“Superman” by James Gunn, available in Italian theaters from 9 July, is one of those cinecomics who can seriously prove the patience of the most faithful of the fans of the eclectic director, not to mention the followers of the steel man. We are talking about an inconsistent film with the character, his meanings but above all the supreme demonstration that (fortunately) James Gunn is also human and he too can make mistakes.

A film that is wrong approach from the beginning

“Superman” was born as an act of strength by James Gunn, an expression of his will (but we could also say also by the need) to start from scratch with the transpositions of the characters of the DC Comics on the big and small screen, given the failure of the Snyderverse. And therefore we start from the superhero par excellence, from the Savior who arrived from Krypton, a character who from 1938 has become one of the symbols par excellence of our narrative, of universal pop culture.

The cinecomics were born with “Superman”, that of Richard Donner from 1978, who literally changed everything. Between comics, TV series, video games, animated films, Superman has continued over the decades to be a point of reference. Also for this reason, it is doubly amazed by what James Gunn thought of pulling out, giving us a superhero an image that is exactly the opposite of what was put on Henry Cavill by Zack Snyder.

This Superman is shown to us in a way not so different from what happened in 2006 in “Superman Returns”, that is, embracing the legacy of Christopher Reeve, and then pushing himself towards something very different. No childhood or other, Superman has existed for some time, Gunn tells us, indeed it is shown to us when a mysterious enemy beat him for the first time. The world is almost in the hands of Lex Luthor, with an imminent war between two countries that are the impersonals of Russia and India.

This is a superman that Gunn would like to make human, empathic, but instead it is immature, with a vision of one’s responsibilities and role, absolutely childish and childish. But above all, it is not a superman who never really gives the impression of being a mature superhero, neither from a moral point of view nor from a physical point of view. Indeed, perhaps it is the weakest and less awake among the various Kal-El seen on the big screen. Which reveals James Gunn’s willingness to demytize.

For him it has always been a means of characterization, for the development of the characters, just think of the splendid results obtained with the saga of “The guardians of the galaxy”, with “The Suicide Squad”. There is only one problem: doing this to Superman is an error at the start, it is the reason why this film does not work, indeed it seems to watch a remake of “shazam!”.

There is nothing of that character symbol of strength, courage, determination and morality that we have all known. Everything is lost in explanations, in exchanges of jokes from which a dogmatic vision emerges, not to mention the Kryptonian parents, who are finally denied as the aspiring Nazi. A sacrilege.

The epic put to give to in the name of the spley comedy

James Gunn loves a cinema made of accelerations and contrasts, of jokes to the lightning and action. His love for the films of the troma, the genre cinema, for the pop culture of the 70s and 80s, have also expressed themselves perfectly on the small screen, with “Peacemaker”. Consider us, we are talking about characters who are already picturesque in themselves, dislocated of the sacredness, often bring ambiguity with them, but above all they are part of a collective well or bad.

Here, however, there is a lonely hero, the most solitary of all together with Batman, who hides in full light behind the mask of Clark Kent, shy and clumsy journalist. But this border does not even exist for Gunn, Kent and Superman are the same thing. Another inconsistency. Superman is a titan, in theory, is a demigod halfway between Bible and ancient Greece, it is the best of what is in humanity in an idealized sense.

James Gunn what does he do? It makes him weak, insecure, he submerges the film of absolutely free comic curtains, off, most of the time without any incisiveness, and this is another fundamental error, because Superman rhymes with epic, the hope with him is accompanied by the ingenuity of terrible companies and dangers.

Then there is the political part, the vision of modern society, perhaps the only valuable element even if nothing particularly intriguing innovative. Zack Snyder perhaps had exaggerated with gloomy, with the excess of seriousness, had distorted his brightness, but here James Gunn thinks that demitization and parody always go hand in hand.

“Superman” is a warning, a very important warning, reminds us that not all directors know how to do everything, it is not even right to expect it, James Gunn is perfect for characters of a certain type, but confronting Kal-El, means going to a territory that he, honestly, does not know, has never known and probably even wants to know, if not in his own way.

David Corenswet honestly makes Henry Cavill regrets the first minute, for his lack of virility, scenic presence, chemistry with Rachel Brosnahan’s Lois Lane is substantially absent. It is still worse at the Luthor of Nicholas Hoult, also penalized by a coarse writing, scarce.

The soul of this film is cartoonque, harmless behind its visual plasticity, without phatos and grandeur. It is to be understood how and how much this will like to the public, but honestly, after the “The Batman” of Matt Reeves, we hoped to have something less clown.