Superman (2025)

Score: 3.5 / 5

It was only a matter of time before DC films changed course, and James Gunn's new vision for the shared universe arrives with jovial flair in Superman. The brightly-hued film feels ripped from a comic book, with energy to boot, as it energetically races into refreshing new territory for its IP. As an unapologetic apologist for the previous, much darker DC franchise (the DCEU, if I'm correct?), I was hesitant about this film. Not because of its recasting of the character or a new direction for him, not by a long shot; I felt sorrow for some really cool plot threads and characters that will now never reach completion. Though, since the franchise has been handling multiverses pretty darn well now for over a decade now, maybe our already-formed Justice League will get some payoff someday.

As writer and director, Gunn wastes no time in getting to his main course in this energetic and fast-paced, if peripatetic, superhero vehicle. Do we really need yet another iteration of Clark Kent's origin story? Of course not, so Gunn smartly eases on down to the good stuff. Superman is already beloved around the world when he oversteps the rule of law while stopping an international crisis; shortly after, he is humiliated and defeated badly for the first time. This launches the plot, in which Superman has to navigate suddenly cloudy waters about his identity and purpose while battling scientist and tech genius Lex Luthor along with public opinion. Actually, he also has to fight himself, in more than one manner of speaking.

This is a very silly movie in a lot of ways, and I found its good humor and charm a warm and fuzzy throwback to the Christopher Reeve films. Which is saying a lot, because David Corenswet's (Pearl, Hollywood, The Politician) Superman also reminded me a lot of Reeve's, both in appearance and in aura. He just feels like the character you imagine. When he takes off into the skies and our camera is shakily wobbling in front of his face, I was fully on board for the ride. And as emotionally intense as the film gets -- well, tries to get -- it never feels weighed down by too much sentiment or nostalgia. Fairly early on, a cartoonishly CGI-made Krypto the Superdog helps save Superman, and it was then I knew Gunn did not want us to take this movie seriously. When "the Justice Gang" convenes, I laughed and clapped along with everyone, though by that point I was getting lightheaded from everything going on and all the new characters. We may not have needed an origin story, but that doesn't mean we should already be in medias res, you know?

The heavier parts mostly come from the villain and the girl. Nicholas Hoult has some fun playing Lex Luthor (and letting a hilarious Sara Sampaio frothily float around him as Eve Teschmacher), who takes a character written rather obviously to evoke Elon Musk and makes him chic and bitter. He's delicious, but rather shockingly, to me, quite human and accessible; it's a wise choice not to make him raving or monstrous. I do think he's a bit flat and pathetic, which might be the point; greed is such a banal motivator in films of this caliber. And then there's Lois Lane, who in this film is pretty convincing as a hard-hitting journalist determined to speak truth to power. One scene in particular stands out in my memory, when Clark offers Lois an exclusive interview and their discussion about his ethics nearly derails their relationship. It's damn good writing. So I'm not sure if it was partly the writing or not, but Rachel Brosnahan's (I'm Your Woman, The Courier, The Amateur) performance didn't really work for me; I found her savvy and direct but also pretty shallow and rigid. We aren't given reason, in the film, to see why Clark loves her, and indeed, at one point Lois says something to the effect of, "I knew this relationship wouldn't work out." Doesn't sound like a committed partner to me, and she's talking about Superman for crying out loud!

Additionally meaningful in this jaunt, Gunn's choice to emphasize the narrative of Superman being an alien cannot be overstated. The geopolitical conflict of fictional countries is a clear allusion on Gunn's part to reality, and so is his choice to open his renovated DCU with the story of an immigrant saving the world. At one point, Superman gets taken by masked thugs who assault him and lock him into a special, secret detention cell crowded with other prisoners, mostly political opponents, reporters, and even a family that was split up. This is the kind of immediate, direct, impassioned social commentary more superhero movies should have, and it feels like Gunn is saying, "Come, enjoy the movie, and learn to see the world around you." But before it gets too deep, Superman takes a split second to save a squirrel in the middle of a battle, which is one of those delightfully illogical and impossible things that happens in comics, and it feels effervescent here.

