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

Samuel L. Jackson and Anthony Mackie Star in “The Banker”

“The Banker” tells the story of entrepreneur Bernard Garret, portrayed by Anothony Mackie, who in the 1960’s formed a partnership with Joe Morris, delightfully played by Samuel L. Jackson, to build a successful business in real estate. To overcome barriers of racism, they picked Matt Steiner to act like their business front only because he is a white man. The success of the duo encouraged them to go into the banking business in order to give the black community a fair chance in boosting their businesses and making a better life. That’s when their peculiar business arrangement is put to the real test.

You look at a film like “The Banker” from the outside and you think I can probably guess it all. It seems like another story about the struggles against racial discrimination only taking business entrepreneuship as the arena where the events take place. The film is in fact much more than that. It’s fresher and richer. It builds an increasingly interesting story over various pillars and with the element it borrows from each pillar it becomes truly unpredictable to anyone who’s not familiar with the real story.

First of course we have the angle of racism acting like a key driver for most of the transformations and escalations in our story. I can’t say that this was too fresh or different but at least we didn’t attribute everything to it. Because we also have a key character mainly driven by his desire to succeed and get rich. The story of the rise of Garret takes center stage in the design of his own motives and develops maturely throughout the entire film. Then we have our own drama where the character of Matt Steiner, played by Nicolas Hoult, offers both lightness and a great deal of complication. What starts as a humorous, Pygmalion style, transformation of a working class individual into a walking and talking businessman turns quickly into a lot more. Finally, as if all of that wasn’t enough, we have a reasonable amount of screentime dedicated to offering the audience with a clear look into the ins and outs of real estate and banking businesses. At least the parts that matter to us anyways.

What I appreciated the most is that the film never felt convoluted or messy. Maybe a little hasty at important points where a lot more could’ve been explored in our key characters, especially that of Morris. Yet, the overall sense of pace felt balanced and deliberately choosing not to get too comic or extremely dramatic.

Technically the film is also balanced with no major achievements in conveying the time period of the events. It covers what’s required but can’t say I came out with anything memorable from the visual experience. I’d say what captured the most of my attention is the performance of Mackie, who I think I’ll be taking more seriously moving forward. I also, as always, enjoyed the company of Samuel L. Jackson a lot. Nicolas Hoult also delivers a noteworthy performance for the character that represents most of the surprises and unpredictable turns throughout the film.

I would say that “The Banker” deserved more attention and much more appreciation, and if it is to be considered as a true representation to what Apple TV+ is planning in terms of films, then count me in.