, such as refusing to stick around the lobby of the Waldorf when his room is given away, after the clerk offers him a room that won't be available until 7 am. But then again, good and logical decisions don't get the laughs. 

The movie is a sophisticated slapstick comedy. It's good for a laugh and some reassurance that no matter how bad our travel plans go, or any of our plans for any situation, at least we're not that guy! 

I think Lemmon's performance is hilarious and it's really easy to garner a lot of sympathy for George Kellerman. It's impossible not to connect to these two characters. All they want is a nice trip together while George's situation is about change for the better. We've all been there. We can all laugh. 

It gets to the point where Jack Lemmon's character anticipates something to go wrong, which it does. Expectations are met. 

The comedy ends with it continuing on when he, like the audience, thinks all that bad luck has got to have run out by now. 

So, it shows that travelling can actually be a form of eternal punishment. Just ask the staff at Frontier Airlines. They won't hesitate to tell you how the experience of travelling can be a veritable hell, all while arguing with you and charging you multiple fees along the way unsympathetic of the obstacles airlines like Frontier callously toss into your travel plans. 

Director Arthur Hiller has some truly notable titles on his resume, including one film titled "W. C. Fields and Me" (1976) which is something I'm interested in finding. 

He's also directed other comedies such as Disney's "Miracle of the White Stallions" (1963), "Love Story" (1970) for which he was nominated for best director, "Man of La Mancha" (1972), and "Silver Streak" (1976) with Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder. 

Hiller also directed Pryor and Wilder in their 1989 comedy, "See No Evil, Hear No Evil." 

Lastly, he also directed John Goodman in the 1992 Babe Ruth biopic, "Babe." 

"The Out-of-Towners" managed to get a remake in 1999 with Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn. I haven't seen it, but reading the synopsis on Wikipedia, it sounds like the remake makes one or two more logically outcomes when compared to those in this movie. For instance, in the remake, the couple are kicked out of the hotel instead of leaving and venturing back out onto the stinky and wet city streets because of George's principle. The remake also has John Cleese in a supporting role. I might have to check it out despite its poor reception. 

Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis are perfectly cast in their respective roles. Both are fantastic and entertaining actors. Their chemistry together, though, is faint. That is, it's not solid enough. But that's not to say their performances are terrible. I will say that Dennis struggles to keep up with Lemmon's energetic performance. Sometimes, her comedic performance doesn't match well enough against Lemmon's. It feels a tad mismatched. Even so, their collective pain is keenly felt with the audience. 

I still manage to find this movie entertaining, and it gives me just enough laughs. Still, perhaps it's a victim of its own repetitious humor.