Everybody is going to rate their favorite Supermen, but I don't think I can. Nothing will beat Henry Cavill's version of the character, who gave me some uncanny valley in his tortured focus, and it makes me very sad that we likely won't be getting that again. Yet, much like with the other leading men who came before, Corenswet rises to the occasion with aplomb, helping us to renew our belief in integrity, duty, and the power of action.

Pearl (2022)

Score: 4 / 5

Here it is, the unexpected (well, it was back in March) second installment in A24's surprise horror franchise from Ti West. The initial film, X, was a work of genius, though most audiences probably simply appreciated it as a gory '70s slasher homage; it deftly transgressed subgenre boundaries to make a work of consummate art firmly entrenched in the eccentricities of its thematic and generic roots. Its post-credits video proved to be a trailer for this film, centering on the murderous old woman Pearl and presumably performing as a sort of origin story for her. It was a weird trailer, and one that I was frankly not terribly excited to see. After all, the more we know about the villain or monster, the less scary it usually is, right?

Pearl takes place in 1918 Texas, on a small rural farm that looks a little too familiar. She's back on the farm with her German immigrant parents while her husband Howard is away at war. Her domineering mother, Ruth (Tandi Wright) runs a tight ship and demands a lot from her daughter, who is perhaps a little too young to be a new bride, but the film glances over that. Pearl has too many stars in her eyes and dreams in her head. She dances and sings too much, wishing to someday be a chorus girl or movie star. She runs through her routines, sometimes in her mother's clothes from which she has been repeatedly forbidden, sometimes retreating to the barn where the animals at least won't disapprove. She shows little care or concern about her absent husband, preferring to escape into the local cinema in secret. Her wide eyes absorb every frame on that screen, helping her push through the doldrums of farm life and caring for her invalid father.

But something is very wrong with Pearl. Is Ruth abusive to Pearl because the girl is flighty, or is that only Pearl's perception of her? Or, perhaps, is Ruth scared of her own progeny? Pearl's demeanor is not unlike a young Judy Garland in The Wizard of Oz, dreaming of heaven beyond the rainbow, but she barely bats an eye when, to take out her sporadic and unpredictable rage, she skewers a duck with a pitchfork and feeds it to her best friend, an enormous alligator in the nearby pond she has affectionately named after Theda Bara. It's nice that she bathes her father, but she always gets caught actually bathing herself while he sits a little too closely. Her constant quotes, "All I want is to be loved" and "the whole world is going to know my name," sound innocent enough, but we realize fairly quickly that she is deeply unhinged and that these desperate pronouncements are indicative of desperation at any cost. It's as though she's trying too hard to live up to her name, becoming a human gem, something calculatedly innocent and naive to endear the predatory Hollywood executives.

They don't bite, but the local cinema projectionist does. The handsome David Corenswet plays the nameless man, lusting after the wide-eyed Mia Goth with pitch-perfect chemistry. Every actor here is pretty great, to be fair, but the passion these two have is infectious. We're torn between wanting the best for her and stifling our shouts to him to run for his life. Goth is delirious in the role of a young performer's lifetime -- the third massive and award-worthy role she's played this year alone -- and the film primarily works as a result of her dedication to her own insanity. This movie makes you feel as icky as Joker did, where we're forced to sympathize with her even as we are not protected from the horrors she enacts.

There are fewer dead bodies this time around, though I'd argue each is more disturbing and impactful than the ones in X. West and his cinematographer and editor work seamlessly again to craft a waking nightmare with jolting scares and brutal violence, this time all in a color palette a little too rich in hue. Whereas the previous film took its visual inspiration from the independent horror exploitation films of the '70s, here we're treated to a vision meant to mimic the Technicolor vibrancy of the late '30s and '40s. Even the opening sequence feels like an evocation of The Wizard of Oz, and much of the story mirrors that staple film with impossibly dark twists, as when she meets a scarecrow and does unspeakable things to it. Thank goodness this one indeed doesn't have a brain. And then there's the film's constant references to pandemic, as the Spanish flu rages on and the family is meant to be isolating in their farmhouse; there are even visual gags with homemade face masks that feel intentionally funny and alarming at once. They hammer home the points that history repeats itself (a theme helped by Goth's casting, of course) and the needling sensation that the world has become an incurably sick place.