The trailer for Superman didn’t reveal much about the story. It was purely about expectation management — teasing a new round in the conflict between Superman and Lex Luthor, showing signs of a divide between Superman and public opinion, hinting at foreign policy entanglements, a romantic thread with Lois Lane, cameos from other metahumans, a monster attack, and yes, a dog. And all of this, in one way or another, is present in the film.

Superman is the launchpad of the new DC Universe — a reset of everything. Films, series, games, animation — all aligned under the new DCU banner, with James Gunn at the creative helm. And his authority here is total. Writer, director, producer, and the new studio head — he is to DC what Kevin Feige is to Marvel, but with even more creative ownership. If I have full control over FilmGamed, Gunn has even more over DC Studios.

So this film isn’t just another Superman story. It’s a statement. It’s meant to define the tone, style, and structure of everything to come. And that’s why the result feels so disorienting — not unfamiliar in an exciting way, but unfamiliar in an identity crisis kind of way. The film feels like the collision of two cinematic histories: one belonging to Superman, and the other to James Gunn. And instead of synergy, what we get is a strange, polarizing mix. You either buy into it from the opening moments and ride along with joy — or you check out early and never reengage. It’s binary. Anyone claiming “I liked some parts and disliked others” is likely trying to avoid alienating either the diehard DC fans or the more serious cinephiles.

Personally? I found it to be exactly that: a film with things I liked, and things I didn’t.

To start with the positive, I genuinely loved the opening. The cold open — dropped right into an active sequence — was one of the best I’ve seen recently. Instead of trying to kick off with high-octane action, it was used to elegantly build world, geography, characters, and history. I also loved how Superman himself was introduced. His backstory, his moral philosophy, his sense of responsibility, his restraint — it was all well-handled, especially his ideological connection to the idea of legacy.

But problems started to emerge with Lex Luthor. Not with the performance — I think Nicholas Hoult did a very solid job. The issue was with the scope of his character and the arenas he operated in. This wasn’t the Lex we know from previous cinematic versions. His range of influence felt exaggerated, his tools barely explained, and his leap into sci-fi absurdity far too sudden. I know this is likely inspired by All-Star Superman, which this film (and others to come) will likely draw from — but if that’s the case, some groundwork would have helped. What we get instead are universal dimensions, alien beings, nanotech transformations, giant monsters, and selfies — and little to no connective tissue explaining how or why he controls any of it.

And while we’re here, can we talk about the people around him? Not just his circle, but the world in general. The civilians, the government, the newsroom staff — particularly the Daily Planet characters — all feel like they’re from a 1970s cartoon. They’re exaggerated to the point of parody. And it’s not just for comedic tone — major plot turns rely on them. The film’s biggest turning point is anchored in characters who don’t seem to be taking anything seriously.

Speaking of comedy, this film tries very hard to be funny. Too hard. And it just doesn’t land. In a packed screening, most of the comedic beats fell completely flat. All I could hear was people whispering explanations about who’s who. And yes, one guy was filming every shot of the movie from the opening message that says the cinema is equipped with magical anti-piracy tech. Even the post-credit scene — especially the second one — left the room in silence. I waited all that time for that?

Now, this isn’t a comedy, so I don’t want to judge it solely on laughs. But the humor was relentless, and it only worked for me when it had a political or social undertone. And on that front, I want to give real credit to the film: its political messaging was clear, intentional, and surprisingly bold. Superman stands with humanity — and very clearly, with the Palestinian people. If you put together all the information shared about Boravia and Jarhanpur, there’s no mistaking the allegory.

I also liked the monkeys. I know many didn’t, but I found their inclusion oddly satisfying.

Emotionally, however, the film left me dry. I didn’t feel anything for most characters. Maybe one early scene with Clark’s adoptive father landed — and by the way, that’s the guy from Identity, for those with sharp memories. But even something as emotionally accessible as Krypto the dog felt misused — just a CGI chaos agent, and occasionally a failed punchline. The CGI, for what it’s worth, was flawless — one of the film’s visual highlights.

On the topic of visuals, Gunn delivered a film with a unique visual identity. It doesn’t look exactly like The Suicide Squad or Guardians of the Galaxy, though maybe the third Guardians film comes close. The action sequences are full of close-ups and rapid shifts in perspective. The film’s use of surreal locations is weird, yes — but generally good. Even familiar sequences, like Superman flying, are treated with irreverence. They reminded me more of Black Adam than anything new — likely a deliberate choice, but one that didn’t quite work comedically.

