'Silly in a Good Way': Critics Give New 'Superman' 86% on RT — But What About the Fans?

It seems that James Gunn really believed that the world needed Superman again — and not a tragic messiah, like Snyder’s, but a charming guy in tights who saves the sky and does it with a smile. Rotten Tomatoes — 86%, Metacritic — 71 (as of July 9). A new hero, a new universe, an old conflict: how much does humanity need such a bright symbol?

“Funny and stupid in a good way,” writes David Sims, as if asking viewers in advance not to look for philosophical depth here. “This is classic Superman… similar to the original, and that’s what’s good about it,” agrees Abe Friedtanzer. And Owen Gleiberman notes: “This is not a dark parable, but a truly twisted plot with real feelings.”

But every light has its shadow.

“The script is bloated and overloaded. It’s as if everything that happens had to be explained before it even started,” criticizes Nicholas Barber. Jeff York adds: "Gunn's ideas feel like no one has been paying attention to what's going on with the franchise." Nestor Bentancor calls the film "boring and emotionally weak, despite the actors and music."

And yet, even the skeptics admit that the actors carry a lot. Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane is a favorite among reviewers.

“She’s the best part of the movie,” says Maureen Lee Lenker. Sean P. Means writes: “The best thing Gunn brought to the table was the sense that hero movies could be fun.” Nicholas Oone adds: “The film was a symbol of hope for the future of DC.”

There are also unexpected delights: Lupe Rodriguez Haas calls the film “a triumph of tone and character,” and Corensweta “an earthy Superman.” Cary Darling sums it up:

“It’s not a masterpiece, but it works. It’s warm, entertaining, and honest.”

So Gunn may not have convinced everyone, but he certainly reminded us that superhero stories aren’t about strength, they’re about humanity.