James Gunn’s reboot is set to be released on the 11th July.
The Guardian: “But what is the point of a film so stymied in its digitally encoded and generically prescribed world that it can’t even go through the motions, as that would imply some level of activity and signs of life? How many more superhero films in general, and Superman films in particular, do we need to see that all end with the same spectacular faux-apocalypse in the big city with CGI skyscrapers collapsing? They were fun at first … but the thrill is gone.”
Empire: “Visually, Superman is bold and bright and full of colour and cosmic invention — an area in which Gunn excels, and a nice change from the desaturated palette of Zack Snyder’s interpretation.”
USA Today: “That said, there are no false notes or wasted energy in making this revamped DC universe stand out from the previous, overly dour DCU or the quippy, slick Marvel movies. “Superman” is more conventional than Gunn’s “Guardians” flicks, or even his DC outings “The Suicide Squad” and “Peacemaker,” yet he’s carried over the unhinged, off-kilter fun of those films. And while Gunn doesn’t overdo it with political stakes, themes and personalities, he certainly drives home the point that kindness is the superpower we all should be using on the regular.”
Variety: “The super-busy quality of “Superman” works for it and, at times, against it. The movie rarely slows down long enough to allow its characters to meditate on their shifting realities. That’s one reason it falls short of the top tier of superhero cinema (“The Dark Knight,” “Superman II,” “The Batman,” “Guardians”). I’d characterize the film as next-level good (a roster that includes “Iron Man,” “Thor,” “Batman Begins,” “Captain America,” and the hugely underrated “Iron Man 3”). Yet watching “Superman,” we register the layered quality of the conflicts, and we’re drawn right inside them. Gunn constructs an intricate game of a superhero saga that’s arresting and touching, and occasionally exhausting, in equal measure. Audiences should flock to it, though a question still hovers over the larger DC Universe: Even if you build it this well, will they come?”
Deadline: ” Credit casting director John Papsidera for coming up with an all-new cast that more than fits the bill. He didn’t cast Krypto since the scene-stealing dog is a marvel of CGI wizardry, but if this film offers nothing else for you, his addition is a pure-bred winner.”
Roger Ebert.com: “Kudos to the filmmakers for casting Pruitt Taylor Vince and Neva Howell as Ma and Pa Kent, as opposed to the glam casting of Kevin Costner and Diane Lane in the roles in “Man of Steel.” The moments Clark shares with the only parents he’s ever known are touching and authentic. As for Corenswet, he makes for a charming Superman, but he can’t quite match the movie star power of Christopher Reeve, nor does he have the unsettling, laser-focused ferocity of Henry Cavill. We’ve had nearly a dozen versions of Superman on screens big and small through the decades—and for that matter, about the same number of Lex Luthors. This latest version makes for enjoyable-enough popcorn entertainment, but ultimately leaves us wondering: was it even necessary?”
BBC.com: “Corenswet is well cast – he has plenty of all-American charm both as Superman and as his mild-mannered alter ego, Clark Kent – but we have to take it on trust that he is a selfless gentleman who helps his friends and enjoys Lois Lane’s company. We don’t see any of that. Indeed, Corenswet plays him as an oddly hot-headed manchild who can’t get through a conversation with his girlfriend without shouting angrily at her. Was Gunn racing through his material so fast that he forgot to put in the scenes that show Superman’s sweeter and nobler side? Maybe so. In a film that whirls with flying dogs and bright green baby demons, the most bizarre element is a Man of Steel who keeps having meltdowns.”