David Corenswet is a good Superman. The casting worked. But he didn’t get enough moments to truly show what he could bring to the character. Maybe one longer dialogue scene with Lois Lane early on gave him room to breathe, but for the most part, he was “superhero movie good” — nothing more. None of the supporting characters left much of an impression either, though Mr. Terrific was probably the most likable and had more screen time than expected.

Gunn did everything he set out to do. Yet somehow, the Superman we got didn’t feel like the one we were hoping for. Not from Gunn. I expected more reverence to the cinematic legacy — even if that legacy was flawed. I also expected better drama and a far smarter story.

This isn’t a bad movie. But it’s a tough one to ease into. And it’s frustrating to realize that after all the lessons DC was supposed to learn, this reboot learned none of them.

Final Score: 6.5/10

Zachary Levi is Shazam

Imagine all those lines perfectly introduced and carefully progressing. Now imagine that the moments where those lines are taken seriously are extremely minimal. With efficient and well placed comedy leading the way whenever possible. This has been the case through the whole film until the final act. Which is basically a prolonged confrontation scene that could’ve been presented in less than half the time it actually took. I can’t say that it was boring, especially with the balance of strengths and weaknesses was very well explored on both sides, but it took a long time which could’ve been put to better use. Especially the quest of young billy to find his mother which, in my opinion, was the best dramatic line in the film both in terms of story and in studying the character of our hero.

Events of Shazam! Follow Billy Batson, a 14 years old who was separated from his mom as a child . He is now a foster kid constantly running from homes and getting himself in trouble to search for his mom. Following one of his attempts, he gets moved to a new home with a loving couple and 5 other kids of different ages. He starts forming a friendship with Freddie, one of the 5 kids, and one day he stands up for him in the face of bullies, only to find himself transferred to a parallel realm where the wizard “Shazam” chooses him as his champion. Now, simply, by saying the word Shazam, he transforms into an adult superhero with a range of exceptional powers, and while still adjusting to those powers with the help of Freddy, he finds himself a target for Dr. Thaddeus Sivana. Who wants nothing except seizing Shazam’s powers to himself, so what will happen?

What makes Shazam most interesting to follow is how interesting the characters are, and I don’t just mean the hero and the villain. As much as the film is tight in terms of scope of events, it is very rich with characters. Billy, his foster parents and the 5 kids that form a family of 8 extremely nice individuals. They don’t take equal screen time of course but they all prove sensible and significant. Our main focus is of course Billy and his alter ego Shazam in addition to the impressive Freddy Freeman. Freddy was played by Jack Dylan Grazer which I first saw in “It” and he was really great, and here he’s even greater as he breathes the most unique type of life into the scenes between him and adult Shazam played by Zachary Levi. The chemistry between the two was really in its best shape, and the question of chemistry is really complicated in this film because we actually have three pairs; Billy and Freddy, Shazam and Freddy .. and Billy and Shazam. Oh yes, Zachary Levi does the most impressive job embracing the complications of the young struggling kid. While taking every opportunity to still give us comedy without ever feeling out of place.

Dr. Thaddeus Sivana is also an interesting character in my opinion. He has history that justifies his actions and his goal. As a villain with super powers he has clear strengths and clear weaknesses, and this is important by the way, because in most superhero films recently, this is very hard to identify and define. Mark Strong’s portrayal was good. Wasn’t exceptional even though he is an exceptional actor of course.

Shazam is fun superhero movie and not just for the reasons that usually make superhero movies fun. I rarely ever see a story in a superhero movie as rich and complicated as the story of the struggle of Billy Batson. Also, I appreciate that I’m seeing it in a light film that focuses mainly on entertaining. When you have a core like that you can get by with less than impressive job in the shenanigans of superhero films, and here we don’t have exceptional special effects or action choreography, but we don’t have the worst either. The only blame I’ll insist on is the time segment allocated for the last act of the film, since it really harmed the whole viewing experience in all its aspects. Even comedy, which was cruising smoothly through the whole film, started to struggle in the last act, especially with insisting on delivering irony using a Santa character! I don’t know whose idea was that, but I think it was really horrible.